Talk:Ram Bahadur Bomjon

please clear up this article so that it is NOPOV plus isn't trying to pretend that the person has supernatural abilities and present it as fact
"Bomjon's undisputed ability to remain nearly motionless in the same position day after day". It is not undisputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg2014 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A far better picture
The eNewspaper MumbaiMirror.com has published a much better picture of Ram in a recent article on his disappearance. As a matter of fact it is the closest look of his face that we can see. Its a shame the picture is copyrighted. Do you suppose we should ask them for a "fair use" permission? - mskadu 12:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article's disappeared! -mskadu 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it and uploaded to wikipedia, for preservation, under "license unknown" - mskadu 22:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This picture was one of the earliest; I found it in a news release and copied and printed it way back in November. But you're right, it's the best one I've seen and it's good to have it here.

Hugh Higgins 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've updated it with a slightly better i.e. color version. - mskadu 14:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This one looks like he's sixteen and in colour, very close: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/buddha-boy-back-with-a-weapon/2006/12/26/1166895299834.html - Julia Rossi 27 Dec 06

Previous
I'd like some scientific insights about the metabolism Reply to David Latapie 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Some have speculated he is drinking rainwater and eating grass off the ground at night. But with the amount of people constantly surrounding him, I can't imagine he's sneaking off to McDonald's like a "breatharian". I hope the poor fellow doesn't die, because he will probably have a lot to say if he lives through it. Ashibaka tock 05:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of the articles about him note that a screen is placed around his tree during the night, hiding him from view. I think probably people are sneaking food to him in that time.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds pretty sensible. Ashibaka tock 04:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * in a sydney morning herald article (prob from BBC) by Gopal Sharma in Katmandu dated Dec 27 - mentions he eats herbs - that's still pretty light fare. juliarossi Dec 27

Não acredito!!
Como o garoto não esta sendo vigiado a noite, creio que está se alimentando nesse periodo. A fé ludibria as pessoas.

Rodrigo Cavalcanti

What was that you said?--Mimbster 10:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the language is portugese (?). Babelfish translated that as - As the boy this not being watched the night, I believe that it is if feeding in this periodo. The ludibria faith the people. - mskadu 12:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to be portuguese, but it is that cursed dialect spoken in Brazil. Correctly translated: "As the boy is not being watched at night, I believe that he is eating during that time. The faith blinds/cheats the people. Flamarande 12:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Bomjan ‘reappears’ briefly

USEFUL INFORMATION: THERE ARE NO DIALECTS SPOKEN IN BRAZIL.. WE SPEAK ONLY ONE LANGUAGE: PORTUGUESE.The Babelfish translator just wasn´t accurate enough in its translation but the person who translated it, did it perfectly!

Bomjan: briefly appeared and disappeared again

BY UPENDRA LAMICCHANE

NIJGADH, March 19 - Chairman of Om Namobuddha Committee, that looks after the area where 'Buddha Boy' Ram Bahadur Bomjan meditated for 10 months, reportedly without food and water, before disappearing last week, claimed today that Bomjan briefly appeared in a forest, talked to committee members and disappeared again promising to return after six years. Bomjan was spotted at 8 a.m. Sunday morning some three kilometers Southwest of the meditation spot, claimed chairman Bed Bahadur Lama.

"We had reached there looking for him," Lama said. "He was standing beneath a tree attired in yellow."

According to Lama, a team of seven people had reached there looking for the 'Buddha Boy' who reportedly vanished after reappearing for half an hour. "He said he would reappear after six years. He has asked monks to perform prayers in the meditation spot," Lama claimed.

Bomjan reportedly told the team that he had reappeared to take leave of the committee, as he had left without informing them. "I left because there is no peace here," Lama quoted Bomjan as saying. "Tell my parents not to worry about me."

According to Lama, the team offered a khada to Bomjan and conversed with him. "He asked people not to worry about him and said that he is still in Nepal," Lama said.

"However, he said that no one could find him. He also said that he has camped in an undisclosed place where he reached after walking for five days and five nights," Lama further said.

Meanwhile, the committee members today screened a video which they claimed they had filmed during Bomjan's brief reappearance.

Posted on: 2006-03-19 19:26:24 (Server Time)

Questions:
Can somebody tell me what a "khada" is?

I wish somebody would also inform us where and when the "video" of Ram Bomjon was shown, and whether everybody, including his parents, agree that it is really he. Very sketchy reporting on all this so far! Hugh Higgins 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No clue on "khada". As to the video, check the BBC.  There is a very grainy soundless video, but if it's not him then he has a very scruffy twin brother running about.  You can see him speaking on the video.   72.145.102.175 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Google khata or khatag or go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khata 71.174.87.4 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

USEFUL INFORMATION: THERE ARE NO DIALECTS SPOKEN IN BRAZIL.. WE SPEAK ONLY ONE LANGUAGE: PORTUGUESE.The Babelfish translator just wasn´t accurate enough in its translation but the person who translated it, did it perfectly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.249.152 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaitra
*sigh* My date for his birthday was off by a year? That's disappointing. -_- &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ...wait, says he was born in "the month of Chaitra on Baisakh 27, 2046".   says "the full moon day of Chaitra 2046".  Was he born in Chaitra or Baisakh?  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like we're going to have to find another source... I knew you couldn't have screwed up the date, but I thought the other guy might be right because he actually went and visited. Ashibaka tock 01:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why a Stub?
For several reasons: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskadu (talk • contribs)
 * The article lacks classification into articles related with Nepal/ Buddhism.
 * More info is needed on what buddhism has to say on the reincarnation of buddha
 * Cross linking required to any buddhism related material
 * More info on where this is happening in Nepal.

Read Stub. "A stub is an article that's obviously too short, but not so short as to be useless." Labelling this a stub is flat-out wrong, and you should avoid doing that for any article longer than one paragraph. As for the items of cleanup you have mentioned, I will fix those four things myself (except for the second one, which I don't understand). Ashibaka tock 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Actually I don't understand what you're talking about in the fourth bullet either. Do you want a map? Usually we don't supply maps in articles that aren't about a specific geographic location. Ashibaka tock 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this up. About 2nd bullet - i was wondering if we could discuss a bit on what is buddhisms take on ths subject i.e. is there any related prophecy or myths (maybe). nothing hard and fast - just a suggestion. As for the last bullet, i did not mean a map. I was hoping to see more details about the geographical location of where this is happening - north/south? Any major locations nearby? And on second thoughts - China hasnt said anything in this (yet) has it? -- mskadu 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get what you're thinking. Buddhism is not the sort of religion that sponsors prophecies or myths; you're thinking of Hinduism, or something. As for Bara district or a Chinese reaction, I don't know anything unfortunately, but the websites linked to suggest this article is pretty complete. Ashibaka tock 07:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well .. Yes and No. I dont really know a lot of Buddhism (not that i am very knowledgeable about Hinduism). Anyway, you seem to have done my long-pending job of merging the two articles. Cool! Though prompted by this discussion i did manage to do some reading on Buddha. Especially interesting are the Marks of Buddha - mskadu 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the following paragraph from the text:

"According to Buddhist beliefs, Bomjon is not a reincarnation of any previous Buddha. Once a person reaches the state of enlightenment (bodhi) and becomes a Buddha, he is never reincarnated. To become a Buddha means ending the continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth that it is believed the mind goes through until reaching enlightenment. Any human being can become a Buddha by realising the true nature of existence but when one reaches this point, by definition, the cycle of reincarnation is extinguished."

For some Buddhists this is exactly what a Buddha is: Someone who reaches the state of breaking free of the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, but then chooses from concern for humanity, to return to a human form. It is also very confusing since the term reincarnation is used and then incarnation, without explaining what would be incarnated [sic].

I also deleted the word "Buddist" for the heading leaving just "Beliefs" as this is a very wide and generalized statement such as saying "Christian" beliefs and stating only a decidedly Catholic or Protestant, or sub denomination opinion.

In the following paragraph I left in the reference to the "historical" buddha, but it is confusing. While this would be the first historically recorded buddha, but there have been subsequent, including the incarnation of Maitreya, mentioned in the following sentence.

And in these comments, there is the statement "Buddhism is not the sort of religion that sponsors prophecies or myths; you're thinking of Hinduism, or something." I think you are making a gross generalization and may be thinking of the Zen school.--Emnipass 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Emnipass


 * You are correct, I was referring to the theoretical, overarching set of beliefs, which was first concocted by Western Buddhists. Ashibaka tock 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Paucity of Info in the Press on Ram Bomjon
I have been getting Google updates on this story from the first. There are only a very few press articles about this boy, or Rinpoche, this amazing being. I am surprised that there are not more, and that there is no good investigative reporting about him or about the people who know him and believe in him. Clearly it's a story which merits a book, and the book would be a good seller. It is amazing even that no one seems to know if he is called "Bomjon" or "Banjan." Surely this ought not to be hard to verify, but it seems the reporters on the story have not even been in Nepal to interview key people.

This Wikipedia article chimes well with what I have read already in the world press - precious little. It is the best article I have seen, the best summary, and has a few points of information I had not read before. Congratulations to the contributors.

Now we need more!

Hugh Higgins 06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We know for sure that he is called Ram Bahadur Bamjan (Bamjan can also be pronounced as Bomjan by the nepali's). Most nepali's will have a Bahadur attached to their name (Bahadur=Valiant). So i dont really think there's much doubt in there. There have been a few bloggers who have visited the village and have written first hand accounts. The disappearance of the boy yesterday has further sensationalized this matter. -mskadu 11:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice clarification, thanks much. Some of the papers have been recording the name as "Banjan" and I am glad to see that it is "Bamjan" because intuitively I felt like pronouncing it "Bomjon" as most of the papers put it. Now I will have to add "Bamjan" to Google search! I may be missing articles. Yes the disappearance is amazing, I don't expect much quick clarification because the press is definitely asleep on this story. Hugh Higgins 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose so. I am hoping you have heard of and use Google alerts. I use "Ram Bahadur (Bamjan OR Bomjan OR Bomjon)" (sans the quotes, of course) - mskadu 23:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Record?
I was trying to find a webpage recording the longest that one can survive without food/water. Couldnt find it on Guiness book site. Can anyone verify this? Either that or we remove the reference to the record. -mskadu 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt anybody knows. It could be said all the evidence is "anecdotal," but human life is "anecdotal"! There are hundreds and hundreds of stories in India of saints, sadhus and yogis who survived for long times without eating, sometimes supposedly years. Whether to believe that or not is one's own decision. Then there have been Catholic saints who supposedly lived eating nothing but the Eucharistic wafer. A 40-day fast such as that Jesus endured has been undergone by many, but now when I hear that I wonder what kind of fast they mean - really nothing but water, or some fruit juice, or what? A yogi is not going to subject himself to fasting in a cage so scientists can test him! Not if he has any self-respect. And military prisoners who want to fast to death are force-fed. It's a topic with very few standard answers.

Hugh Higgins 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt about that. But we can take the officially recorded (emm..) records as a yard stick. After all, it is mentioned in the article. Otherwise we will need to re-word it accordingly. -mskadu 11:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ram Bamjan's Birthdate
I am curious as to where the reported May 9, 1989 birthdate of Ram Bamjan came from? I haven't found it in any of the press reports, but then they have not been good at giving any solid biographical information about him. I wish whoever recorded that date here would let me know its source.

As an astrologer, this is important to me. It is fascinating that the traditional birthdate of the Lord Buddha would make him Taurus, and the Wesak festival is celebrated in the month of Taurus annually. Likewise it is the birth-month of Ram Bamjan if this date is correct. It was also, of course, the month he began his prolonged meditation on May 16 or 17 (I have seen both dates) 2005.

Hugh Higgins 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Got any good links for someone curious about astrology (sorry, a bit offtopic)

Right, off topic, we may be booted out of here! Of course first I would list my own daily astrological forecast-meditation based on current planetary positions; in it I frequently mention books and teachers I have relied on and learned from. Hugh Higgins 12:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sir Real
 * Cosmic Connexion
 * Yahoo Group, daily emails

Dear everyone, After speaking with Bomjon's mother personally in her own language, I had a confirmed date of birth of her son as 9th of April 1990, 3 AM. It was a full moon day. Combining the knowledge of astrology and knowing him and his actions from near, this date looks very probable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marici Punarvasu (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoaxes category
I removed the hoaxes category, imo it doesn't belong. Although the food/water bit is obviously not true, I don't think much else is disputed? sinblox (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I'm not going to edit war over it. The article clearly deserves to be categorized as a hoax.  Furthermore, the article is in violation of the NPOV policy.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the Hoaxes category is still there - so it would appear there is a "war" here. To call something a hoax is clearly to label it with one's own point of view. Who is the hoaxer here? Ram Bomjon himself has not claimed that he did not eat, not according to anything I have read in any press report. It was "followers" who claimed that. He has not claimed to be a new Buddha, it is "followers" who say that. And where is the hoax? Who is profiting? Nobody, because the funds of the group have been appropriated - or "frozen" in delicate language - by the Nepalese government. This is a clear violation of religious freedom, and so I suggest that rather than "Hoax" this article be classified under "Religious Persecution." Hugh Higgins 10:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to be mistaken. I have not added the category back into the main article.  In fact, the edit history demonstrates that  added the category to this page at 03:29, 21 March 2006. .  Please get your facts straight before making accusations.  Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I made a false accusation I apologize. I was referring to the box with a blue "Hoaxes" in it at the bottom of this discussion page. I assumed that that meant that the article was in the "Hoaxes" category. I don't know why that box is there. Hugh Higgins 11:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just explained why the box is there. Sinblox added it to this page (I'm guessing by mistake, since he removed it from the main article).  In an act of goodwill, I have removed it from this page, however I am not yet convinced that it doesn't belong on the main page.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did accidently add it to the talk page, sorry about that. sinblox (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If we would call this article a hoax, we would have to call every other articles about religions a hoax too.. That's what i believe i right but many people don't. Let people form their own opinion about wether this is a hoax or not. - 1. Christians believe Jesus can do magic, Sciontologist believes he can't. Therefore we must call Jesus a hoax. - 2. Sciontologist believes in aliens, Christians do not. Therefor we must call Sciontology a hoax.. See? Thymo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thymo (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
The POV represented in this article is far too sympathetic to the outrageous claims made by the proponents, and lacks little if any skepticism regarding the reliability of such claims. In fact, Bomjon is one of many who have made such claims, some of which have been evaluated, all of which have been determined to be hoaxes perpetuated for the sole purpose of financial gain. How these claims can be treated seriously is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. I've changed the "scientific tests" section to "skepticism" which may alleviate some of the POV and allow for further criticism. I'm not entirely convinced the NPOV tag should be removed just yet. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you have categorized this as a hoax reveals your own fixed POV. Please try to keep an open mind, and to not judge without confirmed fact.  Calling this case a "hoax" without definitive proof is NPOV.  Calling it true would also be NPOV, but so far everyone has been pretty careful to present only the facts.  The NPOV tag is groundless.  If no one (besides Viriditas) has any objections in the next 24 hours, I will remove the NPOV tag. 72.145.102.175 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, competing points of view require balance and fair characterization. This has nothing to do with my POV and everything to do with Wikipedia policies. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting the obvious scientific complaints in the lead paragraph seems like a good solution. Maybe some parts of this are still too credulous but I'm going to remove the npov as well as that Godawful current box which should only be used for articles changing every minute. Ashibaka tock 12:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep... Works for me! 72.145.102.175 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality: This is the Fairest Article I've seen about Ram Bomjon
It's ironic that someone from within Wikipedia would be shooting the organization in the foot by claiming that the Wikipedia article about Ram Bomjon is not neutral. In fact, it is the fairest article about him I have seen anywhere.

The section about his early life says in its first sentence "According to family and friends," and that is honest reporting. When one precedes an account with "according to family and friends" one is not vouching for the accuracy of every following detail but reporting what family and friends say about the subject of the article. This is eminently fair.

The section titled Skepticism is also eminently fair, reporting exactly what the doubts about the claims of not eating are, and leaving no doubt that there is no full evidence, at this point or according to our knowledge from very skimpy press reports, that Ram Bomjon has not eaten for ten months, only full evidence that he has not eaten during the day when people were able to see him.

This is a religious or spiritual phenomenon. It is not a scientific phenomenon. When reporting on religion or spirituality one reports on what people believe and what they say. One does not vouch for the "validity" of what they say because obviously in the realm of religion and spirituality there is often no outward, objective, "scientific" or scientistic way of proving anything at all. The reporter's obligation is to report what people say and believe about the subject with as little bias as possible. This the Wikipedia article does better than any I have read so far.

As an example of biased and twisted "reporting" about Ram Bomjon I present the following, the latest article about him which Google Alerts has turned up on March 21, from the Telegraph Group:

''Deepening mystery of missing 'Buddha boy' By Thomas Bell in Kathmandu (Filed: 21/03/2006)''

The mystery surrounding the disappearance of Nepal's 15-year-old "Buddha Boy" has deepened, after he briefly appeared to supporters then vanished again.

Footage apparently shot on Sunday shows Ram Bomjon, the would-be Buddha, meeting members of the committee that manages his hugely popular, and profitable, pilgrimage site.

This paragraph contains two whoppers which are quite frankly either lies or utterly biased and wrong statements. First, "The would-be Buddha." Ram Bomjon has stated honestly that he is not a Buddha but perhaps a rinpoche, that is, reincarnated lama, which is not entirely rare in Nepal or Tibet. He is not "a would-be Buddha" but just the opposite: He has asked his supporters not to call him a Buddha. So Thomas Bell's racism (perhaps) or biased intolerance is highly visible and disgusting. (Or else he is so utterly uninformed about what Ram Bomjon has said that he ought not to have presumed to write an article about him.)

The other whopper, which is in fact a slander, is "his hugely popular, and profitable, pilgrimage site." This is something like, in an article about the Pope, mentioning "the Pope's hugely popular, and profitable, pilgrimage site, the Vatican." The bias is so so obvious! One would not call a Christian church "hugely profitable" in an article, at the risk of offending Christian readers, though it may collect hundreds of thousands of dollars every Sunday, but it is just fine to imply that Nepalese Buddhists or Hindus are swindlers. As a matter of fact, I have seen no press reports which suggest that funds contributed spontaneously by "pilgrims" have been misused, and the government has been overseeing them. As a matter of fact, they are now "frozen" by the government, so if Ram Bomjon has been "profitable" to anyone it is the Nepalese government, which has seized the funds contributed devotedly by his followers!

Ram is shown with unkempt hair but looking healthy.

We don't know if the reporter combed his hair that morning.

Committee president Bed Bahadur Lama said Ram left his meditation place 10 days ago because of the noise made by pilgrims.

The circumstances in which seven committee members shot the video two miles from where he meditated were not clear.

Obviously Mr. Bell did not attempt to find out what the circumstances were; nor did he interview anyone who had taken the videos; he has merely read other press reports and reduced them to a few careless sentences. This is typical of the "reporting" about Ram Bomjon.

''The organising committee is the principal source for many of the claims. During Ram's 10-month vigil no visitor has seen him eat or drink, but the attraction was closed to non-committee members at night.''

The committee has prevented a medical team from conducting an examination of the teenager.

What is so peculiar to me is that anyone would expect that religious people would want a medical team to examine their spiritual leader. Suppose a reporter went into a charismatic Christian church: Would he insist that a medical team come into the church and examine the heartbeats, breathing, and electromagnetic fields of those who are speaking in tongues or praying with uplifted hands? No, but if the spiritual individual is a Buddhist bhikku sitting under a tree he ought to subject himself to such intrusion into his meditation and his own body. Really? Who said so?

''Santaraj Subedi, the chief official in the district, said yesterday that the bank account that he had insisted the committee open had been frozen after Ram's disappearance. It contained more than £500,000.''

In other words, one might say, the government has stolen the money contributed sincerely by those who wanted it to go for the support of Ram Bomjon and those who were helping him.

Mr Subedi is urgently trying to track down Ram.

If this were in order to find out what Ram wants him to do with the money, honestly and sincerely, wonderful. But we don't know, and this is just one more example of the shoddy reporting on this story.

Wikipedia has done the best job of anyone at putting together a readable, fair, and documented report on Ram Bomjon. Not knowing their names, I commend those who have contributed their time so responsibly. Hugh Higgins 10:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you too (if you are not also the anonymous user listed above) do not understand the NPOV policy. I understand that you've only been here since March 11.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reappearance
The "Buddha Boy" has reappeared. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061225/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_nepal_boy Now edit this article with the new information provided. Knight45 12:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the discovery channel ran a show last year covering this man's story, a synopsis of which, can be found here: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,4446,0,0,1,0  Solebello 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reincarnation of Lord Buddha". *sigh*..... Well, we have to properly incorporate this now. cool. Zazaban 23:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zazaban's immediate take, this story is doubly messed up by vague reporting and vague translation. It's unclear whether Bomjon remained at his meditations spot after a flood of visitors came. I've summarized the most obvious facts cautiously. Ashibaka (tock) 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * the story is quite amazing. Any more information on his childhood and motivation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that the tone of this article shows a decided bias against the boy's story. Whether or not anyone believes what this boy is doing is not material to the objective presentation of facts and suppositions surrounding the events of his life.

Similar Cases
Article should mention similar cases, as this phenomenon whereby the attention gets removed from the sensory world for long periods is not unknown, esp in autism. Ramana Maharshi and Meher Baba had similar experiences and Meher Baba chronicled many masts who suffered this absorption in the divine. It is a natural human faculty, just not usually cultivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited text from main article
I have moved the following text from the main article since it needs to be verified. It has been demoted one level for readability. -Mayuresh 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The following English translation is a direct translation from the speach in the Hallori jungle made by the "buddha boy" Ram Bahadur Bomjon.

A message of peace to the world
Murder, violence, greed, anger and temptation has made the human world a desperate place. A terrible storm has descended upon the human world, and this is carrying the world towards destruction. There is only one way to save the world and that is through 'dharma" (religious practice.) When one doesn't walk the righteous path of religious practice, this desperate world will surely be destroyed. Therefore, follow the path of religion and spread this message to your fellows. Never put obstacles, anger and disbelief in the way of my meditation's mission. I am only showing you the way; you must seek it on your own. What I will be, what I will do, the coming days will reveal. Human salvation, the salvation of all living beings, and peace in the world are my goal and my path. "Namo Buddha sangaya, namo sangaya." I am contemplating on the release of this chaotic world from the ocean of emotion, on our detachment from anger and temptation, without straying from the path for even a moment, I am renouncing my own attachment to my life and my home forever, I am working to save all living beings. But in this undisciplined world, my life's practice is reduced to mere entertainment. The practice and devotion of many Buddhas is directed at the world's betterment and happiness. It is essential but very difficult to understand that practice and devotion. But though it is easy to lead this ignorant existence, human beings don't understand that one day we must leave this uncertain world and go with the Lord of Death. Our long attachments with friends and family will dissolve into nothingness. We have to leave behind the wealth and property we have accumulated. What's the use of my happiness, when those who have loved me from the beginning, my mother, father, brothers, relatives are all unhappy. Therefore, to rescue all sentient beings, I have to be Buddha-mind, and emerge from my underground cave to do "vajra" meditation. To do this I have to realize the right path and knowledge, so do not disturb my practice. My practice detaches me from my body, my soul and this existence. In this situation there will be 72 goddess Kalis. Different gods will be present, along with the sounds of thunder and of "tangur ," and all the celestial gods and goddesses will be doing "puja" (worship.) So until I have sent a message, do not come here, and please explain this to others. Spread religious knowledge and religious messages throughout the world. Spread the message of world peace to all. Seek a righteous path and wisdom will be yours. ''

Dharma Religion pretext meaning: Dharma is religion unlike religion is religion. It isn't the stories or beliefs in god or gods. It is what it is and we do what we do. The Sanskrit term Dharma (help•info) (Devanāgarī: धर्म) (Pali: Dhamma) signifies the underlying order in nature and life (human or other) considered to be in accord with that order. The word Dharma literally means 'that which upholds or supports' (from the root 'Dhr' - to hold), here referring to the order which makes the cosmos and the harmonious complexity of the natural world possible. Dharma is a central concept in Indian civilization and Dharmic Traditions where it governs ideas about the proper conduct of living. So central is it, indeed, that the symbol of the dharma - the wheel - takes central place in the national flag of India. In its most frequent usage (in the sphere of morality and ethics) dharma means 'right way of living', 'proper conduct', 'duty' or 'righteousness'. With respect to spirituality, dharma might be considered the Way of the Higher Truths. What is in the West called religion in India comes within the general purview of dharma. Thus the various Indian religions and Dharmic Traditions are so many versions of Dharma (versions of what is considered to be 'right' or in truest accord with the deepest realities of nature). A fraction of scholars called these various paths dharmic religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, are referred to in India as sanatana-dharma, Buddha-dharma, Jain-dharma and Sikh-dharma respectively. Each of these paths emphasize Dharma as the correct understanding of Nature (or God, as the origin of nature) in their teachings.[12][13][14] In these traditions, beings that live in accordance with Dharma proceed more quickly toward Dharma Yukam, Moksha or Nirvana (personal liberation). Dharma also refers to the teachings and doctrines of the founders of these traditions, such as those of Gautama Buddha and Mahavira. In traditional Hindu society with its caste structure, Dharma constituted the religious and moral doctrine of the rights and duties of each individual. (see dharmasastra). Dharma in its universal meaning shares much in common with the way of Tao or Taoism.''

View video at:

Wonderful video, thank you so much for this link. It is impossible to watch it without recognizing that this man is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh Higgins (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This video is cringe inducing (http://www.paldendorje.com/vdo.php). It further proves that this is nothing than a cheap parlor trick. At first, the fire spots are placed very carefully AROUND the boy to create an illusion that he is inside the fire (and this is what his website claims, that the boy is "inside" the fire), then we see that the fire is getting out of control, so naturally, he gets up and tries to find a safe position. Later, we clearly see that he is nowhere "inside" the fire.
 * What was the point of it?
 * What a scam!
 * Truly, faith blinds people! --KpoT (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KpoT, can any person stay that close to a fire for that long without feeling pain or burning? 94.192.94.237 (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Visitor

Removed Tummo paragraph
I have removed the following paragraph:Removed Tummo paragraph

"Ram Bomjon is known to be a practitioner of Tummo meditation[citation needed], which allows his metabolism to slow to a rate at which he does not need to eat for many years[citation needed]. Although these types of retreat are common in Tibetan Buddhism, Bomjon's case is more publicized because he was meditating in a public place, whereas most other practitioners would meditate in caves or buildings[citation needed]."

There is no evidence to support any of these claims. Reidlophile (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Number 15
The link is dead. Was it a real citation? 93.97.33.86 (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tangur
Anyone have a description of this (presumable) instrument? Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they ment Tanbur? Arvindan 01:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindan Thekkadath (talk • contribs)


 * Maybe. It would be nice to know for sure. Rumiton (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible additional sources
(Moved from article page.)


 * The Palden Dorje Community Website
 * Google Group for sharing information about Ram Bomjon
 * News and Information site on Palden Dorje
 * Buddha Boy news and video compilation with explanation - Circus of Life
 * Palden Dorje Bio
 * Boy in Nepal draws crowds; some say he's Buddha reincarnate (USA Today)
 * Pilgrims flock to see 'Buddha boy' said to have fasted six months (Telegraph)
 * Buddhist Teachings
 * Nepalese blog linking to video (in Nepali, with some English comments)
 * Tamang website with details (in Nepali, with some English comments)
 * BBC News video segment - 1:02 long - better view of tree top and fenced area for pilgrims
 * Description of medical team in November 2005 and other details
 * Buddha Boy has nation guessing - (Article published on February 11, 2006) Australian news site (TheAge.com.au), claiming "fire erupted from his chest" on January 19, 2006.
 * Buddha Boy of Nepal (Blog with 25 min. video and summarized translation in English)
 * Ram Bahadur Bomjon Poem
 * Good compilation of previous info Late picture, with hair down to nostrils
 * Blog account of a visit to the site
 * Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree Forum discussion Ram Bahadur Bomjan
 * An Unofficial Summary of Discovery's Channel "The Boy With Divine Powers"
 * Chinese Translation of Palden Dorje's Speeches

Articles on his disappearance:
 * Missing 'Teen Buddha' Comes Back Armed - (The Himalayan Times) Monday, December 25, 2006
 * Buddha Boy disappears
 * Jungle search for teenage 'Buddha' (CNN/Associated Press) Saturday, March 11, 2006; Posted: 11:31 p.m. EST (04:31 GMT)
 * Nepal's pilgrims pray for return of 'Buddha boy' report of 'sighting'; 'Guru Mother's prediction
 * Prayers for Nepal's missing 'Buddha Boy' Nothing new but well-written
 * Boy returns
 * Same as previous story but with new picture of troops in the compound
 * Devotees claim Nepal's missing Buddha Boy found
 * A few more details of his rediscovery
 * NPR interview with GQ writer The writer went to observe Bomjon and was deeply affected

Citation, sentence change
I'm going to change the "18 days without water..." sentence without citation to "The longest time a human has survived without food is around 2.5 months, before one dies of starvation"Documentary; Documentary about the Buddha Boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindan Thekkadath (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to undo your edit. Youtube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, as the above completely different interpretations of one video illustrate. The first words you have used ("It has been documented...") are also weasel words. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh! That's fine! Sorry I had failed to realize that it would not be a reliable source. Sorry, I'm quite new to wikipedia! Thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindan Thekkadath (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for your great attitude. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

From feedback

 * Dear Sirs, I am mentioned in the above article as the "Slovak woman". I did not practice witchcraft and never wanted to stop Bomjon's meditation. I was invited there by devotees to help as a volunteer translator in 2011, and I was enthusiastically working in his service all the time. I was and am his devotee and myself meditate. I never disturbed or blocked his meditation. Please correct your article, showing untrue data. Please also publish my website, explaining in detail all the affair. Thank you, Marici, Zsuzsanna Takacs, Slovakia.

Shii (tock) 03:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it you who was "held hostage"? Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the user page of Shii it's a he, so how could he be the slovak woman? lol ludicrous post claiming to be the slovak woman in the article. Lookinhotbra (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When the website was up, it had more information .... Hardly ludicrous. Shii (tock) 15:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted any reference to a website that provides potentially libelous material. Other potentially libelous material has also been removed, while keeping material not potentially libelous. Evananda (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

References: Please remove the link of article and replace with Home Page link
But I cannot delete, resp. replace, the same link in the References chapter. It is blocked to add new corrections o links. Concerning Ram Bomjon and his Sangha, the Home Page of my website is relevant, not a text questioning their libel attempts to create an image that I am mad...

Please, remove that link or replace it with the Home Page.

Thank you. Please, stay serious, un-biased and balanced, when editing this entry, about a person wand group who have not only worshippers, but also ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marici Punarvasu (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed potentially libelous material and links to websites from this talk page as per Wikipedia instructions for Biographies of Living Persons: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." Evananda (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014
1. This part only cites a blogger's point of view. I suggest we need to look for verified sources, such as, the Discovery Channel conducted a documentary on Rom called "The Boy with Divine Power". The below part is clearly a twisting of the truth since most of the stuff are only coming from a blogger.

On 26 March 2007, news spread of Bomjon meditating underground. Inspector Rameshwor Yadav of the Area Police Post Nijgadh, found Bomjon inside an underground chamber, a bunker-like ditch seven feet square. "His face was clean and hair was combed well," Yadav said. According to him, the chamber had been cemented from all sides and fitted with a tiled roof. Indra Lama, a local deployed as Bomjon's caretaker since the beginning of his intensive meditation, said the chamber was prepared per Bomjon's request. "After granting audience a week ago, he expressed his desire to meditate inside the ground; so we built it," he said.[13]http://blog.com.np/2007/03/28/buddha-boy-update-ram-bahadur-bomjon-now-meditating-in-pit/"

This is what it should be like and was published originally on this website but was deleted: please change the above to the below:

"In 2006, Discovery Channel showed a 45-minute documentary titled The Boy With Divine Powers. One of the aims was to establish whether Ram was indeed abstaining from all sustenance, water included, by filming him continuously for four days and nights. On their first attempt, in January 2006, the film crew was required to stay outside a guarded barbed-wire fence, and their camera's infrared capabilities did not pick up evidence of a body at the base of the tree where Bomjon sat during their non-stop recording. On a second attempt a few weeks later, however, the film crew was able to film Ram continuously for 96 hours, day and night, during which time he did not change his position and did not drink any fluids or eat any food. As Discovery Channel's commentator concluded: "After 96 hours of filming, Ram has defied modern science by continuing his meditation and remaining alive."

According to scientists on the documentary, an average person would be expected to die from kidney failure after four days without drinking any fluids (although cases of inedia lasting for a whole week have been observed). The boy showed no signs of classical physical deterioration caused by dehydration. A close inspection by the film crew of the area around the tree where Ram was sitting revealed no hidden food supply or water pipes.

In 2008, Min Bahadur Shakya of the Nagarjuna Institute of Exact Methods in Kathmandu, stated that Buddhist priests have yet to investigate Ram.

2. The following part uses citation that tells exactly the opposite of what is stated. Therefore, this content is not verified and seems like an allegation of a living person - This is clearly a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. And thus should be immediately deleted.

"At the orders of Dharma Sangha a Slovak woman known as Marici was held captive for three months by his followers.[22] "

3..

"Bamjan, who preaches against violence, hacked a local youth with a sword critically injuring him two years ago. He disappeared after the incident for nine months. Later he was found in Bagjhor forest with a sword, but no action was taken against him." A short French Television documentary shows Bomjon with a sword." The first citation is from a blogger whose source cannot be verified. This seems like an allegation to a living person -- a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. And thus should be immediately deleted. The second citation is from a French website which makes no sense to the English audience at all.

4. "When Bamjan changed his place of meditation after the incident and shifted to Halkhoriya forest, his followers had put up a three-square kilometer wire fence in the national forest. However, District Forest Office failed to take any action." "Bamjan had beaten up 17 locals of Bara Manarwa about one-and-half year ago detaining them for 24 hours as they had entered inside his fence in search of wild shoots and fruits. The victims filed FIR against Bamjan, but no action was taken."

This part has no citation or whatsoever. Seems clearly an allegation to a living person. This is clearly a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. And thus should be immediately deleted.

5.

"According to the 2013 Report of Amnesty International on Nepal, the prolonged political crisis currently does not enable an effective law enforcement, thus the extensive controversial behavior of Ram Bahadur Bomjon can continue often unnoticed by the wide public, the perpetrators enjoying impunity."

This part is not relevant to the topic at all. Thus, Should be delete.

6. The following part uses citation that tells exactly the opposite of what is stated. Therefore, this content is not verified and seems like an allegation of a living person - This is clearly a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. And thus should be immediately deleted.

"She was tied up in a tent in the forest of Halkhoriya, not far from Dharma Sangha's meditation site, where she was sexually abused by Palden Dorje's follower Darshan Subba Limbu. She was released on March 25, 2012.[23] "

7. The following part was created by the same person who managed the website. This is clearly a promotion of the person's own website for personal purpose. This is clearly a violation of the policy of Wikipedia and should be deleted immemdiately.

"She later created a website about her experiences. On the same day a Nepalese woman called Maata, who had been held captive for two months under similar circumstances, was released by the followers.

8. The following part uses unverified and untrue citation. The website is clearly not a leading Nepali Avenue TV, but a hoax website for allegation. The person who put up this content should be refined from posting because of dis-integrity.

The leading Nepali Avenue TV made a documentary about the case of the two women, recorded here."

9. Again, the following material tells exactly the opposite of what the citation is about. This is clearly an allegation and a severe violation of the living person. This makes it sound like the person in question was the one who committed forgery, when in fact, according to the same source, it has nothing to with Rom at all.

"The birth certificate forgery The leading Nepali newspaper The Himalayan Times published another controversy concerning the Buddha Boy on 14 June 2012: "VDC Secretary Ansari is accused of recommending citizenship certificate to Bamjan by forging a birth certificate in the name of Dharma Sangh, a body formed for his protection. According to CDO Birendra Kumar Yadav of Bara, Ansari has been handed over to the district police office for necessary investigation in connection with the birth certificate forgery case, against which Bamjan’s family had moved the administration. Ansari has pleaded guilty. Ever since the forged birth certificate was made, the sangh has been demanding that Bamjan be issued a citizenship certificate on the basis of his recent birth registration."

10. All of the below content coming from a single source -- The Himalayan Times. If one can do a little bit of research, such as, google, this newspaper is not "The leading Nepali newspaper" at all. This newspaper represents only a narrow side of the view of the issue and mainly represent a small group of interests. Clearly, the author who put this content has selectively chosen the citations and deleted purposely other sides of the views on this page. This is clearly becoming an allegation of the living person in question. This is clearly a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. And thus should be immediately deleted.

"The birth certificate forgery The leading Nepali newspaper The Himalayan Times published another controversy concerning the Buddha Boy on 14 June 2012: "VDC Secretary Ansari is accused of recommending citizenship certificate to Bamjan by forging a birth certificate in the name of Dharma Sangh, a body formed for his protection. According to CDO Birendra Kumar Yadav of Bara, Ansari has been handed over to the district police office for necessary investigation in connection with the birth certificate forgery case, against which Bamjan’s family had moved the administration. Ansari has pleaded guilty. Ever since the forged birth certificate was made, the sangh has been demanding that Bamjan be issued a citizenship certificate on the basis of his recent birth registration."

The 2012 violent clash The Himalayan Times writes on 14 June 2012: "To press for the fulfilment [sic] of their demand, the sangh has also hit the street of late. Yesterday, police clashed with Bamjan’s supporters who were obstructing the Pathlaiya-Nijgadh road section, which left some of Bamjan’s supporters and security personnel injured."

The leading Nepali news provider Ekantipur had detailed the incident: "BARA, JUN 12 - Twenty-four people were injured in a clash between local people and followers of Ram Bahadur Bamjan ... at Piluwa in Bara district .... along the East West Highway to press the government to provide a diplomatic passport to Bamjan by recognising his status as a 'religious guru'. It is learnt that the local youths intervened in the demonstration after Bajman's followers started smashing up parked vehicles. Police personnel from Simara, Nijgadh and Jitpur sent to clear the traffic obstruction charged batons and lobbed teargas shells to disperse the demonstrators. Police also fired a few rounds in the air. Twelve security personnel were injured when Bajman's followers clash ed with them. Police said the injured were taken to Narayani Sub-Regional Hospital in Birgunj for treatment. Witnesses said the followers of Bajman who were armed with sticks started protesting since early morning and did not pay heed to locals' request to not create any inconvenience to the public. Eventually, the local people decided to retaliate. The police also confiscated 36 bicycles, seven motorcycles and a tractor used by Bamjan's followers."

Bomjon attacks his own family members The Himalayan Times gave a detail about the incident on 3 April 2012: "Bamjan thrashed his brother after he, along with his two brothers and some others, reached the Halkhoriya jungle to urge him to initiate action against those who had ‘sexually harassed’ the Slovak woman in captivity. ... Those who had gone to meet Bamjan accused Limbu of wielding a sword to chase them away and Bamjan of thrashing the eldest brother Ganga Bahadur and holding Ganga and other two brothers (Dil Bahadur and Babulal) hostage. ... Bamjan’s sister Raj Kumari said her three brothers had visited Halkhoriya to tell Bamjan that unruly behaviour of some of his followers was tarnishing Bamjan and Sangh’s image. Bamjan’s mother and sisters had reached the Halkhoriya jungle this morning. Bamjan’s younger sister Asali Lama said even she was thrashed by Bamjan. “He beat me up when we reached there to free our brothers,” said Asali. “Guru (Bamjan) hit me on my head but said nothing.”

Attack on journalists The Himalayan Times details the incident on 22 March 2012: "Volunteers attending to Ram Bahadur Bamjan ... today beat up five journalists. Bibhu Adhikari of News 24 TV, Resham Tiwari of NTV, Prakash Lamsal of Image Channel, Binod Pyakurel of TTV and Basant Khatiwada of the Mofasal Dot Com Weekly fell victim to the wrath of the aides of Bamjan,...Following the attack, the journalists rushed to an Armed Police Force camp in Piluwa. “We were filming Bamjan’s sermon but suddenly his aides attacked us and seized our cameras,” said Adhikari." The documentary's title is Prime Story - Shanti ki Aatanka.

Buddha Boy's eviction from Halkhoriya The Himalayan Times writes on 28 June 2012: "District Forest Office, Bara on Thursday demolished illegal structures in the Halkhoria forest area after Ram Bahadur Bamjan, popularly known as the Buddha Boy, left the forest and headed to Sindhuli in the night of June 5. ... “We have started demolishing the structures illegally built by Bamjan and his henchmen in order to discourage any encroachment of forest land in future,” said district forest office chief Ramanandan Sah. The forest office has also removed the barbed-wire fence erected by the Bodhi Shrawan Dharma Sangh, a body formed to provide protection to Bamjan, around the mediation site. The forest office has also taken control of the Ratanpuri forest area, which is said to be Bamjan’s first meditation site and is learnt to be preparing to hand over the forest to a community forest."

The demolition had been recorded by the Canada-Nepal TV and the eviction desribed on Nepalrodi.

The Sarlahi violence According to an article of The Himalayan Times from 8 July 2012, Maitriya Guru Maha Sambodhi Dharma Sangha had settled in Nepal's Sindhuli District, in 2012. From here he had moved to the Sarlahi District the same year. According to The Himalayan Times, here another violent incident made the headlines:

"Injured Mohan Gurmachhan complained that Buddha Boy’s assistants took them to Bomjan’s abode and thrashed them. Mohan said 13 youths including Sushil Lama, and Min Bahadur Biswokarma were injured in the incident... Irate locals have demanded the perpetrators offer apology and quit the village at the earliest. Area Police Office Pattharkot in-charge Santosh Shrestha said they had decided to ask Ankit Lama, one of the Bomjan’s aides, to apologise and quit the village. “We will not allow people to break the law in the name of religion,” he added."

Bomjon soon after this incident had to leave Sarlahi in 2013, settling in the Northern district of Sindhupalchok. Here he had announced the start of his New Dharma "from zero".

The reputation clearing campaign After the amount of controversies had filled the Nepali media with numerous articles, the Official Sangha of Ram Bomjon announced a widespread clear-up of the reputation of their in 2012. As a result, a considerable amount of articles published in the Nepali media, as well as critical blogs and online videos about the controversial issues of Ram Bahadur Bomjon, had been deleted, or made unsearchable. In an attempt to replace the formerly critical Himalayan Times, a new blog site had been founded by pro-bomjonists in 2013, intriguingly using a similar name (Himalayan) and blue color for their header like the above mentioned official Nepali media, calling the site The Himalayan Voice."

11. This part is completely without any citation or verification. This is clearly a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy and also Wikipedia's policy. And thus should be deleted immediately.

"Buddha Boy and Buddhism As to the present, there are no official statements available from the 14th Dalai Lama, as to what extent the controversial activity of Maitreya Guru Maha Sambodhi Dharma Sangha is in tune with the Buddhist Dharma. According to his followers the Dalai Lama had repeatedly acknowledged him. They had announced that their Guru Ram Bomjon is the expected Maitreya Buddha, whom Gautama Buddha had foretold to come to preach a new Dharma."

12. This part is completely without any citation or verification. This is clearly a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy and also Wikipedia's policy. And thus should be deleted immediately.

”The ownership dispute of the Halkhoriya Jungle One of Bomjon’s reasons to attack individuals was their alleged breaching of his private ban to enter his compound, fenced with a 13 km barbed wire fence. Yet the Halkhoriya Jungle is a Government owned land, and as such, according to the Nepali law, everyone is free to visit it and stay in it, locals being allowed to use its resources as well. According to the system of the Community Forestry system (see Wikipedia), the residents of surrounding villages had the right to enter such jungles and collect herbs, fire-wood, fruits or let their animals graze. It is well-known among villagers in the area that certain high grass suitable for grazing or a special expensive herb, like the Kurilo, as well as a rare green vegetable called Niuro Saag (Fiddlehead Fern), can be found in the area of Halkhoriya Jungle, where Bomjon's compound had been built. Bomjon’s victims had not breached the law when visiting the public jungle, which had been available for many other people in the same time of the incidents, including tens of his own followers, residing in his compound. On the other hand, the Nepali media had repeatedly pointed out that Bomjon had constructed many concrete houses on the Government owned jungle land without permission, destroying trees and water-systems. Yet the Buddha Boy’s presence also kept away hunters, poachers and illegal wood-cutters from the area, providing protection to wild animals.“

13. Contents involves allegation, belittling, or a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy and also Wikipedia's policy, should be deleted immediately, as stated above. If I am not using the correct format when submitting this request, please kindly let me know how to correct the formats, because this piece is becoming severely negative towards the person involved and should be edited immediately.

Littleteahouse (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The length of the request makes it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with. Please discuss the requested edits with involved editors first in order to establish a consensus for these alterations. Sam Sailor Sing 18:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014
It seems like there has been a lot of text added under controversies that simply disparage "Buddha boy" and interestingly enough all of them point to one single newspaper article to make all of these pretty damning allegations. I urge Wikipedia to reconsider this content as it doesn't really add any value other than to allege incidents based on a tabloid.

199.212.27.235 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 18:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote under "Controversies section". There are scores of sources for what happened in early 2012. Lots of info can be found on the website of Marici. Go there. Read... Rabbit1833 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversies section
The section is atrocious. It contains a bunch of original research and synthesis and largely relies on The Himalayan Times and some blogs. It's particularly bad because the claims deal with a living person. I plan to remove a significant amount of the claims and the editorialising, and I would appreciate it if an established, neutral editor familiar with Nepal could say whether The Himalayan Times is acceptable as a reliable source for factual claims. wctaiwan (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont know where to start. But Wikipedia information should be unfilterted and unbiased. Regards to the sexually abused slovak, should be :" CLAIMS about sexual abuse", these accusations should not be taken as objective facts, but as what they are: CLAIMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.219.229 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed potentially libelous material about the subject of the article from this page, as per Wikipedia "living Person Biography" warnings, "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." Additionally material was removed that was trying to avoid Wikipedia's bots, by spelling out the name of an unsourced website devoted to spreading a negative rumor about the subject of this article, rather than keeping the address in URL format. Evananda (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who added that website, including the URL. But it was deleted time and again, I suppose by followers of the guru. So I mentioned the name of the site, so people could look for it themselves. That, too, was deleted. Rabbit1833 (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking prisoners
Yesterday I added these lines:

..... and they were soon deleted by someone. Why? Factually it is completely correct. And it is essential to include this, because it shows that Bomjan has his dark sides as well. And deleting this is bad as well, because Wiki's purpose is to present readers with a balanced image of the subject.

So, I have put these lines back. − Rabbit1833 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The lines are not removed, they are in the "Controversies" section. Shii (tock) 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

They are not, they are deleted there as soon as they are posted. The whole entry is getting very unbalaced and unreliable this way, like so many other Wiki entries. You won't find me on your way anymore, good luck with your noble work. Rabbit1833 (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, they are in the controversies section because I've put them back. I am now going to put back this line >>>> .<<<< let's see whether it will stay...

Added one day later, on 21 july: and yes, the line about Marici's website has already been deleted, no doubt by followers of the guru. I have just added it one more time.

Rabbit1833 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * the line about Marici's website has already been deleted, no doubt by followers of the guru. Please don't make silly accusations like that. It was removed for the reasons in the edit summary: it is completely unreferenced and the fact that one person made a website filled with unsubstantiated accusations isn't terribly notable. We are bound by WP:BLP here which states " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Helpsome (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted ALL references to potentially libelous websites and material on this Talk page. This was done as per Wikipedia' instructions : "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." It seems to me that the user Rabbit1833 was posting the libelous material on the talk page, so as to keep the removed material somewhere on Wikipedia. Evananda (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I intend to report any user who continues to re-post potentially libelous material on this talk page, to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It is embarrassing and damaging to Wikipedia. Evananda (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ram Bahadur Bomjon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101130115338/http://www.paldendorje.com:80/ to http://www.paldendorje.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Breatharianism
Could some sources or statements be added to mention his breatharianism besides the categories section? At most it says that he has gone without eating or drinking for days at a time, but nothing in the article, not even unsourced claims, state that he's a breatharian or seems to indicate it. Kamusisto (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think he has claimed that, and no source that I have seen uses the word. If we were to add that to the article it would be original research at best.

Rumiton (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Altered number of days (differing from the source) in quote in Claims of media
Exactly this happens when editors do not read articles and do not click on sources. For long years, it seems, there was the original text "slightly altered" to a more sensational number of days that the alleged scientists observed him for (from 3 meters, what kind of medical examination is that, anyway?): the author or editor entered the number of days that he allegedly stayed without food as 96! Now when you click on the source itself, in reality the Nepalnews article shows 48! The author also left out the important conclusion of the media source: "However, they were unable to approach him closer than three meters or take readings of his vital signs, other than to confirm that he was alive and breathing. The team suggested testing his blood to prove whether he has taken any food but the management committee rejected the proposal. Any physical examination of Bomjon was not acceptable to the Committee." This changes the whole picture and stops to stand as a "scientific proof" like it is presented by Bomjon's followers as well as the author/editor of this section. It seems someone tried to manipulate the source to look more "miraculous" a few years back, and no editor checked it. I also deleted the quote of George Saunders in https://www.gq.com/ as that is not a serious mainstream media to quote from on Wikipedia. It looks like an online tabloid magazine. We have plenty of serious mainstream media sources I collected in the article Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies, to quote from.DarkAges 05:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 05:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The necessity to update article
The whole article was stuck in the past somewhere in 2005 - 2008, with jumping to 2010 and 2012 to mention two controversies. This creates a feeling that the person is not active anymore, what is not true. I have updated to mirror the present information about him the introductory chapter, the info template, the chapter Buddhist background and changed the 5th chapter's name to Claims of scientific proofs (Claims of media was not matching what it was). As from Bomjon's public sitting 12 years had passed with lots of events to be added, - I think it would be reasonable to compress Wandering in Bara District, Meditating in a pit, Preaching in Halkhoriya jungle, Reappearance in Ratanpuri jungle into chapters that are covering bigger time blocs. - Buddhist background had been abandoned by him and he gradually created a new religion Maitri Dharma, and in my opinion that should be described in one chapter with the Buddhist background text, to show how he gradually changed from Buddhism to Maitri religion. I would name that chapter then "Religious identity"? or Religious transformations? adding the totally latest information from the Setopati interview (in the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon Controversies), that he is supposed to be above Gautama Buddha and Paramatman... - Text from Meditating in a pit and Wandering in Bara District, Reappearance in Ratanpuri - these all are dealing with his famous "disappearances", and there are more such. These disappearances and changes of places could be covered in a single chapter briefly. - Text from Preaching in Halkhoriya jungle could be added to a new short chapter describing a brief list of all his preachings, as there had been many already, with adding dates and places.(like Halkhoriya, Ratanpuri, Sindhuli, Sarlahi, Lamjung, Chitwan, Bungamati) - I would add a chapter about his many centers/ashrams/compounds in Nepal with some information about when he moved there and how long he stayed (Halkhoriya, Ratanpuri, Sindhuli, Sarlahi, Sindhupalchowk, plus plans to open a new in Dhanusha District). - I have elaborated his new religion's main points in a short paragraph, but I would add I later to match with the next chapters - to the Buddhist background chapter (after renaming Religious identity?) - the Controversies chapter is too short compared to the reality. It needs to be updated wit the many other controversies,especially with the mainstream media interview claim of his follower that he had hands in the death of his sister, I think. - Last chapter Media coverage would mention the situation with media versus Bomjon and list the rich media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC) DarkAges 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Breatharianism added by QuickFixMe and undone by me
I am explaining here why did I undo QuickFixMe's addition that Ram Bomjon is a breatharian (a version of this is on his own Talk page): I am sorry QuickFixMe, but I had to undo your edit that Ram Bahadur Bomjon is a breatharian. Please have a look at this Talk Page above where Rumiton mentions a valid argument: Ram Bomjon himself had never claimed that he would be a breatharian. Moreover, he had been living on herbs after he disappeared in 2006, according to his own words. Herbs in Nepali jungle means 80+ types of nutritious wild edible vegetables, roots, mushrooms and fruits""On 25 December 2006, villagers in Bara district spotted Bomjon meditating. He was carrying a sword for protection in the jungle, reminding reporters that "Even Gautama Buddha had to protect himself," and claimed to have eaten nothing but herbs in the interim."(Wandering in Bara District) And I remember his own description somwhere I read, I think you find it in detailed biographies, that when he was crossing some river after the start of his meditation, he was eating a wild mango... This all is not breathariansim. Eating occasionally and starving occasionally is called "fasting". Also, I don't know how far you are updating yourself on this topic, but he had started eating, publicly, at a Puja event in April 11, 2012. But to be honest, breatharianism is a new and specific (Western!) belief system (movement?) and Bomjon had never used this concrete English word or its Nepali equivalent (is there any?) to describe his temporary fasting. If you do not agree, please discuss this issue (which had been already agreed upon as far as I know, above) with others in thsi Talk page. Thank you.DarkAges 15:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)DarkAges 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am OK with your change, primary objective of my edits on wikipedia is technical in nature, example provide hyper text navigation, add Geo-coordinates, fix punctuation issue etc. I see link from Breatharianism page to Ram Bahadur Bomjon but not reverse, so I was adding link to make it easy for people like me. If you can add more links like that it will be great help for us. --QuickFixMe (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am relieved that you are not some follower of any of the two who is trying to strengthen their validity with linking to the other one, because then emotions would be involved. Another note from The Independent that he was hardly a breatharian: "When Mr Bamjon first became famous reporters filmed him eating, even though his supporters said he could go without food or drink for days." It surprises me that there is still the link from there, but in the beginning (2005-2008) many people were apparently putting Ram Bomjon to different categories, vegans, animal right activists, ecologists, all applauded they got a representative, and often repeated in the media is the "Buddha's reincarnation" claim, for example. But he and his followers believe he is the Maitreya Buddha, so I added a note to the relevant pages. Due to controversial issues (violence, etc.), which are overwhelming (see AfD article Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversieses) I would personally cross-link this main article with New religious movements and Cults on Wikipedia. But I am worried to do this myself, after my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies article was not accepted. Linking with Cults could be offending, maybe. Yet could be useful to balance the miraculous and messianic claims. I will think about more links.DarkAges 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Really disrespectful
Many days of work had been deleted by Diaanee because he/she considered my updates of the very outdated and incorrect main article "plagiarism"! Without deeper studying why is in this particular case and topic so important to keep to the exact names, numbers and multiple sources, this editor labelled my painstacking work as copyright breaching. I do not agree and wish to complain. I was accused by other senior editors of exactly the opposite: that instead of faithful quotings I used my own intelligence and wrote down conclusions based on multiple sources. That was then stamped POV fork and UNDUE (not my fault that media after 2007 had not much positivity towards Bomjon, who started to attack, abduct, let raped and torture people!). Yet, this is exactly happening when one is just rushing into conclusions in topics about which they have not a clue. If they had, they would had already fixed the incorrect data (I meantion it above) in the main article, the manipulated numbers of days, the name's alleged "sanskrit" transcription (no it is Nepali), etc etc.

So it is clear to me that those who rushed to delet my updates, are no experts in this field, enough to see the situation of the main article. My only fault is that as a beginner, I thought that the proper format of quotations is NOT to add citation marks as we do it on text editors, but just to add a number behind the sentence. I saw this was used in the main article, but the original author manipulated the text to show bomjon in a better picture. When I clicked on the sources, it said different things. I wanted to be more exact, as what readers appreciate most than neutrality, faithfulness to the truth, keeping to teh facts? And now I am accused by Diannee of plagiarism! Beacuse I misunderstood the quotation system, and because I was so afraid to add any of my own conclusions, after accused by Robert McClenon of POV Fork and similar things. One can never satisfy entirely all Wikipedia editors, but I am sure there should be a rule to give a notice and a chance to repair mere formating mistakes by newcomers!

What Dianee did, totally broke my faith in any good wil in Wikipedia. I now start to see how the under-standard main article in its vague and irrational form, wit manipulated data, IS the way how senior ediors wish Wikipedia to be! Not factual, updated, well-sourced data! I cannot express my deep shock at the brutality of disrespectfulness, when deleting one's long and precize work for days, without giving any space to repair the mistake! Someone who read the history behind the article, and the reason why did I copy-pasted text from the Media on Ram Bah. B. Controversy there (it was advised in the merger sticker to do so!) - could not do such a vandal act. But reading "boring" articles of others is more difficult than to just delete entire reference lists (filled out with so much care!) and entire paragraphs! I woudl advise McClenon, baerian and Dianne to first clarify, what they actually want, between themselves. If writng texts by onw words is forbidden (viz. McClenon and Bearian), than quoting is why forbidden as well (Diannee)???

Can someone reasonable explain me, how to write about an event, when own words are not allowed, neither words of others???? Are you here playing with me some black game? This topic is so controversial and dark already, and now it seems even some editors are taking sides with the cult, rather than with the facts. Why didi Dianne delet only the quotes which were showing Bomjon in negative picture, but left intact those updates (also by me) which actually helped his image??? This is very strange to me. So I deleted even these, as I am not going to update an article with only one-sided data and take on responsibility to pull more victims to this dangerous religious group! If you do not allow me to edit FULLY, with sources from BOTH sides, then do not hijack my edits and updates for cult propaganda. I must say, I am disgusted with the unfreindliness, pride, elitism and brutal disrespect of senior editors who pick theri noses to topics about which they have no idea, and delet historically important and serious information.DarkAges 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 22:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Verbosity and correctness are often strangers. You assume disrespect, which means you fail to assume good faith.  I was the one who used the word "plagiarism," not Diannaa -- get your facts straight.  I do not disrespect you as a person but I do not respect your attitude or your plagiarism.
 * It's very simple. All you do is cite, paraphrase, and summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources on a topic.  No more, no less.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not very simple. If you do not even give a notice, do not discuss it openly with other ediors before deleting, do not have understanding to a newcomer, and do not give time to fix it, than it is not simple. It is human to make mistakes, and I did this mistake because I wanted to avoid another one, the allegation of POV Fork and UNDUE in my previous article, which I was going to merge with this after preparing it. It would be simple if you give a notice and then give time to repair. What is simple in one's personal rush (without discussion) to delete (interestingly, only the critical!) new quotes from a new edit? I can learn, I can accept and even acknowledge the warnings like I did it in the case of my previous attempt Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, if you gave me a notice and gave me time to change it: you did not. I had assumed good faith where there WAS apparent good faith. The discussion about my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies article mentioned some valid concerns, I accepted them and accepted to merge it with this main article. But I cannot merge my factual and exact text with an under-standard main article with manipualted data (see above, instead of 48 days the article changed the number to 96, and the editors did not even know that there exists a language called Nepali, in which Bomjon's name is shown, and not in Sanskrit). I was in the process of merging, but there was impossible to merge it without correcting and updating the painfully outdated main article. You seem to sickly enjoy your "power" above newcomers and delete their attempts without giving any chance to repair the mistakes. Instead of collaborating and helping each=other, I find that some editors use Wikipedia to enjoy the liberty to "punish" without any chance to fix the issue. Do you think anyone could assume good faith when faced with such an attitude? That is a wrong attitude, and I have read many Wikipedia rules about how not to apply blindly the deletion button and to be especially understanding towards newcomers! But when you delete without notice, without warning and without discussion, an edit of a newcomer, than sorry, I just do not see any good faith in it! I somehow know that you and Dianee did not comply with Wikipedia's rules and I will find enough links to prove it to you. In any normal academic environment blind deletion of others' work is not a norm, and giving time to repair and discussion with others is a normal civlized practice that you failed to follow.DarkAges 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not involved until you posted a screed on Diannaa's page, so you have no ground to blame me for what happened in previous articles. My first action on any Bomjon related article was to remove material you had already been warned was a copyright violation (if that's not enough prior notice, then no amount of prior notice will help you).  The way to "merge" the information would be to:
 * Take the sources that you copied from and open them in another window.
 * Write a summary of each source off-site (I use Microsoft Notepad because it removes formatting), putting the citation at the end of each source.
 * Paraphrase those summaries into a combined work, arranging the citations as needed. Write it as if you disagree with yourself, sticking only to material that no one can really argue against.
 * Post that paraphrased work on the site.
 * You do not need to restore copyrighted material to the site to do that, you do not need prior warning for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The bottomline is clear: the Wiki-masters do not allow criticism of Ram Bomjan. They first decided that a very well researched article about the myriad controversies surrounding this man had to be removed and had to be included in the main article. And now that the author started to do exactly that, his or her work is being deleted again. What remains is the current, hugely biased article about Bomjan which omits almost everything negative about this man and his cult. To me, this is just another example of how unreliable Wiki has become.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mathilde2009, I agree. How it is that you can see this, but they not? It is so clear if someone takes the effort and reads the edit histories of both articles, and reads the Talk pages! I started to use exact quotations only because they stigmatized my Media on Ram B.B.C. article with a sticker "article for deletion". Reason? I used my own words, according to as RobertMcClenon could hardly recognize in those less than ten minutes when he nominated it for deletion immediately after I published it. It was my own opinion, he and Bearian assumed! So OK, then I thought, summarizing, paraphrasing and descriptive texts are forbidden in Wikipedia, as they might seem POC Fork, especially when they are describing an intensive controversy. OK, they are senior, they must know, so I decided this time not to use my own words but quote exactly! And now I am accused of exactly the opposite. It nearly seems that these editors have a hidden agenda to show only the cult leader in the light of a god and nearly entirely positive. It does not matter to them how, but they want to delete the balanced information (based on an overwhelming amount of mainstream media!) at any costs. They are trying to push out any other than propagandist information, and they easily find some POV, UNDUE, copyright or plagiarism reason among the millions of Wikipedia rules to stick it on my article. But at least McClenon gave a chance to fix it and merge, and he passed it to a discussion, what was a proffessional move and not fanatic. These guys here are but radical! No chance, no time, no notice, no discussion. Just punish, just delete. The fact that they have no clue about this topic, and that they very clearly hardly know the background, no one is questioning. Why do I feel as if I crossed into the personal property of a group of senior editors who view themselves as the elite, and give no chance to editors like me, outsiders? The permanent scoldings and unfriendly ironic comments are a prove that Wikipedia is seen by these as their own property. Bearian even expressed it in "OUR charitable charter" (after I mentioned how possessive it looks, he swiftly deleted it). But no human is perfect, and giving a chance to learn and grow is a civilized way to solve misunderstandings. To give a notice, a friendly warning to adjust the quotes with quotation marks, add summarizations and paraphrasings, could have been enough, and I would have done it. But they seem to want to block the sources from "the other side" of the full truth, instead of searching for a solution. If they were so familiar with the Bomjon topic, how it is they did not correct the grave mistakes and incorrect data in this "main article" over ten years, and did not mind that facts, place-names, dates are wrong or outdated in it? This is the so called "neutral" and "academic" Wikipedia? I am so shocked I cannot even express!DarkAges 10:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 10:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point to where anyone has said that criticism is not allowed. The issue has been copyright violations and neutrality.  Bearian, Diannaa, Robert McClenon, and I are not Buddhist (heck, Bearian, Robert, and I are all Christian), so none of us really give a fuck about Bomjon.  We do care about this site which we have a combined 40 year's experience with.
 * The scoldings are not "permanent." You just need to learn from your mistakes (instead of trying to posting overly-long posts to try to excuse them and shift the blame) and get over it.  You have not been "punished."  You demand respect and consideration and yet you hypocritically give less than that to those who try to teach you how to do things the right way -- is it any wonder I don't especially care for your presence on this site?  If you'd stop with the tantrums, own up to your mistakes, and move on, I'd respect you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

To User:Ian.thomson : "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templatesDarkAges 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why your other article attempts were deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

As you see, in case of BLPs it is very sensitive to paraphrase, and using direct quotes (when linking back to the source and its archive) is the safest when it comes to controversies. It is not my fault that Bomjon just happens to have a too long list of such "sensitive issues" of controversies, and instead of writing with my own word (what could be attacked by POV Fork and UNDUE allegations) I opted for emphasizing direct quotes. I was NOT AWARE how far it is accepted (what amount of quotes per article) and how it is in this particular case, when controversies unquestionably overweigh the positive information.

Ad quotation marks: And yes, it was my stupidity to rely on the format of the main article, which does not use citation marks but actually it is also all quotation (instead of 2 cases when the paraphrased version simply manipulated the numbers and information to show Bomjon in a holier picture). So I just assumed that citation marks are not a habit in Wikipedia, so I deleted them. But I always added the source of quotations! In my whole life when I am writng, I scrupulously distinguish quotes from my own words, and use citation marks. But I was still not so familiar with Wikipedia formats, and just accepted mindlessly the one I saw in this main article. After all, you left this article onlien about ten years, and seemed not to mind that it is plagiaric or even using quotations while manipulating the text. But if you took any effort to check my Media on R.B.B. C. article, there I did use quotation marks everywhere, to distinguish the quotes from my own words. Then you could have understood (seeing the blue sticker "to merge") that I was in the process of upadting this main article to be merged soon with parts of the other one. I am convinced that you simply did not take the effort and time to check all these facts, before sweaping the whole half-done edit away. That's why I call your move strongly disrespectful, but also incorrect, as before you decide, you must discuss it openly with others and also give a notice and chance to the editor. If you did this, you could have learned that I was half-way in the process, the article was not yet finished and that paraphrasing texts had been planned to be merged here from the Media on Ram B.B.C. article. I left out quotation marks not because I wanted to display the words of others as my own (what a crazy accusation, as I even do not use my civil name here, what acknowledgement woudl I get for it?) - my intention was very clear, I wished to save human beings from being misled by false and very one-sided information on the Wikipedia about this person. I have clear conscience, and I have no problem to use quotation marks at all.

A senior and experienced editor could have advised me on the proper balance between POV Fork and plagiarism, instead to find such a barbaric solution as to delete the whole thing. Please let me remind you (it seems some of you forgot) that you are not owners but "managers" in Wikipedia. I respect senior ediors fro their experience, but not those who use this as a means to show cynical deleting power of other people's big efforts to write and edit articles. I see that you and Dianne have neglected to first study, then discuss it openly with others. By the help of editors, ideally, I could have cleared out seemingly plagiarist elements and if you have given me time, I would have merged the Media on... article with this main one. But instead of friendly advice and constructive consultation, you just stampede on many weeks work.DarkAges 11:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 11:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYVIO is also a site policy. Your argument that WP:BLP means we shouldn't paraphrase is ridiculous.  How about, instead of trying to defend your admitted mistakes, you just listen to the plain and repeated instructions on how to do things the right way?  BLP also says (and you quote this part): If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.  That necessitates paraphrasing because if you can't arrive at a third statement that agrees with both sources, then the two sources are not in agreeance.  That's why all of our biography articles are not just a series of quotes.
 * Also, plagiarism from laziness is still plagiarism -- credit-stealing plagiarism is not the only kind there is. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And this too: "A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
 * That does not trump WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP, both of which were problems with the article that was redirected to this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't give a fuck who Ram Bahadur Bomjon is. I know that Robert McClenon and Bearian are Christian and I've seen no reason to believe that Diannaa is Buddhist, either.  In other words, the only people here who have any strong emotions about Bonjon are you two.  Now, Robert, Bearian, Diannaa, and I all have a lot of experience with this site (40 years if you put us all together) -- so if three or even four of us agree on some course of action, that's because it is within the site's policies and guidelines or our experience has shown that it will help this site.  So, accusations about "Wiki-masters" are just paranoid and immature.  It is dishonest to act like we've said "you can't add anything negative."  You're free to add reliably sourced information in a neutral manner.
 * Have either of y'all considered that maybe the problem is your bad attitudes and that y'all are going about this the wrong way? That maybe the problem isn't what you're trying to add, but the way you're trying to add it?  Read WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY.
 * you also need to read WP:TLDR and WP:SPA When I see overly-long single-paragraph posts with random bold words, the author almost always either:
 * Is not editing in a calm and reasonable state of mind (i.e. they are throwing a tantrum).
 * Has confused talking too much with saying the right thing.
 * Is looking to play victim when others ignore the time-wasting screed.
 * The solution here is not railing on and on about how Wikipedia is supposedly unjust, it's learning how to do things the right way. It's not going on and on to excuse past mistakes (or trying to shift the blame to other people), it's learning from what you did wrong and putting it behind you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So tell me how to learn when you do not even give me time to correct my mistakes, but delete the whole article? This is not too pedagogical. If you put an "ENTRY FORBIDDEN" board, and delete anything I am just trying to fix, how could I learn? I was ready to learn and was accepting advices from ediors who were really helpful, not radical. But why to learn and what, if you burn teh whole school building? Can you grasp what I mean? Before I did a mistake on Wikimedia, adding pictures from Nepali newspapers (none cares about copyright stuff in nepal really, I have never heard any issues), but the person looking after it politely warned me, then explained me and I had to accept he was right. Same thing happened when after Robert shifted my AfD article to the Talk page about deletion, I accepted that being it too long and too negative, it would be better to merge with thsi main article. So you see, there are also civilized ways to help newcomers to learn and develop. But what should I learn from Diane and you, wehn you just bluntly delet my all edits, not giving me space and time to learn and repair? You put me in the box of mentally ill, just because I tried to explain you that this move was not right? I also don's give a... what is your religion, but there is one universal religion called Conscience. And if you don't care about Bomjon, then: what are you doing here? Sorry, but I thought that only someone who does understand the topic, should have a right to blindly delete my edits... I confess I am not an expert in Hitler, so I am not going to delete other's texts about him. Beacuse we cannot know everything about everything, there are good ways to discuss it with those who might know more. You should have given me time, and ask religious and Buddhist editors, cult-expert editors etc. to give you advice. If you and Diane DGAF about the topic of an article or edit, then I am quite sure you are not th eright persons to decide about its deletion. And yes, I got engaged during my work on this topic, because it took me a lot of time and effort to fill up the reference link forms and triple-check all details. Anyone would become emotional after such a brutal reaction. Simply can you not understand that I got tired of your abbreviations and scoldings after spending days on searching, archiving, comparing sources and making up the detailed picture? You treat editors here like babies in the kindergarten. So please, even if you spent 100 years in Wikipedia, do not stop to learn. You can learn from how Wikimedia dealt with my mistakes, how the Deletion discussion page was quite tolerant to me, how Jeff, Loopy had been helpful and polite. Instead of stigmatizing editors of deleted works as mental patients. I use the bolds mainly for myself, because I have a serious eye problem and I cannot well read same formatted texts and have an overview. Your conclusion that it is a sign of mental problems, is really out of place. DarkAges 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Overview of recent edits

 * Inedia section: The Independent is a reliable source does not support claims about him carrying a sword, or promising to meditate for six years.
 * Sword attack section: Nirlog is a blog and so fails our reliable sourcing standards as user-generated and/or self-published content. It links to Mysansar.com, which is also a blog.  As such, the claims that are sourced only to these sites must be removed.  Like it says in the edit notice in the article: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.
 * Thrashing incident: Himalayan Times (archived here), BBC, and República (República (Nepalese newspaper)) are reliable. None of the sources mention the men being of Madeshi ethnicity, though.  I've summarized the sources on the points where they agree.  Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, contentious material needs to have at least two sources.
 * Hostage incident: Hindustan Times and Public Radio International are reliable, though they point out that it was Bomjon's followers, rather that Bomjon specifically, who abducted the woman. Those sources do not mention sexual assault or head shaving.  Unfortunately, the PRI source does not mention a Nepalese woman or violence against journalists (though the reporter incident is supported by the Nepal Press Freedom source).
 * Other abduction incident: The Kathmandu Post is reliable but there needs to be at least two sources for such contentious claims.
 * Journalist incident: Nepal Press Freedom is probably reliable enough (especially when cited along with the Hindustan Times piece), though there's a lot of detail that aren't supported by those sources. This research bulletin, the Youtube video, the photo on blogspot, and this news photo are synthesis of sources (some of which are not reliable), and it smacks of Doxing.
 * Sister incident: Facebook posts are not reliable sources. The other source might have been reliable -- if there were more sources discussing the insinuations in that section.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I also added the Is Ram Bahadur Bomjon above the law? article link to The Himalayan Times, where there is also a mention of the sword incident. I read on Wikipedia that unreliable sources can be also shown, but only as a complementary when there are also mainstream ones. This is this case: The Himalayan Times is mainstream and the Nirlog blog is based on Naya Patrika (that is a real Nepali newspaper, but unfortunately not availabel online anymore). Just check also the main article, it is using blogs, cult-based websites and private Youtube films as its main sources, so double standard? I rewrote it swiftly, not having time to read again the whole source article. I did this part of meticulous work the previous days, but that was deleted, as you know ... There are more than five mainstream sources about the incident on the Media on RBB Controversies article, which were prepared to be shifted here. I know the case, spoke with Nepalis about it, that's why I know they were Madeshis, and here everyone knows just by seeing the surname Choudhary. I have no problem to leave out the word Madeshis though, that is not crucial. They are a very poor ethnicum. I have collected a long list of reliable sources (mainstream) in the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, do you have access to it? Because all these incidents have multiple sources there, five or ten! Just if you give me time, I add them here. I was in the process to do it, but today you deleted half of my work, so I have to start from zero. This paragraph and source was from the main article, not mine. I left it here and added where it belongs (Controversies) in a good faith that they checked the sources. The Avenues TV documentary shows an interview in English with the Slovak woman, where she explicitly says, clearly, in English "yes" when the reporter asks "have you been sexually assaulted?". Obviously also shows her head was shaved. Another part of the films shows a similarly looking Nepali victim, also broken wrist, extremely thin, shaved head. Again, these sources are stil left behind in the Media on RBB Controversy article, waitng to be merged here. Give me time and I fill up with mainstream sources which call the perpetrator Bomjon and also show teh Slovak woman's photo with shaved head. Avenues TV documentaries about it show both women and the Nepali language narrator says: "Mata Ani was ruined similarly like Marichi, and also her hair was cut". I had that source in the Media on... article. That's why I wanted first to repair the main article, because that is full of errors and bad sources. If you have deleted my edits of their mistakes, then do not be surprised that the references they used in the original article don't fit. But no problem, I can fill up the sources, just need time. (though the reporter incident is supported by the Nepal Press Freedom source). As I mentioned above and many times on Talk: I wrote a previosu article Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, AfD. There you have around 5-10 reliable sources from Nepali and internatioanl media to support all these incidents. Either look it up yourself or give me chance and time to do it myself. I am repeating: you have caught me in the middle of the process of updating the main article and preparing to merge parts of the Media on.. article into it. The work was not finished when you deleted it! OK, leave out the Tribhuvan details about the Polish attacker, that is the task of police not Wikipedia. But the "video" is actually the very film which was taken by one of those five journalists, and everyobe in Nepal would immediately understand it. That film shot had been shown on mainstream media documentaries about Bomjon in 2012, like Avenues TV. News 24 and Himalaya TV, and I did add the links to them - again - they are still on the Media on RBB Controversies. They need to be merged here. The photo shown on the reliable traditonal local newspaper Prateek Daily is not Doxing! This is the same incident, if you read Nepali you can believe. The same incident with the same Polish attacker was shown in the video shot (then reused by all mainstream TV channels in Nepal, as it was filmed by a well-known journalist, I checked all info about the five men). The same Polish guy is regularly seen around Bomjon at every single occasion, even during the visit of the ex-Prime Minister, and is well -known in Nepali realities, called by locals "Dorje meme". So no one who is at least a little informed about the story, would call this Prateek Daily photo plus the film shot of the later damaged camera Doxing. But after all he is also a living person, so I am not so sure if it is OK to name him etc. That Facebook post is the official Facebook site of the website of khenpo Sonam Gyurme's BTMC Buddhist organization and monastery. I think I had seen that photo and obituary alo on soem website. I could search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item


 * Stop threading posts. Do not edit other users' talk page posts.  If you did not cite The Independent for the sword or six years claims, then you made a completely unsourced accusation -- in violation of WP:BLP.  As of your latest revision, there is no source titled "Is Ram Bahadur Bomjon above the law?" and the Himelayan Times article you did cite does not mention a sword either.  You say I rewrote it swiftly, not having time to read again the whole source article -- So you admit that you were making up stuff that was not confirmed by the source!  Honestly, this and the problems I list below give me no reason to trust your competence.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I will go over the Media Coverage section after I grab my lunch. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments to the points above before rushing to delete anything again. Besides: this list is by far not all the controversies which he did. Have a look at the Prateek Daily and The Himalayan Times list in my AfD text and there you see mmany more incidents than these. Just an interesting one: he also took hostage his own mother and four siblings, four days, beating them, when they wanted to take away from him the smallest sister. She went then to police to file a report and is shown on a Prateek Daily photo in there. Or his men bribed an officer to issue a false birth certificate for him, and it is shown on a photo. DarkAges 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please post succinct reasons that address the points I made above instead of rambling on with drama no one cares about. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And don't edit your posts after someone has responded to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Inedia section: The Independent is a reliable source does not support claims about him carrying a sword, or promising to meditate for six years.
 * The Independent source concerns the sentence: "His claim to stay three years in the underground pit had been also changed" The former sentence "Bomjon's announcements had been long controversial: he had repeatedly proclaimed to meditate six years and stay unseen by people in the jungles. However, he meditated 10 months and then started to change places surrounded by his followers, give public speeches about non-violence, yet himself carrying a sword." was there because the previous paragraph (of the version you have deleted!) had been listing the incidents when he was disappearing and reappearing with a sword! But now the whole thing got mixed up, because of your deletion, and lost the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)


 * I'm going to have to remove the section on media coverage. Highlights of the many, many reasons (from less severe to more severe):
 * Another blog cited.
 * As much as I like RationalWiki, they fail our reliable sourcing guidelines because they are WP:USERG. Also, the article cited is only tangentially related to the topic.
 * One single petition from a blacklisted site is not "numerous petitions", and we really need secondary or tertiary sources documenting that there are noteworthy petitions out there.
 * Kathmandu Post and Nepal Mountain News are reliable but I don't see where Kathmandu Post supports any of the claims in that section. Further Doxing attempts citing this and this don't really support any of the content.
 * This Facebook post and this article are the only sources cited to accuse Bomjon of being involved in the deaths of two people. Facebook posts are not reliable (and this one does actually support the claim anyway).  The Setopati.net source doesn't mention those two people at all and the closest it can insinuate is that Bomjon supposedly used some kind of "divine power" against his sister, and that she later died.  Are we to believe that he magically cursed her to death or something?
 * The Independent is cited for the claims "The Setopati article reveals that the blind faith that Nepalis have in Bomjon is supported by the worship that Western fllowers show him, as well as by the ex-Prime Minister's invitation and support to him" and "The tight censorship of the controversial articles and film records about Ram Bomjon in Nepal continues until today " -- nothing in that Independent piece supports that claim.  You're doing a better job of helping the Bomjon cultists with such dishonesty than exposing Bomjon.
 * Overall, the section was questionably sourced original research that was too focused on crusading. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Inedia section: The Independent is a reliable source does not support claims about him carrying a sword, or promising to meditate for six years.
 * The Independent source concerns the sentence: "His claim to stay three years in the underground pit had been also changed" The former sentence "Bomjon's announcements had been long controversial: he had repeatedly proclaimed to meditate six years and stay unseen by people in the jungles. However, he meditated 10 months and then started to change places surrounded by his followers, give public speeches about non-violence, yet himself carrying a sword." was there because the previous paragraph (of the version you have deleted!) had been listing the incidents when he was disappearing and reappearing with a sword! But now the whole thing got mixed up, because of your deletion, and lost the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
 * No, not my deletion, get your facts straight and quit lazily copying-and-pasting text. Is there a reason that you posted this twice in response to two segments that had nothing to do with your response? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked you for giving me time. I worked hard many days on the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies and all suficient mainstream reliable sources are STILL there. Now when you took my access from there, it is difficult for me to merge the many sources from there. I was asking you to have a look there, if you have access, because that is the answer to most of your latest acusations (unrealiable sources). Why did you not do that? Why do you accuse me half way of editing of not still having put the sources? I was going to search for the link, and in the meantime you delete the very sentence I wanted to add the link to. What are you trying to achieve by this, please? You delete the Media on RBB article, then all my edits here, and suddenly you expect that I can recreate both of them in a few minutes during this discusion? Also read my comments. But is there any will to repair on your side? I don't see it. Suddenly such a rush, and the article was in that blog-sourced fake fata state for ten years and you did not mind....DarkAges 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop saving the page when it says "Edit conflict". When you get an edit conflict, copy your post, open a new edit window, and paste your post in the new edit window.
 * We do not write something and then add a source -- you write something and cite the source for that statement at the same time. Writing something and then looking for a source leads to POV-pushing.
 * For what it's worth, I'm always suspicious of charismatic religious leaders, especially those who claim any sort of divinity. As such, we have similar views on Bomjon.  However, there's a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this.  You keep choosing the wrong way.  Were I biased in favor of Bomjon (as you keep assuming I am), I would have just blocked you for this edit instead of giving you a redundant warning and trying to direct you in the right way.
 * And again, I did not delete the Media on RBB article. Don't try to blame me for the state of this article before now, either, I was not aware of it until yesterday. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never did this. I was studying materials many years, and this brought me to writng.

Again unbased accusation! Where are you going for these...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
 * Stop posting in the middle of other people's posts! The material about the sword and six years had no source.  You wrote it and added it to the article, with no source.  Right here on this page, you said I was going to search for the link, and in the meantime you delete the very sentence I wanted to add the link to.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That sentence did have a source, in the former Disapearances section, where many sources proved that when he was found on 26 Dec 2006, he had a sword, and answered to the questions of reporters why do a peaceloving person carry a sword. This incident is teh best sourced of all. But as I repeat, you did not give me time to adjust the text. I left out the Disappearances section yet, if you waited I could have realized that this sentence has no backing without the sources shown there. Thsi sentence was a conlcusion in the version of edits that you have deleted today. There everything was fitting to each other and links were in order. It is not possibel now to add them piece by piece, as I was writng it as a whole text where summarizations like this sentence are an implication of the previous paragraphs andsources fit.

The Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies was deleted only today, just after you have deleted my edits to the main article, and I protested longly. So I thought it had connection with you too. They had kept it mergable until today. It seems that the whole text and linking had been mixed up now, when I am forced to put the parts back piece by peice from my saved Word versions. It is a technical mistake, because I do not have access anymore to the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies AfD text, where all the mainstream sources are there. Do you have? If yes, all the missing mainstream sources are there and had been waitng to be merged here. Every single controvesry is backed up there by 5-10 mainstteam sources. I am now forced to copy my saved text from Word, in code version, and for some reason it is not working with the links, they do not adjust. The links got mixed up. So the only solution is: '1: to return my original edits you have deleted today, and start to work on them as there was a continuum'' of the sources and claims backing up each other. 2: to return my access to the Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversies AfD article, don't know who can do it, so that I can merge parts of that text from Wikipedia to Wikipedia, without the need to copy it to Word.''' I don't see any solution than this. I cannot do the work of around two weeks in a few seconds that you are now pushing me to do immediately, not giving me time. You can accuse me of what you want, it is irrelevant, because it is not based on real problems, the problem appeared after you deleted the edits and the AfD artcile and forced me to start from zero, pasting my Word copies of the text. What is this rush, when ten years no one cared about the incorrect data and bad sources in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)
 * The material about him having a sword in your last revision did not cite a source. It doesn't matter if there was another source somewhere else that might have worked, you did not cite a source.  It is your responsibility to cite sources when you write something (not after but during).  What part of that is so hard to understand?  Honestly, your biggest problem is that you keep getting hung up on your own mistakes and try to defend them instead of learning from them and moving on.  You'd generate a lot of useless drama fighting over every little thing.
 * Your proposed solution would result in plenty of violations of WP:BLP. I've already explained before that what you need to do is gather professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (not blogs, not random photos from websites, not Facebook posts), summarize those off-site, combine them into a paraphrase off-site, and then post that paraphrased summary.  That's how things are done here, whether you like it or not.  If you have Word copies, then you can work off-site and do not need to keep posting unsourced material.
 * As you should already know, WP:BLP forbids us from including potentially libellous material without adequate sourcing (and, again, that means that the sources need to be presented with the material, not later). This has been explained already and you've already cherry-picked a portion of BLP closely enough that you can't earnestly claim ignorance of it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I do have mainstream medi aosurces and I was using them in my edits, but you have deleted thos edist. It the meantime my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies article was made inaccessible. So I was forced to use copy-paste from my own Word saved version, and it just does not fit to the main article as it was, without my previou supdating and correcting (which you deleted). I do have a long list of media sources and am not a plagiator. On the other hand, the main sarticle did not (and stil does not) have. How it is that you did (and stil does) not mind it? So if you coudl wait 10 years or so with the main article's blog-youtube sourcing, can you not wait until I adjust the links technically and manually refill the edits which you have deleted today? No, you cannot. Why? Because you want only to bully me, but not to find a solution and cooperation. When I write that I was searching for teh source, it was not meanst searching on Google - for G's Sake - but in my own copy of Wikipedi article I wrote myself - the Media on RBB's Controversies! But you rush to accuse me of a series of breaches and scold me that first I have to have sources and then start to write... Thats' really to much. I did not eat and sleep just because of your pressurizing and try to save bits and pieces of my many weks work, but you are just enjoying to bully me unnecessarily. This is unfair, unproffessional, and sad. If you are now suddenly so impatient, after 10 years of totally IDLE article about Bomjon, then do it yourself, I need to get a sleep and food. I am not going to let myself suffocate by your bully. Here you have the material, please copy and delet afterwards, as it is too long and fills up the space: $Copy and paste of article redirected as a WP:COPYVIO removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Re-posting material that was deleted as a copyright violation again demonstrates that you lack the competence required to improve the site. That and your continued fighting against any advice and clear singular crusade which marks you as not being here to improve the encyclopedia are sufficient reason to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking Kaliage from editing Wiki by Ian.thomson and removing all the very knowledgeable material he or she has contributed to the Wiki entries concerning the dangerous cult leader Ram Bomjan, just underscores what is becoming more clear every day: Wikipedia is becoming a sanctuary for paradigms, in this case the paradigm that Ram Bomjam is a fine fellow. I'll give two more examples. There is plenty of very reliable evidence that reincarnation is real. For months I have tried to add some of that material to Wiki but there was a gang of Wiki pundits who made sure everything was removed immediately. Wiki does not believe in reincarnation. A third Wiki-paradigm: Wiki has decided Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. The article about the Assassination just writes that, while there is hard evidence that Oswald could not possibly have been on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting (read: The Girl on the Stairs by Barry Ernest). But to Wiki that's irrelevant, what counts is not truth but the beliefs of the Wiki masters. --Mathilde2009 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * removing all the very knowledgeable material - This shows that you have no idea what's going on. I'm not the first or only person to remove Kaliage's copyright and WP:BLP violations.  I restored some of the material, properly paraphrased and sourced, and have expressed interest in adding more.
 * in this case the paradigm that Ram Bomjam is a fine fellow - You didn't even bother to read the article before you tried throwing a hissy fit about it. Have you ever thought about doing proper research before speaking?
 * There is plenty of very reliable evidence that reincarnation is real - That's your faith-based opinion, mainstream science finds such claims inconclusive at best.
 * Wiki does not believe in reincarnation - Wikipedia doesn't take any stance on the afterlife, nor should it.
 * Wiki has decided Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy - No, the reality-based community did based on continuing evidence instead of sticking only to amateur interpretations of the Zapruder film.
 * what counts is not truth but the beliefs of the Wiki masters - No, you're just upset that the professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources Wikipedia's articles are based on don't reflect your personal beliefs as reality. Get over it or get off the site.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong on all counts Ian.thomson. It's hopeless to discuss this further but be assured that (a) I researched the Bomjan material very thoroughly. I met the man in Nepal (because, as a journalist, I wanted to write an article about him), I interviewed lots of people in his surroundings (adepts and ex-adepts). Your claim that I 'have no idea what's going on' is based on nothing. (b) Regarding reincarnation I have no faith-based opinion whatsoever. What do you know about my faith, supposing I have one? What I know for sure is that it is impossible to post material on Wikipedia which indicates that reincarnation is real. I travelled around the world for two years to research evidence for reincarnation, interviewed most of the main reincarnation researchers and wrote a book about my findings. Your claim that my conclusion (i.e. there is evidence but no proof) is based on my faith or that it is my opinion, is based on nothing. (c) During the past thirty years I interviewed scores of JFK assassination researchers, went to Dallas, wrote many thousands of words about the assassination for my newspaper and read piles of books about it. Your claim that the Oswald-did-it paradigm is 'reality based' is based on nothing.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hopeless to discuss this further - Yes, your continued presence on this site is a waste of time and bandwidth for all involved.
 * a) On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Also, you changed the subject.  You made accusations about me and other editors that have no bearing on reality.
 * b) If you don't understand that your belief in reincarnation is faith, you don't understand what faith is. Given your other posts, you clearly don't understand what objectivity is either, so that's not unlikely.
 * c) Again, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And there's no reason not to conclude that you only interviewed fellow conspiracy theorists to reinforce your echo chamber.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Zsuzsanna Takacs at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Please see for a discussion regarding Zsuzsanna Takacs, who is mentioned in the article. —  Newslinger  talk   11:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent developments
Is this a reliable source? Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Journalists arrived before and not after the Slovak woman's release
As I was that victim Zsuzsanna Takacs, I not only had been not rescued by any police, but the fact is that my release had been initiated by the heroic investigation by the 5 journalists who arrived before my release and not after, as the article claims. The main reason for their investigation was actually to find my whereabouts in Bomjon's jungle, as they had been mobilized by Lama Tcheku, in whose monastery I was staying (thus again, the article is incorrect claiming that I was in a hotel and kidnapped from that hotel). The journalists arrived on Wednesday, 21 March 2012, as the media informed that time, for example The Himalayan Times. So please, correct it, as not only the chronology, but also the sense of their arrival is altered by this mistake. Also incorrect:

1, I was not kidnapped from a hotel, but from the East-West Highway at the Halkhoriya Jungle, by the motorbike of Darshan Limbu. I did not stay in a hotel that time, but in Simara's Buddhist monastery 2, I was not rescued by the police but released by Bomjon himself after the 5 journalists incident (21th March), and other pressure from media and foreign friends, on the 24th of March. 3, I did not have "one arm broken".this mistaken wire information is based surely on the bad translation of Nepalis. I had both of my wrists broken in reality and I provided x-rays on my websites.

ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna Takacs, Bomjon's victimZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are now discussing this in 4 separate forums, see wp:forumshopping, note I think this is due to inexperience, but this needs to be discussed in one place.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, you can shift it to the other place or delete. ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna TakacsZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV - II
It has been five years since a substantive comment has been made on this talk page. In January 2024 editor Isi96 tagged the article with This article's "criticism" or "controversy" section may compromise the article's neutrality. without comment here indicating the problems. In reading the article I find that the "controversies", excepting his arrest and conviction, are covered in a relatively balanced manner, i.e. X says this and "Y" says that. I have removed the tag, pending a discussion of current POV problems. --Bejnar (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I added the tag here as it's recommended to not have a separate section for criticism or controversies per WP:CSECTION. It seems that whoever removed the section didn't remove that template as well. Isi96 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Controversy sections are a bad idea, and the material should be instead by in prose, but no now of it should be removed, we shouldn't white wash this person. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven The material is now under the biography section. Isi96 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)