Talk:Urdhva Pundra

Untitled
A dot is added to indicate the wearer has finished eating lunch? Really? That's been there since 2012. 12.31.111.76 (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Title should be Tilaka
Tilak is a Hindi name of a Sanskrit/Pan-Indian idea. Should be Tilaka.

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Urdhva Pundra Tilak into Urdhva Pundra. The content in the Urdhva Pundra Tilak article is already partially included under Urdhva Pundra#Swaminarayan Sampradaya, so the remaining content can be easily integrated. More importantly, the two articles are on the same topic. This article is about urdhva pundra, a type of tilaka, and the other article is about the urdhva pundra tilak worn by members of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. But the Swaminarayan Sampradaya tilaka is not the only urdhva pundra tilaka. I'm posting here before I merge the article because I noticed that Redtigerxyz proposed such a merge in January 2015 when this article was still the Tilak (Vaishnava) article. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya section has been on the page since 2011. The merge tags were later removed due to lack of discussion on both pages and, so this is an opportunity to discuss and merge. Hexcodes (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Merge Urdhva Pundra Tilak refers to Urdhva Pundra in general. The Swaminarayan tilak (Urdhva Pundra Tilak article) is a sub-category of the Vaishnava tilak (Urdhva Pundra).-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing Continues
Please look at NPOV page and the sockpuppet investigation. Pages have been manipulated by a group of users to represent the beliefs of one branch in a faith the consists of several. In an effort to help better represent the contents of this page from a wider point of view that is applicable to all branches in the faith, I have made some changes. Please tag me here to discuss any edits I make.

The representation of the symbol under the Swaminarayan section was strictly from the perspective of Baps. According to the other gadi branches 1 and Mosher 2.

Tagging three active users that were a part of the POV/Sock discussions to be mindful of this. L235 Joshua Jonathan GeneralNotability. The user that did this merge has been following up on the specific pages I edit from the list of pages targeted by the socks. Almost every page I have touched, the user is following up on but this merge is a clear reassignment of the POV that existed on the other page. Only the Baps views were carried over during the merge and the original views were left out. I am adding in the cited/sourced clarity that existed on the page before merge that was omitted when the content was brought over. My last edit was this and an edit by one of the banned socks prior looked like this. What was merged over was the before baps views only. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Kbhatt22, you should make a dummy edit with an edit summary to attribute the text you copied as your edit has violated copyright. Let me know if I can help.
 * The sentence that you have copied includes two names, Bhagvad Padakurti and the Supreme Being, which I removed because they are not used in the sources along with other unsourced phrases and sentences in both articles that I could not find in the sources currently being used.
 * I do not see anything in the sources about Swaminarayan proclaiming that all devotees should do the urdhva pundra tilaka specifically before morning puja on the Holi festival, and I think it should be two separate sentences as it was before for accuracy and so that the praxis comes before the theory.
 * The issue that I dealt with in the merge is the relative concision of the other sections of this article; namely, a full copy would have made the Swaminarayan Sampradaya section disproportionately long. I summarized much of the material. I do not see the original meaning of the urdhva pundra tilaka in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya clarified in the available sources. Mosher's book shows that "Lakshmi...living in the heart of Lord Swaminarayan" is a Baps movement belief. Rather than overrepresenting the view of the Baps by using the Baps perspective for the entire paragraph, I used the generic reading ""tilak is God; chandlo is the devotee"" from the book as the topic sentence of the theory paragraph and merged it with the material that was already in this article. It seems that the understanding of who is God is consistent, but perhaps the Baps has a few different understandings of who is the devotee.
 * I hope this addresses your concerns. As I shared at the noticeboard, I'm improving the listed articles, which include Nishkulanand Swami and Dev Mandir, which you have not edited. At one of the articles you edited, I only made formatting changes. Hexcodes (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit has not violated copyright. The source says "But the first thing we do is put on the red chadlo a round for of saffron or kum-kumpowder in middle of forhead. It symbolizes Lakshmi (Goddess of prosperity) living in the heart of Lord Swaminarayan." My edit says "The tilak and chandlo respectively stand for the lotus feet of Paramatma (Bhagvad Padakruti), or the Supreme Being, and Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and fortune. The symbol represents Lakshmi living in the heart of Swaminarayan."......there isn't anything copied directly outside the phrase "Bhagvad Padakruti" which is not copyright as that is a noun....not a qualified sentence. I appended the part of lakshmi to the end of what was already on the page. I am not a native speaker of the language so I don't know what the phrase means so I left the qualification in parenthesis of the phrase. The sentence is not copied from the source I used. I even took the meaning of Lakshmi from the wiki page source and not the just this source. The branches tie the meaning to Lakshmi and BAPS have made it represent devotee and their gunatit sadhu (common pov pushing trend) which is what you merged over states. Your edit only brought what Baps interprets it as. I will take that "Bhagvad Padakruti" phrase out if that is a concern but that can't be a grounds to omit the view of other sides.
 * In terms of the morning pooja, I did consolidate the sentence but if you would like it be separated, that is fine. won't contest that one. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Kbhatt22, the copyright violation is not plagiarism from the source but plagiarism from the Urdhva Pundra Tilak article. The source article must be noted in the edit summary when copying text within Wikipedia . A dummy edit is an "inconsequential" edit which allows a user to add an edit summary for attribution after the fact. Your edit summary would read: content copied from Urdhva Pundra Tilak on 5 August 2021.
 * I agree that we should represent "all sides," and I understand now that by "original views" you are referring to the theological interpretations of the "branches"/"gadi branches." The Gadi branches are not currently mentioned in the article, so I will add them. Additionally, I will add back the topic sentence to help orient the reader. I'm defining devotee broadly; per the Wikiproject Swaminarayan articles, Lakshmi, the Gunatit Sadhu, and members of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya all fall within the category of devotee of God. Hexcodes (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hexcodes That is not a copyright violation because I used the same sources as the original article as well as the original article was redirected and merged so the content was merged/moved here, not copied here and then left on the original page but consolidated here. There is a difference between merge and copy. I simply merged the content you omitted during the initial merge that represented the other branches. You do know a lot about wiki policies and procedures for someone fairly new. I was not aware of this policy but also reading it, it states that one should post the original article (now redirected) which I did above so there is no copyright here. Further, I rephrased it yesterday to flow better.
 * Can you provide a source for your claim indicating Laxshmi, the gunatit sadhu, and members of the faith as all devotees of Swaminarayan? This is a narrative that the pro-baps socks were pushing but there is no source likening them all under a devotee term. The gunatit sadhu is a baps concept which was founded in 1907. Lashmi is a deity/goddess in broader Hinduism and predates even swaminarayan/the faith. Origins trace back to the second half of the 1st millennium CE which is centuries before swaminarayan, the gadis and the branches. I am reading mosher indicating she serves swaminarayan but nothing but baps literature devalues her to the same level as the rest which is what you are suggesting so can you cite that? By consolidating all of them to devotees like the baps, you are making an assumption/injecting original research. It is better to simply state this side believes this and this side believes that. This line -"When applied, the tilak represents God, and the chandlo represents the devotee." - represents lakshmi as a devotee but the source refers to her as the goddess of prosperity. It is separating god/goddess/devotee. If you have a source that breaks down the symbols and references Lakshmi as devotee instead of goddess, please provide that and this line can be added back in but until then, this qualifier isn't accurate.  Kbhatt22 (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)