Talk:Prakashanand Saraswati

Name

I moved it from "Swami Prakashanand Saraswati" back to "Prakashanand Saraswati" to avoid using the honorific. It just like we don't title the article "Professor Albert Einstein".   Will Beback  talk  10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• According to wikipedia policy, it should be Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. Please see [1] and [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.45.45 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography, not a "dharmic" topic. As for the naming conventions for people, honorifics may be included, but there is no requirement for it. The subject is clearly and unambiguously identifiable as Prakashanand Saraswati, and is referred to by that name in sources. A better case for keeping "swami" can be made at Swami Nikhilanand, but I don't see a need here. The "swami" should also be trimmed from the article, except for one or two uses. Also the abbreviation "H.D." should be spelled out, or omitted.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a biography of a person who has an indic name - therefore the policy on Indic names is relevant [3]. In recent news articles, he has been incorrectly referred to as "Prakashanand Saraswati". But in reputable books and publications he has always been called "Swami Prakashanand Saraswati" and he is known as such by the American and Worldwide Hindu community. H.D. probably doesn't need to be there.

Regarding the need for including 'Swami' in this article, there are other historical and modern Hindu leaders who are normally referred to as 'Prakashanand Saraswati' or 'Prakashananda Saraswati' (without Swami) - for the sake of clarity, it is necessary to include 'Swami', as that is how the subject is commonly known as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.45.45 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears pretty clear per WP:HONORIFIC that the title of this biography should be "Prakashanand Saraswati" as this unambiguously identifies the subject. If another Prakashanand Saraswati becomes notable we can discuss the best way to disambiguate. I would ask all editors to avoid move-warring until a consensus emerges, however. Note that neither Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) nor Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) are policies. VQuakr (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week with no further comment. If there's nothing else I'll move it back to "Prakashanand Saraswati", without the honorific.   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved. I hope that if anyone wants to move it back to another name they will discuss it first.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Trial Section

Alot more work needs to be done on this section as I don't believe it reads like an encyclopedic entry. One concern is the anonymous statements in the Austin American Statesman article. I don't believe that an article based on anonymous statements has any place in wikipedia, even if they are published by a reputable source. First of all, we don't even know if the women who made those statements include the same 3 accusers who testified at the trial. So its not clear if it was 8 people or 5 people. At trial, only 3 people testified for the prosecution side. My other point is that I don't believe it adheres to the "biography of living people" condition to include allegations by anonymous people, who may have had nothing to do with the trial or conviction of the Swami, and which were only reported by one source, even if that source was reputable. Referring to specific sections of the wiki guidelines:

• "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced".

• "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."

One reason I believe it is poorly sourced is because the allegations of these 5 people were only reported by one source. These are serious allegations, and should only be included in an encyclopedia if they are relevant and well sourced. Another reason is that the people quoted are anonymous.

For the time being, I will "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced".... i.e. "Five months later the stories of 5 women were anonymously reported in an Austin Statesman article... ...made by a few anonymous people." Pending discussion, we can add it back if the wiki community disagrees. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also question the value of having two separate sections for "trial" and "fugitive". 109.255.71.203 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming of victims of child molestation at Radha Madhav Dham/Barsana Dham

• This article, as was the article on Radha Madhav Dham, has been written to include the names of children who are the victims of Prakashanand Saraswati's molestations. Per BLP, I will delete these. Ism schism (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede What subject is notable for

• Although this individual was part of research, there are not multiple independent sources that state his research is what he is notable for. I have removed this from the Lede as it is already in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Status

September 10, an IP changed the article to indicate (among other things) that Saraswati had died. I could find no reliable source to support this change. If this cannot be sourced, he is still assumed to be alive and in hiding until proven otherwise. Please review WP:BLP before changing again. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)