Jump to content

Talk:Sadhguru/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

One - the film

He is part of this film's quest and journey, too.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.4.122 11:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ONE : the Movie -, http://www.filmz.de/film_2007/one_der_film/ -- 88.72.4.122 11:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

-- 88.72.4.122 12:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

at the bottom you can find Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

-- 88.72.4.122 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/BiographienE/Elisa.html

Mercury claim softened

I have visited the Dhyanalinga temple, and it is true that followers claim that ancient alchemical techniques unknown to modern science were used to solidify mercury at room temperature. I state here no opinion on the truth or falsehood of that claim, but merely not that it is a rather extraordinary claim. Rather than our simply stating it to be true, I think we should "go meta" and state what is unquestionable: that followers claim it to be true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're the boss. M.Nelson (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Symbol

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.211 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues

I understand that there are plenty of charlatans etc in the sphere that the subject of this article operates. However, dedicated "controversy" sections are not usually a good idea and especially so in biographies of living people. Worse still when they appear as a list and are legal allegations that don;t even end up in the court system. Is there no other way to handle the issues? - Sitush (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Gnani Sannidhilo ISBN ISBN 978-81-879100-01 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-5

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Dhyanalinga: The Eternal Form, ISBN 81-87910-12-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy, neutrality tags?

Lots of tags have been added to the page in July 2016 about factual accuracy and lack of neutrality, but there seems to be no discussion or even an attempt at one on the talk page. Can the user who left these tags or anyone else please begin the discussion as to why these were applied.Regstuff (talk)

  • It's been 10 days and no discussion. So removing the tags. If anyone sees any issues in the article that need to be resolved, please put it up for on this page for discussion.Regstuff (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I wasn't the earlier tagger, but I do think some of the tags may have been somewhat warranted. For sure the article's overall tone is still very autobio/fan-ish. (Unfortunately there's isn't a WP:AUTOBIO-FAN-ISH template :-) ) I dunno -- if it's failing WP:NPOV, it's only just over the line and I'm not sure it deserves a tag. Could we perhaps just do a bit of "neutralification" (if that's not a word, it should be) as we prune here and there. As a start, I just shoved a {{Better source}} onto the opening sentence, which currently points only to sadhguru.org. Sleety Dribble (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Issues

Several templates regarding the article's quality and notability have been placed on the page. The edit unfortunately does not identify what parts of the article are questionable. IMO this article does not deserve these templates as it is properly referenced, is NPOV, and the subject is notable. If there are any issues with the article, can someone please point out. The template was added from an IP, and not a registered user. I've left a PM but the IP doesn't seem to be an active user and has no other edits. Regstuff (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Since this article has already been rated on the quality scale, there are sufficient reliable references for it, and it has also passed the notability test as seen on top of this talk page, I am removing the article issues templates since no specific issues have been raised either in the article or the talk page. If there are any issues, please raise them here. Regstuff (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing on this. I'm new but I don't see any major issues aside from the need for editing, which I've made a start on. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulfah72 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Page issue

1 page issue is listed as

"This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2017)"

As far as I read article I didn't find anything like that So I think it should be removed GhostProducer (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicacy of Rally for Rivers

Two similar versions of Rally for Rivers currently exists - one as a section in this page and another as a section in Isha Foundation. Should we remove the section from one of the pages and link the references to the section in the other page, in order to avoid redundancy? As the Isha Foundation is working for the rally as a team, I suggest we maintain the section in the Isha Foundation page and refer to that section from this page wherever necessary. @GhostProducer: the last manual change to the section on Isha Foundation page was recently made by you, what's your opinion? If no one has objection, we'll go ahead with deleting the section here in a week's time - on 9th October? - Sbhtta (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sbhtta: Hey there buddy First of all you are doing tremendous job 😊and as far as your message is concerned I suggest we should keep it on both pages with different text .And the Comment is made by Sadhguru as well as Isha Foundation.So its important to keep it on both pages. And one more thing is that number of celebrities should be reduced in Rally for Rivers section. What do you think about that.😉😉

@GhostProducer: Agreed, we can maintain different points of discussion and quotes on this page and the Isha Foundation page, depending upon the context of the entity being referenced in the sources. I also agree that the number of celebrities named explicitly in this section can be reduced. But I don't have a criterion for which names to keep and which to remove. Maybe we can bunch the names by the sources and quote only a couple of names from each source to reduce the number. I'll do that? - Sbhtta (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sbhtta: Ok then we should keep it on both pages with different text. And as Celebrities are concerned I think we should keep 2 -2 names of Politicians, Celebrities, Cricketers etc etc. As we don't have any rule for that. And it would cover every sector. And If you have any other suggestion please do tell that. Thanks GhostProducer (talk)

@Sbhtta: What do you think ???? Should I proceed deleting some names in Rally for Rivers Section. GhostProducer (talk)

@GhostProducer: Yes, that'll be great. Thanks! - Sbhtta (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary content deletion by User:IndianEditor, bias suspected.

It has come to my notice that the user named "IndianEditor" has been removing properly cited content quoting flimsy reasons. I added a sentence to the "Rally for Rivers" section providing info on the vehicle that Sadhguru is using in the rally. That is information very pertinent to the rally, and there is no valid reason to remove it.

I went through the edit history, and the same user also deleted the entire controversy section. I strongly suspect that the said user is extremely biased in his opinions. I will look into restoring the controversies section with properly cited material if and when I have free time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HakunaMatata1993 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this "The Quint" a tabloid? I think it's somewhat nosense criticism. This was about preventing river pollution. CO2 is natural nontoxic gas essential for plant growth. Clothes manufacture and washing also an environmental burden.. should he have went the rally by foot and naked? —Mykhal (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a debate forum. As long as a submission is backed by proper citations and is relevant to the topic, it shouldn't be vandalized. If you have an alternate article disproving the Quint report, feel free to quote the study and cite the article. Also, if you actually read the wiki article on CO2, you could realize how reducing CO2 emissions is essential for environment protection. 210.94.41.89 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarized?? And well, why not add this reference to all articles about environmental protection acts where their actors were not naked but clothed. By the way e.g. here one can discover that oceanic plastic waste pollution is more life threatening that carbon dioxide "pollution" (which I am not denying). Anyway, i'm unrelated to this, just wanted to express my undesranding of this particular IndianEditor's edit. —Mykhal (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
.. but i was unfortunately apparently misinformed what is the Rally about, now i understand the criticism more, and i'm abstaining from commenting this topic further. —Mykhal (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, my observations about User:IndianEditor is not limited to that particular edit, but his entire edit history on this article. In this particular case, I don't want to be a party to the debate on merits of Quint's criticism. The fact that this criticism exists is a piece of information relevant to the topic. In fact, I'd say this is the most relevant piece of criticism on Rally for Rivers, and has been quoted by multiple other news outlets too. That merits a mention in the wiki article on the same. HakunaMatata1993 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

IndianEditor has been blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping

@Sitush: have you got some appetite to take up your broom and clean-out this article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said some years ago, as far as I am concerned the guy is a charlatan and his supporters are idiots for being deceived by him. I am way too biassed to do much here. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Osho

@Borris83: maybe you're right that Jaggi Vasudev is an avid reader of Osho diff diff, but Quaora and blogs are not the right kind of sources for such statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

But it's interesting what a Google-search on "Jaggi Vasudev" "osho" presents, like this. Reminds me of some western guru's who offer expensive short-cut tours to enlightenment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


Science

@Iamgod12345: Can you please explain the issues you have with the sources I used in the science section. Reverted by you here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaggi_Vasudev&diff=808142516&oldid=808142052 One of the source is a well referenced blog post. The other is a search result of sadhguru's own website.

Others reading this please do chime in on how you feel about having a section on Sadhguru's views on science. Charsikid (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charsikid: Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources Iamgod12345 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iamgod12345: The blog I used is not a personal blog and not hosted on a generic platform. It is part of an organisation's domain and the writing is quite technical and well cited. Does this not make the source credible enough? For the benefit of other readers. This is the source URL in question - http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/26/jaggi-vasudev-doesnt-understand-science-or-the-nature-of-the-universe Charsikid (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charsikid:

According to Wikipedia policies: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, web forums, blogs, and tweets as a source for material about a living person unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material

If you will read the article you will see the author has given his opinions which is against the policies of Wikipedia.

And the author is not expert in religion area and has written 1 article since 2012 which makes me doubt the author.

If you will read some articles on the http://nirmukta.com you will find the whole Website is biased towards Hinduism and works like a propaganda-like Islamic Websites nowadays are against Indian religions and are spreading fake information.

I really doubt who host the Website Iamgod12345 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iamgod12345: Currently the nirmukta article is the most comprehensive piece I have found outlining the contradictions and misconceptions in Sadhguru's views on science. It would have been useful to have a more mainstream sources in addition to this but I am struggling to find them since Sadhguru's own websites have spammed the terms 'science', 'engineering' etc. I will come back to this in a few days.

I think having a section on science and Sadhguru's views on it will be worthwhile to balance out the article a little bit. Need input from other contributers on this. Charsikid (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charsikid: This article is already balanced and there is rarely any source supporting your Section Science. I too tried to find it but what I found were personal blogs and nothing. Iamgod12345 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism or not

Can we please get some consensus on the issue of Jaggi's religion ? There seem to be frequent edits just going to and fro between 'Hinduism' and 'None'. While Sadhguru has himself claimed to follow no religion some of the sermons I have seen from him do borrow a lot from Hinduism. He also is involved with a 'shivalinga' statue construction. Charsikid (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

He is Agnostic. You May Conceive it by Reading his Article On 'Sprituality'. David Tim (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

According to Oxford Dictionary Agnostic means

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.[1]

But my friend he never said one can't know the Ultimate Truth. Right from 1992, he is Saying By Yoga you can know the Ultimate Truth.

Your Statement has no meaning Iamgod12345 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When Did he Say That he Follows Hinduism? Why don't you Keep It to None,Rather than Branding him With Hinduism? David Tim (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Read my comment here [3] Iamgod12345 (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What an idiot you are,he has also been influenced by Buddhism,does that make his Religion as Buddhism? 

David Tim (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

He is either Agnostic or None. David Tim (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what are you smoking. If he doesn't tech Hindu teachings then what did he teach huh????? Islamic Teachings??? Iamgod12345 (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please Read my Comment over here - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev#/talk/15 David Tim (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic

Sadhguru's Religion

This Discussion was meant for 'Iamgod12345' I don't know why ignorant people like Iamgod12345 are Allowed to stay on Wikipedia. His teachings are not only based on Hinduism but also on Buddhism,Self Exploration/Experience and many more. Now does that make him a Hindu??? If Yes,then I think I should Create an Article on Ignorant People! And for God sake,please stop Editing the Article repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tim (talk • contribs) 07:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

He teaches his Kriya Yoga. And that's not in Buddhism. It's in Hinduism and I already said His all work revolves around Hinduism. Eg. Shiva Lingam, Lingam Brhavai, Dhayana Lingam. He doesn't teach Buddha's way. His teachings are influenced by Shiva. Please don't edit again and again or you will be blocked. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remember u can't edit more than 3 to times a day Anmolbhat (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change it again and again. As I said He teaches Kriya Yoga Iamgod12345 (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey,Both you Indian fools. Does he Only Teach 'Kriya Yoga'? Isn't it a lot more than that? Being an Indian I can Conclude that 'Indian Ignorance' is the highest Level of Ignorance an Ignorant Person can Reach. Please back up Your Stupid Claims Before Talking Like an Idiot. And Who said he Doesn't Teach Buddha's Way And Only Shiva's way.There are Videos all Around the Internet where he Shows Buddha's way. So Please Die,the Earth doesn't Require the Existence of Arrogant Fools. 


David Tim (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And For Fuck Sake Stop Editing again and again. David Tim (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Why Don't You just Accept the Fact that he has nothing to do with Religion.Please Stop Claiming that he Follows Hinduism Without any Proper Backup! 

47.29.56.93 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaggi Vasudev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

  • The reason I am removing the Critisism here [4] is because of WP:BLPSPS. Now The Quint is not self Published source but as WP:BLPSPS says

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals. We can't add criticism because the author's are not professional.

  • And as far as this [5] is concerned. According to WP:BLPCRIME(For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction).So let the case get solved and then we will add that. It also voilates WP:LPNAME as said by policy: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it.This happened in case of his wife.It also voilates WP:PUBLICFIGURE because there are not multiple sources as one can see here [6] the only thing we can get in hands are blogs. As said by policy : If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
  • And for this [7]. It goes same as previous.

As this a Article of living person we should not take chance.Anmolbhat (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaggi Vasudev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev's Great Grandmother who Fed Ants in the 60's/70's: 'a devil of a woman'

Jaggi Vasudev has used a story about the seemingly unusual behavior of one of his great grandmothers in his talks on numerous occasions. I think it would be interesting to know something about this person: is there any source from the 1960's or 1970's (or after) that says there was a supercentenarian in the Mysuru area? Being 113 or 114 years of age at death is a news-making claim, and I would imagine that the newspapers would probably document the peculiarities of this person's life as well. Starting from the most literal interpretation of the claim, who were his grandparents (and step-grandparents, if any) through his parents Dr. Vasudev and Susheela? I imagine that some of this information should be in the public record. Once we know that, then we can see if any of his four great grandmothers (or any potential step-great grandmothers) seem consistent with this story. If none of them match, then maybe this story is based on the story of a person from the area who lived to old age. Whatever the facts are, it would be interesting to know more. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy

There needs to be a philosophy section here. Sadhguru is not in the tradition of astika by not believing in any scriptures. I think that is a very significant deviation of standard yogic tradition.--2A02:8388:3C1:4480:7C79:BFB0:AFE4:F7A1 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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.[8][9][10] Reverting them is not engaging in COI. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)  

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)
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)

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)

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)
 Done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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.[11] Raymond3023 (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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".[12] Contrary to what these unreliable sources say, you are ruling the statue to be illegal.[13] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.

  • The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has pulled up the Tamil Nadu Forest Department over some unapproved constructions by the Isha Foundation in an ecologically sensitive zone in the state. - Firstpost

  • The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has pulled up the forest department for failing to act against illegal construction by Isha Foundation in the protected area of Booluvapatti reserve forest range in Coimbatore. - DNA News Act against illegal structures by Isha Foundation, forest department told

  • Days after holding an extravaganza attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Isha Foundation in Coimbatore is facing the heat after the State government informed the Madras High Court that the organisation had constructed buildings without obtaining mandatory permissions. - Indian Express Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation buildings unauthorised, State tells Madras High Court

  • Times of India 2013 Isha Foundation violates building rules, Tamil Nadu govt say
  • The Hindu HC, green tribunal issue notice to Isha Foundation

  • “I would like to inform you that on December 24, 2012, the deputy director, town and country planning, Coimbatore region, issued locking and sealing and demolition notice to Isha Foundation, Coimbatore directing them to demolish all the buildings on the campus in Ikkarai Pooluvampatty village and restore the land to its original condition.- Times of India

--DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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,[14][15] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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",[16] 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)
I have added this to the BLP noticeboard. Regstuff (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • 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 [17]. So I removed from my edit, the content related to his wife, that was objected by him and restored my other edits [18], 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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
See for example this source and this and this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
— 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)
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)
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)
Please provide evidence to support your position. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
I will note here that I am in agreement with all the points noted by Cpt above. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 [19] [20] [21] [22][23] 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[24] but our article does not mention Sadguru in the title. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
— 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
Thank you for providing your hard-hitting evidence.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • 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."[31] 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [32]

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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
— 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
— 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)
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)
That still makes no sense but only misleads readers. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The readers appear to be finding this page just fine.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
— 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
  • I agree with Eric that the hatnote [33] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If you seriously believe those are reliable English sources please review WP:RS. —В²C ☎ 22:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"[35][36] then. Where these sources made any mention of "Sadhguru" especially the one with article on Wikipedia? Similar issue can be discovered with Indian express[37] and other sources. Are you even reading the sources or just linking anything? Qualitist (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
-
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

references to anyone other than the subject of this article, in English RS, who is also sufficiently notable to be in WP – That isn't the question, though. The thing that is notable enough, which might cause confusion or be hard to find without a hatnote, is the subject Satguru, not any particular person. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sadhgurumother tongue is Telugu

Looks like someone had deleted this information on the article, I restored it for now, the source on the article looks reliable.

Ripapart (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sadhguru called a Muslim Student a Taliban at the London School of Economics

Hello!

I have been trying to add a section to the Wikipedia page of Jaggi Vasudev under the heading of 'Criticism and Controversy' with complete citation.

The content of the added section is as follows:

"A recent controversy against Sadhguru revolves around him calling a Muslim student, Bilal Bin Saqib, at the London School of Economics and Political Science, a ‘Taliban’ which was severely condemned by the LSE Students’ Union who referred it as an ‘Islamophobic’ comment and allegedly asked for an apology. The justification Jaggi gave in his video reply to the Students’ Union for calling the student a Taliban was his belief that in India it means “an ardent student” or someone who is “over-enthusiastic”. The apology was rejected by the Students’ Union claiming that the comments perpetuate a culture of casual islamophobia which needs to be condemned at all conditions."

The citation for this section can be read through this link: https://beaveronline.co.uk/%EF%BB%BFspiritual-leader-condemned-after-calling-lse-student-taliban-at-lsesu-event/

However, I received a message later on that the content is not constructive whereas I would like to clear that the information provided is a factual-based content. Let me know what can be done to get this section published on the Wikipedia page!

[1]

Dany Brave (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I haven't checked the credibility of the source but this content is not worthy of inclusion on the Wiki page. If we include incidents like this on biographical page then there will be too many such news-making events flooding the page which don't convey any particular point. Chaos1618 (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Mr. Jaggi Vasudevs controversy should be added in wikipedia or have nothing about him at all. Just don't to white talks to make him appear great. Put the facts out. His controversies are a very important part for people to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:538D:822E:109A:3C30:B497:EFB2 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://beaveronline.co.uk/%EF%BB%BFspiritual-leader-condemned-after-calling-lse-student-taliban-at-lsesu-event/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sadhguru/Archive_1&oldid=1145715359"