Jump to content

Talk:Asaram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.53.241.95 (talk) at 05:31, 2 September 2013 (→Suggested text about alleged assault). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Edit request on 16 August 2013

why the good things have been removed about pujya bapuji from here. there are lot of human being got benifited from pujya bapuji. what about that . i think wiki also got a big amount to remove good things about bapuji. 111.93.130.33 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improper edit request; follow the instructions or don't use the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sections

I just removed three sections: Attempted murder, Deaths of students, and Charged with sexual assault. The first and third sections were removed per WP:BLPCRIME. Unless there is evidence of convictions, they do not belong in this article. The second section is WP:COATRACK to the extent it obliquely accuses Asaram Bapu of being involved in the deaths. It doesn't even mention him in the section. That cannot remain, either. Please be aware that this is a WP:BLP, and once I have removed such contentious material, it cannot be restored absent a clear consensus that BLP is not violated. See WP:BLPREMOVE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I edited this article just 12 hours ago, and today morning when I saw the article I failed to recognize the article (see diff). Bbb23 removed two sections (diff), someone re added those in a worse way (diff). This article is so controversial that removal or addition without discussion will not take anywhere.
  2. By writing this, I am not supporting those editors, who are trying to push PoV in the article or blanking the "controversy" section.
    So far, seeing my editing trend (specially the reverts, reports and talk page comments), one may feel, I have been an anti-Asaram Bapu editor. But, in fact, I am neither supporting nor opposing him or his organization. I am just trying to follow Wikipedia rules and policies. But, seeing this version where the article starts "Asaram Bapu is a highly controversial..." etc, I have started feeling, in Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, the article is defaming Asaram Bapu and trying to pull him down. I am not an expert of this subject (Asaram Bapu is not very popular in Kolkata, where I live), but few Google search shows Asaram Bapu and his organization's activities, Satsang, social works, initiatives etc. Even if we apply common sense, we'll understand the person has obviously done/doing something for which he is still considered as a saint even after so many accusations. But, we mention nothing about these (his social works, activities etc) and just write scandals and controversies with every possible details. This might be an unintended attempt to defame the person (few people have already reported, see this for example).
  3. If we observe the media reports on Asaram Bapu, they are divided into two parts— one part is directly against Bapu, and the other part is trying to defend Bapu. The second group of media have reported about political conspiracies etc. There are few political reasons too following India's current political condition, you need to know about UPA, NDA etc, but, I don't want to go into details. BUT, I won't be surprised if it is found that this article is being controlled by first group of editors (i.e. who are strictly against Asaram Bapu and trying to defame him). Tito☸Dutta 07:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, this is the first time I'm seeing an article on a Indian spiritual leader having just one small section on him and the remaining 75% going to criticism, it's usually the other way round. In either case, I feel the sub-topics of the criticism section can be reduced and reworded as they seem very biased. I'm surprised that there has been no one interested in contributing to the rest of the article about him, his legacy and teachings etc so far, I'm sure the users who kept removing the criticism section would be interested. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have locked the article for five days and have restored the version without the three sections per WP:BLP. Because of my involvement, albeit minimal, I will take this to WP:AN for other administrators to review.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been allegations of (Redacted) controversies. Most of it is sub-judicial; the Indian judiciary sadly takes years to get a verdict so most of them are not proven or not unproven, but alleged. WP:BLPCRIME does not ban removal of accusations and allegations. Though Manning was not convicted, her article was talking about the accusations. For a spiritual leader who is famous due to controversy, the article's controversy section will be longer; but the coverage of his life is too less and should be expanded. Restore the 2 removed sections about criminal allegations. When Asaram Bapu is declared innocent, state that in the article. Include info about the guru's life and charitable activities of his ashrams. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why references to reliable news channel reports and news papers were redacted? These are NOT my opinions. These are facts. There are ongoing cases about these scandals and controversies. If references are repeatedly removed, then how can there be a discussion here. According to your understanding of WP:BLPCRIME, it seems all allegations on A. Raja as well as Julian Assange should be removed, right? They are similar sexual allegations and corruption charges, which are not proven in a court of law. Though I want to AGF, your actions as WP:INVOLVED are questionable and seem to advocate WP:CENSORED. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't unredact that again, or you risk being blocked. If you can't find a way to discuss the BLP issues here without repeating the allegations for which the article was locked, then don't discuss them at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Bbb23.27s_actions_on_Asaram_Bapu. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

≈Wikipedia team should take this seriously , the page is completely biased with very minimal data about Asaram Bapu. The page only taljs about the controversies and not the part where supreme court of india found them baseless. Pls update this page with correct data from the following link http://www.ashram.org/PujyaBapuji/AboutBapuji.aspx .This is official website of Asaram Bapuji and it has authentic data about him. hoping some positive action will be taken regarding this.Saurabh shar (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh can you please edit the article and add info about Asaram Bapu, possibly a neutral third-party reference rather an official site. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about competency are personal always. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread WP:NPA. There is no justification for any personal comments. Please comment on the actions of an editor not on the editor himself. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how does one sugarcoat the fact that a person is duh! in some subjects without saying that he is duh!? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, Bbb23's reaction is fully compliant with BLP. That the subject is Indian is irrelevant. BLP applies to all subjects be they Chinese, Indian, Eastern European, African etc. Therefore your criticism about the alleged incompetence of Bbb23 on Indian matters is unwarranted. Also misplaced sarcasm like: Aaah! Classic Bbb23! has no place on Wikipedia. Second, if you have doubts about the admin's actions say why you think they are wrong. Just calling someone incompetent without giving any evidence of the alleged incompetence is both unfair and wrong. Please state the exact edits of Bbb23 which caused you to question his actions as an admin and supply diffs to support your statements. Comments without supporting evidence in the form of diffs are unhelpful and in any case they should never become personal or sarcastic. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sample 1, sample 2. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These diffs do not pertain to the current dispute and he was not acting as an admin at that time. In the present dispute Bbb23 has justifiably acted to protect the subject of this BLP article. From the noticeboard discussion I have seen Bbb23 talking to Tito and doing his best to improve this article. I think he should be commented for his actions. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comment which you found as attack was about general India related articles and not specific with this article. And the samples hence back that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, an allegation has been brought at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Asaram_Bapu_and_WP:BLP they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest. This is the most funny allegation I have ever been charged with. I don't know who are the other editors they mentioned. Most probably Redtigerxyz (and Dharmadhaksya?), I mean, the editors participating here. You might want to see the discussion. --Tito☸Dutta 09:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Court verdicts and Ashram details missing

The page is missing lots of relevant details about Asaram Bapu and can not be regarded complete. The life history is very brief and the page has only covered the controversies but not the court verdicts on them which is very important and should be shown here. Asaram Bapu has 111 ashrams all over the world.No details is given about them and their activities. Update the page with these details , all the details are present at the link http://www.ashram.org/ which is a official website of Asaram Bapu. Saurabh shar (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

±True there might be other separate pages available but tell me how would any one know about them if they are not mentioned in the main page which is this one Asaram Bapu. Content could be presented in the way which covers all the things and pages about Asaram Bapu which i think is what wikipedia page should be like. Saurabh shar (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards please remove, Shashank Tulsyan

The controversies have been highlighted in non-neutral fashion and are not showing the two sides. For example Asharam Babu's comment was interpreted by media as if he said that the (rape) victim was equally responsible as the rapists.

Refer ( video translation not availble ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWHg0drKSk

Whereas, in this video, Asaram Babu himself clarifies that he didn't never said that, what he said was that since the (victim) girl was the only bread earner in the family, the parent of the girl may come to Asaram Babu's Asharam if they like and he would support them by the donations that he recieves. He later said that "Taali ek haath sey nahin bajti" direct translation would mean "It is not possible to clap with one hand" literal meaning of which is, "It takes two people for a quarrel" OR "Mistake is not of one individual" ... this he said later in reference to dowry laws, which was manipulated by paid media and presented as if he said it implying tha the girl was as guilty and the rapists.

Now since wikipedia has blocked this article, I suggest that this article be deleted instead.

This article doesn't meet wikipedia standards.


Tito☸Dutta please respond. User:Bbb23 as you told me in your page that I should discuss this article in the talk page, I am sorry, I wasn't getting a response because of which I posted in your page. Please fix this article



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashaanktulsyan (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

± 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)[reply]

≈ 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)[reply]

Edit request on 27 August 2013

"One Supreme Conscious" should be "One Supreme Consciousness" in English.

also "Gnana yoga" should be "Jnana yoga" which is the usual English rendering. Clocke (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a strange response, but it's a strange article. The lead has no sources. Nor does the lead appear to cover anything that is in the body. Although sources are not needed in a lead if the material is covered in the body and sourced, here you have the material in only one place. So, if you can provide reliable sources for the material in the lead, I would reconsider. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the Wikipedia article Jnana yoga and its spelling. Jnana Yoga is the common English rendering — true. "One Supreme consciousness" sounds better but few newspapers have used "One Supreme conscious". Search in Google with "One Supreme conscious Asaram Bapu" to see sources. --Tito☸Dutta 12:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[IMPORTANT] Suggestion of WP:TNT

After this long discussion and few discussions above, I am suggesting Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. I have already done TNT works in Indian articles, see my restarted articles: Pritilata Waddedar, Jatindra Mohan Sengupta etc. It is better to have a neutral, understandable, properly sourced article than a biased, disputed one. I may start my work at Talk:Asaram Bapu/Temp and anyone may review it when I'll finish the draft. BUT, I don't give any guarantee of the article when it'll be moved to mainspace, editors may/will start making non-constructive edits once again. --Tito☸Dutta 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not improve the existing article by balancing it out? –Ruzbehraja (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article

Current page is biased does not represent full view of person who has millions of followers all over the world. It is highlighting controversies more than social services done by ashram. It is humble request to remove this article as it is at this stage irreparable. This is completely against wikipedia policy of keeping tone neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbajaj (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a person has millions of followers, does not make the person exempt from criticism. Almost all the people who have suggested that this article is biased, have not given a reasonable explanation. If there is a long list of social work done, then why don't people add those there? How is this article irreparable? If it highlights negative things, then to balance it, positive aspects maybe added rather than trying to hide controversial facts.

--Ruzbehraja (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure in order to improve this page and this page is protected for last one year. When you will remove the protection or give access to people to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbajaj (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disruptions 29 August 2013

User:Bbb23 what have you done here? Why did you unprotect the article suddenly? That too at 5:45 am Indian time, when Indian editors were sleeping. The protection was set to expire in 2014, so, I/we were not prepared this sudden uninformed protection. Yes, surely a one year long protection needs be broken at some point, but you could inform us before, so that we could be cautious. I can see 3 reverts and many other constructive/non-constructive edits. The sections you removed are more or less back. BLP and other issues are back again. I'll not make any change at this moment, else, someone else (not you) again start shouting at me without understanding thing. --Tito☸Dutta 10:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't unprotect the article. It expired. Before I locked the article, there was semi-protection on the article both for edits and for moves until 2014. The move protection has never been altered, but I know of no way for the full protection to revert back to semi-protection without manual intervention by an admin. In any event, the BLP violations committed after the lock expired were made by non-auto-confirmed users AND auto-confirmed users, so semi-protection would not have prevented the addition of the material. I have reinstated a full lock on the article, this time for 10 days. I would prefer not to have to do that so editors can work on improving the article, but the disruption was almost immediate. I only noticed it because I'm up in the middle of my night; otherwise, I wouldn't have seen it for quite some time.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I somehow confused between semi-protection and full protection expiration dates, apologies. Yes, there are many accounts, there might be sock accounts too (most probably I reported once, and now don't care to check because of the large number of accounts involved here, I see new accounts everyday when the article is unprotected). The editors who joined here after my requests have left most probably. I don't know what to do. --Tito☸Dutta 10:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to work on improving the article while it's locked, you could do so in your own user space (just avoid the BLP problems) as you mentioned earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just above, Tito suggested rewriting the article at Talk:Asaram Bapu/Temp. I don't know if that is the best title (perhaps Asaram Bapu/sandbox instead?), and that is still possible. However, BLP violations are not permitted anywhere, whether in sandbox or user subpages, so inappropriate editing would have to dealt with. I suppose the risk of that is less in a user subpage. Johnuniq (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just let you guys know that I did some thing in page and every thing was open for editing. I have not edited any thing as I want to improve this page with the cooperation from editors and work within the system. We also want his controversies should be given same breadth as his social services and assure you that there won't be any editor warriors with this page. It is my humble opinion that please allow me to update this page and I will not do any thing to damage article which will remove the neutrality of the article. I am also new to wikipedia and need some learning curve to get to the Wikipedia standards. Please give me access to the article to edit.Narbajaj (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC) -- Narbajaj[reply]

At this point no one is going to edit the article except for administrators and then only if there is consensus here on the talk page for the changes. The way to get the article changed is to make a suggestion here on the talk page and discuss it with other interested editors. GB fan 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 August 2013

Please delete this page from Wikipedia as this is completely biased does not represent true picture of person or biography. It is againt wikipedia policy which is neutral, unbiased and both the side of coin. At this stage his controversies were more highlighted than his social works and huge following. I have seen any statement in wikipedia needs to be supported by media or third party link. Some time, paid media also comes into picture so it does not show clear picture of who is based on just media only. Wikipedia should also give equal importance to visual, social media and public opinion. This page is beyond repair and needs to be removed from wikipedia. Narbajaj (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests are to be made through WP:AFD. However, you can always rewrite the article to achieve whatever you wish to and deletion is not the only option. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide me on how to improve this article and whom should I work with in order to get access to improve this article. I wanted to assure you that at any point if article neuratlity lost, we can talk on it. There won't be any editorial war on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbajaj (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Start a new section here on the this talk page. I would start out small, pick a paragraph that you think is wrong. Explain in detail what is wrong about the paragraph and how it should be fixed. Or if you think a new paragraph should be added, write a draft in a new section. Be sure to include reliable sources with your proposal. Then see what others interested in the article have to say about your proposal. GB fan 18:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though media spelled his name as Asaram Bapu but his Asharam Bapu so is it not possible to start new page with Asharam Bapu with correct spelling. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbajaj (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have read through previous discussion and got sense that Administrator of this page could be biased and prejudice. I have read many other wikipedia where each and every line does not have citation. In this age of social media with rampant Indian Paid media, relying on media links could be misleading. I don't want to get into discussion mode here but would like to bring my observation that either we can delete the page which will satisfy the biased Administrator motive and ask wikipedia to assign new administrator for this page. I could be completely wrong in my judgement but went back to all discussion and based on giving neutral feedback. I might be little bit biased as I am a follower of Bapuji but I am disclosing it before hand. I am willing to take your views as well. Narbajaj (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to keep reactivating the edit protected template above. That is only if you have a specific edit you think should be made to the article. Next, please do not comment on editors, comment on the article's content. Unless you can provide specific examples of bias it is a personal attack to call someone biased. No one assigns any administrators to articles., we all work where we want to, when we want to. Please get into discussion mode here, that is the only way your concerns can be addressed. GB fan 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not pointing any individual here. Based on decision making process where asking each and every line needs citation is some thing is impossible to get it. This article can't be completed if administrators have any prejudice against him. Otherwise, one year ban with highlighting only controversies more in this page needs to be discussed. I want to understand Administrators expectation before we start contributing on this page. Narbajaj (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"After this long discussion" para, I want to know what was the outcome of the discussion as I could not comprehend whether discussion got any outcome. Please help me here and want to get full understanding of the underlying issue before we find the solution. Narbajaj (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that negative information about living people must be sourced to reliable sources and the weight given to that information must be proportionate to the weight presented in the reliable sources. If the negative information is only accusations of crimes then most of the time it will not belong in the article at all. I can not ind anyplace on this page that anyone said that each line must have a citation, can you point out who said that? GB fan 21:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Admins accepts that this article needs improvement, they should clearly mention at the top standard disclaimer wikipedia puts for article which are biased/needs improvement till we fix this issue. I am very much puzzled that last one year we allowed this article on wikipedia as it is. Narbajaj (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one point that I think needs clarification. Admins do not control content except as it relates to policy. We will remove content and protect articles that have been subject to vandalism and violations of our biographies of living persons policy. We do not determine when an article needs improvement or what references are needed. Those kinds of decisions are left up to the editors that are interested in editing the article. If an admin is interested in editing an article then they become a regular editor for that article and are excluded from mtaking any admin action on that article. GB fan 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what happens when a) these two things are mixed, i.e BLP issues and content improvement, to clarify, one must touch BLP issues to expand the article (Note: I am not saying BLP policy violation) and b) there is 1 or 0 trusted editor willing to edit this article? -- Tito☸Dutta 22:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the content is reliably sourced there is no BLP violation even if it is negative with certain exceptions. Accusations of crimes are almost never allowed even if reliably sourced because in this case we follow US law that the person is innocent until proven guilty. If the person is highly visible then we can add in accusations of crimes that are reliably sourced. As far as the one constructive editor, I don't know how to advise you. GB fan 22:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) GB fan In India it sometimes takes decades to get a court judgement. Sanjay Dutt was arrested first time in 1993, in 2013 he has been sentenced for jail. And that is till continuing. And there are many controversies which never get settled. b) The crime accusations were supported with reliable sources. --Tito☸Dutta 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Tito☸Dutta 23:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any accusation can't be one sided as case go any side. It should be neutral and should not get into detail the case as wikipedia is not the place to get full details of the case. If some body is interested they can go to references. I completely agree that information should be put but no need to give specifics details of it. Narbajaj (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was decided/suggested to add subject's denial statements supported by reliable sources too in this format: In "month" "year", "this" "this" allegation was brought against the "subject". A said, B said "that". But, "subject" in an interview denied this allegation saying "this and that" [ref][ref] --Tito☸Dutta 00:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to put some kind of disclaimer on this page as issue was identified in earlier discussion. For example "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely against with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources". Is it appropriate? Narbajaj (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article spelling

What is the solution. Can we correct wikipedia link with right spelling. Or we just have to live with it.Narbajaj (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbajaj (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if person wants to change his spelling or correct his name, what should he do? All his official documents have Asharam Bapu but media misspelled before correct it. Now they continue to use inspite multiple requests. Narbajaj (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I have created a redirect from Asharam Bapu to Asaram Bapu so anyone looking up Asharam Bapu will be directed to this article. GB fan 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should work GB. Tilo-Dut I came to know from him directly and his personal websites and ashram websites were updated accordingly. I don't have access to his personal identify documents to prove this. Admin can check official website for change in name process.Narbajaj (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might not get any 3rd party website to support his name as he decided to change his name. I will see if we can get any personal identify card from organization as all the links will show to old spelling only. I will work on this and get back to you assuming passport or driver's licence or affidavit should work as well for verification purpose to prove his name change. It is very hard to get it but will try. Narbajaj (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Online Source & Under reporting by Media

I would tell before hand that He has same number of followers as same number of detractors(50-50). In order to bring neutrality into this page, contributors should be selected before hand to work on this page. Admin also need to know local language as lot of media coverage is in other than English language. You won't see any positive news in main stream media as he openly criticized them in public due to some differences. Some politics is also involved. Here are the some petition filed against media which got 170K signatures for all over the world. Web link is blocked. It is on petition org website. Narbajaj (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no one selects editors. Editors decide for themselves if they want to work on the article. Anyone who wants to work on an article can work on unless they are banned from working on it. Any admins who patrol this do not need to know the local language as we do not make editorial decisions. GB fan 22:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, no one other than administrators can directly edit the article, but any editor that wants to can propose and discuss edits they want to make here on the article talk page and then when there is consensus an administrator will make the actual edit. GB fan 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly that's what editors are doing here. Start with Redtigerxyz's comments above. And new editors are also proposing changes (few of those seem legit, like the recent request to add "neutrality disputed"). Unfortunately new editors/non-editors are unable to tackle so many issues (BLP, controversy, RS etc etc) and that's is acceptable. No one is helping them and edit requests are closed as "Answered". The "Jnana Yoga" part of this request is uncontroversial. --Tito☸Dutta 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you get consensus to make a change to the article add {{edit protected}} and the exact change that should be made and an admin will come by and decide if consensus has been reached. If it has and the edit complies with WP:BLP then the edit will be made. Otherwise, I am done here. GB fan 00:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how are we going to get consensus when a) there are hardly two-three editors editors who are willing to discuss and b) editors are being threatened with blocks when they are trying to post reliable sources (and "best reliable sources" are being marked as gossip)? (if you see my last few posts, I have stopped posting links and writing "go to Google and search yourself" type comments.) --Tito☸Dutta 00:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

± GB fan has made a good point everything should be discussed and then added in this page. If we get the consensus. It would be better if this article is re-written with neutral perspective covering inputs from both parties. Tito Dutta had suggested earlier, Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over,which is a good idea. Saurabh hariom (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Disputed

"This article may rely excessively on sources too closely against with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources"

-- Please put it at the top of the article before people read it as a disclaimer. Narbajaj (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Per this discussion and my comments above. Suggesting {{POV}} and {{Expert-subject}} (WikiProject=India) --Tito☸Dutta 16:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Also remove the entire controversy section pending consensus, wp:undue, wp:npov, contentious etc. It seems the media does like to publish only negative material about the subject. Until a media publishes the other side of any innuendo then we should balance the article by removal of claims that are either unsubstantiated, un-countered, or trivial. The land sections seem very trivial. There is a link above that counters the statements claimed to be made by him. That material should either be removed or replaced by "X claims subject stated this, the subject later denied the claims and challenged it with Y."--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing controversy: It will be like killing the article. First we need a ray of hope that we are going to reach a consensus. Currently I am not seeing any. --Tito☸Dutta 04:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I ask why is information being suppressed here?

I know many of you are devotees but that does not mean that you should suppress [information] <Refactored comments per WP:BLP>. Why has this been removed? --Crème3.14159 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, WP:BLPCRIME applies "for people who are relatively unknown"; Asaram is very well-known. Please read it.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you have removed was purely a factual recounting of the specific allegations. How do you expect any discussion when you remove every reference to it so as to get this "BLP consensus"? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned the Rolf Harris article recently—that says he was charged with something—that's good, neutral, and encyclopedic information. For that topic, a large number of edits and talk page comments have been reverted, and many of those have been rev deleted (much more than has occured at this article). If you're interested in this artcle, please check some of the text added in the last month (now removed)—it is a simple misunderstanding of how articles are written, and I would have taken the time to explain that to some of the participants, but there is every reason to believe they are not interested in reading anything that might slow them down. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie is asking a fair question. I redacted Crème3.14159's comments because they were unsourced, although I took care not to eliminate every reference for the IP 50xx comments; I left the link to the NYT blog so that the allegations could be seen and evaluated for BLP consensus purposes through the external link. But is the NYT blog a BLP-compliant RS? It's a tough call. There were so many mentions of heavy and unproven accusations that I thought I should play it safe and remove them, but having left them still accessible through the link to the NYT blog I thought I did not hide them completely and that I struck the correct balance pending consensus about the reliability of the blog as a source and its BLP compliance. I got reverted by an established editor for the IP 50xx redactions. I got the message. I am done here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John: [1]. It was mentioned before he was charged, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone reply to Crème3.14159's second question above? He is absolutely right that there are many RS for every event related to the subject, on the other hand it seems he has rightly pointed that mentions BLPCRIME's cautions are mainly for unknown people.
    About discussion, no discussion is taking place here. Only edit requests by readers and their rejections. If you see my posts, I am also posting comments like "go and search in Google" type comments. I don't know how to discuss without providing references. Anyway, Crème3.14159's second question is an interesting one. --Tito☸Dutta 02:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am replacing the word "famous" with "notable" in your comment (since that's the word Wikipedia understands), then it becomes Tito, Bapu may be notable in India but I think that globally he is a relative unknown.. and notability is not assessed by country like "person A" is notable in Africa and not in Asia etc. We check overall notability. See WP:GNG criteria. BTW, I know that Crème3.14159's second question was a complicated one, since WP:BLPCRIME does not clarify what they mean by "known/unknown", don't worry about that. --Tito☸Dutta 02:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if Bapu is notable in India he is notable also on the English Wikipedia. But notability in a certain country does not make him famous globally. He may be notable globally based on Indian reliable sources, but famous locally, i.e. only in India. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "famous"? And how we decide it? Which Wikipedia policy or page deals with it? 80% Asians can't tell you the name of Vice President of US.
    Anyway, Asaram Bapu's organization has branches in US, UK, Canada, Middle East, Singapore, Europe....... in short it has international presence. And just for information, his organization has branches in 5 (five) cities in US only. An Indian person having branches of his organization in five US cities — IS notable. Asaram Bapu's news have been covered by BBC, CNN etc. Notability should not be deiced by WP:OR and personal experience. Like GNG, it should also be judged in an "understandable" way. We should not conclude that this "Tom" and that "Jerry" don't know this person, that's why he is "unknown" and "not famous". --Tito☸Dutta 03:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused. Are you suggesting an America wide poll to resolve the dispute of this article and reach consensus? And why only America? Why not in Iraq, Japan and Kenya? That's again showing an America-centric mentality. Some easier options might be— a) wait to see if someone else replies to the question here b) go and ask at that BLP talk page to clarify things. --Tito☸Dutta 04:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea. But it is a policy question, and I am not that crazy about policy discussions. Having said that, one should ask at the WP:Village pump (policy) or on the talk of BLP. I could help, if you would like me to, but only in an auxiliary role. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked at Bbb23's talk page to check this question. Let's wait for few hours for him before asking at VPP. Admins are commentating that they can do administrative tasks only. I signed (accepted) that Wikipedia:Admins are people too. There should be another essay Wikipedia:Admins are editors too. Actually you (and the admins) and me have a great similarity here: neither you (they) nor me have any personal interest here. I just don't know what I am doing here. I have many reasons to not edit/participate here, but, not a single for the opposite (what I am doing here). And most probably I am the only editor from WikiProject India who is participating here. I don't know how to reach consensus when there is only 1 editor. The edit request to add NPOV template etc seems to be an urgent requirement. But, who'll add? Wikipedia:Admins are editors too --Tito☸Dutta 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol! You are absolutely right. I am still asking myself what am I doing here. :) But you have some very good ideas and I think you can do many useful things for this article. Perhaps other editors could follow your example and get more involved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is about mentality. You (and also I) can easily leave the article. No one will ask me that why I left this discussion, but, everyone will see the 50 or so posts I have posted here. Just as a side note, I have been suggested by a well wisher (I'll not tell his name and he is not participating in these discussion) to play safe here, because so many admins are watching this page and it might be problematic in my coming RFA (though I don't have and RFA plan now). This is another reason to leave the this place. And actually there were few more editors here, who have left now. --Tito☸Dutta 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the only "loophole" in BLPCRIME is the "relatively unknown" language. For further illumination on what that means, editors should look at WP:PERP (although this is a notability section within a policy page), and in particular the language under "For perpetrators". Without looking into previous discussions on this issue, I think the most helpful point is the first one: "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities." The foonote gives an example of John Hinckley Jr. as someone who is well enough known. Notice that the person has to be "renowned", not just well known, but he doesn't have to be internationally renowned, he can be renowned, in this case, in India. My sense is that Bapu doesn't meet that standard, but the purpose of a discussion on that issue would be to reach a clear consensus on whether he does or doesn't. Where should that discussion take place? I wouldn't hold it on the talk page of WP:BLP unless you want to discuss the policy itself, not a particular case. Same for WP:VPP ("If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards. "). I would probably start with BLPN but in my view you need a fair amount of input from uninvolved editors (it seems obvious to me that some of the editors on this talk page have an agenda, either pro or anti Bapu). That might require a combination of BLPN and an RfC.

Frankly, I think editorial energies would be better spent cleaning up the article and putting in balanced information about the subject without even trying to put in criminal allegations at this point. That work would serve two purposes. First, it would improve what at the moment is a very poor article. Second, it would help in the discussion of how well-known he is so you would already have a headstart on that issue before discussing it in detail. That, of course, is not my call, but was asked to comment, so I have.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused. I've read the WP guidelines you refer to, but I am still unable to understand why you keep removing talk page discussion re the allegations. Please provide your reasoning. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they violate BLP. And they aren't guidelines - they are policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you please be so kind as to point out the policy that states that even the word "rape" must be deleted from a talk page, as you just did from my above post. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude is not helping here. As an admin I would hope to see this as a chance for you to help less experienced editors to understand policy rather than a chance to make fun of them. As I already said, I have read the policies you refer to but I am still trying to guess at your rational; are you saying that this man is not well-known enough to include these claims in his article? As one of the principle editors of the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, it is my impression that this man is very well-known in India, and certainly this case is in all of the Indian papers as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, you do realise that your link is for article pages, right? "Editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." (emphasis mine). This page is not an article, and though your link would perhaps preclude the information from being included in the article proper, it does not preclude discussion from taking place here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco, that's a very cramped reading of BLP policy. Ultimately everything in BLP policy is geared towards what information can and can't be included in articles. However, as Tito says, BLP policy applies everywhere, so including the allegations on the talk page still violates BLP. Also important to bear in mind is that it's unnecessary. BLP policy can be discussed without repeating the allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tito has it right. Gandydancer, I'm sorry you think I'm making fun of editors. That's not my intention. Some of it may be attributable to my own frustration that my communications are apparently not understood by some. I think they're clear, but I'm biased. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best portion should be Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply, they should create another shortcut for this WP:BLPWHERE to link exact portion "Where BLP does and does not apply".
    The frustrating point is questions are not properly answered here. There are unanswered edit requests. Above I asked a question In India it sometimes takes decades to get a court judgement. Sanjay Dutt was arrested first time in 1993, in 2013 he has been sentenced for jail. And that is till continuing. And there are many controversies which never get settled. The question remained unanswered (see my 23:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC) post here). Really it takes a long time in India to get court judgement. I am quite sure some of the controversies mentioned here will never get settled. So, we are actually closing all the doors to improve and update the article. "we can not write anything about a BLPCRIME before court verdict" might be perfect in US, an "impractical" concept here. That's the thing Redtigerxyz tried to say on the very first day and now he has left. To summarize what the WikiProject India editors are trying to say here: We want to write these sections like this and we will take every possible care and add multiple RS in each section:

In "month" "year", "this" allegation was brought against the "subject".[ref] A said "this", B said "that".[ref]. After initial investigation police said "this".[ref] But, "subject" in an interview totally denied this allegation saying "this and that" [ref][ref] and C told it was a conspiracy against the subject. As of "month" "Year" the subject was not convicted by the court and the court has not given any verdict.[ref]

The situation is getting complicated, when talk page sources are being removed too. Not everyone can explain their points with A, B, C, D "Month", "Year", the way I have done just above. And, you actually need to provide citations to establish your points. --Tito☸Dutta 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, do the new fast track methods of handling rape cases apply here? Gandydancer (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I am not talking about any particular case, I am suggesting to follow the above mentioned writing pattern for all controversies (in this article), i.e. give equal weight and importance to both the allegation reports and subject's self-defense comments or the reports which are rejecting those allegations (and thankfully we have RS for both).
    But, so far we are only adding allegations, and trying to act like "judges", which is unacceptable and we have made this page an "attack page" (Bbb23 too has felt the page is like an "attack page"). We should be neutral and should not cherry-pick sources to defame or attack someone.
    And if BLPCRIME permits, then we can add the recent event similarly. I explained these with much more details here. I do not have any opinion about the most recent controversy, other than, if you don't include it, the article remains backdated. --Tito☸Dutta 17:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tito, actually my question was somewhat of an aside related to the length of time it has, at least in the past, taken for rape cases to be processed, since it had just been discussed. I'm sorry that I asked, because it was poor judgement on my part to even bring it up when there is enough confusion going on here as it is. Anyway, I have read all of the discussion here and remain unable to understand why so much discussion has been removed from the talk page. As for the article, I would think that it goes without saying that it must be written in a neutral manner, as we expect from all of our articles. Just because the talk page is filled with attacks does not mean that a well-balanced article cannot be written. I have worked on many articles with talk pages that contain hundreds of "attack" posts, but one can still pull something neutral together. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link--I had not read any of the archived pages. What a nightmare. I see the problem. Gandydancer (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a fan page nor a hate forum

Interpretation of Wikipedia standards is being followed much like law is interpreted by the police - as per own convenience. (Redacted) I am challenging the rational behind the moderation exercise for this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkpal (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

File:Asaram Bapu Ashram 1.png

Can someone add this image to the article so that there is an image of the person (preferably to the standard template already there)? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My administrative actions and WP:AN

Because the policy issues continue to be contentious, I have again raised the issue of my administrative actions at WP:AN. If you have anything to say, please do so there. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of problematic issues

I suggest looking in the talk page logs. My proposed suggestion of text roughly matched your proposed text. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I can not find the post using Ctrl-F-ing your signature. Are you talking about this talk page? Link please. I don't think this issue is going to resolve soon, even if we solve this BLP dispute, there will be a bunch of editors who'll make every attempt to dispute neutrality here (for last many months they are doing so). In addition, can you please add the image (see the edit request above), and this one User:Titodutta/Asaram_Bapu#This_article_is_polluting_the_whole_web. These two are uncontroversial and have got consensus. I don't know why these edit requests too are not being answered. --Tito☸Dutta 19:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we have comments re the page you link to do you want us to comment here or on that page that you have set up? Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes about allegations of rape and/or sexual assault from reliable sources

[Note: this section was inappropriately removed. Please do not remove it again, Bbb23 without consensus. BLP is not at issue here - these are all reliable sources for verifiable facts. Please review WP:BLP for deeper understanding.]

I am merely recounting here quotes that I found in a quick search for reliable sources along with some notes for those editors who may not be familiar with major Indian newspapers and television networks.

  • New York Times - "Mr. Asaram was booked under Sections 376 (rape), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act."
  • NDTV - "A Rajasthan Police team has reached Indore to interrogate Asaram Bapu, accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old schoolgirl, at his ashram." - for those unfamiliar with NDTV, "New Delhi Television is among India's top broadcasters and has twenty-three offices and studios across the country. Its three national news channels NDTV 24x7 (English), NDTV India (Hindi) and NDTV Profit (Business news) form the core of the company."
  • Economic Times - "Asaram is accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old schoolgirl and inmate of his Jodhpur ashram." The Economic Times "is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal."
  • International Business Times "Asaram was supposed to appear before the Jodhpur Police on Friday in an alleged sexual assault case filed against him by a 16-year-old girl. He has been evaded the police since then."
  • The Times of India - "Asaram has been booked under sections 376, 342, 506 and 509 of the IPC, section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act in connection with the alleged assault." - "In 2008, the newspaper reported that (with a circulation of over 3.14 million) it was certified by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (India) as the world's largest selling English-language daily, ranking it as the 3rd largest selling newspaper in any language in the world."

It is inappropriate to continue removing this information from this talk page. As to how it should be presented in the article, I leave that for discussion. But such discussion can only take place if editors discuss it openly and frankly in light of the numerous reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources continue to emerge which editors may find useful in thinking about how to appropriately introduce this material into the article. In particular, Asaram Bapu has now been arrested, according to reliable sources:
  1. Jodhpur police arrest Asaram Bapu from Indore
  2. Asaram Bapu arrested by Jodhpur police in sexual assault case
I encourage all editors to refrain from editorializing in any way in article space. Just the facts, as confirmed by reliable sources, should be introduced. Because emotions are high, it seems wise to propose text here on the talk page first, to get feedback, before editing the article directly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just so that other editors who may or may not be familiar with the policy, for whatever reason, I'm putting this up here, from WP:BLP:

A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.

that essentially sums up what WP:BLP has to say on this issue -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This man is far from "relatively unknown". At the time of the 2012 Delhi gang rape incident he was well-known enough to have his statements regarding the rape appear in every Indian news outlet and several news sources around the world as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested text about alleged assault

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

[when?]A 16 year old girl has brought forward an accusation of sexual assault to police[which?] against Bapu. The girl said that the assault occurred at Bapu's Jodhpur Ashram.[1] Bapu denied the accusation[when?] and claimed that it was a conspiracy against him which was orchestrated by Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi.[2] Bapu was asked to appear to police for interview before Friday the 30th of August 2013.[2] 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.[3] They evicted Bapu's supporters.[4] Bapu's supporters injured two members of the media at the Ashram.[5][3] Police discovered that Bapu had left his Ashram and was seen near Indore.[3]

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

  1. ^ IANS (31 August 2013,). "Strong case against Asaram, may be arrested: Rajasthan police". zeenews. Retrieved 31 August 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  2. ^ a b IANS (29th August 2013). "Political conspiracy to defame me: Asaram Bapu". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 31 August 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Chandwani, Karuna (31 August 2013). "Asaram Bapu Rape Case: Will Police Arrest Self-Styled Godman?". International Business Times. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
  4. ^ Zee Media Bureau (31 August 2013). "Sexual assault case: Top police officials at Asaram's ashram in Indore". Zee news. Retrieved 31 August 2013.
  5. ^ PTI (31 August 2013). "Supporters of Asaram Bapu attack mediapersons". The Economic Times. Retrieved 31 August 2013.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[1] The Delhi police promptly transferred the case to the Rajasthan police which registered the complaint on 21 August.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] 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)[reply]

looks good, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

-- 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)

Recent edit 2 September 2013

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • ::::::* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/asaram-bapu-faces-arrest-97988.html
  2. ^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/fir-registered-by-victim-against-asaram-bapu-reveals-a-horrific-tale-of-sexually-assault/1/304713.html
  3. ^ http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/asaram-bapu-summoned-in-sexual-abuse-case_871682.html
  4. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/jodhpur-police-after-asaram-as-he-flees-to-indore/article5075353.ece
  5. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/asaram-brought-to-jodhpur-amid-tight-security/article5080114.ece?homepage=true
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asaram&oldid=571179988"