This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In this edit I removed (yet again) vague scandalmongering from an IP editor ( 14.139.45.243) who added the line "He was criticised for getting close to another contestant Rosin Jolly." This content is pointless, and objections were previously raised at Talk:Rosin Jolly by Ryk72 before that article was deleted. My general comments from that talk page, adjusted for relevance here:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trade rag, and salacious gossip is not our bread-and-butter. Editors need to consider the impact that this piece of information will have in ten years, not just now. If it's not going to be relevant in 10 years, then it probably isn't relevant now. Further, the repeated addition of this content looks an awful lot like agenda-pushing. We always err on the side of caution in these cases. For these reasons, I have again removed this pointless nonsense. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Twice I have removed content like this and this because there is insufficient context that explains why we should care about it. What were the anti-Muslim comments? What is Easwar's interest in Islam, that he should care? How was he harmed? What was the response to the activism? The five Ws aren't being met here. Additionally, we are not a breaking news outlet, and we need to consider that we are not just listing recent events to list recent events. What is the 10 year relevance of this information? Will we care in 10 years? If so, then we need context. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
as Cyphoidbomb points out this article needed more clarity . added inline citations to it. new user, yet to make a page of myself was editing many articles yesterday too. ( 111.92.27.206 ( talk) 08:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC))
what is the issue in adding lecture tours. may be lecture tours are part of activism. as the subject is also some kind of lecturing philosopher. ( 103.5.218.50 ( talk) 07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC))
the part of lecture tours seems to have deleted without consultation. and there was also the deleting of ISIS terror threat without stating reason. gave more citations. more discussions in talk page needs to be there before unilateral deleting. ( 111.92.29.118 ( talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC))
add more. there is lot of info ( 122.174.199.135 ( talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC))
i think more information should be added along with a photo ( 116.212.177.35 ( talk) 03:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC))
an image needs to be given ( 120.56.33.251 ( talk) 15:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC))
photo can be given ( 49.248.225.6 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
If editing please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and comment on talk section.
As pointed out multiple times by different editors here on talk there are no factual primary sources that he is a philosophy author other than newspaper reports based on press handouts or versions of this article which touted him as an author. If he is why the information is not available on this page like titles of the book, ISBN? The article states that Rahul Easwar has written three books in philosophy. This article says that he had written three books by the age of 24. I tried to verify this claim, but could not find any proof for books written by him. I found this book from Amazon (which is claimed to be his fifth book), but I could not verify the ISBN number. Three years ago, he had tweeted the book cover of his new book 'A pilgrimage into the History of India', but it appears that the book did not get published yet. I think Rahul does not qualify to be described as an author in the lead of the article. -- Netha (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Rahul Easwar's education credentials were added. No information about his educational credentials is available from reputed sources or in public domain, except his self-published claims. He now claims his Alma mater is IIM(A) where he had attended a 21-day non-degree awarding Executive leadership program as cited by the tabloid DNA. This page had previously listed Rahul Eashwar's education was at LSE and IIM(A) Now lists only IIM(A). As pointed out multiple times by many editors before, this page has reverted to claims (without explanations on talk) that Rahul Eashwar is an author and his Alma mater is LSE without any primary source of citations without discussing it here or giving any reasons for edit. The claims that he is a philosophy author and alumnus of LSE and IIM is not credible and doesn't cite any sources other than some newspaper article which had probably picked it up from press handouts by Eashwar himself and/or earlier version of this page or his social media pages. If he is actually a philosophy author there should be a section about his books and his education before claiming authorship and Alma mater. I had contacted Mr.Eashwar about these claims by email that is publicly available on his website before doing the edits and received no reply. Furthermore, if someone who is making these edits should provide reasons for the edit and here on the talk pages which is not to be found. I have made major edits about Authorship: Removed the description which states that Rahul Eashwar is an author as there is no record of his authorship or books. As others have stated and the section as author was already removed there is is no verifiable source to prove that he is an author. Anyone claiming he is an author should add a section on this page about his published works. Also added Hindu Activist as there are numerous sources for his activism the sources are in the reference section. Removed "Alma Mater: London School of Economics IIM(A)". The Biography page of Rahul Eashwar says that his Alma Mater is London School of Economics for which the only sources are some newspaper articles (Who probably picked it up from this Wikipedia page or his social media self-claims or a handout by him to the Journalists). There is no public record of him attending London School of Economics or any information about his higher education there, what he studied there, what degree he obtained other than his own claims. About IIM(A) the only available source is an article published on a newspaper. The entry is not verifiable WP:Verifiability and was removed. If other editors have verifiable information on his education please cite primary sources and add what education he obtained from LSE and IIM(A).The Only available primary source of the information is a statement from IIM(A) reported by a newspaper 9during a protest by students of IIM(A) against Rahul Eashwar speaking on campus of IIM(A)) that he is enrolled in a Global leadership program which is a short term seminar like course which doesnt confer any higher education degree.
I've initiated major edits to this page, which was in blatant violation of most standards set out in WP:ALIVE. My reasons for doing so are given below. If you do not agree with my edits, I request you to discuss it here before reverting my edits. I am open to adding more content to the page as long as it meets WP:Verifiability WP:ALIVE and WP:Notability WP:NPOV standards.
In a nutshell, the article did not adhere to standards in WP:ALIVE and WP:Notability. The sources did not adhere to WP:Verifiability, and the language used violated WP:NPOV.
1. The person is not an author - his books are not available in English or Malayalam, and no public records of them exist (book seller catalogues, libraries, ISBN). The only source is himself where he was quoted as saying as much. In the face of lack of any other evidence, and since it was reported in direct speech (which is not fact-checked or verified by the editorial desk), I have removed the author tag, and deleted mentions of it.
2. Most of the references given were either non-existent, or did not contain what it was supposed to reference. I removed all of those references, and the claims that they were supporting. (this was most of the page)
3. Some of the content in the page was irrelevant and not notable. Sources for these were tabloidish websites. This does not conform to WP:ALIVE. I removed all of this as well.
4. I made several edits to bring in WP:NPOV. I removed claims that were being made, and replaced them with reportage from the sources.
I see that the page has a contested history. In the light of this, I request you to discuss issues you might have with these edits on this talk page before reverting edits. Thank you!
Neogarfield ( talk) 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1. Major links in News papers were given in the article - The Hindu, Times of India were there ( I guess some deccan chronicle link was also there, cudnt find it )
2. such massive editing without any 3rd person also accepting is not right in wikipedia. edits can and should be definitely done, but with consensus
3. references as Author from BBC, Al Jazeera etc are there. They are international publications. many channel news are also there as discussion as reference.
( 45.248.92.96 ( talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC))
better writing style can be adapted. ( 42.109.164.54 ( talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC))
Agrees with the earlier wikipedia editor when he says - "Seems very shortsighted to delete the majority of content, much of which is attributed to reliable mainstream sources just like we want."
let it stay, we info can and source can be added ( 42.109.134.34 ( talk) 05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
the word controversial is a weasel word and i agree with you that website need not be added. (
45.248.92.96 (
talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
deleted the link into some organisation and website. not a third party information like News website, this is only a website. ( 42.109.134.34 ( talk) 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
It is given in BBC Website, The Hindu News paper article, (Philosophical anchor). Are they not enough. One international and one is Indian, both Media houses of high credibility and repute. ( Akshayacropolis ( talk) 12:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
IIM Ahmedabad invites for the talk on his book ( 171.49.208.206 ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC))
In the IIM A news, it is given as author and activist ( 112.133.236.175 ( talk) 09:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
IIM A conducted a talk on his book. is that not relevance enough? also online it is available too ( 112.133.236.128 ( talk) 08:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
Undid contribution by Cyphoidbomb ( talk) as it is given as Activist and NOT as Author. and it is also given as Orator as IIM news ( 2402:3A80:E3C:8852:355C:E376:3EBA:C1A6 ( talk) 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
some link to book buying in amazon. https://www.amazon.in/Philosophica-Vedanta-Psychometrics-Rahul-Easwar/dp/813001694X also respectable news org such as Hindustan times, Hindu and buzzfeed gave as "author and activist" - https://www.buzzfeed.com/andreborges/this-guy-made-a-stupid-ass-tweet-about-feminism-and-twitter https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/at-war-over-love-state-and-society-vs-personal-freedom-in-kerala/story-hv8qrWusdcLvmoGCjMVZZO.html
so i guess it is ok ( 111.92.29.222 ( talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
( 111.92.29.222 ( talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
deleted "Orator" as it is better to put after consensus. Let us come to agreement what to put, orator / author / speaker / panelist / writer. Even thou i deleted, i think it is ok, to put author or orator as it is even given in BBC.
BBC, The Hindu, NDTV .. such prominent media houses gives that title, then it is safe to put that in wikipedia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36013215 ( 111.92.29.222 ( talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
Ya, i guess so. go ahead. it is ok to add the title if given in News websites like BBC, agrees with ( 111.92.29.222 by ( Blake Peter ( talk) 15:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
author can be added if in line citation can be given ( 111.92.29.198 ( talk) 16:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC))
adding author as per news ( 171.49.184.180 ( talk) 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC))
photo ? ( 223.228.161.62 ( talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC))
almost all media houses refer as author and activist. that is the inline citation too. and there is no need to put full name everywhere. as earlier editor said "we know who we are taking about" ( 111.92.31.72 ( talk) 20:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Therefore, we cannot have in the lead any mention of the subject being something which he is not. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Should the article lead describe Rahul Easwar as an author? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Allegations against Rahul Eshwar is not given enough weightage in the article. Eminent Saint Sandeepananda Giri has accused him of behind the arson in his ashram. such things are not mentioned at all ( 202.177.46.76 ( talk) 10:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
Is he a alumni of IIM (A), Indian institute of management Ahemadabad. https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122 Press release from IIM (A) says so. ( 111.92.28.176 ( talk) 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC))
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
<!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Rahul Easwar" with "page=Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination.
-->{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Rahul Easwar|timestamp=20181204164954|year=2018|month=December|day=4|substed=yes}}
<!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Rahul Easwar|date=4 December 2018|result='''keep'''}} -->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Z4zaara ( talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In this edit circa October 2019, inexperienced editor Diamond Head green removed phrasing that totally unraveled the significance of the sentence.
For centuries, females of childbearing age (approx. 10–50) have been banned from worshipping at the Sabarimala temple, because of long-standing cultural beliefs about menstruation being impure.
For centuries, females of childbearing age (approx. 10–50) have been banned from worshipping at the Sabarimala temple, because of long-standing cultural beliefs.
I cannot possibly fathom why the user would have removed context that explains exactly why women are banned in favor of vague language that doesn't tell us the specific reason. The next question your mind would ask when reading the truncated sentence is "what are those long-standing cultural beliefs?", which would be answered with "they think menstruation is impure". This is sourced as well, attributed to this. So I can only surmise that squeamishness about menstruation is the reason Diamond Head green removed the content? We are supposed to be presenting the 5Ws, and answering "Why?" is one of them. Naturally Diamond Head green didn't explain their rationale, but I don't see any legitimate reason to remove this, so I have restored it. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done The above referenced has to be corrected explaining that menstruation being impure is a more popularized version whereas the actual reason can only be attributed to the celibacy nature of the diety - as mentioned in Slokas 35-40 of Sri Bhoothanathopakhyanam. The supreme court themselves has taken cognizance of this nature of the diety considering various arguments and I am sure we all will agree to the fact that we cannot have a different narrative in this article. RamRaghubn ( talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I am leaving it to the opinion of other authors of this page to evaluate my arguments as I consider Cyphoidbomb reverting my as unilateral and not aligned with principles of Wikipedia.
1. It's not a cultural belief in South India to consider or treat menstruation as impure. Always, a girl attaining puberty was celebrated as a special festive day in almost every Indian family and the occassion was celebrated with feast for near and dear ones. Menstruation was never a reason for the Sabarimala Ayyappa diety to restrict entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 from entering the temple. Rather the cultural belief of the devotees (only devotees go to a temple) was based on the 'Naischtika Brahmacharya Prathishta nature' of Lord Ayyappa as cited in the scripture - Sri Bhoothanathopakhyanam Slokas 35 - 40.
2. The Sabarimal temple has the Naischtika Brahmacharya Prathishta nature of Lord Ayyappa. The authors should also take cognizance of the fact that not all temples of Lord Ayyappa has a restriction on women in this age group. It's just this specific temple in the entire World of Lord Ayyappa that such a restriction is put on place.
If the user Cyphoidbomb has a different opinion on the edit made by me, I would request him to discuss this here in the 'Talk' page of the article and not as a message to the user who made the edit. As per Wikipedia guidelines, There should be consensus by other authors as well before making any further changes to this clause.
As per the Wikipedia guidelines, I will wait for other authors to evaluate this and arrive on a consensus before making an attempt to edit the article. Not as messages or entries to my user-talk page but as entries to this article-talk page. Though I appreciate being notified with messages the guidelines stipulate that it should be an entry to the talk-page of this article i.e. here.
RamRaghubn ( talk) 04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"The temple's rule emanated from the still widely-held belief in India that menstruating women are "impure". In rural pockets of the country, many women are still made to sleep and eat separately during menstruation."How is that not correctly described as a "cultural belief"? What other types of beliefs are there? Religious beliefs? Deductive or assumptive beliefs? Or do you erroneously think that by Wikipedia saying "cultural beliefs" that this somehow suggests that all South Indians think this way, as if there has to be one unifying cultural belief system and nobody can deviate from that? That seems like it would be your problem, not Wikipedia's problem. There is nothing wrong with describing this as a cultural belief, because that's what it is.
@ श्रीमान २००२: Hi there, though I appreciate your efforts here to clarify why women are kept out of the temple, I have concerns with a few aspects of the changes:
he temple's rule emanated from the still widely-held belief in India that menstruating women are "impure", etc.
So I'm unclear how, with two articles expressing different perspectives on the origin of the exclusion of women from the temple, how you arrive at one being more correct than the other. If there are differing perspectives, shouldn't that information be presented in a neutral way? Also, where did Easwar's perspective disappear to? And now I'm less clear about why, if his group had spilled their blood, that would have forced the closure of the temple. What does that have to do with celibacy? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
long-standing cultural beliefs about menstruation being impureand gave the impression that concern for celibacy being only a fringe opinion of Easwar. But it is a widely believed ( and correct in my opinion, but that doesn't make a difference) reason, even mentioned in the court proceedings and at various platforms by J Sai Deepak. On matter of blood, that is neither related to menstruation nor celibacy, spilled human blood is considered impure at places of worship, there is a shloka saying the same in one of the upanishads ( most likely maitreya, but I am not so sure and reply after consulting our priest), but not being agamic I not sure how much it would apply to Sabarimala. I am open to a more NPOV edit. I think linking Entry of women to Sabarimala as a see also would be helpful. -- User:श्रीमान २००२ ( User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no mention of this person being a Hindu spiritual teacher, at the most he can be called an orator. There is no inline citation to support this. So deleted the category of being a Hindu spiritual teacher (
122.165.57.93 (
talk) 07:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC))
reverted to earlier edit as the earlier editor was deleting properly referenced in line citations ( 59.92.119.166 ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC))
Added references - The Indian Express - https://indianexpress.com/article/india/who-is-rahul-easwar-sabarimala-protests-5422831/ ( Themisislegal ( talk) 07:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC))
WP:TOOMUCH is used here. The detail is not suitable for context. Regarding Indian Express, it is a mainstream media who is covering. Wikipedia editors rely on mainstream media for information and the said content is not a press release but a Express Web Desk authored article by the media house - https://indianexpress.com/article/india/who-is-rahul-easwar-sabarimala-protests-5422831/ . Will wait for other editors to weigh in as a different view point came in ( Themisislegal ( talk) 07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC))
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In this edit I removed (yet again) vague scandalmongering from an IP editor ( 14.139.45.243) who added the line "He was criticised for getting close to another contestant Rosin Jolly." This content is pointless, and objections were previously raised at Talk:Rosin Jolly by Ryk72 before that article was deleted. My general comments from that talk page, adjusted for relevance here:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trade rag, and salacious gossip is not our bread-and-butter. Editors need to consider the impact that this piece of information will have in ten years, not just now. If it's not going to be relevant in 10 years, then it probably isn't relevant now. Further, the repeated addition of this content looks an awful lot like agenda-pushing. We always err on the side of caution in these cases. For these reasons, I have again removed this pointless nonsense. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Twice I have removed content like this and this because there is insufficient context that explains why we should care about it. What were the anti-Muslim comments? What is Easwar's interest in Islam, that he should care? How was he harmed? What was the response to the activism? The five Ws aren't being met here. Additionally, we are not a breaking news outlet, and we need to consider that we are not just listing recent events to list recent events. What is the 10 year relevance of this information? Will we care in 10 years? If so, then we need context. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
as Cyphoidbomb points out this article needed more clarity . added inline citations to it. new user, yet to make a page of myself was editing many articles yesterday too. ( 111.92.27.206 ( talk) 08:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC))
what is the issue in adding lecture tours. may be lecture tours are part of activism. as the subject is also some kind of lecturing philosopher. ( 103.5.218.50 ( talk) 07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC))
the part of lecture tours seems to have deleted without consultation. and there was also the deleting of ISIS terror threat without stating reason. gave more citations. more discussions in talk page needs to be there before unilateral deleting. ( 111.92.29.118 ( talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC))
add more. there is lot of info ( 122.174.199.135 ( talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC))
i think more information should be added along with a photo ( 116.212.177.35 ( talk) 03:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC))
an image needs to be given ( 120.56.33.251 ( talk) 15:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC))
photo can be given ( 49.248.225.6 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
If editing please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and comment on talk section.
As pointed out multiple times by different editors here on talk there are no factual primary sources that he is a philosophy author other than newspaper reports based on press handouts or versions of this article which touted him as an author. If he is why the information is not available on this page like titles of the book, ISBN? The article states that Rahul Easwar has written three books in philosophy. This article says that he had written three books by the age of 24. I tried to verify this claim, but could not find any proof for books written by him. I found this book from Amazon (which is claimed to be his fifth book), but I could not verify the ISBN number. Three years ago, he had tweeted the book cover of his new book 'A pilgrimage into the History of India', but it appears that the book did not get published yet. I think Rahul does not qualify to be described as an author in the lead of the article. -- Netha (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Rahul Easwar's education credentials were added. No information about his educational credentials is available from reputed sources or in public domain, except his self-published claims. He now claims his Alma mater is IIM(A) where he had attended a 21-day non-degree awarding Executive leadership program as cited by the tabloid DNA. This page had previously listed Rahul Eashwar's education was at LSE and IIM(A) Now lists only IIM(A). As pointed out multiple times by many editors before, this page has reverted to claims (without explanations on talk) that Rahul Eashwar is an author and his Alma mater is LSE without any primary source of citations without discussing it here or giving any reasons for edit. The claims that he is a philosophy author and alumnus of LSE and IIM is not credible and doesn't cite any sources other than some newspaper article which had probably picked it up from press handouts by Eashwar himself and/or earlier version of this page or his social media pages. If he is actually a philosophy author there should be a section about his books and his education before claiming authorship and Alma mater. I had contacted Mr.Eashwar about these claims by email that is publicly available on his website before doing the edits and received no reply. Furthermore, if someone who is making these edits should provide reasons for the edit and here on the talk pages which is not to be found. I have made major edits about Authorship: Removed the description which states that Rahul Eashwar is an author as there is no record of his authorship or books. As others have stated and the section as author was already removed there is is no verifiable source to prove that he is an author. Anyone claiming he is an author should add a section on this page about his published works. Also added Hindu Activist as there are numerous sources for his activism the sources are in the reference section. Removed "Alma Mater: London School of Economics IIM(A)". The Biography page of Rahul Eashwar says that his Alma Mater is London School of Economics for which the only sources are some newspaper articles (Who probably picked it up from this Wikipedia page or his social media self-claims or a handout by him to the Journalists). There is no public record of him attending London School of Economics or any information about his higher education there, what he studied there, what degree he obtained other than his own claims. About IIM(A) the only available source is an article published on a newspaper. The entry is not verifiable WP:Verifiability and was removed. If other editors have verifiable information on his education please cite primary sources and add what education he obtained from LSE and IIM(A).The Only available primary source of the information is a statement from IIM(A) reported by a newspaper 9during a protest by students of IIM(A) against Rahul Eashwar speaking on campus of IIM(A)) that he is enrolled in a Global leadership program which is a short term seminar like course which doesnt confer any higher education degree.
I've initiated major edits to this page, which was in blatant violation of most standards set out in WP:ALIVE. My reasons for doing so are given below. If you do not agree with my edits, I request you to discuss it here before reverting my edits. I am open to adding more content to the page as long as it meets WP:Verifiability WP:ALIVE and WP:Notability WP:NPOV standards.
In a nutshell, the article did not adhere to standards in WP:ALIVE and WP:Notability. The sources did not adhere to WP:Verifiability, and the language used violated WP:NPOV.
1. The person is not an author - his books are not available in English or Malayalam, and no public records of them exist (book seller catalogues, libraries, ISBN). The only source is himself where he was quoted as saying as much. In the face of lack of any other evidence, and since it was reported in direct speech (which is not fact-checked or verified by the editorial desk), I have removed the author tag, and deleted mentions of it.
2. Most of the references given were either non-existent, or did not contain what it was supposed to reference. I removed all of those references, and the claims that they were supporting. (this was most of the page)
3. Some of the content in the page was irrelevant and not notable. Sources for these were tabloidish websites. This does not conform to WP:ALIVE. I removed all of this as well.
4. I made several edits to bring in WP:NPOV. I removed claims that were being made, and replaced them with reportage from the sources.
I see that the page has a contested history. In the light of this, I request you to discuss issues you might have with these edits on this talk page before reverting edits. Thank you!
Neogarfield ( talk) 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1. Major links in News papers were given in the article - The Hindu, Times of India were there ( I guess some deccan chronicle link was also there, cudnt find it )
2. such massive editing without any 3rd person also accepting is not right in wikipedia. edits can and should be definitely done, but with consensus
3. references as Author from BBC, Al Jazeera etc are there. They are international publications. many channel news are also there as discussion as reference.
( 45.248.92.96 ( talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC))
better writing style can be adapted. ( 42.109.164.54 ( talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC))
Agrees with the earlier wikipedia editor when he says - "Seems very shortsighted to delete the majority of content, much of which is attributed to reliable mainstream sources just like we want."
let it stay, we info can and source can be added ( 42.109.134.34 ( talk) 05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
the word controversial is a weasel word and i agree with you that website need not be added. (
45.248.92.96 (
talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
deleted the link into some organisation and website. not a third party information like News website, this is only a website. ( 42.109.134.34 ( talk) 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
It is given in BBC Website, The Hindu News paper article, (Philosophical anchor). Are they not enough. One international and one is Indian, both Media houses of high credibility and repute. ( Akshayacropolis ( talk) 12:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
IIM Ahmedabad invites for the talk on his book ( 171.49.208.206 ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC))
In the IIM A news, it is given as author and activist ( 112.133.236.175 ( talk) 09:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
IIM A conducted a talk on his book. is that not relevance enough? also online it is available too ( 112.133.236.128 ( talk) 08:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
Undid contribution by Cyphoidbomb ( talk) as it is given as Activist and NOT as Author. and it is also given as Orator as IIM news ( 2402:3A80:E3C:8852:355C:E376:3EBA:C1A6 ( talk) 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
some link to book buying in amazon. https://www.amazon.in/Philosophica-Vedanta-Psychometrics-Rahul-Easwar/dp/813001694X also respectable news org such as Hindustan times, Hindu and buzzfeed gave as "author and activist" - https://www.buzzfeed.com/andreborges/this-guy-made-a-stupid-ass-tweet-about-feminism-and-twitter https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/at-war-over-love-state-and-society-vs-personal-freedom-in-kerala/story-hv8qrWusdcLvmoGCjMVZZO.html
so i guess it is ok ( 111.92.29.222 ( talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
( 111.92.29.222 ( talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
deleted "Orator" as it is better to put after consensus. Let us come to agreement what to put, orator / author / speaker / panelist / writer. Even thou i deleted, i think it is ok, to put author or orator as it is even given in BBC.
BBC, The Hindu, NDTV .. such prominent media houses gives that title, then it is safe to put that in wikipedia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36013215 ( 111.92.29.222 ( talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
Ya, i guess so. go ahead. it is ok to add the title if given in News websites like BBC, agrees with ( 111.92.29.222 by ( Blake Peter ( talk) 15:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC))
author can be added if in line citation can be given ( 111.92.29.198 ( talk) 16:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC))
adding author as per news ( 171.49.184.180 ( talk) 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC))
photo ? ( 223.228.161.62 ( talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC))
almost all media houses refer as author and activist. that is the inline citation too. and there is no need to put full name everywhere. as earlier editor said "we know who we are taking about" ( 111.92.31.72 ( talk) 20:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Therefore, we cannot have in the lead any mention of the subject being something which he is not. - The Gnome ( talk) 21:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Should the article lead describe Rahul Easwar as an author? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Allegations against Rahul Eshwar is not given enough weightage in the article. Eminent Saint Sandeepananda Giri has accused him of behind the arson in his ashram. such things are not mentioned at all ( 202.177.46.76 ( talk) 10:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
Is he a alumni of IIM (A), Indian institute of management Ahemadabad. https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122 Press release from IIM (A) says so. ( 111.92.28.176 ( talk) 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC))
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
<!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Rahul Easwar" with "page=Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination.
-->{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Rahul Easwar|timestamp=20181204164954|year=2018|month=December|day=4|substed=yes}}
<!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Rahul Easwar|date=4 December 2018|result='''keep'''}} -->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Z4zaara ( talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In this edit circa October 2019, inexperienced editor Diamond Head green removed phrasing that totally unraveled the significance of the sentence.
For centuries, females of childbearing age (approx. 10–50) have been banned from worshipping at the Sabarimala temple, because of long-standing cultural beliefs about menstruation being impure.
For centuries, females of childbearing age (approx. 10–50) have been banned from worshipping at the Sabarimala temple, because of long-standing cultural beliefs.
I cannot possibly fathom why the user would have removed context that explains exactly why women are banned in favor of vague language that doesn't tell us the specific reason. The next question your mind would ask when reading the truncated sentence is "what are those long-standing cultural beliefs?", which would be answered with "they think menstruation is impure". This is sourced as well, attributed to this. So I can only surmise that squeamishness about menstruation is the reason Diamond Head green removed the content? We are supposed to be presenting the 5Ws, and answering "Why?" is one of them. Naturally Diamond Head green didn't explain their rationale, but I don't see any legitimate reason to remove this, so I have restored it. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done The above referenced has to be corrected explaining that menstruation being impure is a more popularized version whereas the actual reason can only be attributed to the celibacy nature of the diety - as mentioned in Slokas 35-40 of Sri Bhoothanathopakhyanam. The supreme court themselves has taken cognizance of this nature of the diety considering various arguments and I am sure we all will agree to the fact that we cannot have a different narrative in this article. RamRaghubn ( talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I am leaving it to the opinion of other authors of this page to evaluate my arguments as I consider Cyphoidbomb reverting my as unilateral and not aligned with principles of Wikipedia.
1. It's not a cultural belief in South India to consider or treat menstruation as impure. Always, a girl attaining puberty was celebrated as a special festive day in almost every Indian family and the occassion was celebrated with feast for near and dear ones. Menstruation was never a reason for the Sabarimala Ayyappa diety to restrict entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 from entering the temple. Rather the cultural belief of the devotees (only devotees go to a temple) was based on the 'Naischtika Brahmacharya Prathishta nature' of Lord Ayyappa as cited in the scripture - Sri Bhoothanathopakhyanam Slokas 35 - 40.
2. The Sabarimal temple has the Naischtika Brahmacharya Prathishta nature of Lord Ayyappa. The authors should also take cognizance of the fact that not all temples of Lord Ayyappa has a restriction on women in this age group. It's just this specific temple in the entire World of Lord Ayyappa that such a restriction is put on place.
If the user Cyphoidbomb has a different opinion on the edit made by me, I would request him to discuss this here in the 'Talk' page of the article and not as a message to the user who made the edit. As per Wikipedia guidelines, There should be consensus by other authors as well before making any further changes to this clause.
As per the Wikipedia guidelines, I will wait for other authors to evaluate this and arrive on a consensus before making an attempt to edit the article. Not as messages or entries to my user-talk page but as entries to this article-talk page. Though I appreciate being notified with messages the guidelines stipulate that it should be an entry to the talk-page of this article i.e. here.
RamRaghubn ( talk) 04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"The temple's rule emanated from the still widely-held belief in India that menstruating women are "impure". In rural pockets of the country, many women are still made to sleep and eat separately during menstruation."How is that not correctly described as a "cultural belief"? What other types of beliefs are there? Religious beliefs? Deductive or assumptive beliefs? Or do you erroneously think that by Wikipedia saying "cultural beliefs" that this somehow suggests that all South Indians think this way, as if there has to be one unifying cultural belief system and nobody can deviate from that? That seems like it would be your problem, not Wikipedia's problem. There is nothing wrong with describing this as a cultural belief, because that's what it is.
@ श्रीमान २००२: Hi there, though I appreciate your efforts here to clarify why women are kept out of the temple, I have concerns with a few aspects of the changes:
he temple's rule emanated from the still widely-held belief in India that menstruating women are "impure", etc.
So I'm unclear how, with two articles expressing different perspectives on the origin of the exclusion of women from the temple, how you arrive at one being more correct than the other. If there are differing perspectives, shouldn't that information be presented in a neutral way? Also, where did Easwar's perspective disappear to? And now I'm less clear about why, if his group had spilled their blood, that would have forced the closure of the temple. What does that have to do with celibacy? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
long-standing cultural beliefs about menstruation being impureand gave the impression that concern for celibacy being only a fringe opinion of Easwar. But it is a widely believed ( and correct in my opinion, but that doesn't make a difference) reason, even mentioned in the court proceedings and at various platforms by J Sai Deepak. On matter of blood, that is neither related to menstruation nor celibacy, spilled human blood is considered impure at places of worship, there is a shloka saying the same in one of the upanishads ( most likely maitreya, but I am not so sure and reply after consulting our priest), but not being agamic I not sure how much it would apply to Sabarimala. I am open to a more NPOV edit. I think linking Entry of women to Sabarimala as a see also would be helpful. -- User:श्रीमान २००२ ( User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no mention of this person being a Hindu spiritual teacher, at the most he can be called an orator. There is no inline citation to support this. So deleted the category of being a Hindu spiritual teacher (
122.165.57.93 (
talk) 07:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC))
reverted to earlier edit as the earlier editor was deleting properly referenced in line citations ( 59.92.119.166 ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC))
Added references - The Indian Express - https://indianexpress.com/article/india/who-is-rahul-easwar-sabarimala-protests-5422831/ ( Themisislegal ( talk) 07:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC))
WP:TOOMUCH is used here. The detail is not suitable for context. Regarding Indian Express, it is a mainstream media who is covering. Wikipedia editors rely on mainstream media for information and the said content is not a press release but a Express Web Desk authored article by the media house - https://indianexpress.com/article/india/who-is-rahul-easwar-sabarimala-protests-5422831/ . Will wait for other editors to weigh in as a different view point came in ( Themisislegal ( talk) 07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC))