Talk:Nirmala Srivastava/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

2007 Indian flag controversy

An editor removed the material at Nirmala Srivastava#2007 Indian flag controversy, withthe edit summary:

• (rmv unsourced content) [1]

Yet the material clearly references a reliable source.[2] -Will Beback · † · 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I mis-read the Yahoo source and mistook it for a Yahoo groups link. My bad. Sfacets 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this paragraph has nothing to do with Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi article. As it is said, "some foreigner Sahaja Yogi brought our Flag and without meaning any disrespect, kept it on the ground". She didn't put the flag on the ground. So Michalis9 is right, this parapgraph is irrelevant in this article. I suggest we remove it--Agenor 77 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because the apology said that, it doesn't make it true, as you well know. Nor does it change the fact that this is a notable event in NS's biography. --Simon D M (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag "controversy"

There is nothing to show the relevance or notability of the "incident". Is this a section about a photograph circulated on a forum? Sfacets 10:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the most notorious event in Mataji's career. I agree that it shouldn't be like that, but that's the way it is. --Simon D M 12:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The most notorious event of Shri Mataji is Self Realization giving to peole en masse through Her meditation. --Agenor 77 12:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of the incident is that it involved the subject of the biography. The notability of any action of a person is hard to judge. Most of the subject's actions have not been reported by 3rd party sources, and if they have they've probably just repeated what was in a press release. This particular incident was widelyt discussed in the blogosphere. While blogs are not sufficient for establishing notability of an overall topic, they are sufficeint to show that this incident is notable within the life of the person. Finally, the organization itself, or at least Sir CP, have demonstrated the importance by issuing a public apology.[3] If it weren't notable or relevant they wouldn't have bothered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see the section has a {Refimprove} tag. What assertion is in need of a better source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply a call to attention - there is no 'relevance' template at this time. If the incident was not reported on by News sources, then it is debatable how important/relevant this information is. Sfacets 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a news source.[4] If that was the only reason for the tag we should remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be no further comment so I'll remove it. --Simon D M (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything that goes to the online news of some sites isn't reliable. The flag apology has to go, it is totally irrelevant with the biography of Shri Mataji. I will be removing it unless an administrator decides it should stay and take responsibility. If Simon or anyone can find the apology in an official Sahaj site, signed and all then we can rethink about it. Michalis 9 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You really need to read some basic Wikipedia policy. Start with WP:RS. --Simon D M (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seek the truth but wish to change the world, and for that, our help is needed (see supra) and then, we do understand how --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Flag incident, despite controversial, is totally irrelevant. Michalis 9 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to argue that point beyond bare assertion? Do you have reliable sources for more notable events in NS's life other than those already covered (flag incident, starting SYoga, etc)? --Simon D M (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not like this, the flag thing is irrelevant despite the rest incidents. Prove me that an incident like this ir relevant to a biography. If admin Will BeBack disagrees he can argue and reinstore my edit. Michalis 9 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the relavant Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia biographies should "should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject" and, for public figures like Mataji, "should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The incident is clearly relevant to NS, as the flag was laid at her feet and the public reaction was directed at her (and her husband). If you care to look a few inches up this page, you will see that WBB has previously objected to the removal of this section, upon which it was re-instated. --Simon D M (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

International honours

I feel that this page http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Sahaja_peace_prize.html is relevant and worth linking in the International honours section, but I hesitate to add it myself as I wrote it. Would a kind independent/neutral editor add it for me? --Simon D M (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That page is certainly relevant and interesting. However it does not appear to meet WP standards for sourcing. If it were published in a reliable publication then it would qualify. Separately, Nobel Peace Prize nominations are not notable. The only qualification for a nomination is to be alive. Tens of thousands of individuals qualify as nominators, including all national legislators and all social studies professors. As your article mentions, over a hundred people are nominated every year. The Nobel Prize foundation keeps nominations secret for 50 years, and nominations are unverifiable unless the nominators make them public (which they are asked not to do). In a few cases the nominations become well-known and reported widely in the contemporary press, and those are about the only ones that WP mentions. This doesn't appear to fall within that de faco guideline. I suggest that the matter will make a good section in a biography of the subject published elsewhere and then referenced here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take your point, but it raises the question of how notable some of the other International honours listed in the International honours section really are. Some of these 'greetings' and 'recognitions' mentioned are just a case of a Sahaja Yogi writing to the local government office and a junior clerk sending out a form letter. I can understand such bits of paper being used to bolster Mataji's reputation on a Sahaja Yoga site, but does that kind of thing really belong on WP? Furthermore, the only source we are given is a text file on a Brazilian site. If any of these awards were really notable, surely there would be some mention on a non-SY site somewhere. --Simon D M (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Contentious assertions about living people, negative or positive, should be removed if poorly sourced or unsourced. Some of these honours are only recorded in SY publications. It could be argued that those are, in effect, self-published by the subject, in which case WP:BLP warns us against allowing assertions that are "unduly self-serving". However some of the honours may have been reprinted in more reliable sources, in which case they'd be appropriate to keep. Probably the best way to proceed would be to mark the assertions that are in question with a citation request: {{fact|date=November 2007}}, and then wait a week or two to allow other editors to find the best sources available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The long-promised improvements to this International Honours section have been a long time coming, so I have re-instated it with unsupported parts removed. --Simon D M (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon, if you want i can show you scans of the honours. You must respect the facts. The fact that Shri Mataji was awarded these doesn't prove anything, you know very well that plenty of unworthy people are getting prizes at some cost. Let the people know the truth and not your twisted interpretation please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalis 9 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Talk page Michalis. Feel free to re-insert the list of dubious honours if you can find cite references to them in reliable 3rd party sources. If they are not mentioned in any reliable 3rd party sources, they are not notable as discussed above. --Simon D M (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Video of NS smiling at the Rajneesh meditation camp

Recently Sfacets linked to a video hosted on MySpace (listed as normally unacceptable under WP:EL) and justified it on the Talk:Sahaja Yoga page by saying that the video could have been hosted anywhere. Now he is deleting a link to a short video clip here and citing WP:RS and WP:BIO. I think he needs to state his case clearly on this page before continuing to remove this link. --Simon D M (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Does WP:EL say anything about videos? In fact, read this. Also please read up on the difference between External links and reliable sources (particularily when dealing with biographies). Sfacets 08:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you provide is to a MySpace page with a video on it, WP:EL mentions such links to MySpace specifically. Regarding bios, I've read the relevant section, what's your point?--Simon D M (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further. Ask the question at WP:EL if you want. Sfacets 14:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to withdraw from the discussion, as long as you stop removing the video of Mataji smiling at the Rajneesh meditation camp.--Simon D M (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I see you are not discussing but still removing the video.--Simon D M (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I see you are still not discussing but still removing the video. --163.119.105.27 09:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How is a video of someone sitting on the ground smiling lightly any proof? I ask this to the administrator. If you have seen this video you would know that anyone could have created it. Please accept only reliable material. Michalis 9 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that a relaible source, Coney, says that she has seen a video of the subject attending a Rajneesh event, and smiling. That a) is evidence that the subject attended such an event, and b) she was pleased. If we on;y had the video then we would not want to draw conclusions from it, but it's OK to report the conclusions that Coney has drawn. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the so called video. Ot shows Osho's camp, and Shri Mataji pop ups sitting on the ground smiling mildly (She wasn't pleased that's for sure by Her look). This video, if accepted as genuine, proves only that Shri Mataji has visited his camp. Not the date. The fact that someone wrote a book including conclusions from a video that dont make sense doesn't prove anything. Michalis 9 (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Michalis, your personal research is not relavant, read WP:OR. Whether Mataji was smiling or laughing like a hyena doesn't have to be proved. All that is necessary is that the fact the statement is found in a reliable source can be verified. See WP:RS and WP:VER. --Simon D M (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon, the source expresses personal views and unsuported "fact". Yes the author has seen the video but the conclusion is false in purpose. I shall remove the info of Shri Mataji visiting Osho that exact date. If u wish u can add that She indeed visited him, but on a random ocasion, that's the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalis 9 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's criteria. The job of the WP is to summarise what the reliable source says, not to pass judgement on it. Your comments continue to show little awareness of Wikipedia principles, policies and guidelines. I suggest you rectify that. --Simon D M (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is how the world will be changed : by this sort of so called sum of all human knowledge. Poor children !!! --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see a policy when its dancin naked infront of me simon. You continiously say that i am oblivious to the WP policies just to create impressions and establish yourself as WBB's pet. Michalis 9 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. I suggest you review WP:PA. --Simon D M (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

According what I can read here, it is exactly waht he does ! I suggest Simon you review WP:PA --Agenor 77 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:FAITH, "If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith." Can we get back to the substantive issues now? --Simon D M (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we were wainting for that. I'm really happy to see that you are decided to get back to the substantive issues now. Thank you for this positive attitude. --Agenor 77 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The last substantive point made was this: The sources is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's criteria. The job of the WP is to summarise what the reliable source says, not to pass judgement on it. --Simon D M (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss about the job of WP. Your comments continue to show little awareness of Wikipedia principles, policies and guidelines. I suggest you rectify that --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Meditation Camp or Seminar and the Indian Skeptic

"The experience happened after having visited a seminar by Rajneesh" In this sentence I referred to the 1970 Rajneesh event at Nargol as a "meditation camp" as this is what it is referred to by Coney in her book Sahaja Yoga and that is what the Rajneesh people refer to it as eg in the tiltle of In Search of the Miraculous [5]. Sfacets has insisted on changing it to 'seminar' which is the word used in a SY source. I changed it back to 'meditation camp' and gave this reference: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v03/3-2-17.htm Sfacets changed it again suggesting that the source is invalid. Now my point is that we should surely be consistent in how we refer to the event and we should use the host's name rather than the renaming of one of the participants. Secondly I'd like comments on the acceptability of the Indian Skeptic as a source.--Simon D M (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

speaker

• a scholar, a world renowned speaker(ref)Frederick Post Friday, June 16, 2000(/ref)

What is the "Frederick Post Friday"? Could we have a more precise reference and the relevant quotation please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"On June 19, at 7 p.m., Dr. NIRMALA Devi SRIVASTAVA, scholar and world- renown speaker, will be at the Masur Auditorium, NIH, Bethesda, to describe how meditation produces its effect on the autonomic nervous system. On June 20, at 7 p.nx, at the Uni- versity of Maryland College Auditorium" Sfacets 09:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that part of an event listing? What is the context? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, can we have a better citation? Is this a newspaper? What city? Is this the correct name? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...Meditation, yoga seminars planned Big The role of meditation has been established in curing stress-related disorders and having a beneficial effect in many other disease states. On June 19, at 7 p.m., Dr. NIRMALA Devi SRIVASTAVA, scholar and world- renown speaker, will be at the Masur Auditorium, NIH, Bethesda, to describe how meditation produces its effect on the autonomic nervous system. On June 20, at 7 p.nx, at the Uni- versity of Maryland College Auditorium" - she will introduce SAHAJA YOGA and give an experience of Kundalini awakening to the audience. Kundali- ni is a spiritual energy in the trian- gular bone, the sacrum in every human being. Dr. Srivastava has been able to integrate extensive knowledge from ancient India with modern science to expand understanding and aware- ness of the subtleties of the human nervous system and how its dysfunc- tion can make a person prone to dis- eases such as stress adaptation dis- order, cancer, AIDS, substance abuse and others. She will be pre- senting a new hypothesis about cau- sation of so-called psychosomatic disorders and a different approach to solving some of these complex medical problems. Sahaja Yoga has been shown in medical studies conducted in India, Australia and Russia to have direct action on the autonomic nervous system. She has been twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, has been honored by the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, and has received numerous honors and AWARDs in recognition of her con- tribution to peace, health and well- being of humankind in over 86 nations. Dr. Srivastava explains the inte- grated nature of all aspects of the human being, including the relation- ship between physical, mental, emo- tional and spiritual health." Frederick Post Friday, June 16, 2000

This is a newspaper from Maryland. Sfacets 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a verbatim copy of a press release. My experience with event listings is that they simply edit them for space, and don't check them for accuracy. We can't use this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is part of an article. The preceding sentence to the beginning of the passage above is "I don't tell people how to vote but I do rec- ommend that they vote. I also rec- ommend that they refrain from alco- hol, drugs and tobacco. Those are all "personal I suppose. I don't apologize for them. Being against gun violence falls into the same cate- gory. My sole purpose is to help and guide my teen readers." So it isn't an event listing. Sfacets 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the title and who is the editor of this article? What page is it on? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this even the right name for the publication? I see a Frederick News-Post. I dont' see anything called the Frederick Post Friday. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously just a press release. Can anybody find one scholarly work this 'scholar' has produced? --Simon D M 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The relavant WP article explains the confusion over the names. --Simon D M 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Searched for Nirmala Srivastava on Google Scholar. Didn't seem to appear apart from as a source of methane. WP:SET does not support the press release. --Simon D M 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement is sourced from a newspaper article. Sfacets 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The paper has free online archives. They obviously didn't bother archiving this rehash of a press release. The view that mataji is a scholar obviously has no support from anywhere else so is a minority view and should not be included in the lead to the article. The fact that Sfacets had to turn to the Hicksville local rag for support is telling in itself. --Simon D M 14:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets never answered my questions about the actual name of the publication, the author of the article, and other basic reference details. Perhaps he could explain how he has access to this unarchived material. Does he have a clipping? How can we verify this if it isn't in an archive? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is by reporter Sarah Fortney titled "Using Yoga to cure stress". Sfacets 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And how can we verify this? Is it online? How did you gain access to the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the assertion for now. It appears to be unverifiable. In any case, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". The claim that the subject is well-known as a speaker and scholar, if true, should be easily sourced to more verifiable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed J Coney's assertion for the same reason. Sfacets 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's deal with separate issues separately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been brought up. J Coney was a moderator for a forum run by Simon, holds a minority viewpoint, and makes extraordinary claims. Sfacets 04:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is not about Coney but about the extraordinary claim that Mataji is a scholar. WP:VER#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources specifically mentions "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" as a red flag that "should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim" and warns against giving undue weight to a minority opinion. --Simon D M (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim that someone is "world-renowned" for something should be citeable to many references. If such an assertion can only be found in one (unverifiable) source then it's hard to see the person can be so "renowned". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain?

Why is Simon removing sourced content under the guise of reverting another editors changes? [6] Sfacets 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean your insertion from the press release, see above. Why did you remove all the souced content from Coney, Kakar, etc on Mataji's well-documented relationship with Rajneesh?--Simon D M 14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced both, with context. Please do not remove the reliably sourced material on Mataji's well-documented relationship with Rajneesh again. --Simon D M 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Simon is a known contributor to websites that are critical of SY. He maintains at least two of them. Sfacets 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets claims to have contributed images to official SY websites yet links to them. However, contribution is not the same as maintenance. --Simon D M (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I made no such claim, as I said earlier, please stop inventing things. Sfacets 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See: Image_talk:Subtlesys.gif --Simon D M (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I contribute that to the website? No. Sfacets 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"I allow my images to be used by the organization. Sfacets 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "[7] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Using my image is not the same as providing material to a website. Sfacets 06:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? You claim to have accompanied the subject on trips Russia and China, taking pictures along the way. You claim to have provided one of your photographs to apparently dozens of SY websites. You claim to have created a chakra diagram that is reproduced on half of the SY sites. By your own claims you are a significant contributor to SY sites. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said I provided anything. Good luck with your checkuser. Sfacets 08:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I din't understand. If you didn't provide them, how come they're being used? Were they stolen? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, whereas my COI manifests as improving articles by inserting reliably sourced notable material in line with WP policy, your COI manifests as deleting reliably sourced notable material in contravention of WP policy. --Simon D M (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been editing this article what... one month now? And all you have done is add out of context minority viewpoints and self-published sources the the article. Nice. Sfacets 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what about the main subject (see supra the message of Sfacets) of this chapter now ? --Ag 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

Unsigned ???? Bot of wiki are not anymore what they was before.... --Ag 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Coney/Kakar

• Judith Coney writes that in a video of the Rajneesh meditation camp, Nirmala Srivastava can be seen 'smiling beatifically'.(ref)Coney, Judith (1999) Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement, (London: Curzon Press) ISBN 0-7007-1061-2 p 220(/ref). Writer Sudhir Kakar wrote that Nirmala Srivastava was "closely associated" with Rajneesh in her "apprenticeship years".(ref)Kakar, Sudhir (1984) Shamans, Mystics and Doctors: A Psychological Inquiry into India and Its Healing Traditions, ISBN 0-226-42279-8 p 202 "A demonic guru such as Rajneesh (with whom Mataji in her apprenticeship years was once closely associated) can turn the chakra toward the left side"(/ref)

Why was this material removed? It is sourced to work by experts published by major publishers who substantially agree with each other. These apeear to be extraordinarily good sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This has already been brought up. J Coney was a moderator for a forum run by Simon, holds a minority viewpoint, and makes extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Kakar is a more reliable source. Sfacets 04:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for me running the forum? If I ran it, I wouldn't have allowed a certain self-professed expert on Sahaj history to elect himself administrator using sockpuppets and vandalise the forum so it could no longer be used. --Simon D M (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Judith Coney. After her initial degree in Religious Studies and Anthropology, Judith Coney took a M.Sc. in Information Systems and a doctorate in the Sociology of Religion on a South Asian new religious movement. She jointly produced The Way of the Heart: A Study of Rajneeshism (Aquarian Press, 1986) and has recently completed Sahaja Yoga (Curzon Press, 1998). In the last year she has also contributed papers to two forthcoming edited volumes, The South Asian Diaspora (SUNY) and Children in New Religious Movements (Rutgers). Her research interests include new religions, media and religion, and the construction of histories in religions.
• "Curzon Press is committed to publishing state-of-the-art titles in the fields of Asian and Middle Eastern studies and in language and religious studies worldwide, making available the best research in these fields."[8]

I don't see what her involvement in a forum has to do with anything. What proof do you have that her viewpoint is in the minority? Her publisher is a very resptable academic publisher. Why did you delete the Kakar material too? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not not calling into question her credentials, I am calling into question her neutrality, and the reliability of her information. Her view is in the minority -to quote you: "The claim (...), if true, should be easily sourced to more verifiable sources". I restored Kakar. Sfacets 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Coney's assertion that the subject is smiling in a video is a minority viewpoint? So what's the majority viewpoint - that she's frowning? If so please give the source for it. Was she making prejudicial comments on her forum when she wrote her book? If she had written a poorly-sourced, prejudiced book it wouldn't have been printed by a prestigious academic publisher. This is an extraordinary source, one that largely agrees with another extraordinary source, Kakar. Are only "neutral sources" allowed? If so then we'll have to cut the article down to the subject's birthdate and place. And lastly, I wouldnt say that all verifiable claims are easily verifiable. The claim that someone is "well-known" for something should be easily verifiable from multiple sources because if it isn't then the person probably isn't well-known. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that Coney is not valid as a source - she has COI issues, and her views on SY in general are a minority viewpoint. Sfacets 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that's what you're saying. What's your proof? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

She received the information for her book by Simon Dicon Montford, a longtime critic. She was a moderator for his Yahoo group. No other sources back her claims. Sfacets 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no info from me in the book at all. Feel free to prove otherwise. --Simon D M (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If she was a good researcher she received information from many sources with differing viewpoints. Doing so does more to show her neutrality than her bias. If I understand this correctly, the Yahoo group existed after this book was already published. Participating or even moderating a forum doesn't show prejudice. Are there any comments made by her that show bias? As for her claim that the subject smiled in a video, I don't think it's so contentious that it requires more than one PhD as a source. We already have two PhD-credentialed researchers who connect the subject with Rajneesh, so that can't be described as a poorly-sourced or minority viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kakar material has been removed again, despite having been restored by Sfacets.

• Writer Sudhir Kakar wrote that Nirmala Srivastava was "closely associated" with Rajneesh in her "apprenticeship years" and has denounced him ever since.

user:Windinthetrees wrote:

• This is very vague and needs to be substantiated with further evidence. Remember that we are writing about a living person and need to be very careful about this kind of innuendo. [9]

I don't see anything "vague" about the sentence nor is there any innuendo. It very precisely summarizes Kakar's words, even quoting him twice. I'm not sure why we call him a "writer", but that's beside the point. Unless deletion can be explained better I'm going to restore the sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has responded here to this question, and nobody has answered my questions above. Nobody has explained why material sourced to the official SY sites was removed. "Nobody" appears to the main editor of this article, since "nobody" takes responsibility for most of the edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Coney material has been deleted again, with still no satsifactory explanation. The edit summary was "rmv coney, per concerns on discussion page." I note that raising concerns is not sufficient reason to delete sourced material. Those concerns have not been supported with any evidence. There are other researchers whose neutrality has been questioned, but we're not (yet) removing assertions sourced to them. We need to have a consistent standard for all articles and for all sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny that she was an admin for Simon D M's website? Sfacets 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence. I've asked repeatedly. So far you haven't show a single bit of proof that Coney is biased or unreliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Writer Sudhir Kakar wrote that Nirmala Srivastava was "closely associated" with Rajneesh in her "apprenticeship years". I've removed this statement which is very vague and contentious. "closely associated" with Rajneesh in her "apprenticeship years" is very vague and contentious - this can imply many things - Wiki policicy on living persons is very clear on these type of statements. Overriding concept is "do no harm":.Yogasun (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The association between Rajneesh and Mataji is mentioned by Coney and Kakar, both very reliable sources. It is also mentioned by Rajneesh himself. Even Mataji admits some form of association, suggesting that she went to Nargol to see what he was doing, even though they both lived in Bombay and she claims to be omniscient. --Simon D M (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing years 1970-2004

At repsent the article says nothing about the subject between 1970 and 2004. Surely we can find a reliable source that describes her some of her activities in that period. I gather that she lived England from the mid-'70s to mid-'80s, though I can't find a source for it now. Are there other, non-contentious facts about this period that we can add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Her life isn't really notable outside of Sahaja Yoga, and these are the years of her involvement in Sahaja Yoga (not that she doesn't have some involvement today). So her biography and SY's history go hand in hand. As Coney and Kakar don't say much, we're reliant on SY-published sources like this biography. I'll add some of it. --Simon D M (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as the assertions aren't contentious or unduly self-serving then a self-published biography can be used as a source, per WP:SELFPUB. The material you added looks appropriate. Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

As usual Simon DM revert one after another (5 in 24 hours) edits which are sourced just because it doesn't go in his vision of SY. I can't go on like this. Hours of work destroyed one after another by this vandal --Agenor 77 (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure the insertions comply with WP:NPOV. There is also an issue of redefining Sahaja Yoga on the Nirmala Srivastava page. --Simon D M (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just sure about your POV POV TYPE --Agenor 77 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While we should (and do) mention SY this article isn't about SY, it's about Nirmala Srivastava. Let's keep the focus on the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A short clarification is added to every fact and/or gesture of person inserted in serious reference books of qualities. I wished to do the same here --Agenor 77 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike reference books, readers can click on the Sahaja Yoga link to find out more. The main issue for me is that articles other than the Sahaja Yoga article shouldn't be used to push different POVs of what SYoga is. --Simon D M (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what we all understood Simon, you are fighting against what you think is a pushing for SY. You aren't neutral in this case. --Agenor 77 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the neutrality of edits, not editors. --Simon D M (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

POV TYPE once again--Agenor 77 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mataji as adi shakti

I had added list of other's who claim to be incarnation, (which was removed) and this is very much needed, as there are many more incarnations in this world currently. Mataji is also one of them, that list belongs in there. Kindly put forth your concern. A personal opinion (ignorable), Is all powerful, almighty, omnipresent Lord Almighty that weak, that it needs multiple simultaneous incarnations to handle growing human population ? --Cult free world (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to the incarnation or messiah lists shouldn't be in the intro. That's more like "See also" material. If I may suggest, a standard format for controversial figures is to present (while always remaining neutral) sympathetic material in the first paragraph addressing notability and then to provide the alternate viewpoint(s) in a second paragraph. The application here might be something like "S. is the founder of S.Y., and the wife of a distinguished civil servant. <P> S. is viewed by some as a harmful influence." People reading this article want to learn about this subject, and so lists of related subjects are not the most important links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm i guess thats quite reasonable. will wait for input from Ag77 for sometime, and then add the material in "See Also" --Cult free world (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that some editor's are hell bent to remove the See also link from the page, without even dropping a word here, which was used before that information was added in the article ? requesting all the cult member's to place their objections at this place before removeing contents from wikipedia.--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag controversy

This controversy fits more in page dealing with Sahaja Yoga as organization, rather then NS, there is no link of NS with this controversy, hence it should be part of the organization page. --Cult free world (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how this is primarily an SY issue. While no one asserts that she placed the flag herself, or even ordered it to be placed, she is the one who was accused of the disrespect. Further, the fact that the subject's husband, a decorated Indian civil servant, was also mentioned as being a factor. I realize it's difficult to separate the founder and her movement, but this one seems more about the person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology was issued by the organization, on behalf of NS, and since it was a function organization by the group, where the said disrespect to a national flag took place, (Indian national flag was put at her feet,) NS, her husband were also present along with many more, they did not noticed it !! accountability is on the organizer’s for the controversy. Even though, in group where leader is all in all, (avtar) there is no segregation as such, but since there are two wikipedia articles so in my opinion, it is organization which has owned the responsibility and hence issued the apology, so it fits there(in organization section of the page) also. Lets wait for input form some more people, and see where the consensus moves. --Cult free world (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really for the move. In addition to what Will wrote I'd point out that the NS article is shorter so the controversy does not compete for space so much. --Simon D M (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.meditate4free.co.uk/shri_m_Ghandi.htm

User 203.11.225.5 is of the opinion that meditate4free.co.uk is a newspaper, however on checking the site, it appears that, this site is solely dedicated to praise the cult leader.

Here is the information about that domain.

Domain name:

meditate4free.co.uk

Registrant:

John Firth

Trading as:

c/o Netscalibur UK Ltd - FDD

Registrant type:

UK Limited Company, (Company number: 2212003)

Registrant's address:

Unknown

Unknown

GB

Registrar:

Compila Limited [Tag = COMPILA]

URL: http://www.compila.com

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 16-May-2001

Renewal date: 16-May-2009

Last updated: 26-May-2007

I have never heard of any newspaper in UK which goes by the name meditate4free!! this is not a newspaper, as far as i can see, comments from other's is also invited so that we can move ahead with this reference, which appears to be a promotional peace of work!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They were probably referring to Hinduism Today. meditate4free is clearly a website published by Sahaja Yoga, or perhaps just a self-published project by a Sahaja Yoga (maybe part of Project 2800 when SY tried to drown out critical voices on the web by publishing 2800 pro-SY sites, a bit like when Mao got the Chinese to smelt iron in their back gardens). --Simon D M (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See also links

Will, what's the problem with these links? --Simon D M (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are they needed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All the links have NS as one of the claimant, addition was previously discussed and agreed upon, we even waited for about one week for input from Ag77 about that topic, before that section was added in See also. --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They were discussed, but I don't see any agreement. Let's leave them off for the time being. The issues are already covered in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga begins

1. The "mesmerising" quote appears in the second sentence, there is no need to repeat it.
2. The way Nirmala Srivastava is smiling at the camp is irrelevant and is used as a kind of accusation in an attempt to push a particular line. Therefore, it is original research see WP:OR. Coney's source can be used to confirm that Nirmala Srivasta was indeed at the camp, no argument there. Freelion (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. It is not repeated. Please read carefully before repeatedly trying to push through changes without consensus.

2. This has been discussed before. Will's view was as follows: "The point is that a relaible source, Coney, says that she has seen a video of the subject attending a Rajneesh event, and smiling. That a) is evidence that the subject attended such an event, and b) she was pleased. If we on;y had the video then we would not want to draw conclusions from it, but it's OK to report the conclusions that Coney has drawn." I suggest you at least take a cursory glance at foregoing discussion before repeatedly trying to push through changes without consensus. --Simon D M (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. It was repeated. It is fixed now. Before going and adding it again, check in the second sentence.
2. Now that this topic is open again for discussion, I think it best to stick to the more neutral version. Please see Biographies about living people. The reference to the way Nirmala Srivastava is smiling at a Rajneesh camp relies on guilt by association and this is to be avoided in biographies about living people.
I've made a few other individual changes to the article, each one with an edit summary. If anyone needs to change these I would appreciate the courtesy of individual responses to each change instead of one big reversion as has been happening. Freelion (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got the wrong idea. Reach consensus first then make changes. See WP:BRD. You know their is opinion from me and Will against this change and yet you go right ahead and try an push is through yet again. This is disruptive. I've removed the initial repetition which was presented as a reason for Srivastava going to the Rajneesh meditation camp. This is unacceptable because we don't know the reason she went. We only know that she went and claims to have had some kind of an experience at it. --Simon D M (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with the wording and this topic is being discussed, so use a neutral version for now. You have not addressed my argument. It is you who is trying to push ahead with unacceptable wording. I asked you to review each change individually but you have not. Please explain yourself clearly because your actions are appearing rash and your argument about reason for going to the camp does not make sense. According to WP:BRD you should just be reverting and discussing, not making further uncalled for changes. WP:BLP states the importance of getting it right and not making untrue claims based on guilt by association in biographies about living people. Freelion (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The change I made was removing POV material. NPOV is non-negotiable, see WP:NPOV. On the other hand you are repeatedly deleting sourced content when you know full well that it has been discussed previously and both me and Will felt it should stay. The fact is that Mataji's 'unique discovery' took place at the Rajneesh meditation camp and Coney says that she was smiling there. Now Mataji later claimed that she went 150km North of Bombay (when both she and Rajneesh lived in Bombay) to see how false gurus operated <personal attack against a living person removed>. Now what Coney says and what Mataji says should both be reported, that is NPOV. Just pushing your favoured POV and claiming that the other POV is only there to detract from your POV is a simple case of POV pushing. Stop it. --Simon D M (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last remark was a load of POV and OR. You are completely ignoring my argument that the Coney reference relies on guilt by association and cannot be included in a biography about a living person. You're continual reverting of multiple changes without any explanation, plus more unexplained edits of your own, can only be viewed as disruption. Please address your own behaviour. Freelion (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't explained how the inclusion of the reliably-sourced notable material constitutes guilt by association. So far we just have your bare assertion. On the other hand I have explained how removing the range of differing POVs, and only leaving your own favoured one, is POV pushing. --Simon D M (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. If you want an explanation of guilt by association, do us all a favour and read the article. You've keep reverting multiple individual edits which had either an appropriate mention on the talk page or an edit summary. But you haven't explained any one of those reversions except to say that it's POV pushing. This is inappropriate behaviour. You might not be able to explain yourself very well, but your actions are on the record. Freelion (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon D M, I have again edited out your sarcastic, offensive comments. Please see WP:CIVIL before making comments which may be offensive to other editors. Freelion (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to recent edit warring I've protected the page. Please seek mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to mediate on this issue? --Simon D M (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is it acceptable to report impression of 3rd party RS?

Is it acceptable to report the statement of a 3rd party reliable source (Coney) who says that Nirmala Srivastava was smiling in a video of a Rajneesh meditation camp in May 1970? This topic has been discussed here and here. The piece of text in the article that is being questioned is this:

Judith Coney writes that in a video of the Rajneesh meditation camp, Nirmala Srivastava can be seen 'smiling beatifically'.

The objector argues that including this text constitutes "a kind of accusation" that "relies on guilt by association" and thereby contravenes WP:BLP.

My own stand is that WP:NPOV requires that the facts about multiple or conflicting opinions should be documented so that readers can form their own view. WP:BLP states that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Simon D M (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP states the importance of getting it right and not making untrue claims based on guilt by association in biographies about living people. Coney claims that it is 'ironic' that Nirmala Devi can be seen 'smiling beatifically' at the camp. While it is generally known that Nirmala Devi disapproves of Rajneesh, Coney is trying to imply by association that because she was smiling at the camp, she approved of Rajneesh. This is an association fallacy. There are many photos of Nirmala Devi smiling beatifically in many different places. Just because she is seen smiling at the camp it does not follow that she approved of the camp or the person running it. The fact that she was at the camp is not being disputed, hence the current reference "Judith Coney confirms that Nirmala Srivastava can be seen in a video of the camp." Freelion (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We should be merely documenting the reliable sources and not 2nd guessing the authors' motives, nor should we set ourselves up as judge and jury on their reasoning or character. Please see: WP:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs.--Simon D M (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Coney quote is fine - tho it might depend on quite how it's used... current page has no mention of "smiling beatifically". However the preceding quote that Nirmala Devi "was shocked to see him loot people under the guise of spirituality" is far more problematic. Checking the source, I see it is actually a quote from a web page by a loose collective of UK-based groups practicing her yoga method. As such it is an unreliable source. The web page does not attribute the statement to Nirmala Devi and there is no evidence cited that this was even her opinion. Its use in this context gives a very false impression and since it is a somewhat inflammatory statement, such an opinion should only be attributed to Nirmala Devi if a reliably sourced citation exists. If the editors remove that misleading quote then the whole "smiling beatifically" thing would become obsolete. Dakinijones (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dakini, that's a good point. Freelion (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for quotation

The source website (Yahoo News India) appears to be offline - is there another source for the apology quotation?

• the Internet Archive has a copy: [10] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Salve3" :
  • H.P.Salve, ''My memoirs'' (New Delhi: LET, 2000), pp92-94
  • H.P.Salve, ''My memoirs'' (New Delhi: LET, 2000), chapter 4
• "Salve2" :
  • H.P.Salve, ''My memoirs'' (New Delhi: LET, 2000), chapter 1
  • H.P.Salve, ''My memoirs'' (New Delhi: LET, 2000), chapters 3 and 4

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename

This aricle should be moved to the name most people refer to Shri Nirmala Srivastava as per WP:COMMONNAME - ie 'Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi' - it should never have been moved in fact. Sfacets 12:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shri" is an honorific title and we don't include those in article names. What is the proof of the relative use of the names? -Will Beback · † · 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

how much proof do you want? From 1970 to date, worldwide, the founder of Sahaja Yoga has been known (and continues to be known) as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Sahajhist 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, since the orticle was originally titled "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" it is up to Will Be Back to justify the move (which was never discussed or agred upon) he made in the first place. Sfacets 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I can't find any sign that this article was ever at "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". If it was it should have been moved because "Shri" is an honorific title. -Will Beback · † · 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should return to where it once was [11] Sahajhist 11:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Sfacets 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that the article was ever at that name. In any case, our guideleins say that we don't include honorific titles. Are you proposing that we ignore the guidelines? -Will Beback · † · 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the article was once at 'Mataji Nirmala Devi' and is currently redirected from there to 'Nirmala Srivastava' The proposal is to revert as per WP:COMMONNAME Sahajhist 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that user:Toh (not me) moved it from "Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava" to "Nirmala Shrivastava" [12] because "Mataji" is also an honorific title. Minus the honorifics, the choices seem to be "Nirmala Devi" or the present "Nirmala Srivastava". Between those two which can be shown to be more common should be used. I believe that "Nirmala Srivastava" is her legal name, but if can be shown that "Nirmala Devi" is used more frequently then I don't object to using that for the article title. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And, just to be thorough, I see absolutely no evidence that the article was ever at "Mataji Nirmala Devi" or "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". -Will Beback · † · 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the reality is that "Mataji Nirmala Devi" is the name most widely used, usually prefixed by Shri. Wikipedia editors need to recognise that this is the reality and name the article accordingly, with appropriate redirect(s) Sahajhist 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that but you haven't offered any proof. -Will Beback · † · 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You have only to look at the amount of published works using each name. Sfacets 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice you've previously removed the title "Shri" from the text of other articles. Why is it appropriate for this guru but not for others? -Will Beback · † · 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was following arguments provided by yourself. This was a long time ago, since then I have become aware of the issues relating to using the most common name on wikipedia. Sfacets 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So you remove the term from other articles but you want to add it to the title of this article. I'm not impressed by that level of neutrality. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you from the past? Did you just skip over what I just said? Sfacets 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be insulting. I read exactly what you said. "Shri" is an honorific and does not belong in the title of an article, anymore than "Her Holiness" would. -Will Beback · † · 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then stop implying impropriety on my part. I told you the reasons why I made that decision now, and why things are different now. I can see why you have been accused of stalking users in the past. Sfacets 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at any newspaper archives you will see that Shri Mataji is referred to as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and not as "Nirmala Srivastava". A very simple way to demonstrate this is to do a Google search for "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" - there are 42,300 results, whereas for "Nirmala Srivastava" there are only 3,260 - QED Surely wikipedia cannot be hijacked by the opinion of someone who is flying in the face of all exisiting evidence! windinthetrees 6 July 2007

Hi all, this topic seems to have been forgotten but I would like to revive it.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions states that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." and suggests that "the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.". It also says that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." As has been demonstrated in the last post, by far the most information available online about Nirmala Srivastava refers to her as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". To add weight to this, Judith Coney writing in "Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement" (an academic source) also refers to her by the same name.

The policy of not using honorary titles is mentioned at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) but this is only a a proposed Wikipedia policy, a guideline. In any case, it recommends the following: "Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article. However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title."

I see the evidence as overwhelming in favour of changing the title of Nirmala Srivastava's biography to that of the name by which she is most widely known - Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Freelion (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are not the greatest test. Among other weaknesses, they apparently vary from moment to moment and from location to location depending on which servers one is accessing. Another factor is that the raw number at the top includes many duplicates. The more careful measurement is to see how many actual pages Google finds using each term. "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" finds 375 pages.[13] "Nirmala Srivastava" finds 245 pages.[14] While that shows that the title is more popular than the name, it also shows that the name is widely used too. The current solution is to have the article under the name, and use the title as a redirect. How does this cause a problem needing fixing?   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to do it properly. That way Nirmala Srivastava can be referred to in all related articles by the name by which she is most commonly known. Many people might not recognise the name Nirmala Srivastava when they would more likely have heard of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. This page should have the name change and Nirmala Srivastava should redirect to it.

I looked and it's the same for others:

Paul David Hewson redirects to Bono

Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner redirects to Sting (musician) and

Prince Rogers Nelson redirects to Prince (musician)

It all checks out with Wikipedia rules:

1. Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. Check.

2. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers. Check.

3. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Check - Judith Coney. Freelion (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

May I assume that all those following this discussion are quietly nodding their heads in agreement? If so, can anyone advise me how to implement this change. Do I simply cut and paste all the info from this page into the Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi page and give this page the redirection which is currently on the other page? Freelion (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your earlier posting. (The downside of having a watchlist with 9500 entries). There are conflicting guidelines and precedents here. On the one hand, the general naming conventions strongly discourage the inclusion of honorifics in titles. On the other hand, there are several comparable articles with honorifics, for example Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha. Given the cultural issues, let me post a note on the Indian portal and see if they have a better sense of what's right here.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a question here: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Name for a biography.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Per User:Freelion, I would have no problems with the article including Shri. Yes, it is honorific title, but in this case, the subject seems to be well known to a greater number of english audience along with the Shri. Although google hits are not definitive, it is at least a good indication of the name usage. prashanthns (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Titles and honorifics - Naming conventions for India and Srilanka, which is still a proposed guideline. Also see its talk page. This can be discussed either at the India-related topics page (as posted by Will Beback) or at the proposed guidelines page. The current consensus as per Wikipedia guidelines is to not include honorifics as the main article - but the name with honorifics can be redirect to the article without honorifics. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We could make an exception in this case because of the widespread recognition of her name with honorifics. The name of this article sets a precedent for all other articles which use her name. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it is in the interest of readers that names used throughout articles on Wikipedia are the ones which are most widely known. It is especially true in this case because the two names - "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and "Nirmala Srivastava" are quite different which can lead to confusion. The proposed guidelines clearly make an allowance for such an exception to the general guideline of not using honorifics by saying "exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title." Freelion (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While the version with the honorific is widely used, so is her legal name. As for what we call her in other articles, the name of this article doesn't need to determine the name by which she's called in other articles. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi redirects to this article, and four articles link directly to that redirect. Other redirects include Mataji Nirmala Devi, Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava, Nirmala Salve, Shri Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava, Nirmala Shrivastava, and Nirmala srivastava. Shri Mataji was a redirect, but it turns out to be used for at least one other individual so it's now a disambiguation page.   Will Beback  talk  07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So does it not matter that Wikipedia uses more than one name for the same person? Maybe we should use whichever name is used by the particular reference we are using. Freelion (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a guideline (or three) for everything. I believe this is covered by WP:MOSBIO. It says that honorifics may be discussed, but should not be used inline. So, in the case of the Queen of England, we can say that her titles include "her royal highiness...", but we don't refer to her as "her royal hignhness" or "HRH". We don't refer to the pope as "His Holiness". In this case, I'm not sure if there's a common alternate name for the subject that doesn't include an honorific. Nirmala Devi?   Will Beback  talk  08:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nirmala Devi is less commonly used but makes sense being a truncation of the name with honorifics. That being said, the first sentence of the article does say "more widely known as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". This fits the criteria for the exception at Titles and honorifics - Naming conventions for India and Srilanka. So my ammended proposal is to title the article as "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and refer to her inline as "Nirmala Devi". Freelion (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We are still supposed to try to avoid having an honorific in the title. Using "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" as a redirect is no problem. "Nirmala Devi" appears to be used for many individuals, so I'm having a hard time estimating if it's more popular tnan "Nirmala Srivastava" for the subject. I guess we can be through by reviewing the scholarly literature to see what's used more often there.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that the subject is most widely known by her honorific title, so I was thinking that the aforementioned guideline would allow her to be addressed as such, even in the title. WP:MOSBIO suggests not using honorifics inline so this prompted my revised proposal. I think that in the scholarly literature the name with honorifics will be the most common, but I'll check. Freelion (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)