Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya

Why are things being deleted from here without discussion?
This is gross misconduct and usage of this talk page where things get blatantly disregarded. I have posted twice here for items to be discussed and not once has an individual commented on what I have had to say. This is simply shows that individuals "pick & choose" items to discuss and have blatant disregard for the more serious points of discussion.

Content such as the 'Gunatit Samaj' need to be wholly re-edited and structured in a way which is coherent and more importantly factual, currently the content written there is heavily biased & lacks basis as it does not correlate to the sources provided. GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the information regarding Gunatit Samaj is sourced primarily from Williams (2018) and Melton (2020) which are independent scholarly sources. While you claim that the articles does not correlate to the sources provided, I have checked the sources, and it appears that the article does correlate with the cited sources. Please see below the excerpts from the respective sources. Melton 2020: Williams 2001/2018:
 * “In 1966, the BAPS organization excommunicated a prominent lay preacher Dadubhai Patel (1918-1986) (popularly known as Kakaji) and his brother Bapabhai Patel (1916- 2006) (popularly known as Papaji).”
 * “In the mid 1960s, Kakaji began to create a similar structure for young women. Meanwhile, as this youth movement was proceeding, questions were raised about Kakaji’s preaching activity in Africa, where he had both recruited some dedicated young women into the ordered life and raised money to support the proposed new center for the young female devotees. At this point, the BAPS leadership decided that Kakaji had overstepped his authority in promising initiation to the young women.”
 * “Kakaji died in 1986, and was succeeded by a close associate, Hariprasad Swamiji”
 * “The Yogi Divine Society separated from BAPS in 1966 over a dispute about leadership and initiation of women. Dadubhai Patel was an outstanding lay preacher in BAPS and a disciple of Jnanjivandas Swami who is popularly called Yogiji Maharaj. The dispute arose over a preaching tour in East Africa during which he claimed authorization from Yogiji Maharaj to invite young women to accept initiation as BAPS ascetics and to raise funds for a women’s ashram in India.” (72).
 * Williams 2001 pg. 66 provides a detailed account of the events that led to the expulsion of Dadubhai by Yogiji Maharaj and BAPS trustees. Williams explains that the official expulsion notice was published in the Swaminarayan Prakash and was signed by Yogiji Maharaj.

To address your other point about why things are deleted without discussion, it appears there is a bot that automatically deletes inactive threads. I would assume that since your claims were not based in fact, no one took the time to reply, and the bot deleted the inactive thread. Finally, Wikipedia editors are volunteers who pick and choose what discussions engage in as per their interests or inclinations. That is not “gross misconduct” that is how Wikipedia is designed to work. So, there is no bias or gross misconduct as you are claiming, however please note that continuing to make such baseless claims and accusations may be viewed by other editors as WP:TE, and that might deter other editors from seriously engaging with your points. Apollo1203 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The "scholarly" sources do not provide a view which is 'holisitic' thus are heavily biased. My claims are not "baseless" as you have stated this is simply how it is! Note that in the said section regarding the Gunatit Samaj there seems to be a form of scholastic prejudice due to the sources used to reference the content there. It woul GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It would seem fit to have sources which do not conform to this scholastic prejudice/bias to give a more holistic understanding of the Gunatit Samaj. Currently, this is not the case and alignment towards the views of BAPS is evident. GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , let’s slow down for a second. You first wrote, “Currently the content written there is heavily biased & lacks basis as it does not correlate to the sources provided” 1. Apollo1203 then laid out how the content matches the sources 1. Now, it appears you removed the content after having been shown that it matches the sources 1. I brought back the content for now, and it may be better if you assume good faith, suggest improvements to the text supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia policy here on the talk page, and develop consensus with other editors to improve the article together. Moksha88 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - like mentioned, the sources are clearly outlined and are reliable sources. The BAPS publication that has been referenced is also cited by Williams and Melton (both are WP:RS), therefore, it is reliable and validates inclusion in the article. Like  mentioned, assume good faith and discuss improvements/edits on the talk page before reverting/removing large portions of the article. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf" - where is this stated in the aforementioned texts? This is simply hearsay added by parties who have an "issue" with the said group! Unfortunately, I do not see the texts by Williams & Melton as being "valid" sources as there is no inclusion of the views of other parties i.e. the Gunatit Samaj in their texts, thus they have illustrated a one-sided view with complete disregard for the Gunatit Samaj. As the content currently stands on Wikipedia it portrays immense bias & some form of prejudice thus is not "valid" in my opinion, the content should come from a wide range of sources as opposed to having only scholarly sources which are heavily influenced by opposing individuals. I do apologise if I have caused any inconvenience. GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What I do suggest is to remove the entirety of the Gunatit Samaj from the page, the reason for this is that I will collate a number of "proper" sources which affirms views from each party involved with the Gunatit Samaj. If this is possible? GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi GunatitSamaj1966, Williams 2018 page 72 discusses the activities of Dadubhai and his brother that led to their expulsion. Williams cites the official expulsion notice signed by Yogiji Maharaj and BAPS trustees and published in their periodical as a primary source that provides the official reason for expulsion by elaborating on the illicit activities of the brothers. Therefore the current article on Wikipedia cites both these sources. Regarding your claim that Williams and Melton are invalid, Wikipedia recommends editors base articles off of “reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” Both scholars are scholars affiliated with US universities and they have a history of publishing about Hinduism, while Williams in particular has published on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya since at least 1984. There appears to be no evidence that they have displayed a particular bias about a group, but rather they seem to have presented research based on credible sources. I remember you previously presented another edit to this section (see diff). Unfortunately, that version was heavily sourced to kakaji.org which is a primary, non-independent source. If you are able to find independent, reliable, published sources that refute what Melton and Williams state and support your version then I think editors here would consider amending the Guntait Samaj section. If you are unable to find additional references that meet Wikipedia’s criteria, then I believe according to Wikipedia’s policy that section of the article should not be removed. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a chance the information about Yogiji Maharaj personally excommunicating Dadubhai and Babubhai is inaccurate. I say this since: (a) (Williams 2018) removes these details, and (b) I couldn't find a copy of Swaminarayan Prakash (July 1966) to corroborate the claim in (Williams 2001). Perhaps Prof. Williams found the information to be inaccurate, and removed it from the more recent edition of his book? If this is still being debated, perhaps one of the privileged editors can email Prof. Williams to ask about the removal of this information between book versions? Both versions do mention the brothers were "expelled", but there is a significant difference between Yogiji Maharaj signing & publishing an order of expulsion, and a group of trustees expelling them. I thought I'd point out this change in the more recent version of Prof. Williams' book. Ragas1771 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the issue of the Swaminarayan Prakash and found the resolution passed. I have provided the original Gujarati text to it below. The translations provided under each paragraph are my own. The text within the curly braces is there to clarify certain parts of the text where not obvious. Here is the text:
 * [નીચેનો ઠરાવ સમગ્ર સત્સંગના હિતાર્થે અને નછૂટકે અત્યંત દુઃખ સાથે અમોને પસાર કરવાની ફરજ પડે છે.]
 * [We are unwillingly and painfully obliged to pass the following declaration for the betterment of the whole satsang]
 * બોચાસણવાસી શ્રી અક્ષર પુરુષોત્તમ સંસ્થાની વ્યવસ્થાપક કમિટીની સ્પેશિઅલ મિટીંગ તા. 28-5-'66ના રોજ બોચાસણમાં નીચે જણાવેલા કામો અંગે બોલાવવામાં આવેલી.
 * A special meeting of the organizing committee of Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Sanstha was called on 28-5-66 {May 26th, 1966} for the following tasks.
 * (1) પટેલ દાદુભાઇ નાથાભાઈ તથા પટેલ બાબુભાઇ નાથાભાઈ તથા તેઓ બંનેના મંડળનાઓ તરફથી સંપ્રદાયના ધારાધોરણ તથા શ્રીજી મહારાજની આજ્ઞા વિરુદ્ધ ચાલતી પ્રવૃત્તિઓ અંગે આ વ્યવસ્થાપક કમિટીના સભ્યોની તથા હરિભક્તોની અરજીઓ આવેલી છે તે ઉપર વિચારણા કરી નિર્ણય કરવા બાબત.
 * (1) To discuss and pass judgment on the activities of Patel Dadubhai Nathabhai and Patel Babubhai Nathabhai and the members of their faction pursuant to complaints submitted by members of this committee and lay devotees of the claim of said activities being in contravention to the norms of the sampraday and the commands of Shriji Maharaj.
 * (2) આ સંસ્થાના તાંબાના "દાદરમાં" આવેલા હરિ મંદિરમાં દાદુભાઇ નાથાભાઈના મંડળનાઓએ અયોગ્ય વર્તાવ કર્યો છે તે અંગે આ સંસ્થાના જનરલ સેક્રેટરી શ્રી મગનભાઈ નરસિંહભાઈની વિગતવાર અરજી આવેલી છે તે અંગે ચર્ચા કરી નિર્ણય કરવા બાબત.
 * (2) To discuss and pass judgment on the "inappropriate" behavior of members of the faction of Dadubhai Nathabhai at this organization's Hari Mandir in "Dadar" pursuant to a detailed complaint submitted by this organization's general secretary Shri Maganbhai Narsinbhai.
 * ઉપર જણાવેલા બંને નંબરોવાળા કામ અંગે આવેલી અરજીઓ સભામાં વાંચી સંભળાવી તે અંગે તેમને અનેક તકો આપ્યા છતાં પ્રવૃત્તિઓ ચાલુ રાખેલી છે, તે ઉપરથી ચર્ચા થયા બાદ હાજર રહેલા તમામ સભ્યો સર્વાનુમતે આથી ઠરાવ કરીએ છીએ કે:
 * All complaints pertaining to the above enumerated points were read and relayed to the meeting, and after having given them {Dadubhai, Babubhai, and the members of their faction} many chances, and after them still having continued their activities - all members present discussed these points and we thus unanimously pass the following resolution:
 * પટેલ દાદુભાઇ નાથાભાઈ તથા પટેલ બાબુભાઇ નાથાભાઈ તથા તેમની પ્રવૃત્તિઓ તથા તેમાં અંગત રસ લેનાર ભાઈઓ તથા બહેનો સાથે અમારી અક્ષર પુરુષોત્તમ સંસ્થાને કોઈ પણ પ્રકારની નિસ્બત તથા સંબંધ તથા લાગતુંવળગતું નાથી; માટે આ સંસ્થાના આશ્રિતોએ તેઓની સાથે આ સંસ્થાના નામે કોઈ પણ પ્રકારનો સંસર્ગ તથા સંબંધ રાખવો, રખાવવો નહિ. ઉપર મુજબનો ઠરાવ સર્વાનુમતે પસાર કરવામાં આવ્યો છે.
 * Our Akshar Purushottam organization has no connection, relation, or obligation towards Patel Dadubhai Nathabhai, Patel Babubhai Nathabhai, their activities, and those men and women who take keen interest in them. Therefore, the followers of this organization should not keep any relation nor have keep any type of relation or connection with them in the name of the organization. The above resolution has been unanimously passed.
 * તા. 28-5-'66
 * Date: May 28th, 1966
 * સહી શાસ્ત્રી નારાયણસ્વરૂપદાસજી - ગુરુ યજ્ઞપુરુષદાસજી, પ્રમુખ, બોચાસણ આ. પુ. સંસ્થા.
 * Signed Shastri Narayanswarupdas {Pramukh Swami Maharaj} - Guru Yagnapurushdas {Shastriji Maharaj}, President, Bochasan A.P. Sanstha. {BAPS}
 * સહી દા. સાધુ જ્ઞાનજીવનદાસજી, ગુરુ યજ્ઞપુરુષદાસજી
 * Signed Sadhu Gnanjivandas {Yogiji Maharaj}, Guru Yagnapurushdas
 * સહી સાધુ યજ્ઞપ્રિયદાસજી સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Sadhu Yagnapriyadas
 * સહી કોઠારી ભક્તિવલ્લભદાસજી સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Kothari Bhaktivallabhdas
 * સહી કોઠારી અક્ષરસ્વરૂપદાસજી - ગુરુ યજ્ઞપુરુષદાસ, સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Kothari Aksharswarupdas - Guru Yagnapurushdas
 * સહી સ્વામી નિરન્નમુક્તદાસજી ગુરુ શાસ્ત્રી યજ્ઞપુરુષદાસજી,
 * Signed Swami Nirannmuktadas Guru Shastri Yagnapurushdas
 * સહી સાધુ સંતવલ્લભદાસજી ગુરુ યજ્ઞપુરુષદાસજી સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Sadhu Santvallabhdas Guru Yagnapurushdas
 * સહી કોઠારી હરીજીવનદાસજી ગુરુ યજ્ઞપુરુષદાસજી
 * Signed Kothari Harijivandas Guru Yagnapurushdas
 * સહી રામચંદ્ર મયારામ સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Ramchandra Mayaram
 * સહી હર્ષદરાય ત્રિભોવનદાસ સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Harshadray Tribhovandas
 * સહી રામજીભાઈ છગનલાલ સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Ramjibhai Chhaganlal
 * સહી ઘનશ્યામલાલ ભાઈચંદ શાહ સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Ghanshyamlal Bhaichand Shah
 * સહી અંબાલાલ ભાઈલાલભાઈ અમીન સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Ambalal Bhailalbhai Amin
 * સહી છગનલાલ નારણભાઇ પટેલ સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Chhaganlal Naranbhai Patel
 * સહી પ્રાગજીભાઈ મથુરભાઈ પટેલ
 * Signed Pragjibhai Mathurbhai Patel
 * સહી રમણભાઈ આશાભાઈ પટેલ
 * Signed Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel
 * સહી ડાહ્યાભાઈ વલ્લભભાઈ પટેલ
 * Signed Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel
 * સહી ભાઈલાલભાઈ દેશાઈભાઈ પટેલ સહી દા. પોતે.
 * Signed Bhailalbhai Deshaibhai Patel
 * (Published in Swaminarayan Prakash, June 1966, pg. 18) Prapannam (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As you mention that Wikipedia requires sources which have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", if Wikipedia prides itself in allowing sources which are "fact-checked" and "accurate" then Wikipedia & it's policy makers should revise these policies as the sources provided here are not at all "fact-checked" nor "accurate" as there is some form 'scholarly bias'. At no point in any of the authored texts has there been "proper" fact-checking this negates the usage of the texts in the context of the Gunatit Samaj. The aforementioned texts authored by Melton & Williams have a complete disregard for the Gunatit Samaj in its entirety as no party from the Gunatit Samaj had engaged in verifying the accuracy/validity of the text or to express & present their views on the matter. The matter concerning the Gunatit Samaj in relation to both texts had come from a heavily biased source thus is not valid to be presented here as a "fact-checked" and "accurate" source". As you mention if I do find independent, reliable, published sources that refute what Melton and Williams state and support my version then the editors should indeed publish the amended version. I am currently in process of doing this. GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ragas1771 and GunatitSamaj1966. Just a FYI, The users above were engaging in meat/sock puppetry and were subsequently banned for POV pushing in favor of the Baps branch. It seems your concerns are consistent with that pro-BAPS pov pushing. Feel free to start a new fresh section and outline what's currently on the page and what is the accurate verbiage and post the sources that support the change and reach a consensus with any interested users. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2022
swaminarayan vadtal gadi Aacharya Named is Rakepshad ji mharaj 2008 in a Active.... It on this time 2022 and after to continuously... please check and changes.. 2405:204:858C:A77E:762D:BE7E:2C3D:8A54 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Dalit entry section
Hey!! I don't have access to the full source you cited in this section but the preview page that I could see uses the term "members" of the swaminarayan sect. Not sure if later it outlines the whole faith or specific branches partaking in attempts to ban castes. Based on these 3 sources: 1, 2, 3....It seems that The Baps branch and its founder were the one pursuing the caste based discrimination. Might make sense to outline that nuance in this section for clarity. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point; it seems you're right on the post-independence restrictions. But, from Hardiman:
 * Hardiman's article is revealing, and worth to be added more from. He refers to Makrand Mehta, 'Scan1iptruda vaki Soaliiva ane Sainajik Chte'ia: Saiuminara 'van Samn pradayano Abhyas 1800-1840' (Sect Literature and Social Consciousticss: A Study of the Swaminaravan Sect, 1800-1840'), Arthat, Vol 5, No 4, October- December 1986. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh that makes sense. That court case was by one of the branches but the general premise of it is rooted in the history and texts of the faith. I think your recent changes lay that out nicely. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh that makes sense. That court case was by one of the branches but the general premise of it is rooted in the history and texts of the faith. I think your recent changes lay that out nicely. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Shastri yagnapurushdas case was the only case in which dalits weren't allowed in mandirs and that was due to personal ego of yagnapurushdas. But if we look back in history we can find that shudras were allowed to enter swaminarayan mandirs for example- jaga bhagat who was a disciple of gunatitanand swami in junagadh was a shudra and yet he stayed within the temple and same in case of narayandasji of chhani, he was a poet of swaminarayan sampraday who wrote kirtans by sitting in vadtal temple while meditating om harikrushna maharaj, so I don't feel that entire swaminarayan sect or sahajanand swami himself was casteist, the castes struggle within sect is mostly seen in the late post swaminarayan period but not completely in the entire history of swaminarayan sect Desi samurai (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also can somebody please tell me why my edits are getting deleted again and again although I am putting proper citations to them? Please don't delete the paragraphs I took that information after surfing through many websites Please, atleast tell me what. Was wrong in the information that I gave.... Desi samurai (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Because you first deleted a lot of sourced info, meanwhile stating in your edit-summaries that you added info; then you added info from primary sources, that is, non-WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kbhatt22 The case you are referring to is not by the BAPS organization but rather by the Nar Narayan diocese. Sadhu Yagnapurushdas from BAPS had passed in 1951 prior to the verdict and end of the case. "In their plaint, the appellants had alleged that the Swaminarayan temple of Sree Nar Narayan Dev of Ahmedabad and all the temples subordinate thereto are not temples within the meaning of the former Act." Ram112313 (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I must note here that I believe this particular court case (The State Of Bombay vs Shastri Yagna Purushadasji on 3 October, 1958) is not related to BAPS if I'm correct. I read through the beginning of the case at the first source you provided and it says "As regards the nature of the temples, after considering exhaustively the evidence on the record, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Swaminarayan temple at Ahmedabad and the temples subordinate thereto were Hindu religious institutions within the meaning of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution." The court case was tried in 1958 whereas the BAPS temple in Ahmedabad was opened in 1962. I would guess this case is related to the Kalupur Temple. Prapannam (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024
Firslty lord Swaminarayan is not avatar of Krishna, yet krishna is avatar of Swaminarayan, change this as soon as possible, do not pass any wrong message if you doesn't know.

His Pragtya is at 2 April, 1781 change this 192.75.211.200 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampradya Caste
The BAPS did not file the case and did not partake in the case. I have shared various links to the court case in which it is shown that the Nar Narayan diocese filed the case. Shastri Yagnapurushdas had passed before the case finalized and reached a verdict in 1951.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145565/ https://libertatem.in/blog/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-others-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-anr/ https://www.legalbites.in/amp/landmark-judgements/case-study-sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-ors-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-another-943421 Ram112313 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You're right about the Nar Narayan diocese, but that's not an excuse to revert the rest. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  03:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)