Talk:Jaggi Vasudev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

'Future events' section[edit]

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)

8:40 am, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadhgurumother tongue is Telugu[edit]

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

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

Criticism[edit]

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! WBGconverse 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[edit]

@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[edit]

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[edit]

@Regstuff, DBigXray, and Raymond3023: Can we actually discuss this issue here instead of simply being played by sockfarms on either side? FWIW, the article already uses "offline refs" as a lot of citations are based on newspaper clippings and (unreliable) reposts of newspaper articles which are hosted on ISHA sites; the original section on her death used a Tehelka article as a source. Secondly, I agree that a balancing viewpoint on the controversy of Jaggi's wife's death needs to be provided and IMO, the Subramaniam book does provide this and in some detail; that also lends substance to the notability of the event and makes it worthy of inclusion.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Content removed from the article
A murder case was filed against him by his father-in-law, alleging that Jaggi had killed his wife on 23 January 1997 and cremated her hurriedly against her community customs of burying. The father-in-law had requested Jaggi to wait till he could reach them but the cremation was carried out in his absence.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Godman Charged with wife's murder". The Indian Express. Express News Service. 10 October 1997.
  • Yes, There is absolutely no mention of his wife either in the early life section or the controversy section. The content is reliably sources. if there are differences in the wording, that can be copy edited. but this article cannot completely remove any mention about his wife. --DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 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--DBigXray 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--DBigXray 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[edit]

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

So your best sources are: "thenewsminute.com", "thelogicalindian.com", "inuth.com", all 3 are undoubtedly unreliable sources and Dnaindia.com says "activists allege that the Isha Foundation has constructed illegal structures".[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. --DBigXray 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.
--DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 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--DBigXray 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[edit]

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. --DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 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. --DBigXray 14:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential sources[edit]

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

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)

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

Hello!

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

The content of the added section is as follows:

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

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

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

[1]

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

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

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