Talk:Bhadreshdas Swami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re: Notability

An article on Bhadreshdas Swami warrants inclusion on Wikipedia because he is a notable present-day scholar in Sanskrit literature and Hindu philosophy. This is evidenced by numerous awards he has received for contributions to these fields. He has authored the Swaminarayan Bhashyam, which is a text described as being an important contribution by leading experts in those fields. The following links provide references:

- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Manuscripts-shed-light-on-Yoga-history-in-the-region/articleshow/47750592.cms?from=mdr

- http://www.vedicindiafoundation.org/conference.html

- http://www.internationalvedicconference.com/speakers.php

- http://www.baps.org/News/2013/Swaminarayan-Bhashyam---A-Unique-Scriptural-Commentary-on-the-Prasthantrayi-5165.aspx

The last reference includes statements from at least two experts achieving the Mahamahopadhyaya title which indicate the significance of Bhadreshdas Swami's contributions. Note that Mahamahopadhyaya is a major honor awarded to scholars of Hindu philosophy in India. The following reference provides a brief history and criteria of the title: https://books.google.ca/books?id=Y0FfADSV6o4C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=mahamahopadhyaya+bestowed&source=bl&ots=Yk-fBgcMff&sig=_dUTQo6j2cqIIZ3YB-oLuuddRi0&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=mahamahopadhyaya%20bestowed&f=false

Actionjackson09 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orphan article

I have added numerous links to other articles. Actionjackson09 (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the Mahamahopadhyaya and the Akshar Purushottam Upasana pages to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionjackson09 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


User LeadDogSong added a lot broken links to the article. Not sure what the intention was here, but it's not adding value to the article. I've removed these broken links.

Re: Lead Section and Article name

I've restored the original lead section. The edits made my user LeadDogSong were material and not accompanied by a talk page post. The edits muddied the flow of the lead section. I’ve also reverted the changes user LeadSongDog has made regarding naming conventions for Bhadreshdas Swami. ‘Bhadreshdas Swami’ is the name by which the subject is most commonly known, as per WP:Fullname. Actionjackson09 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do read
wp:NCIN. That thousands of people claiming special knowledge of the supernatural have been given or adopted "Swami" or "Father" or "Reverend" or "Rabbi" as part of their appellation does not make it a name. Whether it is an honorific, a credential, a title, a job description, an aspriation, or simply a form of address that still does not make it a valid part of a wikipedia article name. We only use them when it is necessary as a form of natural disambiguation, to distinguish them from other people's wikipedia biographies. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I feel Sadhu Bhadreshdas or Bhadreshdas Swami be the article names as that is what appears in most of the press sources. According to
WP:NCIN - "Exceptions may be made in cases where the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics (i.e. when the honorific becomes part of the name; example: Swami Vivekananda), or where they become the best means of disambiguation." Since both honorific has become part of the name, and that disambiguation is needed because see this link, and this link and this link are not the same as Bhadreshdas Swami. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sectarian Sources

Asserting that "sectarian" sources are unreliable is unfounded and not backed up by any Wiki policy. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources but does not permit an article to be entirely based on them. I feel the article has been appropriately sprinkled with secondary sources along with a few primary sources. Kapil.xerox (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the tag about unreliable sources re-added by LeadSongDog, I agree with Kapil.xerox's post. Moreover, most of the sources are from Mainstream Newspaper or Magazine articles, or third-party academic websites. LeadSongDog has not made any talk page post explaining the need for a tag despite editorial opinion to the contrary already posted on the talk page. I think if such a tag is needed, editors should arrive at a consensus after talk page discussion. As the current consensus on the talk page is clear that the tag is not appropriate, I am removing it.Sacredsea (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it obvious. No organization is expected to be impartial about itself or about its own publications. They nearly all regard their works as especially good and especially important, hence they must be treated as
wp:SCHOLARSHIP. We are writing for a worldwide audience, of all faiths (and none). We cannot do that by drawing only upon sources that agree, we also need to show other sides. The best way to do this for religions is to go to published comparative religion sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate that
WP:NPOV
.
A few paragraphs later on that same page as
WP:SELFSOURCE
, which I think clarifies the issue at hand quite well.
“Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
· The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
· It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
· It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
· There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
· The article is not based primarily on such sources.”
This article does use some sources from the website of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha (the religious organization of which the subject is a member), but it does it in a way that adheres to the guidelines given in
WP:NPOV, “facts and facts about opinions should be asserted, but don’t assert opinions themselves.” The article does a good job of following this explanation of the NPOV policy. With regard to LeadSongDog’s comment that other sources should be used, I think that they certainly can be used, but from explanation in my post, I don’t think this article as it is can be said to be deficient from the perspective of Wikipedia policies. Sacredsea (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Autobiographical Source

Citing one of the source as being "Autobiographical" hence unreliable is also unfounded. Since, the article is not self-published. The article is published on Hinduism Today which is a reliable source on Hinduism-related topics. See Hinduism Today. Kapil.xerox (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhadreshdas_Swami&oldid=1211138057"