Talk:Asaram/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

• If you want to change article title spelling you can start an RM. But, it'll not go anwyehere.. most probably. The spelling Asaram Bapu is more common. See the reliable sources listed at Asaram_Bapu#References. --Tito☸Dutta 19:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Oh, I see. Does Asaram Bapu want to change the spelling? How do you know that? Please provide details. --Tito☸Dutta 19:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• If you can collect at least few reliable sources other than his personal website, start a Request move. If you need help on how to start "Requested Move" you can ask at my talk page clicking here. But, first you need to collect few sources. You can check sources here Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or use our special custom search engine. Best --Tito☸Dutta 20:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Those driving license etc may not work here. See WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME . --Tito☸Dutta 21:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Not everyone can edit this article, see the number of protections tried here. It was and is fully protected, and even after that semi-protection will remain unchanged unless it is fully protected once again. --Tito☸Dutta 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

± 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)

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)

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)

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)

• The second question seems to be a good one to me, m/ User:Bbb23, User:Johnuniq, User:GB fan. --Tito☸Dutta 21:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about that but I had to refactor some of the comments here. Since there is no BLP consensus please do not use graphic terms to describe the allegations against the subject of this BLP. Your cooperation is much appreciated. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

John: [1]. It was mentioned before he was charged, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• Tito, Bapu may be famous in India but I think that globally he is a relative unknown. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• You make some valid points. The only way this can be settled definitively is to actually use a poll, if it exists, among Americans for example, to see how known he is among them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• I was only trying to explain that we may never know the answer to the question how famous he is in a given domain, unless we have access to polls in that domain. I did not mean to suggest that we take them country by country. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's better. Could you please ask it at BLP policy talk page or somewhere else to get things clarified? --Tito☸Dutta 04:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I don't think you should worry about these things. From what I've seen, your contributions are reasonable. We all have our disagreements but I don't detect anything serious. In any case, good luck in your future endeavours. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Because they violate BLP. And they aren't guidelines - they are policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Sigh, WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Actually it is WP:BLPTALK (or more accurately Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply). But, yes, it is badly injuring the discussions here. --Tito☸Dutta 16:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

Tito, do the new fast track methods of handling rape cases apply here? Gandydancer (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Summary of problematic issues

• A summary of the most problematic issues User:Titodutta/Asaram Bapu (this does not include the talk place comment redaction, which is already being discussed). --Tito☸Dutta 18:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Comment anywhere, I'll add the best part of our discussion there (removing "off topic" comments and unnecessary parts) or you can do it too. ---Tito☸Dutta 19:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Support: Per this discussion and my comments above. Suggesting {{POV}} and {{Expert-subject}} (WikiProject=India) --Tito☸Dutta 16:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• Because of my administrative position on the BLP issues, I would appreciate it if another admin would evaluate this edit request to determine whether a tag or tags should be added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Also, the tag has already been added by Tito Dutta. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

• That is a good image. A copy can be found at web (do reverse image search to check this). Since they have sent email to OTRS tem, this can be added in the article. --Tito☸Dutta 03:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 06:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia does not have to follow breaking or incomplete news stories; we are generally incomplete. In the case of situations such as this we are best to avoid covering the majority of recent events until their resolution. Take, as an example, the Meredith Kercher article - for several years we reported Amanda Knox as a murderess, until she was eventually found innocent on appeal. Endless arguments and slander were dumped on that talk page to little or no value. The point of BLP, and in particular BLPCRIME, is to emphasise that we must be careful in covering subjects where there is no firm resolution and where the majority of content revolves around the words 'allegations'. I think there is capacity to briefly cover these incidents, but currently the article is basically a hit piece and that is deeply inappropriate. As I understand it this individual said some unpleasant things about the 2012 Dehli rape and that has encouraged this sort of SPA shit-dumping. It doesn't behove us to pander to that, we are above it. Such individuals should be topic-banned from the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Chargesheet against Asaram over the mysterious death of 2 boys in his ashram

In 2008, two boys disappeared from his residential school on his ashram. Two days later, their mutilated bodies were found in a river. A chargesheet has been file against him and his son. Because of the public agitation over this matter, this has been widely covered in the media. Why should this not be mentioned in this article? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. Google Asaram Bapu death of boys. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. AnupMehra ^✈ 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to present the specific reliable sources you wish to use here so that we can discuss the issue, and sources demonstrating widespread coverage to alleviate any BLP issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You have read the reliable sources before but since you are requesting it once more, I will point to this:

[2]--Crème3.14159 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the deleted section. I would make some wording changes, but the sourcing appeared adequate to me--though perhaps I am not familiar enough with Indian news sources. What is the problem? Gandydancer (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that this is an extraordinary claim to make against a living person and the scale of the sourcing has not been shown to be anywhere near the scale of coverage I would expect. and now I see Creme has inserted another accusation of attempted murder! Seriously, the sources should be laid out here in detail before such highly controversial material is added. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New York Times article

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

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

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

(Redacted)

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

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

Well, she copy/pasted at least one information from other blogs. The original source for the information was a broken-English blog from 28 August. Above I provided proof for the copy/pasting, but it was deleted from the talk page. She has since changed the information to explain what each section meant, but one editor quoted the original text that had been posted in 30 August [3] (my search from 31 August is also made with the original blog text, not with the fixed text currently showing in the NYT website). By the way, the information about what section 376 means seems to have originated from an Indian newspaper in 21 August, the NYT blog copy/pasted from a blog that had only the section numbers without the corresponding explanations. This is second-hand reporting, and probably a low-quality source. And it's not a NYT article. Indian newspapers get information directly from Indian police officers, instead of copy/pasting from other blogs, and Bapu's stance doesn't have any relevance in this particular case. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Using the term "rape"

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

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

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

I've tried an edit to address these points [4] but more reworking may be needed. The legal definition of rape and its common usage may well be Wikipedia's next angels on the head of a pin counting exercise! Wnt (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editnotice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegation of assault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biographical information - Early Life

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

Section rewriting requited

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

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

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