Talk:Agnivesh

Quotations
I remove the stand-alone quotation section from the article. While it's only an essay, WP:QUOTE provides a good summary, especially WP:QUOTEFARM. Providing quotations without context often violates WP:NPOV and is not very useful to the reader. We can quote people as needed, but we should 1) prefer to quote secondary sources, not Agnivesh's own words except where his words are absolutely critical, and 2) only when the actual quote captures something that a paraphrase cannot. I'm putting the quotations I removed into a collapse box here in case anyone feels like copying them over to Wikiquote.


 * Karma does not mean karmakand.
 * "The unique spiritual genius of India breeds a composite culture of harmony and mutual respect. For the world order to be one of peace and justice, for the global village to be a theatre of right livelihood, it is imperative that a new and proactive spiritual vision commensurate to the challenges of the emerging world order be enunciated without delay.
 * "Globalisation is the glorification of greed as god." (2003)
 * "The Hijackers Of Hinduism: Hindutva is pseudo-Hinduism. It can triumph only by hijacking and degrading our religion. The stormtroopers of Hindutva, of course, want to look like Hindus. It is like terrorists wearing army uniforms while attacking an army camp. (2003)
 * "Ideology of Hindutva is Sheer Fascism: Some 7,000 children die in India daily, mainly due to poverty, which is caused by a skewed and totally inhuman notion of ’development’ propagated by Indian and Western elites. Is this not a form of terrorism also? In some senses, it is a worse form of terrorism, not only because it is of a far greater magnitude but also because it causes prolonged pain and suffering to its victims, unlike those who die in an instant in a terrorist attack. We better suffer terrorist attacks from Pakistan than push out the agenda of development being formed by Indian and Western elites. Is this not also a form of terrorism? Is not casteism in Hinduism and Islam a form of terrorism?" (2008)

Criticism section
Okay, that section is gone. But before anyone panics, please note that a large portion of the information was retained, but distributed throughout the article. WP:NPOV says that we generally prefer to integrate criticism in context within the rest of the article, not as a stand-alone section. In this case, that definitely makes sense, because the criticism was about several different issues: some, his social activism, others, his religion. I did keep some of the info out, because not all of it actually met WP:DUE, and some of it wasn't even criticism. For example, we can't take a claim that Ragnivesh made and then call it controversial without a secondary source that says that someone else found it controversial. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that you're removing criticism of Agnivesh with various arguments. This is not fair. Trying to remove the wrongdoings by removing the content is not fair. It will violate NPOV by not including information related to him.Politicalpandit (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The phone call video
So far, all I'm seeing are second-rate news stories, none of which definitely state the identity of the other speaker, or that can even testify to the authenticity of the video. WP:BLP says that we do not put in gossip or negative claims that have not been supported by reliable sources. Please wait to add this information until we get better sources and a clearer understanding of what happened. Don't forget that Wikipedia is not a news service--we don't have to get the story immediately after it breaks. Until we are certain that the sources are good and that this story has lasting value, it should not be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
This article is not up to date. Request admin to keep it current or allow edit for other users.

I have added reference from Hindu June 1 in which Agnivesh calls USA terrorist number one

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/01/stories/2008060159940800.htm

Please rewrite the last sentence from the first paragraph - "Recently by double crossing Anna, he has proven himself to be a first grade harami and a political pawn. Shame!" Suggestion - "Recently, he has been in the news for allegedly double crossing Anna. There have been reports(refer link to news channel article and youtube video) suggesting that he was in talks with the Indian government undermining the cause and means used by Anna Hazare."

16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.191.35.22 (talk)


 * Okay, first, the article is semi-protected, meaning anyone with an account more than 4 days old and w/10 edits can add information. Second, that sentence mentioned is out already.  Third, please see the section above: wikipedia is not supposed to be updated every single minute.  We need lasting, durable information, and we need sources that are very clear and strong for negative claims about living people.  Lastly, that article (about Agnivesh's words" is just that--his own words; we don't report every single thing every person said.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you? Why you try to justify Agnivesh, by not including what he said. If he has shown hatred towards the U.S, what's wrong in having it in the article? And why are you preventing it from being there?Politicalpandit (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The US= terrorist #1 is in the article; look in the last paragraph of Agnivesh. That's why I didn't mention it before, sorry.  Does that satisfy your concerns?  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kartks, 5 September 2011
Agnivesh took part in protests for bringing in Jan Lokpal (Ombudsman) bill in the Indian Parliament along with the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare. However, he later left the team of protesters led by Anna Hazare, claiming that he was humiliated by others. A few days after this incident, a video showing Agnivesh as a Government "mole" was circulated in the Indian media and youtube, where Agnivesh was shown speaking to a purported minister and calling the anti-corruption crusaders as "arrogant".

Kartks (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this? and if you do I believe you should now be autoconfirmed and able to make the edit yourself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agnivesh a "mole" of the corrupt Government of India
Agnivesh took part in the anti-corruption protests in India in August 2011. Later, he voluntarily stopped the protests, claiming that other protesters humiliated him. A couple of days later, a video showing Agnivesh speaking to a purported minister of Govt. of India was circulated in the Indian media and the internet. Agnivesh claimed innocence, saying that the video was doctored. This information is being witheld by the author of the post, and he has kept the article in "protected" status, thereby not allowing others to modify the article.
 * Do you have a source for this? and if you do I believe you should now be autoconfirmed and able to make the edit yourself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi?
The second paragraph of the 'Politics' section reads:

(Redacted)

Not only is the entire paragraph unsourced and quite ridiculous, but also clearly not NPOV, and bordering on libellous. As such, I am removing the entire passage. If someone can find sources to support some of the less humourous claims, then I invite them to restore that information.

-- Whyte Cypress  21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agnivesh → Swami Agnivesh – The article was originally created under Swami Agnivesh and moved to present title in August 2011 per WP:HONORIFIC. But I am afraid those guidelines are overridden by WP:COMMONNAME as the subject is almost always mentioned with prefix Swami. I personally have not seen him being refereed without it anywhere other then on Wikipedia. I see it as an uncontroversial move but assume that some people may have other views.
 * Some of the sources : TheHindu, FirstPost, Hindustan Times, Times of India, BBC, CNN IBN Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:Honorific: Phyllis G. Jestice Holy People of the World 2004 "(1939 C.E.–) Hindu religious leader,renunciant Agnivesh,a Hindu religious leader and Indian social activist, was born Vepa Shyam Rao on September 21, 1939,in Shakti..." ...it is used a lot with Swami but not always, and honorifics are one area where if there aren't always used then we don't count how often they are used. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That book uses the mix of Swami Agnivesh and Agnivesh. (for ex: the next para on the same page.)-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes several books use both in the same text, but doesn't that indicate that it doesn't have to always be used? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see those sources rather as unreliable due a non-uniform style. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems more to be just normal first mention, second mention, third mention. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But neither does WP:COMMONNAME say "always be used". It says "most commonly used". We have many books which refer Swami Vivekanand as just Vivekanand on many instances. I consider that just a style of writing where monotonous way of calling XY as XY is avoided by using X or Y at some times. Just like how we, most of the times, use last names in our articles to refer to the subject once the full name is used in lead or other places. Doesn’t mean the last name on its own identifies the subject. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Iio, the book you cite, first use Agnivesh, then switch to Swami Agnivesh, back to Agnivesh, again Swami Agnivesh. It is hardly following a set guidelines, thus not reliable to establish which name to use.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. That however doesn't make the book unreliable, in English (as Hindi) we quite often say "Sir John Brown...........John Brown............John Brown" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are both seeing the same thing but from different angles and drawing different interpretations. That book mentions Swami Vivekananda also without Swami most of the time, but WP article is hosted with Swami honorific. Even if for a moment we accept that source as reliable, it is rare to find subject of this MR mentioned without Swami. . -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have to echo In ictu oculi's comments. This is a case that clear falls under the scope of WP:HONORIFIC. If this was a name that was widely known in the English world than I might be of a different opinion, but this name is no so widely known (thus common) to deviate from WP:HONORIFIC.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you present any other source ? The book Iio cite does not follow a consistent pattern. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A Google Book search on ["Agnivesh" -"Swami Agnivesh"] will pick up similar books. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I had tried that before starting this RM and just did again now. Some books this search picks (other then books about some other agnivesh) again mentions him both with and without Swami. But again, that is MOS similar to WP. I.e. first mention of full name (XY) and then use Y everywhere else.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, en.wp uses WP:COMMONNAME in title, then WP:FULLNAME in lead, then WP:COMMONNAME in article body. except for when WP:COMMONNAME has a honorific, when we remove the WP:HONORIFIC even if it is common unless absolutely essential for comprehension. We are not a religious source. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The following search results in Google books produced a fair number of sources, somewhere around 3200 hits, that do not employ the honorific consistently or at all: Agnivesh -Swami in English . There is certainly usage for both terms so the title as it currently exists is not a fabrication hence why I'm inclined to believe it should stay where it is. .--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first book result of this google search Averting the Apocalypse: Social Movements in India Today uses "Swami Agnivesh" on page 317 and later on on page 400 refers to him as Agnivesh, which is why it features in this search result. Such searches are hardly conclusive. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are by no means meant to be conclusive in the same manner as a Common name determination. It is simply to demonstrate that the name is commonly written without the honorific and that the honorific is applied inconsistently. The fact that you would see both in the same source is a demonstration of that inconsistency.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As per arguments made by others and in line with policy. Imc (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Agnivesh. 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/20090726135116/http://www.agnimanthan.com:80/swami.asp to http://www.agnimanthan.com/swami.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523234900/http://www.dailyindia.com:80/show/441120.php to http://www.dailyindia.com/show/441120.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agnivesh. 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/20111228170702/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Dantewada-mob-attacks-Agnivesh-SSP-DM-shifted/767849/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Dantewada-mob-attacks-Agnivesh-SSP-DM-shifted/767849/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyindia.com/show/441120.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7707%3Ahindu-group-puts-bounty-on-agniveshs-head&catid=15%3Atop-news&Itemid=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

He was expelled from the organisation
User:Tayi Arajakte Your edit was an improvement than what you are blabbering so far on your talk page but nonetheless they are still grossly senseless. What you mean by Arya Samaj leader? He was expelled from the organization thus he was not a "Arya Samaj leader" for most of his life. We don't need attribution like "According to the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha", since this is not an exceptional claim but a general fact accepted by everyone. Yes he was expelled from the organisation and as such this claim requires no attribution. Now another user has completely censored this information from the lead by adding a deceptive explanation for edit summary. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your inability to understand how to use sources isn't me blabbering. The sources you provided give contradictory information as to who expelled him and when, as such the removal isn't wrong when the entire affair is disputed. We rely on what reliable secondary sources say and most of them mention with emphasis that he was an Arya Samaj leader in his various obituaries. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 03:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Who expelled him and when? Arya Samaj expelled him in 1976, it is backed by academic sources. You haven't shown a dispute but your own inability to accept this undisputed fact. You appear to be relying on your own senseless interpretation of sources. No one needs to hear your own personal views but dispute from reliable sources. Where are they? 122.170.146.220 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources which state that he was a Arya Samaj leader are cited in the article currently. The source that does say that he was expelled in the 70s does not explicitly state that "Arya Samaj" expelled him but rather that "Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha" voted to in favor of his expulsion which he claims didn't effect his activities in the Arya Samaj. I've already elaborated on this in this in much greater detail on my take page, I am not going to repeat this again. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 05:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Arya Samaj leader; former or not
, the onus for initiating a discussing for an addition to an article when contested is on the one making the addition, but anyways here I am. On whether one should use the term "former" or not, its redundant as it is already assumed since he is dead; a phrase like (was a former...) is grammatical incorrect as it uses a double past tense to refer to the same thing. For the matter he is a former social activist too rather than a present one. Subjects who have died also do not have to hold a position at the time of their death for them to have been regarded as having held the position. See MOS:BLPTENSE.

In addition, its pretty much original research to derive that he wasn't a leader at the time of his death because other sources say he was president till 2014. You don't have to be a president to be considered a leader since they are different designations, for instance he was still being refereed to as an "Arya Samaj leader" well after 2014. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies. I do not wish to cause trouble, and I thank you for your patience! I think there have been some arguments, regarding "Ayra Samaj". I think some editors have wished to debate whether or not Agnivesh was still working with the "original" Ayra Samaj". I have looked through the sources given, and they state that he left in 1976.. or 1992.. or 2008. The fact that he had left the organization, seemed to be very important, so that was why I added the term "former", as he was, quite obviously, not longer with this particular "group".


 * I did not see your note, here on talk, until after I made my latest edit, and I do sincerely apologize. If you will read my edit summary, I hope you will understand my reasoning...the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and we have statements and sources which do not agree. The World Council of AS, 2000-2014, seems like a solid fact, that can be stated. And, from my point of view, at his death in 2020, he was still a "former" leader of World Council AS. Please, let me know your thoughts about this, and again, I apologize if I have acted incorrectly. Just so you will know, I was born and live in the US, and do not know anything about this man, or his religion. I was just reading the sources, etc. My thanks, again, for your patience. Best wishes,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  05:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources, but I do not see them in the article. Anyway, in regards to researching the lead, I was reading the Social activism section, fourth paragraph, and I don't think they are noted there, but of course, I could be wrong. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  06:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Arya Samaj is a spiritual movement rather than an organisation, identifying with which isn't trademarked by any specific group. The original organisation itself has undergone multiple splits and divisions which is why there are varying dates on him supposedly leaving it.
 * But when he still claims adherence to it and when secondary sources continue to refer to him as associated with it then it's apt that it should be mentioned. I produced those two sources because you mentioned that he wasn't a leader after 2014 to show that he is explicitly refereed to as a leader post-2014, a google news search would show hundreds of results which mentions his association with the movement and do so almost unanimously. The only contestation to it is from a deprecated source (see OpIndia ); they have a recent article on Agnivesh contesting this exact point (it's blacklisted so can't link it here) and have recruited people in the past to directly influence content on Wikipedia.
 * Much of the fourth paragraph is a recently edited product of synthesis and uses unreliable sources. The book published by Anupama Arya in K. K. Publishers is neither reliable nor independent. It was removed from the lead but its re-addition went unnoticed in the body. The body of the article needs a thorough rework anyways as it seems to have been an unattended controversial one but at least the lead should be fixed before anything else.
 * With the exception of the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism there is no other reliable source which explicitly states that Arya Samaj as a whole expelled him. They mention specific bodies within the Arya Samaj doing so and with varying dates with varying sources. Even the dictionary which is a tertiary sources gves that disclaimer that he still claims adherence to it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a different citation in the lead (an obituary) which was used to add the descriptor of "Arya Samaj leader" to him, the citation is still there. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism was the source which stated 1992. Obviously, you have a much better understanding of the entire, fairly confusing situation. I am sorry that I made mistakes regarding BRD. Mostly, I work as a WikiGnome, and rarely get into "arguments" regarding punctuation, etc. At any rate, I think my text edits are causing problems, as you have noted. So, I will refrain from making further edits to the text. I am glad that a knowledgeable person has taken an interest in this article, and I will remove myself. Thanks for the explanations! My best wishes to you.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  01:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO if it's undisputed that he was expelled, we probably should mention that somewhere in the lead if we're going to say he was a leader. I'd note that as it stands, the article body doesn't seem to actually reflect a dispute over him being expelled, it doesn't even seem to suggest a dispute over the date. It says: The first sentence says point blank he was expelled in 1976. It doesn't indicate any uncertainty over this occurence. The next simply says that a 17 out of 19 of the suborganisations (apologies if that's not a suitable worded) expressed opposition to him in 2008. But that's a separate point. You can express opposition to someone despite them being expelled long ago. You can express opposition to someone even though they were never part of you organisation, never wanted to be part, and never had any chance of being part. The last sentence simply says he was expelled but it has not affect on his activities. This is again a different point. It means the person being expelled may not have had much affect, but it doesn't dispute that they were expelled. But also, this is only based on what the subject said which tends to be the weakest acceptable evidence (if covered in an RS). If this is all we have, IMO we should simply say in the lead, "he was expelled in 1976, but he said this did not affect his activities within the organisation" or similar. If other reliable sources say, either in source voice or quoting undisputed experts, that he continued to play an important role in the organisation despite being expelled or dispute whether he was ever expelled, this is an important point we should cover but we don't at the moment AFAICT. An additional point is I know very little about the Arya Samaj. For some organisations, with a clearly defined leadership structure etc, there may be clear ways someone can be expelled. However if there is no central Arya Samaj or leadership and simply a bunch of semi-independent organisations, it gets complicated. Some of the discussions suggest it's the latter in which case I can understand why there is dispute, but as said, I don't think our current article body reflects a dispute over him being expelled. As a final point, if there is no dispute over him being expelled but simply when, this can like be reflected in the lead something in the form of "he was expelled in 1976, 1993 or 2008, sources differ". Do a search for "sources differ" and you can probably find good examples. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a different citation in the lead (an obituary) which was used to add the descriptor of "Arya Samaj leader" to him, the citation is still there. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Historical Dictionary of Hinduism was the source which stated 1992. Obviously, you have a much better understanding of the entire, fairly confusing situation. I am sorry that I made mistakes regarding BRD. Mostly, I work as a WikiGnome, and rarely get into "arguments" regarding punctuation, etc. At any rate, I think my text edits are causing problems, as you have noted. So, I will refrain from making further edits to the text. I am glad that a knowledgeable person has taken an interest in this article, and I will remove myself. Thanks for the explanations! My best wishes to you.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  01:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO if it's undisputed that he was expelled, we probably should mention that somewhere in the lead if we're going to say he was a leader. I'd note that as it stands, the article body doesn't seem to actually reflect a dispute over him being expelled, it doesn't even seem to suggest a dispute over the date. It says: The first sentence says point blank he was expelled in 1976. It doesn't indicate any uncertainty over this occurence. The next simply says that a 17 out of 19 of the suborganisations (apologies if that's not a suitable worded) expressed opposition to him in 2008. But that's a separate point. You can express opposition to someone despite them being expelled long ago. You can express opposition to someone even though they were never part of you organisation, never wanted to be part, and never had any chance of being part. The last sentence simply says he was expelled but it has not affect on his activities. This is again a different point. It means the person being expelled may not have had much affect, but it doesn't dispute that they were expelled. But also, this is only based on what the subject said which tends to be the weakest acceptable evidence (if covered in an RS). If this is all we have, IMO we should simply say in the lead, "he was expelled in 1976, but he said this did not affect his activities within the organisation" or similar. If other reliable sources say, either in source voice or quoting undisputed experts, that he continued to play an important role in the organisation despite being expelled or dispute whether he was ever expelled, this is an important point we should cover but we don't at the moment AFAICT. An additional point is I know very little about the Arya Samaj. For some organisations, with a clearly defined leadership structure etc, there may be clear ways someone can be expelled. However if there is no central Arya Samaj or leadership and simply a bunch of semi-independent organisations, it gets complicated. Some of the discussions suggest it's the latter in which case I can understand why there is dispute, but as said, I don't think our current article body reflects a dispute over him being expelled. As a final point, if there is no dispute over him being expelled but simply when, this can like be reflected in the lead something in the form of "he was expelled in 1976, 1993 or 2008, sources differ". Do a search for "sources differ" and you can probably find good examples. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Page break
(and also, ), I know I said I would "go away", but this situation continues to bother me. Here is the info in the article that needs to be summarized in the lead: Then we have the confusing info, which I do not think needs to be mentioned in the lede:  Nowhere is it stated that he was "a leader of Arya Samaj". We are supposed to summarize in the lede, the info that is present in the article, not info that may be adjusted in the future. The multiple dates of his expulsion aside, the article states that he founded Arya Sabha, not Arya Samaj. Although, as explained by User:Tayi Arajakate above, Arya Samaj is a spiritual movement, AFAICT, Agnivesh was not its founder. He did found Arya Sabha, thus he was "a leader" of Arya Sabha, which is supported by the current article. Leader of Arya Samaj is not supported by the article. A spiritual movement, and a political party (although based on a spiritual movement) are two different things. Based on the info presently in the article, I am changing the lede to reflect this. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  23:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As of present, I don't see anything in the lead that's inaccurate per se so that's alright I suppose. I'll see if I get the time to fix the body itself so that there can be a better summarisation of the lead. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, thank you! My impression has been that when someone dies, newspaper reporters are scrambling around, searching for something to say, which is okay, except that they may not do a good job of researching the nuances. But you had the knowledge to recognize Arya Samaj as a spiritual movement, and point this out on the talkpage. And I spotted the Arya Sabha political info. Yes, the Arya Sabha political movement may be based on the spiritual beliefs of Arya Samaj, and I can see why reporters would confuse/conflate the two terms.


 * It seems to me that a person can have a strong adherance to certain spiritual beliefs, but still be expelled by the main organization which represents said beliefs. (This is, arguably, the history of Christianity...ie Judiaism-->>Christianity) I think we need some pre-death, more thoughtful sources, to prove that he was a "Leader of Arya Samaj", which seems rather doubtful, just now, given the three "expulsion" dates: 1976, 1992, 2008. Still, you noted the best RS is Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, which has the 1992 date. That's 22 years before his death...and even before that time, was he truly considered to be the Leader of the Arya Samaj spiritual movement? Again, with the sources/info provided, it seems doubtful. The article states:  Claiming fidelity to ideas is quite different from being recognized as a leader. Thank you for your willingness to research and edit. And to put up with my mistake, regarding BRD! Regards,  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  07:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)