Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

India: Haryana / Punjab C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Haryana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Punjab (India) (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2012.

The reason for my edits so far is to remove POV wording against this persons opponents and for him because I felt it was too prevalent in the article and made it look like a joke. Some of the things I removed were unnecessary, like the massive list of charity work his organization did. Maybe I cut out too much but its not like he was personally doing everything. Also I included the couple of court cases against him because they were international news for awhile.

For examples of the pov joke this article is; " a so called sting operation" " being targetted by vicious politicians using a discredited and infamous agency called the CBI" "the role of deeply communal political parties lurking in the background " "Backlash from religious zealots" "Terror experts say that the real reason behind this victimisation was a serious effort by AfPak terror groups to restart terrorism in India on some pretext"[3]--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (Profitoftruth85|talk) , Peace be upon us all!! It is not a war , or any thing like that.It ought to be a reasoned exchange for which I have made a couple of humble entreaties on your talk page , which you have removed. There are no POV issues , only unbiased reporting which is well supported by authentic references.First of all , You , Sir , had written that about this person that " He really is crap and teaches crap". Frankly , Isn't such filthy and abusive language apalling ?;Coming from an intellectually emancipated wikipedian whose name itself denotes The-profit-of-truth!! Is that consistent with BLP and libel guidelines? Mustn't we follow the ideals of wikipedia and basic civility while writing that? Must we take away the basic vestiges of respect which is every individual's birthright? Secondly , not a word is said about this person's opponent's etc in this version . No individual is named. Infact , I have avoided all personal references or even the mention of any other community or social group. I have mentioned terror attacks with RDX etc which have been proven to be the handiwork of zealots /communalist's/terrorist's and hence the wording. Whatever be anyone's grouse , can any sane person call such acts upon anyone as acts of charity? Who are we wikipedians to say that such violent means are jusitifed in silencing this man , whatever be his apparent foibles!? The enbloc deletion of the social work was uneccessary.If it bring out his contributions as a social worker , and that is not attributable to his followers/organisation acting alone , because he is their head and the chief ideologue.

Let me answer your queries on the POV joke pointwise: Allreferences have been added on the page. " a so called sting operation" These string of references are from leading Hindi and English dailies of India which have recorded the CBI's findings and the court's verdict without any bias.(You will have to use google translator for the Amar Ujala links).It is clearly mentioned that Tehelka and India TV reporters were involved in bribing a person to depose falsely against Ram Rahim on the behest of a powerful politician. Those were the people who conducted the sting operation , as per the CBI investigation , which has been upheld by the court. " being targetted by vicious politicians using a discredited and infamous agency called the CBI" The small list of "must read" references above includes the views of the CBI'S former director S.Joginder Singh and Sh.BR Lal , a former Joint Director , who have recorded politicking , nepotism , corruption etc. in a no-holds-barred account. I shall be happy to provide excerpts online but only copyright issues prevent me from dilating further.The wikipedia page on CBI is an eye-opener. Furthermore, it is interesting because the persons who were investigating the cases were accused and proceeded against for torturing witnesses to depose falsely.Having said that , If the court convicts the fellow , I shall dutifully report the same. "the role of deeply communal political parties lurking in the background " Please do take the trouble of going through the references and the truth shall emerge. "Backlash from religious zealots" , "Terror experts say that the real reason behind this victimisation was a serious effort by AfPak terror groups to restart terrorism in India on some pretext" All the references are truly neutral and are in the public domain.They are also written by the best experts in the chosen fields. "... ,...dispatched to hell..!" Lastly , I have never made any personal attacks against anyone. Since I am a true believer of all religions , and like other faiths , I hold the Sikh religion in the highest esteem. Therefore , I quoted from the sacred Gurbani to illustrate the point and not to hurt anyone's feelings.It is the sacred writings of the Gurus , which says that , Not me. Lastly , quoting from Saint Kabir, "I am the most wretched and the lowliest , no one is lower than me, Those who act thus, Says Kabir , are the only disciples of the True Guru" I dont say this for effect , but I hope to be able to follow this in its entirety , someday , soon. So , taking a leaf from your kind suggestions , I shall be mellowing down the words that you have objected to. God Bless! Best regards, (Bandagharka (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Couple of things

1. that part about "he is crap and teaches crap" was not something I added and was not intentional, it was just me reverting :the page back to the version that had that.
2. Take a glance at WP:TLDR and be more concise in your writing
3. Stop appealing to religion because it's not appropriate
4. Some of the things on your revision are so biased that they are not wikipedia material, I'm editing those in my next edit.

--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to include a section on political activity using these articles.[4][5][6][7]

This article uses a lot of non-neutral language such as "zealots" and "fanatics". Wikipedia articles are not supposed to use words that have a strong point of view. Instead, they should try to describe events as neutrally as possible, while giving proper weight to all viewpoints. Also, I believe a number of the sources used for this article do not qualify as reliable sources. Finally, there is a lot of promotional material (such as the immense list of charity work) that probably should be either trimmed or remove altogether, since it is only tangentially related to Ram Rahim Singh personally. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the words must be removed. But the major issue is why one persons good work should trouble so many? And a word for the guy above :--Profitoftruth85, even Guru Gobind Singh was accused of rape by a follower named Anoop Kaur. There is lots of such juicy stuff , are you guys as willing for someone else to rattle off those references and besmear a Saint? Charitropakhyan has an autobiographical account by the Great Guru , but I hope by going hammer and tong against fellows sympathetic to Ram Rahim , You dont give them ammo for retaliation against us. One can profit from the truth only by being more broad minded and tolerant. Cheers! [www.scribd.com/doc/30469726/Charitropakhyan-and-I-A-Woman] (Vickykhalsa (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

The Dasam Granth was not written by Guru Gobind Singh so that link seems irrelevant. That being said I am an atheist so I really don't care about your politics or religion. The article's contents are not a negotiation between editors, it is supposed to be a collection of references. The fact is Tehelka is as solid a reference as you can get.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-tagged the article as having a disputed neutrality, because the edit-warring shows there is clearly a dispute on the content of the article. Profitoftruth's edits have been reverted as violated BLP policies. Can anyone explain what the violations are? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags placed at the top of the article should not be removed if there is an ongoing dispute about neutrality. That is the whole reason they are placed there. Currently, the article seems to be too promotional of its subject, and probably needs to be trimmed back some. I'd like for others to explain why they think the edits attempting to correct problems are inappropriate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that any items in the charities/activities sections which are not specifically and individually related to Singh be moved to Dera Sacha Sauda, if not already covered there. Events which occurred while he happened to be in charge belong on the DSS page, while events he personally spear-headed which were not part of DSS's regular activities could be given a mention here. For example, if there were no transgendered rights initiatives before Singh took the helm, and he directed DSS to add them, I could see that sort of thing being worth a mention. Similar deal for critcisms: criticism of DSS overall should go in the DSS article, criticism of Singh in particular here. Now seems as good a time as any for some extensive cleanup of the POV, peacock, and weasel issues in this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. The removal of what you're talking about has been a contentious, back and forth affair for almost a month now, but I'd like to see a lot of duplicate and tangential material removed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the History, and not seeing any clear argument for restoring Charity info not directly related to Singh personally. Am I missing any clear arguments? Further, a look at History shows that several entire sections of well-sourced controversies (succession, murder, sexual harrassment, etc) have been removed with no clear explanation other than "libel". If an item is properly sourced, it is not libel on WP's part, so it seems profitable to look back at past versions so we can restore any properly documented material on accusations against Singh personally.

For those who are supporters of Singh, and may have pressed for this article's creation and maintenance, please read Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences (WP:LUC). One a topic has an article, nobody has the right to keep it "clean" of material they'd rather not have publicised about a person or organisation... MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it any more. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed. In addition, if your article is found to not be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

I would do it myself, but another editor is working the page; there are multiple footnotes to individual references that need to be united. Instead of [13], [14], etc. it should read [13][a][b][c], etc. You can do this by putting <ref name=Example> at the first use of the ref, and <ref name=Example/> (and no other cite) in subsquent footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that those refs which appear to be repeats are actually all different. I went through this when I let the bot fill in the reference information for me too. The titles are all very generic, but check where the links are going, and you'll see subtle differences, like slightly different dates, in many similar looking references. I'm going to step back from editing this page for the moment, so go ahead and have a look now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that a few have the same name but different links (the "Chandigarh" stuff goes to a main page from which there are follow-on articles, probably should link to those directly). But the others I carefully checked before unitings refs. Some auto-gen footnotes could use clearer titles (from the actual article title on the page they somehow missed) and some minor copyediting. Getting closer to clean with every edit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure myself at the moment: should the "Punjab plume controversy" stay mainly in its own article with some Singh coverage here, be covered entirely here, part here and in the DSS article? It seems a notable event, and plenty of good refs, I'm just wondering how to cover it without undue overlap yet giving it justice/links on related pages. Too much overlap also risks POV fork, where each article's editors might add a different slant on it. Further, I've seen no reputable usage of the term "Punjab plume controversy"; is there any more official term like "2010 Sikh-Dera riots" or such? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. That term is definitely original research, but it might deserve its own article. The copy and paste was actually done by me from that article to this one. The point of the controversy wasn't the wearing of a plume or a "central asian frock coat" (whatever that is) but a perceived imitation of the tenth Sikh Guru. Here is an interesting article by Tehelka about the advertisement he posted.

• Singh (Jun 02 , 2007). "SWORD AND FIRE". Tehelka. Retrieved 22 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

It seems like you are really cleaning up the article, I would urge you to take a look at the old Punjab plume controversy dif before it was edited by Bandagharka. Also it's hard to tell because of the flurry of edits but you might not want to base the plume controversy section and the article off of this edit [8] where bandagharka reverted all of my edits.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire women's roller-skating hockey team of India has been coached by Singh personally *Hindustan Times http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fighting-odds-amp-setting-benchmarks-in-sport/Article1-508618.aspx. Retrieved 22 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), * http://sirsanews.blogspot.com/2009/01/about-sirsa-brief-updated-history-of.html. Retrieved 22 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) , and has twice won the Asian Gold for the country."Other States / Haryana News : Haryana to have new sports policy soon". The Hindu. 2007-12-28. Retrieved 2011-03-21.Similarly , the proof of the tribal emancipation is the news titled: 154 adivasi couples tie knot *The Tribune http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110128/haryana.htm#9. Retrieved 22 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)There is a program for heart disease prevention by Internationally renowned Cardiologist's Dr. Jagat Singh Narula (A Sikh!!) and Dr.Leo Hofstra that has been adopted by Ram Rahim Singh. * [http://www.happyglobally.com/projects/project-true-happy (%5b%5bUser:Bandagharka|Bandagharka%5d%5d (%5b%5bUser talk:Bandagharka|talk%5d%5d) 05:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)).

There is far to much overlap between this article and the DSS article, like practically 50%+ overlap. We need to look at the charitable activities, the controversies, etc., decide if they pertain more to DSS or to Singh, and then put them in one article, and then link to them from the article they've been removed from. The content is just far too redundant, and it can't equally apply to both entities. %5b%5bUser:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas%5d%5d (%5b%5bUser talk:MatthewVanitas|talk%5d%5d) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the trials coverage from %5b%5bDera Sacha Sauda%5d%5d as more appropriately fitting in this article. I have preserved the text and its footnotes here %5b%5bUser:MatthewVanitas/Rahim draft%5d%5d to ensure we integrate any missing data into this article. The current sections on these scandals still have significant POV/sourcing issues. %5b%5bUser:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas%5d%5d (%5b%5bUser talk:MatthewVanitas|talk%5d%5d) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article %5b%5bRam Rahim Singh%5d%5d cited all the following, which were removed since they were presented as OR (given to imply CBI was corrupt, and that by extension their investigations against Singh were wrong). I've removed them from that article, since they have nothing to do with Singh personally, and general accusations against CBI are not part of Singh's article. However, there are some good refs, so listing them here for y'all to consider:

• %5bhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/Cong-pressured-CBI-to-spare-84-accused-says-Sikh-group/Article1-402867.aspx Cong pressured CBI to spare ’84 accused, says Sikh group - Hindustan Times%5d

</ref> ^[1]

^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} Some members of the organisation are also under investigation for the murder of a journalist, and for exploitation of followers.^[13] There has been an outcry against the politically motivated agencies like the CBI for malicious prosecution and third degree torture of witnesses to depose falsely in this case.^[14][15][16] The Supreme Court of India has ruled that professional perjury and false stock witnesses are the commonly used tool of the Indian Police,..."regular pedlar of perjury 'on police service'.Indeed, counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was a 'stock witness'because he had to keep the Police in good humour and obliged them with tailored testimony in around 3,000 cases because the alternative was police wrath".^[17] http://www.happyglobally.com/projects/project-true-happy ([[User:Bandagharka|Bandagharka]] ([[User talk:Bandagharka|talk]]) 05:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)). == Need clearer line between this article and [[Dera Sacha Sauda]] == There is far to much overlap between this article and the DSS article, like practically 50%+ overlap. We need to look at the charitable activities, the controversies, etc., decide if they pertain more to DSS or to Singh, and then put them in one article, and then link to them from the article they've been removed from. The content is just far too redundant, and it can't equally apply to both entities. [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) :I am removing the trials coverage from [[Dera Sacha Sauda]] as more appropriately fitting in this article. I have preserved the text and its footnotes here [[User:MatthewVanitas/Rahim draft]] to ensure we integrate any missing data into this article. The current sections on these scandals still have significant POV/sourcing issues. [[User:MatthewVanitas|MatthewVanitas]] ([[User talk:MatthewVanitas|talk]]) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC) == Some references saved from previous drafts == The article [[Ram Rahim Singh]] cited all the following, which were removed since they were presented as OR (given to imply CBI was corrupt, and that by extension their investigations against Singh were wrong). I've removed them from that article, since they have nothing to do with Singh personally, and general accusations against CBI are not part of Singh's article. However, there are some good refs, so listing them here for y'all to consider: {| class="cquote pullquote" role="presentation" style="margin:auto; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; width: auto;" | style="width: 20px; vertical-align: top; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: left; padding: 10px 10px;" | “ | style="vertical-align: top; border: none; padding: 4px 10px; " | | style="width: 20px; vertical-align: bottom; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: right; padding: 10px 10px;" | ” |- |} *[http://www.hindustantimes.com/Cong-pressured-CBI-to-spare-84-accused-says-Sikh-group/Article1-402867.aspx Cong pressured CBI to spare ’84 accused, says Sikh group - Hindustan Times] </ref> ^{[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} Some members of the organisation are also under investigation for the murder of a journalist, and for exploitation of followers.^[13] There has been an outcry against the politically motivated agencies like the CBI for malicious prosecution and third degree torture of witnesses to depose falsely in this case.^[14][15][16] The Supreme Court of India has ruled that professional perjury and false stock witnesses are the commonly used tool of the Indian Police,..."regular pedlar of perjury 'on police service'.Indeed, counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was a 'stock witness'because he had to keep the Police in good humour and obliged them with tailored testimony in around 3,000 cases because the alternative was police wrath".^[17]]. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help); line feed character in |url= at position 57 (help)

A bit of a mess, but I hate to lose potential good references, and this article will need all the refs it can get when we get around to going "over the top" on the cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part about dismisall of guru attire and fakir chand murder cases are references whose authenticity can be doubted.

Reference no. 41-^ "A 3 million deal to trap Dera chief". Amar Ujala. Dec 03 , 2010. Retrieved 03 Dec 2010. If you visit the link.you are taken to the website of the Dera Sach Sauda,even though the reference claims Amar Ujala.In the picture cited as reference,it can be clearly made out that the heading from Amar Ujala and the article cited were STUCK onto the piece of paper.http://derasachasauda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304&Itemid=999

Reference no. 42-^ "Conspiracy of 30 lakhs INR taken to deface Baba Ram Rahim Ji". www.oceanofweb.com. Dec 18 , 2010. The reference is a website,not any particular article.Furthermore,by running a quick search of the term "Dera Sacha Sauda",the websites pro dera stance becomes obvious.It has articles such as "Unbelievable Great Movement by Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa to end ..." and questions answering queries of how to see live satsang on the net.The full list of pro dera articles it has are:http://www.oceanofweb.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-1875649191445603%3Ahgn5t2jel08&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dera+sacha+sauda&sa=Go&siteurl=www.oceanofweb.com%2F#1168

Reference no.10-^ "Other States / Haryana News : Haryana to have new sports policy soon". The Hindu. 2007-12-28. Retrieved 2011-03-21. If the article is read,it makes no reference to the dera head whatsoever,only to Shah Satnamji Girls School Sirsa.Even the name of the coach is not mentioed.http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/25/stories/2010122565790700.htm

These unclaimed and biased sources along with the text they support must be removed immediately.

Regards, Zoravar (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked into these specific ones yet, but based on what you say I would suggest removing those portions, after waiting a few days for responses, and then put a quick confirmation message at the end of this section to state you removed themn. There's always that chance that, despite the POV of current sources, someone may be able to later find better sources for basic facts, so good to preserve at least the concepts here on Talk. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of these sources are POV,the third one is mis-cited.It will be impossible to find iformation about the acquital of Ram Rahim and this supposed finding of a CD because if it happened,it would be reported in major Punjab newspapers such as tribune etc.Also,more likely then not,the only response I will end up getting will be from a puppet account of Bandagharka.Zoravar (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have some decent refs saying he'd been acquitted, but the POV ones are the ones that bring in all the conspiracy theories as to how he was accused? In any case, I'm fine with the two POVs and one mis-cite being removed. Thanks for keeping such a good eye on this page, a lot of folks have tried to sneak back in since we did a major cleanup earlier in the year. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The refs your talking about were about some other cases.Due to the no. of cases against him,keeping track of the ones where he was acquited and where not is difficult.Zoravar (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also reference 2 is just given as a website without any particular link,and the webside is derasachasauda.in . Reference no.4 is a blog.Reference no.5 is shri satnam ji welfare force.I dont know about the others,but I think a blog does not qualify as a valid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog cites are only usable in the few cases where it's, say, the official blog of a government entity, or company, etc. Some random person's page of insights doesn't count, and a DSS blog would only count for very limited usages, maybe like stating where their headquarters is located, or their official slogan, or any other kind of info where the fact is just a reflection of what they say anyway (i.e. something that they are automatically correct in saying). If those refs are bad, I say strike the material. That said I think the fairest way to do it would be to remove the material, but then paste it here in a new section about "unsourced material" or whatnot, on the off-chance that there are legitimate cites for these. That way someone reading Talk could see a point, look it up, find a better source and restore it with proper cites later on. I'm just reluctant to remove controversial material totally, when it's better to move it here so it can always be analysed later. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also,various references refer to him as the "controversial" head of the sect.This needs to be added to the page along with adequate citation and this page also needs semi-protection.Zoravar (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is a rough word to pin down, and verges on WP:Weasel words. I totally agree that the organisation (and definitely Singh) is literally controversial, and I definitely want something in the lede of each to indicate "not necessarily a mainstream organisation", but rather than a pithy word or two, is there some concise way to address what they are controversial for? That should be more defensible on a WP policy grounding. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request to please change the title of the article as "Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Sing Ji Insan", which is actually the real and the complete name, current the title "Ram Rahim Singh" is disrespect, so either rename it delete this page. ^[1]

I request to please change the title of the article as "Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Sing Ji Insan", which is actually the real and the complete name, current the title "Ram Rahim Singh" is disrespect, so either rename it delete this page. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.insan (talk • contribs)

There is no "disrespect" involved here. The article on Rama is not titled "Bhagwan Shri Ramachandra ji" -- Wikipedia article naming conventions . Similarly, this article should be located at "Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh" -- that's how the subject is referred to in the media. "Saint" and "Ji" are titles, and smack of POV. I'm moving the article back to a neutral title, since you've have moved it without any discussion (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). utcursch | talk 06:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came by this article by accident and am willing to help. I have no opinion on the matter so I think I could be of assistance to all of you. Firstly, I think that all honorifics should be removed, including Mata, Ji, Sant, Maharaj, Shah, Bapu etc., it is clearly stated that these should not be included in the article, see WP:Honorifics, if you all agree we should go ahead with removing them first. Gsingh (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas.insan I have already posted a notice on this board. Please read Wikipedia guideline WP:Honorifics. You can used the name with honorifics once in the article, after that he will be mentioned by surname ONLY. Guru Gobind Singh should be changed also. Please see Pope Benedict XVI He is only mentioned with his full honorific initially, later one he is only mentioned as Ratzinger, his surname. Read WP:SURNAME for the OFFICIAL Wikipedia guideline. There is no opinion on this, you are wrong. Whether Singh's name included all these 'titles' or not, he should only be referred to as Singh after introduction. I will hold off on reverting your changes. Gsingh (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been commenting on this talk page since the 26th, User:Vikas.insan you have refused to even post a word in response to my comments. You can't keep reverting every edit on this page, if you look at the article history your actions have reverted almost every entry done by anyone but you. Here are my examples, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose, John the Evangelist, Paul the Apostle. And foremost WP:Honorifics which you refuse to read. If you continue to revert every post on this article you will be in violation of WP:3RR which may result in a ban. I will not revert the post until this issue is solved. And also can we get any inputs from administrators?Gsingh (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for all but one sentence of the lede is dead. I was looking at possibly rewording the weasle-wordy "has affected lives of more than 50 million people around the world" line, but then noticed there was nothing to cite. A quick googling shows that the domain tnpzest.com isn't owned anymore, and the group only has a facebook page. By their own mission statement, they don't appear to be usable source to begin with. I would suggest that the lede needs to be resourced and reworded into more objective language. 50.174.135.49 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I removed the section about the various crimes he and his sect have been accused of. My concern was that it was not consistent with WP:BLPCRIME, which warns us to exercise care when dealing with criminal accusations of living people. I've filed a request for help at WP:BLP/N so that people more familiar with writing BLPs can assist. I'm also of the opinion that the content likely represents WP:RECENTISM, i.e. we were devoting a large amount of article space to focus on things that were important at the time, but may not be now.

The content removed can be found here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support the removal per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]