Talk:Asaram

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Edit requested for Statements on 2012 Delhi gang rape victim

Hi,

I want to add few details in the below section

Statements on 2012 Delhi gang rape victim

Asaram Bapu however denied giving any such statement in which he blamed the girl for the gang-rape. According to him his statement was distorted and presented in the wrong way. < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving such statement". India News. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref>

To prove his innocence, Asaram Bapu announced a reward of 50,000 rupees for anyone who can prove he blamed the victim for the incident. < ref >"Asaram Bapu announced reward". IndiaToday. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu announced reward". IBNLIVE. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref>. No claim has been made to the proposed reward by anyone.Saurabh shar (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013

Asaram Bapu however denied giving any such statement in which he blamed the girl for the gangrape. According to him his statement was distorted and presented in the wrong way. < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving such statement". India News. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> To prove his innocence, Asaram Bapu announced a reward of 50,000 rupees for anyone who can prove he blamed the victim for the gangrape. < ref >"Asaram Bapu announced reward". IndiaToday. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu announced reward". IBNLIVE. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> Till date no one has claimed the proposed reward of 50,000 rupees.

Saurabh hariom (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that may be added. But, not with the YouTube source, ANI News, NDTV etc (you can search in Google to find these) should be used. See WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FIVE. --Tito☸Dutta 12:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

± As asked i am adding 3 more links supporting the above context, all 3 are from reputed news agencies. < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving controversial statement". business-standard. 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving controversial statement". DNA. 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving controversial statement". onenewspage. 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> I have presented 5 sources for the above context, i hope it is sufficient for the edition.Saurabh hariom (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

≈ Hey whats wrong with the above portion, its neutral and based on facts..why cant we have it added. Saurabh hariom (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

≈ This page is semi-protected, only an established editor can make the changes . I would request any established editor to do the above change.Saurabh hariom (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Partly done: "To prove his innocence" is not supported by either source, nor is the last sentence. I've done a little copy edit to the neutral part and added it with the original citations, formatted using the cite web template. Please let me know if you would like to adjust it further. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

New York Times article

New York Times has a article on Asaram Babu, which can and should be used to expand the coverage of the wikipedia article, including:

• His teachings promoting celibacy
• His campaign against Valentine's Day, and efforts to have Feb 14th celebrated as "Matri Pitri Pujan Diwas," which was partly adopted in Chattisgarh

(Redacted) I'll leave it to the regular editors here to review and add in the required material. 50.148.126.65 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I'll just say that this is a blog, not an article, and that parts of it were copy/pasted from other blogs, which in turn were copy/pasted from somewhere else. I could track part of the information to an unsigned Indian blog. We need a better source than this. There are Indian newspapers who have actually talked to Indian police officers. --Enric Naval ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 16:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a third party website where only NYT employees can write blogs. http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/author/snigdha-poonam/ She has number article on South Asia subject and NYT will not cover Indian news in article unless it is related politics or USA specific. I would support this article to be taken as one of the resource to add the data into main article. If we are going after reliable resoource in Indian media, you won't get it because Asaram Bapu does not believe in paid news. I am in support of adding content into from this page. Narbajaj (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, she copy/pasted at least one information from other blogs. The original source for the information was a broken-English blog from 28 August. Above I provided proof for the copy/pasting, but it was deleted from the talk page. She has since changed the information to explain what each section meant, but one editor quoted the original text that had been posted in 30 August [1] (my search from 31 August is also made with the original blog text, not with the fixed text currently showing in the NYT website). By the way, the information about what section 376 means seems to have originated from an Indian newspaper in 21 August, the NYT blog copy/pasted from a blog that had only the section numbers without the corresponding explanations. This is second-hand reporting, and probably a low-quality source. And it's not a NYT article. Indian newspapers get information directly from Indian police officers, instead of copy/pasting from other blogs, and Bapu's stance doesn't have any relevance in this particular case. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Indian media article poorly sourced article and fail to both side case. Recently there was big question on credibility of Indian media and its media trail. Some time they sensationalize news rather than reporting. See the blog with some points for you to think on instead of relying purely on media article to source this article. This case has been where every thing is distorted at will and no proper sources has been taken. http://chalupurza.com/2013/09/02/asaram-saga-perfect-case-of-distorted-media-trial/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.241.95 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested text about alleged assault

Suggested text based on reliable sources. Do not delete this thread.

A 16 year old girl has brought forward an accusation of sexual assault to police against Bapu. The girl said that the assault occurred at Bapu's Jodhpur Ashram. Bapu denied the accusation and claimed that it was a conspiracy against him which was orchestrated by Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. Bapu was asked to appear to police for interview before Friday the 30th of August 2013. Bapu did not appear before police on the Friday. On the Saturday the day after the request had expired, 300 police officers went to Bapu's Ashram to search for Bapu. They evicted Bapu's supporters. Bapu's supporters injured two members of the media at the Ashram. Police discovered that Bapu had left his Ashram and was seen near Indore.

IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that looks good. I don't see anything that could be left out, and at this time there is no reason to add any additional information. Gandydancer (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be sure that my "approval" is not misunderstood, I would make several changes in the wording, for instance the first sentence should mention the date that the girl brought the charges to the authorities, dates rather than the day of the week should be used, etc. Also, as noted below, the info needs to be checked against the sources. My agreement is more to the amount of copy re the incident rather than the exact wording. Gandydancer (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You say "On the Saturday the day after the request had expired, 300 police officers went to Bapu's Ashram to search for Bapu." but the source cited says that " 300 police officials have been deployed outside Asaram's ashram to prevent a repeat of attack on media personnel." M.P. police were not searching for Asaram.-Shahab (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another problem: Eviction of supporters is nowhere mentioned in the claimed source. Moreover supporters injured media persons in Jodhpur (Rajasthan) while 300 policemen had been deployed and the arrest of Asaram was from Indore (Madhya Pradesh). The way this written, it seems that there was only one ashram in the entire episode.-Shahab (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason that it is different is because the newspaper, annoyingly, updated the story today instead of writing a new one, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is:

On 20th August, a 16 year old girl filed a report in a New Delhi police station claiming that Asaram had sexually abused her in his Jodhpur ashram on 17 August. The Delhi police promptly transferred the case to the Rajasthan police which registered the complaint on 21 August. A summon for questioning was issued by the Rajasthan police on the 26 for Asaram and he was given four days time to reply to the summons and make himself available for questioning. When till 31th August Asaram had not responded to the summons, a team of Rajasthan police was dispatched to his Indore ashram in Madhya Pradesh where he was currently present. Around midnight of the same day, Asaram was arrested, and then on the morning of 1st September he was flown from Indore to Jodhpur via Delhi. He is currently in a Jodhpur police station where he is being questioned. The police have to produce him before a magistrate for seeking further custody within 24 hours.-Shahab (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

looks good, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should include the statement about the conspiracy. This is discussed in two of the sources and represents the subject's direct response to the allegation. Preferably his own words should be used as a direct quotation: I always believe in letting the subject of an article have his say. Supporters of Julian Assange know that nowadays conspiracy theories are a lot more believable than they used to be. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

perhaps this can now be moved to the article and further clarifications, such as with the conspiracy theory can be added? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, better something than nothing - I didn't mean to hold up having some text there (however, I didn't check the entire text above) Wnt (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While this version certainly does a great job of providing information, perhaps it is a little too detailed? It's a hard call considering that, for example, the Edward Snowden article has extensive coverage of the incident that resulted in a call for his arrest. This version does not mention the political implications, that I feel are important. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Added few questions in the first draft and made few minor changes in both the first and the second draft. Note, we write dates like 1 April 2013 and not 1st April 2013. --Tito☸Dutta 15:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• And the arrest should be included too. --Tito☸Dutta 15:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

-- I also wanted to inform editors that there is no rape case involved in this case. It was sexual assault and medical report confirmed that rape was not involved. Current edit is total wrong info and needs modification. More over some media houses still use this case on rape inspite of repeated confirmation from DCP Lamba. You can say that media is biased and section of media distorting/supressing facts. 1. On social media and Youtube Exposed by Jodhpur police( Statement by DCP on this case which no media published it. Balant misreporting/misquoting by media) 2. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/asaram-bapu-wrongly-booked-for-rape-by-delhi-police-says-jodhpur-police/1/300832.html·( Which clears the case) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.241.95 (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wanted inform you this following explanation needs modification. (my suggestions in bracket) Asaram (Bapu) has been involved in several(too much generalization) controversies including criminal cases filed against him, encroachment by his ashrams, his remarks on the 2012 Delhi gang rape, and a 2013 charge of rape(Sexual Assault) of a minor.

Kaarora (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)1. Can you please update the wiki with honest proofs .

The Girl herself accepted with conversation to her freind that nothing wrong has been done to her , his father is putting such pressure on her to put false allegations against Saint .

2. It's a complete conspiracy against the Saints , said Shri Subramaniyan Swamy in his tweets .

3. Here is complete coverage of False allegations going against Asaram Bapu ji..

Kaarora (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)I urge and request the Wiki team to update the wiki with honest & unbiased views .

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/erchnpw8raichvv/xD3IF0Iujv/Final%20suprachar%20with%20music%20%28VCD%29.mpg

Recent edit 2 September 2013

Kaarora (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Can you include the Article link

http://www.merinews.com/article/how-the-traditional-media-is-conspiring-against-asaram-bapu/15889880.shtml#globalbar

so that people shall now about reason of conspiracies against the Saint.

Offcourse this is a Trusted Resource .

The section's prose etc are being discussed above. It has not been proved subject has raped. "Other victims" — which victims? This is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper where every hour's details will be served. Plus, since the crimes have not been proved still, it should be carefully handled per WP:BLPCRIME --Tito☸Dutta 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that the subject has definitively raped the child. I replaced the euphemism "sexual assault" because it does not exist in the Indian Penal Code and he has been arrested under IPC 376 (rape). Regarding "other victims", please bother to read the article before you question "which victims".--Crème3.14159 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• It does not matter what exists in Indian Penal Code and what not. Wikipedia is a world Encyclpedia and not for Indian Penal Code readers only. Stop wrongly quoting Jimbo Wales. Wales' comments were on the talk, not article. I have reverted twice. I'll wait for sometime to see if someone else does anything. Or, go and self revert --Tito☸Dutta 00:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia maybe a "world Encyclpedia" (whatever that means) but partisan editors cannot censor out a universally-accepted term for a criminal offence in criminal jurisprudence and use a euphemism. Can you please explain what part of my edit needs to be removed and why? Everything I added was well-referenced. If you have not heard of the word "rape" previously, then please have a look at Laws regarding rape, Rape in English law and Rape in the United States.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Court has not given their verdict still. "Other victims" — who? Have you noticed the discussions in this talk page? Where were you when we were discussing things? The header was decided by other editors, discuss changes at talk page first. --Tito☸Dutta 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Courts have not given a verdict. So? How is it related to what we are discussing? The word "allegedly" has been repeatedly used. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to get at. Previously, you tried suppressing the rape allegation entirely. Now that Jimmy interfered to get it back, you have a problem with the word "rape" when this is the charge under which he has been arrested. Exactly what are you trying to say? Regarding "other victims", if you had bothered to read the citation, it was a young woman from Raipur.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed this stuff about the latest allegation. I've left the other section intact - it doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's okay as is.

Also, Crème3.14159, I don't know about the Indian press, but the Daily Mail is definitely not good enough for a WP:BLP. See: Tabloid_Terminator#Daily_Mail -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• ::::::* In addition, Jimbo commented on the talk page issue and not the article. If you don't understand go ask anywhere you want. And where you found me deleting the entire controversy section. Actually I was suggesting to add it. --Tito☸Dutta 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to ask anywhere. If a devotee has a problem with the article, he himself should clarify exactly what problem he has. Reverting without any specific answer to what troubled him is not enough. Everything added here is well-referenced.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Who mentioned devotees? You need to be very careful when inserting material about allegations against a living person. That means giving an usually high number of reliable sources and discussing the issue here, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest new editors familiarise themselves with WP:IMPARTIAL:

"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• The section is in much better condition than what I saw last time. The confusing comments "the girl bathes for two and a half hours, "other victims" are alleging etc are gone. IPC should be linked to Indian Penal Code for non-Indian readers. --Tito☸Dutta 17:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• IPC linking done. --Tito☸Dutta 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring about the "potency test"

I removed twice now reference to the potency test using an edit-summary: "removed "potency test" per BLP as too suggestive of wrongdoing and without context of expert analysis". Please do not reinstate this until consensus forms. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

According to reports, after he claimed that he was impotent and unable to have committed the act, he "was on Sunday subjected to a "potency test", which confirmed that the 72-year-old's libido is active. He was made to take the test after he told cops that he was impotent and therefore incapable of committing the crime he was charged with." It was called a "normal procedure". This information is significant and should be returned to the article. Wikipedia does not need special "expert analysis" reports on top of Indian police reports to include medical information in this article. If that were the case, we'd be arguing about whether or not a medical report on a rape victim was good enough without some sort of "expert analysis". Gandydancer (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I too agree with Dr. K. --Tito☸Dutta 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a false analogy. The victim results establish the fact that she was assaulted so there is no need for expert analysis to add them to the article. But the potency results imply that Bapu was capable of the assault. Per BLP he is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through proper analysis, including DNA, by medical and legal experts and proceedings in a court of law. Insinuating that he could have done it goes over that reasonable BLP barrier. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the BLP policy on expert analysis is but this is a key piece of information in establishing the very capacity to commit sexual assault. Bapu's defense was that he is impotent and hence incapable of rape (because he was charged of rape then). I don't see how this is insinuating criminality. There is an allegation on him, he countered it with a claim. There was a test to refute his claim. It needs to be reported as corroborative evidence because even the police is using this as medical evidence to establish criminality. Whether he actually molested/raped the girl is a larger concern of the case but that doesn't mean that all information pertaining to this "incident" should not be reported. Noopur28 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC) @Noopur28:, please sign with four tildes, and not three tildes (last edit) --Tito☸Dutta 09:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Noopur is correct. It has really concerned me that the editors of this article apparently believe that there is nothing wrong with reporting the condition of the alleged victim's hymen, which according to a few news articles was intact, suggesting that she could not have been raped. But editors refuse to report on the condition of the male's penis, which according to numerous reports is functioning quite well, as "too suggestive of wrongdoing and without context of expert analysis". With over 100 page watchers for this article, it strikes me as odd that a "medical exam", which may well have consisted of India's "two finger test", for the victim is good enough, but we need some sort of "proper analysis, including DNA, by medical and legal experts and proceedings in a court of law" above and beyond what India's news sources have provided to mention the physical condition of the male's penis. Gandydancer (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there are no further objections, I have added this information to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, IRWolfie-, Titodutta and I had not agreed to this. How is it this was added in the face of such opposition? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. I support Dr. K. See also, my rewriting request below. --Tito☸Dutta 00:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency. Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics. User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages. Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly the opposite, few editors are adding it before finishing the discussion. The draft we were preparing above was better. Note, I don;t support adding that girl's hymen condition too. --Tito☸Dutta 13:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Tito. Converting this BLP into an out of court "she said, he said" using medical records for both of them is not encyclopedic information. Only when this evidence is examined in a court of law and a decision rendered, this medical information should be mentioned if it becomes part of the court decision. Otherwise we are going to convert this article into a trial by encyclopedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is going to be a case for mindless consensus then I call for the hymen information to be removed. I am not asking for consensus anymore. After this edit, I will remove that information from this article because I believe it delves in unnecessary detail in the bigger picture and also implies false allegations on the part of the victim.Noopur28 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lovely, someone has already removed it. I will enter the potency test again. I am just awaiting the decision on bail. You can take it to arbitration if you want. If the girl's medical examination details are relevant, so are Bapu's. If Wikipedia BLP policy doesn't support that,then we need to change the policy and infuse some sense of consistency into it. Noopur28 (talk)

• Do not add it again. --Tito☸Dutta 15:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Both the girl's and Bapu's medical details have been removed. There is no consensus that they be added into the article again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with both of those steps. Its important that we don't implicitly cast aspersions in a complex legal case, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Allegation of assault

Asaram was accused of slapping a Tv cameraperson on April 26, 2012. Ref, Dainik Bhaskar, India's largest news paper group. ^{Not sure if it really is}.

Ajay Bir Singh counsel of the petitioner alleged that, Asaram slapped Sachin Kumar when he didn't follow the Bapu's instruction to film the crowd during a Samagam (meeting) in Ghaziabad district of U.P. The Kavi Nagar police of the district had registered an FIR under section 323 of IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) against Asaram on complaint registered by the Journalist. jagran blogTimes of India. -- AnupMehra ^✈ 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Anupmehra: Are you suggesting to include this in the article? In my opinion, yes we can add one or two line on it. But, we must be careful and should not add too much details on every day/hour's events. --Tito☸Dutta 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I want it to be added under controversy section. It is not one of the recent hour/days happenings but almost one and half year ago. The section deals with controversy related with subject of the article, then the related texts supported by RS should be added, and WP:NPOV, of course. I didn't wanted to indulge my self into some explanation mode after updating it directly to the relative place in the article. I read some of the threads on this talk page, how people are concerned to each and every word being added to article, thought it would be better if I place it on talk page first. AnupMehra ^✈ 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Anupmehra:, please suggest a short draft below. --Tito☸Dutta 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the shortest draft i made above. I would not insist to include all, however. You're free to resize the length or better if I suggest, Please read the references mentioned above and glean worthy notable words/lines to be summarized, to include in the article. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 18:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the source, "The police later filed a final report in the matter and did not proceed further with the case," so perhaps best to not include it. Gandydancer (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Gandydancer:, That is what counsel of the petitioner, A.B Singh claimed. Perhaps we should not take it for sure. We can present it in the article as an alleged claim. The news reported by Jagran is, The Chief Judicial Magistrate court on September 13, 2012 asked police to investigate the charges leveled on Asaram Bapu by a TV channel cameraman, who was allegedly slapped by the religious guru on September 2. AnupMehra ^✈ 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that editors that wish to see this incident covered more extensively set up a new article since this one simply must not become overwhelmed with details of the alleged sexual assault. But even then, I would tend to believe that the alleged slap would need to have resulted in a police charge. But it would at least deserve discussion in a separate article, in my opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

From mine point of view, The article deals with Asaram and all relative details to Asaram separated in various sections, such as early life, personal life, spiritual life and controversies. So the related texts with reliable source should be included in the respective section keeping own personal opinion apart but taking extensive care to different wiki guidelines, such as Wikipedia guideline for biography of living persons, Wikipedia recentism, Wikipedia neutral point of view, etc. And, I'm sorry but it doesn't seem appropriate to me, that the controversy section is over-winded and there should an another article related to Asaram, such as Controversies of Asaram be created. Things are not actually that much wide. It could be summed up well in the existing section of present article, reaching to a consensus what should actually be included and what should not, and most importantly 'why?' . AnupMehra ^✈ 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, do not create a "controversies" article - it's the last refuge of the incompetent. The reason why the "controversies" section is bloated is due to a lack of balance and comprehensive coverage. For example, the two sections about ashram encroachment are shoehorned into "controversies" because there's no "Ashrams" section listing even how many ashrams he has and where they are, much less why they got a certain amount of land from the government whose quantity later became the subject of dispute. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We already have Asaram Bapu Ashram where that material can be moved to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Using the term "rape"

It seems that there is a reluctance to use the term "rape" in this article and even on the talk page. In the article the term was recently changed to "sexual assault" with the edit summary of "use less evocative language." Please, let's be clear: The term "rape" is not resorting to evocative language. When a woman is raped, the proper term to use is rape, not sexual assault.

I am not suggesting any change in the wording in our article since the charge includes several forms of sexual assault, including rape. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Gandydancer: I don't have any problem here. Actually Dr. K replaced the word yesterday and other editors accepted it. Me too. On the other hand they are right that the term "sexual assault" is unclear in India/Indian Penal Code. The more important issue is it is an "allegation", it is not proven still. So, we must clarify it. A header like "2013 rape case of a minor girl" is unclear and non-neutral. (I can see someone has mentioned it in the header now, good work). Disclaimer: Since I have been continuously attacked of being either an Asaram Bapu follower or a strong Asaram Bapu critic, (though I can not be both at the same time), here is a disclaimer: "I am neither subject's follower nor critic). --Tito☸Dutta 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried an edit to address these points [2] but more reworking may be needed. The legal definition of rape and its common usage may well be Wikipedia's next angels on the head of a pin counting exercise! Wnt (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Titodutta, please read my post again--I did not suggest that "2013 rape case of a minor girl" is a correct heading. I said that I agree with the one we are using. I am also aware that we need to clearly express that "allegations" is important and have not implied otherwise.

@ Wnt, I can't see where WP will soon find a need to clarify what rape means as the present article seems sufficient. At any rate, this article is certainly not the place to do it, and we need only know that the Delhi police filed a charge of rape. I strongly suggest that you revert your addition of the girl's word-by-word description of what was done to her, as it is highly inappropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Gandydancer:, I did not say your told that. It was being discussed above (and which was a reason of today's dispute) --Tito☸Dutta 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• And if we should add the girl's quotes only if we add subject's or his spokesperson's quote too. See User:Titodutta/Asaram_Bapu#Suggested_writing_format. A quote of subject's son was added today, that subject's son has said, the girl is mentally unfit because she takes two and half hours to bathe, But, I felt that was not encyclopedic and has been removed now. --Tito☸Dutta 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Shoot, I'd meant to add a quote by the subject but got called away. He actually said that he was told it was a conspiracy by two politicians, rather than saying he knew it himself. I liked having the actual quote by the girl because it made it clear exactly what was alleged, and what sort of evidence might or might not be present. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, as Tito told us/me right off the bat, there's a lot more going on here than what meets the eye of the casual reader. We have had similar situations here in the US...think...football, Catholic priests...Deep South...Fox News...and so on. It's best to not get into a blow by blow account of this incident. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Refer to this article for definition. --64.118.81.157 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Editnotice

I am suggesting to add an edit notice, specially after this edit We were discussing above whether we should keep or delete this portion and one editor went ahead and deleted the portion. Yesterday too, when we where making a draft of the recent controversy, other editors started making changes in the article. Such edits are hampering the discussions here and causing/may cause unnecessary edit war. I can (but I'll not) revert the recent edit commenting, "see at the talk page, it is being discussed there". In the editnotice, we can ask to check discussions in the talk page first, get consensus etc. In addition, we can add those WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV suggestions too. --Tito☸Dutta 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you insist, here are my two cents on the "edit notice".

1. The article is more important than the discussions that a few of you are having. What we all want is to have a comprehensive article with NPOV.
2. The spirit of Wikipedia is that you don't need anyone's permission, prior knowledge or expertise to edit. Hence I infer, there is no reason why we all should work towards maintaining one version of the article and wait for you to finish your discussion.
3. To elaborate, the discussion you were having about the use of the word 'rape' is still relevant if the new version still uses it problematically. However, if it was only a matter of better wording and clarity, the discussion you were having on using/not using 'rape' is not needed any more because the new version addresses it just fine. I don't see why I (or anyone else) should have to wait for your consensus if my good faith is established through edits and editing history. This is to say, I will continue editing as more information comes in. You are welcome to modify as you please because that is how a wiki works. Noopur28 (talk) ((Undated| 19:56, 2 September 2013‎}}

I don't know what to say here. The point 3 should be moved in the section above. Point 2 is irrelevant (we all know these things, and we are discussing to improve the article, discussion is optional and it is encourages to discuss first when you see an edit you are going to make is already being discussed at talk). Point 1 has been discussed with much more details already, see summarized version at User:Titodutta/Asaram Bapu. And an editnotice is a long-time need here which should cover all the issues including WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Note This section is on the edit notice, So, let's try to discuss on that. --Tito☸Dutta

I pretty much agree with Noopur. Things seem to be going along pretty well, all things considered. :-) BTW, I was glad to see Noopur just go ahead and delete that block of text and I think that was a fine way to handle it as well. If the truth be known, I later felt that I should have deleted it myself, and then discussed it since I felt pretty strongly about it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• They misunderstood (or it was a misunderstanding). It was a general suggestion to discuss at talk. --Tito☸Dutta 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  And note the other issues mentioned in the post.Things are going fine now. But, disruptions start again, editnotice might be helpful. --Tito☸Dutta 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion is optional but not negligible. I do not see a reason, why people prefer to make a change and wait someone to revert it, and getting involved into the 'discussion' about that particular thing seems irrelevant to him/her. AnupMehra ^✈ 05:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RECENT & WP:NPOV should be kept in mind. AnupMehra ^✈ 08:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Biographical information - Early Life

There is not a lot in the article about what he did before making it big in the spiritual business. We must add references related to his early life. One news article states that he was a tongawallah in Ajmer who stood out with his cushioned tonga. --CopSuscept (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a sock of Crème3.14159 (talk · contribs). --SMS ^Talk 04:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Section rewriting requited

I tried to avoid the sectionAsaram_Bapu#Allegations_of_sexual_assault, but while studying the comments of User:Gandydancer above, I felt the whole section needs to be rewritten. Note the following issues—

1. Jodhpur police: According to Jodhpur police, Asaram should have been booked under molestation rather than rape since the girl's hymen was intact and her version of the incident did not recount any penetration — a) it was fine when it was written, but not now. Now we must mention the time Jodhour Police told it, b) it seems to was the report after Jodhpur Police's initial investigation, and if it is so, it should be mentioned.
2. Missing point: However, when Asaram did not appear for interrogation by August 31, Delhi police booked him under Indian Penal Code sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) — link missing. The article does not mention subject was asked to appear for interrogation.
3. Confusing information: if Jodhpur police's initial report was "Asaram should have been booked under molestation" then why Delhi Police suddenly booked him under Indian Penal Code 376 (rape)? Details required.
4. There are more issue, all over, I felt, I was reading (badly written) newspaper article and not an encyclopedic entry. --Tito☸Dutta 12:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no need to rewrite this section. Re #1) Yes, that does appear to be the case and that's why I moved that information from below the Delhi info to above it. If you can find the exact date, please include it. Re #2) Someone removed the ref and I replaced it and added (another) ref to state that he did not appear as required by police officials. Re #3) If you can find more details, please add them--I have been unable to find any more details in any news outlets. Re #4) You may feel that way, but it is not a good reason to rewrite this article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aquitted by supreme court in november 2012

Asaram Bapuji was aquitted from the case of death of two children in the gurukul in motela/motera. reference supreme court judgement dt 9-11-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.103.122 (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Consistent use of surname per MOS

Hi, I notice that the article uses Asaram and Bapu interchangably and sometimes uses Asaram Bapu to refer to the subject of the article. MOS:NAMES#subsequent use guides us to use the subjects full name the first time it is mentioned and then use the surname, with exceptions. It seems to me, based on that, that we should consistently use Bapu. I've made that adjustment. If it should be Asaram instead, please let me know. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bapu is a given name not actually a surname of Asaram. WP:GIVENNAME is confusing and needs expansion. AnupMehra ^✈ 08:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the change because the Indian news reports use the name Asaram and I assume that to be correct. Gandydancer (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but needs to be consistent one way or the other. I'll restore my copyedits and change all of the references to Asaram. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep full name of a person which is used in Media and other places. His name is Asaram Bapu and he is public figure as well. Please show some respect as well when taking his name. Irrespective of his last name is given or assumed, it should be used as Asharam Bapu. Please use full name where ever article mentions his name.

Edit request on 14 September 2013

This information is wrongfully written and is incomplete which deteriorates the image of the person mentioned , it is against the dignity of an individual, please delete this page as it is totally wrong. the cases mentioned here are declared by Supreme Court of India as false and that is not mentioned here, All the informations are wrong and rubbish, please delete this page.

180.215.148.164 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.. Also the place to request deletions is at WP:AFD. RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Public in Satsangs

Please add - People in thousands visit His satsang conducted across India and take diksha. One reference is http://www.ashram.org/Press/PressView/tabid/912/ArticleId/3503/-MADHYA-PRADESH-SATSANG-MEDIA-COVERAGE.aspx This is news paper cutting, dont treat it as self-website reference. There are many news paper cuttings added at same section of website for references if anybody want those. Naveentirthani (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)