Talk:Sadhguru

Paywalled sources

• Poruthiyil, Prabhir Vishnu (2019-08-03). "Big Business and Fascism: A Dangerous Collusion". Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04259-9. ISSN 1573-0697.:-

  ...The response from the increasingly powerful right-wing sections of the media demonstrates the interpenetration of interests of Hindutva and neoliberalism. Seeking proximity to whichever party was in power, Vedanta had become a public backer of the BJP’s political agenda (The Wire 2018). Hindutva-afliated news outlets branded protestors part of an “anti-national” conspiracy funded by “Jihadis,” and even the Church of England (Subramani 2018; Venkatesan 2018), thus evoking prevailing prejudices against non-Hindus portrayed in Hindutva discourse as opposed, by default, to the “national interests” (narrowly interpreted as wealth creation). The corporation also received support from infuential babas like Jaggi Vasudev and Baba Ramdev, both of whom have sprawling business enterprises and considerable followings among the core supporters of Hindutva (Bhatia and Lasseter 2017). In a particularly insensitive choice of vocabulary, given the context, Vasudev declared: “Lynching large businesses is economic suicide” (quoted in The Indian Express 2018). These examples show how the doxa constituted by the interpenetration of neoliberalism and Hindutva results in the protection not just of economic but also of the sociocultural interests of the corporate elite in India. Adhering to the tenets of Hindutva is now considered essential for Indian neoliberalism...

Views on depopulation

Fake spiritual guru and World Economic Forum "agenda contributor", Sadhguru, openly advocates depopulating the planet, going on to suggest that people should have dogs instead of children. "I was in a conference and I said: 'Unless you reduce the human footprint on the planet, there is no solution for anything'. Then they asked me a brilliant question: 'How do you reduce the human footprint?'. I said: 'You have to reduce the number of feet. That's the only way'." full thing, here. Why isn't this in the article? 84.67.111.75 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a good source, you are using Twitter, it fails WP:RS. If he actually said that, then that is actually a good thing. There are far too many people on the planet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the Twitter account you cited "Wide Awake Media", it promotes global warming denialism, anti-vax and the pseudoscientific carnivore diet. It is not a reliable source for anything. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Dude, in the post there are links to interviews as sources, so it's the same situation as citing Wikipedia, which cites other sources. What is the content of the posting account is irrelevant.--Ruzweltus (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:RS. We are not going to cite unreliable Twitter links. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So how about citing sources that this tweet cites? Ruzweltus (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Are those sources reliable? Answer that question and you will answer your own as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, since the sources are youtube videos of Sadhguru HIMSELF talking about certain topics relevant (in this case issue of handling the population for example) and they are relatively recent, they should be taken as reliable sources, especially since this kind of source is used in this very article (See #63 reference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oC78A0YpQQ).

Topic mentioned by OP is certainly quite important and we should consider putting Sadhguru's notable opinion on it in the article despite the sources being used by controversial authors. Ruzweltus (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This is primary source, as it is himself talking, does not matter, if its from twitter or not, and yeah secondary source is preferred but in this context, this is indeed reliable as per WP:RS and also of course a vegan is ecofascist lol. Beastmastah (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong sourcing is needed for this content. YouTube videos or Twitter are not considered good WP:RS for this type of thing. As for your last comment, veganism has nothing to do with this article. Sadhguru isn't even a vegetarian, he eats fish and other sea creatures. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Wife murder charge info

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5gax8q/sadhguru-isha-cult-london

Quote from the article "Sadhguru was also charged with murdering his wife. You might think that would put people off following him as a near-deity, but don't worry, he has explained his wife's death as a case of "Mahasamādhi"" Beastmastah (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory and misinformation not supported by any good WP:RS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Vice Media is good RS Beastmastah (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

and here more good RS links https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/03/05/congress-it-cell-murder-charge-sadhguru.html Beastmastah (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:VICE, there is no consensus on Vice, there is no consensus that it is a good WP:RS. It may be used for trivial details but we wouldn't use this source to make controversial and potentially libellous statements about a living person. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Him getting charged for murder is a fact, should be part of his wikipedia page, you cannot censor things, just because its controversial, this is wikipedia.

and here more links

FIR charge https://www.academia.edu/95494069/Jagadish_Vasudev_aka_Jaggi_Vasudev_Murder_Case_FIR_digital?uc-sb-sw=8464193

https://kannada.asianetnews.com/gallery/festivals/sadhguru-jaggi-vasudev-faced-murder-charges-of-his-wife-skr-s7te8w#image3 Beastmastah (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not fact, it is an old allegation not supported by any good sourcing. None of the sources you are providing are reliable. You are literally just spending 5 minutes on Google trying to find anything negative about Sadhguru. We are not going to cite potentially libellous hearsay on Wikipedia. We need strong sourcing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are you being so aggressive about this? Please calm down and treat your fellow editors with the respect and courtesy they deserve, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I also am opposed to inclusion of 5 year old allegations that have nothing since whatsoever. If the uber-guru is charged or we have something real on this, then include. But junk from vice is not at all sufficient. This is a BLP, do not add without clear consensus on this talk page and WP:BLPRESTORE applies exactly to this sort of 'murder' allegations, especially with celebrities. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: And what about The Week? They say he was charged, is that enough to include? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Inclusion of such a serious allegation on a BLP page would require sustained and widespread coverage to warrant inclusion. This appears to be an unsubstantiated allegation covered only in a few isolated sources many eyes ago, some of which have dubious reliability. So it is WP:FRINGE and doesn't meet the strict BLP criteria.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about the term "charged". He was never charged with murder. An allegation from a citizen is not a charge. His wife's father filed a police complaint 8 months after her death alleging that Sadhguru had used sleeping pills to murder her and then quickly cremated her body. You can find the police complaint online. It was dismissed by the police due to lack of evidence. His wife's father was angry that he never got to see his daughter's body because it was cremated. There isn't any WP:RS from academics or historians that cover the complaint in detail. The only book that passes WP:RS I have seen to very briefly mention the allegation is Sadhguru: More Than A Life (page 185). "A police complaint was filed against Sadhguru for the murder of his wife. (Ironically, it was weight months after her death). Allegations of dowry harassment were flung around freely. The campaign was swift and precisely aimed. The media joined the fray, a Tamil magazine spearheading the movement" [1]. In conclusion there is only trivial mention of this, it is not covered by academics or historians in any detail. As a historian myself, I believe we need strong sourcing for allegations such as this. On this topic none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this more detailed content could be included, if we have decent sources for it. I am opposed to saying in wikivoice that he was accussed of killing his wife, murder, etc. This is as other editors have stated, quite undue. However, the fact that the father in law questioned the death, filed a police report, and that had some press, we could include that. It really depends how it is treated, and certainly not in the LEAD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

these are strong sourcing only, its just you are riding hard for a con man and so blind and saying all kinds of irrelevant things, when there is RS given to this claim, its just seems like, even if sadhguru himself says, he killed his wife, you will say its a lie lol, anyway as said wikipedia doesn't censor things. Beastmastah (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You haven't listed any WP:RS. I am a historian and I have fully investigated these claims, I have even looked at old newspaper reports, the claims are not supported by any strong sourcing. If the allegations had any weight the police would have taken action but they dismissed the allegation due to lack of evidence. Academic biographers and historians have not picked up on the allegation so we we can not cite it, there is only passing mention of it. We are not going to cite poorly sourced material. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Psychologist Guy, we need to see some good coverage here to warrant inclusion. This type of highly defamatory content we dont add flippantly to Wikipedia BLP articles, regardless of what we think about the article subject. Please show us RS that this was covered in mainstream media and became a thing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)