Talk:Rahul Easwar

Scandalmongering.

In this edit I removed (yet again) vague scandalmongering from an IP editor (14.139.45.243) who added the line "He was criticised for getting close to another contestant Rosin Jolly." This content is pointless, and objections were previously raised at Talk:Rosin Jolly by Ryk72 before that article was deleted. My general comments from that talk page, adjusted for relevance here:

Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Arguments like "wikipedia needs to be comprehensive, it is not a 'tell only positive' space. Controversies needs to be added" hold no water in this case. The content is clearly not written in a proper encyclopedic tone, which it would need to be even if it were worthy of inclusion. As noted, the content is vague. "getting close to" is uselessly vague and colloquial. Are we talking about a sexual relationship? Did either Jolly or Easwar confirm that they had a sexual affair? If not, the content should be cut immediately without further discussion, because "sexual affair" is what the section is heavily implying, and if we're seriously going to have a controversy section on the basis that two people flirted a bit, that's completely idiotic.

As for the "it is not a 'tell only positive' space" argument, Wikipedia is not in the business of regurgitating the obsessions of entertainment rags. Our standards are higher and we take biographies of living people very seriously because there is a real concern that content such as this could defame a person in a global encyclopedia. Further, per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". We are not required to include every detail available to us under the sun. A real controversy section might include information on a subject's behavior that directly impacted the public like criminal arrests, or a failure to report a serious public safety issue that resulted in the loss of property or life, or making inflammatory statements about marginalized minority groups, or someone surreptitiously spying on their political foes. Cut, cut, cut.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trade rag, and salacious gossip is not our bread-and-butter. Editors need to consider the impact that this piece of information will have in ten years, not just now. If it's not going to be relevant in 10 years, then it probably isn't relevant now. Further, the repeated addition of this content looks an awful lot like agenda-pushing. We always err on the side of caution in these cases. For these reasons, I have again removed this pointless nonsense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I concur wholly and wholeheartedly with the thoughts of Cyphoidbomb, above. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid gossip magazine; and the inclusions thus far have been both inane twaddle and salacious scandalmongering. The sources provided are at the tabloid level of quality; mere regurgitators of gossip. If "national daily newspapers" cannot rise above the gutter, it is a sad indictment upon them. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim comments

Twice I have removed content like this and this because there is insufficient context that explains why we should care about it. What were the anti-Muslim comments? What is Easwar's interest in Islam, that he should care? How was he harmed? What was the response to the activism? The five Ws aren't being met here. Additionally, we are not a breaking news outlet, and we need to consider that we are not just listing recent events to list recent events. What is the 10 year relevance of this information? Will we care in 10 years? If so, then we need context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarity needed & inline citations given

as Cyphoidbomb points out this article needed more clarity . added inline citations to it. new user, yet to make a page of myself was editing many articles yesterday too. (111.92.27.206 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC))

what is the issue in adding lecture tours. may be lecture tours are part of activism. as the subject is also some kind of lecturing philosopher. (103.5.218.50 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC))

the part of lecture tours seems to have deleted without consultation. and there was also the deleting of ISIS terror threat without stating reason. gave more citations. more discussions in talk page needs to be there before unilateral deleting. (111.92.29.118 (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

I deleted the points mentioned above because they are in no way notable. See my justifications below. Neogarfield (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

add more. there is lot of info (122.174.199.135 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC))

i think more information should be added along with a photo (116.212.177.35 (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC))

an image needs to be given (120.56.33.251 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC))

photo can be given (49.248.225.6 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

Books by Rahul Easwar

The article states that Rahul Easwar has written three books in philosophy. This article says that he had written three books by the age of 24. I tried to verify this claim, but could not find any proof for books written by him. I found this book from Amazon (which is claimed to be his fifth book), but I could not verify the ISBN number. Three years ago, he had tweeted the book cover of his new book 'A pilgrimage into the History of India', but it appears that the book did not get published yet. I think Rahul does not qualify to be described as an author in the lead of the article. -- Netha (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The first two books claimed to be written by Easwar are, 'Philosophy of philosophy' and 'Philosophy of Education' (Ref). I can't find any proof of existence of these books, and I strongly suspect Easwar's claims are false. -- Netha (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with User:Netha Hussain. I'm a professional philosopher, also trained in Indian philosophy, and I can attest that his books and even his name is unheard of in the discipline. Of course, my personal opinion doesn't count here, I merely mention it for context. I tried looking up the books, but got no positive results. No major university library in India has those books. Nor is it listed by ISBN. The Hindu article cannot be used here as a source because the article just quotes him saying it; it is not stated or verified in the article itself; that would not meet the criteria of NPOV or Verifiability. I'm massively editing the article. If the content is restored without proper reasoning on the talk page, I'll try to get some admin attention. This entire page seems to be merely for the purpose of lending some authenticity to a political grandstanding. The page itself does not meet any of the standards set out in ALIVE. As discussed in earlier AfDs, the article seems to be merely for blatant self-promotion.

Neogarfield (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Major edits to remove unverified statements, and to preserve neutral POV

I've initiated major edits to this page, which was in blatant violation of most standards set out in WP:ALIVE. My reasons for doing so are given below. If you do not agree with my edits, I request you to discuss it here before reverting my edits. I am open to adding more content to the page as long as it meets WP:Verifiability standards.

In a nutshell, the article did not adhere to standards in WP:ALIVE and WP:Notability. The sources did not adhere to WP:Verifiability, and the language used violated WP:NPOV.

1. The person is not an author - his books are not available in English or Malayalam, and no public records of them exist (book seller catalogues, libraries, ISBN). The only source is himself where he was quoted as saying as much. In the face of lack of any other evidence, and since it was reported in direct speech (which is not fact-checked or verified by the editorial desk), I have removed the author tag, and deleted mentions of it.

2. Most of the references given were either non-existent, or did not contain what it was supposed to reference. I removed all of those references, and the claims that they were supporting. (this was most of the page)

3. Some of the content in the page was irrelevant and not notable. Sources for these were tabloidish websites. This does not conform to WP:ALIVE. I removed all of this as well.

4. I made several edits to bring in WP:NPOV. I removed claims that were being made, and replaced them with reportage from the sources.

I see that the page has a contested history. In the light of this, I request you to discuss issues you might have with these edits on this talk page before reverting edits. Thank you!

Neogarfield (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted without discussion even while relevant information is there in Major News Paper

1. Major links in News papers were given in the article - The Hindu, Times of India were there ( I guess some deccan chronicle link was also there, cudnt find it )

2. such massive editing without any 3rd person also accepting is not right in wikipedia. edits can and should be definitely done, but with consensus

3. references as Author from BBC, Al Jazeera etc are there. They are international publications. many channel news are also there as discussion as reference.

(45.248.92.96 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC))

better writing style can be adapted. (42.109.164.54 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC))

I have no desire to participate in edit-warring, but, I have to point out that these anonymous IP addresses have not answered any of the concerns I had posed in the section above. Responding to their own points-

1: The articles had little or nothing to do with the statements they were supposed to support, which is why I deleted them. For example, there is no information in any of those pages about his higher studies, his being an author, and (for me, most repulsively) his being a philosopher. The best we can describe him as is a Hindu activist (even that is a problematic description, because I am unsure of what he thinks Hinduism is... in any case, he seems to be some sort of an activist).

2: PLEASE read ALIVE. While your own argument seems misguided, it certainly is invalid.

3: Same response as #1.

Further, some of the things, like his being a TEDx speaker, is just linked to a YouTube video, which does not meet WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Also, TEDx is not TED, and being a TEDx speaker does not contribute to WP:Notability.

I request you to read WP:ALIVE, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. That might make some things clear. While you're at it, maybe also read WP:NOT. Also, please read my concerns above, and @Netha's concerns above.

I went by WP:ALIVE guidelines to remove inaccurate or non-verifiable content (which does not require consensus to remove unverifiable content especially regarding living people), and I'm going to revert your edits again. I would say that right now, the burden of proof is on you to show how they are verifiable - I've already read all the links, and I stand by my #1. I'll request, again, to discuss the issue here on the talk page, before changing what I've done, so that we can act, like you rightly write, with consensus.

Thank you. --Neogarfield (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding on, some specific comments regarding my edits: I do not see how being the offspring of someone makes you famous; unless, there is something about that relationship that brings the fame, as in the case of the Trump family. I do not see how receiving death threats or getting into minor tiffs needs to be mentioned on a biography page unless it contributes to the narrative of the person's notability. In this case, it does not. And unless it relates to ongoing popular social debates, what the person told in interviews is irrelevant; again, in this case, it does not so relate. The 'flag ambassador' thing comes from a very tabloidish source, as does not meet WP:Verifiability. I also do not see why his website has been repeatedly stated; unless he is notable enough to have the website mentioned. In this case, it seems to be a case of WP:PROMOTION. It is also to be noted that most of the content added to the article comes from the website, and in many cases is copy-pasted from it. This not only is WP:PROMOTION, but it also violates WP:NPOV. Generally speaking, I think this entire article is a case of self-promotion and should be marked for deletion (again), but I'll wait for a consensus on that. If you are reverting my edits, I request you to give a point-by-point rebuttal on why you are deleting/adding something. Thank you. Neogarfield (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Let us first discuss before such massive deletion of content. i hope we can build a consensus then editing and going ahead. Notability guideline is fulfilled by mentions in BBC, Al Jazeera, Times of India, The Hindu. Agrees that the content from website of any person shouldn't be quoted. 1 or 2 more editors are there. with their input too, an agreeable stuff can be reached. (45.248.92.96 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

The blanket deletion as done in this edit (and similar) seems excessive. If the subject is notable for being an activist, or even a television news pundit, then we should have some examples of the guy doing activism. Seems very shortsighted to delete the majority of content, much of which is attributed to reliable mainstream sources just like we want. He has been brought in on TV to discuss controversial topics, so it's not like he doesn't exist and doesn't get discussed in the news. I'm not sure on what basis you'd argue for deletion, since the first step of an AfD is WP:BEFORE, where you'd find during your due diligence research a plethora of content about him. This isn't to say that the article can't be shaped, and that fluffy, irrelevant information can't be removed if it exists (this is a matter for discussion) but the major deletion is rash. It also concerns me that we would be removing the bulk of the substantiating content just prior to nominating it for deletion. "See, this skeletal article doesn't properly establish the subject's notability, so it should be deleted." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved Cyphoidbomb. Let me start with saying that your last claim was really not what I had in mind. The idea was to delete the fluff, and add some verifiable content; if that didn't work out because of edit-warring, I'd hoped to get some admin attention. I'm not making a case for deletion right now.

Again, I'm not saying that the person is unheard of. It's just that most of what's said in the Wikipedia entry does not seem to me to be noteworthy. It reads like a self-promotion article, with most of the content being twisted from the reports in the media. Much of the content of the first half of the article is not supported in any of the resources given. Coming from the same community as the person about whom the article is, the lay-person perspective on him is that he is a controversial figure. His arguments don't carry any weight, are most often terrible and invalid, and he's brought on to news debates because he is very animated. This is merely my personal opinion, which has no place in an article, but, it does appear to me that the page is being maintained for the purpose of self-promotion, and even perhaps getting authenticity for his personal webpage.

I agree that the major deletion without adding any more content was probably rash on my part. I'll try to find more sources, and edit the article bit by bit. I hope that will be acceptable? I'll delete the items I find to be fluff one at a time, giving other editors time to respond. But, I'll again request that responses be discussed, and a rational decision reached, before merely reverting my edits. Thank you. Neogarfield (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I made some small edits. But, might I point out that the article as it exists now is a word-for-word copy of this website that allows people to post their own biographies - https://upclosed.com/people/rahul-easwar/ . That wouldn't meet WP:Verifiability, and in that case, I wonder whether, at the very least, it isn't a case of plagiarism? Is that justification enough for a major overhaul of the article? --Neogarfield (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Agrees with the earlier wikipedia editor when he says - "Seems very shortsighted to delete the majority of content, much of which is attributed to reliable mainstream sources just like we want."

let it stay, we info can and source can be added (42.109.134.34 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

Let me say that you haven't provided a rebuttal of the points I made. I'm not going to redo your reverts, but that does not mean I accept them. I'll try to make smaller changes, and see if there is an issue with it. Again, I request you to give specific points of argument in response to my claims; it's only thus that we can reach a rational conclusion. I have nothing personal against the guy or the article, but it pains me to see so much misinformation and nonsense; and I am willing to discuss and work on consensus. Thanks, Neogarfield (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

the word controversial is a weasel word and i agree with you that website need not be added. (45.248.92.96 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

deleted the link into some organisation and website. not a third party information like News website, this is only a website. (42.109.134.34 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

I don't agree with you about the controversial - several of the articles mention the word, and it's not a weasel word; anyway, I'll let that pass. But I think we have conclusively shown that he is *not* an author. He is/was, however, a video jockey, as is mentioned in the article quoted; that also seems to be part of his claim to fame, so I think it's important to mention. So I edited your revert, since that seems to be the way of doing things. Also, I'm confused, would you remove a Wiki link to 'Kerala'? May I now request you to talk here before reverting my edits? I'll do the same. In that spirit, what would you suggest we do about the possible plagiarism I've mentioned above? Neogarfield (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

​ I'm sorry, I'm undoing your revert. I requested clearly that we reach a consensus before we edit. As Netha and I have argued, there isn't a shred of evidence that he's an author. I've searched global ISBN databases, WorldCat, local libraries, and local publishers. None of them list his book. There is one page on Amazon with a title, but no book ever published. I think the onus is now on you to show that he is an author. Please do that. And I request that the page be left alone until we talk about it. --Neogarfield (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to remain uninvolved so long as you two are working constructively, which it seems you are, but I don't mind occasionally contributing some thoughts. As for the authorship issue, Easwar might be self-published. If that's the case, is he an author or not? Do you have to be published by a major publishing house to be an author? That's something for you two to discuss. Given the lack of availability of his written works, authorship is probably not what he is known for or notable for, so it probably doesn't belong in the lead. As for the potential plagiarism at upclosed.com, I'm not convinced. I think this is a classic case of a shitty website scraping Wikipedia's content and republishing it without attribution. I say that, because it has the general shape of a Wikipedia article, and because the content about the temple elephants (minus a few subsequent changes) is content that I wrote to improve the meaningless, vague content that previously had been there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is given in BBC Website, The Hindu News paper article, (Philosophical anchor). Are they not enough. One international and one is Indian, both Media houses of high credibility and repute. (Akshayacropolis (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

@Akshayacropolis: What point specifically are you responding to? You didn't indent your reply, (with colons ::) so it's unclear which threaded discussion you're answering. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I was referring to the matter as author. It is given in international news website like BBC, Al Jazeera, Buzzfeed. and book is available online also. Regards (Akshayacropolis (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC))

@Akshayacropolis: Thanks for your clarification. Though that's what the press might say, it's apparently not what he is known for, so it probably doesn't belong in the lead. For all we know, that basic information was passed along to the press by his publicist. Doesn't make it true, doesn't make it false. But if editors are trying in good-faith to suss out actual books that he's written, but can't find any, that probably speaks louder than what the press says. We're not required to regurgitate everything the press says. Per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Authorship issue again

http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122

IIM Ahmedabad invites for the talk on his book (171.49.208.206 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

In the IIM A news, it is given as author and activist (112.133.236.175 (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC))

Perhaps, but he is not widely known for his books. Where does one even find his books for sale? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

IIM A conducted a talk on his book. is that not relevance enough? also online it is available too (112.133.236.128 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

Undid contribution by Cyphoidbomb (talk) as it is given as Activist and NOT as Author. and it is also given as Orator as IIM news (2402:3A80:E3C:8852:355C:E376:3EBA:C1A6 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

Re: this reversion of yours, IP 2402::C1A6, thank you for making it, because my restoration of the authorship category was a mistake. As for this change, where you reinstate "orator", the point of an encyclopedia is to highlight the most important aspects of a subject, and specifically what they are chiefly known for, with the claims supported by reliable published sources. Easwar giving a speech or leading a discussion, especially about a book that may or may not exist, doesn't suddenly make him an "orator" any more than him singing "Happy Birthday" in public would qualify him a singer. Maybe he is an orator, (I don't know what qualifies someone to claim such a nebulous occupation,) but the article has not established that he is widely known for being an orator. Television commentator maybe? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

some link to book buying in amazon. https://www.amazon.in/Philosophica-Vedanta-Psychometrics-Rahul-Easwar/dp/813001694X also respectable news org such as Hindustan times, Hindu and buzzfeed gave as "author and activist" - https://www.buzzfeed.com/andreborges/this-guy-made-a-stupid-ass-tweet-about-feminism-and-twitter https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/at-war-over-love-state-and-society-vs-personal-freedom-in-kerala/story-hv8qrWusdcLvmoGCjMVZZO.html

so i guess it is ok (111.92.29.222 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

(111.92.29.222 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

deleted "Orator" as it is better to put after consensus. Let us come to agreement what to put, orator / author / speaker / panelist / writer. Even thou i deleted, i think it is ok, to put author or orator as it is even given in BBC.

BBC, The Hindu, NDTV .. such prominent media houses gives that title, then it is safe to put that in wikipedia. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36013215 (111.92.29.222 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

Ya, i guess so. go ahead. it is ok to add the title if given in News websites like BBC, agrees with (111.92.29.222 by (Blake Peter (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

author can be added if in line citation can be given (111.92.29.198 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC))

adding author as per news (171.49.184.180 (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC))

photo ? (223.228.161.62 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC))

Again, while the sources call him an author, there is absolutely zero coverage of his authorship, so he is not notable for being an author. More than likely, the outlets are just going by whatever bio sheet his press agent has sent them. At this point "author" sounds like a hobby. He is not widely known for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

almost all media houses refer as author and activist. that is the inline citation too. and there is no need to put full name everywhere. as earlier editor said "we know who we are taking about" (111.92.31.72 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The decision is No. The Yes !votes are numerous and passionately stated, yet weak on argumentation, some of them even crossing over into WP:ILIKEIT territory. They are light in substance while the No !votes are heavy with the weight of evidence: It is trivially evident that to qualify as an author, a person has to either have numerour works to their name or at least one notable work (such as in the cases of Emily Brontë, Margaret Mitchell, or Anna Sewell). Neither is true for the subject of this article, despite the protestations that are mostly invocations of "why not." The lack of evidence of any kind of notable authorship, per sources, is reflected in the main text where no works are cited. Self descriptions are not to be trusted, while an occasional, casual mention of authorship by a reliable source, e.g. the BBC, cannot be accepted without hard evidence of something beyond one relatively litle known title, Philosophica Vedanta - Psychometrics of Spirituality.
The absence from the main text defines the lead. The lead section should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Therefore, we cannot have in the lead any mention of the subject being something which he is not. -The Gnome (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the article lead describe Rahul Easwar as an author? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No, as RfC requester. Editor Netha Hussain raised this issue in late November and was seconded by Neogarfield. After researching the matter myself, I only find one book (at Amazon India) by the subject, Philosophica Vedanta - Psychometrics of Spirituality, but can't find any of the other books he's alleged to have written. And while multiple media sources might describe him as an author,[1][2][3] there is no obvious commentary (as far as I'm aware of) of his books. So if the media doesn't care enough about his books to talk about them, is he really considered an author? Like, if he was fond of singing, but the media didn't pay any attention to his songs or his performances, should he be considered a singer? What's a hobby, and what's a profession? It's entirely possible that the news outlets have public relations bios that they refer to when explaining who a person is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning No, I second the points above. I could not find an sources discussing his book outside of one amazon listing. --Sadsignal (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning towards yes. as in the links, there was a talk in IIM A regarding his book. If an institution like Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad is organising a talk on a book, he could be called an author . http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-iim-a-invites-controversial-speaker-students-up-in-arms-2582122 - IIM A was having a talk on the book. (112.133.236.197 (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
• Not in lead(Summoned by bot) not enough sources to demonstarte it, and points by Cyphoidbomb. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Lean yes, per 112.133.236.197 and the fact that his books seem to represent a separate avocation than simply his activism (given a brief scan of the titles and contents). (Summoned by bot) theonesean 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) The BBC calls him "activist and author" (which seems a better order for the two items than "author and activist." The Hindu says "he has written three books and published two." We should follow RS, not invent our own definistions of what an author is. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. It's not enough for the lead (paragraph) to mention that somebody is "author and activist", even with a reference that may (where?) contain the fact of his having written a specific book, learned paper, news article or pamphlet; or of his being an author. The body of the article (as yet) contains absolutely no information on whatever he may have written. Compared with this, its documentation of his § Activism is quite thorough. As the lead should give an introduction to, and succinct summary of, the article, I can only conclude that either the article is presently incomplete, since it's missing his writing; or that the lead is mistaken in calling him an author. For the present lead to be correct, we need to add reliable sources to the article that give evidence of his authorship of specific writings. One hopes that, if his writing is substantial and notable, some editor will soon add another section to the article describing and detailing them. yoyo (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No--I came here to close the discussion but choose to !vote instead to rebut a couple of specific yes arguments.
  • The metro pieces (CalcuttaTimes (TOI), T2 (The Telegraph), Metro Plus (Hindustan Times)) are some of the most shoddy journalism-works in Indian-media-circuits and typically serve as PR-vehicles for entertainment industry and the like....The linked piece by HouseOfChange is a spammy interview (read the link, please), and these days, every body , who has managed to publish/self-publish something or the other, is a self-described author. That's of zero relevance.
  • All news-pieces mentions the word author in the trivial-est of all contexts and Cyphoid is correct as to the case of PRBios.
  • Finally lead provides a succinct summary of the content discussed in the body.Without any mentions about his author-profile (which seems fairly impossible), we cannot expect to describe him as an author in the lead.∯WBG^converse 16:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes He can be called an author. It will be unfair on editors part to sit in judgement on what he wrote. Our job is here to see if the references to Mr Easwar as Author is there. The references to him as Author is there.

Even IIM (A) 1 of the premier institutions of India did a Talk on his book. That adds credibility to the argument of him as author.

He is referred to Author is international Media org like BBC as author. One can disagree with what he writes, especially as he has taken stance against homosexuality & progressive politics. But ideological inclinations shouldnt stop from calling a person what he is. also there are many published articles in The Hindu, The Print, Times of India etc.

(110.173.189.82 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)) — 110.173.189.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As another editor has noted, the purpose of the lead section of an article is to summarise content found elsewhere in the article. There is no content about any of the subject's writings, because (as far as anybody can tell) no reliable sources have ever written about the subject's works. If there is no coverage of the subject's written works, then there is nothing for us to summarise. The fact that the label exists in references doesn't necessitate inclusion per WP:V: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". As for your argument that "IIM ... did a Talk on his book", the phrasing of your claim suggests that someone talked about his book. Is that he case, or did he talk about his own book? Big difference, because we would care what other people say about his book, not what he says about his book. He is a primary source. And unless you can prove there's some sort of rigid selection process for TED talks, wherein the TED folks verify the legitimacy of their speakers, the argument holds no water. I'd be willing to bet I could give a TED talk about Wikipedia editing without much resistance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes the available data and inline citations is the proof. why not call as an author? is it something wrong? voting for author itself. (103.44.137.90 (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)) — 103.44.137.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We don't determine consensus by voting, we determine consensus through strength of argument. "Why not call as an author" is not a strong argument, it's a rhetorical question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes votes for author. even in an article written against him, he is referred to as "Philosophy Author". Even the opposing voices address the subject as Philosophy Author. Source - CNN News 18 - https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/opinion-harish-iyer-section-377-homosexuality-gay-sex-debate-1626521.html (171.61.233.91 (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)) — 171.61.233.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As noted above, we don't determine consensus through voting, and it doesn't really matter that an opposing voice has described him as an author, because they're not talking about his books. Let's see the article that negatively describes his books. That would at least suggest that a reliable source had finally read something the guy wrote. I do, however, find it adorable that there's a last-minute push from anonymous users to comment on this topic. IPs that have few, if any substantial edits suddenly care about this topic. Hmmm... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Confused re title "Author". is it only for writers of books or is it a generic term? a simple google search gives the content of rahul eshwar's writing. for eg: https://www.ijip.in/index.php/?view=article&id=1988 Co - authored in International Journal of Indian psychology. also some philosophy stuff book to in amazon. there are also writings of him on Ndtv, The Hindu, Times of India - the usual indian conservative thing. also read something in the The Print. average, but i guess he can be called Author or Writer. (111.92.30.118 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

• Yes or tending to yes sounds ok. i don't know the technicalities of wiki, just learning it. but it is ok, i guess as some content of writing is there (137.97.90.39 (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)) — 137.97.90.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Allegations against Rahul Eshwar is not given enough weightage in the article. Eminent Saint Sandeepananda Giri has accused him of behind the arson in his ashram. such things are not mentioned at all (202.177.46.76 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC))