Talk:Radha Soami/Archive 1

(random heading)[edit]

I have modified the article. Infobox Organization of the article should not mention it as Radha Soami Satsang Beas. There is a separate article Radha Soami Satsang Beas and details should be mentioned there. Articles Radha Soami and Radha Soami Satsang Beas are different and details should not be merged. Raj Kamal Khare (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?[edit]

What is it? Is it a religion or a satguru teaching/doctrine parallel with religion? If it is a religion, is it hindu or independent dharmic? If it is hindu, is it vaisnhavism, shaivism, smartism or something else? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a doctrine, a combination of Sikhi and Hindu teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.54.12 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the wikiproject hinduism because this is not hinduism and it does not want to be confused with it. Radhasoami or Sant Mat does not put faith in vedas or hindu gods. --GurDass (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

I am pretty sure some of the photographs on this article are copyright violations. Can I remove them? Sail 19 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'em as they are voilating..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.108.34 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

this page is vandalized really really often, can we protect it from unregistered users? just look on history to see...

You can request the page be semi-protected for a short time to prevent vandalism at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Mkdw ^talk 06:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Agreed. Unregistered user 75.95.101.189's vandalism attempts -- are just that, not good faith edits. See his comments about "All radhasoamis are millionaires, or billionaires." Pushing links to the much criticized "Secret History" website, giving it a special banner. "By envoking the names of Satan the Radhasoamis

hope to travel in Lucifer's domain. This often causes Satanic possession." Etc.... I rest my case. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested the page be protected temporarily. Mkdw ^talk 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided that blocking the IP was preferable. Mkdw ^talk 07:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks for the help! --GurDass (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

75.95.101.189 -- He's back and promoting his website. Santmatradhasoami (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

please dear administrators I really think it's time for an IP ban... --GurDass (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you look on the history of the page you can see that each and every time a non-registered user modifies the page, his edit is quickly reverted because it's vandalism. I really suggest that the page should be protected from non-registered users, just looking on what happens every time. --GurDass (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the user to the admins. I think he'll probably be blocked. If not, he will certainly be if he tries vandalising again. All you need to do is to report him to WP:AIV. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he's blocked. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mangal dasha[edit]

i want to know about mangal dasha..i dont beleive in this..radha swami baba g also says this.dont beleive in this..so please tell me.we should beleive or not?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnykakkar (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio rev deletes[edit]

@Diannaa: Do we need to wait on whatever investigation we have ongoing since October 5, or can we just revdel it all? I have several scholarly sources in front of me, enough to create at least a stub of an article starting from zero. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing scholarly content, adding content from non-RS websites[edit]

@47.8.15.205: Welcome to wikipedia. Please review WP:RS and other wikipedia content guidelines. Then explain why you are removing scholarly sources and summarized content, and replacing it with content from websites such as radhasoamisatsang.org? What are your concerns with the cited sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on wikipedia content guidelines and Radha-Soami-Krishna is here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again?[edit]

@PluckySuperman: Welcome to wikipedia. Why are you edit warring and removing WP:RS? what are your concerns please? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

You started a edit war , not me. My concern is regarding Radhasoami Name meaning but you dont understand it and impossing it agian and again. What reasonable explaination can be given for your one-sided judgement of being scholarly references and non-schlolarly ref. Its evangelist like you polluting other religions. A christian decides what is Radhasoami name and not the one who follows it. You are the most cruel person one that could ever exist, who cant understand the ones genuine facts. If someone does same thing to jesus christ article you will undrstand then.If you have guts do the same for Prophet MOhammad page, you will know how they behave. But we are simple people who request 100 times for fair explaination, and you cant understand. Time will come India will rise, we will have our own version of wikipedia where we can write true info. And then it will be us deciding what is meaning of Sarah welch and jesus christ. or Sarah welch was egoistic wrench and jesus christ a poor sephered. Then you will understand our view point. wait wait , our time will come. We will also act as selfish editors, wait. Till then go ahead , its all yours playground , you are the judge. Just dont cite stupid wiki guidelines as an excuse for your egoisitic behaviour.

PluckySuperman (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like you need help here, more like you need a bit of time away from Wikipedia. Talkpages are for discussion, not insults; if you want to explain here why your changes are appropriate and provide sources then by all means do so. Alternatively, you may want to leave this page and go and edit some topics you feel less strongly about. Otherwise, expect your tenure on Wikipedia to be brief. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Radha Soami" basically don't have any meaning and cannot be explained but have some explanations. It was wrong to say that it is derived from lord Krishna and Radha.[edit]

The name "Radha Soami" basically don't have any meaning but have some explanations. It was wrong to say that it is derived from lord Krishna and Radha.

Please, edit the first paragraph from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandPreetam (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Radhasoami' is a mantra similar to 'OM' in Hinduism. Mantra is a word which cannot be explained or derived. It is used only for chanting and doing internal spiritual practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandPreetam (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. We cannot do what you suggest. For why, please see WP:V and WP:RS content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radha and Krishna mentions[edit]

There is a sustained and systematic removal of scholarly sources and sourced content in this article by IPs over a period of time. I have restored it back. If someone has a meaningful concern, let us discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to say it was founded by Shiv Dayal Ji?[edit]

While it is well considered that it was founded by Shri Shiv Dayal Ji, it was started from his disciples. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to academic sources, he is the founder of whole tradition and his disciples—of subtraditions. Let's follow reliable sources. DayakSibiriak (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Type of Tradition[edit]

On January 15, there was 3 times deleted following content on a type of the tradition from academic source: Scholars are divided as to whether to call Radha Soami a 1) Sikh-derived or 2) Hindu–Sikh-synthesed or 3) independent version of the medieval Sant Mat as new universal religion (Zoccarelli, Pierluigi (2006). "Radhasoami movements". In Clarke, Peter B. (ed.). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. London; New York: Routledge. pp. 507–509. ISBN 9-78-0-415-26707-6.).

It is not good to do a sectarian wikipage. Please, help to restore. DayakSibiriak (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Radha Soami is a spiritual tradition ..."[edit]

But is it a spiritual tradition within Sikhism? Do its followers regard themselves as Sikhs? Do other Sikhs regard them as Sikhs? The article ought to make this clear, or if opinions vary, to say so. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]