Talk:Radha Soami Satsang Beas

message: I started this article so that people interested in RSSB can create a proper article instead of changing the Sant Mat article to look like RSSB is Sant Mat, when most of the objective activity (books, Gurus, disciples) have long ago abandoned the Beas line. David C. Lane has additional information on this lineage, as he was an initiate of a Beas Guru named Charan Singh (guru).
I think you are mixing SANT MAT with religions like HINDUISM , SIKHISM
Our master teaches us the path of sant mat and how to reach the ultimate 
goal of life which is nothing but to unite with the master.
And we never profess ourselves to be sikhs.
So, I think one should not use a term like religion this mat.
I don't understand the arguments claiming RSSB is not a religion.  By any definition of the word, "religion", it is.
Thank You 
Kushagra Behl
Please provide "any definition of religion" from a reputed source and prove your point, instead of making conjectures!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.156.11 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Article

message: According to radhaswami teachings It is the prosess by which the soul merges back to its source, like the drop merges in the occean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.228.106 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprititual Journey 

message: to babajibe with me always
----
:Sukhjinder pal (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  radha swamiji dyal ki dya radha soamiji sahai  

message: Despite the fact that these two spiritual paths/organizations have similar names, they are entirely different entities, and as such, their articles shouldn't be merged. It's sort of like trying to merge Catholicism and Protestantism. Also, there wouldn't be any real benefit to merging these articles; doing so would only create confusion.
However, followers of the RSSB movement need to stop removing the comments/edits of critics. Look, it's Wikipedia, folks. If a critic has properly sourced information that they would like to post in the article, then so be it. Of course, slanderous, uncited comments should not be allowed to stay because information like that doesn't fit Wikipedia's quality standards. Also, wouldn't want love-crazed satsangis removing information that really does relate to Sant Mat.
Also, ex-satsangis should NOT vandalize the RSSB articles. Stop it, already. It's petty and you know it.
Thanks in advance for not merging the RSSB and Radha Soami articles!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.57.154 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radha Soami and RSSB are not the same thing 

message: I am proceeding to remove the merge tag.
Alvin Seville (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In accordance with the above 

message: I feel as though this article could be significantly improved. However, it may require significant restructuring, such as renaming and moving headings adding sub-articles to give context etc... in particular I have updated the article message boxes to reflect some of the more important edits required. 
Some initial improvements could include:
#re-writing the lead as it seems a little repetitive, un-organised and there is nothing about belief in it. 
#There is no info box - Formation, location etc...
#There is no introduction/History section proper
#There is no Controversies section - Clearly only if applicable and only to promote neutrality of the article
#Suggested Radha Soami sub-article - to highlight differences etc...
These are only a few suggestions please comment with suggestions as to if you feel the article should remain as it is and/or if you have any suggestions. Thank You Tindy1986 (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Restructure

message: There's no point copy editing an article that needs rewriting. This one does, because of its complete lack of sources and its somewhat promotional tone. --Stfg (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: GOCEreviewed

message: Tulsi Sahib, Shivdayal Singh, Girdhari Das, and Salig Ram were NOT leaders of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.  "RADHASOAMI BEAS SECRET HISTORY" (placed at the head of the list of Historical References) is more of a sensationalist conspiracy theory site. It should have no place in an encyclopedia's list of sources. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: RADHA SOAMI JI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.85.228 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RADHA SOAMI JI 

message: In the view of religion or not question, the general public generally regards it as a religion, however, it doesn't call itself a religion but rather a "spiritual philosophy" but there is no way to say one or the other because, due to its highly seclusive nature, no neutral analysis has been done, but merely the strong adherents' and the disillusioned ex-initiates' opposing views which are both fit for the "controversies" section at best which noone should hesitate to create because even the fanatic scientology's page has one. In support of the organizations claim of not being a religion- the organization calls itself spiritual philosophical society and asks of its initiates to maintain their religious practices if they so desire and most of the members introduce themselves with their own religions, hindu, muslim, christian, sikh and so on.
The page looks like a turf war between its active and ex' members perhaps because there isn't much independent sources to cite. I would ask the adherents of this- "Babaji has vehemently asked all members to refrain from publicising and whether or not you disagree, writing in wikipedia and even more removing the parts that speak ill of the society is very much contrary to his wishes. I give you that there is now an official site but that even is not to publicize but only for contacting Dera and getting books etc. So, just write for the "beliefs and practices" section and leave the rest and let the article take its shape.
I would ask the ex-members to remain in wikipedia guidelines and cite sources when adding controversial subjects and not to report hearsay or your personal grievances.
To neutral party- it is difficult to find independent sources or analyses of RSSB because of its seclusive nature. Given the importance level to any portal, this article could have been done without. So, please remove propaganda and controversial material without proper citation and references when you can.
≈≈≈≈1/31/014, Sam Adhikari.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.50.66.70 (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion or not? Propaganda or not? 

message: Here is a list of sources (perhaps some would be independant secondary publications) that may confirm or refute some of the data or assist someone with adding more, I will not insert data but feel that having a page that conforms to Wikipedia citation guidelines is a worthy goal.
The difference between the various groups of Sant Mat or Radha Soami matter a lot to some people and reflect the history of the various groups so clarity is a good thing to have.
http://innersonickey.org/?page_id=101
Judaism and World Religions: Encountering Christianity, Islam, and Eastern ...  by Alan Brill on Google books
The Holy Name by Miriam Bokser Caravella
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488418/Radha-Soami-Satsang
Idyllic press (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources 

message: I wonder it it might be time to remove the tags for India, Hinduism, New Religion as they do not relate to the topic at hand.
* It is not exclusively practised, found or promoted in India
* Neither the RSSB followers nor Hindus would like to equate the two
* It is not particularly new nor does it profess to be a religion
It looks like more editing is still possible but at least it looks a lot calmer than it has been in the past.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.75.184.208 (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many tags perhaps? 

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://rssb.org/. 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) 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed