Talk:Sadhguru/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 9 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Jaggi Vasudev → Sadhguru – Jaggi Vasudev is actually overwhelmingly referred to as "Sadhguru" in news articles, print publications, and almost all other outlets. Since "Sadhguru" is generally not a proper name used by any other people and is definitely distinct from Satguru, "Sadhguru" would not be an inappropriate title for the article "replacing" other people with similar names. He's a really well-known guy all over the world, not just in India, and a Google search shows that everyone calls him "Sadhguru."

Similarly, Bono, Jay-Z, Akon, and thousands of other artists are typically not referred to by their birth names, but rather overwhelmingly by their stage names.

The article name is already "Sadhguru" in many languages. Please see d:Q793985:

• Arabic: ar:سادجورو
• French: fr:Sadhguru
• Slovak: sk:Sadhguru
• Chinese: zh:萨古鲁
• and more

As a result, "Sadhguru" would be consistent with what the article is already called in many other languages.

Also if you're curious, I'm actually not part of Sadhguru's movement at all. I'm a regular American guy who is just into Hinduism, particularly the Hare Krishna movement (which Sadhguru doesn't identify with at all), but have seen Sadhguru's videos and talks a lot online, and I've noticed that every time he is referred to as Sadhguru, not as Jaggi Vasudev. Softyleonito421 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Support per nominator, and WP:STAGENAME where it says, The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not the person's "real" name... SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There are many independent sources (g-books g-newspapers) referring to the person as Jaggi Vasudev. It's hard to have clarity about which is used most often. Hemanthah (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This was argued a couple of years ago, and there was a lot of controversy over whether the name is actually just an honorific because it's an alternative spelling of Satguru. However, as I argued then and continue to argue now, the particular spelling Sadhguru is unique to this individual and is also overwhelmingly the common name for him, as demonstrated by an ngram: [1]. So as both an overwhelming primary topic (which can be verified easily through a Google or books search for the term) and an overwhelming common name, this is a no brainer move. Like the nom, I have absolutely nothing to do with the individual concerned, I only know of him through Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. We do frequently use adopted names (religious, spiritual, etc.) as article titles per WP:COMMONNAME - see Swami Vivekananda, Sathya Sai Baba, Rajneesh and countless others. Sadhguru for the subject would be nothing out of ordinary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:POVNAME, the honorific "Sadhguru" is significantly used in majority of English-language sources; meets WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA#1 and WP:CRITERIA#2 WikiLinuz (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support its really quite obvious. Same as we Prince or Madonna. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Madonna is just a celebrity artist. Jaggi vasudev is a religious/spiritual leader who expounds/preaches certain ideologies/philosophies and also gets involved in political/social debates.. I don't think it's an apt comparison Keepit real (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support per others. It's clearly the WP:COMMONNAME per refs in the article. YttriumShrew (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose

1. Sadguru and Satguru are same, as the first line of the page says. Sadguru-Sadhguru is similar to Shri-Sri: transliteration quirks.
2. To Amakuru's point, even that particular English spelling - with h - isn't unique to him. Saibaba was also called so. He was popular enough that ngram results would include him too (all the previous links are from books). And there are numerous others less famous on English Internet - See for eg, Maruthanallur Sadhguru Swamigal, Sadhguru Sri Sharavana Baba, Sadhguru Sainath, Sadhguru Siddharoodha, Bijoy_Krishna_Goswami#Manifestation_as_SadhGuru.
3. Sadguru is used widely for a lot of other spiritual leaders. It's also an honorific for Shankaracharya (who himself, in Viveka Chudamani, calls Govinda as Sadguru) as well as Sringeri mutt pontiffs. Just look at how many books refer to Jesus as Sadguru, if you need more proof that it's an honorific.
4. Similar move was argued in Ravi Shankar's case and fell through. All those arguments apply here like WP:TITLESINTITLES
5. Most strongly though, per MOS:HONOUR "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included." But there are thousands of hits - newspapers, books etc - which use his name without Sadhguru. His own site, for example, uses this line - "Jaggi Vasudev (or Sadhguru as he is now known)". There is no need for it to be any different here.
   Hemanthah (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   Re. 1 Yeah, Sanskrit d is often transcribed as dh in South India. However, the move proposal only concerns a specific spelling variant.

   Re. 2 and 3: Going by your reasoning, we should never have Madonna for M. L. Ciccone because there are also many other people called Madonna, or pretty much most other names because there often exist other people with that same name.

   Re. 4: Dissimilar. That case concerned honorifics added to the actual name; and even then, it was contentious.

   Re. 5: Exactly 101 hits (including some useless results). — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

   Pt 2 was to rebut Amakuru's "unique" claim. Pt 3 was that Sadguru is an honorific. Madonna is not an honorific.

   Re 5, 101 results? what did you click? I see >2 lakh. Hemanthah (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

   • Madonna (used for Mary; Italian: "Our Lady") is as much of a honorific as Sadguru ("True Master"). I don't see any difference in the semantics of their use.
   • Try to find result No. 102. Hint: set the number of results displayed on one page to 100. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

     (this is becoming off-topic and slightly tedious) that happens to all results. try it with sadhguru if you want, i get cut off at 102 for that too. Google doesn't show all the results, one hits api limits. Hemanthah (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

     Hemanthah, Interesting, thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose

1. Sadhguru is an honorific title and furthermore it is a self-styled moniker that the subject is marketed with by his organization (Isha foundation). The correct page name should be a proper noun i.e. Jagdish Vasudev (birth name), or Jaggi Vasudev (current page name), or simply 'Vasudev', to avoid conflict of interest and maintain neutrality. According to the subjects own website - The Sadhguru, an honorific title which means "a totally self-aware dispeller of darkness" in Sanskrit, is founder of the Isha Foundation. Keepit real (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Above comment from Ronyrockford (talk · contribs) appears to be from a WP:SPA focused on editing Kalki Bhagawan, (a competing guru). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Above comment from Jtbobwaysf appears to be an Ad hominem, and completely tangential to the discussion at hand. Keepit real (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out a potential COI is a good thing, isn't it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

kashmīrī, can you layout your argument in specific terms as to how does my editing another non-related page create grounds for a COI? Keepit real (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed this is a likely COI editor and the response to all of this makes it more suspicious. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet another Ad hominem by Jtbobwaysf, I want to reiterate Jtbobwaysf to respect WP:PA, and instead debate on the strength of arguments presented. I repeat what I many other users including In_ictu_oculi, Dsvyas, LeoFrank, and Usernamekiran have pointed out in an earlier discussion on the same issue on this page - namely, that the word Sadhguru is an extremely common honorific applied to countless Indian gurus. Keepit real (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that all ad hominems are improper. That is a common misconception. Ad homenims can be valid when the person's background or motivations is relevant on the matter being discussed, as is the case here. Also, your invocation of WP:PA is invalid, as it says, Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic... SaltySaltyTears (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The user goes to full attack and seems to WP:WIKILAWYER better than a new editor normally does. Very first edit about a year ago had no problems with citation format, etc. This is likely socking or at least COI or PROMO. This talk page is probably not the correct venue for it, what do other editors suggest? Pinging the other editors that voted against in the last move request is now WP:CANVASS, probably should be investigated. Maybe it is more of a paid editing issue over at Kalki Bhagawan. I must admit I am not an expert in either subject, while I have heard of this article subject Kalki I had never heard of it until I looked at the edits of Ronyrockford as it the 'strong oppose' caught my attention was snow was nearly falling on the rest of the inputs, just looked out of place. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments and edits like this one or this one make me doubt that Ronyrockford edits for Kalki Bhagavan, even less is a paid editor for the guy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment about the name Sadhguru This is an interesting debate. However, I strongly doubt that the page name "Sadhguru" would usurp the names of people with similar names. Most of them use "Sadhguru" in conjunction with their first names and middle names. Per WP:COMMONNAME, most people - definitely over 50% - searching for "Sadhguru" are going to be searching for this Sadhguru in particular, not the other Sadhgurus. Additionally, most people searching for this particular religious leader would be searching for "Sadhguru" rather than "Jaggi Vasudev." We can always have Sadhguru (disambiguation), which I think will be good to create. Google does the same thing when you search for Sadhguru, and also for Madonna, Akon, or whatever common single-word names might be out there.

Furthermore, this is definitely not a common way to spell Satguru. The variant Sadguru does exist, but that's सद्गुरु with the Devanagari letter द. This is a "d", not "dh" (aspirated d) letter, and you definitely won't spell it "dh" in any of the currently used Sanskrit and Indic transliteration systems like IAST. ध "dh," and Satguru or Sadguru is never spelled with ध. The "dh" only appears sometimes in South Indian names, but it's certainly not a standard or universally accepted spelling. Softyleonito421 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A5. The problem is that whereas the Indic languages have द, ध, and ड, the English language only has a single comparable alphabet 'd'. And therefore, we have to make-do this limitation by compensating in the spelling of the English word in a way that more closely approaches the intended Indic pronunciation - by using a combination of English alphabets, so as to not make it sound like 'sad-guru' for example. I hope you get my point, on how and why subtle differences arise while transliterating from Indic to English, and really they mean the same thing. Shri/Sri, Gaurav/Gourav etc. there are countless examples. Keepit real (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Do a search of all page titles on Wikipedia that contain the name "Sadhguru." How many are there? None. And would "Sadhguru" be unfair to all the other people who also use the "Sadhguru" spelling in their names? Very unlikely. Sadhguru (disambiguation) can easily take care of that. That's why Sadhguru should be a perfectably acceptable page name for this particular person. Softyleonito421 (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

disamb page is okay, but that doesn't address WP:NPOVNAME. Is Sadhguru so uniquely associated with him and Jaggi Vasudev so rarely, that neutrality can be broken?

Re Satguru/Sadhguru transliteration, you've ignored every rebuttal made above with no new data. Hemanthah (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement of "unique association". For instance, there are thousands of Shivanandas, Krishnanandas, and Muktanandas in India, whereas our articles (Shivananda, Krishnananda, Muktananda) talk about those known best. Similarly, many people can be locally referred to as sadhguru (usually sadguru, though), even if the term is most commonly used for this particular guy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sadhguru, being a honorific, has a neutrality issue. Like I said very clearly, requirement was not of unique association, but of WP:NPOVNAME. Please don't cherry pick specific words, ignoring the gist of the argument. Hemanthah (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Much like Sathya Sai Baba (R. S. Raju), Father Pio (F. Forgione), Mother Theresa (A. G. Bojaxhiu), Yogiji Maharaj (J. Vasani), Guru Maharaj Ji (M. A. Ibrahim), Shastriji Maharaj (D. Patel), and countless others. But so what? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sathya is such a common name, why is that even an issue or are you talking about baba?

All the Maharaj pages have NPOV etc warnings, multiple ones, at the top.

Mother Theresa, not just Mother. And commonness has been considered overwhelming enough to override NPOV, to warrant mention in WP:NPOVNAME. Where is that argument made here?

(Also note that move to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev is not being discussed, move to Sadhguru is) Hemanthah (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

For example the name Madonna also refers to other things, but the singer came to 'own' that name due to her notoriety. Same goes for Sadguru as far as I know. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Madonna is honorific in Italian, WP:COMMONNAME in English (so it-wiki doesn't have her page as Madonna).

Sadhguru is honorific in Indian English. Maybe it is common name for the subject in Indian English (but there are enough other instances to doubt it) and definitely not common enough to overcome WP:NPOVNAME Hemanthah (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose sadhguru is a name adopted by his foundation for marketing purposes.. I see youtube advertisements all the time from his sadhguru channel.. his PR team also pays Hollywood celebrities like Will Smith and Mike Tyson to have a chat with him to increase his following.. It's all a PR marketing campaign and propoganda.. I think Wp should be neutral in this regard and not give in to his PR team campaign. I suspect this move request was started by paid editors or his followers with vested interests 192.58.125.1 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Quite interestingly, I actually visited the article to raise this move but I already found this happening. The reason I support this is that Sadhguru is overwhelmingly used in comparison to Jaggi Vasudev. So much so that it quite easily comes under the purview of WP:TITLESINTITLES APPU 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "Honorific" argument is absurd and does not apply here because only this person is known as "Sadhguru". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Note Some WP:PAGEVIEW data to aid discussion on name commonality. There've been spikes before for Sadhguru, but only once exceptionally large, in 2018.

Redirect pages views this year

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev	30,434
Sadhguru	10,970
Total for Jaggi Vasudev	1,490,170

Sadguru vs Sadhguru since Apr 2021

Sadguru (redirects to Satguru)	167/month
Sadhguru (redirects here)	766/month

--Hemanthah (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant since Google does not any pages except this for Sadhguru. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do read discussions above or from the last time this move was requested, before making assertions that have been refuted repeatedly. Hemanthah (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Google fight Sadhguru wins 200 to 5 against Jaggi Vasudev. Sadhguru is the WP:NICKNAME of the subject of the article, also the argument as to various alternate Romanisations is fatuous Sadhguru is how the subject spells it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Only Wikipedia is alone with giving more importance to "jaggi vasudev" while all mainstream sources refer him as "Sadhguru". Sanjoydey33 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support He is the sole person who is widely referred to as "Sadhguru", WP:COMMONNAME speaks for itself. Give Your a Break 15:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This particular spelling, "Sadhguru", redirects to this article about JV and is arguably and obviously the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC name for this individual. I agree with the above supporters who say this is a "no-brainer". Let's not wait any longer to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 17:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose once again sadhguru is an honorific/pseudo name just like Osho. Osho was known as Rajneesh and later he/his followers changed several names to address him. Same is the case here. Osho, which is the most commonly name of the person today, here still is a redirect and main article is Rajneesh. Same is the case here, there should be no exception.-- Dhaval^Talk 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Still, the Rajneesh article is not at Chandra Mohan Jain, is it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Rajneesh article simply follows the most common name, as indeed this one should, for that is the Wikipedia policy. We don't make value judgements about whether a particular name is a "pseudo name" or whatever.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sadhguru, as an honorific (like Most Honoured, HRH etc), certainly imparts a value judgement to Indian English speakers. Hemanthah (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Sadguru is not really a honorific – it's a neutral term denoting one's "true guru", i.e., own spiritual master. So, not a "most honoured" but "our true guide". — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Honorific titles of Indian figures lists him with "Sadhguru" under honorific column. Somebody else above has already pointed how his own sites says it's an honorific. Hemanthah (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Appu Can you remove Sadhguru from the mentioned article you created? "Sadhguru" is not honorific and none of the sources of this list claim it as one. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Check out what the subject's own website states here - Sadhguru is an honorific title which means a totally self-aware dispeller of darkness in Sanskrit" Keepit real (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Going by Wikipedia's policy of using commonly recognizable names as the title, this article's title too should be changed to "Sadhguru", as the world knows him by this name only. And there are innumerable Wikipedia articles where the title is given by the most recognized name. For Ex; SZA Now, her birth name is "Solána Imani Rowe", but her Wiki page title is SZA, as she is commonly known by this name.

Adding an excerpt from the "Wikipedia:Article titles" page to validate my point: ″Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.″

And in this case, be it United Nations, World Economic Forum, UNCCD, or Indian Government Press Releases- everywhere he is referred to as "Sadhguru". So, going by the Wikipedia rule, the preferred title of this page should be "Sadhguru". Hobbit and Elf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support As per Wikipedia's policy of Deciding on an article title, a good article title has five characteristics - Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision and Consistency. The name 'Sadhguru' is definitely most recognizable as compared to Jaggi Vasudev, he is popularly known as Sadhguru. It is also consistent with the pattern of titles, I agree with the example provided for artists, such as Akon, and even SZA, who's actual name is "Solána Imani Rowe", but the Wiki page title is SZA. Sadhguru is not an honorific in this case since it is not preceding his name, it is standalone. Iawaken 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Page hijacked by followers of godman

That the page is Hijacked, is self evident, by the manner in which so called "neutral" editors (and the covert followers) of this godman, banded togather in a display of tribalism and "Wiki lawyering" to vigorously push to change the name of this page to the one his PR team has so cleverly crafted. God bless this country and God bless the godmen (or God-damn men?) that have Hijacked the minds of it's people. To hell with scientific temper. To hell with reason. Keepit real (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And "to hell" with WP:COMMONNAME (a Wikipedia policy) in reliable sources? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see through the façade of wiki-lawyering, and decipher the agendas of editors. So I won't indulge in it here. Keepit real (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

Change "South India" to "India" under the title "Isha Foundation" 2409:4072:6019:14CE:0:0:486:98AC (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Book "Sadhguru, More Than a Life" is a primary source

From the preface (bolding mine): "This book is a subjective account", "emphatically not a biography", "It is based on my conversations with the subject, with those acquainted with him as well as archival material from the Isha Yoga Centre" and "I have relied largely on Sadhguru's version of events in the early part of his life".

Almost all of Family and Business sections are sourced to this book and are written as if the claims were from an independent source. Since the author's own words show otherwise, I propose that any content sourced to this book that doesn't pass WP:PRIMARY be removed - in particular, anything that's not a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts". Hemanthah (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. Feel free to BOLDly go ahead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose As per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Hence, the book "Sadhguru, More Than a Life" can be considered a primary source.Iawaken (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Iawaken It indeed is a primary source and that's precisely why it can't be relied on. I encourage you to read the rest of the WP:PRIMARY policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The Book "More than a life" is a genuine primary source. The writer has clearly stated that she didn't just rely on Sadhguru's input for drafting the story...but she also met with a multitude of people trying to know the earlier phase of Sadhguru's life. So in this way, this book is a factual biography on the subject. Additionally, all the stories that are there in the book also match with the accounts of earlier friends, family, and acquaintances of Sadhguru. Hobbit and Elf (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC) — Hobbit and Elf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose Undid the last two edits because as per the policy of WP:PRIMARY, the book quoted can be considered as a primary source. Before making such massive edits, please build consensus on the talk page first. Tamilmama (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tamilmama, @Hobbit and Elf, @Iawaken, I didn't ask for an RfC or anything requiring voting here. Please make specific arguments as to why the content I removed can stay. For eg, claims about lineage, building farm by himself etc are self-serving statements that need something more than primary. Some other things like bedtime stories, anecdotes about trips etc simply do not belong here.

It'd be helpful if you can identify any particular line that I removed which you wish to retain and why. Also your comments show all of you could read through the WP:PRIMARY page once more. Hemanthah (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Reception section longer than rest of the article!

The Reception section is nearly one third of the entire page! Looks highly irregular & distorted. A public figure for over 3 decades, has had his share of controversies but not enough to warrant such presentation. 2402:3A80:97B:9625:E48E:C160:EC1C:C8C5 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is superfluous and can be removed? If it is undue, remove it. But I have to say I disagree with your issue about the size of it. In general, the article is small, and insisting on perfect proportions relative to other sections on small articles is unwarranted. And it's only two paragraphs... on my laptop using a large font it all fits nicely on one page with no scrolling required. Le Marteau (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Reception" or one's pickiness based on personal thoughts?

The reception part seems very childish. This kind of publication is not standard to Wikipedia. It was better named controversies 2A02:3038:40E:69E4:69B5:4ADA:EF27:F233 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor typo

In the Family section, the word "harassment" is incorrectly spelled "harassement". Can someone with extended-protected editing rights change it? Aurora mc (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Le Marteau (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Editing needed on the family section

some editing needed on this page on Family section. There is written about Police complaints against vasudev, but those charges are dismissed by Police and courts as baseless. Hengul Akash (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source can be found that documents that police and/or the courts found the complaints baseless, that information can be added (with a citation of that source). The report of the existence of the complaints should not be removed. We can neither confirm nor dispute the veracity of the complaints against the subject here in the encyclopedia; only the investigating authorities, as reflected in reliable sources, can do that. General Ization ^Talk 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wealthy grandfather

The source is the same one as for the next sentence, Subramaniam's book, page 50 where he says - "But my grandfather was the richest man in town" and goes on to say how the grandfather fed 200 beggars everyday. I didn't touch it when removing primary-sourced-statements because it seemed okay enough. (Pinging @Nswix and @Chiswick Chap, sorry if you were already watching). Hemantha (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Always best to cite everything, as it can all be challenged. The talk of feeding 200 beggars suggests the book is dangerously hagiographic, i.e. not a reliable source, however. I'm really not sure why we'd be mentioning the doings of grandparents at all in an encyclopedic article; the only possible relevance would be if it drives the man's home environment and hence his character, but that is mainly a matter of parents in most people's lives. I suspect we shouldn't mention the grandparents here at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought family wealth was mentioned to add context to the later life decisions like one year motorcycle trip etc. but completely defer to your opinion in this matter. Just wished to clarify the source since I'd read that paragraph earlier. Hemantha (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly good to know the source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:PRIMARY and WP:PROMO, thus not suitable here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I have added some more biographical details but have taken care to use only RS. All claims or hagiography-like content from Subramaniam have been removed. Cenerivesuvio (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

This article looks a bit biased with reference to 1997 case filing. May be this should add : A case was filed after 7 months and closed later. https://medium.com/spreadjoy/did-sadhguru-jaggi-vasudev-kill-his-wife-4eb3f0cce824 has the details. 2601:883:4200:B:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Medium posts are self published, so we cannot use them as reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Daughter's name

Since the article cited gives the daughter's name- Radhe- it seems an odd omission given the details provided of her. Her (apparently non-notable?) husband's name is given here, so it's a little strange that hers isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.122 (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, her name is included. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku,

Happy to be editing with you. I stumbled upon this article and saw that it could use some significant improvement- I think if we put our heads together, we can make it a lot better. I see that you reverted a few of my edits as you feel they are "poorly justified" but I dont agree with many of the changes you've made, and would like to run through them with you:

1. In the first sentence, I wrote: "Sadhguru (born Jaggi Vasudev, 3 September 1957) is the founder and head of the Isha Foundation, based in Coimbatore, India." and you reverted it back to: "Jagadish "Jaggi" Vasudev (born 3 September 1957), known by the honorific title Sadhguru, is an Indian yoga guru and proponent of spirituality." Although there is truth to what you are trying to write here - as seen by to most religious figures, he is known as Sadhguru (a different name then he was born with i.e. Jaggi Vasudev). I understand that being a Sadhguru can be an honor, but for him, it is not an adjective to describe his status, but a proper noun. I looked at biographies of other religious figures to see how their lead section is written and found that, as an example, Pope Francis was born with the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but his wikipedia article refers to him as Pope Francis in the lead section. It is written as: "Pope Francis (Latin: Franciscus; Italian: Francesco; Spanish: Francisco; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 17 December 1936) is the head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State since 2013." The style of Pope Francis's first sentence seems to be a similar style to that of what i had written.
2. Additionally, after taking a look at WP:LEAD, it mentions that "the lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read", thus, "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points." I think the first sentence of this article should be that he is the founder and head of the Isha Foundation, as that is what gives him notability, not that he is "an Indian yoga guru and proponent of spirituality." Nonetheless, i do agree it is somewhat important to mention that, therefore, i kept that sentence after the first.
3. In the Early life and education section, I wrote "Vasudev was born..." and you changed it to "Jagadish Vasudev was born...". I wont lose sleep over this edit, but I chose to write "Vasudev" to keep it consistent with the language throughout the article (as this is how he is referred to in the entire article). Is there a reason you would like to keep the first name in this section?
4. In the Early life and education section, Vasudev's mother was previously called "Susheela", I changed it to "Susheelamma", and you reverted it back. The citation for that sentence goes to a reference which says "Dr. Vasudev’s wife Susheelamma...". According to the source, Vasudev's mother's name is Susheelamma, and it should be written the same way as the source writes it.
5. In the Early life and education section, I think it is also important to note that Susheelamma is Vasudev's mother, and B.V. is Vasudev's father, as that may not be clear to the reader. It would still be a good idea to write: "Susheelamma Vasudev (mother) and B.V. Vasudev (father)"
6. Lastly, in the Early Life section, there is a sentence that you want to keep, that reads: "Defying his parents' wishes, he refused to pursue a post-graduate course and took to business instead." Despite it being true, the wording in this sentence sounds very story-book and dramatic for an encyclopedia. Additionally, yes he did not pursue a post graduate degree, but he did complete his undergraduate studies, which was not mentioned in this section previously. He pursued undergraduate studies after one year of not going to University, because of the insistence of his family and graduated with a degree in English literature as mentioned in Midnights from Mystics, page 233-234. I believe his education is important information to note in the article and should be included, i.e. I had written: "After completing his formal education, Vasudev was uninterested in attending University, therefore he did not enroll. After one year, he enrolled at the University of Mysore, where he studied English literature." Now that I think about it, it would be important to note he was uninterested in post graduate coursework, although his parents wanted him to study further, so I propose this to combine our perspectives: "After completing his formal education, Vasudev was uninterested in attending University, therefore he did not enroll. After one year, he enrolled at the University of Mysore, where he studied English literature. Although his parents wanted him to continue to post graduate studies, Vasudev chose to begin a business."

Thank you and hope we can work together,

RealPharmer3 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, thank you for taking the time to address this issue in a friendly manner. I'm more than happy to work with you on this, especially as you've set such a positive precedent, I would be remiss to do otherwise :)

1. No disagreement here, as the example of Pope Francis seems approximately analogous. I'm not sure how the name "Jagadish" came to be in this article, but I didn't see a good reason to remove it. Any thoughts on that?
2. It appears that you removed a significant amount of content from the lead paragraph, including a reference. I have no objection to mentioning the Isha Foundation upfront, but why remove content from the lead?
3. I'm not set on this, but I generally write the person's full name in the first paragraph of their bio (after the lead), and subsequently only use their surname. The reason for this is that if the lead is intended to summarize the article, then all key information about the subject, including a person's full name, is written out in the body of the article, and it seems reasonable to write out their full name at least once. What do you think?
4. No objection here. I hadn't read the reference *grins sheepishly*, I simply kept it as I had originally found it when I first edited the page.
5. I figured that mothers are usually homemakers, not fathers (especially in more traditional cultures, such as in India), so the parents' occupations would make it obvious whether they are the father or mother, but perhaps you're right, it might be a good idea to make it more explicit.
6. I don't disagree with you here either. To be honest, my main motivation for reverting your edits was that I spotted a few things that bothered me, mostly some of your erasures as well as minor spelling errors, and this was a red flag for me, especially as you had made relatively extensive edits. I'm on board with the changes you have in mind, as you are clearly taking the time to research the subject more thoroughly than I have, and I've got no reason to think your edits are not done in good faith :)

Again, thank you for approaching this in such a collegial manner, it is a pleasure to collaborate with an editor such as yourself! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I appreciate the kind words! To address your second point, my intention isn't to erase the contents of the lead, I just want to make it more concise and to the point. If you take a look at my edits vs. the article previously, the lead is fairly similar in both cases. But ultimately, if there is information that you feel is necessary to add in the lead, by all means, let's work together to incorporate it/ debate it. As far as the third point, I can agree with adding the full name at least once in the article - I get the thought process! Lastly, I've been trying to not be too scrappy (will try to proof read more thoroughly in the future!

I'm going to go ahead and continue editing this article because I see some real potential here, please feel free to also add anything you feel is important as well! Would love the input! Thanks RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, that sounds good. I'll let you do the developmental work, as I'm not particularly vested in the topic, and I'll simply contribute minor copy edits as I see fit. Given the precedent established here, I'm sure we can easily smooth out any future disagreements :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, I'm curious, why did you delete the two book citations that were previously in the lead paragraph? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, which citations are you referring to? I dont remember taking out any books from the lead. Also, thank you for going in and rewording some sentences- they read much better! RealPharmer3 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, glad you appreciate the edits I made :)

The citations I'm referring to are and . Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I dont remember taking out any books. I'm looking at the the previous version of this article before my edits vs the article now, and I dont see any books previously there that i removed from the lead. Please let me know if I'm missing something! RealPharmer3 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I found that the sources you're referring to are in the notes section! I didnt feel they were relevant there, which is why i removed them. Please let me know if you disagree. We can discuss.RealPharmer3 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, as I just realized, the sources that you removed from the Notes section were linked in the lead paragraph. Did you not find them relevant to the article at all? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, No i didnt find them relevant to the article. RealPharmer3 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RealPharmer3, I don't find that answer satisfactory. Could you tell me why you didn't find them relevant? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, Yes of course! To be completely honest, one isn't reliable and the other doesn’t deem to be the best source to define the Sanskrit word, as that is not the aim of the source- but a mere mention within it. First, I don’t think the source Jai Mata Di, My Book On Human Welfare is reliable enough/at an academic standard to be used for a citation to define the word. Additionally, I feel that if we want to get a reliable and credited understanding of what the word Sadhguru means, it should come from a source that focuses on it, rather than a mere mention in a book dedicated to catholic asharam movements in India (as seen in The Guru in Indian Catholicism: Ambiguity of Opportunity of Inculturation?). I'm not 100% opposed to the second source, but i think we can do much better in finding a source! My plan was to find some reliable sources and use those to help define. What are your opinions? Do you feel either one should be included? RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@RealPharmer3 thank you for the explanation. I haven't actually looked into the sources themselves, but it's clear that you've done your research! I merely wanted to understand why you removed the citations, and your reasoning seems entirely coherent, so I have no objections to your decision. Thank you for continued hard work on this article 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, I love how fast you're able to respond! haha. Thank you and let me know if you have other suggestions. Theres a lot of research that's necessary to build this article out, and my schedule is becoming increasingly busier so its difficult to find time on some days.. But will keep working at this! RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, I don't think it's necessary to specify that Sandeep Narayan is Indian. After all, the entire article is about Indian people, and his name is obviously South Asian. What are your thoughts? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Revirvlkodlaku - I wanted to get your opinion on the reception section of the article. There seems to be a clear bias against Sadhguru here, and it seems that the individual who created this section of the article wanted to project a stance for Sadhguru that hasn't necessarily been proven, but speculated. They use sources that support their hypothesis, which in itself, isn't wrong i suppose (NPOV doesnt exactly forbid against properly sourced bias), but again, i think that bias, that isnt notable, is given a spotlight it doesnt deserve.

I looked into WP:FRINGEBLP and it is states that, "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame." For example, multiple sentences are written in the section about things like political views. I think its undue weight for this section considering most of his interviews, books, and assemblies have nothing to do with politics and more to do with spirituality and, from my research, he hasnt expressed his political views. Even when he has been questioned about his political views - he explains that he doesnt sit right or left, and other sermons are pretty consistent with that statement of his. I think the contents of the section walk on the fine line of WP:FRINGE because "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is" ... but things like his alleged political stance or ideology clearly steal the show in one direction.

In WP:BLP, I read that "material can be included as long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Currently, contents of the reception section seem to not hold true to this criteria.

Additionally, I dont really understand the use of a reception section for him. I read in WP:RECEPTION that, "Reception sections in articles on books, films, TV shows, and video games often have a section summarizing critical and reviewer comments. These sections, which often simply list reviewer comments with", but nowhere in this essay do i see mentions of it being appropriate to have a "reception" section about a living person.

PS: Honestly speaking - I've watched clips from his interviews with people like Trevor Noah, Mike Tyson, Joe Rogan and others; and read books/articles about him, and things like politics aren't ever an agenda item for him. So why this undue weight? (PS- i have questions about other areas in this section too, but would like your thoughts on this first :)). I wanted to get your opinion on my perceptions on this and how you would tackle it (I have some ideas but wanted to also get some insights from you). Thank you tons!! RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@RealPharmer3 my position on this is mixed.

While I sympathize with your argument about Sadhguru's general apolitical activity, the Reception section doesn't necessarily place unreasonable emphasis on political topics, in my opinion. It also discusses his interaction with celebrities and international bodies, and the criticisms levelled at him, while many of them are of a political vein, also touch on the specific type of activism he engages in and the claims he makes about a variety of issues, including those stemming from his basic spirituality. Overall, I don't think it's inappropriate for that section to remain in the article. What could be done, perhaps, is to split it into a section addressing criticism and another one discussing his influence or recognition, but there may not be sufficient content on either topic. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, Thanks for hearing me out. I was thinking about a similar approach - there are clearly two conflicting views, but really only one is presented here. And generally, speaking, I'm going to filter through/read each of the citations included already to assess them as well. RealPharmer3 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you feel about the new subsection (Recognition) I added? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku Yes, just saw it! Appreciate it! RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku I can agree with that about sundeep narayan. I only wrote indian to highlight that he is an indian classic singer vs classical singing of other country/style RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@RealPharmer3 How about linking Indian classical music, in that case? ~~ Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku I think that could be a potential, but i dont see anything wrong with keeping it in the article either. Do you mind if it is kept? Or absolutely against it? RealPharmer3 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against it at all, in fact, I suggested adding a link to Indian classical music. I have done so now :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Amazing!! @Revirvlkodlaku RealPharmer3 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3, although I hit thank you on your last edit, upon further consideration, I'm not convinced that mention of the Padma Vibhushan award should precede an account of who Sadhguru is, what he has done, and what he represents (in the lead). Why do you feel otherwise? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku , I think all that information is crucial to keep in the lead, without a doubt. But, with that said, I believe the mention of the Padma Vibhushan should precede other information because of how prestigious the honor is to receive and the connection it has to the Isha Foundation. Initially, I thought it would be appropriate to incorporate in the second sentence (for the reason you bring up now), after introducing him as the founder and head of the Isha Foundation- but as you mentioned (and i agree with), it does disrupt the flow a bit. So I thought this was another way of seamlessly shedding light on that very important achievement. RealPharmer3 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't want to dispute you needlessly, but this is something I don't agree on. While I concede that the award is prestigious and important, I don't think it should supersede information about who the man is and what he stands for. After all, when people look him up on Wikipedia, my guess is that the first thing they want to know is who he is, what he does, and why he is famous. What do you think of that argument? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, sorry i didnt see that you wrote this (didnt get the notification because i wasnt tagged). Also, I saw you rewrote the first two sentences to make it work- i appreciate that. I think this is a solid argument, but I disagree because of the fact that this award is so prestigious and honorable- and I believe that it should be presented early on. But I am still brainstorming on how to bring it together in the beginning without creating a disconnect from the get-go. Like I mentioned previously, "Initially, I thought it would be appropriate to incorporate in the second sentence (for the reason you bring up now), after introducing him as the founder and head of the Isha Foundation- but as you mentioned (and i agree with), it does disrupt the flow a bit." RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

RealPharmer3 on this point, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, my friend :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that you did change your mind after all. Good on you! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku The more we talked it through, and I thought about it- you have a good point. Thank you for your perspective :) RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@RealPharmer3 I appreciate your humility 🙂 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @RealPharmer3, please let me know if I'm just being paranoid, but I'm getting the impression that you've gradually removed most mentions of criticism of Sadhguru from the article. Even the section with that title is now gone, so any critiques of the man and his views are concealed within different sections, rather than being listed together, which seems to me better for the sake of presenting a balanced perspective on the topic. What are your thoughts on this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I think it may be some paranoia, If you take a look at edits that have been made - ive rewritten or taken out specific points that were written without being sourced and where original research was being done on wikipedia to synthesize published material that to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources- both of which shouldnt be done on wikipedia. I just organized the information as appropriately as possible while giving a balanced view of both sides - and this is the format i fell onto to. With the format now, i believe that both sides of the coin are appropriately given its due weight with clear explanations and proper sourcing- far better than before. I dont think its compulsory to have such a section (especially one that was not appropriately sourced or written), when material is now appropriately written and criticism is presented throughout the article in its corresponding sections. :) RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for responding to that, and for making a concession towards my concerns (by reintroducing the Criticism section). Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku not a problem. Like any wikipedia article, its always a work in progress, and i will continue to be as sincere as possible. I've appreciated all of your assistance along the way, and will continue to consider your opinions and feedback. RealPharmer3 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Mercury

@Jtbobwaysf: why did you strip Sadhguru's pseudoscience about mercury from the article? How can we have a NPOV article without covering it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it was poorly sourced. Is there good sourcing available for this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't consider DW to be a good source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you post the dw source and what it said please. I looked both the dw.com sources in an earlier version just now and dont find either that mention siddha. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you search the article for "mercury" and then you can tell us what it says. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf The article quotes the source "AltNews" which you removed from this article because you said "doesnt look like an WP:RS. is this some sort of Indian TMZ?" RealPharmer3 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The claims in the section were about Siddha thus it failed verification. Maybe something more neutral can be added. The other source of altnews is not an RS on a BLP. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

In the previous thread I mentioned additional sources. -- seth (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hi @Jtbobwaysf, I may technically be edit warring on this, but you seem to be ignoring the reason I reverted the removal of the pseudoscience category in the first place. Though the word "pseudoscience" isn't literally used in this article, it's obvious that the subsection on Siddha medicine references promotion of pseudoscience. Why would you deny this? What would be required for you to accept that the category is appropriate? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You cannot add categories to an article that are not supported by the content. Given that you have admitted to edit warring this needs to stop immediately. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, very few things can be said to be "obvious", particularly in the context of critical statements about a BLP. If reliable sources really describe Siddha medicine as pseudoscience, then it shouldn't be difficult to source that and mention it explicitly in the article. As an aside, there really shouldn't be a "Criticism" section in this article, particularly when half of that section is devoted to discussion of Sadhguru's political views and possible support of India's ruling party, which can't be said to be an objective "criticism". See WP:BLPBALANCE regarding neutral section headings, and also WP:NOCRIT which, while only an essay and not a guideline, does contain useful notes on why criticism sections can violate neutrality.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see Siddha medicine#Criticism. This practice is officially considered to be quackery, another term for pseudoscience. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed all the sources in this section. One didnt mention Siddha, one was youtube, and one was altnews something india (looks and sounds like TMZ). See if you can find some other sources, or this content will be deleted. Your edits on this article are starting to appear to be problematic. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is pathetic. My edits are problematic? All I've done is copy edit. My history on this article shows that I've done my best to compromise with other editors in order to achieve best results. Before you make accusations of bad faith, take a good look at yourself first. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You have already admitted edit warring in this very talk page section. Give your WP:BATTLE a rest, it wont end well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, @Amakuru , @Jtbobwaysf , @Revirvlkodlaku ,

To start, I have been working very closely on this article for the last several weeks - and I'm happy that there are more people interested in making this article better! Great to see it! I have a few comments about the conversation that has been cooking here, as well as the edits made on the article.

1. @Jtbobwaysf I think there is a potential that you maybe misunderstanding the intention of @Revirvlkodlaku. I can say from personal experience that @Revirvlkodlaku is only here to help and is very willing to work collaboratively. It seems you may have strong opinions about specific things in the article, which is good, but a more friendly and collaborative approach would be appreciated. I'm confident that everyone can come to an agreement and work together, with the right tone and intent.

2. @Jtbobwaysf I saw that you removed many citations according to your understanding of what an RS is or not. You removed many without incorporating any new citations in. I suggest that we look for sources that can be used instead of keeping unsourced material on the article.

First, If you look at the section about Siddha medicine, there aren't any medical claims in there - so your justification for removing a youtube link is semi-incorrect. Additionally, youtube links can be used as long as the video was uploaded by the copyright holder, which it seems to be - so also incorrect justification for removing. Please refer to WP:VIDEOLINK for more information.

Secondly, I disagree with your opinion on the altnews article as well. That source was kept in the article specifically because it is written by a medical professional on the science behind her opinion (that opposed Sadhguru) for the use of mercury. I think it's important to provide a balanced view on a topic like this, because there has been criticism about sadhgurus views on the use of mercury in the press.

3. @Amakuru I agree with the points you've made and am willing to make the necessary changes- thank you for your perspective. Would love to get input from @Revirvlkodlaku and @Jtbobwaysf

Again, as always, I look forward to working together and hearing from you all. . :) RealPharmer3 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@RealPharmer3 I appreciate your support and endorsement. It has been a pleasure collaborating with you on this article, and your friendly and civil approach to compromise and conflict resolution has made an impact on me. I have decided to step away from the Sadhguru page, however, as I have felt unjustly attacked and targeted by some of the editors who have recently taken an interest in it. I wish you all the best with this endeavour, and I look forward to working with you on other articles :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: we dont work on intentions as we WP:AGF. Revirvlkodlaku has sought to add categories to a page that doesnt have the content, this is not ok. If you guys can find properly sourced content for the article, the categories can be considered, but not the other way around. Any disparaging claims on a WP:BLP must be properly sourced, and dubious sources are not WP:RS for BLP category (and probably not for anything in reality). The article subject's own statements (including youtube) are WP:PRIMARY. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the unsourced content on the article relating to the medical claims. After some sources are found, we can discuss it again. As a work around, if you dont agree with my position on the sourcing, you can also post to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and see if others agree with your position. Kindly put a link to the discussion at RSN on this talk page as well (if you decide to go that route). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I wasnt necessarily talking about @Amakuru's tone. To be clear, I can agree with @Amakuru's opinion and yours to an extent as well. I understand the sentiment, and am more than willing to work together. I dont necessarily disagree with all that much of your opinion on the contents of the article, to be completely honest. One of my major concerns was that you removed citations, from a section that has had significant press coverage, which left the pretty balanced section without any references at all. Also, i will point out again, there are no medical claims in the content you removed.WP:RSPRIMARY states that "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." That's exactly what was done previously. I was unable to find secondary sources that stated the facts, so without adding interpretation (avoiding original research), i stated the specific facts about Sadhguru's stance about mercury use in Siddha medicine with his own words. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

We dont add disparaging comments in WP:BLPs that are based on primary sources. If you have some high quality sources, please feel free to add them and we can discuss. If there are not high quality sources, then the content is WP:UNDUE on a BLP. You will note this policy of WP:PRIMARY applies unevenly across wikipedia. For adding uncontroversial content on an uncontroversial (and non BLP) subject, it can be ok and is as you stated not preferred to secondary. However, if we are talking controversial subjects (politics, cryptocurrency, etc) and/or disparaging content on a BLP, then primary sources are generally not used. Sometimes new editors are surprised by the application of policy at wikipedia and that is understood. About this article, adding disparaging content (even if the intent is WP:FALSEBALANCE) to this BLP about a controversial public figure must be based on high quality (think NYT, etc) secondary sources, and certainly not blogs, fringe publications, youtube, etc. If the article subject's views are not subject of secondary coverage, inclusion here is WP:UNDUE, see WP:NOT for more about this. Maybe some bland statement such as 'He supports Siddha medicine' if you can find a citation for that (and we can discuss if PRIMARY is ok for this and only this). However, your interpretation of Siddha medicine on this article ('Siddha medicine is controversial, it is bad, it is pseudoscience, etc') is all UNDUE. Anyhow, your proposed interpretation of the medicine can already be found over at Siddha_medicine#Criticism as you have noted. As for adding the category to this article (the start of this discussion), that is also a no-no and you can debate over at Siddha medicine if it is pseudoscience or not (we will not be debating that here on this talk page). Of course we need to note that the pseudoscience category is not even used on the Siddha medicine, so you better first argue with the editors over at that article about that and not bring your POV here as of yet. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf

Not sure where the disconnect here is, but in the previous version of this article (that i wrote), it did not include my interpretation on his use of mercury and did not add disparaging content- they were "bland statements" that pointed to the facts. I also understand that for BLP, we dont add disparaging comments based off of primary sources. You're accusing me of writing an interpretation that, 'Siddha medicine is controversial, it is bad, it is pseudoscience, etc' in the previous version, but thats simply not true. You can find the previous version here and below.

Sadhguru has received criticism for being a proponent of Siddha medicine, which supports the use of mercury. He has addressed questions about the use of mercury by stating that individuals who have not studied and mastered the ancient practices of Siddha medicine should not consume such substances.

I understand that stance and AGREE with your position. Thank you for giving me more information and explaining your understanding on sourcing materials for BLPs, it's quite helpful. Thank you for specifically providing me withWP:FALSEBALANCE! Also, I appreciate the attention to detail you are providing to audit this article as well - it is very nice to see. This doesn't need to be an argument, we can work together to move things forward so i will not "argue with the editors over at that article [Siddha medicine]." No need to be so aggressive, we can work through this without that.

Additionally, let me be clear- i have no desire of adding the category that was being disputed earlier, because i agree with @Amakuru and you. I have not made a comment about that at all, so you're wasting your time trying to argue with me about something I already agree with you on.

In all, I understand your views, and the justification you've made is just enough for me to agree in the direction you're taking this article. I dont believe that it's necessary to have much of the content in this section as it is - was just doing my part to provide balanced content. I urge you to take a look at the older version of this article (previous to me editing) to see the progress it has made since- it is a night and day difference in the progress it has made. I will continue making edits in this article where i see fit, and am open to your opinions, so please continue to give feedback where you deem necessary. RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a day and night difference... But its hard to describe it as progress unless one is a follower of Sadhguru. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Horse Eye's Back, I'm not a follower of Sadhguru, and quite frankly, I find it piteous that you accuse me of being one just because I improved the article. If you read through both the article history and the talk page discussions, my edits are based upon policies and collaboration with other users to gain feedback and perspective. My contributions have improved the article and i think it's safe to say that the majority of my contributions here are done. Happy editing all. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

I would have liked it better if the section about the non-science propagated by Sadhguru had been improved and not deleted. But it's not too late to do that now.

I don't agree with the given reasons for the deletions of the sources, in particular:

• [2]: The youtube-video is a primary source and surely no fake. thus its's ok to use it according to Wikipedia:Video links. however, a simple search for "mercury sadhguru" reveals alternative (non-video) primary sources such as isha.sadhguru.org.
• [3]: dito
• [4]: "doesnt look like" is not a qualified reason. the author of the external source [5] is an Australian Neuroscientist with a PhD in Medicine (Neurophysiology). One of her key areas at altnews.in was scientific misinformation. the dw.com article (that was used as source, too) also mentioned her.[6]
• [7]: The reason given for deletion of this source reveals a misunderstanding. The source does not mention siddha directly, but it verifies, that Sadhguru has received criticism for statements about mercury. Actually it refers to the author of the altnews.in article. Better than a deletion would have been an improvement, too. I understand the deletion as a single edit without looking at the context. But the context is important.

However, we can use other sources there:

1. the primary source, i already linked to (sadhguru.org);
2. the already mentioned altnews.in article;
3. Roman Sieler: "Mercurial Medicines -- Unraveling the Significance of Mercury in Contemporary Siddha Medicine" in Asian Medicine, Volume 77, 2022-03-14, DOI 10.1163/15734218-12341510;
4. "Sadhguru is a controversial figure because of his alleged support for unsubstantiated pseudoscience such as the effectiveness of mercury in medicine" source: Helen Kaibara Asia’s Environments: National, Regional, and Global Perspectives, Education About Asia, Volume 26, Number 1, Spring 2021.

• [8]: After deleting all sources, part of the section was deleted as "unsourced". (this single edit makes sense, but the previous deletion of the sources was not reasonable)
• [9]: Finally the remaining sentence was too less to survive.

I suggest to recreate the section, but with some additional/improved citations. As far as I see, that's also what the deleter wants. -- seth (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

i'll give it a try now, using more sources, another heading and a better introduction. -- seth (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hi @Psychologist Guy,

Thanks for adding information to the personal interests section. Do you know of any high-quality secondary sources that could be used to source the information you have included?

Thanks :) RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Its in the biography, Sadhguru: More Than A Life published by Penguin Books India (pages 216-217). Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There is full access to the book, it is found on archive [10] Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Psychologist Guy,

Thank you very much! RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

sadhguru was interviewed by Tv9 Telugu Managing Editor[11] Rajanikanth Vellalacheruvu in a program known as "Cross Fire"[12] Nareshkv77 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I fail to see why this needs to be mentioned in the article. Please establish a reason for inclusion. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Add Tag for the Indian_spiritual_teachers Category

Can we add the Category Tag to this page so that it is automatically listed on this Category Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Indian_spiritual_teachers DanDanner 13:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDanner (talk • contribs)

No mention of his Hindu faith in main part of article?

There is no mention of Sadhguru's Hindu faith in the main part of this article, though it is an important fact to know about Sadhguru and his teachings. I think that this should be added? BasedGigachad (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Taliban case

The line:

In 2019 he referred to a Muslim student in London as a "Taliban," for which he apologized after heavy criticism.

may suggest that Sadhguru deliberately insulted student or Muslim society. I think it would be more fair to present Sadhguru's point of view, which fortunately does appear at least in the apology statement linked as a reference, directly in the article. Having quoted sentence right after line with Sadhguru being occasionally perceived as Hindu nationalist, it may be misperceived by readers.

So i propose something like:

In 2019 he referred to a Muslim student in London as a "Taliban", for which he was heavily criticized - Sadhguru responded with an apology, explaining that he used arabic word "Taliban" as "Ardent student"

Yeah, it's longer and less concise, but it's less biased and that's important.

--Ruzweltus (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What, nothing about all the chickens he's killed lol

Not a single hint in the article about his chicken business. Sadhguru and/or fans are keeping very tight control of this article indeed, lol. 2602:306:C4CE:89F9:D571:6BC3:A68F:CA73 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)