Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Resolving edit war

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)

"Only those who practise love , they alone shall find God" The Sacred Guru Granth Sahib Ji

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))

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)

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

This article has some problems

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)

If we remain skeptical , even more problems

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)).

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)

What are the BLP issues with the article?

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)

Removal of tags and disputed neutrality

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)

Most of the charity sections redundant to Dera Sacha Sauda

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)

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)

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)

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.

Repeated refs need to be united

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)

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)

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)

"Punjab plume controversy" - separate article, all here, or a little of each? Also that title term appears OR

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)

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)

Adding new cites

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}}: 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. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) (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. 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. 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:

• Cong pressured CBI to spare ’84 accused, says Sikh group - Hindustan Times Some members of the organisation are also under investigation for the murder of a journalist, and for exploitation of followers. 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.

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". }}

References

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)

Dismisall of guru attire and fakir chand murder cases

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Request to change the title of the article

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. — 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)

References

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan → Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh – Saint is a title and the common name in the media is Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. An editor moved it back to the titled version without discussion. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Honorifics

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)

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)

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)

Move Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no concensus, please post any new requests to WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves Gsingh (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I am posting this on behalf of User:Realnews7, who has proposed that Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh be moved to Gurmeet Ram Rahim. The original article name has 126,000 hits Google Search and Gurmeet Ram Rahim has 164,000 hits Google Search, please post your opinions. Gsingh (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Even though Gurmeet Ram Rahim has more hits, if you exclude the name Singh from the search we end up with only 32,000 hits. Google Search. Gsingh (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The surname is Insan , and the common name is Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh , that is basically my contention. The title is OK.Realnews7 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• The common name is the one that is used for the article title as per WP:COMMONNAME. Gsingh (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have cited the references, that clearly show his surname is Insan. So , he should be referred to as Insan in the article.Realnews7 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:SURNAME, it states "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames". I suggest you read WP:MOSBIO, it would help you a lot for making future changes. Gsingh (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What pseudonym are you talking about?Realnews7 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

pseudonym aka common name, or any other name other than the persons real one. Gsingh (talk)

Then the point is simple , we have to check surname Singh versus Insan. Singh is less apt because he is probably not a Sikh , anyway. And if we google Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Google Search that gives us 107,000 hits. Compared to this , if we google Gurmeet Ram Rahim Insan Google Search , that returns 127,000 hits which means that the Insan surname prevails over Singh which is non specific , atleast in this case.Basically , Insan is the more representative surname.Realnews7 (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You seemed to have made a mistake in the search parameters, search should place the names in quotes, therefore the first search would be Google Search (136000 hits) and second search would be Google Search (2720 hits) Therefore we can see that Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is by far the more common name. Gsingh (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, it seems this is going to become a controversial debate. If you wish you can file a request to move the article at WP:Requested moves. Editors who are more experienced in the matter will give their opinions on the discussion. Gsingh (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with lede, and 1st reference link is dead

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)

Page protected

I've fully protected the article to prevent the persistent disruption that we've now seen from an IP editor and two logged-in editors who insist upon submitting potentially defamatory content about a living person. Luckydhaliwal, you need to discuss your edits and explain how you think they do not violate WP:BLPCRIME. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Criminal accusations - WP:BLPCRIME

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)

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

Agreed. Even if this content is worth including in some way (maybe), it's worthy discussing first to figure out how to do it in a neutral, appropriate way. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Grayfell and I agree with your agreement. I removed it out of concern that it was a liability to Wikipedia. If aspects of it were to be responsibly introduced by people who know BLPs, (not random IPs and SPAs) then I'll step aside. That was my point in going to WP:BLPN with this request for help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen anywhere near the sourcing to support such strong accusations. Should not be in article. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this content should be included as the edits about his allegations are no BLP violation. Please read here WP:WELLKNOWN. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure everyone of these seasoned editors have read WELLKNOWN. These are purely allegations at this point and given the seriousness of the allegations, we can wait until the charges are dropped or he is found guilty. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckydhaliwal This isn't a vote. You need to explain in your own words why you think the content should be included, and since the major concerns are WP:BLPCRIME, you should explain why you think it doesn't qualify. Note also that the reason why I removed the content was only to protect against potential defamation, which is the entire reason why we have BLP policies. Editors such as yourself and the recently blocked Zqxwcevrbtny and IP 14.139.34.2 have done nothing to discuss the matter, preferring only to edit war, which is disruptive. So when you say I have never done disruptive editing[9] I can only assume you don't know what disruptive editing is, which seems unlikely. Now if we're going to even consider the inclusion of this content, and I'm willing to do so, we need to discuss the manner in which it could be presented in a neutral fashion instead of irresponsibly proclaiming in the article's lead, "He is also a prime accused in several criminal cases of Murder, Rape and forced Castration." By no stretch of the imagination is this a neutral statement, because it presents no contrary perspective. And your choice to put it in the lead demonstrates a lack of understanding about how we should not disproportionately represent an accusation by featuring it prominently in the lead. This tends to look like the subject is known for being a criminal, which he is not known for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb First you have written that I and some other blocked editors have done nothing to discuss this issue. But earlier you only told that the accusations cannot be detailed and I changed accordingly and deleted the accusations but only wrote that he is facing trial. Later that was also deleted. Then I decided to read the BLP in detail and found that they can be added as I have earlier written according to WELLKNOWN. But you are warning me with a block, and that is so rude of you. Also you are trying to show that I am doing disruptive editing but kindly see my Anatomy edits, one eg. here[10] I, I have been invited in my talk page by WikiProject Anatomy to join them. So I hope they do not invite disruptive editors.

Then about my explanation about this edit. The person concerned is a public figure and especially head of spiritual organisation. He has been described as a social reformer and a lot has been written in lead about his social works. So the reader also needs to know the other side also that he is accused of such crimes. I feel that it will be balanced as both positive and negative sides will be written. It is clearly written in WELLKNOWN that accusations about public figures and wellknown should be written. It is alsomentioned that he is accused which means that it is not proven yet. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We do not create false "balances" by countering things that have been done with things that have only alleged to have been done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Political influence

"In a case where the Dera's followers were accused of being suicide attackers, the Dera has stated publicly that it was being targeted by vested political groups that were conspiring to defame it.[14][15] The organisation has demanded a judicial probe into the allegations."

above statement has nothing to do with political influence , needed to be deleted.

"In February 2015, his organisation openly supported BJP in Delhi elections, saying that he has over 20 Lakh followers in Delhi." added the results of elections with reference .Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We are most certainly not going to describe the election results as "humiliating ", particularly not in Wikipedia's "voice" as if your analysis were a fact. (we might state that "RESPECTEDPOLITICALCOMMENTATOR stated that winning only 3 seats was politically humiliating", but we would only state that in this article if the RESPECTEDPOLITICALCOMMENTATOR was specifically addressing the participation of the subject of this article, and then only if consensus exists that it was an important view of the situation.)

It appears that you are here to wage a righteous war against the subject of this article. Attempting to utilize Wikipedia for such purposes is not allowed and if you continue to try to do so, it will result in more blocks and eventually ban from editing the site altogether.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1.so you have no issue on removing "suicide attack" content from "political influence" section ?

2.if you feel 3 out of 70 is not humiliating even if few month ago same party ie BJP was single largest party ,i will omit that word 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Zqxwcevrbtny

(talk) .

Zqxwcevrbtny Please indent your replies using colons. It doesn't matter whether TRPOD thinks 3/70 is humiliating, we don't editorialize in articles. Thanks Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to mention Delhi assembly election results in same way as Haryana assembly elections are mentioned in "Political influence" section ,anyone having reservations on that can discuss here ,thanksZqxwcevrbtny (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

its mentioned in "political influence"section that "In 2014 Haryana polls, His organisation supported Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its work. BJP won in polls first time in Haryana.In February 2015, his organisation openly supported BJP in Delhi elections, saying that he has over 20 Lakh followers in Delhi." I want to add "BJP suffered defeat in Delhi elections"Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source that connects the defeat to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh's support of the group and not BJPs historical corruption? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

BJPs defeat in delhi simply means his claim of having "20 lakh follwers" is absurd .if its not connected then how can we relate BJPs victory in Haryana to his support ?either that should also be removed .Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

we only include analysis that others have published, not our own personal view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120420225736/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Punjab/Jalandhar/1-500-Dera-Sacha-Sauda-volunteers-earn-praise-for-rescue-efforts/SP-Article1-842107.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Jalandhar/1-500-Dera-Sacha-Sauda-volunteers-earn-praise-for-rescue-efforts/SP-Article1-842107.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120420225752/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Punjab/Jalandhar/Jalandhar-collapse-death-toll-rises-to-13-64-rescued-so-far/SP-Article1-842466.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Jalandhar/Jalandhar-collapse-death-toll-rises-to-13-64-rescued-so-far/SP-Article1-842466.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120422230736/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/India-news/WestBengal/Devastating-fire-breaks-out-in-Darjeeling-market/Article1-843339.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/WestBengal/Devastating-fire-breaks-out-in-Darjeeling-market/Article1-843339.aspx

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this the same teacher?

http://www.therakyatpost.com/world/2015/02/27/400-men-cut-their-testicles-off-believing-it-would-help-them-meet-god/ Nusaybah (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Per the article "yes", but I am not sure if it should be added in article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not yet. The source is a poor one. If one of the major news outlets were to do a significant expose on his teachings/practices, that would very possibly be worth noting, but what we're lacking here is any kind of context about the impact. Did he actually encourage them? Was there a court case? What was the outcome? What have prominent critics said about him? Things of that nature. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to change the title of the article

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.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016

Criminal accusations

In 2002 Singh and his Dera came under investigation in connection with the charges of sexual exploitation of women followers of the sect, and the murder of a journalist Ram Chander Chatrapati. The allegations started in May 2002 after an anonymous letter alleging sexual exploitation was addressed to the Prime Minister and its copies had been marked to several other bodies. Chatrapati, who had been writing about the Dera's activities since then, was shot on 24 October and died on 21 November. In August 2007 the news magazine Tehelka published a story about alleged murders, sexual exploitation and possession of illegal arms by Dera Sacha Sauda followers on behalf of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.[61] Subsequently, court cases were filed against him.

Pending Cases is Court

Murder http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/murder-cases-against-gurmeet-ram-rahim-in-final-leg/story-lTl3q5O6WP0f2MgT8Y2YNL.html Abducting a woman http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/case-against-dera-sacha-sauda-gurmeet-ram-rahim-sirsa-ashram/1/437057.html Rape Case http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sc-dismisses-plea-of-dera-sacha-sauda-chief-in-rape-case-2888629/ Sexual Abuse Case http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dera-sacha-sauda-gurmeet-ram-rahim-insan-2002-rape-case-sexual-intercourse-panchkula-court/1/343208.html AnEnthusiastic (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: See previous discussions about this in talk page archives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Doctorate for world records

In this edit I removed information about the honorary doctorate he received from the World Record University. It seems like a totally nonsensical thing to add to the article and only serves to promote him. The "university" apparently specializes in world records, whatever that means. This is not an accredited university as far as I can tell. According to their website, pretty much anyone can apply for an honorary PhD so long as they achieve a world record and then write a "thesis" of some indeterminate quality. Anyway, it's pure self-gratification and per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

wikilink Guru Gobind Singh request

In the last paragraph of the article, please put brackets ([[ ]]) around Guru Gobind Singh. - 173.16.84.93 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506164140/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/most-cholesterol-readings-taken-in-24-hours to http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/6000/most-cholesterol-readings-taken-in-24-hours
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110210435/http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tabloid/swachh-bharat-amitabh-bachchan-gets-his-hands-dirty-modi-tweets-praise/article1-1280477.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tabloid/swachh-bharat-amitabh-bachchan-gets-his-hands-dirty-modi-tweets-praise/article1-1280477.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203144938/http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/01/punjab-poll-2012-amarinder-meets-dera-sacha-sauda-chief/ to http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/01/punjab-poll-2012-amarinder-meets-dera-sacha-sauda-chief/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506164500/http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/01/dera-sacha-sauda-establishes-4-new-world-record/ to http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/01/dera-sacha-sauda-establishes-4-new-world-record/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

Remove the word social reformer. Not everyone who claims is a social reformer. 185.bharti (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done there are 14 references to his social work - Arjayay (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

English Composition

A few errors jumped out at me while reading this page. I am not familiar with the subject and wanted a basic overview of his activities. Thanks.

"He has performed at over a hundred rock shows with an entirely new genre title ‘Religious Rock’" "He has performed at over a hundred rock shows with an entirely new genre entitled ‘Religious Rock’"

I'm not sure that this genre is novel or 'entirely new'. Religion has been promoted through rock music before. It may be appropriate to remove that or further qualify how it is 'entirely new'.

"His adopted daughter Honeypreet Insan is a movie actor and director." "His adopted daughter Honeypreet Insan is a movie actress and director." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.115 (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

World records section

I have removed the "world records" section as this is all literally word for word copied from the guinness world records website, so a blatant copyright violation.--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

2405:205:220F:7F8E:CD2F:29AA:D856:1EBD (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2017 (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. — IVORK _Discuss 13:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Indian fraudsters

Bumbravathi is attempting to repeatedly add the above category to this article and is also removing cited material. I'll encourage the editor to come here and join discussions on this issue rather than indulge in vandalism. Thanks. Lourdes 17:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

PhD

Hello, Please pur Dr. before his name since Gurmeet Ram Rahim has a PhD degree for having 53 world records

He has received an honorary doctorate degree from the UK-based World Records University. If you're wondering about the credibility of this University, this is as legit as it could get. The UK-based World Records University is an autonomous university formed by the conglomeration of Record Books throughout the World, and is the only university to offer an honorary Doctorate to Record Holder’s / breaker’s Community.

Source - http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/gurmeet-ram-rahim-now-has-a-doctorate-for-having-53-world-records-249868.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueInsan (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"World Records University" is not an academic university. It is a petty business that awards "Honorary Doctorates" to people for money. These so-called "Doctorates" are not recognized anywhere. utcursch | talk 00:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@TrueInsan: See also MOS:DOCTOR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Second the view of Utcursch and Cyphoidbomb. As much as I can tell from my analysis of most sources, this person's never done any Ph.D himself. It's just an honorific title (don't know if it's bought). Lourdes 03:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Bhindranwale

Somebody is trying to push their own views by linking this article to Bhindranwale with zero justification (only similarity is that they are both Punjabis) and adding in a needless reference to a Huffington Post opinion piece comparing him to Bhindranwale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:C46F:A100:1D11:3F1F:2775:21FF (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you're objecting to? Are you complaining about the link to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in the See also section? The purpose of the See also section is to link to subjects that are tangentially related, but that aren't directly linked elsewhere in the article. Although we typically expect annotations explaining why we are linking, to the effect of "L. Ron Hubbard - Another controversial religious figure" or similar. The HuffPost link is being used to support the claim that Singh has been embroiled in various controversies. What specifically do you object to here? There's no mention of Bhindranwale in the surrounding prose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The "see also" link system is for linking users to relevant articles. Bhindranwale is about as relevant to Gurmeet Ram Rahim as the Malcolm X is to Bernie Sanders, or Osama bin Laden to L. Ron Hubbard. Bhindranwale was an ultra-orthodox militant Sikh preacher and rebel leader. Gurmeet Ram Rahim is a new religious leader who heads a movement that's got more similarities to Scientology than to fundamentalism. Khalistanis hate Gurmeet Ram Rahim and some have wanted him dead for a long time, and he was excommunicated by the Akal Takht, the ruling body of all Sikhs. They're both prominent Punjabi figures involved in religion, but the reasons for their prominence, the nature of their prominence, their connection with religion, and their actual religious affiliation are completely different. A previously-ignorant person reading this article could come away with the false impression that the current unrest in Haryana (Punjab is not majorly affected) has some link with Khalistan, when in reality there's no concrete evidence to make such a connection. A Huffington Post opinion piece (opinion pieces are not to be considered as factual evidence anywhere, much less in an encyclopedia) is the only justification that this entire article has for making that link. 2A00:23C4:C46F:A100:1D11:3F1F:2775:21FF (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. The subject is not a terrorist leader like the linked Bhindranwale individual. Further, the HuffPost article that attempts to connect the two is a very clear op-ed piece by a consulting editor, even though it is slotted under the News section. Seems a belabored and even non-NPOV addition to the See Also section. I would suggest removing it. Lourdes 17:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Bhindranwale article link. Please feel free to liberally revert me if you feel otherwise. Warmly. Lourdes 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

I wanted to reapair an typo-error, but apparently I am not allowed to do so.

In :

World records According to the Guinness World Records, he he organized several events ........ the word he occurs twice ( he he ) , which is one to much! Damafrans (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Imprisoning

Imprisonment is 20 years, not 10 years Umeshkshinde (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been  Fixed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Special Judge of the CBI in the Sadhvi Rape Case sentenced Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim to 20 years

References

MSG

With apparently all his movies starting with the acronym (?) MSG, it would be nice to mention in the article what that actually means / is short for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.214.255 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean it stands for MeSsenger of God? (A peculiar use of abbreviation...) I don't see an obvious place to put this info, so if you have any suggestions on phrasing and location, that'd be helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

He found to guilty in Rape for Teenager girls work for him as his follower.High Court sentence him 20 year from 25 aug 2017 115.99.58.3 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done by another - before you made this request - Arjayay (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017

The person never won a dadasaheb phalke award. Wrongly mentioned 198.137.20.43 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The information that's here is already properly sourced. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Needless trivia.Well spotted. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Godric on Leave, hope you're doing well. I have undone your deletion of quite notable material. I disagree with your assessment that the material is PR material. The reliable sources are quite exemplary, to the extent that India Today mentions the subject is the first Indian in a decade to receive the platinum plaque and HuffPost is the source for supporting the Dadasaheb Foundation award. I would prefer these not be removed as these are encyclopedic information. Warmly. Lourdes 06:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, it's just a similarly named one to cause confusion (which obviously fooled Huffpost!). I don't care about the content of the article, but this is just to clarify and avoid any confusion here. We go through this quite often with many awards. —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello SpacemanSpiff. This detail that you mention is already included within the article (that the award is not the same as the Government award). Lourdes 07:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Lourdes--If I start giving something in the name of Fields Medal to different personalities and they show it off on Social Networking sites, media will probably cover it.That does not deem my awarding to be encycloepadicaly suitable.Period.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have also nil idea about how you deem [11] to be a reliable source.Please go through the content of the sources.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the YFA bit, I'm a bit borderline.My gen. advice to you will be to meaningfully differentiate between notability and verifiability(which is quite difficult in these situations) esp. when much publicity for the reverted things is for things so laughable--that it gets pushed into mainstream media.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Godric on Leave hello, I'm ambivalent about the Dadasaheb Phalke stuff (you can nuke it if you want). But why remove the Platinum Plaque detail? He's the first Indian in a decade to receive it. Why are you saying that India Today and Press Trust of India are unreliable source? If I'm missing something, please do point it out. Warmly. Lourdes 07:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that. You're right. It's a press release. Thanks for pointing out that. Warmly again. Lourdes 07:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

203.122.23.218 (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

add his one more title, "rapist".

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

OP, please don't waste volunteer time with smug, idiotic requests. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

There are certain news which mentions that he had started an ayurvedic FMCG to take over Baba Ramdev's Patantali. The references are as follows: 1. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/business/companies/280817/how-ram-rahims-ayurveda-msg-brand-once-rivaled-ramdevs-patanjali.html 2. http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/ramdev-s-got-competition-dera-chief-launches-msg-range-of-food-products/story-hlT1qu4uK860lAaxAqiAaN.html

Hence appropriate information can be added in the article. GurmeetRRI (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: I don't feel the launch was notable enough to be included. And am not seeing much coverage either. But, any editor is free to disagree and include. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If at all, this detail deserves no more than a handful of words or two in the biography (something like, "In 2016, Singh launched..."). No terrible harm even if it's left out of the biography. Lourdes 09:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As you can already see, several editors are showing disagreement over the notability of the event. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Addition of " Insan" as title

I see no reference stating "insan" at the end of the name and this would also not meet wp:rs, so would leave it as it is known in the real world and not to distort the name Shrikanthv (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Most Influential"

Hi @Shrikanthv: I didn't find this edit constructive. If a major publication posts an opinion about a notable subject, like a Most Influential list or Sexiest Man Alive or whatever it is, the content is fair game for inclusion. The Featured Article on Brad Pitt describes him as:

"...one of the most influential and powerful people in the American entertainment industry. For a number of years, he was cited as the world's most attractive man by various media outlets...

Further down at Brad Pitt#In the media there is beefy content about him being perceived by these sources as sexy, powerful and influential. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Second.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Self proclaimed"??

He was appointed as the 3rd head of DSS by his predecessor, so he is not "self proclaimed".

Please sign your talk-page posts using ~~~~.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No consistency in his name

In different parts of the article he is called in different ways, like "Gurmeet Singh", "Singh", "Ram Rahim", "Gurmeet Ram Rahim". I am surprised nobody fixed this glaring issue. 45.124.226.199 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The article was not protected at the time of your request. You could have fixed it. However, the article is presently protected, so I have fixed most of the issues here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has been under protection since September 2016. The issue needs fixing in "Social work" and "Controversies" sections too. 117.192.7.80 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the protection issue. Social work section fixed here, Controversies section fixed here. If there's any more, let me know. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Can anybody tell me why the description of Singh in the first sentence it does not say he is a jailed rapist? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section was oddly organized, perhaps because current events have been added piecemeal. It seems obvious that Singh's conviction and sentencing, and the riots, should be more prominently placed than for instance the sentence "The Indian Express placed Singh 96th in their list of the 100 most powerful Indians of 2015." I've moved things around accordingly, removing only the sentence "Singh has been accused of mocking Sikh and Hindu religious figures, as well as the Adivasi tribe", as it's only weakly supported by the offered sources and in any case would not deserve being in the lead. I haven't added anything or changed any wording, just moved stuff around. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC). PS, I don't have time right now, but I also feel that the article as a whole should put the unfolding current events much earlier in the text. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC).

@Roxy the dog: Why would that be appropriate for the lead sentence? He's not notable for being a jailed rapist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That's some-what a hazy zone.The sheer magnitude of media covg. (over thousand artixles etc.) that he has managed to retrieve as a conseq. of the rape and it's after-effects far overshadows the sparse mentions in media prev. to the incident.But then again the media guys have a knack to specifically cover crimes etc. in great details.But, in general, I seem to agree that it should not be in the 1st sentence.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Weapons "raid"

@Shinnosukeandme: re: this, a few issues -- "huge" is hyperbole, as is "ultra-modern". What does the latter mean? That the weapons were made this morning? Also, the Zee News source makes it clear that DSS members surrendered the weapons with two day advance notice, and more than half were licensed. The block you added makes it seem that this was a surprise raid that resulted in a shocking arsenal, which does not seem to be the case at all. The same content has been reworked at the DSS article. I don't see why we're including it here, since Singh was in jail when this went down. Are we planning to duplicate all content from the DSS article, or just the stuff that casts shade on Singh? I don't see the relevance here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jat "Sikh"

I think it is more appropriate to refer to his family as Jat, because Sikhism is not a tribe, it is a religion and when his parents are followers of DSS they are automatically disqualified from being Sikhs, since it is barred for Sikhs to follow a religious institute that does not have Guru Granth Sahib as its central scripture. I must give you a historical example of Ravidassia religion. The followers of that religion used to claim themselves as Sikh but that claim was always disputed and controversial for the followers of mainstream Sikhism and finally after the protests over that claim and following the assasination of Ramanand Dass, the movement was forced to declare itself an independent religion. Same with another institute Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueInsan (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The article does not say that Gurmeet Rahim Rahim Singh or his his present family are Jat Sikh. It states that his father was a Jat Sikh, who became a DSS follower at some point. The source cited supports this assertion, and let's stick to that as per WP:V. utcursch | talk 16:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the SOURCE that proves his family did not meet criteria of Sikhism - http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/sgpc-to-intensify-propagation-drive-for-ghar-wapsi-of-sikhs-from-dera-sach-sauda/story-5eaU9sx8BYlnWHRO8oB1yH.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueInsan (talk • contribs)

Stop displaying a I don't hear it attitude.Nothing in the source above contradicts Utcursh and at beast deals the topic tangentially.And, remember you're aware that you are on a final warning(which your subsequent t/p blankings has acknowledged) and that blocks due to continual revert-warring can come real fast.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Though it's a moot point since the user has been indeffed for disruptive behavior, I don't see anything in the provided reference that clearly contradicts India Toda's assertion that Singh's father was a Jat Sikh. Whatever was in the Hindustan Times article seems to require a good deal of interpretation to arrive at a conclusion. Needs to be explicit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• There is a long-held consensus on this project that caste should only be added in biographies if it played some important role in person's life. In addition, it needs self-identification in BLPs, e.g. see here, which says: There is a clear consensus against including the caste of persons in biographies, if the caste doesn't have any impact on the person's life. And even in this case, there needs to be self-identification, which is reported by reliable sources per the biography of living people policy.

What impact did his father's caste had on the subject's life? Looking at the sources, it seems his father's caste was irrelevant to whatever he did. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the caste for now. The castes are removed day in day out from other biographies for the same reasons. If anyone could find the relevant sources to meet the aforementioned criteria then please discuss it here. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Cult

Hi Lourdes, I'm curious about the choice to change "socio-spiritual organization" to "cult" in this edit. Obviously "cult" carries the weight of personal disapproval. How do we decide that it's a cult vs. a "spiritual group", or something more neutral? Scientology, for instance, is not de facto described as a cult, despite years of criticism being levied at it. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, hope you're well. This was just my assessment after reading up a bunch of sources. Please feel free to change it as you may deem fit. Warmly. Lourdes 17:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a obviously a sect or a religious organization, not very different from many religious organizations that run hospitals, schools, settlements etc. It is an offshoot of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas. Malaiya (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

Special Judge of the CBI in the Sadhvi Rape Case sentenced Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim to 20 years Kapil kumar wiki (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Not Done. no change requested. (nothing requested actually) Roxy the dog. bark 10:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017

Hello,

While describing Gurmeet Ram Rahim it is advisable to first address him as rape convict and then as guru, director etc.

thanks 115.248.230.162 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing done, no edit request actually made. The description is well sourced, according to our policies -Roxy the dog. bark 09:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, the subject is not notable for being a rape convict. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170825111522/http://www.livemint.com/Politics/mtAT09Bq6zckwunT5nr63N/Gurmeet-Ram-Rahim-Singh-rape-case-verdict-live-updates-CBI.html to http://www.livemint.com/Politics/mtAT09Bq6zckwunT5nr63N/Gurmeet-Ram-Rahim-Singh-rape-case-verdict-live-updates-CBI.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

1st sentence

I propose the 1st sentence be changed from:

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan (born 15 August 1967) is an Indian guru, music producer, singer-songwriter, actor, and filmmaker.[1] He has been the head of the social group Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) since 1990.

to

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan (born 15 August 1967) is the head of the social group Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) in India since 1990.

He is notable for being the head of DSS, not really for being an actor, filmaker, songwriter etc. If you go and ask his followers (from the time he became the head of the organization in early 90s), they will almost surely say he is important to them because he leads the DSS, not because he is a songwriter or actor or anything else. Adding these to the very 1st sentence unnecessarily confuses the unknowing curious reader (who may not have heard of the subject before). The unknowing reader should go away with the message that the subject is the head of DSS, not that he is a actor or songwriter etc. Moreover, FWIW, the 2nd paragraph of the lead already covers these aspects. Js82 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Overall I concur; prior to being appointed DSS head he was just a laborer, so basically everything else he's known for is an outgrowth of his becoming DSS head. In that case, the second para pretty well covers his media career (which is again mostly just an aspect of his DSS career). MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Bail denial

@Sbijapure: I'm unclear on why we care about this. Singh is in prison. Naturally nobody's going to let him out on bail. What is the academic value of this information? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Good question. Unless his prior conviction was somehow abruptly overturned, it doesn't seem like bail would accomplish anything, and therefore doesn't seem noteworthy. I admit I am not knowledgeable enough about these legal issues to speak with any confidence, however.

I have rearranged the article to avoid issues with criticism sections, but I don't think this will effect this discussion either way. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Misleading information

His website states the following-

Saint Dr. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan

His Holiness His Excellency, Hazoor Maharaj Saint Dr. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan descended from anami [Eternal Abode] on Tuesday, August 15, 1967 in a small vicinity [Sri Gurusar Modia] of District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) in the holy royal family of most revered Sardar Maghar Singh Ji and most pious mother, Mata Naseeb Kaur Ji. His reverend father Sardar Maghar Singh Sidhu ji was a rich landlord, and head of the village. He is the only son of most venerable parents, blessed after a span of 18 years. He was brought up with utmost care and affection of respected parents and relatives. It is not appropriate and misguiding to people who might stumble across the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop123 (talk • contribs) 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tabletop123: This talk page is for discussing changes and improvements to Singh's Wikipedia article. Does your comment have something to do with the article, or are you just complaining about something you found on his website? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Awards and World records

Like every other famous personality (specially Actors), this man's article should also have a separate section for his achievements like the platinum plaques, guiness world records, Asia records, Hindu Ratan award, Dada Saheb Phalke Film Foundation Award, Bright Award, Giants International Award, Global Plaque, Doctorate degree (since it is not considered as an official degree, it should at least be mentioned in the list of awards), Limca records and India records should me mentioned separately. Many of these were offered at official gatherings and were covered by the media. By the way, the source I mentioned earlier (https://www.saintdrmsginsan.me/awards/) has got the photo of the hindu ratan award at the bottom of the page. Do you guys really think that this man can fake these many awards. Be practical people. The media of the country is not really reliable, but I'll still try to find some sources for these awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.81.156.34 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not every award or accolade is worthy of mention. See WP:FILMCRITICLIST. India is polluted by many contaminants, and some of the pollution includes promotional award mills. For example, there are dozens of promotional award mills that are riding on the coattails of the actual Dadasaheb Phalke Award, a government-issued lifetime achievement award presented to one person each year for their dedication to the art of filmmaking in Indian cinema. (See WP:DADASAHEB) Singh's films (which the media seems to consider as largely self-aggrandising propaganda) probably fall far short of the artistic threshold in most cases, so any consideration for "Dadasaheb"-themed awards he's alleged to have won, along with any other award mill content, would have to be processed through the community's BS-meter, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Similarly, for any other award, accolade or record, the governing body issuing it would have to be notable before we included it, and even then it's not a guarantee that it's notable. The Star television network is notable. They also issue awards. But the Star Parivaar award is a garbage award per this discussion

As for the content you submitted here (and I guess you're comfortable linking your user-name to your logged-out IP address?) it would seem to constitute a primary source, since the target URL appears to be intrinsically tied to Singh himself. We only accept primary sources for uncontroversial statements, and bragging about awards is controversial. It's also totally an idiotic reference to use, since there's no way anyone can read the giant plaque handed to him, nor do you substantiate that the people who originated the claim were the same people who "forgave him" of the perceived slight. Total rubbish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

First, stop being disrespectful.

Here are the references for all the awards, and I'm adding the awards section right now.

Platinum Plaques Guiness world records Asia Book of records Dada Saheb Phalke Film Foundation Award Bright Award Giants International Award Limca Book of records and India Book of records

And to apprise you, Ram Rahim never received the DADASAHEB PHALKE AWARD...he just got the DADASAHEB PHALKE FILM FOUNDATION AWARD for 3 categories (where he shared the stage with famous celebrities). I hope you are literate enough to recognize the difference between the two titles, because I believe that the readers are educated enough. 103.81.156.34 (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

DADASAHEB PHALKE FILM FOUNDATION AWARD is not a notable award as explained by @Cyphoidbomb: above and this should not be included as per WP:FILMCRITICLIST and WP:DADASAHEB. Also maintain WP:CIVIL. You should not be taking a jab at fellow editors like this → "I hope you are literate enough". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Platinum Plaques [1] Guiness world records[2][3] Asia Book of records [4][5][6] Dada Saheb Phalke Film Foundation Award[7][8] Bright Award[9] Giants International Award[10] Limca Book of records and India Book of records This is exactly my point. What are the "Platinum Plaques"? What is the "Bright Award"? Is the the award issued by America's Stanford University? Doubtful. What is "Giants International Award"? Who runs it? Where can I find a comprehensive list of nominees and winners?

These look to me like award mills that only serve to promote people. They are not notable, established awards that most people would have heard of, and as such, they would be beyond the interest of our community. Did Singh win the Nobel Prize? Then sure, let's include it! Is he a Bharat Ratna winner? Then absolutely include that. As noted, we are not here to log every award the subject has won. If he wants to spend money to advertise all of his accomplishments big and small, he can do so on his personal website.

Per WP:RSP, the community feels a little iffy about the Guinness Book, as some feel it has been tainted by paid coverage. I personally wouldn't care if his Guinness records were included, but you should expect push-back. Since Guinness was for generations the gold standard, I doubt the community would care too much about lesser-known entities. Limca is potentially notable. But note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Book of Records, where the legitimacy of the Asia Book of Records was called into question. I don't think it would be wise to include those. And yes, Fylindfotberserk understood my point; the Dada Saheb Phalke Film Foundation Award are not notable and they are capitalising on confusion with the real award. And when you say "I believe that the readers are educated enough", you'd be flat-out wrong, since even educated journalists are confused by this as documented at WP:DADASAHEB. See also this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In the same article that you mentioned about (WP:DADASAHEB), its clearly said that it is not a problem to include these awards if it is mentioned that they were given by the DADASAHEB FILM FOUNDATION. I qoute the line below: "In 2021, The Hindu's Businessline reported that Dhanush won "prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award (South)" for Best Actor. Gulf News said "South Indian stars Dhanush, Mohanlal win Dadasaheb Phalke Awards". Free Press Journal wrote "Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2020 ... The award honoured the individuals from the Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada film industries for their outstanding contribution towards the growth and development of cinema." None of these sources mention explicitly that this is related to the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival (DPIFF), which it apparently is, and Free Press Journal really makes it sound like the winners are taking home that government prize." 103.81.156.34 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See the 63rd National Film Awards - Singh is not listed there. What he's claiming on his site is something different - look at the date for the actual award ceremony and the date from his website. Sorry, not the same thing. Ravensfire (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Anon, whatever argument you are trying to make is totally unclear to me. Wikipedia is not required to list every award that a subject has won. Inclusion is a matter of community discretion, as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. And unless an award is notable, we should not be including it, especially if it can be confused for other similarly-named awards, which could unduly inflate readers' perception of the subject's accomplishments. As for your claim "its clearly said that it is not a problem to include these awards if it is mentioned that they were given by the DADASAHEB FILM FOUNDATION that is false. There is no such language at WP:DADASAHEB. Note also that an article on the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival was deleted as non-notable after a community discussion. Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South was also deleted as non-notable. So, both the film festival and its awards are not considered notable by the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

MSG

In various news programs and interviews and even on his social media handles, Singh is referred to as "Saint Dr MSG", I guess including the phrase "commonly known as Saint MSG" in the main description won't be bad. MSG stands for the three leaders of his cult: M: Mastana Balochistani S: Satnam Singh G: Gurmeet Ram Rahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.81.156.34 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Any such observation would have to be properly supported by a reliable published source, since it could be interpreted, based on his film titles, that MSG stands for MeSsenger of God. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"The baba’s latest brand name for himself is MSG, a moniker formed by using the names of the three dera chiefs so far — M for Shah Mastana, S for Shah Satnam, G for Gurmeet Ram Rahim"

103.81.156.34 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi there, it would be appreciated if you'd please indent your replies to make comment threading a bit more intuitive. It should be fairly easy to see how it is done, i.e. with an incrementally larger number of colons for each response. I have fixed this for you. Please also see our talk page guidelines. As for the content, I understand your rationale for wanting to include the information, but the presentation of that information is of concern to me. My two chief thoughts: I'm worried that we could be placing undue emphasis on a self-administered nickname. His doctorate, for instance, apparently comes from a degree mill. 2) Per MOS:HONORIFIC we shouldn't be using terms of reverence to refer to the subject, which "saint" would be. Looking at Elizabeth II, we don't note that she "is commonly known as Queen Elizabeth" or indicate that she is called "her royal highness". At Mother Teresa, there's no mention of that nickname until the article body. So while I'm not fully opposed to the inclusion of this content, I don't think it belongs in the lede, and I think it requires some clarification that it is a self-administered sobriquette. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I perceive that the anonymous user has got a valid point. As in Badshah, his Wikipedia page has itself been titled by his stage name, Badshah (meaning an emperor or a monarch), though he isn't one. So It shouldn't be a problem to include his stage name, MSG, here.

Moreover, Badshah clearly represents its sole meaning, i.e. emperor. Whereas MSG is just an abbreviation for the names of Singh and his predecessors, as stated by Mr. Anonymous. Even if MSG stands for MESSENGER (OF GOD), it shouldn't be a problem since it is just a stage name.

Cyphoidbomb, I agree with your arguments against the inclusion of "Saint" and "Dr", so we can restain from adding them in his stage name.

The reference provided by talk is from a reliable source. It is worth including. Amratjeet Singh Insan (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Please change the first line to be "also known as". Amratjeet Singh Insan (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Within the early life and family section, it states that he was born into a Sikh family, but was also a member of a Dera. Sikhs are not allowed to go to Deras or believe in the spiritual people within them, therefore he was never a Sikh, as his father was also an attendee of the Dera. Singhjasmit (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also see the original research policy. (pinging Singhjasmit) — LauritzT (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Merging sub-topics into one single section

There are 11 sections in this article which are not properly categorized and look so messy and complex. It is requested that the section “Conflict with Sikh and Hindu Groups” be merged into “Controversies” and the section “Invitation from the United Nations” be merged into “Social Work”. Other relevant mergers and editing should also be made. “Allegations of conspiracy behind conviction” seems to be completely irrelevant, so it should either be removed or merged into Controversies section.

103.167.174.81 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Misleading Information in Social Work Section

In association with the American Society of Echocardiography, he also organised the world record for "Most Cardiac Echo Tests" although it was proved as a 'scam' on 2 January 2022. This Line is Added with no reliable source has no significant so should be removed.

The source added for it does't clearly define this line According to my view This World Record also not listed in Guinness Book of World Records TruthBehindMe (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Recognition to transgenders and Rise of Third Gender (Sub-Section Need to be included in Social Work)

See Also National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India

It’s a win that is echoing through the world (along with a clutch of others) has borne fruit with the Apex Court ruling in favour of the Eunuchs and giving them a legal status of the third gender. Besides, the government has been directed to launch a string of initiatives, including a reservation quota in jobs to help them join mainstream.

Background

In 2012 Waging Legal Battle the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.400 in Supreme Court of India to provide free legal services to the weaker sections of the society. In 2013 the matter was clubbed with a WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.604 filed in the Supreme Court by a NGO Poojya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society working for transgender community run by Gurmeet Ram Rahim. While hearing on this petition On 15th April 2014, Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgement on Eunuchs. The judgement acknowledged their recognition as “Third Gender” TruthBehindMe (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Far too tenuous connection - none of the sources mention Singh, and most of them are iffy sources, blogs and the case. The journal source is probably a good one, but this shouldn't be in this article. Ravensfire (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Revensfire

I find some related sources that mention Ram Rahim. The section related to this one already published in Dera Sacha Sauda wiki page under welfare activities section that uses these type of same sources. TruthBehindMe (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

derasachasauda.org is a WP:PRIMARY source and shouldn't be used. The sachishiksha.in feels more like a promotional blurb than something truly independent from the source. The mention is probably appropriate on the Dera Sacha Sauda page, but not here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yoga Coach [New Section Need to be Added]

In 2017 Ram Rahim had been nominated for Dronacharya Award by Yoga Federation of India (YFI). YFI had recommended Ram Rahim to the sports ministry for producing ‘world champion yogis’. Ram Rahim had given birth to several international yoga stars, including world and Asian champions. In the same year he also had been recommended for the Lifetime Achievement award, given on each occasion to two coaches who have produced outstanding sports persons over a period of 20 years. Ram Rahim also had MSG Bharatiya Khel Gaon to train athletes for the Olympics. TruthBehindMe (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Added. The 'lifetime achievement award' mention was not included because none of the cited sources provide clarity about which lifetime achievement is being talked about. An eligible source that provides clarity on the same is required to add this to the final edit. NotSOnovice (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Section Murder conviction [Need Improvement]

Murder conviction

In January 2003 Punjab and Haryana High Court handed over the investigation of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati murder case to CBI. In July 2007 the CBI filed a charge sheet against Ram Rahim after the statement made by Khatta Singh, a prime prosecution witness. In 2012 Khatta Singh turned hostile during his testimony. In September 2017 Khatta singh again came out and had file a appeal to CBI court to record his fresh statement again against Ram Rahim. On 17 November 2017 at a press conference Suminder Kaur, who claimed to be Khatta Singh's niece, alleged that she was being coerced by him to give false testimony against the Ram Rahim. On 25 September 2017 a special CBI court in Panchkula had dismissed the plea of Khatta Singh.Then he moves high court seeking permission to record his fresh statement. On 23 April 2018 High court allowed Khatta Singh to record his statement afresh in relation to journalist Ramchander Chattarpati and Ranjit Singh murder cases.

In January 2019, Ram Rahim was convicted of the murder of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati. Chhatrapati was shot in 2002 outside his home after reporting articles on the rape charges facing Ram Rahim. Afterwards, Chhatrapati's father gave a letter to police implicating Dera members. On 17 January 2019, Ram Rahim was sentenced to life imprisonment by Special CBI Court along with three other men involved. Ram Rahim challenged his murder conviction in the Punjab and Haryana High Courts on 15 March 2019. TruthBehindMe (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ravensfire Request you to please look into it. TruthBehindMe (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@NotSOnovice Thanks for adding 'Yoga Coach' Section to this Article. please also put your valuable feedback on this section also. TruthBehindMe (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the recently added section- Allegations of conspiracy behind conviction

The information provided is completely misleading and has no relation with the subject, i.e. Gurmeet Ram Rahim. The petition that is being talked about is itself misleading as the subject himself has denied to the claims made by the petitioners and has also said that he has no relations with the main petitioner and does not even recognize him. The editor @faithversusverdict, a group which the petitioner is a part of, is just providing misleading information and should be banned. Moreover, the same petitioner's claims have been denied by both the organization, Dera Sacha Sauda and the head of the organization, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh as well as has been proven false and misleading by the high court, not once but twice and along with a fine imposition , second time when the same group of petitioners made another misleading allegation of Gurmeet Ram Rahim being replaced by a dummy in the jail.

The section also includes many punctuation errors. Moreover, the section just mentions about a petition that falsely alleges that the subject is being tortured inside the jail, and this has no relation with the title of the section, i.e. Conspiracy behind Conviction. Totally irrelevant.

@Ravensfire Please look into this matter.

Thanks.

NotSOnovice (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This PIL Filled in high court has not related to @faithversusverdict and Dr. Mohit Gupta. JustSmile1995 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

NotSOnovice (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This Section added with reliable source reference. This PIL filled in high court related to cases of Ram Rahim. According to Reference being mande their are four petitioners in this PIL. Nothing related to Faith versus Verdict and Dr Mohit Gupta.its matter of honourable court to make a decision it's irrelevant or not. In this PIL there are has not been single hearing conducted by honourable high court yet. So can't made decisions it's own way. JustSmile1995 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, it would be appreciated if you'd please indent your replies to make comment threading a bit more intuitive. It should be fairly easy to see how it is done, i.e. with an incrementally larger number of colons for each response. I have fixed this for you. Please also see our talk page guidelines.

First of all, kindly go through the references added after each fact before making any contrary statements. Each sentence of my discussion has a source as a proof added to it. Thanks. I am still waiting for a more experienced wiki editor with a non-red username. And the next time you support yourself someone through (another) account, consider adding references and sources to support your claims.

NotSOnovice (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done removed, I'm not sure if everybody agrees but if someone does disagree we'll just move back to the discussion phase. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Parole [More Information Need to be Added]

Ram Rahim started online satsang as soon as he came on parole at Barnawa Uttar Pradesh's Baghpat. During his parole at Barnawa former captain of Indian handball women's team seeking blessing from him virtually. Although there was a ruckus on the arrival of the leaders in his online discourse. Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses plea seeking cancellation of Ram Rahim parole as withdrawn. During Parole at Barnawa Ram Rahim got the video shot done by driving a tractor and talked about Organic farming. During his parole at online discourse he said that Ravana was world's first successful cloner. He said Ravana cloned and produced one lakh children. Ram Rahim talked about many herbs in Mahabharata and Ramayana period. He also said with the arrival of super specialist of DNA, a new revolution can come in the whole world. Ram Rahim also gave shooting tips to an under 12 shooter player. During his parole more than 300 children in school uniform and their teachers made attend to his online Satsang in Shahjahanpur district UP. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) has ordered probe. TruthBehindMe (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Way, WAY too much detail. This is not a personal hagiography, it's a high level summary. None of this should be included and the current parole section needs to be toned down. Your relentless promotion is well into WP:COI territory, this is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Within the section "Early life and family" first paragraph, I would like to add the fact that the dera is non-Sikh. At the end of the paragraph, it can be added that "Dera Sacha Sauda is a non-Sikh dera." The reason behind this is that the readers will become misinformed that Dera Sacha Sauda is part of Sikhism even though it is not. It is against Rehat Maryada, which all Sikhs need to abide by. Attached is a reference stating that Dera Sacha Sauda is non-Sikh due to its practices. If that cannot be added, then the second sentence within that section should be corrected to remove the word Sikh, as he is not. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/32101#:~:text=The%20Sikh%20deras%20strictly%20observe,kirtan%20performers%20in%20these%20deras. Singhjasmit (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not sure where there is any suggestion that the organization the subject of the article heads is Sikh. I see the sentence reading that he was born into a Sikh family, but no implication is made about the organization (or even the subject, for that matter) being Sikh specifically. Tollens (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)