Talk:Asaram/Archive 4

Asaram Bapuji was aquitted from the case of death of two children in the gurukul in motela/motera. reference supreme court judgement dt 9-11-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.103.122 (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I want to add few details in the below section

Edit request on 27 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Asaram Bapu however denied giving any such statement in which he blamed the girl for the gangrape. According to him his statement was distorted and presented in the wrong way. < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving such statement". India News. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> To prove his innocence, Asaram Bapu announced a reward of 50,000 rupees for anyone who can prove he blamed the victim for the gangrape. < ref >"Asaram Bapu announced reward". IndiaToday. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu announced reward". IBNLIVE. 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> Till date no one has claimed the proposed reward of 50,000 rupees.

Saurabh hariom (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that may be added. But, not with the YouTube source, ANI News, NDTV etc (you can search in Google to find these) should be used. See WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FIVE. --Tito☸Dutta 12:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

± As asked i am adding 3 more links supporting the above context, all 3 are from reputed news agencies. < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving controversial statement". business-standard. 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving controversial statement". DNA. 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> < ref >"Asaram Bapu denied giving controversial statement". onenewspage. 2013-01-15. Retrieved 2013-08-26.</ref> I have presented 5 sources for the above context, i hope it is sufficient for the edition.Saurabh hariom (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

≈ Hey whats wrong with the above portion, its neutral and based on facts..why cant we have it added. Saurabh hariom (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

≈ This page is semi-protected, only an established editor can make the changes . I would request any established editor to do the above change.Saurabh hariom (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Partly done: "To prove his innocence" is not supported by either source, nor is the last sentence. I've done a little copy edit to the neutral part and added it with the original citations, formatted using the cite web template. Please let me know if you would like to adjust it further. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

^[when?]A 16 year old girl has brought forward an accusation of sexual assault to police^[which?] against Bapu. The girl said that the assault occurred at Bapu's Jodhpur Ashram.^[1] Bapu denied the accusation^[when?] and claimed that it was a conspiracy against him which was orchestrated by Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi.^[2] Bapu was asked to appear to police for interview before Friday the 30th of August 2013.^[2] Bapu did not appear before police on the Friday. On the Saturday the day after the request had expired, 300 police officers went to Bapu's Ashram to search for Bapu.^[3] They evicted Bapu's supporters.^[4] Bapu's supporters injured two members of the media at the Ashram.^[5][3] Police discovered that Bapu had left his Ashram and was seen near Indore.^[3]

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

I think that looks good. I don't see anything that could be left out, and at this time there is no reason to add any additional information. Gandydancer (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be sure that my "approval" is not misunderstood, I would make several changes in the wording, for instance the first sentence should mention the date that the girl brought the charges to the authorities, dates rather than the day of the week should be used, etc. Also, as noted below, the info needs to be checked against the sources. My agreement is more to the amount of copy re the incident rather than the exact wording. Gandydancer (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You say "On the Saturday the day after the request had expired, 300 police officers went to Bapu's Ashram to search for Bapu." but the source cited says that " 300 police officials have been deployed outside Asaram's ashram to prevent a repeat of attack on media personnel." M.P. police were not searching for Asaram.-Shahab (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another problem: Eviction of supporters is nowhere mentioned in the claimed source. Moreover supporters injured media persons in Jodhpur (Rajasthan) while 300 policemen had been deployed and the arrest of Asaram was from Indore (Madhya Pradesh). The way this written, it seems that there was only one ashram in the entire episode.-Shahab (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason that it is different is because the newspaper, annoyingly, updated the story today instead of writing a new one, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is:

On 20th August, a 16 year old girl filed a report in a New Delhi police station claiming that Asaram had sexually abused her in his Jodhpur ashram on 17 August.^[6] The Delhi police promptly transferred the case to the Rajasthan police which registered the complaint on 21 August.^[7] A summon for questioning was issued by the Rajasthan police on the 26 for Asaram and he was given four days time to reply to the summons and make himself available for questioning.^[8] When till 31th August Asaram had not responded to the summons, a team of Rajasthan police was dispatched to his Indore ashram in Madhya Pradesh where he was currently present.^[9] Around midnight of the same day, Asaram was arrested, and then on the morning of 1st September he was flown from Indore to Jodhpur via Delhi.^[10] He is currently in a Jodhpur police station where he is being questioned. The police have to produce him before a magistrate for seeking further custody within 24 hours.-Shahab (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

looks good, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should include the statement about the conspiracy. This is discussed in two of the sources and represents the subject's direct response to the allegation. Preferably his own words should be used as a direct quotation: I always believe in letting the subject of an article have his say. Supporters of Julian Assange know that nowadays conspiracy theories are a lot more believable than they used to be. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

perhaps this can now be moved to the article and further clarifications, such as with the conspiracy theory can be added? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, better something than nothing - I didn't mean to hold up having some text there (however, I didn't check the entire text above) Wnt (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While this version certainly does a great job of providing information, perhaps it is a little too detailed? It's a hard call considering that, for example, the Edward Snowden article has extensive coverage of the incident that resulted in a call for his arrest. This version does not mention the political implications, that I feel are important. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Added few questions in the first draft and made few minor changes in both the first and the second draft. Note, we write dates like 1 April 2013 and not 1st April 2013. --Tito☸Dutta 15:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• And the arrest should be included too. --Tito☸Dutta 15:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

-- I also wanted to inform editors that there is no rape case involved in this case. It was sexual assault and medical report confirmed that rape was not involved. Current edit is total wrong info and needs modification. More over some media houses still use this case on rape inspite of repeated confirmation from DCP Lamba. You can say that media is biased and section of media distorting/supressing facts. 1. On social media and Youtube Exposed by Jodhpur police( Statement by DCP on this case which no media published it. Balant misreporting/misquoting by media) 2. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/asaram-bapu-wrongly-booked-for-rape-by-delhi-police-says-jodhpur-police/1/300832.html·( Which clears the case) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.241.95 (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wanted inform you this following explanation needs modification. (my suggestions in bracket) Asaram (Bapu) has been involved in several(too much generalization) controversies including criminal cases filed against him, encroachment by his ashrams, his remarks on the 2012 Delhi gang rape, and a 2013 charge of rape(Sexual Assault) of a minor.

Kaarora (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)1. Can you please update the wiki with honest proofs .

The Girl herself accepted with conversation to her freind that nothing wrong has been done to her , his father is putting such pressure on her to put false allegations against Saint .

2. It's a complete conspiracy against the Saints , said Shri Subramaniyan Swamy in his tweets .

3. Here is complete coverage of False allegations going against Asaram Bapu ji..

Kaarora (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)I urge and request the Wiki team to update the wiki with honest & unbiased views .

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/erchnpw8raichvv/xD3IF0Iujv/Final%20suprachar%20with%20music%20%28VCD%29.mpg

Kaarora (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Can you include the Article link

http://www.merinews.com/article/how-the-traditional-media-is-conspiring-against-asaram-bapu/15889880.shtml#globalbar

so that people shall now about reason of conspiracies against the Saint.

Offcourse this is a Trusted Resource .

The section's prose etc are being discussed above. It has not been proved subject has raped. "Other victims" — which victims? This is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper where every hour's details will be served. Plus, since the crimes have not been proved still, it should be carefully handled per WP:BLPCRIME --Tito☸Dutta 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that the subject has definitively raped the child. I replaced the euphemism "sexual assault" because it does not exist in the Indian Penal Code and he has been arrested under IPC 376 (rape). Regarding "other victims", please bother to read the article before you question "which victims".--Crème3.14159 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• It does not matter what exists in Indian Penal Code and what not. Wikipedia is a world Encyclpedia and not for Indian Penal Code readers only. Stop wrongly quoting Jimbo Wales. Wales' comments were on the talk, not article. I have reverted twice. I'll wait for sometime to see if someone else does anything. Or, go and self revert --Tito☸Dutta 00:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia maybe a "world Encyclpedia" (whatever that means) but partisan editors cannot censor out a universally-accepted term for a criminal offence in criminal jurisprudence and use a euphemism. Can you please explain what part of my edit needs to be removed and why? Everything I added was well-referenced. If you have not heard of the word "rape" previously, then please have a look at Laws regarding rape, Rape in English law and Rape in the United States.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Court has not given their verdict still. "Other victims" — who? Have you noticed the discussions in this talk page? Where were you when we were discussing things? The header was decided by other editors, discuss changes at talk page first. --Tito☸Dutta 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Courts have not given a verdict. So? How is it related to what we are discussing? The word "allegedly" has been repeatedly used. I am not sure I understand what you are trying to get at. Previously, you tried suppressing the rape allegation entirely. Now that Jimmy interfered to get it back, you have a problem with the word "rape" when this is the charge under which he has been arrested. Exactly what are you trying to say? Regarding "other victims", if you had bothered to read the citation, it was a young woman from Raipur.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed this stuff about the latest allegation. I've left the other section intact - it doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's okay as is.

Also, Crème3.14159, I don't know about the Indian press, but the Daily Mail is definitely not good enough for a WP:BLP. See: Tabloid_Terminator#Daily_Mail -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• ::::::* In addition, Jimbo commented on the talk page issue and not the article. If you don't understand go ask anywhere you want. And where you found me deleting the entire controversy section. Actually I was suggesting to add it. --Tito☸Dutta 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to ask anywhere. If a devotee has a problem with the article, he himself should clarify exactly what problem he has. Reverting without any specific answer to what troubled him is not enough. Everything added here is well-referenced.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Who mentioned devotees? You need to be very careful when inserting material about allegations against a living person. That means giving an usually high number of reliable sources and discussing the issue here, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest new editors familiarise themselves with WP:IMPARTIAL:

"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• The section is in much better condition than what I saw last time. The confusing comments "the girl bathes for two and a half hours, "other victims"^[who?] are alleging etc are gone. IPC should be linked to Indian Penal Code for non-Indian readers. --Tito☸Dutta 17:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• IPC linking done. --Tito☸Dutta 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed twice now reference to the potency test using an edit-summary: "removed "potency test" per BLP as too suggestive of wrongdoing and without context of expert analysis". Please do not reinstate this until consensus forms. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

According to reports, after he claimed that he was impotent and unable to have committed the act, he "was on Sunday subjected to a "potency test", which confirmed that the 72-year-old's libido is active. He was made to take the test after he told cops that he was impotent and therefore incapable of committing the crime he was charged with." It was called a "normal procedure". This information is significant and should be returned to the article. Wikipedia does not need special "expert analysis" reports on top of Indian police reports to include medical information in this article. If that were the case, we'd be arguing about whether or not a medical report on a rape victim was good enough without some sort of "expert analysis". Gandydancer (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I too agree with Dr. K. --Tito☸Dutta 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a false analogy. The victim results establish the fact that she was assaulted so there is no need for expert analysis to add them to the article. But the potency results imply that Bapu was capable of the assault. Per BLP he is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through proper analysis, including DNA, by medical and legal experts and proceedings in a court of law. Insinuating that he could have done it goes over that reasonable BLP barrier. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the BLP policy on expert analysis is but this is a key piece of information in establishing the very capacity to commit sexual assault. Bapu's defense was that he is impotent and hence incapable of rape (because he was charged of rape then). I don't see how this is insinuating criminality. There is an allegation on him, he countered it with a claim. There was a test to refute his claim. It needs to be reported as corroborative evidence because even the police is using this as medical evidence to establish criminality. Whether he actually molested/raped the girl is a larger concern of the case but that doesn't mean that all information pertaining to this "incident" should not be reported. Noopur28 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC) @Noopur28:, please sign with four tildes, and not three tildes (last edit) --Tito☸Dutta 09:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Noopur is correct. It has really concerned me that the editors of this article apparently believe that there is nothing wrong with reporting the condition of the alleged victim's hymen, which according to a few news articles was intact, suggesting that she could not have been raped. But editors refuse to report on the condition of the male's penis, which according to numerous reports is functioning quite well, as "too suggestive of wrongdoing and without context of expert analysis". With over 100 page watchers for this article, it strikes me as odd that a "medical exam", which may well have consisted of India's "two finger test", for the victim is good enough, but we need some sort of "proper analysis, including DNA, by medical and legal experts and proceedings in a court of law" above and beyond what India's news sources have provided to mention the physical condition of the male's penis. Gandydancer (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there are no further objections, I have added this information to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, IRWolfie-, Titodutta and I had not agreed to this. How is it this was added in the face of such opposition? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. I support Dr. K. See also, my rewriting request below. --Tito☸Dutta 00:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency. Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics. User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages. Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly the opposite, few editors are adding it before finishing the discussion. The draft we were preparing above was better. Note, I don;t support adding that girl's hymen condition too. --Tito☸Dutta 13:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Tito. Converting this BLP into an out of court "she said, he said" using medical records for both of them is not encyclopedic information. Only when this evidence is examined in a court of law and a decision rendered, this medical information should be mentioned if it becomes part of the court decision. Otherwise we are going to convert this article into a trial by encyclopedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is going to be a case for mindless consensus then I call for the hymen information to be removed. I am not asking for consensus anymore. After this edit, I will remove that information from this article because I believe it delves in unnecessary detail in the bigger picture and also implies false allegations on the part of the victim.Noopur28 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lovely, someone has already removed it. I will enter the potency test again. I am just awaiting the decision on bail. You can take it to arbitration if you want. If the girl's medical examination details are relevant, so are Bapu's. If Wikipedia BLP policy doesn't support that,then we need to change the policy and infuse some sense of consistency into it. Noopur28 (talk)

• Do not add it again. --Tito☸Dutta 15:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Both the girl's and Bapu's medical details have been removed. There is no consensus that they be added into the article again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with both of those steps. Its important that we don't implicitly cast aspersions in a complex legal case, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This information is wrongfully written and is incomplete which deteriorates the image of the person mentioned , it is against the dignity of an individual, please delete this page as it is totally wrong. the cases mentioned here are declared by Supreme Court of India as false and that is not mentioned here, All the informations are wrong and rubbish, please delete this page.

180.215.148.164 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Also the place to request deletions is at WP:AFD. RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add - People in thousands visit His satsang conducted across India and take diksha. One reference is http://www.ashram.org/Press/PressView/tabid/912/ArticleId/3503/-MADHYA-PRADESH-SATSANG-MEDIA-COVERAGE.aspx This is news paper cutting, dont treat it as self-website reference. There are many news paper cuttings added at same section of website for references if anybody want those. Naveentirthani (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No editor interested adding this? but interested only in one side, adding controversies? Naveentirthani (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This information: Around 80,000 devotees took diksha in Chhindwara in Feb 2013. has been removed calling it a "self-published primary source". How is this different than using, for instance, corporate information from a company's web page and putting it in the corporation's article? Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is self-published or not, we cannot cite (or even link) a web page that contains extensive newspaper cuttings - it is almost certainly a breach of the newspaper's copyright. If the material comes from newspapers, you should provide a proper citation to the original. We can then look into whether the material is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)