Talk:Sadhguru/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism

It's bizarre and frankly ridiculous that nil criticism of the subject is mentioned over the article. Yet given the amount of whitewashing witnessed by the article, I remain surprised. At any case, I am copying the old t/p threads over here to take a look and further discussion. Thank you! ∯WBG^converse 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree there has to be a criticism section. Jaggi has generated enough controversies and criticism that it's indeed ridiculous to omit mention of those aspects altogether. Chaos1618 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2019 (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)

Removal of content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

• The reason I am removing the Critisism here [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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)

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.

References

• 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)

• Agree with what Cpt.a.haddock says, In my opinion all the related information about his wife as mentioned by Cpt immediately above needs to go into the early life section. The mention of his wife in the lead can be skipped depending on MOS:LEAD--DBigXrayᗙ 10:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Adiyogi Statue

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

• Isha's Shiva statue has no approval, buildings illegal: "TN government takes a stand Tamil Nadu government has endorsed the petitioner’s claim that necessary approvals were not obtained for construction of the 112-ft Sivan statue and other buildings like arch, road, a parking lot and mandapams - some of them built on wetlands"
• Sadhguru’s Shiva Statue Built Without Getting Legal Approvals, Could Be Demolished: TN Govt
• Activists urge PM not to be part of illegal structure opening
• PM Narendra Modi could face protest for unveiling 'illegal' Shiva Statue of Isha Yoga--DBigXrayᗙ 14:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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".[6] Contrary to what these unreliable sources say, you are ruling the statue to be illegal.[7] 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)

Seems to me that the DBigXray is on a mission to discredit the subject by whatever negative means are available. This particular allegation would not matter even if it were true because there is no way it could be prosecuted. The logical defense is that it is not a construction but an artwork, and the laws in their present form can not cover works of art because those are dealt with under other laws (censorship laws, copyright laws, trademark laws) and local government or state government construction laws could not apply or no new art works would ever be created. The criticisms by all those seeking to get him into court for this are apparently looking for ways to get around India's religious persecution laws. Since they can not persecute directly, they must do so indirectly, by trying to trump up charges to get him into court by any excuse and waste his money on defending the charges. I don't think Wikipedia should aid and abet religious persecution. The whole case in this matter is a silly one. No religious work of art from any point in history in any country has ever been put through an approvals process, so why should this one be any different just because it is massive? หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (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,[8][9] 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",[10] 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 [11]. So I removed from my edit, the content related to his wife, that was objected by him and restored my other edits [12], 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)

Potential sources

I will be jotting down sources that can be used to criticize him or his actions. ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• www.vulture.com https://www.vulture.com/2018/04/why-i-hate-gurus.html. Retrieved 2019-03-11. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• "Congress IT cell chief rakes up old murder charge against Sadhguru; Isha Foundation dismisses it as 'baseless charge'". The Week. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "Why Hindutva Nationalists Need a Sadhguru". The Wire. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "Confronting Sadhguru's Problematic Idea of 'Truth'". The Wire. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• Basu, Joyeeta (2019-03-05). "Fuelling peace with hatred". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• Newslaundry. "Newslaundry | Sabki Dhulai". Newslaundry. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "Citing Green Violations, Former Judge Urges Modi to Cancel Visit to Godman's Extravaganza". The Wire. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• ChennaiJune 28, Shalini Lobo; June 29, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 00:38. "Don't care about Ramdev, Sadhguru's views on Sterlite shutdown: AIADMK minister". India Today. Retrieved 2019-03-11. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "Sadhguru's Comments on Feminism Has Twitter Up in Arms". News18. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "Skimming the shallows". The Indian Express. 2017-08-29. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• Ed, Op (2018-04-19). "Op-Ed: Capitalism and spirituality, part two". The Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/26/jaggi-vasudev-doesnt-understand-science-or-the-nature-of-the-universe/. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• "Science, Spirituality, and the Psychobabble of Sadhguru". Arré. 2018-03-21. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• Newslaundry. "Newslaundry | Sabki Dhulai". Newslaundry. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "This Is No Way to Remember P.M. Bhargava and Yash Pal". The Wire. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• Shaikh, Dr Sumaiya (2018-02-26). "Scientific research ascertains mercury toxicity but Sadhguru continues to endorse it for Indian traditional medicines". Alt News. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "Should Sadhguru be Hosted by India's Top Colleges?". The Quint. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
• "Ten Things to Know About Today's Total Lunar Eclipse - The Wire English". Dailyhunt. Retrieved 2019-03-11.

We would like his wife death controversy to be added in wikipedia. It's a very important part of his life and should be included in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:538D:822E:109A:3C30:B497:EFB2 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Section "Criticism"

I added a section titled "Criticism", which included two subsections: "Pseudoscience" and "Isha Yoga Centre". I have attempted to briefly summarise two main criticisms of Sadhguru with appropriate references. I think this section is crucial for the overall balance of the page. However, an editor called "My Lord" has continued to revert all my edits. Since in my edits I have refrained from altering any existing material on the page. I have not used unreferenced statements anywhere. Therefore, it would be extremely unfair to call my edits "vandalism". I would like to request the editor called "My Lord" to desist further attempts of deleting my edits. If there are specific problems, I invite "My Lord" to speak their mind here. Thanks. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederickarcher (talk • contribs) 08:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We need third party verifiable reliable sources. Unreliable blogs and YouTube links fail these policies. ML ⁹¹¹ 12:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. However, I request you to examine that edit carefully. There are other references as well. I am also going to add a few more references. In any case, your point is largely invalid for the "Isha Yoga Centre" subsection for which extensive media reports were used as references. Frederickarcher (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have now added references from Isha Foundation's website. Hope that satisfies the policies "My Lord" mentioned Frederickarcher (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I have gathered from the discussion above, there is vehement opposition to any attempt that seeks to add any semblance of balance to this article. Clearly, having a "Criticism" section cannot be against Wikipedia's policies on the Biographies of Living Persons. Here is what I propose we do: I have added below the text I wished to add to the main article. Let's have a discussion on which points have references that satisfy Wikipedia's policies. If some references don't make the cut, and if alternative appropriate references are not available, let's delete those points. Thanks.

Isha Yoga Centre

Isha Yoga Centre's sprawling campus at the foothills of the Velliangiri mountain right at the edge of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve has attracted criticism from environmentalists as well organisations campaigning for tribal rights. According to a report in the News Minute, the CAG sent a notice to the Tamil Nadu Forest Department for allowing Isha foundation to carry out construction activity in an ecologically sensitive area without necessary permissions from the Hill Area Conservation Authority.. During the hearing of a PIL filed by the Velliangiri Hill Tribal Protection Society seeking demolition of certain structures at the Isha Yoga Centre, the State Government stated that the Foundation had constructed buildings without necessary permissions , following which the Madras High Court ordered a stay on construction . Tribals in the Velliangiri area have accused the Foundation of acquiring land that belongs to around 200 tribal families. According to a report in the Wire, the Foundation exploited tribals in the area for their knowledge of local medicinal plants and "[o]nce this knowledge was transferred, they were abandoned".

References

Pseudoscience

Jaggi Vasudev has been accused of appropriating scientific terminology, while displaying a marked ignorance of scientific concepts. For example, he has often claimed that Darwin's Theory of evolution is completely compatible with the concept of evolution propounded by "Adiyogi". However, he fails to mention the fact that the idea of evolution was not introduced by Charles Darwin and actually precedes him. Darwin, for the first time, provided a mechanistic model of adaptation: Natural Selection. Therefore, his theory is entirely at loggerheads with Jaggi Vasudev's idea of evolution, where he claims that "...essentially what [Darwin] is telling you is if you look at the whole thing – from a single-celled animal to yourself – as one large life process, it is longing to get somewhere.". Some examples of Sadhguru’s ill-informed comments include:

1. Planetary forces can raise waters of the ocean. Since humans are 72 % water, planets can make water in the human body rise.
2. Association of the phases of the moon with moods of human beings
3. Fingernails and hair continue to grow after death
4. The molecular structure of water can be rearranged by thought
5. Lunar eclipses cause cooked food to turn into poison
6. Mercury could be used for medicinal purposes

````

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Images 910.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Criticism secton

Jaggi Vasudev is a controversial person and a lot of criticism is found in the mainstream media, and yet this page only contains appreciations and positive information. I have tried to add Criticism section multiple times and each time it has been reverted multiple times by fellow users User:Amakuru and User:Bbb23.

Following lines are as per Wikipedia Guidelines:

Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. My question is, even though sourced properly why those edits are getting reverted without any specific reason?

If not justified in the next 48 hours, the content will be reverted. Thanks.

@Bbb23 @Amakuru

IKamalkandel (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As I explained before, standalone criticism sections are not generally recommended per WP:CRITICISM. If there are specific aspects of the subject which people have criticised then those should go in the main prose of the article, in the same section where that subject is already discussed. Just listing all the bad things everyone has said about him fails WP:NPOV.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality (POV) tag

Jaggi Vasudev is a controversial person and a lot of criticism is found in the mainstream media, and yet this page only contains appreciations and positive information that is expected from a PR agency of his organisation. Just like on Isha Foundation There seems to be people who are actively removing all kinds of information that is not showing Jaggi Vasudev in good light. Accordingly a POV tag is placed and this should not be removed unless the underlying concerns are fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I noted the concern and thus, I have added some allegations on Isha foundation page. Will add more there and here too. -- Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 13:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly Sources

• https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199938704.001.0001/acprof-9780199938704-chapter-14
• Determine. as to whether we deem it as a NRM?

• https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780810879676/Historical-Dictionary-of-New-Religious-Movements-Second-Edition (Pg 319)

• Basic entry; derive our portion 'bout the linga.

• https://www.questia.com/read/125613074/hindu-ritual-at-the-margins-innovations-transformations (pg 190)

• Certainly within Hindu circles, the lack of church structures, once considered a liability, and the long history of religious movements outside and between the social constructions of the Hindu way of life now ironically open the door for the current upsurge of guru-centered organizations speaking of spirituality. Once suspect as not quite genuine, now in their new global attire as nongovernmental organizations, they command networks of charities, hospitals, and medical colleges that—in cases such as Mata Amritanandamayi, Satya Sai Baba, and the Ramakrishna Missions as well as the newer Art of Living founded by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and the Isha Yoga Foundation of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev1—rival many mainstream institutions in India and abroad. On the national level, established religious institutions still have a prominent voice, but on the immediate micro and macro levels, independently administered spiritual organizations—loosely networked with each other but also with other NGOs—are beginning to dominate globally well beyond the network of diasporic Hindus.

  More important, I would argue that these Hindu-based, guru-centered organizations may be more capable of shaping as well as mediating the rising normative values carried by the concept of global civil society in a way that ostensibly mainstream Hindu institutions—traditional monasteries (maṭha) and temples—cannot. This is because their organizational structure parallels other actors within this widely acknowledged but loosely organized sphere that includes social, cultural, and economically centered groups. But as “spiritual” organizations, these groups lay claim to effective bodily techniques, “tools to rejuvenate,” “to liberate human beings to reach an unbounded state,” as the Isha Foundation declares on its website. So while their websites list the many social service projects in which they engage, emphasis always falls on techniques of self-transformation that lead to a widening consciousness of others and the world.

  Never naming their bodily practices as rituals, these spiritual organizations offer their practices to the general public as educational courses; instructors teach the kriya as ancient practices compatible with and even proven by contemporary science for verifiable bodily and mental healing.

  ....

  The recognition of such spiritual groups as moving well beyond privatized experience to a role within civil society could radically shift our understanding of them from proffering cleverly disguised indifferent individualism and crass materialism to offering their members a technique as well as a platform for entering into an evolving global cultural framework that emphasizes belonging but as a function of choice. Spirituality manifests now, as in the past, within growing organizational structures.

• https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811003844

∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 08:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

'Future events' section

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

---

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

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

closed KP (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Primary sources?

"However, the campaign has been widely criticized by environmentalists for lacking in scientific basis and shifting the spotlight away from real concerns.[54][55][56][53][57][58][59][60]"

Why would we need 8 sources for this simple statement? Sounds as if we might have a case of synthesising multiple primary sources into a bit of original research, hmm? A single reliable secondary report on the situation would be far better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Criticism should be cited with multiple sources since they have always been controversial. Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 04:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What Harshil sez. I am also not sure, as to your's deeming them as primary sources. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 05:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Whenever something has a long string of sources next to it, something is very wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Anything else? ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 10:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Cool" or not, it needs fixing. At the very least, it is poor style; more likely, someone is assembling sources to make a point, WP:OR by synthesis of individual criticisms into a general statement. A single secondary source that says what's happening should be used; it might be appropriate to use two such but generally we rely on one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Synthesizing multiple criticisms into one line is not WP:OR; I have bundled the sources, for your aesthetic pleasure. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 11:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

About Intentionally defaming content of the article.

The article is about biography of living person, whose political views are unnecessarily pointed out at many places. Section 'Politics, Religion and Pseudoscience' does not provide informative content about the subject but indicating the political controversies. Citations are added to support accusations. It seems to be an effort of defaming the subject. It is degrading the quality of the article. Abhayoct13th (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Abhayoct13th, Defamation is not here when sources are multiple. For example, there have been books and scientific research that lunar eclipse don't cause cancer but this dimwit is propagating anti-scientific mentality. Another example is hair and nails grow after body dies, no scientific research support this type of bogus claims. This person is dimwit pseudoscientist or anti-scientist person and our guidelines say to label him as it is. Read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 04:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This content is a necessary part of his bio. You are venting your anger at the wrong place. I suggest you take your anger to his website/Twitter and ask the subject not to speak/do things that you feel are actually defaming him. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020

Meaning of Sadhguru as shown on isha.sadhguru.org site is "Sadhguru says, "The word “Sadhguru” is not a title. It is a description. Sadhguru means “uneducated Guru.”" The meaning in this article says it means "true guru". Sudhirjonz (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sudhirjonz,  Not done. We don't rely much on WP:PRIMARYsources. Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 02:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing this footnote altogether due to its spurious sourcing. Its claim that 'Sadhguru' and 'Sadguru' are equivalents is supported only by one instance of 'Sadguru Jaggi Vasudevji' in a book whose other instances of the name on five other pages all use 'Sadhguru'. Rather than supporting the claim that the two spellings are equivalent, 'Sadguru' seems to be a mere typo. The second source, a book on The Guru in Indian Catholicism consistently uses the spelling 'sadguru' as a name for Jesus Christ, among others, but there is no mention of Vasudev. Assuming that 'sadguru' indeed means 'true guru' in Indian Catholicism, it doesn't follow that this has any bearing on Sadhguru. ARK (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

no it is not a typo. such spellings are accepted forms of a word. I disagree with removing the footnote. DBigXrayᗙ 22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. What language is it? Is the source's 'original Hindu meaning' an erroneous reference to Hindi? ARK (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

We don't need the original quasi-primary sources, and (per WP:SECONDARY) do prefer secondary sources for sourcing. At any case, retrieving old newspaper pieces in India is a Herculean task ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 09:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

About Section 'Honors' of the article.

In the section 'Honors', The statement "Critics have opined it to be politically motivated in light of his support of political stances by Bharatiya Janata Party and overall ideological inclination towards Hindutva." does not have a source to prove it. The citation provided of 'The Quint' has nowhere talked about the award or motive behind awarding it. It also says that views expressed are author's personal. Please provide citation or help removing that line. Abhayoct13th (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point; need to dig the part. source. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 12:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Shahane notes:-

... It is easy to understand why the BJP regime honoured Jaggi Vasudev with the Padma Vibhushan, the nation’s second-highest civilian honour. He has perfected a dish that is a mix of religious politics and blind faith and yet tastes surprisingly like a blend of rationality and ecumenism....

∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 13:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

About recentism in article

@Bbb23: do you think article should have recentism that subject gave interview to this, spoke at this and broadcasted this?— Harshil <sup>want to talk?</sup> 14:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) User:Harshil169, I doubt Bbb23 has an opinion on the applicability of the content here. He is a neutral uninvolved admin who watches this page, to keep the spammers and edit warriors at bay. It would be a good idea to get WP:CONSENSUS on talk page, if you are doing large changes. As for me, I am ok with this removal. If no one else objects to it in a day or two, then you can redo the removal citing this thread. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Bbb23:, if you have time, would be great if you could please take a look at the BLP Noticeboard where this particular edit and many others by this user are being discussed. If you recall, Harshil169 had made this massive deletion of content on Nov 8, 2019, which you immediately reverted the same day, and also imposed a 1-week Block on them from Nov 18-25, 2019 for disruptive editing. Even after that, the very same day that the block was lifted (Nov 25, 2019) Harshil169 went right back and made the VERY SAME edit again, and once more with NO DIALOGUE on the talk page, much less consensus. In addition to blatantly violating Wikipedia policies, by deleting factual content from sources such as Forbes, they are obviously operating with malintent.

The matter has been raised on the BLP Noticeboard. I am copy pasting some of the dialogue with them here, so that it is easier for you to see. As you will find, there are no justifiable explanations for their actions. In fact, referring to the subject of the article derogatorily as writing "gibberish" and "nonsense", and his organization as a "cult", and of course the highly damaging edits which are intended to bring a strong bias to the page, they have exposed their own lack of NPOV, as well as the extent of vandalism on the page (Just so you know, there were 9 edits in October, and in January there are already 225, and mane of them chunky unjustified additions and deletions like this.) 1 person in particular has executed about 80 of the 220 edits, all of them to denigrate the subject and execute a strongly motivated bias into the page. If you feel that this (or any other) edit was not warranted, request you to please take some time (I know you are a volunteer and don't have to, so thank you) to reinstate the content and also consider any other support that you as an Admin, or other Admins, can provide to restoring order to the editing of this article. Also, having executed severe acts of disruptive editing and brought the page to where it is, Harshil169 has today put in a request for the page to be Fully Protected, so that their edits are safe. I just wanted to let you know. Thank you so much. Jp7311 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

EXCERPT FROM THE BLP NOTICEBOARD DISCUSSION:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

@Harshil169: Pseudoscience? You made ***41 edits*** to the page in December (it received only 100 edits in total) and deleted chunks of factual content on the UNITED NATIONS Millenium Peace Summit, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, Global Landscapes Forum, etc. from top tier media sources: Forbes, The Hindu, The Economic Times and The Indian Express. And the reason you provided was - "WP:NOTNEWS. These things are blatant WP:RECENTISM. Doesn't matter in encyclopedia."

Even now, after its been brought to the BLP Noticeboard and you've been informed by @My Lord: that Pseudoscience doesn't pertain to BLP, you continue to war on the page. And I see that you're doing similar stuff on the connected Isha Foundation page. :::You put a very serious allegation and cited an article from Firstpost. And shortly thereafter, blocked someone trying to provide a counter POV even though they used the exact same source as you had - Firstpost. And you didn't even offer a reason for the block. Its plain to see what's going on here. So rather than preach to @Tamilmama: on Pseudoscience, I'd ask you to educate yourself on BLP policies and how not to violate them. Jp7311 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, by this language, you made my case stronger. Thank you for using it. Harshil want to talk? 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169:

I was wondering if you could please respond to the questions I had asked before. I'm having a hard time understanding some of your actions on this page. I'll restate my questions below so that its easier for you.

(1) On November 5, 2019 - you deleted a chunk of content on the UNITED NATIONS MILLENIUM PEACE SUMMIT, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM and other important developments. The sources were solid - Forbes, The Hindu, The Economic Times, etc. But you deleted it all. And I don't see that there was any discussion on the Talk page. 2 weeks later when someone had reinstated it, you deleted it all again. And the reason you stated was "Removing content per Talk Page consensus". But I don't see that there was any discussion about it though, so consensus would not have been reached. Would love to know why you needed to get rid of it, thanks. Jp7311 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, We don't mention about all things which he spoke at multiple places because we are not newspaper. Refer point number 4 which clearly says we are not diary. We just mention things which are encyclopedia worthy and can matter after 50-100 years. For an example, you can refer to Narendra Modi, which is good article but has NO MENTION of all of his speeches. Here is consensus about it. Also, not that page had resume template then. So, it was necessary to remove these details to remove that problematic template. Hope it clarifies. Harshil want to talk? 05:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169 I'm afraid that's not a good enough argument. I'm sure you're aware of wiki's policies around editing to make the platform more robust. The information you deleted is not mentioned anywhere on the page, and you deleted large sections in one go. This is not a case of reducing redundancies as you're claiming. In fact, I don't see any of these noteworthy engagements mentioned anywhere anymore. Speakers often put some of their key speaking engagements on their pages. And the United Nations, World Economic Forum...these aren't your run of the mill organizations. So it does not look good at all for you that that you deleted this.

Also, could you be a little more respect please of your fellow editors? A little more civility. You didn't care to discuss this on the Talk page with folks who may have spent valuable time contributing to the page. And in fact when someone saw what happened and restored it into some semblance of what it used to be before you went at it, you once again immediately deleted it all. Some would call that vandalism. Your motivations to remove factual data from this page seem very high. And I do think you broke more than a few rules here. So please take care not to repeat this, thanks. And I look forward to continuing our discussion on the points below because you also deleted their entire body of literary work. I would like to discuss why please. Jp7311 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, that's what I did. Just look at the second section of talk page. There is consensus between two editors who took part. See Recentism in article" section. Harshil want to talk? 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169, No that's not at all what you did. You wanted to delete a huge section of the page, and took it to the Talk page on Nov 8 under "Recentism in Article". There, within an hour you got support from DBigXray who agreed with you. But as even they suggested, you didn't even wait a day to see if others, maybe the editor who had contributed the content, had a different POV for debate and discussion. You went ahead and deleted that huge amount of factual content the same day. You did not bring this to the notice of the any editors. In fact, the only user you chose to bring this to the attention of, was Admin Bbb23. Please could you explain why you chose to get specifically and only Admin Bbb23's opinion on this? And why you didn't wait for others editors active on the page to get involved? I hope you are aware of Wiki rules on canvassing? Jp7311 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact Harshil169, after you deleted all this content on November 8, 2019, (not even waiting a day after bringing it to the Talk page, nor tagging the contributing editor to discuss it), clearly Admin @Bbb23: didn't approve of your action and REVERTED the edit citing "(talk) too much sourced material to remove without discussion - take to Talk page". After that there was no further discussion with anyone on the Talk page, much less with Bbb23 who had made the revert. But 2 weeks later, on November 25 you AGAIN DELETED all the same content saying "Removing content per talk page consensus". Please explain why? Jp7311 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169:, the truth of the matter is that, as a result of your disruptive editing, on November 18, 2019, Admin @Bbb23: sanctioned you with a 1-week block citing "Disruptive editing: including WP:NPA, retaliatory abuse of process, failure to collaborate, abusing other editors of misconduct in content disputes". This block was for November 18-25, 2019. And on November 25, the VERY same day that your block was lifted, you went back and made the same edit that had made on November 8, 2019, and which Bbb23 had reversed on November 8, 2019, and sanctioned you for with a 1-week block. Would you care to explain why? Jp7311 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

NO FURTHER RESPONSE FROM HARSHIL169 ON THIS TOPIC

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

Jaggi Vasudev[2] (born 3 September 1957), generally referred to as Sadhguru,[2][a] is an Indian yogi[5] and author.[6][7]

In 1992, Vasudev established Isha Foundation, which has been involved in various activities in the field of spirituality, education, and environment. The organisation has been accused of violating government rules and regulations, and undertaking populist environmental activities without any rational basis. Vasudev's sociopolitical ideology aligns with neo-liberal Hindutva (and Bharatiya Janata Party); he has attracted significant criticism for flawed understanding of realpolitik and propagation of pseudo-scientific information from a politico-religious standpoint. In 2017, he was awarded Padma Vibhushana by the Government of India for his services in the field of spirituality.

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y)

Jaggi Vasudev (born 3 September 1957), generally referred to as Sadhguru, is an Indian yogi and author who has been acclaimed as the most significant guru in India.

In 1993, he established Isha Foundation, which has been involved in various activities in the field of spirituality, education, and environment. In 2017, he was awarded Padma Vibhushana by the Government of India for his services in the field of spirituality.

Family

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

Jaggi Vasudev was married to Vijayakumari (also called Vijji). This was Vijayakumari's second marriage. Prior to marrying Vasudev she worked in a bank. The couple had a daughter called Radhe. Vijaya Kumari died in 1997. At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her. Vasudev called the incident as 'Mahasamadhi' and claimed he had told her about it nine months before her death.[13][14] Although he claimed she had attained mahasamadhi and, according to Hindu beliefs, should have been buried, Vasudev had her body cremated. Police could not gather enough evidence, and the case against him was closed.[13]

Vasudev's daughter Radhi is a trained dancer. She married Chennai-based classical vocalist Sandeep Narayan in 2014 at Vasudev's Coimbatore ashram in ceremony attended by many Indian celebrities.[15]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y)

All the references here are to some opinion columns and one article about a Congress IT Cell chief's tweet. None of these are appropriate references. Also I dont see why his daughter's marriage needs to be mentioned here.

Isha Foundation

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

Jaggi Vasudev established the Isha Foundation as a non-profit organisation near Coimbatore in 1992.[6] The Foundation has allegedly violated rules and regulations on several occasions.[16][17][18][19][20]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y)

Jaggi Vasudev established Isha Foundation, a non-profit organisation. The Foundation is involved in ecological, educational and health initiatives. It is a member of the UN ECOSOC and was awarded the Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar in 2008 for its ecological work. It has been accredited by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification for the purpose of rejuvenating soils and reducing desertification. 

Yoga programmes

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

After the establishment of the ashram, Vasudev began conducting yoga programmes on the premises of the newly established Isha Yoga Center in 1994, including a course for the Indian Hockey team in 1996.[21][22] In 1997, he began conducting classes in the United States[23][24] and from 1998 onwards, for life-term prisoners in Tamil Nadu prisons.[25] [26]

The flagship program is titled 'Inner Engineering', which introduces people to simple Yoga practices and the Shambhavi Mahamudra[27]; corporate leadership forms a core audience of these programs.[28] It views depression as the result of a false widespread belief about an ability to change the world according to one’s desires, and offers to teach the technology of mental well-being, to help one acclimatize with unavoidable work rigors.[29] Vasudev has frequently cited a study by the University of California which supposedly found mahamudra to lead to highly elevated levels (221%) of neuronal regeneration in the brain; it has since been noted that the study appeared in a fringe journal published by a discredited alternative medicine advocate and his allies, and that it merely reports lower levels of subjective stress from a medium-sized uncontrolled group practicing yoga daily for six weeks.[30][31]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y)

In 1994, Jaggi Vasudev conducted the first program in the premises of the newly established Isha Yoga Center. After the establishment of the ashram, Vasudev began conducting regular yoga programs at the Isha Yoga Center, including a course for the Indian Hockey team in 1996.[21][22] In 1997, he began conducting classes in the United States[23][24] and from 1998 onwards, for life-term prisoners in Tamil Nadu prisons.[25] [26] The flagship program is titled 'Inner Engineering'.

Adiyogi Shiva statue

PLEASE CHANGE (X) esigned by Vasudev, the foundation built a 112-feet-tall and 500 tonnes (490 long tons; 550 short tons) Shiva statue for inspiring and promoting yoga. It was inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi[40] and has been recognized as the "Largest Bust Sculpture" by Guinness World Records.[41]

The Tamil Nadu government has since claimed the entire construction as illegal, for which no approval was granted;[42] Comptroller and Auditor General's report further states the construction to have flagrantly violated the rules of biodiversity zones.[43][44][45]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y) esigned by Vasudev, the foundation built a 112-feet-tall and 500 tonnes (490 long tons; 550 short tons) Shiva statue for inspiring and promoting yoga. It was inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi[37] and has been recognized as the "Largest Bust Sculpture" by Guinness World Records.[38]

Rally for Rivers

PLEASE CHANGE (X) The Rally for Rivers campaign, which ran from September to October 2017,[57] intended to rejuvenate India's depleting rivers by growing large forests along their banks. Promoted by Vasudev all over the country, the campaign received support from a broad range of celebrities and the urban populace.[58] MOUs were signed with state governments.

However, the campaign has been widely criticized by environmentalists for lacking in scientific basis and shifting the spotlight away from real concerns.[59] Acclaimed water conservationist Rajendra Singh alleges that the campaign is motivated by the goal of money and fame.[60]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y) The Rally for Rivers campaign, which ran from September to October 2017,[53] intended to rejuvenate India's depleting rivers by growing large forests along their banks. The campaign received support from 162 million people, including a broad range of celebrities and the rural and urban populace.[54] MOUs were signed with state governments for river revitalization. It was included in the United Nations Compendium for Nature-Based Solutions.

Cauvery Calling

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

Further information: Cauvery calling The project intends to support farmers in planting an estimated 2.4 billion trees through agroforestry and simultaneously cover one third of Cauvery basin with trees, as a means of conserving it.

The campaign got popular appreciation from politicians and film fraternity; however, environmentalists and public intellectuals rejected the claims, asserting that the program presented a simplistic view of river conservation, especially without accounting for social issues and had a potential to harm the tributaries and accompanying wild life habitats.[61][62][63] A Public Interest litigation has been also filed in the Karnataka High Court questioning the huge amounts of fundraising for the movement and the usage of government owned land for a private purpose without any proper study.[64][65][66][67]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y)

The project is an extension of Rally for Rivers, and intends to support farmers in planting an estimated 2.42 billion trees through agroforestry and simultaneously cover one third of Cauvery basin with trees, as a means of rejuvenating the river.

Politics, religion and pseudoscience

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

Critics note that Vasudev shares the sociopolitical ideology of Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindutva.[30][75][76][77][78] He plays a vital role in Indian right-wing politics, using his suave and seemingly apolitical guru persona to spread an exclusionary brand of non-secular ethno-nationalism to an urban audience.[75]

He advocates a total ban on cow slaughter and deems the Muslim Rule in India as centuries of "oppressive occupation", which were far worse than the British Raj.[30] Vasudev has also spoken in favour of the 2019 Balakot airstrike, introduction of a comprehensive GST and Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 whilst deeming the Thoothukudi protests as lynching of corporate industries.[30][79][80][81] In an interview before Times Now, Vasudev had blamed the left liberal sections of the society for facilitating militancy in Kashmir and lamented about how Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid (of JNU sedition row fame) were hogging the public limelight instead of being behind the bars.[82][75] His understanding of realpolitik and history, as displayed in delivering these stances has been widely criticized.[75][80][30]

Vasudev has also been noted as a longstanding purveyor of pseudo-scientific information across a spectrum of topics, aligning to a politico-religious model.[83][84][30]

In 2015, he propagated long-debunked superstitions in his blog, about food turning poisonous and human health being adversely affected during lunar eclipse; the post has been since been broadcast across multiple mainstream media, for years; over a public discourse, he used a rudraksha garland as an 'energy' measuring device to prove his claim.[30][85][86] AltNews has documented Vasudev to have perpetuated numerous myths around clinical depression; he had also protested against a potential prohibition on the use of mercury for Indian traditional medicines, despite its extreme toxicity which can lead to deat.[87][88] His views on the Higgs boson and alleged benefits for the Vibhuti have been refuted by the rationalists and have been labelled as anti-scientific.[89][90] In a talk delivered at IIT Madras, he propounded debunked theories about water memory.[91]

Shashi Tharoor has noted about how the ideology of Hindutva has encouraged gurus to blend religion and pseudo-spirituality into a lucrative business to promote irrationality.[92] Another piece over Scroll.in, on similar veins, documented Vasudev's casting of religious politics into a meta-scientific narrative and popularization of a Hindutva-centered revisionist history featuring atavistic remembrances of a golden Hindu past; among others it consisted fundamental mis-interpretation of Darwin's work followed by appropriating it as something that has been long discovered in India, advocating for Hindu rituals after death since it spared a slow death (as allegedly justifiable from the continued growth of nail and hairs) and claiming of Hindu Tantric 'scientists' being capable of resurrecting the dead by citing the anecdote.[30] Babu Gogineni deemed of him as a spiritualist conman, who built a huge business empire by resorting to a mixture of pseudo-science with science, rather than old age magic tricks which were increasingly getting debunked.[93]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y) Delete this whole sectioN of Politics, religion and pseudoscience

Honors

PLEASE CHANGE (X)

Vasudev received the Padma Vibhushan, the second-highest civilian award from the Government of India in 2017 in recognition of his contribution to the field of spirituality.[94][95] Critics have opined it to be politically motivated in light of his support of political stances by Bharatiya Janata Party and overall ideological inclination towards Hindutva.[30]

He stood 92nd in The Indian Express' list of 100 most powerful Indians, in 2012.[96]

PLEASE CHANGE TO THIS (Y)

Vasudev was conferred the Padma Vibhushan civilian award by the Government of India in 2017 in recognition of his contribution to the field of spirituality.[93][94] Saigiridhar91 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please try to secure the consensus for these various proposals first. I suggest in small increments. El_C 10:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

A few of the details are incorrect and cannot be verified with any authenticated resources. Hence the lines have to be removed or changed with factual data. Darshan M G (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Hi Darshan M G, could you specify what exactly is incorrect in the article? aboideau<sup>talk</sup> 13:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

Alot of articles in this content is either fake or misleading. This hurts the Hindu Sentiments and effects the belief power. Please reconsider as ,Wikipedia is a day to day answers for lots of general queries. and being a saint for provoking human consciousness is not at all harmful. Some user have posted alot of Unreliable articles inside this Content. 123.201.110.34 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general complaints about an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Under Politics, religion and pseudo science. In the line next to Mercury it's written deat instead of death.I think death should be correct. Utkarshgoel318 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Utkarshgoel318, thanks for pointing. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Ideology interpretation through opinion articles, Vandalism, Unsourced Content

Rishang123 (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Vasudev's sociopolitical ideology aligns with neo-liberal Hindutva (and Bharatiya Janata Party)"

This line should be removed from the introduction paragraph of this article. You cannot assign an ideology to a person based on opinion articles. All the cited articles are opinion and are written against the subject which affects the neutrality of the article. The sentence also claims that BJP and Sadhguru have same ideology which is baseless argument without any proper proof and should be removed. Possible signs of vandalism can be seen here If bunch of articles claims him as neo-liberal Hindutva, then there are articles which shows him as non-religious person and who is secular in nature. Some of them-

Yoga and religion

multi religion temple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishang123 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I establish a consensus? The article was changed less than a month ago especially from a particular user who goes around vandalising different subjects of a particular group and he did not take any consensus before changing it, please explain me?

I support the removal of the unsourced, false allegations, "The organisation has been accused of violating government rules and regulations, and undertaking populist environmental activities without any rational basis. Vasudev's sociopolitical ideology aligns with neo-liberal Hindutva (and Bharatiya Janata Party); he has attracted significant criticism for flawed understanding of realpolitik and propagation of pseudo-scientific information from a politico-religious standpoint. from the lead/introduction. @El C: please remove that false accusation immediately. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: @El C:

"The organisation has been accused of violating government rules and regulations, and undertaking populist environmental activities without any rational basis. Vasudev's sociopolitical ideology aligns with neo-liberal Hindutva (and Bharatiya Janata Party); he has attracted significant criticism for flawed understanding of realpolitik and propagation of pseudo-scientific information from a politico-religious standpoint. I am against the above line as well as it is a clear case of Vandalism WP:VD, it is against WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. The sources are not justified being against WP:BESTSOURCES . Please remove it Rishang123 (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rishang123, No it is not WP:VANDALISM, and calling it as such is a Personal attack you have been warned not to repeat this again. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rishang123, what was said above, yes. Note that I am concerned about new accounts with very few edits (such as your own) are only here projecting a rather singular purpose — the purpose of generally promoting the subject (which includes whitewashing of critical points). That is a problem. The aggressive demeanor is a problem. Overall, this entire entry is problematic, which is why the discretionary sanctions were invoked for this article on multiple occasions. El_C 09:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, What about WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. This line is also unsourced WP:BESTSOURCES. Please explain me. Rishang123 (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

EL_C, Hello, I am not promoting the subject neither whitewashing the critical points but this line here looks problamatic and misleading and there seems to be no justified source for this line, that is why I made the edit request. Particularly this line - "Vasudev's sociopolitical ideology aligns with neo-liberal Hindutva (and Bharatiya Janata Party)" Thankyou Rishang123 (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rishang123, that was me — I said that. El_C 10:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

EL_C, I am sorry!, but what about the line "Vasudev's sociopolitical ideology aligns with neo-liberal Hindutva (and Bharatiya Janata Party)" Rishang123 (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rishang123, That line is supported by WP:RS that are added as a ref after the line. If you disagree with the content, then you have to follow WP:DR. If there are sources saying vice versa or something else, then post them with their quote. Just saying "I don't like this content so please remove it" is not going to help here. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rishang123, I am an uninvolved admin currently overseeing this article, especially with respect to applying discretionary sanctions, when needed — therefore, I am deliberately trying to avoid taking a side in a content disputes, per WP:INVOLVED. Thank you. El_C 10:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

@DBigXray: you made some reversion here, however you have not provided any source for the statements, please cite references for the same.—Spasiba5 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, The sources for these lines have already been listed as Inline citations please check. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Thanks for correcting the way I cited the references. However, I don't see any reference cited for the sentence, "The organisation has been accused of violating government rules and regulations, and undertaking populist environmental activities without any rational basis." So can we remove that sentence?—Spasiba5 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, per WP:LEADCITE refs are not added in lead. You can find them in the relevant section in the body. I repeat, everything here is well cited. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Potential Biased reporting with WP:POV and WP:OPINION | Requesting External Opinions

Biased Introduction

The intro paragraph sounds biased. Traditional introduction written in biographies of living people should probably not call out only the negative criticism? KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What's a traditional introduction? Lead me towards some positive reviews of him/his work. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

As editors we must refrain from labelling and using words like dimwit for any subject. Wikipedia articles are informative and they must be that only. Multiple sources does not necessarily mean that they are credible. The sources are reports of accusations or personal opinions, and not any proved judgements. Facts of every kind are relevant, only when they maintain neutrality. Negative comments are cited which are mostly opinions and not stated by any reputated institution. The subject has nowhere stated to be a scientist or politician and is related to the field of spirituality, why is his political views and controveries are highlighted. Articles must be informative and neutral and this is in line with the guidelines of Wikipedia. One's ideologies or personal beliefs are not informative. 09:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Abhayoct13th (talk)

Multiple sources do not prove anything if they are not from reputated institution or media works. As editors, we must foster neutrality and refrain from derogatory labelling subjects. The subject hasn't claimed to be a scientist or politician anywhere, so his personal views be it political or scientific, must not be included as this is about biography of a living person. Please clearly cite from a credible sources if the subject has been claimed to be politician or scientist or help removing information that is defamatory. 09:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Abhayoct13th (talk)

What are you talking 'bout? Where does the article refer to the subject as a dimwit? If you wish to challenge reliability of any source, WP:RSN is the venue to settle it out. Our breadth of coverage derives from mainstream media; please forward all such queries to the cited sources. I fail to see why the ideologies and beliefs of the subjects are not informative for an average reader. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 10:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Anger? How did you get to that conclusion, @DBigXray? Why would I be angry, I just said what it seems like and if you look at the reply of the editor 'Harshil' above he is using words like 'dimwit' which shows anger, not me. Informative articles present just information about the subject, not the rights and wrongs of their perspectives. We must not support judgemental attitude here. Anyways I got the whole point of you people. It is futile for anyone to speak for neutrality here because some editors have made their mind to not to change the article. I hope someone with higher authority sees this and decides that if so much of things are pointed out on the talk page, there must be something which needs to be corrected. Thanks. 14:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)14:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayoct13th (talk • contribs)

Anyone reading my replies here and being confused, the above replies are somehow being diverted to this discussion,but they were actually made to the discussion 'About Intentionally defaming the subject of the article' on the talk page of the article. Read there and you'll get what my replies meant. Abhayoct13th (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Speculative Political Affiliations

Political alignment with Hindutva or Bharatiya Janata Party seem to be made without citations. Eitherway, the man's probably known for his work in Yoga. Calling out only the potential political affiliation as almost the entire intro seems to be poor standards? KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead?. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

KumareshPassoupathi, Winged Blades of Godric, In their recent initiatives of Cavery Calling and Rally of rivers, Sadhguru and his foundation has public collaborated with political leaders from across spectrum. Left Govt of Kerala, AIADMK of Tamil Nadu, Congress of Pondicherry, Previous JDS-Congress and current BJP of Karnataka, TRS of Telangana and various other political parties. So how his political affiliation can be confined to single party? XGammaRay (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 14:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced Media Citations

Almost all media citations seem to be from Scroll and Quint which are known for their Left leaning political stance. Absence of any positive reporting shows signs of potential bias. KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSN is that-way. Both have won multiple Ramnath Goenka Awards, by the way. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Winning Ramnath Goenka Awards does not certify a media house or person as neutral. Significant number of articles from Scroll and Quint shows their left leaning political stance. XGammaRay (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the way .... ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV All Bad, No Good?

The article reads like a pure criticism showcase, instead of like a balanced reporting of the good, and the bad. Absence of call outs on Outreach programs, Educational Non Profits, or anything positive that has seen wide coverage in the media over the years seems to support the suspicion of this bias. Added to that any attempts to include them have been blocked by specific people repeatedly like User:Bbb23 User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric, who have an explicitly stated pre-inclination against Jaggi_Vasudev in their comments like "He runs a 'cult'.", etc. Requesting help in an objective, unbiased evaluation of the users' edits to determine this bias. KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Propose exact changes that you seek to incorporate. He runs a NRM/cult; that's a fact. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Girish Shahane an acclaimed political critic? And in case he is, the wordings of the aforementioned statement needs to be removed and changed to the quoted text. Abhayoct13th (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

. Abhayoct13th (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sections built on Opinion Articles (Not News Reports)

The section titled Politics, Pseudoscience and Religion particularly seems too biased. All the articles cited in the page are not news reports but opinion pieces written by people. When this was raised as a violation of 'Opinion not Fact', edits that added the tag to said citations were reverted without as much as an explanation. KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and the multiple AltNews pieces are all op-eds. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I feel that the articles quoted above 1 through 7 are either (a) Opinions written in Journals, not News Reports or (b) Original Research. Could you help with a neutral evaluation?

The ping does not go, unless signed in the same edit. Re-paging @Chiswick Chap:. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 10:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the page, WBG! :) Still figuring this out. :) KP (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Potentially a Targeted, co-ordinated Vandalism

Linked page Isha_Foundation has been vandalised by the same set of users. Despite the organisation fitting in the Wiki norms of Notability, repeated attempts have been made against the page's existence, and Notability Clause notifications have been added. KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and throwing unsubstantiated aspersions; comment on content and not on contributor. This t/p is for this article, only. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanton Hold-up on Cleanup & Quality Improvement

The page Isha_Foundation, that was maliciously merged with this page, has the potential to be part of the Yoga Project, India Project and a bunch of others. It seems that attempts to clean up these two pages are being vandalised by the said users with wanton bias. Requesting help! KP (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and throwing unsubstantiated aspersions; comment on content and not on contributor. ∯WBG<sup>converse</sup> 06:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, everything is biased.. Wikipedia, try to find some neutrality. Dox rhyme (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Jubaeir (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTICE: This Page is under discussion on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard for vandalism and other violations (26 January 2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive297#Jaggi_Vasudev

UPDATE: Certain editors involved in the above discussion are no longer active. DBigXray has been permanently retired . Others, including My_Lord, have been blocked indefinitely.

- Jp7311 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: On March 3, 2020 User:Harshil169 changed their username to Brihaspati. All prior contributions to articles will appear in revision history as User:Brihaspati (also red linked). The change is documented here, and offline records are also being maintained. - Jp7311 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

Please see the edit notice for details. Thanks in advance for everyone's close attention. El_C 09:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi El_C, I have updated the DS template to say this explicitly. I request you to use the same in the talkpage headers in future. Also log this at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Biographies_of_Living_Persons. Thanks for helping on this page, appreciate it. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. I updated the log — ten days ago. El_C 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I copied what User:Ivanvector added at Talk:Khalistan Commando Force. As I feel it is important to note it. Editors reverting using twinkle may never encounter the page notice. Secondly the log doesn't say about 1RR on Jaggi Vasudev. (at least not at the location I linked, did you log it elsewhere ?) --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It is the personal responsibility of the given editor to be made aware of a mainspace edit notice. Thanks, will amend 1RR application to the report momentarily. El_C 10:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this simple note can save the admins the efforts of having to block genuinely unaware page watcher who while reverting POV find themselves blocked. We ahve a good template, why not make full use of it. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sure — the more, the better. El_C 10:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The synchronised effort by DBigXRay and some other editors to vandalise this and related articles has been taken up with the administrators. Due to a negative bias regarding the subject, this group of editors have fed a lot of junk from tabloids into this article. This article needs clean-up and rewriting to restore neutrality. Hope, after the decision by the administrators, this group of editors will not vandalise the article again. Dwat079 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 2020 March 12th

Please add a hyperlink to the word realpolitik that links to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

The article mentions that the Adiyogi statue is illegal and the Tamil Nadu government has mentioned it as illegal. There is completely false information and violates the fundamental right ( Article 21 ) of the Constitution of India by defaming and maligning a person's reputation. Please provide information and source regarding the information provided in your article or correct it as soon as possible. Failure to do so would, will force me to complain to higher authorities and raise this issue through on social media through my own Facebook page and Youtube channel. 182.69.35.1 (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References for each statement are already provided in the article. Greyjoy <sup>talk</sup> 06:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

I notice that the criticism that has been added is very biased and the citations used are basically tabloids. I request to remove all the criticism unless cited with reputed newspapers. BabyINeedYa (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. No they are not tabloids. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

How can you say these citations are not tabloids? These pseudo- news websites are quite famous for their biased reporting and what is the criteria by which we can know whether a media house is reliable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyINeedYa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

see WP:RS--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:QUESTIONABLE

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

This actually concludes my argument and as per the above statement, we should remove these citations.

@BabyINeedYa: I've no idea what you want. Which citations? You need to be specific and explain what is wrong with each source you wish removed. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I wish to remove these citations as per WP:QUESTIONABLE:

https://scroll.in/article/927625/opinion-the-disturbing-irrationalism-of-jaggi-vasudev

https://hindi.theprint.in/opinion/how-much-education-is-required-to-speak-and-talk-on-every-subject-in-the-world/43872/

https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/sadhguru-indian-mystics-deliver-lectures-top-colleges-india

https://www.thequint.com/news/isha-foundation-violation-forest-land

https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/sadhguru-caa-video-misleading-on-nrc-protesters-gaslighting-attempt

https://thewire.in/politics/why-hindutva-nationalists-need-a-sadhguru

https://scroll.in/article/948963/how-jaggi-vasudev-has-helped-strengthen-fears-about-muslims

https://thewire.in/politics/an-unenlightened-sadhguru-in-king-modis-court

http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/26/jaggi-vasudev-doesnt-understand-science-or-the-nature-of-the-universe/

https://www.arre.co.in/pov/science-spirituality-and-the-psychobabble-of-sadhguru/

I am not sure about these two:

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/indias-own-carl-sagan-meet-babu-gogineni-science-populariser-hyderabad-70951

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/features/politics/science-is-not-your-enemy-science-hinduism-1.2653600

Anyone? I am not getting any replies.BabyINeedYa (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Struck through sockpuppet edits, Santoshsatvik please don't edit closed edit requests, you need to start a new one with specific issues. Best to ignore the sock's edits, do your own research. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I couldn't understand how you identified this as sockpuppet, but ok. Please look into the section I made a while back regarding the opinion based reference Arre (Below, Reference 104). If no one replies, its difficult to establish consensus.Santosh L (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Content addition to: Isha Foundation section --> Adiyogi Shiva statue sub-section

X:-

Isha Foundation has denied the allegations stating that the statue has been installed with requisite permissions from The District Collector, Coimbatore, The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore and also from BSNL authorities.

A technical clearance had been obtained from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning as well.

Request addition of X to section Isha Foundation in the "Adiyogi Shiva statue" sub-section. The paragraph consisted of an allegation against Isha Foundation. It is necessary to show the counter-allegation by the concerned entity, i.e. Isha Foundation.

X has been sourced from The Wire - Isha Foundation responds Subhashini Alis in sub-section - "Adiyogi statue and illegal construction?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting to look into proposed edit. Santosh L (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@talk Please look into this request. A counter-statement by the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay I'm confused who is making this EPER. Although I think this edit request may be good and made in good faith, I'm  Declineding this. The source has a had it's own wikipedia page, and the sourced information seems fishy regarding defamation. So I'll accept this request if another source is provided. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 16:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Pls add

Major controversies are missing and Jaggi's IT cell and online reputation management team are suppressing them. Please form Controversy or Reception section and add following details:

On 31st March 2019, Jaggi had labeled Muslim student studying at London School of Economics as "Taliban". LSE students union had called the Jaggi's comment as "Islamophobic" and he was widely criticised on social media after that video of conversation went viral. After backlash, he issued an apology claiming that video was "mischievously edited".

When Hima Das, Indian athlete, won gold medal for India, Jaggi tweeted to congratulate her and wrote that her win was "Golden Shower" (an act for peeing on or around your partner) for India. Subsequently, he was trolled on Twitter for his tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.213.233.208 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. <sup>put'r there</sup> 01:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Non-administrator and non-reviewer Comments

Didn't he clarify in the video that the word Taliban was used in its original meaning as "students/seekers" and not as the common name of a Terrorist group. Check Merriam-Webster for etymological definition. Do you still want to add this? Then you should also add what he said in the apology. For Neutrality.

Santosh L (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Hima Das, a Golden shower for India. Congratulations and Blessings. -Sg (sic.)," tweeted Sadhguru. You know, other than for trolling him, I don't think he meant it in the slang way but in the literal sense. Many things have double-meanings and this statement does not allude to the double meaning. It has more meaning of a "grand win" in the literal sense. Your requests are frivolous. People and trolls always find dubious meanings.Santosh L (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

You need to include "Sadhguru" and call him so where ever the name is to be used. You would not mention the name of a Doctorate holder without prefixing Dr. to his name. Similarly, "Sadhguru" is like a title that needs to be Pre-fixed to the name. Even mentioning just "Sadhguru" would even suffice. 192.140.155.193 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:DOCTOR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of reference Science, Spirituality, and the Psychobabble of Sadhguru

Reference 104 "Science, Spirituality, and the Psychobabble of Sadhguru" is a Point of View/Opinion and does not conform to WP:RS as it falls under Self-Published category.

Request to remove this reference and statements using this reference in Politics, religion and pseudoscience

About source Arré:-

We tell stories using fiction, non-fiction, documentaries, social experiments, podcasts and more.

Arré is new-age infotainment.

Arré is change.

Arré is a conversation.

Let’s talk.

Santosh L (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please mention reasons for removal of requests. Santosh L (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The reasons were given above by the requester Rs180216 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Please change "The organization has been subject to mixed reception." to "Sadhguru has played a role in transforming the lives of millions of people around the world, and continues to make a positive impact on society through is programs and talks."

Please change all instances of the words "Vasudev" or "Jaggi Vasudev" to the more appropriate word Sadhguru.

Please change "Vijaya Kumari died on 23 December 1997. At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her; Vasudev termed the incident as 'Mahasamadhi' and claimed she had told him about it nine months before her death.[14][15] The police investigation found no fault in him." to "On 23 December 1997, Vijaya Kumari attained Mahasamadhi. She underwent immense preparation for the event for over 9 months with the help of Sadhguru. The powrfull process took place in front of many Isha volunteers as well as Sadhguru. Some allegations have been made against Sadhguru regarding the incident, however, none of them had any evidence pointing against him in any form."

Please change "Vasudev has also been noted as a longstanding purveyor of pseudo-scientific information across a spectrum of topics, aligning to a politico-religious model." to "Sadhguru has been pictured to be a firm believer on topics such as pseudoscience, however modern-day science as well as the yogic sciences prove that he is in fact stating the truth while discussing these topics."

In honesty, the whole section Politics, religion and pseudoscience should be simply removed or rewritten. It was clearly written with a substantial amount of bias towards Sadhguru and portrays him in a negative manner. Templesohan201 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You want to change information critical of the topic which is grounded in sources to praises so as to promote your own viewpoint on the matter... See WP:NPOV to see what is the actual definition of neutrality on Wikipedia RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Date and age issue

According to the Biography section, Jaggi Vasudev graduated from Mysore University in 1973, when he must have been the age of 16 (if he was indeed born in 1957 - as the article previously claims). I am not sure if that was possible unless he was also an intellectual prodigy who was smart enough to go to college at the age of 13 - and if that's the case, maybe this should be highlighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.0.238.150 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The graduation date is not stated in any of the cited sources, so I removed it. ARK (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

politics, religion, and pseudoscience section is heavily editorialized

While parts of the section are well sourced and written appropriately, there are aspects wh ee opinion is stated as fact.

For example:

"He plays a vital role in Indian right-wing politics, using his suave and seemingly apolitical guru persona to spread an exclusionary brand of non-secular ethno-nationalism to an urban audience."

This has a linked source but there either should be an attribution of who made this description or it should be removed. Otherwise it comes off as if it is a fact included by the editor and not just either their own opinion or the opinion of a third party being cited.

Similarly

"His views on the Higgs boson and alleged benefits for the Vibhuti have been refuted by the rationalists and have been labelled as anti-scientific."

Which rationalist? I'm unaware of an official group that represents all the rationalists, and the cited sources are just from one author. What made their refutation valid? Why are they more credible? I'm not saying that his views weren't refuted, but as written it isn't demonstrated at all and revolves into he said they said.

Finally in this statement:

"He advocates a total ban on cow slaughter and deems the Muslim Rule in India as centuries of "oppressive occupation", which were far worse than the British Raj."

It isn't clear what relation the two components of the sentence have with one another. What does his opposition to cow slaughter have to do with his views on the nature of Muslim rule in India several hundred years ago? Not saying they aren't true, just makes little sense to have one sentence that mentions two unrelated views like this.

To be honest, after writing this comment, it isn't entirely clear why Politics, Religion, and Pseudoscience are lumped together in one jumbled up section. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a section on his political views and activities, a section on his religious views/activities, and a section on his scientific beliefs and then a section at the end of criticism of his scientific claims? That would be more in line with other articles on famous figures, and I don't often see a combination like this on other articles for that matter. Rs180216 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've given the section a trim. ARK (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

The name should be changed from just "Jaggi Vasudev" to "Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev". Just like you add a Dr. to anyone who holds a doctorate, etc, "Sadhguru" too is a title. Dont dis-respect traditions by removing the titles. 192.140.154.40 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC, as has already been explained. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thjarkur Signature 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Change section heading "Reception" to "Criticism"

The entire section is nothing but criticism, and in every other article I've read regarding a person of such import (or controversy), the section detailing viewpoints critical of that person is titled "Criticism." Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. ARK (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Link proposal

Cause there's just one weblink, I would recommend a comprehensive Pdf-file with many good articles from Sadhguru's Blog covering all significant topics, like

• A Collection of Articles from the Isha-Blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edman33 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Please add this catagory to the page; Category:Educators Rishi Dwivedi 11:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page is in Category:Spiritual teachers, a subcategory of Category:Educators. Per WP:SUBCAT, we put pages in the most specific categories possible, and don't put them in both a category and its parent category. Danski454 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section : "of advocating for Hindu death rituals"

The last lines of the section look rushed and, He is a mystic and therefore he is supposed to talk about on the topic of rituals, so what does "advocating of death rituals" mean here ? Every person has a right to perform his/her Death ceremony and rituals according to the faith one follows. Therefore a Hindu has as much right as a Christian to perform the rituals.

Even the Author of the Reference mentioned, says, "I have no objections to religious ceremonies. It is the prerogative of believers to conduct them", Therefore I wonder where the controversy arises from ? He is not advocating any Hindu rituals to be conducted, it is the right and choice of the Believers to conduct them.

Therefore I would suggest for the Removal of this line as it is misleading for a reader. UltraWikipedion (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

The sentence about his wife's death is biased, not written from a neutral point of view. Please see the sentence "The police investigation found no fault in him" under "Family" sub-section has been cited to https://hindi.theprint.in/opinion/how-much-education-is-required-to-speak-and-talk-on-every-subject-in-the-world/43872/ which clearly states in Hindi "पुलिस जग्गी के खिलाफ कोई साक्ष्य नहीं जुटा पाई और ये केस बंद हो गया." which means "The police could not gather any evidence against Jaggi and the case was closed." in English so this particular sentence needs to be at least re-written. 2409:4060:118:40E0:586E:26CB:F0F3:7BDC (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done – empty request Okay, but re-written into what? Once you provide the exact sentence that you believe is WP:NPOV complaint, please turn this request back on so we move on to step two. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Subjective source

A source being cited is not notable and not high trust. At the time of writing this feedback, it is citation 100 ( http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/26/jaggi-vasudev-doesnt-understand-science-or-the-nature-of-the-universe/ ).. we should stick to more prominent and reliable sources for citations. Diya.diya23 (User talk: Diya.diya23\talk)

They will not answers as they are influenced by the left SinhaYasharth (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I also added a number of opinion sources, note we do not use opinion sources on WP:BLP articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

The below sentences from the section entitled 'Personal Life' should actually be included under the criticism section. 'Kumari died on 23 December 1997. At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her; Vasudev asserted that she had attained mahasamadhi and claimed she had told him about it nine months before her death.[107][108] An FIR was filed against Vasudev but the police eventually closed the investigation due to lack of evidence.[107]' The mere fact that Jaggi Vasudev claims that his wife attained mahasamadhi( is the act of consciously and intentionally leaving one's body at the moment of death) is in itself highly controversial, ridiculous and needless to say near impossible as well. These statements surrounding the death of Jaggi's wife and his subsequent absurd claims have been criticized by many and been open to criticism for a long time as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suksane (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

editors, any comments?

Reference for criticisms

The following entry "At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her" has no citation. The following line has references 113, 114. 113 has no reference to the text. 114 has merely quoted an opinionated non-impartial tweet which wouldn't be a standard reference. Hence, either the lines must be removed or properly referenced. (VasishtaUWatcho 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC))

I think this is a valid point, firstly the sentence "At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her" probably comes under the criticism section. While the quoted sentence is true and Jaggi Vasudev's father in law did register an FIR alleging murder, I suggest that while the quoted sentence be kept, it should be modified to something like "At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her, subsequently the case was closed by the police and the charges were never fully established by any court of law". The FIR was indeed lodged by the father in law of Jaggi Vasudev, but if that is being mentioned, we should also mention that the case was closed by the police due to lack of evidence.

Adhering to the "Biographies of living persons" Policy

While Editing the page of a living person, Wikipedia's BLPs policy (Biographies of living persons) must be adhered. Following is the excerpt from Wikipedia's BLP page:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Now considering this as a benchmark and guidelines for adding anything about a living person in Wiki pages, I feel the edit done today by Skybluepants24 is apt because such a grave allegation was being levied by citing two poor references: One an opinionated piece and one political tweet. None of them is a reliable and standard reference. Standard citations and sources should be used before adding anything contentious about any living person. Dabra Ka Abra (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Skybluepants24

Please restore the content removed by Skybluepants24 in [13] with the sources there. The content is not present now.

Kumari died on 23 December 1997. At that time her father alleged that Vasudev had murdered her; Vasudev asserted that she had attained mahasamadhi and claimed she had told him about it nine months before her death. An FIR was filed against Vasudev but the police eventually closed the investigation due to lack of evidence.

Justice Prevails 1963 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. No need to include allegations that were never proven. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No, there are many articles of famous people which has sexual assault allaegations. This is a murder allegation. Justice Prevails 1963 (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy of Biographies of living persons clearly says that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing" The charge of murder is a grave allegation and should not be implicated until properly substantiated and referenced, and in this case, this charge was never proven by the authorized investigative agency. Dabra Ka Abra (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Skybluepants24

Skybluepants24 is created before one month. The account made all futile edits to reach extended confirmed status and stealthily removed critical content in this article about the information about the death of his wife [14]. The account looks like it is only created for this purpose of white washing about the death of his wife or a paid account by the Isha Foundation. The content must be restored by somebody with the permission. Justice Prevails 1963 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources were also relaible sources. Justice Prevails 1963 (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks good of him is paid by isha foundation ? Then according to the analogy....you are paid by....??? Tarang2000 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Philogik (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Correction Spouse(s) Vijaya Kumari ​ ​(m. 1984; death 1997)​[1

1984 is wrong : correct for 1966

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Jaggi"

In a series of recent edits to this article, one editor has changed all instances of "Jaggi Vasudev" and "Vasudev" to "Jaggi".

I would suggest that these edits be reverted.

The rationale for the edits is given in the headnote currently displayed above the article: "In this Indian name, the name Vasudev is a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Jaggi or Jagadish."

However, for "Vasudev" to be a patronym, the "V" in the initials of Jaggi Vasudev's father, Dr B.V. Vasudev, would have to stand for "Vasudev" as well. There is no reliable source cited in confirmation of this.

But even if "Vasudev" turned out to be a legitimate patronym, I'm not sure that the article's status of being written in Indian English warrants the use of the subject's given name as their primary name, merely on the strength of a regional preference for this usage in some parts of India. Surely, the international convention of using a person's surname as their primary polite name is perfectly good Indian English as well, and it doesn't come with the semantic undertow of implying a slight or belittlement to the subject.

The article's subject is known to resent being addressed as "Jaggi", which appears to have the effect of popularising the use of "Jaggi" among his detractors.

It seems prudent to return to the neutrally polite "Vasudev" as the subject's primary name. ARK (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed with editor's consent. ARK (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Change Kaveri to Cauvery 2405:201:A000:90CF:886F:A94A:AFC3:7711 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article extended-confirmed protected

Why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalaa324 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The article was protected by El C as an arbitration enforcement action, to counter "suspected paid editing or editing by Isha Foundation members". I can imagine that this article would be a ripe target for POV edits from all sorts of directions, so this seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section, especially the title is not neutral, it finds problems with the subject for alleged support for a particular party, the party in a multi-party democracy has the support of about 40% of the electorate, more than any other, and is also the ruling party at the centre. As also his position in support of the country's response to violent terrorist attacks, and the like. I suggest this section be renamed to position or views and the readers be free to judge him based on their own pov. Secondly the comment about pranic energy has been removed by me, as pran is a metaphysical concept not an anatomical or physiological one as per the principles of allopathy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, The passage you removed was correctly sourced. I've restored it. — kashmīrī <sup>TALK</sup> 10:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)