Talk:Asaram

Recent controversies

off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Asaram Bapu is really a great saint. Thousand of people including me have benefited a lot from him. But the media thought that defaming such a saint can raise up their TRP and bring them huge profit. They have started showing irrelevant news about him which we all know is just a piece of fiction and not at all true. My request to all is to not consider these allegations and use your mind. Why millions of people are still attached to him? because they have experienced the divine power of Asaram Bapuji. He is a true saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.127.16 (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia don't work on beliefs. Following has nothing to do with controversy, e.g. Osho, However - Please address your concern correctly and rewrite this section to address problem correctly. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Benefited how? Are you sure he helped you, or is it just that you can't face the alternative--that you're just another sucker financing a wealthy con-artist? Much like the celebrity religionists that plague the United States, self-proclaimed gurus have enjoyed a long and parasitic relationship with India's underclasses--exploiting rural peasants, the mentally infirm, and the elderly. They are despicable hucksters who take advantage of the people who can least afford such exploitation--and they avoid censure by selecting unsophisticated victims who can be made to believe they've actually been helped. Their victims could truly benefit from some guidance transitioning out of their medieval beliefs, but these gurus simply pander to their clientele, reinforcing their repellent views--witness Bapu-Ji's recent pronouncement that the Delhi gang-rape victim was as much at fault as the five in custody: “ Only 5-6 people are not the culprits. The victim daughter is as guilty as her rapists... She should have called the culprits brothers and begged before them to stop... This could have saved her dignity and life. Can one hand clap? I don't think so ” The Delhi police have been worse-than-incompetent--and often intransigent--but the gurus actually encourage the sub-human criminality. --Patronanejo (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reduction

The article was originally written with a lot of unreferenced biographical information. There were lots of claims presented as facts. I've gone ahead and reduced the article to a stub. In my opinion, new material should be clearly referenced, with no unverifiable claims and neutral in tone.TheRingess (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

proposed merge

Sant Shri Asaramji Bapu is a recently created article that I think should be merged into here.

SPat ^talk 13:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree.. --Rohit (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rohit, your edit was in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Nosedown (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This apge should replace the page that is currently shown on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.229.5 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Information

All information in this article must adhere to the policy on articles about living persons. I would strongly encourage anyone who wants to improve this article to cite sources in support of any information added. I've reverted the changes by User:Fragin2010 as they simply re-introduced unreferenced information into the article. Please discuss here before re-adding the information. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information in Foundation Section

Following information seems unnecessary and should be deleted/rewritten!

Live webcast of Spiritual Discourse is facilitated for more than 5 crore followers (sadhaks) living worldwide through the Ashram website. The more information about ashram is available at here:- More Info About Ashram - Ashram.org [3]

Refer notes are not from trusted resources. Here direct link is provided and also unclaimed 5 Crore followers are listed! Please provide necessary reference and rewrite it as per wiki standards Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

self-proclaimed...?

i would request mr/ms author to pls go thru' the dictionary to find out meaning of the term "self-proclaimed", he has over 5 crore followers, for whom he is the spiritual guru. so pls remove this word(from introduction column). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.197.51 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC) And also if you can write about comments in the gang rape case, you can also write about the ashrams and bal sanskar kendras.Ankush98 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2013

Dear Sir,

Request you to allow me to edit this page as i will want to add the biography and foundations in this page, which was available in previous versions done by user naveentirthani. The current page does not show the biography and foundations in it. For some season someone has cut short and only given controversies in the article. Since i am a well wisher of Asaram Bapu and could like to add and highlight various things related to Asaram Bapu.

Please give me the required permission to edit this page.

Thanks & Regards Anand Anandraheja (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You can edit this and other semiprotected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed. That normally happens after your account is at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Current issues in the article

• Neutrality of the article is completely disputed.
• There are many WP:SPS and non reliable sources.
• There are too many formatting errors and external links in article body!

Please discuss first before adding these content! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Naveentirthani/IPs, please don't keep adding the same content again and again! Discuss here first! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Titodutta - please let me know , why cant we keep old revisions data which prevailed for long time. Same content was already in in older revisions, I am just restoring those.Naveentirthani (talk)

Yes, you are badly copy pasting! Please read WP:COPYWITHIN. And it was in old version- it does not mean sense, the portion is completely unencyclopedic and many isues. Please don't add those content before finishing the discussion here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ankush98

The article is not neutral at all! The controversies have been highlighted too much! Ankush98 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This was for those edits by another editor. And about your edits, both the citations are wrongly formatted (though I must agree both citations are reliable).. and "Asaram Bapu escaped miraculously by the grace of god.." etc this is not encyclopaedic tone. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I made an attempt at rephrasing it. The incident seems barely noteworthy, and the sources seem acceptable. We must follow the policy of using a neutral point of view, so I agree that saying it was a miracle is not appropriate in this case. If sources, (reliable sources I must add) describe is as a miracle, we can say that it was describes as a miracle, but we can't say that ourselves.Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we need an h2 paragraph to describe this incidence? --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point, probably not.Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require stronger souring; claims of miracles require the strongest sourcing of all. bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"objectionable positions with women"

I have reverted this edit because Source6 mentions this! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ankush98, you need to come here and explain yourself. Why have you now twice (at least) removed that line with the claim that it wasn't covered in the source, when very obviously it was? (The relevant bit in the source is right there next to the one that supports the preceding clause in our article, and which you left untouched, so you will have a hard time explaining to us why you didn't see it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The line was mentioned in only one source.And it was written by an editor, who could be biased in his opinions .So I request you to remove the line.It is very easy to malign a person.Ankush98 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not what you were saying earlier. You didn't say the line was unreliable (that might have been worth discussing); you said it wasn't there. Twice. That was not true. You must have known it was not true. Why did you state things that weren't true? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And please don't edit other editors' posts! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) word added, shown in green --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by "don't other editors' posts"?Ankush98 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• This– you deleted comments of other editors and this (you changed the subject line without asking or informing me) --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Titodutta: I notice you added this [1] source as an additional reference to the passage in question. I'd be a bit reluctant about that one: it was published only on 9 January, well after the claim was in our article here, and the whole piece on OneIndiaNews looks suspiciously like a paraphrase of our Wikipedia article. Could be a case of "citogenesis" [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Might be! After subject's comment on 2012 Delhi gang rape case both he and his comment have been discussed in many newspapers/sites. Oneindia.in is generally considered as an RS. But, the point you have mentioned surely has some weight. I found another, but felt OneIndia was better! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No i am sorry I had opened another link and did not find the given line in it.But please hear my point.Ankush98 (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}

Please change the text in Biography Section to the one given below

Overlong article copy snipped. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Deep345 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Involved editor's comment Heading fmt changed, please change heading from h3 to h2 and h4 to h2 if someone adds it in the article. Also, this edit has been reported in SPI. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not done. Overlong request, didn't make it clear what the changes to the current version would have been, but those parts where I could spot differences on a brief scan were obviously tendentious. Deep345, please review our principles of WP:NPOV and stop the tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Migration from Sindh in Pakistan to Ahmedabad in India

Currently He is in India, and reference when he came to India is at page 2 [[ http://books.google.com/books?id=EleWwbvfGfQC&pg=PT3 Jivan Jhanki]] if this is not valid - From where we would get this reference then? --Naveentirthani (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Self Realization

On 2nd Day of Ashwin month in Samvat 2021 at 2:30 PM in the afternoon by the blessings of Swami Sri Lilashahji Maharaj He attained Self Realization on October 7, 1964, Asumal was transformed into Asaram Bapu . After this Asaram Bapu went into samadhi for next two and a half days. [[ http://books.google.com/books?id=EleWwbvfGfQC&pg=PT3]].

What other references can be given here? -- Naveentirthani (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That book is published by Asaram Bapu's Ashram, is it not? That is not a reliable, secondary source. If you can't find a much better source, then I don't think this belongs in the article. In addition, although not an outright disqualifier, WP:NONENG also applies here.Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

[[3]] will this do - as a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveentirthani (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that is a blog. The author is anonymous, but I couldn't find any information about the site -who is hosting it, or what their policies are. There is no way to know who wrote this. There is no way to know if any fact-checking was done at all.Grayfell (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• This user is seriously annoying! Yesterday he asked me all these questions in details and again today he has started edit warring today! He is asking the same questions again and again and/or to every editor individually. Either he is not understanding anything or he's playing a game. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Statements on 2012 Delhi gang rape victim

Some of the information on first paragraph has been repeated in the second one. I request the contributors to merge the two...Koteshwor (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Admins - dont you have any answer on this? You are removing all required things,and keeping only controversies, this is not at all fair. - this page should have biography section but you people have filled this up by your controversies. please answer.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveentirthani (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC) 

Remove this Page

First of all who is the real administrator or editor of this page?!! If you are unable to put-up whole biography of a saint properly.. kindly remove this page from so called prestigious Wikipedia. You are Just highlighting controversies which in fact are dubious one. Pandeyadityasn (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)pandeyadityasn 4/03/13 7.20pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandeyadityasn (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, please take it to WP:AFD. Mdann52 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Diksha, and Crowd

I had given 2 links on diksha and crowd which usually gather at his Satsangs. How many links you want for this. what language should i use, If my language is wrong then correct it and keep it, why are you removing it entirely. Here the references http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-05-08/patna/27833997_1_asaram-bapu-diksha-disciples http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-12-02/ahmedabad/27250212_1_asaram-bapu-students-throng-sant http://www.bhaskar.com/article/MP-OTH-58684-3955012.html http://www.bhaskar.com/article/RAJ-OTH-1447153-3466899.html?PRVNX= Naveentirthani (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• These articles mention about single events. A West Bengal woman politician's public speeches gather huge crowds, but her 2-3 speeches in some villages were not attended by so many people, it was reported in newspaper. So, from one or two events it can't be concluded that Asaram Bapu's Diksha festivals are always populous. It can be written like- "In MONTH, YEAR, the diksha festival at PLACE was attended by N people" or there should be some clear mention in reliable sources that his diksha festivals are generally crowded. Also, don't push PoV using phrases like " His extraordinary spirituality" or capital "H" in "his"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • His Satsangs are ever crowded, I have already given you 4 links, how many more links you want. His Satsang Schedule is also given at www.ashram.org - You yourself can check - normally in a year around Satsangs are held are yearly around 150-200 places or even more than that. If I am pushing PoV phrases, then you can also correct it, but you should not remove it entirely. To watch how many devotees come to His Satsang please visit official youtube channel - http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMamNBjyzIR-824ZjntAXmg -- Naveentirthani (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re-read the comment above! Both the ToI articles are covering single event. You have told His Satsangs are ever crowded - which source mentions it? You can use their website as source! And writing style was an issue too!--Tito Dutta (contact) 20:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Revisit the links, 1 TOI link is a news of Ahmedabad, another is of Patna. and other 2 are of Bhaskar. And I have already said, if there was issue in my style , then correct it, why are you removing, please give answer. - simply saying your style has issue - is not the answer why you entirely removed it. Naveentirthani (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Single event" does not mean "only event", that means, they are not writing on all events, but a particular event (two newspaper may have two events). Back to the points mentioned above. I previously noted too, you keep on irritating asking the same question again and again and sometimes (in the last discussion) to multiple users. Either you are deliberately trying to puzzle the discussion (if so, be aware, you'll go nowhere) or you are failing to get the points (in that case, you can try WP:Adopt etc to find a mentor to gain WikiExperience). Actually it was written in the edit summary too, in clear words 1) incorrectly interpreting information 2) PoV pushing [END] --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) None of the the sources cited support sentence "... a large crowd is gathered due to His extraordinary spirituality". This edit is original research and words like "extraordinary" are peacock terms. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So lets ask my sentence here only -- can i write - "His spiritual discourses are scheduled in many cities and devotees also take diksha from him in those satsang programs." what more sources and content in that is required to cite this. Please help. Yes I am novice not an expert to edit wiki pages, please help.Naveentirthani (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds better! Minor changes:

His spiritual discourses have been scheduled in different Indian cities like Ahmedabad, Patna and devotees also took diksha from him in these satsang programs.

If any other newspaper mentions any oher city's event, that can be added after cities like. --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) again!! That seems reasonable provided you explain or wikilink satsang and diksha. You can also mention that 20,000 students visited his satsang in Ahmedabad because it is supported by one of your references. However, concluding that all his satsangs are ever crowded etc. is inappropriate. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I have added these now.Naveentirthani (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't add text after cite web/news as here, citation template's "title" parameter does the work. There is EngVar issues in the article. Is it following EngBritish? --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Again you have added a non RS which tells almost nothing! --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

will try to correct it soon . thanks for pointing. Naveentirthani (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit of wikipedia policy

the line I have removed has only one source. It is the policy of wikipedia that things are added only after proper verification. when ashram.org can not be considered as a source,why can these sold media websites be considered as a source.Moreover only you told me that the language of the media cannot be directly used.Now can anyone answer me?? Kanuraj123 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with the sourcing. The line is supported by a WP:SECONDARY news source. This article is simple saying that it has been reported by a valid source. The sentence is short and is not a direct paraphrase, so it is not a copyright issue if that's what you mean. The incident is very well documented in many news sources. As for Ashram.org, it is a WP:PRIMARY source. It can be used, but only with extreme caution in limited circumstances. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is everything about asaram bapu unencyclopedic and all controversies encyclopedic material?? Kanuraj123 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources they can be added. If you would like to add a brief overview, written in neutral language, of his views and teachings, that can be added. Your addition was not neutral, and the source was just a mirror of an article on Ashram.org. Find a source that describes what he teaches from a neutral point of view. I agree, the article needs more information about this, but without sources, it doesn't belong here. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring! The ToI article uses ashram.org as source, so it is not independent news! In addition, the article has no context and the info is being forced suddenly in a promotional tone! Another important point, this edit had too many formatting errors! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is promotional in it?And if times of india uses it,the article must be true.what problem do you have from it?why do you want only controversies on the page? Are you not an Indian?Do we not respect Shri Asaram Bapuji?Kanuraj123 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I remind you to be civil, and confine your discussion to edits, not editors. Your edit misrepresents a single opinion piece republished without further commentary as being a factual account of Asaram Bapu's behavior. One single opinion piece doesn't indicate what he "often invokes" and as a piece written by him it fails to establish that this perspective is at all notable or significant. Including this statement is giving undue weight to one single article, and that is indeed promotional. If you can't find WP:SECONDARY sources, which means sources not written by Asaram Bapu or as press-releases from Ashram.org, then you almost certainly shouldn't be including it in this article. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"One single opinion piece doesn't indicate what he "often invokes" and as a piece written by him",this is what you say. I also say the same thing about source 6,and so I remove It again and again.Kanuraj123 (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SECONDARY? If you actually intend to contribute to this article in a meaningful way then familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Once again: A source stating in neutral language what someone else has said is fine. An essay by the subject of an article is primary, which is much less desirable as a source. It also says nothing at all about what he often invokes. All it indicates is that he has talked about it once. That doesn't establish anything about his positions, or his general opinions, or his over-all teachings. If you can write a statement in a neutral point of view about his teachings with sources that support the statement, I would be very pleased to see it incorporated into this article. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The source says what was mentioned by raju chandak.He could even tell a lie!Why are you not understanding this?Please let me remove this,It will not do wikipedia any harm.