Talk:Asaram/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suggestions

Hi Wiki team ,

I would like to put lot of editions in AsaRam Bapu ji Wiki Page.

It's dissapointing to see that wiki team does not have a valid information on him , Inspite he being one of the most spiritual & divine soul on this Earth.

He has been doing endless contributions to save human & Mankind, for the upliftment of women in India , to teach the younsters the path of divine spirituality & many more.

He started doing the Satsang & Sewa at the age of only 23 after attaining the Brahmagyan from his Guru ji Sai Lilashah . It's been more than 50 years now he is spreading the divine knowledge of true Self.

Not thousand & not lakhs , Millions of people have been benifitted by his holiness & kindness.

I would request you to please remove / atleast unhighlight the controversies that were definetely imposed on him by the Jealous people of world.

Rather please put the contributions & thousand of miracles he has done for the upliftment and the ease of Mankind . You would definetely be blessed .

Please refer the Ashram site http://www.ashram.org/PujyaBapuji/AboutBapuji.aspx . You can find 3 hours documentary as well here .

There is recent You tube video where with Mantra Science ,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJj4Z6NfT_k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

A Drought effected area where there had been no water since 4 years , with his power & blessings , it Rained there for 4 days . It saved the life of many farmers , children & gave boost to local plantation as well.

There have been endless examples of such miracles.

Thank you Regards Kanika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaarora (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.163.245 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is not saying Raju Chandak is telling the truth. It is not saying he's lying. The page is saying that he gave an affidavit to the police. That's all it's saying. Finding better sources would be a great help in improving the page. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have found a video www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD8Pvf057U — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuraj123 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted it. The video is copyright violation. And seeing their channel it is clear they are advertising/promoting. --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Titodutta,Even I would have done the same if I was in your situation.You are an employee of wikipedia(If my thinking is right),and try to prevent any damage to it.But please understand the fact that I am not disrupting anything.Wikipedia always speaks the truth.I hope you now understand that no saint has ever been so unfairly maligned as asaram bapuji.This is because he has stopped the activities of christian missionaries,who have converted almost all north east india to christianity.They wanted to erase his popularity.Even you know that North East is predominantly christian.If you want proofs,I can show You.Therefore I request you to please let me remove that unfair line.You don't need to reply on the talk page,since you must be very busy. And by the way,where in India do you live?We are (were)fighting it out in wikipedia,but havent even exchanged our phone numbers!:) My number is phone number hidden by User:Titodutta. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuraj123 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 8 May 2013 UTC.

You need to seriously concentrate on basic formatting. Add a space after ending a sentence. Write proper names in capital letters (eg. "Asaram Bapu" and not asaram bapu). Write words correctly (eg. not "havent" write either "have not" or "haven't") I don't mind mistakes in talk page, but, you are making similar mistakes in the article too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me how to add good articles!117.220.85.151 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2013

Controversies there are people who are agent of church are blaming him because he is true fighter of hindu dharma Santseva (talk)

Those information are supported by reliable sources. We have discussed on this topic already. See the other sections of this page. Attempts have been taken to expand the article (specially his "Religious activities" section), but, we lack WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

As a neutral reader, I see Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.141.157 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Need lot of Valid edits on this Page

I would like to put lot of editions in AsaRam Bapu ji Wiki Page.

It's dissapointing to see that wiki team does not have a valid information on him , Inspite he being one of the most spiritual & divine soul on this Earth.

He has been doing endless contributions to save human & Mankind, for the upliftment of women in India , to teach the younsters the path of divine spirituality & many more.

He started doing the Satsang & Sewa at the age of only 23 after attaining the Brahmagyan from his Guru ji Sai Lilashah . It's been more than 50 years now he is spreading the divine knowledge of true Self.

Not thousand & not lakhs , Millions of people have been benifitted by his holiness & kindness.

I would request you to please remove / atleast unhighlight the controversies that were definetely imposed on him by the Jealous people of world.

Rather please put the contributions & thousand of miracles he has done for the upliftment and the ease of Mankind . You would definetely be blessed .

Please refer the Ashram site http://www.ashram.org/PujyaBapuji/AboutBapuji.aspx . You can find 3 hours documentary as well here .

There is recent You tube video where with Mantra Science ,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJj4Z6NfT_k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

A Drought effected area where there had been no water since 4 years , with his power & blessings , it Rained there for 4 days . It saved the life of many farmers , children & gave boost to local plantation as well.

There have been endless examples of such miracles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaarora (talk • contribs) 07:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for editing, but those sources do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. If you would like to know more about that, the article on sources is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You may also find the discussions that have already been had at this page useful. Grayfell (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• There are few other articles too like Asaram Bapu Ashram, Parents' Worship Day. There might be more articles, I don't know. Complete undisciplined and unsystematic work. Tito☸Dutta 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

±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)

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)

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)

• I am writing a reply. Please wait for few minutes. Tito☸Dutta 06:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Now—

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• I've redacted the allegations and cites. BLP will be enforced here, not just on the article. Your interpretation of BLPCRIME is flawed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Bbb23.27s_actions_on_Asaram_Bapu. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Arrogant reply and admin act. --Tito☸Dutta 14:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Finally, a helpful and well-thought post. BIG thanks. --Tito☸Dutta 12:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

≈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)

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)

• Aaah! Classic Bbb23! This wouldn't be the first time when he/she is simply being bold for virtue of the broomstick without any competence on India related articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Classic case of a personal attack. Please refrain. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments about competency are personal always. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sample 1, sample 2. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

[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)

That sounds like a good idea, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not improve the existing article by balancing it out? –Ruzbehraja (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (edit conflict) If you want, go ahead and edit the draft at User:Titodutta/Asaram Bapu. Read WP:YFA, WP:V, WP:REFB, WP:FIVE before editing. Also read the issues mentioned in this page. --Tito☸Dutta 19:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• No, Nay, Nasti — we don't duplicate articles. --Tito☸Dutta 19:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Please read those pages which I have linked above WP:FIVE etc. Those are Wikipedia's expectation. An administrator should not have personal expectations. --Tito☸Dutta 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• In addition, actually "this long para: in this para was linked to the discussion, you could click there to see it. Anyway, here is the link once again. (click on this link). --Tito☸Dutta 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• A "Neutrality disputed" seems to be a good idea. Create a new section below and propose it, so that one can easily find it there. --Tito☸Dutta 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)