Talk:Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)

Suggesting a move (again and again)

Sri Sri is still better than a "spiritual leader". Although Ravi Shankar (AOL Foundation) also sounds good How do we come to a consensus? This is not an AOL Foundation page. Chhokra (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Sharledforever (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add to the "criticism" paragraph the facts that appear in your profile in Spanish and they are not here yet. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_(gur%C3%BA) --Sharledforever (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 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: (non-admin closure) NO CONSENSUS User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The vote is deadlocked. There is only weak consensus that WP:TITLESINTITLES is the relevant guideline, and there's no consensus whether that standard is met or not. There has also been very minimal additional participation since the first relist. And the original proposer is blocked for socking. There simply is no consensus to be found here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) → Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – Google search engine results of "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" are more than 64,80,000 and if we consider the other name "Ravi shankar (spiritual leader)" it has just 9,23,000 results. the news section brings justice to both the names since "shri shri ravi shankar" has around 51000 results while "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" has only 6290 results. so clearly "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" should be the name of article as per WP:COMMONNAME and "ravi shankar (spiritual leader)" should be put as redirect to the page. One more thing to be considered, some might argue that "Ravi Shankar" should be the article name as it has the highest results with around 7,99,00,000 results in random search and around 34,80,000 results in news section. but this name can't be put alone because there are many famous personalities with the same name "Ravi Shankar" like former IT minister of india and also one more famous personality is there with same name, he is a indian composer. so we can't use this name in its raw form, we have to use "small brackets" and put some information about him like "spiritual leader" or something, but that "small brackets" names are not suitable according to WP:COMMONNAME. so i think "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" is the most suitable name. Please argue accordingly. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. "(spiritual leader)" is a fairly WP-specific phrase in this context, so I'm actually surprised that there are nearly a million hits for this article's exact title. By the proposal's own admission, there is no evidence how prevalent simply "Ravi Shankar" is for this person. Even if only a tenth of the reported hits for that name were for this person, that would exceed the Shri form. Because Shri/Sri is not his actual name, we have WP:TITLESINTITLES, which advises "Honorifics and other titles...are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". Especially for a term that connotes personal honor (not just a job-title or similar position) I think that title comes close (or maybe even crosses into) being an WP:NPOV violation. Thinking about other options, is "Shri" more English than "Sri"? DMacks (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Apart from honorifics, Shri is a variant of Sri and is used in names (Shrikant vs Srikant for example). I've seen Shri being used widely as Sri, if not equally, in honorifics. I think both are correct depending on who you ask. Couldn't say which is more English though. — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks

:Strong Support. first of all i am not a native english speaker. so please adjust with my english. i am replying to the above argument, i will answer point by point for reader's confort.

so first point was if one-tenth of "ravi shankar" is for this person than it will exceed the shri form, this is not true, let me explain. first of all this is just an assumption that 1/10 article are for this person, it may be less as well but still even if we consider 1/10 of results it would be around 7,990,000 compared to almost same of 6,480,000 result. but still some people will not satisfy, i know, so if we consider "sri sri ravi shankar" not "shri shri ravi shankar" the picture became crystal clear with around 1,83,00,000 results, it is almost double the 1/10 results of "ravi shankar". so clearly most common name is "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar".

now second point, above argument claims that "sri sri ravi shankar" is not his actual name, this is not true. this is his actual name, i can give you many sources which are stating that "sri sri ravi shankar" is his actual name like this this is a reference from one of the most-trusted and neutral website Quint. actually in his childhood his name was "ravi shankar" that is correct, but later on around 2000, he changed his name and add sri sri mentioned in the reference under "the mystery of two sris" and one more important thing to consider, i dont know what wikipedia consider but one time sri is honorific but two time sri is just a name not a honorific title. i can give many reference to support that "sri sri ravi shankar" is his actual name but quantity of reference doesn't matter i guess, quality matters. but still if anyone want me to show more references, please fell free to ask. now i have a counter question for the above user, can you prove that "sri sri ravi shankar" is not his real name?

last point of yours, is Shri more english than sri. not exactly, actually both the words are same. shri and sri both are hindi words. with same pronunciation in hindi but in english we use both words, shri as well as sri both have almost same weightage.Thank you.Uttarpradeshi (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

:: just in case anyone is still not satisfied than, please refer to this, this is his official website. his name is sri sri ravi shankar with "Gurudev" as his honorific title. so official name is "sri sri ravi shankar" and common name is also "sri sri ravi shankar". thank you. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

shri and sri both are hindi words Shri says it's a Sanskrit term — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:HONORIFICs. Wikipedia doesn't include honorifics barring an overwhelming COMMONNAME; from the policy: "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. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." This standard is not met here - plenty of sources just call him Ravi Shankar. SnowFire (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • On closer inspection of the references, I suppose it does seem pretty overwhelming. I'll abstain. That said, note that more of the references use "Sri Sri" rather than "Shri Shri", so that seems a better move target if moved. SnowFire (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • See below - switched to support. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nomination rationale doesn't seem to understand the use of parenthetical disambiguation or the avoidance of honorifics on Wikipedia. Also, we look to independent reliable sources, not self-published sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It is Sri Sri he does not use a H.As per his website and Sri Sri is part of his name not a honorific title in his case.He does not the use the term Shri
• The Economic Times Sri Sri Ravi Shankar recognised as Global Citizenship Ambassador by US university
• Firstpost Film on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar announced on spiritual leader's birthday; Karan Johar shares first poster
• Republic World Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Launches 100-bed COVID Care At University; Wins Praises From Netizens
• Free Press Journal 'Permit more companies to produce medicines for COVID-19 treatment': Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to Centre
• BBC also refers him as Sri Sri Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, an Indian spiritual leader
• News 18 No Formula Yet, But Talks Will Resolve Ayodhya Dispute: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

And also in the media.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC) *Comment BarrelProof and SnowFire i would like to draw your attention towards the fact that "sri sri ravi shankar" is his official name not a honorific title, yes he has a honorific title which is "gurudev". one more thing, "sri" is a honorific title but "sri sri" doesn't mean anything, it is almost same as "Mr. Mr." in english which doesn't mean anything, i have already provided a independent reliable sources from Quint saying "sri sri" as his official name. i am providing more here- this and this almost all the reliable media qoute him as "sri sri ravi shankar" since he changed his name to this in 2000. please provide your side of proof also, which can say that "sri sri" is not his name, DO YOU HAVE ANY??? Uttarpradeshi (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• • I've struck my !vote, but it's not a matter of "proof" - it does seem that media uses "sri sri" more often than I believed when I wrote the above. SnowFire (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I read the Quint source cited above. It says "Ravi Shankar explains the decision of an additional honorific through a blog post". In other words, it refers to him as "Ravi Shankar". Second, it acknowledges that it is an honorific. It also does not say that "Shri Shri" is part of his legal name. Also please read WP:OFFICIAL. The Print source cited above calls him "Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". "Gurudev" is obviously another honorific, as noted above. Some sources don't avoid honorifics. The fact that some sources include an honorific does not mean that Wikipedia should. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The NYTimes and WaPost refs both refer to him as "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar", or am I misreading? --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • NYTimes: 2005 article reads led by the telegenic guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (no further mentions) ; 2011 article reads Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of a movement [...] It may appear that Sri Sri is a typo, but it is actually a compliment he has paid himself. A single “Sri” is an honorific that can be granted to any Indian male. A double “Sri” is in spiritual territory. ; 2016 article reads [...] whose ranks include Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of the Art of Living, an Indian spiritual practice [...] (link in original) (no further mentions) ; WaPo: 2016 article reads On that weekend, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (whose doubly honorific title is reserved for the very few) gave a news conference ... this article used "Sri Sri" in subsequent usage. Seems more like NYT and WaPo use Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and explains that they are hororifics rather than the full name. (Do you have other NYT, WaPo links?) — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks. It's unclear then to me. It most definitely is an honorific. It's definitely used as his name. --Hipal (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • The question is not whether you can find sources that include the honorific. You can. The question per WP:HONORIFIC is whether this is a case where the "honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it". Even some of the sources that have been suggested to support this move sometimes just call him "Ravi Shankar", and his name is recognizable without the honorific, so it should not be included. This is different from, e.g., "Mother Theresa", which is a case where the person's name would not be recognizable without including "Mother". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support and surprised myself not expecting to. This discussion has been an interesting read, and not only has the nominator handled it admirably but seems to have made the case greatly assisted by Pharaoh of the Wizards. Sri Sri is apparently the fellow's actual name and not an honorific. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support strictly per WP:COMMONNAME. Sri Sri is used here by the subject as a distinguishing element in his branding – the characteristic repetition sets him apart from, for example, Ravi Shankar the famous musician. So, this for me is an unambiguous instance of COMMONNAME. Whether we go for the guy's birth name or his common name (brand) as article title, is a judgment call, but given he is a public figure, I'd go for the latter. Note that I only support moving to Sri Sri..., as is the usual spelling in South India where the guy lives, not to the north Indian "Shri Shri". — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

**Comment Kashmiri I being the nominator agree with "sri sri", but there is one request, please dont divide north and south india on "Shri or sri", we are one united country and I live in "northern india" not "north india". to be clear, this comment is a reply to user's comment, it has nothing to do with the user personally. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• • India is perhaps one united country (which is also debatable) but definitely is not one united language. Pretending there are no regional differences as regards language and pronunciation won't fly with me. Thanks for correcting "north" --> "northern", perhaps we could settle on the North and the South? — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

    Let's also not forget about the Tamil version of sri/shri as [tiru], spelled thiru! — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Clear violation of WP:TITLESINTITLES. "Sri" is a title and also an address equivalent to "Mr" in English (used in Indian certificates/applications). The claim by the nominator and Pharaoh of the Wizards that "Sri Sri" is part of his official name is factually incorrect. His official name is "Ravishankar R. V." (without a space), which can be seen from his bachelor's degree certificate. There are many British well-knowns who are overwhelmingly referred in media with the title "Sir", but it is avoided in their articles.--2409:4073:4E98:2CA:D42A:24CA:E814:B0C1 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

**Comment Mr. IP address, Please first read my argument above properly, i have clearly mentioned a year which is "2000". in this year "sri sri Ravi Shankar" took "sri sri" in his name, and you are showing a degree of 1975, god knows "real" or "fake". please provide reliable information from Independent sources Uttarpradeshi (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Clear violation of WP:TITLESINTITLES, per BarrelProof and IP above. The honorific DOESN'T meet the criteria of being so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it" Even if it is commonly used, and even if he has adopted its use HIMSELF, it doesn't meet the exemption criteria and "(spiritual leader)" is a clear disambiguator, A more exact Indian context disambiguator might work though. The multiple claims that it is his real name don't seem persuasive to me. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The sources in the reference section generally use the "Sri Sri." It's a useful way to distinguish this Shankar from the one who played with the fab four. 99to99 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose While the arguments for the name change provided that the sources use Sri Sri or Shri Shri, I believe these are not established yet that they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known, and the case for WP:TITLESINTITLES was not met. I'd expect a research in depth into the subject establishing the title in title for the move. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Struck through sock edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjay Kumar Tiwari20. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as per MOS:HONOUR - "Mother Teresa" example - "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". In India, media articles use WP:COMMONNAME Times of India group, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Telegraph, CNN, BBC, Deccan chronicle, Washington Post, India Today, Outlook India--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Support But it's not Shri Shri its Sri Sri, as he is addressed by his followers all over the country.WikiEdit^talk HiWikiEdit (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Relisting comment This discussion is a mess, thanks to the socking and the fact that commenters clearly agree that "Sri Sri" is preferred over "Shri Shri"; I've updated the proposal to "Sri Sri". There is both policy-based support and opposition to the name change; perhaps another week of discussion will make consensus clearer. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstained before, but am willing to shift to a support. The discussion was definitely thrown by using "Shri Shri" originally as well as the strange claim that it wasn't an honorific. Anyway, per above, to my surprise even dry sources like the NYT seemed to use "Sri Sri", so while it's an honorific, it does seem like it qualifies on the overwhelming use exception. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I opposed before and I still oppose to the new target. My comment would be the same — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to close this but could not find any consensus; I'm going to ping a few editors who already voted to hopefully clarify the situation.
  @Randy Kryn and Pharaoh of the Wizards: - you are both supporting the move with the rationale that "Sri Sri" is a name and not an honorific, but the other (non-sock) participants disagree. If "Sri Sri" is considered an honorific, would you still support the move?
  @BarrelProof and DMacks: several editors have suggested that there is "overwhelming use" for the honorific, with mainstream sources such as the BBC and New York Times using "Sri Sri". Does this change your view? If you do not feel there is overwhelming use, could you point out at least one source that does not use the honorific?
  User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to search for that. If I exclude "sri", I only seem to get others by that name. But I don't want to exclude because I don't mind if it's in there (and even if the "sri sri ravi shankar" phrase is there), just if it's also without. DMacks (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Recent edits

(From my talk page[1] --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC))

Hi Hipal,

This is Srihari. Thanks for your message.

I did not intend to engage in an edit war, apologies if it appeared so.

I respect your views that my update yesterday cited an un-reliable source, however the edit also contained citation from reputable news sources. To avoid confusion, I made further two specific updates.

1. Criticisms on the environmental impacts from the spiritual festival - The BBC article states that the festival was organised by Ravi Shankar, so I do not agree with your comment that associating this to him is 'problematic'. 2. On his claim for refusing Nobel - I do not agree with your view "NOT NEWS". The citation is from a news source and I have included his statement verbatim that the foundation did not reject.

Content under the header criticism should give the reader a brief of the disagreements towards him, irrespective if whether you or I agree with the criticism. By not allowing the edit cited from a reputed news source, Wikipedia will not be meeting it's community guidelines. Hence request you to revert the changes.

Looking forward to hear from you. 06:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia here. Choosing a March 2016 article on what was an upcoming event at that time as the sole reference looks extremely questionable regardless of the quality of the publisher.

The BBC article says, "The World Culture Festival is a three-day event which will take place in Delhi from 11 March. It is being organised by the Art of Living Foundation, a global organisation claiming to offer a series of self development programmes, founded by Indian spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. "

"much to the chagrin of environmentalists" seems unencyclopedic and a poor summary of the reference.

The article on Twitter reaction to him seems fundamentally WP:NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)