Talk:Morari Bapu

Real name
Somebody added "Moraridas Hariyani" as Morari Bapu's "real" name, but did not provide a source for that name. All material added to Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable source. Otherwise, any user is free to remove that information, which is exactly what I did. However, User:Vishmaster has now twice reverted my removals. Does anybody have a reliable source for Moraridas Hariyani being Morari Bapu's real name? If so, then please add it to the article. A piece of information as important as his real name must be well-sourced. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added back his real name Moraridas Prabhudas Hariyani as is evident from the website referred and cited. Also removed the citation needed tag for birth-date, which is clearly mentioned as September 25, 1946 in the referred site, with his childhood name as Moraridas, Father's name as Prabhudas Hariyani and mother's name as Savitriben Hariyani. Thus making his complete name as Moraridas Prabhudas Hariyani. Further, the website also mentions that he has been started as lovingly called Bapu, which is generally called honorific title for any respected or fatherly persons usually called in Gujarat and other states like Rajasthan, etc. For example Gandhiji was also called Bapu. Simliarly, in British India : heads of Princely states or big Jamindars or Village Head were also called Bapu as a mark of respect in Gujarat and even today continued to be called so in rural Gujarat.--Hardyraj (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morari Bapu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221140038/http://moraribapu.org/moraribapu_biography.html to http://www.moraribapu.org/moraribapu_biography.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120718090312/http://profiles.incredible-people.com/sant-morari-bapu/ to http://profiles.incredible-people.com/sant-morari-bapu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted content by IP addresses
If you guys would like to discuss why you think the (reliable and sourced) content you keep deleting from this page should be removed, then please feel free to do so. Repeated vandalism is not a useful edit or discussion, however. PotentPotables (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Sarcastic Dig at Swaminarayan
The rationale for not incorporating the sarcastic dig at Swaminarayan has been well-established on this thread with consensus. If it wasn't appropriate for one article, it's not appropriate for any article on Wikipedia. Moksha88 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Contexts are different. It was not criticism but it deserves mention on BLP. Pinging for 3O. Useless to argue with person here who don’t have understanding of policy and context. Next time when you revert sourced content then seek consensus on relevant talk page first. — Harshil want to talk? 03:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , both article are different and has different context. It should be kept IMO., useless to argue... are poor choice of words. Should be in more polite words. Regards, Nizil (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s really useless to argue when user says "If it wasn't appropriate for one article, it's not appropriate for any article on Wikipedia." Atleast, they should know about context and meaning before giving their so called expert opinion. — Harshil want to talk? 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to what is the difference of posting the sarcastic dig here versus on the prior article that was attempted to post on? I don't think it is required here. Also, there have been many instances where you have been violating WP:CIVIL with your tone and language towards other editors. This should be addressed to admins for grounds of blocking in my opinion. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Go, go and report me to administrators. Just do that ASAP, I’ve collected all proofs. I don’t care about your attack. It’s clearly mentioned in the thread that it was satire, not criticism and thus, it shouldn’t be included on criticism of Swaminarayan. This deserves mentions in BLP because person spoke this and invited controversy. — Harshil want to talk? 05:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , never loose your temper. You could have avoided Go, go... ...attack. We should only stick to the point and ignore anything else said by anybody. That the best way to handle emotional outburst. Please stick to the discussion here and avoid opinion on behaviour of others. I was invited here for opinion on topic but I see people moving away from topic and going after each others' behaviour. Please engage in topic discussion, not in personal. -Nizil (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I sound hard but this user issued warning on my talk page that I attacked user personally and used name calling without any difference. -- Harshil want to talk? 13:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that if content like this is not suitable for one article it's not appropriate for another. To paraphrase User Sarah Welch from the Swaminarayan Sampraday article, if it is unencyclopedic and not notable, it shouldn't be here. See WP:WWIN. This content should be removed. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I don't understand what language the sources are in. I'm removing this content. I believe there is consensus to do so. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There's clear consensus to put content here. Again, pinging to comment on content.-- Harshil want to talk? 04:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there's consensus to post this content here. I'm reading through this thread and I feel that and  have lost sight of the main point of the discussion and have gotten diverted by semantics. While I agree with your rational that the criticism is well referenced, I do not believe it meets the criteria for notability as looking for other sources was a difficult task. This seems like it has not garnered attention for a sufficient amount of time. While saying this I would also like to state that as this is an English language Wikipedia page, we should try to ensure that sources are either in the English language or translated in to the English language. Finally I would like to kindly suggest that we remain civil in passionately advocating for our positions. From what I can see above and a thorough reading of the sources that I could understand as well as a reading of the policies mentioned, I do not believe that there is any merit to this content on this page and am removing it.ThaNDNman224 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which policies says references in English are not available?— Harshil want to talk? 16:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Read WP:RSUE before commenting that non-English sources are not allowed?— Harshil want to talk? 01:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Came here after seeing page is locked. I see no point in objecting this content article. Few points:
 * 1) Harshil and Nizil refuted Moksha's point.
 * 2) According to context, situation changes and notability changes.
 * 3) There's no policy that one disqualified content shouldn't be allowed in another. If there's then cite.
 * 4) Non-English sources are allowed per WP:NONENGLISH.
 * 5) I always wonder why criticism of Sahjananda doesn't exist on internet. But I can see this filthy behaviour.-Krishna&#39;s flute (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, as per WP:BRD, once objection has been raised then there's need to discuss only. No revert. I think that this can be possible that these people created some group to attack and get away good contributions. I'll just say that please read WP: CANVAS. If discussion is going like this and users are coming here without pinging then it's most probably case of canvassing and if administrator captures these and these all accounts will be blocked for making Wikipedia as battleground. First make yourself aware of Wikipedia's policies. Also, note few things in mind:
 * If your content is good then it'll be posted here without canvassing.
 * But if it's bad them it will not and you all will be blocked for canvassing discussion by inviting those who have favorable opinion.
 * Arbitration and DS are applied on this topic and this is BLP. If this behaviour continues then administrator can put topic ban you for canvassing discussion and not discussing on policy.
 * Also, keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS changes and you MUST engage yourself in consensus building rather than deriving judgement out of it. Wikipedia's consensus are changing per year and thus, we all have to follow them.

-Krishna&#39;s flute (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate for attempting to refocus the conversation and agree I could have been more precise with my initial reasoning. I felt the argument was well established by Ms Sarah Welch, "Doesn't matter whether it is dig/praise/reality, it is unencyclopedic and not notable," and  called consensus on this statement. While I agree the context is different (criticism against Swaminarayan sect vs Morari Bapu), I think it's irrelevant to the larger discussion. I agree that there's no policy that prohibits non-English sources, but to assess notability, I lack the language proficiency to review the referenced non-English sources for their diversity and depth of coverage. A simple search of Google News fails to reveal any coverage in the two-month interval since this incident occurred. The burden to provide this information therefore rests on those who wish to cite it.  Rather than calling me a religious zealot (which I find most offensive) and reverting any changes made, please establish the notability of this content.  Please also avoid uncivil language, particularly "But I can see this filthy behaviour," as well as accusations of canvassing. You are most welcome to present any evidence that suggests canvassing at the appropriate channel, but I implore all of us to refocus on the content. Moksha88 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here’re coverages in English sources: Can you please cite how notability fails? Things should be covered in multiple reliable and independent sources and all are present here. Apart from these, there’re 100 sources in Gujarati and Hindi which cover this event. Cite policy please!— Harshil want to talk? 03:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)]
 * Thank you for sharing, I will review these sources carefully. If they are available in English, is there a reason why you preferred not to cite them? As for policies, I was referencing WP:EVENT (inclusion criteria) and also wondered whether this event was WP:SENSATIONAL. Moksha88 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I used sources which covered indepth of it. Like, I quoted BBC article which is most reliable than all of these. Also, this comment resulted into multiple protests both online and offline. You can find change.org’s petitions regarding it. So this is not sensational. Please state where notability lacks and if possible then stop all these users to do reverting. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 03:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Cite policies properly. Like, you cited EVENT which is for making article related to event. But this is not case here. And this is not sensational either. Nizil had opened discussion of this comment on another article but he agrees to put it here. So, what problem you have?-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 04:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * BBC, Indian Express, VTV Gujarati, Times of India are not tabloid or yellow journalism channels. They’re RS per WT:India. So your point on SENSATIONALISM makes wrong. Now, I’m sure you’re going to cite some other policy against it. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 09:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Replying to the ping and msg on my talk page: A bit of TLDR above. This is a BLP article, guidelines such as notability, BLPBALANCE, write "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone", etc apply. Nizil is right above. The context is different, but not every "sarcastic dig" etc reported by a newspaper needs to be repeated here. We need to be cautious about "what we summarize, and how". Instead of this, please consider something along the lines "Morari Bapu has criticized Sahajanand – the founder of [...], a criticism shared and cited by scholars such as [...]", or "Morari Bapu has criticized Sahajanand – the founder of [...] by questioning his revered status in Swaminarayan tradition and alleging he is believed to be [...] by its members. His views have been challenged by members of that tradition, and Bapu later apologized to them for his statements", or whatever is supported by the RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have taken some time to reflect on all the relevant policies and read through the articles as best as possible. I am not opposed to including the remarks on Nilkanth Varni per WP:BLPPUBLIC and want to avoid WP:UNDUE. My drafted version is available in my sandbox here (1). Per WP:NOCON, it would be appropriate for us to make changes on this version before proceeding with editing the live page as there I sense there is enough interest among us to improve the original version. Moksha88 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed version is not neutral and is unclear. I will reword it. -Nizil (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have proposed version - 2. Version-1 favoured Swaminarayan side and what "derogatory remarks" was unclear for a reader. Word "religious intolerance" was not required. The version-2 is neutral without taking any side and clear what was the issue was all about. Please have a look in version 2.-Nizil (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moksha88 and Nizil for the initiative. Version 2 is more neutral. I support its inclusion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, Nizil, your input is appreciated. I made a third revision for the reasons outlined below,
 * Nilkanth is not a title given by Swaminarayan’s followers to Swaminarayan; it’s the name he adopted upon renouncing the world and lived as a wandering ascetic practicing austerities and yoga from the age of 11 to 19 when he was ordained as a Swami (See Raymond Williams's An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism, page 15). The sarcasm or derision that was used was that although he was an ascetic with the name Neelkanth, he was “eating ladus” (indulging in rich foods) and thus, actually a hypocrite. The reality, based on multiple sources, is that he engaged in intense austerities for that period of his life which left him emaciated. Thus, using sarcasm to falsely attack or deride his integrity as an ascetic (that he was indulgent, instead of performing austerities) is pretty much the definition of “derogatory remark” - based on its definition. Moreover, to try to explain all of the above in the article would be giving the issue undue weight, so the phrase “derogatory remarks to Swaminarayan” therefore summarizes these details without giving undue weight, and is actually more in line with NPOV.
 * He didn’t apologize to the followers, he apologized for his statements.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moksha88 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you all for providing more context on this discussion. I agree with Moksha88, the version they have added to their sandbox seems to be compliant and in good form. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think following is agreed by all of us: His views have been challenged by members of the tradition, and Bapu later apologised for his statements.. Now we only need deliberation on how to include statement of Bapu. So I have proposed new Version 2b. We should not judge whether Bapu's statement was "derogatory" or not. Neutrally, we write only about what he said and we should leave it for readers to judge themselves. When we write "derogatory", we are clearly judging and favouring one side (so not neutral) but when we write only what happened we are not taking any sides (neutral). Taking your comment in consideration, I have reworded the sentence for better clarification of Nilkanth. If we remove sentence on Nilkanth and only write “derogatory remarks to Swaminarayan”, the reader would not know what the remark was and would not be able to judge it. So we should include the remark that he equated two Nilkanth names. -Nizil (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Criticized" or "questioned" is more neutral than using Wikipedia voice to assert Bapu's remarks were "derogatory" or were a "sarcastic dig" or etc. This being a BLP article, we must be careful. I can't read most of the cited sources, because except for two, they are WP:NONENG sources. In the English sources, I do not see support for "title Nilkanth Varni, a former name of Sahajanand Swami". The UNI source supports he "questioned the authenticity of Nilkanthvarni" because he believed there was "only one Nilkanth, namely Shiva, the husband of Parvati". Perhaps, Nizil, we should paraphrase such a source closely plus attribute the source (According to United News of India, ...) per WP:Plag guidelines. That may help avoid endless edit wars, while being neutral and fair to all sides. FWIW, all this is odd because the suffix "varni" is important. Further, most Hindu texts state that Shiva is in every person, every being, and everything; and Raymond Williams in his Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (Cambridge Univ Press, page 28) states Swaminarayan tradition reveres all five: Vishnu, Shiva, Ganapati, Parvati and Surya (see Panchayatana puja). But all that is irrelevant and undue to the dispute here, plus inappropriate WP:Synthesis. We should keep the language neutral and close to what is supported in the cited sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nizil, I am more confused by version 2b
 * Nilkanth Varni can't both be a title and a name. It’s a name based on the source I cited, and we ought to acknowledge the truth despite what has been published by the papers (WP:INACCURATE). Echoing Ms Sarah Welch, is there a reason why we’re using non-English sources (WP:NOENG)
 * It is not about what the truth is. It is only about what Bapu said (true/false or whatever). We report only what he said. We are using other language source because they provide more details on the issue.-Nizil (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondly, Morari Bapu didn’t criticize the name by equating it with Shivji for the reasons I outlined above. I’ve drafted two more versions to succinctly describe what happened.
 * Version 3b or 3c do not describe what the remark was. I have reworded the Version 2b.-Nizil (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m also pinging Apollo1203, Actionjackson09 for their input as well and adding my signature next to my comments from yesterday which I inadvertently forgot to sign. Moksha88 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would reword it to clarify title/name issue. Version 3b and 3c is nothing new and just replaces "derogatory" with similar word. Those words are not neutral at all. So they are not helpful according to my former comment on version 3a. We should not judge while your comment is your judgement. Let the readers judge themselves. We should write only about what happened only in neutral words. MSW has also told in her comment that use "derogatory" etc. is not neutral as well. Please see new Verion 2b which only reports what happened without any judgement.-Nizil (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , after reading your comments, I rewrote version 2b again. Is it better or clearer? -Nizil (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * what about his comment on Sahjananda? You wrote that Shiva drank poison but he also said that one can’t become Nilkanth by eating Laddus. Why it’s missing here?— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nizil’s concern. Version 3b and 3c are biased and POVfork. Nizil’s Version 2b version is more neutral. None of the RS label comments of Morari Bapu as disparaged or insulting. This should be posted here.—  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 14:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Moksha88,Nizil, it is good to see you all collaborating to improve the article in an open forum, however, I believe the statement made by Morari Bapu are undue/fringe. The statement he made is not a mainstream view, nor can it corroborated with other independent reliable sources. Additionally, as this is a BLP, we shouldn't place this irrelevant incident on his page. The goal is to enhance this article in an encyclopedic way, not into a tabloid or news gossip. Apollo1203 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I request you to read WP:FRINGE first. The incident is relevant. Even if you search Swaminarayan V/s Morari Bapu then you will find n number of coverages. VTV Gujarati, BBC, Indian Express are well reputed WP:NEWSORG not fringe publications.-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read the first sentence of the fringe article, "...the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". I am referring to the statement (his opinion/idea) which departs from the mainstream views. If there are other independent, peer-reviewed, scholar sources which support Morari Bapu's remarks regarding Nilkanth Varni, then it merits to remain on this article. I also want to emphasize my second point, that this is BLP, and the focus should be on contributing in such manner.Apollo1203 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I doubt you read Nizil’s comment here. He had clearly said we are not here to prove whether this is true or not but to cover what happened and what he remarked. That’s it. This is not history, science or any other related article. Discussion is going in direction of consensus. Please, don’t disrupt it, even had even marked notability of this event. Only point remaining is NPOV, nothing else than it. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 18:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nizil: 2b is better than before. But is that the view what Swaminarayan leaders challenged? A mention of refusing to do an abishek, and seeking "forgiveness" (which is more than an apology) – both per the UNI source – may clarify it further. Moksha88: 3b and 3c are not okay. As Nizil explains, we shouldn't phrase Bapu's statement as "derogatory" or "disparaged" or something similar (versions 0, 1, 3b, 3c). If you can find a source for the following: "Some leaders and members of the Swaminarayan sect found Bapu's statement as disparaging to their religious sentiments", then we can add that or something similar with appropriate attribution and cites. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what is saying, but he’s sourced the wrong wiki policy to support his point. While Morari Bapu’s comments aren’t fringe, they still don’t merit inclusion in the article as they violate WP:BALaSP. Moraribapu has done a lot of positive work throughout his life, and including news about a one-time off-color remark he’s made seems aggressive and unbalanced. This is a recent event and just because it’s the ‘flavor of the day’, we should be weary in trying to place more weight on it than it may merit. Also,, no need to accuse Apollo of having read/not read something – that’s not constructive.Actionjackson09 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I just said to read Nizil’s comment because he addressed these issues which Appolo raised after 10 days. This is not unconstructive at all. Discussion is going in the direction of consensus, let’s build it once. If there’s any objection then it should be raised at first, not after consensus moved in succeeding phase.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 05:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I have proposed new version 4 which includes your suggestions to me and . To others, I kindly suggeat to read Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. We can not drag on forever. Even if we disagree, our goal should be consensus. For now, I would suggest all to focus on how to describe the whole incident with neutral text. Please help to form the consensus for the text. We can decide on its inclusion in the article later.-Nizil (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some CE. Otherwise, it is good and should be posted. -- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 06:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , wait. No need to hurry. We are yet to form consensus on text and a separate consensus on its inclusion. I have requested opinions of all involved editors on the proposed text version 4. Let them give their opinion on the text.-Nizil (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I represented my opinion. I added some more information from sources, though, two editors will still oppose the inclusion even after long thread.-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 06:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the most recent version and have read (and reread) all available coverage on the events. I agree with Nizil that we can debate inclusion later. I also think that until we all agree on what actually happened, we will continue reorganizing the details and not reach consensus. I initially outlined these points.
 * Nilkanth is a name adopted by Swaminarayan upon renouncing the world and lived as a wandering ascetic practising austerities and yoga from the age of 11 to 19 when he was ordained as a Swami. (This is why we aren't using the word 'title' since it's inaccurate.)
 * The sarcasm or derision that was used was that although he was an ascetic with the name Neelkanth, he was “eating ladus” (indulging in rich foods) and thus, actually a hypocrite. The reality, based on multiple sources, is that he engaged in intense austerities for that period of his life which left him emaciated.
 * Thus, using sarcasm to falsely attack or deride his integrity as an ascetic (that he was indulgent, instead of performing austerities) is why I opted to initially use the word, “derogatory,” based on its definition
 * The question that arose was whether this is original research, and Ms Sarah Welch suggested I find sources to validate this interpretation. I translated the BBC and VTV article with the help of colleagues and verified with Google Translate. Here’s what we identified that supports the points outlined above:
 * VTV article title reads, “Moraribapu slanders monks and saints of Swaminarayan sect over Neelkanthvarni.”
 * BBC article also states, “This was said by keeping Swaminarayan on target and this created resentment among the saints and followers of that sect.”
 * With the addition of these two non-English sources, I have proposed another version.Moksha88 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with version5. Nothing new is here, old word disparaged is replaced by derogatory. Version 4 is neutral and balanced while proposed version5 does unpublished synthesis, represents half view and more apologetic to Swaminarayan POV. Derogatory word is nowhere mentioned in the sources. The word is repeatedly added even after objection raised by Ms Sarah. Quoting her "Criticized" or "questioned" is more neutral than using Wikipedia voice to assert Bapu's remarks were "derogatory" or were a "sarcastic dig" or etc.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 04:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Nothing is changed from V1 to 3a, 3b, 3c or 5. I have already made my comments that we are not interpreting/judging the Bapu's comments. We just report it neutrally. But you are not evolving your version and proposing same thing again and again. I hope that you give your inputs to improve version 4. So we can form a consensus text. -Nizil (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Version 5 is inappropriate per Nizil. Version 4 is better. Nizil/Others: is there a scholarly source that states the Swaminarayan sampradaya believes or does not believe Sahajanand to be an avatar of Shiva? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the translated text I provided has been ignored in the discussion, and I'm perceived as not offering anything novel. At this point, I would like another user to offer their insights about the neutrality of the proposed version, not whether or not it should be included. Moksha88 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I took some time to read through all the discussion. I agree with everyone that Moksha88 didn't update v4, but I disagree that v4 is more neutral. Sarah Welch suggested finding sources that state “derogatory remarks” (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morari_Bapu&diff=prev&oldid=927945359). Moksha88 gathered this information but should have made it more clear. Here’s the translated text in question that was also reviewed by one of his colleagues. (VTV/BBC) Harshil and Nizil, can we agree this text is taken directly from the articles in question? If so, then it’s no longer Moksha’s interpretation since it’s coming from the articles themselves. For the second part, Nizil’s version prior to Harshil’s editing seemed more neutral. The newer version adds more details from only one article (http://www.uniindia.com/~/morari-bapu-s-remark-angers-swaminarayan-sect-apology-demanded/States/news/1721022.html). This one mentions followers “demanding an apology.” In addition, this article does not state Morari Bapu sought forgiveness. He only expressed a statement that Jains use to seek forgiveness. Again, this is what the article states.Based on these points, I’ve added version 6. After y'all agree on how to summarize the events, y'all need to edit to avoid undue weight. This means everyone has to review reliable sources to put this recent controversy into the context of Morari Bapu’s life. The ‘Reception’ section needs more work. Sarah Welch, I don't understand how looking into references about Swaminarayan Sampraday’s belief in Swaminarayan and Shiva helps us accomplish that. --Treehugger8891 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I get a different google translation of VTV non-English source, one different from what you two submit, and one that is closer to the BBC version translation you give above. Here is the title translation again. It reads "Moraribapu resents saints and saints of Swaminarayan sect criticizing Neelkanthvarni". When I filter "સાધુ-સંતો નારાજ" for translation, I get "monks – saints offended" by different Gujarati<->English translators. Feeling offended is not the same thing as "slandering someone". "Slander" is a legal term, and our strict BLP-policy guidelines apply here. Yet, I sense your concerns. If you have a published independent source that states what you state above about "austerity, emaciated, etc" above, we can briefly include that for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can read both Gujarati and Hindi sources and can tell that no source mentions "austerity, emaciated, etc" in relation to Bapu's comments. At most, the sources says Bapu's comments "offended/angered/aggrieved" members and saints of tradition so found hurting to their religious sentiments is added in Version 4. The "austerity, emaciated, etc" is 's own judgement or clarification that why it angered members and saints. So she had wrote that the comments were "derogatory" etc in versions provided by her. I think no source refer Swaminarayan as incarnation of Shiva or deny it in anyway. Swaminarayan had instructed to worship five major deities of Hindu pantheon: Vishnu, Shiva, Ganapati, Parvati and Surya according to Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism p.28.- Nizil (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment: "In addition, this article does not state Morari Bapu sought forgiveness. He only expressed a statement that Jains use to seek forgiveness." literally mean Bapu sought forgiveness using words used by Jains (Michchhami Dukkadam). The first sentence in version 6 is just similar to all version of Moksha88 replacing derogatory with slender. V6 also not provide any context on why Bapu refused abhisheka or what was his comments was. I have taken Nilkanthvarni, the adolescent form of Swaminarayan from version 6 and included it in version 4b. Here p.223 mentions Neelkanth Varni, the teenage Swaminarayan so it better explain who Neelkanth Varni is.-Nizil (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. First, with regard to whether the terms ‘derogatory’ or ‘slander’ are mentioned the VTV article: the keyword in the headline MSW put into google translate is કટાક્ષ, which is what the article says that Morari Bapu did regarding Swaminarayan. કટાક્ષ means sarcasm – see hereand here. So, the article states that Morari Bapu made sarcastic statements about Swaminarayan. So, both ‘slander’ and ‘questioning the authenticity’ are, I think, non-neutral descriptions of what Morari Bapu did-- slander is too negative and questioning the authenticity is too positive in describing કટાક્ષ (sarcasm).
 * 2. Second, while I can understand Nizil’s general suggestion of not making a judgment, and laying out Morari Bapu’s statement as it is to let the reader decide, if the written text in Wikipedia does not explain what exactly is sarcastic about the Morari Bapu’s statement, then it misses the point of why people got upset, and thus offers a non-neutral perspective. Sarcasm in any language and culture often requires significant cultural understanding to grasp what are multi-layered meanings. These may not be spelled out in the media, but are understood by those within that culture. In Nizil’s suggested versions I feel that the sarcasm is not made clear, and so the written text becomes inaccurate and non-neutral.
 * 3. After reviewing this event in some detail, it seems that what may going on here is that the sarcastic remark that was made by Morari Bapu was perceived as a dog-whistle by targeted groups, who asked for an apology. As Moksha88 has alluded to in one of their earlier posts, there is a long-standing colonial-racist trope of the indulgent, hypocritical fraud in the guise of a Hindu ascetic or holy man, which is the perceived image evoked by the dog-whistle of ladus, fake austerities, etc that Morari Bapu uses in speaking about Swaminarayan. To properly explain why the statement was sarcastic would require more space – perhaps another paragraph.
 * 4. But to spend so much space in the reception section on a single sarcastic comment made in one speech that Morari Bapu later apologized for, and which has been forgotten in the press after a brief flareup appears to give undue weight to the issue. The lack of balance would be even worse because in the reception section of this article there are no mentions of the positive responses to the many years of his talks, and to put such a long response to a single mistake that he made and apologized for seems unbalanced. As MSW, Apollo1203, Actionjackson09, and Treehugger9981 have all mentioned in different ways, due to WP:BLP, we should be more conscious of this point in determining both the amount of weight this is given in the article and whether it should be added in the article at all.
 * 5. As for the proposed versions 4 & 6, I don’t think that Morari Bapu’s refusal to do abhishek to Swaminarayan has much to do with the controversy. The controversy or hurt religious sentiments stem from the sarcastic statements that Morari Bapu makes about Swaminarayan, which are challenged by some followers of the Swaminarayan tradition. Moreover, I think the statement “questioned the authenticity of any deity called Nilkanth other than Shiva who also known by the same name” is misleading. Morari Bapu is clearly referring to Swaminarayan and not any other deities. Second, Nilkanth was the name of Swaminarayan, so this, as Moksha88 and others have pointed out before, it is not an issue of anyone choosing to call him by some title. So, getting to the heart of the controversy requires some of the text to focus on the sarcasm.
 * 6. So, keeping all of the above points in mind, I would propose a version 7.Sacredsea (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of WP:TEXTWALL, can you summarize your argument? Version 7 is just another version of V1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 5 and 6 replacing derogatory with sarcastic without telling what was the remark. We need to write what the remark was because we report what exactly happened. Refusing abhisheka is related to that remark, so included. In sarcasm, what did Bapu remark? He questioned the authenticity. So in Version 6 it is written as such. I think your version 7 add nothing new to the discussion. If you still insist, I can add Bapu "sarcastically questioned the authenticity" in Version 4/4b.-Nizil (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and others, your point regarding "how Swaminarayan members felt the comment" (derogatory/disparaging/slender etc.) is now already covered in Bapu's statement as hurting to their religious sentiments. So I think that point is now settled.-Nizil (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @All participants in discussion. Now instead of suggesting new versions again and again, please suggest improvements in Version 4/4b. We started with basic versions and then build up on best of them. I think 4/4b is best way to describe the whole incident neutrally and objectively (in a way that is not influenced by our personal feelings or opinions).-Nizil (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ms Welch that her translation differs from Moksha's, but it is because one word is missing. I believe Sacredsea has provided a more precise translation which helps us understand the difference in the meaning of the phrases that are translated. I would like to highlight that the BBC translation offers a detail which further supports Sacredsea's point, "He targeted Swaminarayan." Overall, I think a major point here is, in comparison to the life and work of Morari Bapu to date, how significant is this event that has transpired? In fact, I still strongly disagree with the inclusion of this event all together. WP:BALsSP - balancing minor aspects of its subject.) what are your thoughts? Apollo1203 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you forgot to sign your comment, please do it. NPOV is red link, which policy are you referring to? It is already mentioned in Version 4/4b that he commented on Nilkanthvarni (Swaminarayan). What do you think about Version 4/4b ? Does it describe the whole incident in neutral and objective manner? -Nizil (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The link I was trying to refer to is on the NPOV page (it is linked correctly now). Apollo1203 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone’s insights, and I have an idea to help us clarify our differences in opinion. Let's divide our efforts into two parts in the sandbox: remarks & response. Nizil, I respect your efforts to accurately describe his remarks. I reviewed WP:NPOV and found it helpful to refocus on summarizing versus directly quoting (WP:IMPARTIAL). In my sandbox, I’ve pasted how he’s been quoted in all four sources, and clearly all the sources can't even agree on how to translate his words to English! Furthermore, these sources overlook two additional details which are needed to present neutral and accurate information. Without describing these details, it inaccurately characterizes the reaction of an entire community, which is unfair to them. If we attempt to describe these details, we end up with a wall of text and undue weight (WP:BALASP) as noted by Apollo, which is unfair to Morari Bapu.
 * 1) Nilkanth is a name shared by both Shiva and Swaminarayan, not just a title.
 * 2) “Eating ladus” is a colonial-racist trope (metaphorical expression) that invokes the image of an indulgent, hypocritical fraud disguised as a Hindu ascetic or holy man.

Can we agree to summarize all these details with the phrase “sarcastic remarks” as the word does appear in the VTV article as pointed out by Sacredsea? Moksha88 (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Despite my opinion of excluding this completely, I’ve reviewed the sandbox version provided by Moksha and I think Version 7 makes the most sense to include on the article. Moksh has done a good job of summarizing and justifying why he has proposed what he has. - what do you all think? Apollo1203 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Moksha88: you split the draft versions, please unsplit them. The wall of text on this talk page and now the split sandbox is difficult to follow and WP:TLDR. If you have comments and remarks on your own versions or those of Nizil/others, you can add them chronologically at the bottom of that sandbox. I have also struck one instance of unacceptable language above. Please do not propose/call/speculate/imply someone alive to be "colonial racist" anywhere in wikipedia including talk pages or your own userpages, in metaphorical sense as you put it or otherwise, per our WP:BLP concerns. If you do not wish to un-split it for some reason, perhaps Nizil/Harshil169/someone can create an unsplit draft proposed versions in their own sandbox or on this talk page. Then consider taking this dispute to WP:NPOVN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nizil, I was coming in new to a very long and rich discussion, which I read in detail, and to which I had a number of specific responses. After it was noted my previous post was hard to follow, I have now numbered my 6 points to make it easier for everyone to grasp. I read WP:TEXTWALL and WP:TLDR, and I think the numbering should help everyone respond to my specific nuanced points. Otherwise, the essays WP:TEXTWALL and WP:TLDR also state, “Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful.” And “Pointing out to someone that they're text-walling only shows that you don't care for their opinion, or that you're averse to nuance.” And “It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule.” But as long as people are continuing to respond to specific points and not ignoring them outright, I don’t assume that is happening here.Sacredsea (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch I've combined them again as you mentioned. Moksha88 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall, I don’t think this controversy should be included based on WP:UNDUE. It should be excluded, but if y’all have to include, then I prefer version 7 over version 4b.--Treehugger8891 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified NPOVN#Morari Bapu.-Nizil (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , please give your opinion your Version 4. I have responded you above. Anything else is irrelevant for discussion., I have also asked for your opinion on Version 4. What improvement should be made in Version 4?-Nizil (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comment at WP:NPOVN. I have already mentioned here that Version 7 does not mention what was Bapu's comment and what it was about. You have created new User:Moksha88/sandbox1 from split which will create more confusion but I say your "Details to Incorporate" there are already included in Version 4 except point#3 which is not supported by any source which clearly mention that Eating ladus” references a trope (metaphorical expression) that invokes the image of an indulgent, hypocritical fraud disguised as a Hindu ascetic or holy man and is meant to deride the authenticity of Swaminarayan's austerities. Please provide reference that mention that "eating laddus" is a troupe if you want to include it as well. Your "Details to Incorporate" are missing from your proposed Version 7. -Nizil (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - I thought I articulated my opinion on this matter quite clear but I guess I did not. If you recall, I did not want to include the statement to begin with as I don't believe it is warranted on the article. However, based on the conversations by the group, I was slightly convinced that it should be placed but my favor was for V7 that was proposed in Moksha88 sandbox. Apollo1203 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given my opinion on @Nizil’s version 4 in detail in the six points that I have posted above. While I respect @Nizil’s contributions to Wikipedia, I think @Nizil should reconsider his statement that anything other than his version 4 is irrelevant for discussion. I feel that everything that any editor posts on this talk page should be considered and not summarily thrown out as irrelevant for discussion. Thus, in my six points, I considered all the editors’ various opinions on various points carefully and provided my comments and suggestions taking all of them into account. Several editors have argued that this point should not be included on the Morari Bapu page because it would be giving it undue weight. As I have stated already, I agree with this conclusion. However, if the consensus ends up being it should be included, then I feel the version 7 I have proposed is most neutral for the 6 reasons I have mentioned above.
 * With regard to @Nizil’s response to my six points, I would say that Wikipedia does not report “exactly” what happened in all cases because to report “exactly” what happened would be to just reproduce full texts of transcripts and newspaper articles, etc. which is not the point of an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes material and curates it and decides some material is worth including, and other material is not worth including according to a number of principles, which I have applied and explained in my reasoning. Second, refusing Abhishek may be related to the remark, but so are any number of things that are not substantial to the controversy, and so as I mentioned, I don’t think that it is relevant and should be included. I think that @Nizil may wish to try to understand my points two and three in more depth because as I have stated, sarcasm is not the same as questioning the authenticity. And in fact, as I understood the articles we have referenced, it was the sarcasm that caused the controversy.
 * But in any case, I am more convinced by what@Treehugger9981, @Apollo1203 have suggested, that this issue does not merit inclusion in the article at all, as I have explained in my six points above.Sacredsea (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about criticism of Swami Narayan
Please see discussion above. Based on several notability factors. I am proposing to include the following in this article.


 * In September 2019, Morari Bapu criticized Swaminarayan in one of his discourses by calling his idol false. Many Swaminarayan followers asked him to redact his remarks, which he ultimately apologized “if he had hurt anyone’s sentiments”.

I am requesting anyone with a conflict of interest contribute with caution.Applebutter221 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I saw this RfC on the Religion and philosophy page. After a review of the thorough discussion above, I’m having a hard time seeing the encyclopedic value of adding this statement (WP:WWIN). I also agree that this statement does not warrant inclusion. Content about living people needs to meet high standards (WP:SCANDAL), and this statement holds little value in adding to the reader’s understanding of Morari Bapu’s life and work. I am unsure why this is being resurfaced again after it was already discussed 8 months ago.
 * I am sensing a pattern of disruptive editing. In my interactions with you, I have observed you pursuing your point despite opposition from other editors, refusing to engage in consensus building, and ignoring requests for civility (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). PinkElixir (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@User talk:PinkElixir So from reading that entire discussion above, and going through my edit history and knowing that at least one or more of the other editors above is a confirmed BAPS, Swaminarayan member, the conclusion you came to is attacking me? On top of that, how is a Hindu spiritual leader and preacher with such a large following globally known for his philanthropy and social reforms criticisms of an idol of Swaminarayan not notable? That is insane to me that all you did was pick up my edits and not anything else thats going on with the Swaminarayan articles and manipulation by baps members. It's not even something that should be debated. Wikipedia allows for me to list the incident, the apology and cite it correctly. To have the same group of users who have a documented history of removing and gang attacking anything that may be perceived as criticism to BAPS and Swaminarayan and you blindly agree with that is wild. I wish you would put the same effort in to looking into the same group of users who are pushing an agenda and one confirmed BAPS agent as stalking my cited edits. Applebutter221 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022
He performed 900+ raamkathas. Kindly edit in career tab. 103.175.100.140 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Morari Bapu's date of birth is 19th February (Maha Shivratri Day), 1947 as per his bio on his website. Source: https://chitrakutdhamtalgajarda.org/ Recent Ram Katha was his 905th Odedra Toral (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2022
Morari Bapu's date of birth is 19th February (Maha Shivratri Day), 1947 as per his bio on his website. Source: https://chitrakutdhamtalgajarda.org/ Odedra Toral (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2023
Please change the non-source-based lead to the following (with trusted sources added). 37.252.91.2 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Morari Bapu is an Indian spiritual leader and preacher from Gujarat. He is an exponent of Ramcharitmanas with more than 900 Kathas recited over the last sixty years. Bapu’s core message is Truth-Love-Compassion (Satya-Prem-Karuna) and encouraging awareness about Sanatan Dharma Scriptures.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Changing the lead requires consensus; I'd like to get input from at least one other editor before implementing this change. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)