Jump to content

Talk:Asaram/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Clean Chits

CID ISSUES CLEAN CHIT TO SANT ASARAMJI ASHRAM ABOUT BLACK MAGIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan.rick (talk • contribs) 05:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014

Please remove content "sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation)" as these allegations not proved yet. Neharun144 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Article merely states what the source says the police booked subject under. Sam Sing! 08:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

The info that u people had put is all false, your source of info is newspaper and newspaper who never shows true news for bapu ji. So please remove the info requested or remove this page. 2401:A100:C000:2CB3:68DF:88D5:274B:A01C (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If a specific comment or source is unreliable, you need to explain how and why. Simply removing material because you find it objectionable is not an acceptable solution. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

PLEASE CHANGE THE NAME 'ASARAM ' TO 'ASARAMJI BAPU' PLEASE INCLUDE IN THE 'SPIRITUAL WORK' "HE REPRESENTED INDIA(HINDUSM) IN World Religious Parliament 3RD SEPT - 1993 " https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SO8fjcdpVVs 122.175.7.164 (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

name change not possible per WP:HONORIFIC --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

103.241.226.250 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Put " Sant " infront of this great person's name. Thank you.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

41.35.177.68 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

The excessive detail about the alleged threats is WP:COATRACKing at its worst, particularly the gratuitous table format presentation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

pinging Utcursch who expanded this article and added this. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO, I think the entire table should be trimmed to a single statement. Same goes with the section death case above it. This is just too much coverage given. NOTNEWS. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Asaram/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
=== Asaram Bapu ===

The article apparently does not cite any third-part references to support the biographical assertions made therein and there is a lack of neutrality in the tone of the article. Describing a self-proclaimed saint as a self-realized saint can only be termed as an exaggeration. Still, that is my opinion. But in other areas too, instead of stating that he is "claimed" to have gained spiritual powers by meditation etc. it clearly says that he "did" attain spiritual powers which is not a neutral description in any way. In my view, describing these ideas in a neutral way won't take away anything from the significance of the person, if he has any. Self-sourced biographical assertions can also not be relied upon and additionally, I wonder, why is there no mention of the contra-claims and scandals surrounding the new-age guru where people have questioned his activities and Ashram also came under scrutiny for some criminal activities. This article either needs to be completely removed for total lack of neutrality and no verifiability of facts or needs to be thoroughly revamped to make it look more neutral and factual.

--MazeOfThoughts (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asaram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The controversies show biased nature of the article.

The article needs to have the other side too. To the sexual assault case the Bholanand has himself confessed that the allegations are false and part of controversies against bapu.

Also one must throw light on exact details of ashram's clean chit on land grabbing issue, tantrik issue etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.244.165.4 (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You should provide reliable sources to get these things into the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This very true as there are many video on YouTube. Also there is been no evidence since 3 and a half years Shobhit.dalal (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Page deletion

Page will not be deleted for the time being , although it is seriously in violation of WP:Biography of living person , cause rewriting the page is difficult now.Cleanup has been initiated--Uddalak Aruni (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Page move from Asaram to Sant Sri Asaram Bapuji

@Vigyani (talk · contribs) and Admin Bishonen (talk · contribs) Titodutta (talk · contribs) or other admin. Someone moved page to honorifc title. As I am not an admin cannot undo move. Pl some admin restore page to old title. Jethwarp (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That move violated several Wikipedia policies. Moved back. Thank you, Jethwarp. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

Vigilance against misinformation

A user "Getting41" had inserted these into the article on 11 Sept- "In September 2014 girl said on camera That pressure for wrong allegations on her" and "Girls birth certificate shown that she is 18 year and 10 day old on the allege date 16 August 2013." Citing propagandist websites. And also provided misinformation regarding medical examination results, citing an "alternate platform". That these remained unnoticed on the page for over a month despite the first two additions clearly standing apart from rest regarding grammar and spelling is a cause of concern. ToMt (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Parents' Worship Day Article recreated

Parents' Worship Day was recreated recently. I know that it had previously been merged into this article. The content there does not reflect the section on the same subject here in this article. Any interested editors here should probably look into that article as well. I happened upon it after reading ANI. Researching the references provided, I feel like that article insufficiently provides context for the right-wing nationalist Hindu context in which the holiday is being promoted. --Klaun (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content that was sourced has been restored

I restored some content that was deleted from the article regarding sexual assault allegations. I could not understand the reason provided in the summary for why the content was deleted. Let's discuss the propsed changes here. --Klaun (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Acquittal in Threats and attacks case

He was acquitted in threats and attacks case by Additional District Judge Court(ADJ court).[1][2] Serene me (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

EC Protection

I've EC protected the article for a few days due to the recent news. Please discuss changes to the article and gain consensus here. —SpacemanSpiff 08:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving rape conviction in the introduction

I've made edits twice this morning to add "convicted rapist" to Asaram's bio... this is not an edit in "bad faith" and not sure why it is being reverted by another editor. Pages of criminals on Wikipedia usually name them as such, so why are we pussyfooting around and protecting him? Even if there is a section towards the end of the article about his rape charges, court proceedings, and conviction, the information needs to be mentioned at the outset of the article as a service to the reader.

Hello and thank you for moving this to the talk page. I specifically reverted you saying "good faith" so I don't know where this "bad faith" is coming from. He isn't known as a criminal first though, he is known as a religious leader first. It is mentioned in the second line (using the references you provided) and that is enough in my opinion. Wikipedia needs to make sure there isn't too much weight and all information is balanced. For example, you saying "it is in fact a service to the reader to do so" [3] is not appropriate. This is for facts not personal opinions. Please edit this page with a neutral point of view and wait for talk page consensus. Just because you posted it here doesn't mean you can add it back. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
On a further note; no, court proceedings etc. do not need to be mentioned in the lead. The lead is a summary of the page. That is far too much detail. And he is being "protected" as you say since he is a biography of a living person and certain care must be taken because of that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my previous comments here? NOBODY is mentioning the court proceeding details in the lead, only his status as a criminal is being appended after the fact. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? I didn't delete any comment on the talk page. However, I did revert your changes to the article because you say it was discussed on the talk page when it wasn't. Now, for the second part; above you said "Even if there is a section towards the end of the article about his rape charges, court proceedings, and conviction, the information needs to be mentioned at the outset" Am I wrong to think by "information" you meant the ones you just listed? It is perfectly fine to list his conviction on the second line. There is no need to move it up. In 2010 the article was put up for deletion, this was before his conviction etc. because he was known as a religious leader first. I think we need a third opinion. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Being a known religious leader does not shield him from his criminal identity, seems pretty straightforward to me. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, he isn't being shielded. It is mentioned on the second line with many references. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I can get behind changing "sexual assault" to rape of a minor or something to make it more straightforward. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be a start but we do need a third opinion about the main issue, i.e., naming him in the lead as a convicted rapist. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am posting a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. What this means is that people interested in that topic will see it and bring their opinions here, not that we discuss this on that page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone (not me) edited the page to say this: "Asaram was found guilty of rape of teenager in 2013" to the first line of the second sentence. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Because I thought it sounded redundant how does this sound: In 2018, Asaram was found guilty of rape of a minor and is currently serving a prison sentence for the sexual assault. He was mentioned in a list of fake sadhus released by Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad, the apex organisation of Hindu Sants (saints) and Sadhus (ascetics) in India. Please note that the second sentence is still considered "the lead" or the intro if you will. Just because it isn't in the first sentence doesn't mean it isn't in the lead. It will still show up on google and people will still read it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The search snippet that Google currently shows for this page is, "Asumal Sirumalani, known as Asaram Bapu or just Bapuji by his followers, is a religious leader in India. Starting in the early 1970s, he had established over 400 ashrams in India and abroad and has numerous followers." It still says nothing about the conviction. This information is too important and character-defining to be relegated to the second paragraph. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The good and the bad have to weighed together. See WP:BALASP or the whole page on WP:NPOV. Once people click on it they'll see the second part. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I apologize but I am in a very different time zone than you are unfortunately. It is nearing 5am here. I apologize but reasonably I cannot continue this conversation for a few hours. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject," agreed. But being a rapist is hardly what someone might call a "minor aspect". The fact that despite him being a self-styled godman and widely-known charlatan, nobody is contesting the part where it says "religious leader" is enough proof that the attempt here is not to damage the neutrality of the article... because he did / does have followers. For reference, see the Wikipedia page of Tarun Tejpal, a journalist accused of sexual assault, his charges are brought up within the first paragraph and also show in the Google search snippet. In addition to the conviction being moved to the first paragraph, where it shows in the snippet, it also needs to be added in the metadata under his profile picture under the section "Criminal Charge". I'm not making or breaking any precedence by recommending these changes. The Wiki pages about balance and neutrality are guidelines, open to interpretation, the interpretation is subjective. I will re-state that my changes are factual, and, according to me, do not violate any set guidelines about neutrality or balance—it's a very matter-of-fact update. I don't particularly care about Asaram in a personal capacity, but this country is done in by these conmen who are in the business of gaining people's trust to criminally exploit them. I'm not sure how well you understand the current political climate / public perception of godmen in India, but these are big wins for the state, I'm still not sure what the reticence on your part is... who or what is being unfairly represented by this edit? 182.73.1.130 (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I couldn't sleep, I felt guilty leaving this conversation like I did so I am back for now. I wanted to bring up a key difference between what you want and Tarun Tejpal's page. First of all you put on this page "convicted rapist" right after "religious leader". On Tejpal's page it is in the second sentence after his accomplishments, like I'm suggesting, there just isn't a space between the two sentences. On this page there's a space after his religious accomplishments. I guess it can all be merged into one paragraph. I don't have a problem with that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I will concede that in a way I was making a political statement when adding "convicted rapist" right after "religious leader", seeing these together will probably create cognitive dissonance for the readers, but while Wikipedia asks us to be neutral—I wasn't and am still not sure how I'm hurting the neutrality or balance of the article by stating facts. The thought process that goes into assigning this information second priority in his bio, or arguing for it, in my mind stems from the thought, "Oh, but he's done a lot of religious work." Maybe so. But he also raped a minor. If in his career, he didn't have a problem reconciling those two facts, then why should I (the editor) or others (readers) be made to view aspects of his personality with differing parity? Anyway, since the information is appended in the second paragraph, I will not be making any further edits. I just think the discussion about this was fairly avoidable as my intentions were hardly vandalism or slander. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As the editor who redesigned the entire article days back, the lead can be certainly improved. Opinions and versions of the lead from participants in the thread are more than welcome:). But, please read our policy about biographies and know that we don't care about how Google displays our imformation in the search-sidebar. ~ Winged BladesGodric 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I have read through the Wikipedia policy page about biographies of living people. I haven't come across a section that clashes with my suggestion of inclusion. Please point me to specific clauses where you see a potential problem. The policy may not require us explicitly to care about Google's search results, but that's where editors are supposed to take a judgment call based on the accuracy, relevance, and gravity of the information being added. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I have decided to drop the discussion about moving the charges further up in the lead for now. Three editors (including you) have reviewed the page and checked the edits to reflect the new information. I don't think it makes any sense for me to keep pressing. Thank you. 182.73.1.130 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Asaram vs Asharam

Hi User:Ss73619, Please note that our article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME. a disproportionately large number of Mainstream media calls this person as Asaram. hence the title. please do not change it.

Regarding Bapu and other honorifics, kindly refer to WP:HONOR to understand our policies on that. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Firstly, What sense does it make if main stream media incorrectly calls someone's name. Can that be not corrected in Wikipedia? Even if there is a legal document that shows the correct name.
Secondly, Bapu is not an honorific. Its a part of the person's name. And even if you consider it so, why is Mother Teresa addressed as mother? Bapu literally means father. If Bapu cannot be added to Asharam's name, would you please remove Mother from Teresa's name too.

~ Suraj Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss73619 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have much doubts about your motivations (and would advice you to disclose your conflict of interest) but COMMONNAME, as cited above by DbigXray is a policy in en.wiki and states Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. So, if multiple media units repeatedly use a wrong version of name, we will go by that; official name doesn't matter an iota.And, FWIW, allmost all sources refer to Teresa by Mother Teresa, neither by her birthname nor by Teresa alone. ∯WBGconverse 12:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi WBJ, Thank you so much for reading my message and replying. I couldn't find my our your message commented yesterday. Though i could see your reply in history as "Politically motivated situation.......... I get you......" (yes, you are absolutely right about it☺).

Although it will be great if you would conclude weather any changes

1. in terms of name consistency, i.e Asaram Bapu throughout the article or 2. Possibility of putting the name as Asharam

is recommended/approved from your end. I dont want to bother or trouble anyone even unknowingly. :)

awaiting your reply. thank you in advance. have a great day ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss73619 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Bogas blog by a anti hindu activists

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

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

Book

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

Gurukul Death section tone

In diff [4] and [5] there has been an attempt to make the tone of this article negative. The fact is this case is closed now, still this section is all negative. He already got a clean chit here. There is not point in exaggarating old details of case. Already entire article seems an attack article towards the subject and when this Gurukul case was closed aquitting him then also it is being described in negative tone. Title of this section should be updated to mention clean-chit, the way conviction is mentioned in Jodhpur case sectionLa vérité gagne (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

As an explanation for this revert, why are you adding redundant stuff? We already mention ....The commission had been criticized by the High Court for its procedural biases towards Asaram; the final report was submitted in 2013, but were only disclosed in 2019 by the state legislature, essentially exonerating Asaram of all charges but holding the ashram authorities responsible for negligence. A concurrent CID probe, ordered on the behest of the High Court of Gujarat had already rejected the claims of practice of black magic, in 2010.... The news-piece added by you (mentioning exoneration by parents), is of a different case (Yadav, Madhya Pradesh) than the one covered at the section (Vaghela, Gujarat). I also note that you are continuing to edit-war, as to the first line, despite an inability to attain consensus. ∯WBGconverse 06:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the content related to parents? Was that also redundant or you want to keep only negative info. Why you reverted everything without discussing on talk page, I always initiate my discussion here La vérité gagne (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an inability to comprehend basic English? May-be, see the meaning of different? ∯WBGconverse 07:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You added a line about Chhindwara and I added this ref and said those parents gave clean chit. Why you removed it? [6]La vérité gagne (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
In this[7] where can you see mention of Madhya Pradesh? And even if you see it then mention that it's Madhya Pradesh case instead of deleting reference and content. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
It's your responsibility to corroborate the content of multiple news-sources to ascertain the entire scenario; I won't do that for you. See this news mentioning the same victim name and locating it in Madhya Pradesh.
Rebut, as to the other point, later. ∯WBGconverse 07:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
So you are calling CHHINDWARA as Madhya Pradesh.so That's what I mentioned in my previous comment, you added about Chiindwara in diff [8] and then you reverted my edit about the same news in diff [9]. Why? La vérité gagne (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Black magic

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

If you read the ref which I added [10] Ctrl-f "Tantrik" you will get this statement in that: ""There is no evidence to suggest that in the ashram, Asaram-ji and his son Narayan Sai performed Tantrik Vidhi (black magic rituals)," the report said." So that ref is both about tantra(tantric) as well as black magic. And if you think it's about "in a part. ashram." then it's fine I will add that the word "Ashram" to make it more clear. La vérité gagne (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The judges were not any established scholars in the field of religion. In highly imprecise and rudimentary terms Tantra is a superset of black magic; see Gavin Flood et al . ∯WBGconverse 15:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Judges gave judgement about both Tantric as well as Black Magic. It's the judgement of judiciary and we are adding that on WP:BLP article, so it has to be according to what judiciary said. La vérité gagne (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The Justice D K Trivedi Commission stated that they have not found evidence of black magic in his Ashram. No need of deleting this statement, when it was said by the judiciary and is well supported by ref. Judiciary must have taken care of searching his Ashram's before giving him clean-chit. You don't have any right to hide that fact.La vérité gagne (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Even if I accept of (1) the judiciary-committee having equated the practice of black magic to tantric practices, and (2) their subsequent rejection, that report covered one particular gurukul, which is located in Motera. Long back in 2008, he ran 425 ashrams, 1,400 Yog Vedant Seva Samitis; 17,000 Bal Sanskar Kendras; and 50 gurukuls.
Trivedi Commission's report has no place in the activities section, which concerns with the broader dynamics rather than specifics. ∯WBGconverse 18:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It definitely has a place if this line has a place, which is just based on an allegation:"...gained widespread popularity, practicing a simplified tantric version of Hinduism and attracting the unprivileged sections of the society, en masse"La vérité gagne (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Multiple journalism outlets, Meera Nanda et al deem Asaram to practice tantra; we go by secondary scholarship and unless contradicted by other secondary scholarships, we don't really care about how they reached their conclusions. (They are definitely not allegations, in a wiki-sense.)
In any case, it's a waste of time arguing with SPAs. Paging Vanamonde93 and DBigXray :- Second opinion(s), please. ∯WBGconverse 15:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We give scholarly sources more weight than judicial pronouncements, which are't considered reliable on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think views of journalists is above the report of Justice commission and CID and as far as I know, Wiki also states: "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." [11] and in case of tantric allegations he was never convicted. In that case he was always got clean chit only La vérité gagne (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Delhi gang rape comments

When the article has the comments in detail then what is the reason behind trying to remove the clarification made by Asaram? I see Winged Blades of Godric is continuously trying to just revert changes on this page. Can you please explain why you reverted it, when it was based on news reference of a trusted website "India Today" [12]

See WP:MANDY. We already say that Asaram rejects the allegations and claims of distortion; publicity-oriented rhetoric does not matter. ∯WBGconverse 06:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If the actual alleged comment that he made for victim has to remain then the actual clarification should also remain. La vérité gagne (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
See WP:MANDY. We already say that Asaram rejects the allegations and claims of distortion; publicity-oriented rhetoric does not matter. ∯WBGconverse 06:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Views of devotees must be present on this Article

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

Salona Choudhury, I have added it in my last edit to the article; lead reflects body in a summary-style and the contents do not belong at the lead. ∯WBGconverse 07:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Acquittal in IT Act

Why have you Winged Blades of Godric removed proper referenced content? [13][14] La vérité gagne (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:VNOTSUFF; we need widespread coverage of the acquittal to decide of it being a significant event in Asaram's life. ∯WBGconverse 06:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot of content in this article which is based on unverified and single source for example the allegation of selling liquor etc, by this logic that should be removed as well. And acquittal is something which definitely finds a place in this article if 2 news sources have published it. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:VNOTSUFF is about disputed content, since this is about acquittal by court, there is no point of dispute, as it's court result. Hence a court result definitely has significance. It's well-supported by sources as well. La vérité gagne (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
You do not decide what is disputed and what not. See WP:DR. ∯WBGconverse 12:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned at BLPN, this acquittal stuff seems out of place as presented, especially the IT act thing. If the cases were mentioned elsewhere in the article, then sure his acquittal should be mentioned. But mentioning some random acquittal when there isn't even some minimal explanation of what the case was about is pointless. We do not mention even random court case someone gets involved in, and if these court cases wouldn't have been mentioned before the acquittals then they often won't be mentioned after the acquittals either. (Exceptions would be if they resulted in something wider. E.g. if he successful sued for malicious prosecution or something.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

La vérité gagne blocked as a sockmaster

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/La vérité gagne. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Image of Lilashah

Lilashah statue at Gandhidham Kutch Gujarat - This image of Lilashah is taken by me. Article mentions: In one such event, Lilashah, a local religio-spiritual figure had allegedly ordained him as her disciple, over an ashram at Gandhidham, and named him Asaram on 7 October 1964. If this image is relevant, please add it in the article. -Nizil (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing adjective "rapist" as per WP:BLP

His case is still undertrial in High Court and in fact co-accused sentence already got suspended[1][2]. Hence is not right to add words like rapist. This line is already there: "In April 2018, Asaram was found guilty of the rape of a minor girl and is currently serving life imprisonment in Jodhpur" and I think this is more than sufficient. And words like Rapist should not be added since case is in High Court and Wiki page giving too much importance to it seems unfair. As if High Court or Supreme court later on proves him innocent - it will e defamation by Wiki. I am saying that we remove mention of rapist, say specifically that he was convicted by session court. But don't give him a term "rapist". These changes came recently and this older version was not having such words. I tried to correct but they were reverted. Please check.[15] La vérité gagne (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CRYBLP#2.
Asaram is not his co-accused and even if he were, that suspension has been since revoked in entirety, with Asaram planning to lodge a fresh appeal next year. A convicted rapist (and that too under POSCO) is a HUGE deal, as reflected by the fact that almost all coverage about Asaram, over the course of past half-a-decade or so, centers on this locus. And, this page will surely change, as the outcomes of his legal trials change. ∯WBGconverse 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
So my concern is only about the usage of word "rapist". I don't see any issue in mentioning that he is convicted for rape by session court. FYI: Suspension of Sentence and High court appeal are two different things. Case is still ongoing in High court. La vérité gagne (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
We don't sugarcoat things. ∯WBGconverse 18:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I am telling about being more specific. La vérité gagne (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This is regarding your revert:[16] Please let me know what is the issue in making the text more specific, none of the references refers him by term rapist which you only associated here. And stop using abusive summary. La vérité gagne (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
See WP:DR. Also, you need to stop moving the goalpost.
There are ample references out there using the very specific term rapist.
Also, OED defines the term as A person who commits rape. And there are a thousand and one references mentioning that he has been convicted of rape. ∯WBGconverse 05:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
From a BLP standpoint, I'm not convinced there is any real difference between saying someone is a convicted child rapist, and saying they were convicted of child rape. As for the appeal issue, there was consensus in this discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive286#George Pell that as long as the conviction survives, it should be mentioned. I don't see any reason for this case to be different. (Note in that case, the offences were not called child rape.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I agree with Nil Einne above. I also feel that these 2 options are hardly different from each other. It seems to me that La vérité gagne has some personal dislikeness to this word and is trying to enforce his dislikeness son Wikipedia. Dislike the crime not the noun. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Although this is probably dead now that the OP is blocked, I should clarify when I said "the offences were not called child rape", I meant "the offences they were convicted of were not called child rape, and therefore the issue of calling them a 'convicted child rapist' did not arise. Instead the term 'convicted child sex offender' was considered to convey what they were convicted of. If Asaram was convicted of child rape, then by the same token 'convicted child rapist' seems to convey the conviction." Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

GENERAL OBJECTION - The page is disrespect to the feeling of Millions of followers of Sant Shri Asaram Ji Bapu. He is a spiritual saint and has changes the life of Millions of people in India and World. Either delete it or show both the aspects. Only showing negatives doesn't depict a true picture. Strong condemn the use of Wikipedia for this.

Specific changes: Asumal Sirumalani Harpalani (born 17 April 1941), popularly known as Asaram, is a controversial Godman, based in India and a convicted child rapist.[2][3] SHOULD be changed to Asumal Sirumalani Harpalani (born 17 April 1941), popularly known as Sant Shri Asaram Ji Bapu, is a respected spiritual & enlightened Saint, based in India. Praveshtejan (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See differences between biography and hagiography. ∯WBGconverse 12:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

change 'spiritual guru' to 'convicted rapist' 223.230.20.173 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This has been dealt with in the archives. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Quote box

The Quote box in the 'Activities' section, I think it is not needed and should be removed since, in my opinion, that's not encyclopedic information. Lightbluerain (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Respected admin. Still in rape case he is not guilty in upper appealed court. So Asaram can not be declared as A rape accused.

Respected admin. Still in rape case he is not guilty in upper appealed court. So Asaram can not be declared as A rape accused. Kindly till in upper court he not proved as a rapist. It can not be written on Asarm related Wikipedia page. Yogesh Upadhyay Kaimara (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia®. And yeah, I totally understand that per the English system of extreme reverence to judiciary( vide' pg 59/int. to Chapter 5) but please note.. Wikipedia® doesn't have to conform to the authority-reverence amongst masses of any culture whatsoever but what the verifiable reliable sources convey, per WP:POV & WP:WIKIVOICE. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

Please change: "Asumal Sirumalani Harpalani (born 17 April 1941), popularly known as Asaram, is an Indian spiritual guru." to "Asumal Sirumalani Harpalani (born 17 April 1941), popularly known as Asaram, is a convicted rapist and an Indian spiritual guru." because whenever a link to this page is hovered over from another pages, the short description gives a false pretence. Ginder99 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Was removed by a new editor in March. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial"

@Þjarkur: Hey there, Abhishek0831996 asked me on my talk page if I would look at this article, in particular at the "controversial" in the lede. I note that you added it here (although I don't know if you were the first to do so). One thing I note is that per WP:LABEL, we should be keeping an eye out for contentious labels like this. Even "godman" kind of carries somewhat of a value judgment if we go by what the lede of Godman (India) says. Thoughts? I don't plan to get involved here, I just thought I'd open the discussion to see if anyone had opinions about this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I had been reverting to a previous introduction, and while I do recall having found this older introduction to be on the aggressive side I didn't look into it further because the cited sources all described him as a controversial figure. I have removed the label "controversial" since as you say we should be able to demonstrate how he is controversial rather than just saying it. I have also re-arranged the introduction to keep the criminal status in the second paragraph, I believe the introduction now says the exact same thing without being so aggressive about it. Regarding "godman", that is apparently the label he uses himself; all sources describe him as a "self-styled godman". I am not opposed to this label being changed to something more descriptive. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I agree with the recent changes. As for finding better alternative than "Indian self-styled godman (guru)", I would be better with "Indian spiritual leader" since "spiritual leader" is supported by reliable sources.[17][18] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Modi Quote

It is customary for politicians to visit religious leaders for their blessings. Both BJP and Congress leaders used to meet Asaram. It must be noted that Modi abandoned support for Asaram in 2008, long before other political leaders, presumably based on what he learned from the probe team he appointed. The Modi quote, a polite statement honoring a (then) popular religious figure, does not add any significant information, and should be removed. Malaiya (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/asaram-cites-trial-by-media-in-rape-conviction-files-appeal-against-life-term/story-7DzUHltoz4TFq57rGif41J.html
  2. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-asaram-bapu-rape-case-rajasthan-hc-suspends-sentence-of-co-accused-grants-her-bail-2669571
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asaram/Archive_5&oldid=1013346783"