Talk:Sadhguru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 23 December 2018 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Jaggi Vasudev/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:BLP noticeboard

'Future events' section

In my opinion this section isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 8:33 am, 6 March 2010, Saturday (8 years, 7 months, 24 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

I strongly agree. Boromir123 (talk) 8:40 am, 6 March 2010, Saturday (8 years, 7 months, 24 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

Please fix wrong link

Where it says Pranayam should say Pranayama and the link should go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama 23.240.1.247 (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I have made the correction. Thank you --NicoScribe (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The evidence here seems quite clear that independent reliable sources – i.e. those not written by innerengineering, etc – typically write out the subject's name. Sources also regularly use the name without the honorific. No real argument has been made here that there is some reason why this article should go against the the manual of style entry which indicates that we generally don't use the honorific. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaggi Vasudev → Sadhguru – Article has recently been boldly moved because Sadhguru is supposedly a title rather than a name. However, nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention "Sadhguru" instead of to "Jaggi Vasudev" so Sadhguru serves apparently as the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C ☎ 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I was the person who performed the aforementioned move. I was, however, undoing another bold move made in August. Re: Marcocapelle's point about nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention "Sadhguru" instead of to "Jaggi Vasudev", this is mainly due to an editor doing a find and replace on October 1 which also changed the citation titles. Sadhguru is an honorific. FWIW, this article is currently a puff piece and not neutral at all. See also: my merge request over at Isha Foundation, a lot of which has been duplicated here.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Since there are editors supporting this move, let me expand:
Sadhguru is an innnacurate transliteration of सद्गुरु or "good guru". A correct transliteration would be Sadguru (which redirects on Wikipedia to Satguru, something of a Hindi variant). Considering Jaggi Vasudev's international market, Sadguru is liable to be misread and mispronounced as "Sad Guru" which is likely what led to the use of Sadhguru. Jaggi's Hindi article correctly uses सद्गुरु (Sadguru) rather than सध्गुरु (Sadhguru).
There are and have been thousands of people in history who are considered Sadgurus and named using the honorific. As Satguru attests, Kabir is often addressed with a combination (or subset thereof) involving "Sant Samrat Satguru Kabir Sahib". The website of one of his "dhams" is at sadgurukabirprakatyadhamlahartaravaranasi.com. There is the contemporary Shri Sadguru Seva Sangh Trust (SSSST) aka the Sadguru Trust which refers to a Sadguru named Param Pujya Shri Ranchhoddasji Maharaj. Incidentally, this Sadguru is also known as "Gurudev" which also refers to another contemporary godman, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, i.e., Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) as well as Rabindranath Tagore and many others and often used as an honorific prefix. A cursory look through Wikipedia unearthed these other Sad(h)gurus:
* Sadguru Appayya Swamy
* Sadguru Hambir Baba
* Shreedhar Swami: aka "Sadguru Bhagwan Shreedhar Swami Maharaj"
* Jangali Maharaj, also known as Sadguru Jangali Maharaj or Guru Maharaj
* Samartha Sadguru, a TV serial about Sai Baba of Shirdi
* Sadikshah Qadri, aka "Sadguru Sadikbaba"
* Shri Sadguru Nityanand High School, named after Sadguru Nityanand, aka Bhagawan Nityananda (with Bhagawan being another honorific)
* Vihangamyoga: "Vihangam Yoga is an ancient meditation technique practiced by Indian seers and sages. In the current time, it is established by Sadguru Sadafaldeo Ji Maharaj."
This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of people referred to as Satguru or Sadguru and prefixed with these terms listed on Wikipedia alone. In other words, Satguru and Sadguru are honorifics and the variant, Sadhguru should be treated as the same. Even if otherwise, current news articles still routinely refer to Jaggi Vasudev without mentioning "Sadhguru", and if they do mention the title, they clarify which Sadguru they are talking about in the body. Furthermore, the use of the term has been popularised only recently. Anecdotally, old reports rarely insisted on the term. This 2001 interview with Vasudev quotes him saying, ‘I drive my own car, people still call me by my first name. I don’t act like a heavenly being. What else can I do to make it normal?’ asks Jaggi Vasudev.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See for example this source and this and this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of those is a book by his follower (who would refer to her guru solely by his title). The other two are duplicates of each other. I thought my revert would clarify your point about "nearly all sources"; compare mentions of Jaggi Vasudev in the reference section before and after my revert earlier today to get an idea.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Sadhguru seems to be the comonly used name, not just by his followers but by global bodies also. See UN's program schedule (pdf) & UN Environment (which ironically links back to this wiki page). Some examples from news: [1], [2]. And some examples from institutions: London Science Museum, Harvard Keynote Talk. Also, the fact that the word Sadhguru is an honorific shouldn't come in the way of the move. The original move was performed as per Commonly Used Name policy because most people know him as Sadhguru not Jaggi Vasudev. When people call him Sadhguru, they are not using the word as an honorific but more as a name for the person. Madrasiman (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Madrasiman (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Out of 35 edits by this user, 24 Live edits were made on Jaggi Vasudev topic.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here are the promotional links for the UN, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and Rice calling him "Jaggi Vasudev" or "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". Similar news articles are listed in many other comments in this RM. And when people call him "Sadhguru" they are using the honorific else they, news articles, and even his own organisations would not be referring to him largely as "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" if not "Jaggi Vasudev".—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be rather arbitrary. Here are two recent reports from your chosen publications which don't mention "Sadhguru" at all.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence to support your position. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Count the search results on Google search and Google news. This scholarly book also called him "Sadhguru" as more common name, not "Jaggi Vasudev". Raymond3023 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those statistics are up to you to document here along with the necessary caveats to support your claim that "Sadhguru" is Jaggi Vasudev's name. Jaggi Vasudev has been the title of this article from October 2006; the burden is on you to prove otherwise. And IMO, your contention is incorrect. Re: the one book that you've mentioned: while Arundhati Subramaniam's book was (published by Penguin) can be used as a source for this article, she also happens to be his disciple. IOW, Jaggi Vasudev is her guru, her Sadguru. She is incidentally also his co-author in other books, a ghost writer, if you will. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
67k results in Google news for "Sadhguru" and 17k results for "Jaggi Vasudev". Though the results comparison on Google books and normal Google search shows bigger difference between these two names. Since "Jaggi Vasudev has been the title of this article from October 2006", it is obvious that many results on Google for "Jaggi Vasudev" are just mirroring Wikipedia. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guys WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a strong argument, much of it is muddied with tweets and other meaningless results. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I mentioned "Google news", which reports only those things that were covered by news sites than social networking and other unreliable sites. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link or a screenshot for this. Google News does not display result counts for me. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I note that the subject and his followers like to call him Sadhguru which is indeed a WP:Honorific, his twitter account and websites etc use the same, which explains Google hits, But Mainstream media still uses his name "Jaggi Vasudev" and in more prominence than the honorific/nickname Sadhguru. For Example this book in its intro says "This is the extraordinary story of Jaggi Vasudev or Sadhguru". It does not state "This is the extraordinary story of Sadhguru or Jaggi Vasudev" or "This is the extraordinary story of Sadhguru". Note the order of the mention of the two names here, which comes first and which second. It is a good example to judge the common name by this intro. I think This article should continue to stay at Jaggi Vasudev.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How mainstream news and scholarly sources can be defined as "subject and his followers"? That seems to be in alphabetical in order, but the book title is "Sadhguru" and so should be our article. This is the only website (an unreliable source) that calls him "Jaggi Vasudev", rest calls him "Sadhguru" while some calls him "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". That is entirely opposite to WP:COMMONNAME which requires more hits in reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, you have to understand that he has an Entire Public Relations department handling his PR, much of what you find online will also be a part of his PR, it becomes very difficult to sperate what is a PR vs what is non PR. I just pointed an observation that should help us in deciding. If you want to base your opinions on material related to his PR excercise, it is entirely your choice, and does not reflect the reality but just your opinion. The reliable media Either uses Full name including honorifics or just uses Jaggi Vasudev in its content.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yesterday, I found this discussion listed in the WP:RM backlog and closed it, finding a consensus to move Jaggi Vasudev to Sadhguru: Consensus is that Sadhguru (with the h) is used as a common name for this person and is not an honorific spelled this way in reference to this particular person. Subsequently, it was brought to my attention that despite being in the backlog, discussion here was still active. Indeed, a comment had been made about three hours prior to my close. I had not noticed that when I closed (my apologies for that), and so now have decided to revert my close to allow discussion to continue, and am relisting the request.
That said, I urge participants to recognize that nobody here is suggesting WP:HONORIFIC be ignored in this case; the issue is whether Sadhguru (with an h) is an honorific, or, if it is an honorific but (with the h) used exclusively to refer to this one person and so strongly associated with him that HONORIFIC allows it be used as article title, or should allow it. Again, this issue looked settled to me, but I see no harm in allowing discussion to continue. If I were participating I would want to see evidence showing that Sadhguru (with an h) is or is not used as an honorific for other persons, which name is used most commonly in reliable English sources, etc. --В²C ☎ 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting my argument against this here rather than adding to my earlier reply which apparently very few read.
  1. As detailed in my primary reply, there are plenty of Sadgurus in India, both past and present. Sadhguru and Sadguru are homophonous in India. A not insignificant number of people and sources spell Vasudev's title as Sadguru. There are also sources that spell it Satguru. That said, Sadhguru is the more prevalent spelling for this Sadguru by far. But it explains how these variants are all treated synonymously. (Incidentally, most local language sources and media transliterate his title as Sadguru.)
  2. Yes, Sadguru and its variants are honorifics as explained in my primary reply. Sadhguru is also Jaggi Vasudev's honorific. The use of honorifics in titles violates WP:NCINDIC. If "Sadhguru" were his new mononym and a commonname understood by all, then he would largely be referred to in reliable sources only as "Sadhguru". On the contrary, when his title is used in reliable sources, it is commonly collocated before his name as "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". Similarly, when sources only use Sadhguru in the headline, the article itself clarifies which Sadhguru is being talked about by giving his full name. Many also refer to him as "the Sadhguru". These are indicative of its honorific nature and its inefficacy as a COMMONNAME on its own.
  3. Jaggi Vasudev's Padma Vibhhushan in 2017 is noted prominently in this article's lede. The Ministry of Home Affairs notification officially credits the recipient of this award as "Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev, Spiritualism, Tamil Nadu". If you correlate this entry with the adjacent ones, you will find that "Sadhguru" is being used as a title. (Jaggi is short for Jagadish.)
  4. The COMMONNAME in reliable sources argument: Google classifies (1, 2) news related to Jaggi Vasudev under the topic "Jaggi Vasudev" rather than "Sadhguru" or even "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". As outlined by others, news articles continue to refer to him as Jaggi Vasudev or as Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. As before, when they do use only "Sadhguru" in the headline, they elaborate in the body to indicate which Sadhguru they are talking about. Note also that the use of his title particularly in headlines is a relatively recent phenomenon. You can see the change by browsing this archive backwards.
To conclude, "Sadhguru" is an honorific. But it is not this subject's common name. One could argue that "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" is the common name, but that implicitly admits that Sadhguru is an honorific and therefore, violates WP:NCINDIC. Jaggi Vasudev is the subject's common name as well as his actual name. It has also been this article's title since 2006 and should remain so. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will note here that I am in agreement with all the points noted by Cpt above. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose of course not, verbatim: Cpt.a.haddock sums it up well. Sadhguru is an honorific and it violates Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics per LeoFrank - see also local newspapers which treat this BLP (born 1957) without honorific by real name "Jaggi Vasudev" Jaggi Vasudev’s interaction with FTII Pune students cancelled, or with honorific + real name "Satguru Jaggi Vasudev". In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in continuation of my Oppose vote above, I find that it is wrongly been claimed that Sadhguru is his most COMMONLY used name. This is not true. The subject is still commonly known as Jaggi Vasudev in the reliable mainstream media. BBC [1] [2] [3] [4][5] called Jaggi Vasudev, Express UK called "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev".The word Sadhguru comes from "Satya" (truth) and (Guru) teacher, so it actually means, True Teacher, (as opposed to lots of Fake teachers out there). And it is interesting that This person likes to use the word for himself, kind of self glorification I would say. В²C In South Indias regional languages, it is quite common to add an extra h to Hindi words that have the letter t, So Satguru becomes a Sathguru/sadhguru. Sadhguru is actually a common name for Indian Gurus or spiritual leaders. Using this word to exclusively refer to Jaggi Vasudev is also inappropriate. Gnanananda Giri is another such example, he is popularly known as Sadguru Sri Gnanananda[6] but our article does not mention Sadguru in the title. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remain neutral. We can find plenty of examples of sources using either name but not the other to refer to this person, but the relevant question is which is used most often to refer to him?. To that end, it's interesting to WP:GOOGLETEST sadhguru -vasudev and vasudev -sadhguru for which I get 6.3M and 4M hits respectively, suggesting sadhguru is the most common. Unless, some of those references to sadhguru are not to this person, but I've yet to find a single such example. --В²C ☎ 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Vasudev is a commonly found name in this country and makes that comparison rather pointless. Anyhow, as noted in my spiel, you should also be considering both "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev" and "Sadhguru" and "Jaggi Vasudev" which indicate that the term is being used as an honorific. This however does not really solve the current problems inherent with Google searches for such comparisons. This is because:
  1. Google search might return a result count, but you can only browse an insignificant percentage of them. AFAICT, you are limited to 10–11 pages or 100–110 results. There are similar limitations for Bing, Duckduckgo, etc. So you can't really check if there are false positives. Even in the first link you have provided, what I see is that the last 2 pages (i.e., 9, 10) are essentially full of links from shaded.davemejiamasonry.com.
  2. Google also considers and returns results in Indic languages although this might be region-dependant. And again, as noted in my spiels, when Jaggi Vasudev's title is transcribed into Hindi, it becomes सद्गुरु (i.e., Sadguru) or even सतगुरु (Satguru). IOW, Google also returns results for Sadguru and this includes all the Sadgurus and Satgurus out there as well as use of the word in songs and other media quite unrelated to any guru in particular. For example, page 8 of your search lists this page as it contains the song: तेरे चरणों में सतगुरु मेरी प्रीत हो भजन लिरिक्स (tere charanon mein satguru meri preet ho bhajan lyrics).
  3. And it's easy enough to find a number of references to other Sadhgurus besides Jaggi if you play with combinations of these honorifics. See for example, "Sadhguru+Swamigal" "Sadhguru Swamigal", "Sri+Sadhguru" "Sri Sadhguru", etc. There's even one resident here on Wikipedia: Sri Sadhguru Sadhu Laxman Rao Ji Maharaj.
  4. See also all the other limitations listed on WP:GOOGLETEST (which needs to be updated).—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, Google search result counts are highly problematic here. As for the news links, "Unplugged with Sadhguru" is a promotional video column. The others all note that the Sadhguru being spoken of is Jaggi Vasudev. HT is the only one in your examples that doesn't. There are plenty of links cited by other editors here which don't use "Sadhguru" at all or use "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". The fact that this happens is sufficient to rule out that he is known in RS as "Sadhguru" alone. The government also addresses him by his title + name as "Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev" rather than just "Sadhguru".—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sadhguru is just an honorific used by Jaggi Vasudev's followers and probably by his self. It is like, Osho for Rajneesh; Srila Prabhupada for A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada; Bhaishree for Ramesh Oza (please note that he is commonly known as and all references for him would be found with name Bhaishree or spelled as Rameshbhai (or Ramesh Bhai)), Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj for Kripalu Maharaj (note: even the ji suffix has been avoided). No reason to move the page to Sadhguru.-- DhavalTalk 16:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people are sufficiently likely to search for Rajneesh with "Osho", and it uniquely applies to him, then maybe that should be moved accordingly as well. But I'm not debating that here. My point is we should be looking at what the subject is most commonly called, what people are most likely to use to search, is it a unique or primary use, etc., not whether a potential choice is an honorific or not. --В²C ☎ 20:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per above evidences of WP:COMMONNAME and comments by Regstuff. People look only for this person when they search for "Sadhguru" and "Sadhguru" is how the subject is mostly referred. Sdmarathe (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Regstuff (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. and has been sitebanned for undisclosed paid editing --DBigXrayᗙ 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. It is unfortunate that we have gotten into an opinion war here instead of logical reasoning. The alias Sadhguru is more prevalent apparently (I am skipping all the reliable sources that are available out for seasoned editors to check independently) per WP:COMMONNAME. Precedence says, we move current BLP to that name, create an alias for the original name. Let's have a disambig for Sadhguru additionally per standards. Sad that we are spending so much effort and energy with total disregard to WP:NPOV. Let's be constructive, as ever. Devopam (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um. I'm afraid there is no "logical reasoning" from the COMMONNAME front. The only evidence that is being provided in support of it is a flawed google hits search which is inherently unreliable and incessant chanting that Sadhguru is not an honorific. Repeating "per above" is both unconstructive and misleading. Those who are opposing the move are the only ones who have actually provided reliable evidence here.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for vindicating my point namely opinion war ,and beyond reasoning. So now, Google search is flawed per your remark above (hope you are SEO aware person). Your opinion about Sad(h)guru spelling isn't correct either, since in southern India, spellings are different where 'dh' isn't exactly what it will be in the northern Indian states. None of my comments are non-constructive or misleading as I never wanted to prove illogical things unlike hinted by yourself. Please see reason, no fights intended here. We should go with reasoning and not vote count per standards. Devopam (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing your hard-hitting evidence.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Sadhguru" brings up over 6 times more results (with first many results referring to this person) than there are for "Jaggi Vasudev" on Google. To refer the widely WP:COMMONNAME as "WP:HONORIFIC" is simply WP:GAMING the system, as there is no article on Wikipedia where we have referred any individual except this person as "Sadhguru."[13] Unless someone can show that "Jaggi Vasudev" is a more common name (which the evidence shows it is not) then I don't see how it makes sense to oppose the proposal. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sadhguru" in Hindi literally means "True Guru(teacher)" A widely used WP:Honorific in Hinduism and Sikhism. So it is not a surprise that you are getting millions of results. This Guys PR wants him to be referred exclusively by this title for obvious PR reasons. that explains why "some" of those hits are going to him. The statement that "Sadhguru is what this person is commonly referred to as" is personal opinion of some folks (including his followers) "Widely used" by followers is not the same as "widely used" by the mainstream media. So No it is not GAMING in any way but following laid down procedures. Fortunately or unfortunately for some, Reliable media still refers to this person as Jaggi Vasudev. And WP:COMMONNAME decides the article to be Jaggi Vasudev. Osho -> Rajneesh is a classic example of a similar case, even though Osho was used exclusively for Rajneesh still The article title is what the mainstream media referred him as and not what he or his followers called him. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed this argument. The search results are referring this particular individual and not anybody else when we search "Sadhguru". I would like to see now if you can find reliable sources for supporting your theory rather than depending on your own analysis since what you are countering is a clearly a strong policy based argument. I still see no sense in opposing the page move. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't addressed. Let me clarify the mistake in your latest argument with my example above. If you search for "OSHO" all results you will get will be for Rajneesh. In spite of the fact, that all results for OSHO refer to Rajneesh, the wiki article is Rajneesh and not OSHO. Why? because The COMMON NAME used by general public and main stream media is Rajneesh (even though he is popular as OSHO among followers). Same is the case with Sadhguru and its google search results. What matters here is by what name is he addressed in the mainstream media. I have already made my argument above there is no point in repeating it again. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the argument since I have described that use of the word "Sadhguru" is limited with this person. Repeating loopholes added by a few editors above is not enough to counter a policy-based argument. You're asking that a mistaken title of an unrelated article should set precedent for this one. Just because one unrelated article has succeeded in pushing a POV, it doesn't means that every other article should automatically apply the contrary POV. Every page move depends on consensus and quality of argument. What matters is that how he is referred by media sources, which mostly refer to him as "Sadhguru." I still have yet to see a policy based argument to ignore the named policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are now repeating the same argument that has already been debunked.
  1. He is not the only person who is using the honorifics Sadhguru, so no exclusive rights.
  2. The same arguement for POV Pushing can be said for the other side, that JAggi Vasudev's PR agency and his followers are attempting to push POV to rename this article to the honorific, instead of his common name.
  3. the OSHO example is a perfectly valid example used to rebut your flawed reasoning used above in support of your argument.
  4. Let me Quote a latest news from 8 November and notice what Qualifier they use.

Sources said that Jaggi Vasudev had made a proposal to the state government to build the statue. [14]

If indeed the subjects common name is Sadhguru, then ask yourself why isnt the media referring to him with Sadhguru ? Clearly the reason is COMMON NAME of the subject is Jaggi Vasudev and hence he is known by that, Wikipedia is not here to push the PR or POV of his supports. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It has clearly been shown above, with evidence from Google searches and reliable sources, that two conditions are met. 1. The guy is most commonly known as Sadhguru, with many more hits than the current title, and 2. He is the primary topic for the term with this spelling. Almost no other topics are returned. So per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's where he should reside. The fact that it may be an honorific is irrelevant, since it is the name actually used by the sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is unfortunately no reliable evidence provided either by Google searches and reliable sources. More reliable sources have been cited here that use Jaggi Vasudev or Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev or variants than "only" Sadhguru.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move. As per comments above, from User:Madrasiman, which shows both common usage of term Sadhguru and usage in recent, reliable sources to refer to this person. Also support as per User:Amakuru on PrimaryTopic. Would like to point out that this article was made in 2006, when this person was not very well-known, and was then generally referred to in sources as Jaggi Vasudev. But the situation now is very different. The name now most commonly used is Sadhguru. I believe the article should reflect this change. A decade is a long period of time and a topic/person may undergo changes in how it is commonly referred to. Wikipedia should be based on the current common usage, not what it was many years ago Bsnigam (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin:Madrasiman and Bsnigam (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Out of 56 edits by this user, 51 Live edits were made on Jaggi Vasudev topic.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a clear conflict of interest. Mr Vasudev may be True Teacher to some and in yoga books, but in 3rd party media, no: Isha Yoga Centre controversy In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Sadhguru is a honorific title, but the wikipedia policy states, that exceptions should be made for people who are primarily known for their honorific title. Serious newspapers obviously would write his real name for information purposes, but he's primarily known as Sadhguru, as evidenced by many sources already mentioned here. It's also obvious from his youtube presentation in multiple languages, that he's primarily known as Sadhguru.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should use the title that "serious newspapers" use for this person, which is "Jaggi Vasudev". Honorific titles used by promotional PR type articles should not be used. DBigXrayᗙ 00:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Amakuru, 1990'sguy and some others, despite I wanted to oppose the move but convinced otherwise by the arguments above. Google counts may be raw but it suggests something.. People are searching for Sadhguru and ends up on Jaggi Vasudev like Regstuff noted below. We can't refute the fact that Sadhguru is the most common name. This is English Wikipedia and we must prefer the name mostly used in English sources for referring any individual or subject. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regstuff's comment is about redirecting Sadhguru to Sadguru. I'm not sure how that is relevant here. 1990's guy is obviously unfamiliar with WP:NCIN. I've already addressed his other arguments and all the amateur "I saw more results for Sadhguru" Google searches in my other replies.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per wikicommonname and also he calls himself that ! do not know the fuss about if somebody changes his name we stick to old name! pretty creepy Shrikanthv (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't changed his name, he has just added a honorific word Sadhguru in the beginning. No one is fussing to stick to old name. WP:COMMONNAME guides the article title and not official name. For example Kanye West has publicly changed his name to "Ye", our article still hasnt changed , because Ye isnt his common name. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: Cpt.a.haddock sums it up well. Also, Sadhguru is a purely honorific name. I would support to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, but not to "Sadhguru". —usernamekiran(talk) 22:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect Sadhguru like Sadguru to Satguru

Once the above RM is done there should be some discussion whether Sadhguru, which is only a spelling variant, should like Sadguru go to Satguru with a hatnote. Note that the Kannada spelling of Sadhguru does not even redirect to this guru on Kannada wikipedia, nor in Hindi hi:सद्गुरु, nor Tamil. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree In South Indias regional languages, it is quite common to add an extra h to Hindi words that have the letter t, So Satguru becomes a Sathguru/sadhguru. Satguru should be a redirect target for Sadhguru. but because of Jaggi Vasudev, I am open to making Sadhguru a disambiguation page for the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any examples from reliable English sources using Sadhguru in place of Sadguru in a context that does not refer to Jaggi Vasudev? Any? Even if there are a few, if the vast majority of the uses of Sadhguru in reliable English sources refer to Jaggi Vasudev, then Sadhguru must at a minimum be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the article about him, as it currently is, and, barring the production of evidence to the contrary, should remain that way (if the above proposal is rejected). --В²C ☎ 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously. More to the point; this is a BLP, this is not the place to push views on WP:SMALLDETAILS and other titling hobby horses. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B2c asked "examples from reliable English sources". What you provided is an unreliable outdated source, not relevant to the subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, that looks reliable but is likely a primary source for Radha Soami and perhaps also of interest to Soamiji Maharaj, Huzur Maharaj, and Maharaj Saheb. It also does not appear to be outdated. It is cited by this reliable source.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source is in fact a good example of what we consider as unreliable source. Being cited by a 23 years old source is not evidence of relevance. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. A reader searching for Sadhguru is most likely looking for information about this person, not about the term. As a starting point, this comparison of pageviews shows that Satguru is not a page with much traffic compared to Sadhguru & Jaggi Vasudev. If people searching for Sadhguru were expecting to go to Satguru rather than the current page, then after being redirected to this page, they would very likely do another search on Wikipedia or Google or wherever for Satguru or Sadguru etc. That would lead to far more views on the Satguru page than there are currently. I'm not claiming this is a comprehensive analysis but redirecting Sadhguru to Satguru certainly makes no sense in the absence of more substantial evidence. Regstuff (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Regstuff (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. and has been sitebanned for undisclosed paid editing --DBigXrayᗙ 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi states that a hatnote on Satguru to point users looking for Jaggi Vasudev will do what you want.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That still makes no sense but only misleads readers. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The readers appear to be finding this page just fine.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Bsnigam (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Out of 56 edits by this user, 51 Live edits were made on Jaggi Vasudev topic.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose as we are on English wikipedia and as per Regstuff. There should be a hatnote link to Satguru, the honorifc title.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion – Since nobody (as far as I know) is arguing that this subject is the primary topic for the terms Satguru and Sadguru, the interesting question here really seems to be whether WP:SMALLDETAILS allows us to use this spelling variant as disambiguation. Normally we would have spelling variants all redirect to the same article. But what if one spelling variant seems to be mostly linked to a particular other topic as may be the case here? Please discuss... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In continuation of my comment above, here are some more examples of Sadhguru. As noted above Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. see this discussion, here are more folks using the same word.
And some more reliable sources
--DBigXrayᗙ 22:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaggi Vasudev Wikipedia machine and NPOV

Since the COI elephant in this room has already been noticed, here's a look at all the articles I could find on Wikipedia that are Jaggi Vasudev / ISHA related:

  1. Action for Rural Rejuvenation [created by Regstuff, 2010]
  2. Adiyogi Shiva statue [Vivvt, 2017]
  3. AYUSH-ISHA Organic Health Systems [Regstuff, 2012]
  4. Dhyanalinga [Priyavenkatarajan, 2007]
  5. Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy [Germansec, 2017]
  6. Isha Foundation [PushkarC, 2006]
  7. Isha Gramotsavam‎ [Regstuff, 2016]
  8. Isha Home School [Regstuff, 2011]
  9. Isha Life [Regstuff, 2011]
  10. Isha Vidhya [Regstuff and Sallyforisha, 2011]
  11. Isha Yoga [Regstuff, 2013]
  12. Linga Bhairavi [Madrasiman, 2017]
  13. Project GreenHands [Regstuff, 2010]
  14. Rally for Rivers [IndianEditor, a sock of My Lord, 2017]
  15. Yaksha (festival) [Regstuff, 2010]

It's possible that I've missed some. Setting aside the potential COI and promotional nature that is evident from the list above, note that some of these accounts as well as the socks of My Lord such as Iamgod12345, CEO of Universe, and GhostProducer have also been removing anything even remotely controversial about Jaggi or Isha from this and other related articles. This includes the section about about his wife's death and ensuing controversy (that Jaggi speaks about openly and extensively in the Subramaniam "biography"), Isha's controversies with illegal construction, the CAG report, etc.

In the case of this article, My Lord's socks have both added information to the "death of his wife" section as well as ultimately removing the entire thing as well as other criticism and leaving this dubious note. The same section was restored again by an IP before being removed less than 2 hours later citing a "discussion". There is also very little substance in this article currently about Jaggi himself. It concentrates more on promotional content about his foundation's projects, his participation in conferences, how TVS gave him a Mercedes, etc. This needs to be addressed. There's also a question of if and if so, how much of Arundhati Subraminiam's book can be used as a source here.

I've already started a merge request for many of the Isha articles over at Isha Foundation.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since some histories of the accounts have been mentioned here, I would further add that the negative content was mostly added by WP:SPAs who edited this article only for adding negative content.[15][16][17] Reverting them is not engaging in COI. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am replying here to a message left on my talk page by User:Cpt.a.haddock that I might have a COI with this page and other pages. Since this section includes my contributions, I will respond here.

First off, the above message seems to imply that creating these articles automatically qualifies for COI. My work on Wikipedia is primarily on content that interests me (not in the sense of COI, but in the sense of topical interest - eg. I am interested in wildlife/fighter jets/or whatever). Having a topical interest does not mean COI.

Secondly, it seems to be implied that none of the above articles should exist in the first place. That they are merely there as PR pieces and are not of any encyclopedic value. Speaking for the articles I created, most of them have been through at least a cursory review process. Many of them have been through DYK and also some assessment process in respective projects. I am not claiming that this is the be all and end all of a review process, and am willing to debate in respective talk pages whether they are notable enough etc. but to imply that these articles are mere PR pieces is pushing the envelope if you ask me.

Thirdly, if a reader were to go through the list above, he/she might draw the conclusion that my entire Wiki-activity is limited to just these pages. I would like to clarify here that my contributions are present in many other pages and not just Jaggi Vasudev/Isha-related (as Cpt.a.haddock puts it) ones. As a sample: Heliopithecus, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary, Pulney Andy, Janardhan Mitta, Mary Jobe Akeley, Tiger of Pilibhit are articles I created, besides working significantly on some already existing articles such as Djed. Many of these articles have also been through DYK.

My activity on Wikipedia has come down drastically since I first joined, but I still occasionally edit on a variety of pages and not just this one.

I believe Cpt.a.haddock has misunderstood my difference with him on the content of this page and the Isha Foundation page as a COI issue.

Since we are talking about NPOV and COI elephants, I would also like to call attention to a recent set of edits by User:DBigXray (reverted by another editor, and re-reverted by DBigXray), who inserted into the lede of a BLP, a sentence about murder charges, with a reference that does not even seem to be online. While offline refs may be fine in general, I wonder if it makes sense to use something like that in the lede of a BLP, especially when there does not seem to be any other supporting news article in the ensuing 20-odd years since this murder charge was supposedly made. How come the caution that exceptional claims need exceptional references doesnt hold here? There is not even an attempt at a balanced viewpoint. DBigXray also added a rather large section about Controversies, more or less single-handedly. The murder charge with offline ref makes it into this section too. Most of this content relies on just one reference - TheNewMinute, which seems borderline Yellow Journalism to me. No balancing viewpoiont has been given, even when there exist sources with such material. See here for example, where the court dismissed charges. All this was done with zero discussion on the talk page. This definitely is NPOV. Regstuff (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)  [reply]

There is no such requirement to only use online sources, 20 years back, newspapers were not online. You are mixing everything in one thread. read the thread topic and discuss on particular topic. start spereate threads for individual issues.--DBigXrayᗙ 04:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It only shows that the allegation is so insignificant that reliable sources or court is not bothering about it. We should be doing the same. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reverts with misleading edit summary

I have reverted edit by User:Raymond3023 which did a blanket revert of multiple edits and article improvements and reliably sourced content, if you have concerns on any particular edit or line discuss here. Such mass edits with misleading edit summaries are considered disruptive edits, do not repeat this again. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD. You can't restore insignificant allegations made by partisan sources (father of the victim from 1997) that does not affect the BLP of the person. You can restore only if the incident is very frequently referred in the biographical context or he has been convicted. Rest of your environmental activists content clearly violates WP:NOTADVOCACY. In place of restoring edits by SPAs,[18][19] consider abiding the policy on WP:BLP and don't restore disputed content. How often reliable sources make these allegations when they talk about him? You can also start discussion on WP:BLPN or start an WP:RFC but I can assure that it will result in removal of content you are adding. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:STONEWALLING, I am open to discussions and further improvements. What i am not ready is to have folks doing mass reverts with misleading edit summaries. if there is specific sourcing issue point it here. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No misleading edit summary was used. I carefully reviewed the content before reverting. Just because you have a source, it doesn't means it would require inclusion otherwise every other BLP would include large amount of negative content contrary to WP:BLPGOSSIP. That is not an improvement. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i see that you have reverted me again. I am giving you chance to explain each and every problem that you have. Seperately. If you have no explanation i expect you to restore that particular edit. You have reverted 13 edits to be precise. And i expect a proper reason for each. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT3RR as removing BLP violation is exempt from reverting. Those 13 edits don't look any different to what had been added before and you brought nothing new to the article that we haven't discussed and rejected before per WP:BLP. I am not going to restore the edits, since I have already provided the reason and there was consensus before for removing them. You can "start discussion on WP:BLPN or start an WP:RFC". You can check another recent RfC from recent times involving this kind of discussion which ended up in exclusion of BLP violating content. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Your edit warring by using partisan sources is becoming disruptive. You falsely claim "Restore other edits that were reverted in the blanket reverts and no explanation provided on talk for these",[20] when I clearly stated above that "Rest of your environmental activists content clearly violates WP:NOTADVOCACY". You are still violating WP:BLP by using POV sub-headers, showing insignificant allegations as convictions. Your editing issues also includes the above badgering on page move request. I am tempted to bring this issue to WP:ANI, since you are not following the usual WP:BRD process and edit warring over poor content. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this to the BLP noticeboard. Regstuff (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be repeated WP:Edit warring regarding this content. I have therefore protected the article for 24 hours. Please resolve issues here rather than warring over them at the article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond3023 if something I said is not clear to you then you should ask that clearly before making a reply. I called out your edits as misleading because I had made several edits (total 15) first time that counted as a "Bold edits" and not a revert. Raymond as he stated in his edit summary had concern with the allegations about his wife and yet he reverted all 13 edits. The said content on wife, was reliably sourced and mass revert of other 13 edits was clearly uncalled for in my opinion, so I made my first revert. And I immediately started a talk page discussion.
  • Instead of joining the talk page discussion, Raymond made a second blanket revert That only referred to the allegation. It was clearly a misleading edit summary for the type of blanket edit that was done. Raymond then joined the talk page and said that he opposed content related to his wife [21]. So I removed from my edit, the content related to his wife, that was objected by him and restored my other edits [22], this revert clearly wasn't the same as the first revert and yet I was blanket reverted by Raymond for a second time again again without proper edit summary. This was clearly disruptive reverts from Raymond with misleading edit summary, but nevertheless I decided not to make any further edits on any of those contents.
  • As of now I am still waiting for a response from Raymond on why he reverted the other 13 edits I made. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 November 2018

Please remove 'illegal' from the description under Adiyogi picture : Change 'The illegal 112-foot Great Adiyogi statue.' to 'The 112-foot Great Adiyogi statue.'

Why 'illegal' is added in the caption? There are no official statements from the government regarding this. I believed that Wikipedia have unbiased content, but this kind of descriptions makes me rethink. 122.169.2.30 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Amakuru, could you please remove "illegal" from the caption? Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adiyogi Statue

Cpt.a.haddock and Amakuru Please see these sources.

So your best sources are: "thenewsminute.com", "thelogicalindian.com", "inuth.com", all 3 are undoubtedly unreliable sources and Dnaindia.com says "activists allege that the Isha Foundation has constructed illegal structures".[23] Contrary to what these unreliable sources say, you are ruling the statue to be illegal.[24] Do you still fail to see that you are engaging in blatant POV pushing by using unreliable sources? Raymond3023 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see that I didn't make myself clear in my earlier reply. The 'illegal' aspect is already mentioned in the article. I don't believe that the image needs to be captioned provocatively. The last I see is that the matter is still awaiting a hearing. Raymond, there are reliable sources available which specifically note that the government states that Isha's constructions are illegal/unauthorised.
That said, IMO the article should concentrate more on the subject and less on the activities of the Isha foundation.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the sensible approach, Cpt.a.haddock. If the matter is still pending in the courts then probably best not to say in a caption, in Wikipedia's voice, that the status is "illegal". The matter can be discussed more fully in the prose.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an allegation about foundation that was reported nearly 2 years ago and still awaits a hearing. Now that requires no mention on this BLP article. Nearly all of the reliable sources talk about the statue without mentioning these claims. These allegations were covered on Adiyogi Shiva statue and they shouldn't be added here and that's why we should remove the second paragraph on Jaggi Vasudev#Adiyogi statue, which was added today with an unreliable source. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru and Cpt.a.haddock, if you guys feel the caption does not merit this, then its ok. I would like to go with the consensus here and will not argue any further for changing the caption of the statue.
Now regarding the article, it must still include these content in the relevant sections. The Statement from the TN Government is the official statement from the country, and bears enough notability to have a mention. Raymond, You feel that just because this mentions is in contravention of the PR piece of this subject it has to be trashed. Unfortunately that is not true Wikipedia gives equal weightage to all significant views and mentions both sides. The Views of the Government here has equal if not (more or less) importance than the views of Jaggi Vasudev here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not "because this mentions is in contravention of the PR piece of this subject" but we are not going to report unproven allegations for countering the stated facts about the statue, none of which are "views of Jaggi Vasudev" but facts. If the statement "bears enough notability" then why it has not received significant coverage in nearly two years? There is a very big difference between unproven allegation and facts, and we can't put these two things together when we are only providing a summary on this article. Read WP:GEVAL which refutes your misunderstanding. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has received widespread coverage in multiple reliable media, It has been discussed in the State Assembly, so much so that even Comptroller and Auditor General of India had reported that this is unauthorized. This itself is of enough notability to bear a mention in the article.
--DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until those allegations are not proven, they should be kept on the main article of the subject only as allegation but not here unless there is conviction or validity, something they currently lack. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have a one sided mention of the subject (i.e. only from the point of view of Jaggi Vasudev), Either you present both sides of the view, or you remove the entire section from this article. The state government has issued a locking and sealing and demolition notice only after deciding on the facts. If Jaggi doesn't agree, that doesn't make the facts from the state government null and void. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If allegations are so strong then we can wait until they are proven correct. Read WP:NOCRIT, which discourages adding such a para or a section that is solely dedicated to criticism. Environmentalists or land department would predictably oppose any construction especially when it is as popular as this one. But again per WP:NOCRIT, you can lend same weight only when the controversy gets same weight as the general information about the subject. Qualitist (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt.a.haddock, Raymond3023 and Qualitist Yes, these charges are severely strong. Comptroller and Auditor General of India has also criticised Jaggi, CAG doesn't comment on small issues. These are not just allegations but a demolition notice is already active. Jaggi disputes that is another matter, depending on the final verdict, the verdict information will also be added. For now both sides, CAG, TN Govt, and Jaggi's point needs to be mentioned here. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of weight to this criticism as noted by all the articles already cited here. However, I believe that it belongs over at Adiyogi statue rather than here. I don't think Adiyogi deserves a section here and only a mention. Dhyanalinga might as it's apparently Vasudev's dream project.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cpt.a.haddock Ok, If Adiyogi has a full section here, then the illegal status of the statue deserves a mention in that section. But if only a one line mention of statue is here, then probably we can skip the controversy here. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray: you must be on a crusade against the subject but please dont treat Wikipedia as your personal battleground. You can write your own blog instead. Qualitist (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitist : you must be on a crusade to support the subject but please dont treat Wikipedia as your personal battleground. You can write your own blog instead. (as for me I am only here to make this WP:PUFF piece on the subject neutral--DBigXrayᗙ 11:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of his wife

@Regstuff, DBigXray, and Raymond3023: Can we actually discuss this issue here instead of simply being played by sockfarms on either side? FWIW, the article already uses "offline refs" as a lot of citations are based on newspaper clippings and (unreliable) reposts of newspaper articles which are hosted on ISHA sites. The original section on her death used a Tehelka article as a source. Secondly, I agree that a balancing viewpoint on the controversy of Jaggi's wife's death needs to be provided and IMO, the Subramaniam book does provide this and in some detail. That also lends substance to the notability of the event and makes it worthy of inclusion.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed from the article

A murder case was filed against him by his father-in-law, alleging that Jaggi had killed his wife on 23 January 1997 and cremated her hurriedly against her community customs of burying. The father-in-law had requested Jaggi to wait till he could reach them but the cremation was carried out in his absence.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Godman Charged with wife's murder". The Indian Express. Express News Service. 10 October 1997.
  • Yes, There is absolutely no mention of his wife either in the early life section or the controversy section. The content is reliably sources. if there are differences in the wording, that can be copy edited. but this article cannot completely remove any mention about his wife. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cpt.a.haddock: Section used only unreliable sources. Subramaniam treats the allegation as unrealistic and false, and that gives us another reason why a non-notable accusation is not worthy of inclusion.
DBigXray: see WP:BLPGOSSIP. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subramaniam offers Jaggi's version. She calls it the darkest hour in Isha's history. So, no. It is very noteworthy.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a single chapter dedicated to this insignificant allegation in the book that has over 250 pages but a couple of sentences which prove nothing. You talk about "darkest hour in Isha's history", but what about the "darkest chapter in Sadhguru's life" which was 1999 (2 years later) according to the same book? The book itself reads how insignificant the allegation and thus it should not be placed here unless he actually gets convicted or it is regularly well-documented. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond3023, I am curious as to why you dont want the mentions about this person's better half in his article. The sources here are reliable and not just gossip sites. you arent making any sense here. Currently The article doesnt say anything about his only wife and this is very strange. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have found a single off-line source from 1997, which you recovered from past rejected edits from the article history. They are not noteworthy or significant. He was not convicted and neither his career is being affected by the apparent false allegations. A 21 year old allegations that ended up with no arrest is not noteworthy. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
rejected by whom ? Just because you edit warred and removed it from the article doesn't make it rejected. Indian Express is a reliable source. This may be insignificant for you. For me this has enough significance to bear a mention. the arguments so far put forward by you are weak. try harder--DBigXrayᗙ 16:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you want to have the final word in the debate. See talk page archives. Repeating yourself won't develop consensus. My argument is completely supported by WP:BLP, while yours isn't. If you want to restore the BLP violation like you already did 3 times after the page is unprotected then I would strong discourage you from doing that. Read carefully what I had written above and consider dropping this matter unless you can address the issue without repeating yourself. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not reading from the same book, Raymond3023. For other editors looking on, one of the pages on this subject can be viewed on Google Books. His wife's role in his life is notable. Her death by "mahasamadhi" is notable. And the controversy around it is notable enough for him to address and refute. It doesn't necessarily need to be in a dedicated section and it certainly does not merit mention in the lede. But it needs to be there. As I've mentioned before, this article needs to focus more on the man and his life, and less on his foundation.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with what Cpt.a.haddock says, In my opinion all the related information about his wife as mentioned by Cpt immediately above needs to go into the early life section. The mention of his wife in the lead can be skipped depending on MOS:LEAD--DBigXrayᗙ 10:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources that lend any weight to these allegations as possibility on frequent basis? If no, then inclusion is not worth it. Qualitist (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mentioning allegations dating more than 21 years ago, that ended up with no arrest is clearly redundant. An RfC can be started if someone wants to include but I think it will also end up rejecting this information like another recent RfC.[25] Raymond3023 (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

I tried to add a hatnote to point to other forms of "Sadhguru", which redirects here, after closing the move request above. It seemed appropriate, per WP:R#PLA, to add a hat directing users to articles we have about different subjects having to do with the term and its different spelling variations. If the close is overturned and the article is moved to Sadhguru, I would think we'd still have a hatnote, although the wording would change, obviously. I was reverted, for reasons that are mysterious to me. Any thoughts? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't there should be a hatnote,as the term "Sadhguru" is unambiguous. It only refers to this guy, as a Google search will verify. That's the essence of why your close above was a poor one. The assertion that it's an alternative spelling of Satguru is simply not supported by sources or evidence.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously an alternative spelling/romanization of सद्गुरु; there is a quite clear demonstration of that above, which I'm sure you're aware of. But sure, this romanization is usually (not always) used for/by/about this subject, so the point remains, I suppose. But even in that case, shouldn't we have one of those "Not to be confused with Satguru." hatnotes? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Eric that the hatnote [26] that said "Sadhguru" redirects here. For other uses, see Satguru. should be restored. The removal of this obviously useful hatnote is non constructive and misleading users (looking for Satguru) and leading them to this page with no alternative route to the article they may be looking for. Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. see this discussion, here are more folks using the same honorific.
--DBigXrayᗙ 19:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are examples of anyone sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia who is referred to as Sadhguru. None of those are examples from reliable English sources using Sadhguru to refer to anyone or anything other than the subject of this article. There is nothing useful about the hatnote in question; much less anything obviously useful about it. It's arguably disruptive, as is even having this ridiculous discussion. --В²C ☎ 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are deliberately forcing a very large population of Indian users who refer to alt spelling "Sadhguru" of Satguru to a come to this page, and preventing them to read the article that they are looking for. this is not the notability test for a new article.
ErikHaugen it seems that a set of users are bent on enforcing their own personal bias/opinions on other on this article, what should be the next step, RfD or RfC ? --DBigXrayᗙ 20:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What personal bias? I know nothing about this subject other than what I've learned from looking at usage in English sources. Why would someone be looking for an English spelling variant that refers to a subject in an English encyclopedia for which there are no such examples of that variant referring to that subject in English sources? We don't create hatnotes for any other variants under similar circumstances; why should we here? --В²C ☎ 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others. Please clarify, which part of my statement "A large population of Indian population writes Satguru as Sadhguru in english" is not clear to you ? --DBigXrayᗙ 20:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My personal knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant here, especially of usage in a non-English language. Your claim is clear. Your basis is not. SHOW ME THE RELIABLE ENGLISH SOURCES! --В²C ☎ 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B2C learn to be calm like Sadhguru Swami Sundara Chaitanyananda

Please maintain WP:CIVILITY there is no need to WP:SHOUT. See below

--DBigXrayᗙ 22:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously believe those are reliable English sources please review WP:RS. —В²C ☎ 22:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are articles on newspapers such as The Hindu The New Indian Express Mathrubhumi and Government Of India websites not RS for you.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a few references to Sadhguru but most if not all seem bloggy. Most of the legit RS references don't seem to use Sadhguru. But I did not do a thorough examination. Can you cull these down to actual references to Sadhguru in English Reliable Sources? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and then eliminate those that are referring to someone as Sadhguru but who is not sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia. If anything is left that would qualify as relevant here. Sorry if I missed it, but I don't see any. --В²C ☎ 23:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't help you to read.
Remember, Notability is for Topic, RS is for content, dont mix the two. WP:BURDEN has been met, You should now self revert to restore User:ErikHaugen's hat. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid arguing when you dont even understand that you are trying to generate a false impression that we have articles on other "Sadhguru" except this one. Let's start from "The Hindu"[28][29] then. Where these sources made any mention of "Sadhguru" especially the one with article on Wikipedia? Similar issue can be discovered with Indian express[30] and other sources. Are you even reading the sources or just linking anything? Qualitist (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
DBigXray, RS is not just for content. Usage in English RS is how we determine WP:COMMONNAME: ...prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Stop wasting everyone's time. If you can find any Sadhguru references to anyone other than the subject of this article, in English RS, who is also sufficiently notable to be in WP, please produce your citations. What you have spitted out here is a wall of time-and-resource-wasting irrelevant noise. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • B2C, I have already asked you to maintain CIVILITY in your comments, Such foul language only shows you in bad light.
  • By calling articles on newspapers such as The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Mathrubhumi and Government Of India websites as "unreliable", you are only raising questions on your own ability to judge reliable sources.
  • First you make frivolous claim, questions based on your flawed understanding about the word "Sadhguru" and when your claims and questions are responded to with examples and solid evidences then you claim that the comment is irrelevant to the RM discussion and call it filibuster. It is becoming amusing and funny now.
  • if instead of throwing ad hominems, if you actually read the links above, you will be able to see the several examples, that have been bolded for ease of readability that I listed above of folks being known by the name Sadhguru (and other phonetic forms of the same word). Just because you see it differently does not make the word different from each other. Anyway its not up to me to make someone see the obvious, By putting all these examples on record, I have made this very clear, why it is Honorific and why so many others are also called by this name. And why this hat mentioning Satguru should be restored --DBigXrayᗙ 18:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • B2C, you accusing people of wasting others' time is pretty rich. Both of you need to chill out. Anyway I don't think RS are really needed to establish that people occasionally spell it this way. I mean, surely you wouldn't require us to find an article in a reliable source describing all the spelling variations of the term before we add a {{Distinguish}} ;) That would be silly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sadhguru&oldid=875002961"