Talk:Niruben Amin

Clarification for Previous Changes

As you may have noticed, I have tried to edit the information on this page after having studied all the resources available on the web on Niruben Amin. It had come to my attention that only one source by Flügel, Peter has different information than any other source, so this raises a question on the reliability of this source even though it is published material.

Is it ethical to include such information about a person just based on one source ?

Based on the majority of the information that is available on the web I have tried to paint an accurate picture.Dipali mehta (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dipali mehta:.. On the web, there would be large number of information on subject. All those information are not reliable and neutral as well as suitable for Wikipedia. You are still new to Wikipedia so you should also teach yourself on policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. But according to WP:RS, only reliable sources are allowed to be used on article. Flügel's published article is an academic source on the subject which is considered as best suited on the subject. Other sources you tried to add are not academic study but the articles which are published by people associated with the Akram Vignan Movement itself which is considered as a primary sources. Primary sources would have conflict of interest about the subject and would likely paint one side of the subject burying other side. As per WP:NPOV, we must stay neutral and present both sides of the subject without giving undue weight to one.--Nizil (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are following problems with the text you added:

• It was total replacement of existing text with poorly written, non-neutral, follower's point of view text which was not an improvement of the subject. You should instead improve the existing text. You should have discussed it here before total replacement of text.

• All sources in that text were from websites specifically associated with the movement which must be run by people associated with the subject. So they are Primary sources which may be painting only one side of subject in non-neutral/ follower's point of view. Primary sources should be used only as a supportive information to secondary sources.

• Information on second fraction of movement, Jay Sachchidanand Sangh, was removed which is not good. We should present information about other fractions too.

Hope this clarifies. Any more questions? Feel free to discuss here.--Nizil (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please also see out policies regarding primary sources and due and undue weight, both of which are cornerstones of our neutrality policy. See also Wikipeida's Five pillars. El_C 06:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though I am new to Wikipedia I believe that we should not write about somebody based on just one source. By using the information available in this one source we are putting more weightage on it. Does this seem normal? Also information related to the second fraction of the movement is not relevant to this page, therefore there is no need to mention that here.

Here are list of sources available online : 1) http://www.dadabhagwan.org/spiritual-masters/pujya-niruma/introduction/ 2) http://www.dadashri.org/niruma2.html 3) http://www.self-realization.in/master-of-self-realization/pujya-niruma/ 4) http://www.trimandir.org/about-the-founder/pujya-niruma/ 5) http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/pujya-niruma-197969 Dipali mehta (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dipali mehta:, first of all, thank you for engaging in discussion. The number of sources is not more important than quality of sources. References you enlisted are primary sources which are best avoided if possible. All these websites/blogs are run by people/organisations associated with the Akram Vignan movement. So they are most likely devotional in sense and very less likely contain any criticism of the movement. We are putting more weight on Flügel, Peter source because it is only academic/neutral/scholar study of the movement available to us so far. We can add more scholar studies if found but adding primary sources mean adding information with conflict of interest. So please do not add these sources. The information about second fraction is relevant in context of how movement split and one fraction was laid by Amin; and not an entire movement. It is just mentioned in two lines. Detailed information about fractions is included in Akram Vignan article itself. If we say, Amin succeeded Dada Bhagwan than it is not entirely true as the other fraction, led by Kanubhai Patel, too succeeded him. So to stay neutral and to include both sides, two lines about fractions is included. Hope this clarifies. Any more questions? Regards,--Nizil (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Husband death

The Early life section had following text: She was married but later separated from her husband. She started studying medicine from the Aurangabad Medical College. During her final college year, her husband died under suspicion of suicide. Her mother died soon after. Soon after these traumatic events,...

The text was contested muliple times by various IPs and editors. It was cited by Flugel (p.215). Some editors including Dipalig claimed that these statements are false. When I emailed Peter Flugel for truthfulness of information, he told me that he have no counter evidence. He suggested me to remove it "to prevent further aggravation and email traffic." He also told that it is not important in understanding the tradition. So I have removed it and replaced with Following deaths of her husband and mother,...

If other editors feel otherwise or see it as a censorship, feel free to discuss and reach a consensus. This note is placed for future reference to this removal. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dipalig also claimed that she was not married. So I have removed it too for now. I think more experienced editors should handle the issue now onwards because I believe that this removal is done without any counter-evidence. This information must be true but the above mentioned editor is claiming otherwise. Regards, Nizil (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)