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 La vérité gagne (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 27 December 2019 (→‎Acquittal in IT Act). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Copied multi

Bogas blog by a anti hindu activists

Kindly there are many other updates on the matter but the blogger collected wrong and negative reviews from press media to ruin his image Ps2408 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do u mean by this statement? JoshiBhawesh (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing adjective "rapist" as per WP:BLP

His case is still undertrial in High Court and in fact co-accused sentence already got suspended[1][2]. Hence is not right to add words like rapist. This line is already there: "In April 2018, Asaram was found guilty of the rape of a minor girl and is currently serving life imprisonment in Jodhpur" and I think this is more than sufficient. And words like Rapist should not be added since case is in High Court and Wiki page giving too much importance to it seems unfair. As if High Court or Supreme court later on proves him innocent - it will e defamation by Wiki. I am saying that we remove mention of rapist, say specifically that he was convicted by session court. But don't give him a term "rapist". These changes came recently and this older version was not having such words. I tried to correct but they were reverted. Please check.[1] La vérité gagne (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYBLP#2.
Asaram is not his co-accused and even if he were, that suspension has been since revoked in entirety, with Asaram planning to lodge a fresh appeal next year. A convicted rapist (and that too under POSCO) is a HUGE deal, as reflected by the fact that almost all coverage about Asaram, over the course of past half-a-decade or so, centers on this locus. And, this page will surely change, as the outcomes of his legal trials change. ∯WBGconverse 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So my concern is only about the usage of word "rapist". I don't see any issue in mentioning that he is convicted for rape by session court. FYI: Suspension of Sentence and High court appeal are two different things. Case is still ongoing in High court. La vérité gagne (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't sugarcoat things. ∯WBGconverse 18:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling about being more specific. La vérité gagne (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding your revert:[2] Please let me know what is the issue in making the text more specific, none of the references refers him by term rapist which you only associated here. And stop using abusive summary. La vérité gagne (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DR. Also, you need to stop moving the goalpost.
There are ample references out there using the very specific term rapist.
Also, OED defines the term as A person who commits rape. And there are a thousand and one references mentioning that he has been convicted of rape. ∯WBGconverse 05:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gurukul Death section tone

In diff [3] and [4] there has been an attempt to make the tone of this article negative. The fact is this case is closed now, still this section is all negative. He already got a clean chit here. There is not point in exaggarating old details of case. Already entire article seems an attack article towards the subject and when this Gurukul case was closed aquitting him then also it is being described in negative tone. Title of this section should be updated to mention clean-chit, the way conviction is mentioned in Jodhpur case sectionLa vérité gagne (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an explanation for this revert, why are you adding redundant stuff? We already mention ....The commission had been criticized by the High Court for its procedural biases towards Asaram; the final report was submitted in 2013, but were only disclosed in 2019 by the state legislature, essentially exonerating Asaram of all charges but holding the ashram authorities responsible for negligence. A concurrent CID probe, ordered on the behest of the High Court of Gujarat had already rejected the claims of practice of black magic, in 2010.... The news-piece added by you (mentioning exoneration by parents), is of a different case (Yadav, Madhya Pradesh) than the one covered at the section (Vaghela, Gujarat). I also note that you are continuing to edit-war, as to the first line, despite an inability to attain consensus. ∯WBGconverse 06:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you deleted the content related to parents? Was that also redundant or you want to keep only negative info. Why you reverted everything without discussing on talk page, I always initiate my discussion here La vérité gagne (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an inability to comprehend basic English? May-be, see the meaning of different? ∯WBGconverse 07:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You added a line about Chhindwara and I added this ref and said those parents gave clean chit. Why you removed it? [5]La vérité gagne (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this[6] where can you see mention of Madhya Pradesh? And even if you see it then mention that it's Madhya Pradesh case instead of deleting reference and content. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsibility to corroborate the content of multiple news-sources to ascertain the entire scenario; I won't do that for you. See this news mentioning the same victim name and locating it in Madhya Pradesh.
Rebut, as to the other point, later. ∯WBGconverse 07:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you are calling CHHINDWARA as Madhya Pradesh.so That's what I mentioned in my previous comment, you added about Chiindwara in diff [7] and then you reverted my edit about the same news in diff [8]. Why? La vérité gagne (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems that one of your two additions was correctly placed, but a cleanchit from the parents hardly matter. Do we have sources that mention of police ruling out any foul play? We can add them, accordingly. ∯WBGconverse 09:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When in Motera's case parents' allegation matters then in Chhindwara's case parent's clean chit also matters, by the same logic, anyway it's supported by proper ref. Hence adding it back.La vérité gagne (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Got hold of Majumdar, Ushinor (2018-12-05). God of Sin: The Cult, Clout and Downfall of Asaram Bapu. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5305-365-9.. Will try to add extensively from it, in the next few days. ∯WBGconverse 07:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black magic

Afais, Trivedi commision rejected allegations of black magic in a part. ashram. More vitally, tantra is quite different from black magic. Thus, reverted. ∯WBGconverse 09:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the ref which I added [9] Ctrl-f "Tantrik" you will get this statement in that: ""There is no evidence to suggest that in the ashram, Asaram-ji and his son Narayan Sai performed Tantrik Vidhi (black magic rituals)," the report said." So that ref is both about tantra(tantric) as well as black magic. And if you think it's about "in a part. ashram." then it's fine I will add that the word "Ashram" to make it more clear. La vérité gagne (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The judges were not any established scholars in the field of religion. In highly imprecise and rudimentary terms Tantra is a superset of black magic; see Gavin Flood et al . ∯WBGconverse 15:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judges gave judgement about both Tantric as well as Black Magic. It's the judgement of judiciary and we are adding that on WP:BLP article, so it has to be according to what judiciary said. La vérité gagne (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Justice D K Trivedi Commission stated that they have not found evidence of black magic in his Ashram. No need of deleting this statement, when it was said by the judiciary and is well supported by ref. Judiciary must have taken care of searching his Ashram's before giving him clean-chit. You don't have any right to hide that fact.La vérité gagne (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I accept of (1) the judiciary-committee having equated the practice of black magic to tantric practices, and (2) their subsequent rejection, that report covered one particular gurukul, which is located in Motera. Long back in 2008, he ran 425 ashrams, 1,400 Yog Vedant Seva Samitis; 17,000 Bal Sanskar Kendras; and 50 gurukuls.
Trivedi Commission's report has no place in the activities section, which concerns with the broader dynamics rather than specifics. ∯WBGconverse 18:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely has a place if this line has a place, which is just based on an allegation:"...gained widespread popularity, practicing a simplified tantric version of Hinduism and attracting the unprivileged sections of the society, en masse"La vérité gagne (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple journalism outlets, Meera Nanda et al deem Asaram to practice tantra; we go by secondary scholarship and unless contradicted by other secondary scholarships, we don't really care about how they reached their conclusions. (They are definitely not allegations, in a wiki-sense.)
In any case, it's a waste of time arguing with SPAs. Paging Vanamonde93 and DBigXray :- Second opinion(s), please. ∯WBGconverse 15:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think views of journalists is above the report of Justice commission and CID and as far as I know, Wiki also states: "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." [10] and in case of tantric allegations he was never convicted. In that case he was always got clean chit only La vérité gagne (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi gang rape comments

When the article has the comments in detail then what is the reason behind trying to remove the clarification made by Asaram? I see Winged Blades of Godric is continuously trying to just revert changes on this page. Can you please explain why you reverted it, when it was based on news reference of a trusted website "India Today" [11]

See WP:MANDY. We already say that Asaram rejects the allegations and claims of distortion; publicity-oriented rhetoric does not matter. ∯WBGconverse 06:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the actual alleged comment that he made for victim has to remain then the actual clarification should also remain. La vérité gagne (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MANDY. We already say that Asaram rejects the allegations and claims of distortion; publicity-oriented rhetoric does not matter. ∯WBGconverse 06:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/asaram-cites-trial-by-media-in-rape-conviction-files-appeal-against-life-term/story-7DzUHltoz4TFq57rGif41J.html
  2. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-asaram-bapu-rape-case-rajasthan-hc-suspends-sentence-of-co-accused-grants-her-bail-2669571

Acquittal in IT Act

Why have you Winged Blades of Godric removed proper referenced content? [12][13] La vérité gagne (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VNOTSUFF; we need widespread coverage of the acquittal to decide of it being a significant event in Asaram's life. ∯WBGconverse 06:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of content in this article which is based on unverified and single source for example the allegation of selling liquor etc, by this logic that should be removed as well. And acquittal is something which definitely finds a place in this article if 2 news sources have published it. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOTSUFF is about disputed content, since this is about acquittal by court, there is no point of dispute, as it's court result. Hence a court result definitely has significance. It's well-supported by sources as well. La vérité gagne (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Views of devotees must be present on this Article

This article is about spiritual Guru, hence views of devotees also find a place in this article. That's why I had added it. Please explain why you reverted my changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asaram&diff=932283958&oldid=931919825 Salona Choudhury (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salona Choudhury, I have added it in my last edit to the article; lead reflects body in a summary-style and the contents do not belong at the lead. ∯WBGconverse 07:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asaram&oldid=932657152"