Talk:Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)/Archive 1

Section 1

Please stop commenting negatively about a good person. It is common tendency of some of us to always be jealousy or criticise a good being. Let us love good people and not criticise. We should appreciate good tireless works of Sri Sri Ravishankar and his service to mankind. In fact, our people did not accept even Jesus Christ and crusified him. I request you all to stop spamming about Sri Sri-- Jaimalleshk

While I do appreciate the efforts of some people on this page to work hard at giving this bio the encyclopedic tone it deserves, I do not appreciate the few narrow minded individuals who are obviously shooting random false lies in the dark with the motive of trying to discredit a man who's achievements are clearly outstanding. Sri Sri has inspired millions of people around the world to live in harmony, in peace and in a caring and compassionate manner for others and for the environment. Sri Sri works tirelessly and constantly on thousands of service projects worldwide that are contributing to reduce suffering on this planet, reduce poverty, reduce illiteracy, reduce violence, reduce crime and increase a sense of care, belongingness and honor for life. Trying to discredit someone like Sri Sri by shooting random lies on this discussion page will not work; it will simply confirm your own ignorance and lack of maturity. Let's all work intelligently! --216.44.200.130 05:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The current article is a sales brochure, talks about Ravi Shankar's self proclaimed achievements and any material otherwise is claimed to be unencyclopedic and deleted by some zealous disciples of this guru. I paid and attended this course years ago when he was not that famous outside of Bangalore; and this is what I found.

• This is a cult like organization which claims to do charity work and accept only donations, but in reality Ravi Shankar is no different from scores of controvertial gurus like his own guru Mahesh Yogi and likes of Rajneesh.

There is abolutely no substantiation for you claim "claims to do charity work". Please visit IAHV.org, take the effort to go out and talk to people who have worked in Tsunami hit areas, worked with abused children in New York and Johannesburg, South Africa, and provided school and free medical facilities in tribal areas of Bihar, India. I know someone who is closely involved in these projects and hence the direct knowledge and quantifiable proof !

• Ancient Pranayam exercises, which I have been doing since my childhood in India, have been packaged under registerd name "Sudarshan Kriya"; and now he is claiming a patent on public domain unpatentable process.

This is something totally untrue. Pranayam is not Kriya in Yogic science. If you really had deep knowledge of Yoga sadhana (practices) you would have hardly made such a blatant comment. Pranayam technniques taught in the course are definitely ancient Yogic practices. Sudarshan Kriya requires Pranayama to be done before practising it. I really wonder if you indeed did the course, I guess your comment here is just an exhibition of consumate lack of complete knowledge on ancient yogic practices !

• His accounts are not open to public scrutiny, hence no one knows what he does with the millions he makes.

Another random comment shot in the dark ! Btw, I guess you must be educated. Did you ever bother to ask your educational institution/university to account for every penny they make? I am referring here to the prejudiced mind which because of many false teachers has conditioned ourselves to look at all those who teach meditation/yoga etc. also to be crooks ! and as regards his personal accounts, I would say definitely go and ask for them, did you ever make an effort there? As for the organizations' accounts I have personally seen them in US, India and Canada..I mean the entire cash flow, I do not remember a single penny in suspicious accounts, names whereby money could supposedly go for expensive enjoyments for the founder !

Now if somebody is inspired to go and do service free of cost which according to them is creating a violence-free and stress-free society you have a issue there too ! If that is the case then people like John Wolfensohn, former President of World Bank, Dr. Myron Scholes, Nobel Prize winning economist at Stanford Univ, T N Seshan, former CEC of India who wholeheartedly lend their hand in the service activities of AoLF also seem to have been manipulated hmm...!

• It is a commercial enterprise but cunningly garbed as a not for profit religious organization; and is marketed like the infamous pyramid plans such as "Amway" and others.

Amway growth is spurred by the motivation of everyone who is involved in it to make money, nothing wrong in that, it is business that is their goal. As regards, AoLF you mention that almost all volunteers are doing work free, now what similarity do you see here with Amway ? Nobody in a business would do work if there is no monetary gain for themselves...do you see any in AoLF working for financial gain ?

• Ravi Shankar and his sister are treated like gods and his disciples never graduate to be independednt as he himself once did from Mahesh Yogi.

So many of the senior teachers (swamis) independently manage work and live in Poland, Canada, South Africa and times even in Mongolia. Just as Swami Vivekananda tirelessly travelled when he was told by his teacher Ramakrishna Paramhansa to do so after his death, so are his senior teacher selflessy doing work. Absolutely anyone can leave anytime...also I would suggest getting some knowledge in the Guru-Shishya parampara, the ancient master-disciple relationship of India and its traditions. I wonder how someone with half-baked information can have the audacity to make random comments in a fact based community like Wikipedia !

I will delete and keep deleting the sales brochure material from this article as it does not give any useful encyclopedic information. His claimed achievements are not encyclopedic. --141.150.135.51 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In its current state, this is an ad, not an encyclopedic article. --Pjacobi 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, should have put my original reasoning here. As follows: Is 10 days of silence notable? Our entire class did 5 days to raise money for charity, 10 seems trivial for a holy man; should the celebration further down the page not be moved to the Art of Living page? It's more relevant to that than to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, especially if the details of the ceremony refer to the musicians without referring to him himself. Needs a look by someone who has come across his work before.

It seems that he may well be notable, which is why I tagged {cleanup} rather than {afd}... but yeah, not currently encyclopedaic and needs some help from someone unbiased who is familiar with the subject. If after a while that doesn't happen it may be that he's not as notable as the article suggests and may then be valid for afd. --Firien § 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not the 10 days of silence that attention is being drawn to. However, it is noteworthy indeed that after this, he became aware of a breathing technique called Sudarshan Kriya. It is this technique which is the foundation of all courses of Art Of Living. And yes, the Silver Jubilee Celebration should be moved to Art Of Living page. I am familiar with AOL activities and would soon do a "clean-up" as suggested.

Abhishek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)

If 'cognised' is meant to indicate 'became aware of', then perhaps these words should be used instead, as the dictionary definition of 'cognise' is not 'become aware of'. Also, for the article to be taken seriously, it should avoid unnecessarily obscure usage, which could easily be mistaken for the kind of mumbo-jumbo religions and cults use to impress the gullible and ignorant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.132.238.58 (talk • contribs)

Copyright

Some of the material in this article appears to have been copied from external sources. While only small amounts have been copied, which is OK, editors of this article please bear in mind that in general it is not permissable to copy material from other sources into wikipedia articles, unless that material has been released under the GFDL or there is an express authorisation to use the material. Kcordina ^Talk 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

3 million

That figure of 3 million got to me again when checking watchlist; did a quick google and found this page stating when people are crammed in tightly at a rock concert it's 5 sq ft per person; across the 265 acres of the airfield this multiplies up to 2.3 million people, at maximum capacity. 265 acres of people crammed in at 30% over physical capacity? Even if you argue that people are thinner there and add some religious fervour, there'd be deaths and/or news stories around the world about it. Reverting to the more sensible figure of 250,000 seen on the page earlier for want of a better figure; leaving the citation tag in place. --User:Firien § 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of sardines turned up that day ;) It's funny that in this article they claim to have fit 2.5 million in the hall, giving an unreliable source from the organisation itself.

This seems to be a trend coming from this organisation. I have removed the exagerations and unsourced figures given for the instruments, as well as removing some of the flowery language used without giving much real information. Sfacets 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I had a look at the coordinates posted on the aforementionned website (via Google Earth), the airstrip area is quite large, and could possibly fit the amount of people on it, however, that isn't saying 3 million actually turned up. Sfacets

I'm actually a student at Princeton University (pretty unbiased) who was skeptical of this stuff at first, but I did research on this organization and about 3 million people actually did show up (more like 2.7, to be exact)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.2.116 (talk • contribs)

• If you're a student at Princeton University, why does your IP resolve to dsl-kk-dynamic-116.2.22.125.airtelbroadband.in? That's .in for India, not Princeton Uni in New Jersey. Maybe I'm on a suspicious day; maybe it's another edit by the AoL foundation trying to boost the limited credit for the figures in the articles. If you did research, where did you get the information from? Why were those sources not added as sources in the article? And again, how do you get 265 acres of people crammed in tight, without deaths or pickup by other news reports around the world? --User:Firien § 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how even though this organization is doing more to help people out of depression and sufforing than anything else on the planet, it still draws so much skepticism. But people were also skeptic when Christ was on the planet too. That is just the nature of the small mind.... jgd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.102.242 (talk • contribs)

• I don't believe your "more than anything else on the planet"; however on the other hand I don't doubt that the foundation exists to help people. The problem with this article was that it was grossly unencyclopedaic, using copyrighted text from elsewhere, biased language and wording, and exaggerative wording that cast doubt on the numbers on that page. Attempting to verify that information turned up numbers that pointed out that the figures posted were 30% greater than physically possible. That kind of error casts doubt over the entire rest of the article, expecially since the text was exaggerative too. This is an encylopedia - a place for facts, not exaggeration and speculation. The text is worthy of the company's own website - promoting health and happiness and positive feelings. That's not what an encyclopedia is for though. Secondly - this article is on a person, not on the AoL foundation. Information for the AoL foundation should be in the page for the AoL foundation; it's not relevant here unless properly put into context. When an article has been written inaccurately and outside many of the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia, it will be slammed, whether it's about a religious figure or about historic empires or about small animals or song lyrics or things that explode. It doesn't matter what the subject of the article is - if it's wrong, then other editors who come across it will either make it right - for which they need source information - or remove it.

It's nice that there's yet another organisation working on spreading peace and happiness. But if you or anyone else is going to write about it, at least do it right. When watching an article I've seen major problems with and biased editing of, I will be skeptical and attempt to verify information. When someone posts that they're from Princeton and that they've done research, that adds credibility; Princeton is highly regarded, and the people who get in aren't idiots and are generally of a better mindset of verifying information. That's nice, for an encyclopedia. But that credibility is destroyed and more when it turns out that the edit is not made from Princeton, but instead from the home of the subject of the page and the associated foundation.

As the editing history of this page gets worse, more and more doubt will be cast on its alleged facts. What seemed unlikely before seems like made-up crap to boost sales/visitors/etc now; that goes entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia.

To future editors: Just underneath the edit box is the line "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." In Template:Welcome you will find other guidelines on editing; these include "Wikipedia is not a place for advertising" and "No biased language". Make it factual and credible. AoL is happiness; good for them. However people don't come to Wikipedia for happiness - they come for information. --User:Firien § 09:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at but thet fact is all the things on sri sir's page are not exaggerations. CNN can 'prove' to you that there really were 2.5 + million people at the india ashram. The fact is however, if you're going to put all your faith into citations, that still doesn't mean what you believe is the truth or facts. Citations are just numbers and words that we take on faith to be facts. But there isn't any proof these are facts is there? The only real proof would be if we had a time machine. I'm not avoiding your question, I'm just broadening it :)To give you an example of how this program is really helping the world, you can research it's effects on teenagers and grade school kids in schools. It's being taught in public schools, why? Because it makes them much more focused, more relaxed, less impulsive, and much healthier. The health benefits of sudarshan kriya are going to be studied for a long time.Wikipedia is a place for facts you say, well the fact is AOL is about 'happiness' and joy and love. Fact. Do some research on AOL. :) You just might be as lucky as I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.102.242 (talk • contribs)

• Oh, I don't contest that. But to rephrase your sentence - AoL is about happiness and joy and love, while Wikipedia is just there to point at AoL and give some information - it's the place to DO that research on AoL, but isn't there to promote the actual happiness and joy and love. Wikipedia isn't miserably unhappy - it's supposed to be neutral, letting the reader decide for themselves. Also, I don't need to do research on AoL - I know there's hundreds, probably thousands of groups and activities that promote happiness, whether it be dressing up in flowers and dancing in the grass, or simply-guided meditation, or skydiving, extreme sports, mountain climbing, juggling, or just talking to friends. AoL isn't unique. It's nice to have information on it available to those who are interested; but keep in mind that not everyone NEEDS more happiness, joy, and peace. I personally am happy, calm, and non-violent; I don't participate in any group that seeks to spread love/happiness and so on, preferring to do things that exhilarate my body or mind, whether that be the challenge of sport, team challenges or personal challenges, mental challenge or skill challenges. I don't need AoL in any way, and as such can be an unbiased editor on the subject. With that in mind, as discussed above the exaggeration and bias has caused suspicion to fall on this article; Wikipedia, as a factbase, strives and must strive to be accurate. Citations will never be perfect, but they're an extra layer of credibility.

I can throw out the message that I made 250 people happy today; maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Flagging the information as requiring a source does not force me to remove the information, nor to find a reference. However it does flag the information as being questionable. A further problem with the information was that it conflicted with itself - this article's page stated over 3 million on the airfield, the AoL article mentions 2.5 million. That's not an insignificant difference, especially when the physical capacity of the airfield is around 2.3 million. The inaccuracy - whether in this article, the AoL article, and/or the calculation of maximum capacity - is huge. 2.5 is close to the theoretical maximum of 2.3; this makes it more credible than a figure of 3 million. It still requires verification, because while it doesn't really matter how many people there were, there are some places where it does matter - the recording of the size of the largest festivals in history, and there the difference between 2.5 million and 3 million people is vast.

There will be those who come to this article looking for truth and understanding. It's not the place for lies, whether or not the lies are well-intentioned. --Firien § 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at, but this is a world of faiths, not facts. Very few actual facts exist, and even those can be argued once you bring in relativity and context/perception. We live in a world of faith, feelings and our perceptions. But you are incorrect about saying AOL is not unique. You haven't tried it, so how can you say that? Sudarshan Kriya is not taught on any other program, and nothing in this world will give you the same experience as kriya. The real proof in this world is by experience. jgd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.237.239.202 (talk • contribs) .

Guys, you have talk pages for this kind of thing... Sfacets 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify a small fact over which this debate seems to be flowing. In all presentationss the organisation claims that over 2.5 million people attended the funtion over 3 days (cummulative). This information is based on a presentation/dvd I saw in California.

Everyone has enemies

What isn't right about this article is that there is zero representation of anti-sri-sri views. This just flies against common sense, whatever your personal opinion of the man might be. Everyone has enemies and detractors, even real saints. A fairly simple web search is enough to show that sri sri is no exception, although it will take a bit more research to establish how widely believed the various anti-sri-sri views are and which carry some authority. Those I have come across so far suggest that he is the gormlessly beatific face of a cruelly greedy family business run by his sister and his brother-in-law, and that his meditation techniques are commercially packaged hyperventilation. Ireneshusband 03:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, i PROMISE i really am from princeton :)...im in doing an internship/research with a democracy institute here in Bangalore, which is the reason why it took me so long to get back to you...haha i dont know how you expect me to prove it to you, but honestly you really are very skeptical...anyways i dont know what im trying to prove to you, but i dont want you to think im someone im not...

"commercially packaged hyperventilation" lol... jgd

• If you're going to laugh at it, how is it different? jgd, you have done nothing here except attempt to get people to take the course. Looking at the Sudarshan Kriya page, it /is/ either deep or fast breathing, with some extra words thrown in to convince the user. As a sportsman and sports coach, I know how simple words can have major effects on people; making people pay for a course that teaches them to breathe deeply and think about it certainly pushes me towards also classifying it as above. IF it's different, then WHY is it different? Any further 'haha, take an AOL course' will result in me removing your comments as linkspam. This is a place for information, not for advertising. --Firien § 09:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

i will not argue as arguing only increases ignorance in the world. sudarshan kriya is a very simple and powerful technique that i have seen first hand and experienced incredible positive benefits from daily practice. after the first practice, many people see the bags from under their tired eyes disappear, as did i. nothing else is like sudarshan kriya, it is not hyperventilation... and it is not breathing really deep, it's done with normal breath. the breath is the link between mind and body. for example, when you are tired you breathe a certain way, when you are angry, you breath a certain way. kriya works by controlling the breath gently in certain rhythms that release stress and depression, creates tremendous energy, improves memory and intellect and most noticable in myself- boosts the immune system like nothing i've felt. incredible effects on the immune system. so much that HIV and diabetic patients are gaining great help from this. before i learned kriya i would get ill about once a month. now i get ill maybe once every two years.

i wish i could explain this to you, but it's really something that can only be experienced. although it's very simple to do and easy to learn, if it's dont wrong it could possibly be harmful. just so you know, i was very skeptical about this before i tried it. the only way to get rid of skepticism is by experience, not by explaining or words. our parents tell us to brush our teeth, but it is only when we know from experience why this is a good idea that we understand why it's important to do.

jgd

Speaking as someone who took a 2 week retreat at the ashram in Montreal, I can confirm that it isn't 'something you must experience' and is just 'simple hyperventilation'. I met the giggling guru himself, and he's not particularly impressive.

<--Removed a sentence containing specifics. It's in violation of the non-disclosure agreement signed by all registrants of the course. Prashant Serai (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) --> It's all bunk, and I've lived through it so I know.

Speaking for myself and many of my close friends and those who did this course (numbering precisely 27) over the past 3 years...each and everyone of them can endorse its positive effect on their life such as great improvement in energy levels, getting Ashtma cured, a complete change in confidence levels, facing large audiences (which she couldn't do for 36 years !). So there is a direct effect on the body and the mind. Now when there is so much research that is cited, complete with clinical trials over several years, there is a much scientific system of validating Sudarshan Kriya and the processes, not just random testimonials.

As for the Hyperventilation...let me get this clear for the ignorants (with due respect) let me cite one of the basic differences between Hyperventilation and Sudarshan Kriya among many. The metabolic rate simply goes down in Sudarshan Kriya whereas it goes up in Hyperventilation. (reference Dr. Richard Brown, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.112.145 (talk • contribs)

Then cite it. Find a reference and add it. Link to an article. Hyperventilation, hypoventilation are both recognised techniques in themserves for different uses. How is Sudarshan Kriya different from breathing slowly and counting backwards from ten? How is it different from taking deep breaths and closing your eyes to calm down? These are also 'recognised techniques'. Every supporter on this page alludes to the success of Sudarshan Kriya and says "go try it" without making any clarification on why it's any different. I have low blood pressure, I can speak to large audiences, I'm already confident and happy with my life and non-violent. STOP telling me to go try the course, because I don't need it. Do not attempt to use this to leverage your sales; if it's different, then verify and cite it by linking us to independent scientific research. Otherwise it becomes worthy of deletion as unencyclopedaic. --Firien § 08:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

three points i would like to make as a junior wikipedian 1. sudarshan kriya is not just hyperventilation and hypoventilation.it has to be noted that the experiencs ppl have in his prescence/his voice recordings are substancially superior to those when they practise the same at home independently (where most inexperienced ppl only do systematic speed breathing). There must be some reasoning to this. 2.it is great that you are already confident and happy... thats one more person to make the world a better place. 3.the proceeds from the workshops (sales) are used to fund the activities of art of living like %H initiatives and disaster relief. not a single ruppee goes to him or his family directly or indirectly.--I.aditya 05:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I do not know what is the source of Aditya's information about financial properiety at AOL. I was with AOL for seven years but did not get to see the audited copy of its accounts. Secondly, the organization collects money under the banner of different fronts such as VVK and Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth, which prima-facie looks suspicious. Thirdly, charges for AOL courses are pretty steep ($200-$375) and going by the growth rate as claimed by the organization, the net revenue must be in millions of dollars. For a cash flow of this size, a responsible organization should proactively publish its financial statements for public scrutiny or use some other tangible method to convince the donors that the money is going where it is supposed to rather than relying on simply issuing unsubstantiated statements: "not a single ruppee goes to him or his family directly or indirectly." Canons of financial properiety put the onus on one who claims that money is being judiciously utilized, not on the questioner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.7.54 (talk • contribs) .

was with aol for seven year? i mean what does that imply... i gues you have to be in the finance section to see the sudits and all. ou ould ask your friends. but the fact that the courses in the villages and all who cannot aford to pay are run free of cos and iahv is adpoting 50k villages surely poitns to well utilised funds.203.199.213.130 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what user opinions on the matter are - what matters is conveying a neutraly-worded description of practices. In'nit? Sfacets 05:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it how everyone is complaining about citations and then there's some troll posting rediculous false, un-cited info about how sudarshan kriya. Why are we not so quick to ask the negative responses for citations? Why do we always trust the negative?.... mm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.228.193 (talk • contribs) .

Where is the "criticisms" section? (I thought Isa a section named "criticisms some time ago) Almost every "holy man" in India attracts substantial criticism from scientists and rationalists. Right now the article reads like an ad for AoL and SSRS. I don't careif this SSRS is "really" holy or not. I do care that Wikipedia presents both sides, both proponents and detractors with *rational* arguments from both side where merited to bolster points of view. Both hagiography and vicious libel are to be avoided.

Please check this : Check this out http://esa.un.org/coordination/ngo/search/DisplayOrgInfo.asp?OrgID=831

ashwin

Some Facts

• Here is the 2004 tax return for AOLF (the American Chapter) [1]. As seen from the return, AOLF had total revenues of $2.1 M (mainly from course fees and public support) and expenditure of $1.3M (mainly in salaries, occupancy expenses and travel) in 2003. Its only reported accomplishments were to "teach art of living courses"; not any developmental programs, disaster relief, humanitarian programs, scientific/medical research or any charitable activity. (See Section III on Page 2 of the return) This is not meant as a praise or criticism, but simply an attempt to inject some facts into the Talk page discussion. If anyone, can provide simlar information for AOL's activities in other countries (especially India) then we can hopefully reach an informed NPOV consensus. Abecedare 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted to deal with a Sri Sri Ravi Shankar spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is [http: // www angelfire com/me2/sutras/ssrs html A Selection of Quotes from Sri Sri Ravishankar]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
• User:A. B./To do list#Abusers

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 06:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Have you had any response on this? I generally follow the same practises (if I see a vandalism/adspam/etcetc I'll go through that contributor's contribution and leave something on the talk page) but I'm not sure I can devote the time to track 263+ pages... I have enough with my 40... --Firien § 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography

Template:Blp In its current form this article does not confirm to Wikipedia's rules for biography of living persons. Addionally, the three revert rule does not apply to removal of poorly sourced negative material for living persons. In accordance with wikipedia policy I am deleting negative comments and links from this article. Also in its current form, there are no tags for citing information and the formating appears to be in line with wikipedia policy. 24.5.139.61 15:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How does the removal of critical links conform to Wikipedia policy? I have re-inserted the links. Sfacets 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Duja► 08:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Sri Sri ravi Shankar → Ravi Shankar (Guru) — Honorific is POV Sfacets 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have listed this page to be renamed, either as Ravi Shankar (Guru) or any other name, so long as the (possibly) POV prefix "Sri Sri" is removed. Please discuss article name candidates or opposition to this proposal. The aim of this is to acertain once and for all (or untill new arguments arise) the validity of adding the prefix 'Sri Sri', therefore minimising any edit wars. Sfacets 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• STRONGLY OPPOSE. If Pope John Paul ;Pope John Paul I articles can have honorifics ; then then why single out Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.-Bharatveer 07:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• OPPOSE: There are many people named Ravi Shankar. In this case, Sri Sri is not an honirific but a descriptor like Hillel the Elder or Rabbi Hillel.Hkelkar 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: Sri Sri is not a descriptor like "Pope" or Rabbi, but a honorific akin to "His Holiness", which is not appended to any article name, Pope, or other. Sfacets 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE: First of all, The name of the Guru itself is "Sri Sri Ravishankar". Therefore, there should be no change in "Sri Sri". Any thought about this renaming is out of Wikipedia rules as we cannot modify name of a person atleast.

• Support: after some research and comparisons, almost all honorifics are excluded from article titles. Compare Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Tenzin Gyatso; compare Category:British knights and Category:Knights; the categories I looked at within Category:Honorifics has the same. Pope John Paul seems different from the norm; in part this may be due to the fact that it's not his birth name. Sri is listed as a title of veneration and/or standard honorific; becoming a guru does not transform the name of the person in the same way as the catholic system seems to for their "Servant of God". In response to Bharatveer's point - this article is not being singled out, it is being addressed as it is currently an anomaly -- Why is Ravi Shankhar specifically different, especially if it is (as it says in the first line!) self-chosen? --Firien § 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons listed by Firi. I also fear that allowing honorifics in article titles is a slippery slope; for instance assuming that I am worthy of a wikipedia biography, could it (please!) be titled, "His Highest Excellency, Master of the Universe, Keeper of Light, Abecedare" if I choose to call myself that. But I would also like to point out that there are exceptions to the above listed examples on wikipedia, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Sri Aurobindo etc. In my opinion, Wikipedia should simply keep out of the business of judging the worthiness of honorifics by uniformly keeping them out of the article titles. Finally, here is the story of genesis of Ravi Shankar's honorific: "In the early 1990s, Shankar met the famous sitar player Ravi Shankar, who complained that the holy man was unfairly capitalizing on the name the musician had made famous. Soon after, the guru added the honorific 'Sri Sri.' "[2] Abecedare 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• STRONGLY SUPPORT This is an encyclopedia. There is no room for fancruft and adoration by his devotees. Sri Sri is not part of his name. It is just a honourific title. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - Lok there is a Ravi Shankar (the musician) and there is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. That's what he is known by. His name is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. That's how he is known.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Firien and Abecedare. I think the disambiguation proposed should be changed to lowercased Ravi Shankar (guru), since it isn't prenomial. Gene Nygaard 23:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1. See Sri Aurobindo, Sri Yukteswar, Sri Chinmoy, Sri Chand, Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, the list goes on. There needs to be a consistent policy on this, rather than one that's selectively enforced. 2. Re: the objection that he gave himself this honorific - there is some legitimacy to that, but if it was done to distinguish himself from Ravi Shankar, then what was he supposed to do, call himself Not The Musician Ravi Shankar? 3. If common usage enters into this debate, then it should remain. It is how people call him, and it is how he's come to be distinguished from the musician Ravi Shankar. ॐ Priyanath 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I guess honour doesn't come from name alone. 'Sri Sri Ravi Shankar' is the name the person in question chose to call himself, honorific or otherwise. Most importantly, it greatly helps in distinguishisng him from other people with the same name. Ravi Shankar (guru) would be as ridiculous as it can get with the title of the article. I think we should go by common sense here and not rigid guidelines. ~ srini 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• STRONGLY SUPPORT It is just a honourific title - not a legal one. The tax filings by the AOLF itself refers to him as Pundit Ravi Shanker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.255.161 (talk • contribs) .

Pundit Ravi Shankar is the musician and not the Ravi Shankar in this article ~ srini 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that Pundit Ravi Shankar usually refers to the musician rather than the guru, 24.17.255.161 's statement is indeed accurate. AOLF's tax filings list their accomplishments as "The art of living foundation succeeded in educating thousands of people in the teachings and yoga practices of Pundit Ravi Shankar through publications, lectures and courses" (emphasis mine).[3] That is all we needed : more confusion! Abecedare 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... yes, the tax filings indeed refer to him as Pundit Ravi Shankar. Apparently, he served as a reciter of Vedas[4] and that's why he is a 'Pundit'. But still I stand by my opposition to the move. Probably I'm not aware of the edit wars/history wrt to this article, but I don't understand why 'Sri Sri' is made a big issue here. Be it a honourific, but it cannot be compared with western honourific titles like 'Sir' or 'His Excellency' or 'His Holiness'. 'Sri' is something widely and commonly used in names of people, places (Sri Lanka - 'venerable Lanka', even my name starts with a sri) and in this case, 'Sri Sri Ravishankar' is his self chosen identity and cannot be compared with titles like 'Bhagawan' or 'Sri' as in 'Sri Krishna'. I'm not sure about Ravi Shankar's legal name, but acording to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), "Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article. However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title." So in my opinion, there is more than one reason why the title of this article should remain 'Sri Sri Ravi Shankar' ~ srini 12:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) Articles should bear the title people will be most likely to type into their search. People will normally search for a person under the name they usually go by. Thus a person searching for Pope John Paul would probably search for "Pope John Paul," not "John Paul." 2) The "honorific" in this case serves an important function other than bestowing honor: it distinguishes this Ravi Shankar from another famous Ravi Shankar. 3)The "honorific" in this case is used in a way that it is essentially become a part of his name.; not merely something extra added on to show respect. It's like "Mahatma Gandhi." It has been used so much that people commonly think of it as part of his name. HeBhagawan 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mahatmaji, it is indeed an honorific title as a mark of respect, just like Mother Therasea. Kindly don't draw such venerable persons in this dispute. Balajiviswanathan 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose. I don't indeed know much about Sri Ravi Shankar's activities, and have neutral take on this matter as I hear both good and bad things about his cult or grouping. However, he is indeed known by Sri Sri Ravishankar and as such the article should contain the identifier and it need not be confused with Sir or any other Western title. It is not unusual for Indians to have honorific titles built into their names (My name literally means honorable and Youthful, and an emperor of the world and has got nothing to with my activities) and so too much of controversy need not be taken on this subject. He has chosen to keep such a name and consider "Sri Sri" a part of his name (he is entitled to have anything as his name and eligible to be called by that name) and not as some honorific title. Balajiviswanathan 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Re:Bakaman: If all that is at stake is the ability for users to find the page, a redirect to the new article name would solve that. Also the article should be under his name of birth, not with a self-chosen prefix. A example of this is with 'Rapper' P Diddy which redirects to Sean Combs his birthname. Sfacets 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply what about Sathya Sai Baba. How about swami Vivekanada (real name Naren Dutta), how about A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. What do rappers have to do with gurus? Absolutely nothing. While I do respect your help on articles about gurus, yogis and etc. this move is a misadventure.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:Well maybe they could stand to be renamed as well. I don't really mind one way or another, however it does seem logical to list an official name rather than a given name, a point I was (trying) to make with reference to Sean Combs. Does anyone know if there is any WP policy on this? Sfacets 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#People points to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Wikipedia:Namingconventions (people) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). It's not very conclusive; For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them. For example, use Asimov, Hawking, and Pinsky; not Dr. Asimov, Professor Hawking (or Prof Hawking or Dr Hawking), or Dr. Pinsky (or Dr. Drew) implies that after the first use of 'Sri Sri' it should be omitted, if it's considered a professional or professional-equivalent; what seems to be clearest is the following: The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia. Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes. Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. Assuming that Sri is equivalent to Honourable, this implies it should be mentioned in the article, though not in the page title. It's all nebulous and unclear. --Firien § 14:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again people dont know Swami Vivekananda as Narendranath Datta. Nobody searches for Narendranath Dutta, they search for Swami Vivekanada. Also no one searches for "Nimai Mishra" they search for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Its more or less the norm on Hindu gurus to note the name they are known by. Since policy is unclear, its best to keep the status quo for the rest of the Indian gurus. Sri is more equivalent to "Sir" anyways.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: If the article were moved/renamed, a search would still turn up the original title, which would be redirected to the new one. So there wold be no confusion. Also if Sri=Sir, how many articles contain the word "Sir" in their titles? Sfacets 03:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Its pretty useless to move. If Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is what the people search for, we might as well keep. Nearly all delete votes come from people who haven't even heard of the guru. Again you havent answered my comparison to Srila Prabhupada/AC Bhaktivedanta (his real name is Abhay Charan De), Swami Vivekananda, Sathya Sai Baba, etc. About

“ Well maybe they could stand to be renamed as well ”

, see WP:POINT. We might as well not have "Swami"/"Prabhupada"/"Satya Sai"/"Baba"/"Pandit" and practically every title that distinguishes each yogi/guru/shastra from another.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are worried that changing the name will affect his identity? How will changing Sri Sri to Ravi Shankar (guru) or similar be different? Also I don't understand what point you were trying to make when you referred to WP:POINT. Sfacets 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the change important? Its irrelevant. WP:POINT - the move would be disruptive, and would either make a bad precedent to pretty much ruin every other Hindu-bio or it would mess up the bio of this man. Lose-lose situation.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important because it set the tone for the entire article. If it starts off as POV, then the article loses credibility. It wouldn't be disruptive, since a simple redirect will point to the article with revised name. On the contrary, far from ruining any Hindu-bio, this would pave the way towards creating factually accurate and more importantly verifiable naming conventions for Hindu biographies of people who would otherwise use aliases. Sfacets 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

@Balajiviswanathan, yes there are names where this occurs, however 'Sri Sri' can be usedindependantly from 'Ravi Shankar' and is therefore not built into the name, but is a mere prefix. Sfacets 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article as it stands now is also not neutral, but conveys insubstansiated Anti-Sri Sri bias.

1. It says: "Similar breathing exercises were also taught by controversial Acharya Rajneesh Osho with a difference that they were performed in standing position, whereas Sudarshan Kriya is done in sitting position."

There is no reference for this assertion. A strong assertion like this needs to be referenced.

2. The article says the course fee is $200 ($375).

Actually that is only in the US. The course fee varies from country to country (and from state to state in India). For example in india the course fee can vary from Rs. 500 ($10) to Rs.1500($30). In addition, there are many donation courses held.

Secondly, this is not subject matter for a biography. It is better put in the wiki for the organization.

3. Critics claim that AOL is the first religious organization that charges fees to teach ancient science of Pranayama under a different but registered name of Sudarshan Kriya

This needs to be referenced. Sudarshan Kriya is different from pranayams.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with charging money for teaching something that is in the public domain. Most universities also teach physics,chemistry and mathematics,and charge a fee for that. AOL is certainly not the first organization to charge money. Most schools of yoga do charge a fee.

What one is paying for is not propieatary information, but knowledge and experience of the teacher.

Also, while it is based on an aincient science, the specific format is proprietary. This is perfectly okay. Most spiritual traditions in india do that....although they may not make you sign a non-disclosure statement.

4. As far as numbers for silver jubilee go. I think 2 million is the aggregate for the 3 days. 1 million meditated together on the third day. Check out this link for this and other numbers: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main16.asp?filename=Ne030406Nirvana_CS.asp

5. People seem to be ticked off by the title "Sri Sri". Sri Sri is a very common title for spiritual masters. Others being swami, sri sri sri, Sri Sri 108,Sri Sri 1008. I don't understand what the fuss is about.

6. At the beginning the page mentions "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" is a new age guru. The word "new age" is a western term, which comes with its own set of connotations. It is incorrect to label someone that, unless he himself claims to be that. You don't call the Dalai Lama a "new age" buddhist monk, even though he has a lot of "new age" western followers. Then why call a spiritual master from India "New Age".

7. Finally, I would like to say that while blind faith is certainly not good, blind criticism is equally bad.

I second Bhaskar. I.aditya 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Bhaskar

July 2007 POV check

I nominated this article to be checked for NPOV. I see that the issue has been brought up before, but right now it seems like a lot of positive content in the article with very little if any criticism. --Evil1987 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed the NPOV - July 2007

I have removed the NPOV since most information there is now sourced to proper references, websites and newspaper articles. Sidz77 05:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) sidz77

NPOV dispute

I have opened a dispute because I feel this article does not represent a neutral point of view.

• The article as it currently stands has nothing but favorable material on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (SSRS). It reads like a brochure on SSRS.
• While I appreciate and respect that my fellow editor above feels that the article now includes "proper references, websites and newspaper articles", I do not agree with the assertion. The sources given are from:
  • SSRS's own organizations
  • Indian media outlets, which tend to be strongly biased toward SSRS (The Times of India, especially, has for many years been known within the Art of Living organization as a friend)
  • magazines featuring ideologies sympathetic to that of SSRS (Yoga Journal and Life Positive)
  • a Washington Post interview, which is regrettably a "puff piece"
• While I realize that contrasting material and criticism may be difficult to find, I do not feel that justifies an imbalanced article that reads as biased.

--Evil1987 13:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Evil1987, I both agree and disagree with your above statement:

• Disagreement: a neutral article on wikipedia isn't one which tries to give equal weight to "positive views" and "negative views" in order to achieve some sort of balance; it simply has to present the viewpoint of independent, reliable sources in unbiased, encyclopedic language. So a neutral article could possibly contain "nothing but favorable material".
• Agreement: this article is mainly based on SSRS's own websites and some media sources that can hardly be considered independent or unbiased. Thus the article does need work to add better sources and possibly rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone.

Overall I don't object to the NPOV tag, although I hope that we can better source/write the page so that the tag can be soon removed. Abecedare 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your illuminating comments. I would like to point out this quote from WP:PSTS:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

As I interpret it, unless the article is going to rely predominantly on secondary sources (which it doesn't seem to at the moment--currently 16 out of 30 footnotes appear to be clearly primary sources), the information that can be referenced from primary sources is limited by points 1 and 2. --Evil1987 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the "Thoughts and Philosophy" section is particularly problematic in this regards. Abecedare 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Evil1987, You make a good observation that many of the references are primary references rather than secondary references. On closer inspection, I found that many of these are not even relevant to the article, and have decided to delete these. As things now stand, the ratio of primary/total references is 4/21, which could possibly be further reduced. As Abecedare says, someone needs to do some work to give the article an encyclopedic tone. We also need to do a more careful study of wheather points (1) and (2) above are still being violated in case of primary references.(other than the "Thoughts and Philosophy" section ) Sidz77 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)sidz77

What makes it non-neutal? Is the NPOV justified?

In its current form, the article reads like a fact-sheet with verifiable references. I have not found any verifiable negative content or criticism that could/should be posted on the article, and hence the NPOV nomination should be removed...unless of course someone can produce references to facts/opinions that are negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sidz77 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-25T09:41:05 (UTC).

Suggestion

Under current activities section, it is mentioned that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had a debate with Zakir Naik.

As Sri Sri is having talks and debates with various world leaders including Presidents and Prime Ministers of various countries, it is just irrelavant to highlight this talk. Instead it makes sense if somebody can include his talks, debates and meetings with President of US, Prime Minister of Iraq, Left Leaders and Terrorists in Kashmir, etc

Hence, I'm removing this for now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.116.186 (talk)

You are right about this. Note that since this is a biographical article about SSRS, we should list his activities, and not those of his organizations, which can be detailed in their articles. So I think your addition of his trips to Pakistan and Iraq was useful. Abecedare 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Gnanapiti 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree on this removal. The debate with Dr. Zakir Naik shows the complete lack of knowledge of Sri Sri on some of the major concepts of God and Religion. Meeting political leaders (Presidents & Ministers) will add value to his name but does not show his qualities on knowledge. To make this article a neutral one this must be reinstated as it was a very valuable debate with a lot at stake Athayyil 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is very easy to impress politicians and men of wealth with hollow words. I would certainly recommend one and all to see the video of Mr. Ravi Shankar's debate with Mr. Zakir Naik. Mr. Shankar's loss of words when Mr. Naik brings out factual errors in his book is there for all to see. This reference is needed in order to keep the article balanced. Sshekhr (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think these are just perceptions, whether the talks with Zakir Naik shows lack of knowledge of either Sri Sri or Zakir Naik. After watching that talk, I found Zakir Naik just reciting lot of lines here and there, with out understanding its meaning at all, and asks meaningless questions. As it is just a debate organized by Zakir Naik to show off his wisdom, there is no point in including that in this article amazedsaint

Amazing logic by "amazedsaint". I would call it "kutarka" as said by SSRS. Please go back to school & learn the english language again. Probably you do not understand english that is why you were not able to understand Dr. Zakir Naik's refernce matrial & logical questions.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.52 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Am completely agree with Athayyil.Vysakh

About Sudarshan Kriya

The article stated that no much information is available about effects of Sudarshan Kriya. This is wrong. A list of published articles is available at http://www.artoflivingresearch.org/pubresearch.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.116.186 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-03T16:15:19 (UTC).

Hence I'm removing this section from 'Sudharshan Kriya' section, and providing there a link to the list of studies conducted on the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazedsaint (talk • contribs) 2007-08-04T16:43:16 (UTC).

NPOV

This article reads like a brochure for the Art of Living Foundation. It is not neutral. No criticism of Mr. Shankar is included in the article, and when criticism has been added, it is removed by his supporters. This is not what Wikipedia is all about.

There are many, many articles in newspapers and on the internet that are highly critical of the Art of Living Foundation and Mr. Shankar. The concerns fall into several categories: 1) The Foundation is non-profit, yet millions of dollars in revenue are received by the organization through high fees charged for its events. Since most of the people who organize and run the events are volunteers, it is not clear where the money is going. 2) Mr. Shankar himself lives in a luxurious mansion. 3) The organization encourages secrecy. People who attend the events are asked not to reveal the secrets of the techniques taught. 4) His supporters are unwilling to accept criticism or open dialogue, as evidenced by their removal of passages from this article and their comments on this discussion page. This is evidence that the organization is a cult of personality. 5) His techniques involve very old Yoga breathing techniques, not the new discovery that he claims. 6) He is a protege of the widely discredited Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, yet Mr. Shankar does not discuss him anymore. 7) He is accompanied by scary-looking body guards at this events - I observed this myself at his event in Santa Clara, California last year - which I found to be rather disturbing for a supposed "man of peace". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.107.180 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

-- where is the money going? why dont you research? -- sri sri lives in luxurious mension? He wears white cotton clothes and sleeps on the floor in his kutir -- scary looking body guards? he is guarded by volunteers otherwise 1000s of people just push each other to see him. I have been on guard duty and I am 5 6" weighing 150 lbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.40.104.158 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sudarshan kriya visa vis Acharya Rajneesh

I am given to understand that Osho when he was Acharya Rajneesh had written in a small book about breathing exercices or a type of KRIYA which is very similar to Sudarshan Kriya. Does any one has a view on that ? or can any one name what is the title of that book and what Osho had written? Please....please...

I am very new to this Wikipedia. Rammala (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Rammala (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Graduation in Modern Science at the age of 17?

According to Art of Living website Sri Sri completed graduation in modern science by the age of 17 from St. Joseph’s College, University of Bangalore(http://www.artofliving.org/intl/Founder/tabid/57/Default.aspx). The alumni website of St. Joseph’s College does confirm that he did graduated from it(http://www.sjc-alumni.com/member.php?idz=4&sub=5). But does not say anything about year or stream in which he completed his graduation. This information is needed to increase the credibility of information that he passed at age of 17 and in Physics. Otherwise this information will have to be removed and only verified information that he graduated from St. Joseph's College, University of Bangalore will be retained.

--deep (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV =

Article makes no mention of criticism of Mr. Shankar. Sections critical of Shankar have been removed. This article reads like a brochure for the Art of Living Foundation and not an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.55.116 (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumar6319 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ne Can some one who attained sath-chit-ananda came back and told about the achievement? What is that and is it only known to self alone? Then every one will have his own path to achive. Every thing on earth is unique and experience also.

Debates and Diologues Coloumn removed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just few days ago, someone had added a coloumn about the debates and diologues of Sri Sri Ravishanker with Dr. Zakir naik (which is availiable in youtube) and all of a sudden it is invisible!!!!! Why is that the so called "fan" of sri sri removed it?? I think someone is still feeling guilty about the fantastic debate held in bangalore with Dr. Naik where Sri Ravishanker accepted his MISTAKES.....!!! Kindly watch the videos in youtube.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.215 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Financial Information of the Art of Living - India and Global(if available)

Can someone post the financials of Art of Living? its annual revenue, expenses, amount dontated to charity? Is Art of Living registered a public limited or private limited or proprietary firm in India?

A few answers

Hi,

Just thought I'd answer a few of the questions on here -

In regards to the Kriya, I'm afraid I don't know the details of Osho's book mentioning it, but there are different types of Kriya in existence. The one that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar cognised is specifically the Sudarshan Kriya. I have just bought a comprehensive book by Amy Weintraub called 'Yoga For Depression' which has a small chapter dedicated to this technique and some of the latest scientific research into the effects of the technique on practitioners. If anyone's interested I could quote some of this here.

In regards to Art of Living's status, it is a not-for-profit NGO. The organisation's structure is described on the international website:

'In the Art of Living organizational structure, there is a board of trustees with a term of two years. Two thirds of the trustees change every two years. All the Art of Living teachers and the previous trustees are allowed to nominate a new board. There is a provision for an advisory board that monitors, and guides the organization. All the accounts are regularly audited by an external auditor. Other than expenses, no trustee is entitled to benefits in terms of salary etc.'

In recent years I have seen a lot of their work and know several teachers who receive no salary (they are volunteers and just have course expenses covered).

As I live in the UK I know the Art of Living has a UK division which has charity status. I am happy to find the charity number if anyone's interested.

Proceeds from the courses Art of Living offers go to fund the humanitarian projects of the International Association of Human Values and if you visit here [5] you can see their financial annual reports.

Hope this helps, Cheers, Megan

Critics Section

Will Beback said: "Self published sources may be used for basic details of the subject's life, like date of birth or education, but they shouldn't be used for self-serving claims like awards. If the achievements are notable they will have been noted in reliable secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines or books published by third parties. If we have those source then the material should not be removed. "

For that I suggest that the self published source:

""Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 155. (Prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0023.) AHRQ Publication No. 07-E010. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2007."

CITATION is to be removed.

Many newspapers and even the Harvard Mental Health Magazin has published some Researches about the Sudarshan Kriya Pratice. (http://www.aolresearch.org/pdf/references/Harvard_Mental_Health.pdf)

same with: "The Art of Living volunteers have been criticized for making unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of Sudarshan Kriya in benefiting patients suffering from not only depression and trauma but also cancer and AIDS. Critics charge that exaggerated and pseudoscientific claims (for instance, the claim that HIV cannot survive in the oxygen rich environment produced by Sudarshan Kriya [citation needed] ) mislead patients with serious physical and mental illness and thus prove dangerous and cause harm."

WHERE THE CITATION IS MISSING and what about the next lines? Where is that to be found??? Please give a proper citation.

""According to an article in Reader's Digest: "There is no doubt, however, that some of its claims are exaggerated. For instance, according to an AOL brochure its “Youth Empowerment Seminar” is compulsory at 10 German universities. A random check by Reader’s Digest at five of the universities revealed that not only is the seminar not compulsory, it is not even part of the academic curriculum. It is offered as a leisure activity, alongside tennis and aerobics.""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.16.229.187 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are honors and tons of information about Sri Sri and Sudharshana Kriya removed?

Hi All, I am seeing lots of information about Sri Sri Ravishankar's works, His contributions to mankind are removed. I think some people are intentionally removing sections from this page. Recently "Honors and Awards" section was removed saying it should not be a CV. I am seeing prizes, honors for most of the people (like saints, actors, politicans etc) in wikipedia.

I thought wikipedia is a good site which gives correct information. I am thinking why I contributed more than $100 dollars to this site till date. I am seeing all human welfare programs/information from Sri Sri Ravishankar and The Art Of Living are getting removed. Sri Sri Ravishankar is doing a great job for this planet. Please co-operate and stop your fake critiscms. This is ridiculous and hiding good works of a great humanitarian person like Sri Sri Ravishankar. Hope Wikipedia an Wikipedians understand this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalleshk (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done all courses of Art Of Living and it is simply fantastic and life boosting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalleshk (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) --59.92.167.120 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why World record(brahm naad and citations removed?

Hi All, somebody is removing world record section in the name of promotion. If you remove it in the name of promotion, how do you communicate this world reoord information? I have seen world record information of an organization and individual been clearly communicated in other articles. Somebody is intentionally removing it from this article.

Also, reference links and citations are being removed(for example:- awards and honors) and article is being marked as citations required. This is not fair.

I see the material continuously being removed from this article which is not right.

--Jai 03:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Self published sources may be used for basic details of the subject's life, like date of birth or education, but they shouldn't be used for self-serving claims like awards. If the achievements are notable they will have been noted in reliable secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines or books published by third parties. If we have those source then the material should not be removed.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Recently, the article has been moved from to "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" and then back to "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" without any discussion. It is uncommon to include titles in the name of an article. See WP:NCP#Titles and styles. It would appear that "Sri Sri" is a title. If so, it should be dropped and the article should be at a name like "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)", with a redirect from the present title. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'll go ahead and start the formal page move process, in which we can get input from the broad community on the best title for this article.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation "non-disclosure" agreement.

Sudarshan Kriya section of the article says that

persons enrolling for the courses sign a non-disclosure agreement promising to keep the course content and techniques confidential.

In The Interview programme on BBC World Service broadcast 14 Aug 2010, Ravi Shankar stressed that rather than being a "non-disclosure agreement", it is actually just a "signed promise" (his own words) not to teach the breathing techniques unless properly qualified - without full required knowledge & understanding (presumably attainable through qualification by his Art of Living Foundation), teaching the breathing methodology can lead to the student's confusion or even harm, according to him.

Perhaps, it makes sense to change in the text "non-disclosure agreement" to something less legalese-sounding and forbidding (for example, "a written undertaking not to teach Sudarshan Kriya® unless qualified by the AoL Foundation")? Mere mention of "NDA" creates an impression that the Foundation is some sort of secretive organisation that passes inner knowledge only to the select few who can afford the fee, I think...

92.231.218.66 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I say go ahead and make the change.TheRingess (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - what is described is a NDA? why would we want to be vague rather than specific? there isn't nothing sinister about an NDA. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. Thanks to all for a civil discussion rather than continued move-warring. DMacks (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar → Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) — Per actual practice and the formal guideline WP:NCP#Titles and styles, Wikipedia biographies do not normally include titles or honorifics. "Sri" is an honorific. It is not part of the subject's birth name. OTOH, he is usually referred to as "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar", to distinguish him from the musician, Ravi Shankar. So we could go either way. However I think that the proposed title is more neutral.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per WP guidelines. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which states Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. 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 (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien). Skinsmoke (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree and have moved the page accordingly. Dr.rajkumar (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a bit premature. Let's call it a "provisional" move pending further discussion.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• The page has been moved to back to "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" without any discussion, which is unfortunate. A real concern is that the three users who have moved the page back/agitated for such a move all appear to be on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing articles connected to Ravi Shankar; there appears to be a serious lack of objectivity here. Dr.rajkumar (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please, no one move the page again until this discussion is complete.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per MOS:HONORIFIC.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Suggest you just go ahead and try it sunshine. We do not do official names on Wikipedia, and have our own style, which is that honorific titles are not included in article titles. hence we have an article on Elton John, not on Sir Elton John. The honorific title would be included in the first line of the opening paragraph. Finally, a word of advice: you will find that people respond better when some obnoxious little git isn't trying to bully them! Skinsmoke (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sri Sri" in the name "Sri Sri Ravishankar" is not honorofic. It is part of the name. By birth his name was Ravishankar. Later, when Ravishankar's(musical scholar) name was clashing with this Art Of Living Foundation leader. So this Art Of Living Foundation leader changed his name from "Ravishankar" to "Sri Sri Ravishankar". It is not honorofic. It is part of his name. Let me know if wikipedia needs official message from Art Of Living Foundation. Also, As I said before, simple google search will help. Every where he is refered with "Sri Sri Ravishankar" as it is part of his name. --59.92.176.95 (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for that, which at least shed a bit of light on things. I have posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics asking for input. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. He is officially and commonly known as "Sri Sri Ravishankar". As the IPs point out the two Sri prefixes are not honorifics but rather a marketing strategy to create a separate brand for him. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - According to Forbes it's honorific. He is often referred to by the double-honorific "Sri Sri", Guruji or Gurudeva. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not a Forbes article. It is a link to Wikipedia article. So WP:CIRCULAR applies here--Sodabottle (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, silly me, it still an honorific though. The important point for me is that this article gets around ten thousand hits per month with its current title (and its previous title gets zero) so whatever happens we shouldn't make people jump through disambiguation hoops or impossible to guess redirects to find it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There'd still be a redirect from "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" if it's moved, so readers shouldn't have any trouble finding it.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Honorifics are not part of name ... "Sri Sri" is a common honorific used before many Hindu holy men's name. The subject's complete name is Ravi Shankar, so the article should be renamed as such. As a comparison, many Muslims use "Hazrat " before a prophet's name, but that is not part of the name. Even if all such mentions of the person include the honorific. --Ragib (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as Will Beback points out above, this name change is not going to prevent anybody from finding the page. What it does achieve is encyclopedic neutrality. "Sri Sri" literally means "Mister Mister" and is an honorific, not a name, that much is clear. Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) is unambiguous, since there is no other notable Indian religious figure named Ravi Shankar. I think it is also deeply unfortunate if Wikipedia is held hostage by a group of users who are clearly following a promotional agenda in editing this page- to the extent that legal threats were made, although the user in question (Jaimalleshk) has been indefinitely blocked. The use of "Sri Sri", as has been noted by previous users, is a marketing strategy of the Art of Living Foundation, to establish a distinctive brand for Ravi Shankar. Well, this is an objective encyclopedia, not a set of press releases.

--caversham (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a name recognized by many major newspapers (many have been listed above) and governments. He has received several govt. awards, including an award from the Russian Federation, the Mongolian Prime Minister and many others, all made out IN THE NAME OF Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. It is common sense to correct this!! Shivetas (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Shiveta

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is "Sri Sri" removed?

This reference to the manual of style makes a good case for using Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as the article title. Also, it is an honorific that regularly and commonly accompanies his name. To give an example of an optional honorific, he is sometimes called Sri Sri Ravi Shankar-ji. Noone is saying that the wikipedia article have "ji" in it. Sometimes he is called Param Pujya Sri Sri Ravi Shankar-ji. Likewise, this is an added honorific that does not form part of his name. Sri Sri is used in university addresses, public talks, govt. addresses. It is part of his publicly known name. While "Param Pujya" and "ji" have no place in the article title, Sri Sri does. ¬¬¬¬Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.132.169 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia manual of style for honorifics: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. " Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is rarely found without Sri Sri. Therefore the article title should include Sri Sri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBhasha (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly importantly, it is Wikipedia practice to title according to the most commonly used name. I quote: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." Therefore, as Wikipedia points out, Snoop Dog's article should be titled Snoop Dog, and not Snoop Cordozar Calvin Broadus, and the wrestler Hulk Hogan's article should be under Hulk Hogan, not his given name of Terry Gene Bollea. If Hulk Hogan and Snoop Dog are classified according to common names, Dr. Rajkumar's logic is not in accord with Wikipedia practice. I hereby request him to stop repeatedly moving the article. For more details and arguments, see below.

As Jai pointed out on 28 June, google Ravi Shankar and it is not Sri Sri Ravi Shankar that shows up, but the sitar player. According to article title guidelines, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's article should be listed as "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". Wikipedia prescribes that the ideal title is:

Recognizable - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is recognizable, but Ravi Shankar is not. The man is not recognized as Ravi Shankar.

Easy to find - It is easiest to find Sri Sri Ravi Shankar under this name because it is both his official name used in visits, meetings, written articles, and speeches and it is what he is referred to.

Consistent - this name is consistent with other articles referring to him, with press written about him and his work, with books and video made about him, as well as with the publications of his own organization.

I quote: "Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that satisfies most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources."

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is the simple and obvious title. The key phrase is "guided by the usage in reliable sources." All the reliable sources I have found, published in print, television and internet refer to him as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. -Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBhasha (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Some come to the lectures of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, because they are thinking it is the Sitar Player. I am for the proper distinction between Ravi Shankar and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. (Krishi108 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

There is a basic difference between a stage name/pseudonym and an honorific. "Sri Sri", which literally means "Mister Mister", is a self-appointed honorific, *not* part of Ravi Shankar's real or assumed name. It is customary, for instance, to refer to Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhiji; in fact it might even be considered an insult in India to refer to him as Mohandas Gandhi, which is his Wikipedia page title; however, "Mahatma" is an honorific, not part of his name, and hence it is not in the title. There is another concern; "Sri Sri" is primarily a title used in the promotional literature of the Art of Living Foundation and it is through the PR activities of this foundation that the name has become prevalent. However, many neutral sources who, unlike some of the editors of this page, are not in the pay of the Art of Living Foundation, do not consent to using the "Sri Sri" honorific when referring to Ravi Shankar (http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/116878/are-spiritual-movements-turning-into-business-empires.html, this is an example, more than one of the commentators interviewed in the program refers to him as just "Ravi Shankar"). Moreover, "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" is both neutral and unambiguous; there is no other prominent spiritual leader named Ravi Shankar! At the rate this is going, it is likely that the fact that the Art of Living Foundation employs individuals to edit Ravi Shankar's wikpedia page, in stark contravention of Wikipedia regulations, will soon enter the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.159.241 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Sri" doesnt mean "Mister Mister" and in the IBN LIVE Link the moderator also says at around 4 min "SRI SRI" (Krishi108 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)).

Wikipedians, Why is "Sri Sri" removed? This is not only just honorofic. It is part of Sri Sri Ravishankar's name. Kindly revert it back to "Sri Sri Ravishankar". --Jai 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalleshk (talk • contribs)

Let me know if you need some evidence/links etc. Just google it for Sri Sri Ravishankar and just Ravishankar. That is enough for you to restore "Sri Sri Ravishankar" name. Hope Wikipedia remains good site. --Jai 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, Andrew Basha reverted back from Ravishankar to Sri Sri Ravishankar. That is correct.

URL also needs to be updated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader) OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Sri_Ravi_Shankar --Jai 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. I am unable to find a single source indicating that his legal name is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. "Sri Sri" is nothing but a near-meaningless self-appointed honorific. Giving yourself such an honorific is different from *changing* your name: if Ravi Shankar had changed his name to something else, the Wikipedia page could be titled accordingly. As it stands, it is *not* Wikipedia practice to use unofficial honorifics (or even, in many cases, official ones) in page titles. You may have noticed that Mahatma Gandhi's page is titled Mohandas Gandhi. No one is above the law, even on Wikipedia, not even Mr Ravi Shankar himself. I invite those who insist that the page should be titled "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" link to a reference that confirms that his legal name is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. If they are unable to do so, then logic dictates that the title should be reverted, which I will do in a few days. - Dr. rajkumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.30.246 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it surprising that there is a concern about the title. Several religious as well as spiritual leaders have titles like Sri Sri Sri, Sadguru, etc...many of which are not ordained by any institution. I think it is ok to not include the name in the title. It helps distinguish him from the Sitar player, so there is no confusion. As long as the article makes it amply clear, that Sri Sri is an honorific title, it make perfect sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.214 (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The article should be titled Sri Sri Ravi Shankar since that is the main name he is known by. Cary Grant is not listed as Archibald Leach, though that is his birth name. This is a pretty basic Wikipedia standard. People looking for information on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar will look for that name, so titling the article Ravi Shankar is not helpful. Astrid999 (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Astrid

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved. I also note that there is rather a high proportion of WP:SPAs on the "support" side who seem to know exactly how to nicely edit a page...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) → Sri Sri Ravi Shankar — So much substantial talk has happened since Will Beback moved the page, and there is no longer a concensus for Ravi Shankar, but it is leaning the other way. Leger Von (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

{{!vote}}

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: Since the essence of maintaining an encyclopedia is for people to find what they are looking for easily, I think the title of any article should be what everyone finds easy to refer to. This, I believe, is what wikipedia has stressed upon in their guidelines. As far as the title "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" is concerned, since he is referred by the international media and governments by that name (someone has already mentioned references!), it only makes sense to use the title as "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". If it were an archive of a birth record or some other government list of names/document then it will obviously contain whatever this person's birth name is! But if this is for people to find what they are looking for, the title needs to be what he is called internationally. Wikipedia has also given examples (Bill Clinton, Caffeine, Nazi Party) highlighting this point which makes complete sense! To keep things simple and clear I think we should simply change it to "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar"Traintogain (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• SupportLooking at the media coverage, he is referred to as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. It is for all intents and purposes part of the name he is known by. See the BBC interview, the Forbes article, the CNN interview and this Times of India article. This represents four major news agencies on three continents. To use Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is just clearer. That's the point, right? To make it clear, so that people can immediately see that the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar they're hearing about on the news is the same one here on Wikipedia. Especially since he's often referred to only as Sri Sri! The article should move just for clarity's sake, given that the naming conventions can swing one way or the other.Leger Von (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Leger
• Oppose: Same reason as my position in the previous requested move (my comment on 21 July, 2010). --Ragib (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: nothing new since previous closure/consensus. The Forbes article can't even be consistent if he's "Ravishankar" or "Ravi Shankar". But more generally, interview titles often include all sorts of honorifics and other titles that Wikipedia MOS specifically says not to use. Professor XXX, Dr. YYY, Mr. ZZZ, President WWW--none of those are our general article naming schemes because those are not parts of the person's actual primarily known name. There are redirects from the Sri Sri title to this article and the article itself clearly identifies him as using the prefixes, I don't see how one could be confused. Especially how one could think a page entitled "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" is about a Ravi Shankar who is not a spiritual leader...that's how WP:DISAMBIG works. There are certainly editorial options possible, but need clear and convincing evidence to change from one to another once we have it, otherwise you waste your whole life edit-warring among valid choices, which does not benefit the encyclopedia in any way. DMacks (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's be more specific: From WP:QUALIFIER: "If disambiguation can be achieved more naturally by using different name forms (as described previously on this page), then this is done." This is qualifier of the policy can be used in favour of using Sri Sri. And from MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." AndrewBhasha (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)AndrewBhasha

• Oppose, I see no compelling argument here for a move, especially since our article on Gandhi is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, not Mahatma Gandhi. Different cultures, I know, but the same principle applies. Powers ^T 18:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see no policy based reason to do this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, I didn't move the article. After other editors moved it back and forth without discussion I started a thread to settle the issue. Now that it is settled, I don't see any reason to change it.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per MOS:HONORIFIC. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the basis that the nom's statement "substantial talk has happened since Will Beback moved the page, and there is no longer a concensus for Ravi Shankar, but it is leaning the other way." is patently and disruptively false. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see it as a way to clarify the distinction between him and the Sitar Player. Just helps makes simplify common perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.214 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT!!! Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a name recognized by many major newspapers (many have been listed above) and governments. He received several govt. awards, including an award from the Russian federation, the Mongolian Prime Minister and others, made out in the name of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. As far as the title "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" is concerned, since he is referred by the international media and governments by that name (someone has already mentioned references!), it only makes sense to use the title as "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". Anya Robaltsenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robaltsenko (talk • contribs) 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Article titles should be concise, and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is the more concise title because it doesn’t use a disambiguator. 213.145.98.238 (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Jordan

• Support The parenthetical citation does not need to be used here. The inclusion of “Sri Sri” clears it all up. Otherwise we should call Robindro Shaunkor Chowdhury (commonly known as Ravi Shankar) by his birth name or as Ravi Shankar (musician). Why a double standard? Bhamini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.50.219.32 (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I did a search engine test recommended in the guide. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar clearly brings up the spiritual leader. This indicates the popularity of this title.78.60.146.178 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Maksim

• Support. As far as precision goes, I looked at that CNN interview mentioned above, and it shows that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is often referred to simply as “Sri Sri”. This is the case in other reliable sources as well. Without Sri Sri in the article title, people will find the article with less ease. We should include it so that people who hear Sri Sri find the article. Madhu, Dubai, UAE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.204.243 (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: could some of these supporters please clarify whether their concern is really that "searching wikipedia for a page 'sri sri' or 'Sri Sri Ravi Shankar' won't find this article"? That is easily disproven Sri Sri and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar both exist and easily allow readers to find the desired article. DMacks (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: As I see it, the point is that the article be found in the easiest, most direct way. I googlde Ravi Shankar, and the spiritual leader's wikipedia article doesn't appear on the top ten (same with Yahoo). On the other hand, I googled Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and his wikipedia article appears number two. I think this indicates that people are searching using the terms Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, not Ravi Shankar in this case. AndrewBhasha (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)AndrewBhasha

• Support: The guidelines say: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is the common usage in reliable sources.

I did a search engine test recommended in the guide. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar clearly brings up the spiritual leader. This indicates the popularity of this title. The section on wikipedia article on naming conventions supports the use of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar: "If disambiguation can be achieved more naturally by using different name forms (as described previously on this page), then this is done." Using Sri Sri does this.Gerlindev (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Gerlinde

Why is it that your post contains the same content as a previous post? Where are all of these 'new' editors coming from? Is this being advertised somewhere? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it on the net...This isn't a polling competition, but the reasons are valid to support the move.AndrewBhasha (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)AndrewBhasha

So amazingly, ten random new editor show up to !vote in a wikipedia poll - really? really? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I happened to find this discussion through Google! I Googled for 'Sri Sri Ravi Shankar', looking for some bio details, and the second result in Google was this page. Now I am reading this discussion. There might be some people ending up here in a similar fashion, if they are searching in search engines, etc. Just a thought...BookWormmm (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I would also like to mention the Huffington Post. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has published articles there under the name Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. That’s a major English-language reliable newspaper, like the others mentioned above. Jopoems (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Jeremy; Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

• Support: For a man who is commonly called Sri Sri, using Sri Sri in the title is necessary for clear recognition.Ale.jgd (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)alemm

• Oppose, I concur with all of the excellent points made above in opposition to the suggestion. But let me dispel one entirely fallacious argument that is being made in favour of it. The argument that disambiguations ought to be avoided through alternative naming conventions simply does not apply in this case. "Sri Sri" is not part of his name, it is an honorific and an unofficial one as that. Not one editor, throughout the first debate and this second, entirely redundant one, has been able to contradict this. The analogy to the Gandhi page is the best one. In India, it is almost inconceivable to refer to Gandhi as "Mohandas Gandhi" in print. But that is rightly the title of his Wikipedia page. An encyclopedia should never be held hostage to a propaganda machine. If it allows itself to be held hostage, it will lose all claims to objectivity. caversham ^T 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, Wikipedia should be user friendly - I don't feel that anyone need to remember "actual" name rather than widely used name If you are not using "Mahatma Gandhi" and using "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" then its totally wrong - How can you expect people to remember full name when he is famous with "Mahatma Gandhi". Similarly "Ravi Shankar is famous Sitarist" but "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" is spiritual leader and humanitarian. It is no where listed in policy that widely used honorable name should not be used! If it is written somewhere then provide us the reference! I will request foundation to change. Regardless of your fact - I strongly disagree and I believe that popular name should be used as heading rather than actual name. Further surely you can use actually name in Introduction because Wikipedia should be user friendly.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The nom leaves out an important aspect of the article history: the recent formal move-req discussion is the direct reason the page is at its current name (Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)). That's the consensus that nom needs to overcome, not trying to dredge up anything before (back to time of Will Beback's actions, for example) that as if it were new or substantial commentary. I do not see "much substantial talk" that nom claims has happened since the conclusion of the previous formal discussion (diff). DMacks (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the comments in the "Why has 'Sri Sri' been removed?" section. While the previous move mentionedpolicies, the subtleties of those policies were left out, ie there are occasions when honorifics are used and this should be one of them.Leger Von (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Leger Von

• This poll seems to full of either sock or meatpuppets, the chances of so many "new" users randomly finding this poll are pretty low. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. The "new" accounts are likely to be sockpuppets of the editor who started the "poll". I won't suggest a checkuser since the sockpuppetry is so obvious here. --Ragib (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure. It could be, on one hand, but the amount of response on this page also leads to it ending up high in search engines. Like I mentioned, I found this page because I was looking for 'Sri Sri Ravi Shankar', and it popped up high in Google. In the same way, if people are already looking for Ravi Shankar, or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and they end up here, they might want to have a say in the matter as well. I agree that most of the arguments seems valid though.. BookWormmm (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concerted effort to censor this page... internal email reveals all..

This should be a prime reason why this page should be protected....

thoughts?

see more detailed note from Astrid above. Much criticism is uncited and misleading. Quotes refer to other things, not the techniques or organizations mentioned. The science criticisms are especially in the realm of anyone can say anything without backing it up. They do not belong here as stated. ~~Astrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrid999 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(text of email deleted)   Will Beback  talk  08:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it confirms something that a lot of us suspected. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide source details for the email if you can so that there is evidence to support its authenticity. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the text. It isn't appropriate to post private mail on Wikipedia. It is even more inappropriate to conspire off-Wiki to skew the consensus here. If this is true then those involved should realize that it is a duplicitous activity, and is not tolerated here. This makes it harder to have confidence in future discussions, and more difficult to assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: There's apparently a blog entry about this, from today.[6] I don't know which came first.   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this article really needs to be substantially edited and protected. It's ridiculous that the organization sends out letters with pre-assigned arguments and attempts to bully its way into creating a promotional flyer for the organization. There is nothing here about the recent land-grabbing controversy. This same kind of behavior happened with the Nithyananda article and it took forever to get past the ninja edits. This is cultish behavior and dangerous to those considered with truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.77.9 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

He is Hindu but who say all religions are based on good will but have been warped by humanity to be harmful. So he would just say he is spirtual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.244.6 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism page should be updated

1. Mentioned "Edward Luce in his book In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (2006) alludes to Sri Sri's ties to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad." This text is not having any legal stands and sounds abusive! I believe only statements from popular award winning authors,celebrities and leaders should be considered. 2. It is no where mentioned that Sudarshan Kriya can cause hypocapnia and respiratory alkalosis. 3. "HIV cannot survive in the oxygen rich environment" - cited article is not having any claim from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar or Art of living foundation. 4. One Sri Sri's book mentioning similarities between hinduism and muslim which ran into controversy, In which Sri Sri tried to explain that all God are oneYoutube Video - Sri Sri Accept mistake is suitable for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the critic section constantly removed

In order to give a fair viewpoint, all sides of the story should be given. The page regularily reads as if it is a promotional leaflet - there are many opinions and discussions which to the newcomer researching this person should be presented in an unbiased way - rather than deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuji (talk • contribs) 06:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit pattern is bordering on vandalism--I have a feeling we'll have to protect this article against any anonymous edits soon if they continue/repeat removal of whole sections without comment or discussion here. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected a while... DMacks (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is good for readers to understand the common criticisms. However, much of the criticism in the section as it stands is misleading. The quotes from the paper submitted to the Health Dept. are from a section of the paper about research on meditation. The use of the quotes imply that the comments apply to the Art of Living techniques but they do not. Sudarshan Kriya is mentioned in the breathing section of the paper but there are no negative comments about the research on Sudarshan Kriya in that paper. The initial paragraph of criticism makes assertions about the science and about unsubstantiated claims but there is no evidence given here outside of a sentence about toxins not being able to survive in an oxygen-rich environment. That has nothing to do with the criticism that is being made in that paragraph. Some of the article's referenced sources cite several independent studies that have been published in peer-review journals. The article should probably refer to these specifically, but there is no source given here for the overall science criticisms. It sounds like the writer's personal opinion. It is also misleading in the last quote to imply that Richard Dawkins has made a statement about Art of Living. Art of Living and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are not mentioned in his essay. The person who put this quote may think that Art of Living is a certain type of group but that is different from making it look like Dawkins has that opinion. It is a biased use of a quote and is not appropriate in this article. ~~Astrid

Having just read the criticism section properly for the first time (which should probably be renamed per WP:CRIT) I propose that it is moved to the Art of Living Foundation article. It isn't about Shankar, it's about the organization. Only one sentence addresses Shankar directly.

• "Edward Luce in his book In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (2006) alludes to Sri Sri's ties to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad."

Without a proper citation with page numbers that line needs to go per BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Prashant's comment moved out from the middle of my comment Sean.hoyland - talk 09:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed,+1, this section is completely out of place here, the points need to be moved to the Art of Living Foundation article, and some rewriting will anyways have to be done while integrating it there. Let's do it. Also, Sudarshan kriya could have a separate article too and it could be linked to from this as wel as the Art of Living Foundation page. Prashant Serai

mister mister

I have removed the gloss that Sri Sri means mister mister, and replaced it with a link to the Sri article. As has aleady been pointed out, and the dedicated article makes clear, the meaning is more 'revered one'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicemix (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sri Sri is also a name in and of itself. It is a name of Lakshmi and implies fullness. It is actually unclear whether it is intended as a name or a title. Thinking of it as a title or honorific may be an assumption. --Astrid. (sorry if this is not the way to respond.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrid999 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

yes being compulsary

all art of living courses are voluntary and not compulsary . volunteers present a point of view as each one of them has had a unique and different experience it may sound exagerated to others just like a movie it gets rave reviews from some critics and not so great revies from others. experiences are personal and when they are used in a presentation they may sound over the top but Aol works on simple philosophy that when you are happy and you choose to share your happiness with others we make the world a beautiful place no miracles are promised for us a black cow having green grass giving white milk is also qualified as a miracle ! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.26.34 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article does not give all information

I notice that this article does not give all the information about this world wide leader. I see comments written not to add more links and make it look like a Advertisement. Why do you think so? I have read many articles in wikipedia about many politicians, actors which are in detail. So are they not advertisements? We have contributed more than $200 to wikipedia. Hope wikipedia writes good articles which is a must for great leaders like Sri Sri Ravishankar. --Mrudula.dhanraj (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it. Please contribute by adding Content. You can refer to Guru of Joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would help the community more if you could post in the talk page of articles you refer to, and flag them as Advertisements rather than proposing to turn this page into an Ad. No offence, but as far the community is concerned, all articles are equal, be a film star or spiritual leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.158.72 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Change the heading from Ravishankar to SriSriRavishankar

"Sri Sri Ravishankar" is the official name of this leader. You can check his official web site: srisriravishankar.org. --Mrudula.dhanraj (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If I contribute $400 can I be SriSriSriSriCrusoe?? Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The spiritual leader is popular with the name "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" as "Ravi Shankar" is ambiguous and his nick name "Sri Sri" is most widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Honorifics are not a part of the article name. If so, Mark Zukerberg's article would have to be renamed as Mr. Mark Zukerberg, Kamal Hasan's article as Padmashri Kamal Hasan, Rajinikanth's as Superstar Rajinikanth and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.158.72 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My edits on this article

I'm pleased my edit[7] was reverted because I see now it was original research. AbelBergaigne (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I've done some minor copy-edits. AbelBergaigne (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Content needs improvement

If you compare wiki page of spiritual guru with Swami Vivekanand, Ramdev and Swami Ramana Maharshi then we feel that this article is very small! It require expansion and inclusion of complete details. Please help in expanding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the article does need development. I can see if I can find more resources and references on this topic.Coaster92 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. See the previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) → Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – As per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:HONORIFIC "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." Hardly even in neutral sources like books [8] or news [9], the art of living founder is called simply "Ravi Shankar". It is always "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". Sometimes his honorifics "SRi Sri" are simply used to refer to him in short [10] [11]. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No - I agree with the discussion here why this is a bad idea. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

..and the other discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw that. My take:

• Consensus can change.
• WP:COMMONNAME says: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." In the last two discussions, there is no proof given that Ravi Shankar is his common name. In fact, review of articles by "major English-language media outlets" (including Times of India, Hindustan Times and other news agencies as well as Forbes, BBC, CNN) as well as a plain Google search reveals RSs use "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar".
• WP:HONORIFIC allows honorifics in certain cases: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." This is evident through the RSs.
• Please provide reliable sources to prove that "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" is NOT the common name and the honorific usage is uncommon in neutral (non-Art of Living related) reliable sources.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view on the issue. Both arguments, it's the more common name according to RS sampling vs it's a honorific and therefore non-neutral (and NPOV compliance is mandatory) have merit but I'm not sure it matters much (at least not to me). This BBC article uses them both in one article. The priority for me is that people can find the article and read it. At the moment it's getting ~10-20k views a month via the Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader) title and ~2-5k views through the various redirects. I suppose the difference may be caused by readers landing at Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader) via links from other Wikipedia articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But WP:HONORIFIC allows exceptions when COMMONNAME applies. Examples include Mother Teresa, Father Damien, Anthony the Great, Saint Joseph, Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Also neutral news agencies use the same name. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know. The artist Royal Robertson referred to himself as Prophet Royal Robertson and is very often referred to as Prophet Royal Robertson by RS including academic sources. Similarly William Joshua Blackmon is very often referred as Prophet Blackmon. They both regarded themselves as prophets and many sources use the "Prophet" prefix. WP:HONORIFIC is a style guideline, not policy. WP:TITLE is policy so I suppose the test is to demonstrate that it is the common name by a wide margin. The problem I have with that test is that I can't see how it's possible to establish whether an RS is attaching the Sri Sri prefix (an honorific) because they don't have the same neutrality policy as us/don't care or whether they are using "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" as a proper name. neutral news agencies don't have our neutrality policy. I imagine a vast number of reliable sources refer to Muhammad as Prophet Mohammad but we don't. Either way, as I say, I don't think it matters much as long as people can find the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Will update with evidence later, if required. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons as last time. The subject's name is "Ravi Shankar". "Sri Sri" is simply an honorific.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as before as others. Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. 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 is the honorifics standard for bio-articles linked from the article-naming policy. As precedent for omitting honorifics when not required for disambig (even when widely known and used in common references), we have Queen Elizabeth II as a redirect to Elizabeth II. We also have King David as a redirect to the article at David even though there are many other meanings of "David" and using "King David" would be an obvious DAB route for this meaning. Are there other notable "Ravi Shankar"s? Is his name never not-used without "Sri Sri"? If "Sri Sri" part of his actual name? I'm seeing "no, yes, no", so I'm not seeing a need or a strong argument to include it, but instead a medium-strength argument to exclude it. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCDAB. It's more recognizable, and it's more natural without the parenthetical. --Pnm (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think using honorifics in the title is generally a bad idea, and I'm not convinced by the arguments of common use in this case. I don't see anything compelling here that indicates that the Sri Sri is needed in the article title. LadyofShalott 13:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request to move

The world knows Ravi Shankar_spiritual as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar . Even visual and print media quotes Him as Sri Sri, rather than Ravi Shankar He is usually known as Sri Sri. This article will create confusion among many. The death of Ravi Shankar (Sitar Player) was shown in media as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Wikipedia always follows a high standard to keep people know the real information. Wikipedia is known as the main source if information to the world. Osho is named as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh , Bhagwan is a self given honorific title. In case of Mahatma Gandhi , world knew Him as MK Gandhi . But Ravi Shankar is known as Sri Sri Or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Mother Teresa is given such honorific title. This all should be considered while making the move. I believe Ravi Shankar should be changed to Sri Sri and it doesn't violates any rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanduhari (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One-sided story

I read this article today and was surprised it seems to present just the positive sides of the individual's story with no comments on the criticism he and his organization has received worldwide Abpillai (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sharing of DOB with Adi Shankara

The date of birth of Adi Shankara is not known, there is no agreement among the historians on his birth year & date.However, in India Adi Shankara's birthday is celebrated on Vaishakha Shukla Panchami. According to Indian panchanga in 1956 this day would have been 15-May-1956 & not 13-May-1956. hence it may not be correct to say that Ravishankar shares his birthday with Adi shankaracharya.THis could be misleading. I think this needs to be updated.Guru meet me (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing that to our attention! I removed the comparison. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO consultative status edit. Is this policy based?

Hi!

I just noticed that a contributor, "Parjorim" has made an interesting edit stating reason as "UNESCO consultative status is for the American arm of the corporation, its incorrect to generalize it for the whole corporation." It makes sense if the org is split into multiple sub orgs. I was looking it up on the UN site and found that Art of Living has a registered HQ at a US address and they have not specified that only the american branch has the special consultative status. Is there a policy which says that if an org or company has a registered office at a particular address then any collaboration or recognition it has is only pertaining to that office or the organization as a whole unless specified otherwise? I couldnt find any references to the organization structure of art of living but I couldnt find anywhere in UN site, media or their own website the org being referred as American art of living or european art of living, etc.

Can someone share some insights on this? Traintogain (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch.

First, this article is about the person, so such detail is rather questionable here.

Second, no source was offered indicating that this corporate structuring exists and is relevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My claim is based on facts & is verifiable, I wonder why the URL I have cited is not opening. Please Click here. If this doen not open, copy-paste the url in a new browser window. The foundation is headquartered in Bangalore India & has got regional centers in more than 150 countries as per the wikipedia article on the foundation. The center in US is one such regional center. The details mentioned in the UNESCO website are that of the regional center in US. It would be factual & neutral to state so vis-a-vis the UNESCO consultative status. So the text should rather read as " The regional center of the foundation in US has got the UNESCO Consultative Status". There is a difference between saying the NGO has got the UNESCO consultative status & one of its regional center has got UNESCO consultative status. This status is used by the foundation as advertising material to attract more followers so its only apt & neutral to mention the facts as they stand. If the headquarter was registered with the status then may be it could have been apt to apply it to the whole organisation.Parjorim (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That url requires a password. What does the page actually say? --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You can access the page (without an account) via the search box, top right, by searching for Art of Living. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch.

I've removed it from the article. Once again, this is an article on the person. This is not a venue for promoting his organizations. Much of the article needs similar cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess, it has also been mentioned in the Art of Living foundation article. May be we need to re-word it to state the facts as they stand.I would do it sometime later.Parjorim (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed display pic.

I've followed the steps in uploading and inserting image to change the display picture. I hope its ok. Plz guide. Photo sent (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Much improved. A portrait image as you've provided is preferred per MOS:IMAGES. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition section

In my opinion, this section has become too long. The article is losing its readability. Either it should go on a separate page or the irrelevant ones & the without citation items should be removed from the list.Parjorim (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is indeed quite long though not big enough to have a page of its own, in my opinion. Rather than removing referenced data we could ourselves contribute or put a "citation needed" flag to the "yet to be referenced" ones. I doubt if anyone would put imaginary awards on his/her website. Also, i felt that a table structure could improve readability. Traintogain (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually BLPs restrict awards to notable awards. Any award that isn't clearly notable (has it's own article or similarly notable) or that isn't referenced with independent and reliable sources should probably be removed. Once again, this article is not here for the promotion of Shankar. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning the article

"In the 1990s, Shankar initiated a number of humanitarian projects, which continue to this date under the auspices of the Art of Living Foundation and its numerous national organizations." No sources are given. Its very unlikely that projects started in 1992 still continue. The statement is not sourced & is vague. Besides it could be misleading.The statement is being removed. The source cited in Prison related program clearly states it was run by Art of Living. The claim should move to the foundation article & not here. The section Ayurveda just gives a statement by Shankar. This section has no significance as a Biographic article.27.5.185.139 (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding References for Awards

Hi,

If I find some references to the awards that have been removed, can I add that award back with the reference? How else can I contribute? Thanks. Vinay gohan (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this!

If you could find sources that are independent of both the person and the award itself, they would be very helpful and appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bachelor's degree completion age

Here's a Blog post carrying a photograph of the Bachelor's degree in Science. Can this be used as a reliable source for mentioning that he completed his studies at the age of 18? The article specifies 21 as of now. -Cwarrior (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Its the scan of the Original Degree offered to Sri Ravi Shankar. And the blog belongs to Mr.Batliwala who is a YES Plus Director in the Art of Living Foundation. Hence Its a very reliable source. Tall.kanna (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

An editor seems to be expressing doubts about its authenticity based on the day of the week of its date (see User talk:Jgd19751207#August 2012). It seems like that analysis and the implication of including this factoid is the connecting of a lot of dots ourselves (or asking our readers to do so)--maybe even WP:SYNTHESIS intended to cast doubt (WP:BLP problem?). I don't have any information about this aspect of the educational system, etc., so I left the information in the article but with a tag to indicate that there is a concern about it. Hopefully others can provide additional factual information and/or editorial guidance. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The concerns raised by User:Jgd19751207 do not appear to be valid. A lot of universities in India, I know, prefer to conduct their convocation ceremonies on a weekend or a non-working day. This is to allows faculty members to be able to take part in the elaborate ceremony without disrupting daily activities. See: 41st Convocation at IIT Delhi and 10th Annual Convocation of NITK, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.137.217 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I develope some of this on the Spanish version. John Dayal critized the biography in this article, and the official page biography was changing over the time, as the Internet Archive show us:

Time	Text	IA url
10/02/2007	By the age of seventeen, he obtained an Advanced Degree in Modern Physics, and later received an Honorary Doctorate from Kuvempu University, Karnataka, India.	[12]
18/01/2009	Becomes a scholar in Vedic literature and obtains an advanced degree in modern science by the age of 17 from St. Joseph’s College, University of Bangalore.	[13]
08/10/2010	By the age of seventeen, in 1973, he had graduated with degrees in, both, Vedic literature and physics.	[14]
Now (12/09/2012)	By the age of seventeen, in 1973, he had graduated with degrees in, both, Vedic literature and physics.

Eloy (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. The official biography keeps changing the details about something as concrete as education. Obviously only one of these four can be correct. and above all the current updates have removed the mention of vedic literature. But this makes sure, something is fishy about the degree\degree certificate. Somebody somewhere must be lying about it all. This Science degree is used as a marketting material to attract the educated people who are often wary of spirituality. I think somebody should also mention how on earth a 17 year could be allowed to appear for a degree exam. In Indian education system the normal age one gets the bachelor's degree is at the age of 21. Somebody should explain this gap of four years.Parjorim (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to use an independent source, or a primary sources from the actual schools. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I found no reference of names of the school he attended anywhere on the web. However I see some comments on the website which is cited for the scan of his degree certificate. The comments suggest he was given two or three double promotions which made his degree possible by 18. Parjorim (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

These are the websites of the university - http://www.bangaloreuniversity.ac.in/ and college - http://www.sjc.ac.in/. It is not uncommon in India for students to receive double promotions even in the recent times. These practices were even more prevalent around the time he would have gone to school. Perhaps you would like to talk to some of the senior citizens from India who would proudly tell about their own double promotions. Parjorim, your assumptions are based on the most common age one receives a bachelor's degree in the current times. You should keep in mind that while 21 is the most common age of students graduating from undergraduate colleges these days, you can still find exceptions to that rule. If you consider that this happened in 1973, chances of a student graduating at 17 are even more. CV Raman entered undergraduate college at the age of 11, and received his degree at 16. Some other notable exceptions to your "21-rule" are CNR Rao, 17; C. Rajagopalachari, 16; and R. Radhakrishnan, 20 to name a few. I am sure you can find plenty more, if you'd do any research on this issue. - 219.91.250.209 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes the St. Joseph's college does show his name in the list of distinguished alumni but doe snot show his year of graduation. I am also intrigued by the fact that possibly the double promotions are given to students who are learned beyond their age. In Ravishankar's case he is supposed to have passed the B.Sc. degree in third class which does not go well with the double\ triple promotions. The wikipedia article must mention about the double promotion claim which would go well with the graduation age of 17\18. Parjorim (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The scan of the degree certificate suggests that he appeared for the exam in October 1974 which makes him 18 at the time of graduation & not 17 unlike what is mentioned. It is incorrect to say that "He completed his studies at the age of 17." How can studies be called complete without exams. here we are talking about proper academic education & not something which is learned as "Guru-Shishya" parampara. I would wait for a couple of days for comments & then update this.Parjorim (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I inserted a line ", which he completed at the age of 18".He actually completed the course by the age of 17 but had to give exam in the month of October 1974, so he officially completed his B.Sc. by the age of 18. Add2getpositive (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

References

That's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

New Section Controversies

I have added a new section on Controversies. To start with I have added the controversy about his B.Sc. degree at 17. I would update the section again soon with some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahttiv (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to the WP:NPOV policy in this section. Just the exagerated size of each point must be reviewed. This should show others points of view, in a balanced way. Jmfalguera (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no exaggeration. I have not added any original research. Its all from the news paper reports & well known organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahttiv (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The new section on Criticism has been halved with the statement that the section is bigger than the article. There is no rule which talks about size of any section. Lahttiv (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the NPOV policy, "Different views don't all deserve equal space".Jmfalguera (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." This is a statement from the policy. I am merely putting what the newspapers reported, there is nothing in the article which is my research\opinion.Let's come to the point. What is you see as a problem with my updates in the Criticism section ?Lahttiv (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

Support :The deleted updates in the section sound somewhat biased but since the user has given the citations, I think the updates should stay. After all the content is not the user's original research.The policy says"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Hence the updates should stay. That is my opinion.Bgl jgd (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

'NOTE: The users "bgl jgd" and "Guru meet me" are SockPuppets from the user "Lahttiv" so their opinion should not be considered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lahttiv

Jmfalguera (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Support :The updates in the deleted section by Lahttiv seem to be longer but as long as the sources are reliable there is a point in letting the updates be there. WP:FRINGE/PS is pretty straight forward,It says "1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.".The updates as such make the article more balanced.Guru meet me (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

'NOTE: The users "bgl jgd" and "Guru meet me" are SockPuppets from the user "Lahttiv" so their opinion should not be considered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lahttiv

Disagree/Reject Criticism include firing on the car incident which is not relevant to criticism. Secondly, land encroaching incident is related to Art of Living and not Sri Sri Ravi Shankar directly so it should be placed in respective paths. Please do necessary changes. All points need to be wikified - Wikipedia don't include complete story of the incident - should be replaced by end results(point 1 and 3 in particular). Otherwise we have to crop/rewrite section to address things correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Jmfalguera (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The main policy that concern this article is WP:BLP wich says: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

First of all, nirmukta.com is a declared anti-spiritualism site, and the post quoted is not an article. It's an entry written by an annonymos user "D." with only 1 post written (according to that website). As I said before I don't think it is a reliable source according to WP:NPOV.

About balance: WP:COATRACK "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content."

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption."

I think more users are needed here. I think this article should stay protected and categorized as no-neutral.Jmfalguera (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is what you removed. It included material cited to reliable sources like The Times of India and The Hindu. Why did you do that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two items in that removal. The first one is an accusation of fraud based in a nirmukta.com post (I write about that below). The other item refers to a firing incident in RS ashram, that dosn't seems to be an accusation or critic. The accusation or critic is not expresed and looks more like a "trivia section", irrelevant in this article according to WP:BLP. Jmfalguera (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the shooting incident is not a criticism. I removed it as trivia per WP:NOT#NEWS

I also removed the "tank" controversy as information about the foundation rather than the person.

What remains needs a rewrite not in perspective and point-of-view, but in tone and presentation. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Shooting incident is Criticism because Ravishankar tried to portray the attack differently than what it actually was. It is clear from the article. He was saying that it was an attack on him & happened in his presence but the investigations revealed otherwise. Which meant he was lying. Now if I say so in the article somebody would claim its violation of NPOV. The Tank controversy is clearly criticism of the ways of Ravishankar's organisation. The NPOV says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." I am adding the removed part again.Parjorim (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the shooting: Please quote from the sources whatever you feel makes it worth including in an encyclopedia article on him.

As for the tank: First and foremost, this is about him, not his foundation. Please explain why it belongs in this article.

In the meantime, we've WP:BLP to follow. I suggest editors become more familiar with it. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As for how we present the Naxalite comment: I tried to make the language more neutral. Could someone explain what problems they still see? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

All that is written about the shooting is quoted from the newspaper articles which is sourced from reliable sources like The Hindu, Times Of India. The tank, land grabbing incident is about him because he is the one who runs the foundation. The whole criticism is about how he bailed out the foundation because of his influence with the state government. May be the language needs to be made more "dis-interested" than it is now. I think I do understand WP :BLP, it says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." May be I need to work on the language. Yes,You have made it more neutral. I would go with you about the naxalite comment.Parjorim (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see why the material belongs at all. Please provide some quotes that might demonstrate it does. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Shooting Incident : Check Out this link from The Hindu here Ravishankar says “Police cannot absolve itself of its responsibility by taking it lightly. It has to be investigated properly. The fact is that the bullet was fired in the direction of my car and a devotee has been injured. It has to be taken seriously and probed.” & now check the news about final police investigation report, As per the report, "A senior police official said the farmer, who owns a licensed 0.32 pistol, has 10 acres right next to the AoL ashram on Kanakapura road, 30 km south of Bangalore city.On the evening of May 30, he heard some barking and, as was his normal practice, took his pistol and fired three rounds in the air. One of the bullets, on its downward trajectory (called the dead bullet), grazed the thigh of Vinay K., a Sri Sri Ravishankar follower. The incident occurred a few minutes after the AoL founder left a satsang in his car." Ravishankar was trying to portray it as an attack on him to garner more publicity, however it was revealed that it was not true. There are more quotes I can write but I think these two give the details.

Tank Land grabbing incident : The case is in the court & the Karnataka state government filed an affidavit giving details about the land grabbing. One of the news paper report suggests that Ravishankar's influence over the state government saved him & the foundation from legal trouble. Ravishankar & the organisation is not different from each other. Some news papers reported it in the name of Ravishankar rather than his organisation. Foir example check this reportParjorim (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I see no reason that either incident deserves any mention at all in an encyclopedia article about the person. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to force my views on you but I am convinced these incidents need mention in the article. It also gives a balanced view of the person otherwise the whole article smacks of advertisement of the man & his organisation. If you check this talk page you would find that in the past an editor had agreed to the inclusion of these incidents. Let's involve an editor to get his views.Parjorim (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is no policy-based reason to make a change, based upon information in reliable sources, then I don't see any purpose for continuing. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to explain you why the changes belong & the information is from reliable resources. Please check comments of the editor Sean.hoyland above.Parjorim (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The last time I had updated shooting incident it was sounding selective & non-neutral. I have now tried to put it in a more neutral way.Parjorim (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed as trivia.

Let's imagine that it wasn't trivia. In that case there would be sources mentioning the incident in detail long after it occurred, giving information as to why it's important. They would also need to present the incident as criticism for us to do the same. Do such sources exist? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to explain you why it not trivia & is actually criticism. Typically the so called Indian Gurus try to garner publicity from everything that happens with them. Here to they tried to do the same by claiming he had been attacked. They spoke about it in the print media & also on television. In the end, they turned out to be untrue. The criticism is ingrained in the incident itself. As you have suggested I would try to find such sources & present those here.27.5.179.249 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Parjorim (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ronz I do not understand how you can dismiss articles from thehindu as trivial, There are also substantial land grabbing cases filed against ravishankar over the last few years. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bullet-was-fired-in-the-direction-of-my-car-sri-sri-ravishankar/article442677.ece http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/nri-accuses-sri-sri-ravishankar-of-grabbing-land-34925 http://www.rediff.com/news/report/sri-sri-ravishankar-dismisses-land-grab-charges/20100701.htm http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Bangalore/Land-grab-twist-to-Art-of-Living-extortion-calls/Article1-565545.aspx http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/nri-accuses-sri-sri-ravishankar-of-grabbing-land-34925

There seems to be substantial media coverage and criticism surrounding ravi shankar and this entire article has been reduced to a mere 1 sentence. Lookinhotbra (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

I don't see any new sources being offered. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Graded as "A" class. The sudarshan kriya tought by Sri Sri Ravishankar is very helpful to establish a control over the mind through breath. 61.95.204.20 08:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Darshan

Last edited at 06:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 15:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar's views on Politicians, and Political parties

In my opinion, this section--Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's views on politicians, and political parties--that i had added to the main article needs to be re-inserted into the main article since this provides significant biographical details about Ravi Shankar. Soham321 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? Seems like WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS problems unless the subject matter has lasting relevance somehow. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant because it shows Ravi Shankar is keenly interested in politics--to the extent of endorsing particular political parties and political leaders and slamming other political parties and political leaders. He is not neutral on this subject. This information is surely valuable and needs to be included in his biographical page on WP.Soham321 (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

He gives endorsements. Who says that these endorsements are noteworthy in any way, let alone indicate he is "keenly interested in politics"? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding World Culture Festival and other major events.

World Culture Festival These are series of events hosted by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Recently with Government of India at scale of Olympic to celebrate unity in diversity. It was termed as adveritising. So please let me know content - which can be made neutral. But yes, it surely has place in wikipedia with proper references. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: I removed content to make it only informative. Further updates can be made. Here are few details why it need an entry in wikipedia:
1. First time 1200 religious leaders from top religions gathered at one stage.
2. 155 countries including 40,000 artists - 8500 grand orchestra of 50+ instruments, 1200 from China, South temple of China - Shaolin, Srilanka, Sufi-dance from Pakistan and 40+ national and international performances mostly classical representing heritage and Art etc. Which is first of its kind and done to celebrate unity in diversity and also to promote world peace - inspite of differences people can coexist

Why is it being added to this article? What does it have to do with Shankar?

Ignoring that it doesn't belong in the article, it seems to uncritically promote the events, completely ignoring all criticism. As such, it pretty clearly violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it again per BLP. Given my comments here have been ignored, but there is a response at World Cultural Festival , I'm assuming we can work it out there first. Perhaps we'll find something that should be mentioned in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

ISIS?

Shouldn't there be some mention of his attempts to broker peace with ISIS? He failed in those attempts, quite famously. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20150417083931/http://ngo-forum-health.ch/about/members/the-international-association-for-human-values-iahv/ to http://ngo-forum-health.ch/about/members/the-international-association-for-human-values-iahv/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bawandinesh.name/look-what-we-found/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722150121/http://farc-epeace.org/index.php/communiques/communiques-peace-delegation/item/774-words-from-the-peace-delegation-of-the-farc-ep-to-sri-sri-ravi-shankar.html to http://farc-epeace.org/index.php/communiques/communiques-peace-delegation/item/774-words-from-the-peace-delegation-of-the-farc-ep-to-sri-sri-ravi-shankar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting a move (again)

This has been brought up many times and the most elaborate form of this is at Talk:Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader)/Archive_1#Requested_move Whats worth noticing is that there wa sno consensus reached, yet the page was moved from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to Ravi Shankar. That discussion is dated 2006. I think we need to have a new one keeping the developments over time in mind. I believe citing WP:NPOVNAME is merit and proof of Wikipedia Policy in FAVOUR of moving the page to "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" itself. Please drop a comment below Space.mountain9 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2011, there was no consensus to move it away from "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" (Talk:Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader)/Archive_1#Requested_move_3). Feel free to supply details of these "developments over time" in policy or referencing. DMacks (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gosh there's so much legalese here in these discussions of 2006 and 2011, referred above. I'm no lawyer, but, my common sense finds it very awkward, jarring almost, to see the page titled "Ravi Shankar" and the article referring to him as "Ravi Shankar", which is highly unusual. In the last few years that I've been reading about him, I haven't seen him being referred to as Ravi Shankar in any source coming from any part of the world. Maybe it was so several years ago, could be, I don't see it now. In common use, "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar" is used more like his full name. Although "Gurudev" or "His Holiness" which are sometimes used as prefixes to his name are clearly honorific, "Sri Sri", at least the way it is used for Sri Sri Ravi Shankar by people across the world, is more like a first name! Why would we wanna make this so complicated, and not call someone the way he is called world over. The goal is not to be overly-scholarly I hope! Prashant Serai (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

See e.g. [15] [16] [17] [18]. Although, agree, the predominant use seems to be with "Sri Sri". — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar still sounds a lot better and more appropriate than Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). Who agrees and who does not agree? Please participate for getting a concensus.

COI and advertising problems

This article has a long history of both. I suggest looking over the article logs, history, and stats. Four of the top contributors to the article are SPAs: Traintogain (talk · contribs), Lahttiv (talk · contribs), Deepeshdeomurari (talk · contribs), Jaimalleshk (talk · contribs). Take a look at the last 50 edits to the article and you'll see multiple SPA and ip's attempting to either whitewash the article or use it for promotion. The related articles are worse. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, could you please respond here? --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The documentation of {{COI}} says (markup as original):

if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I'm unclear if you're read my comments at this point. Could you please address them? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I just did. Feel free to address mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the tags.

The article has ongoing problems with apparent coi-accounts attempting to change the article to their personal viewpoints. I take it that's not in dispute.

My impression at this point is the article needs a rewrite around the subject's notability and the high-quality, independent sources.

I'll look further. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Peace and humanitarian work" section seems grossly undue as presented (more like a resume than a section of a biographical encyclopedia article), promotional, and poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Same with the "Awards and recognition" section, only worse and easier to fix. Any entry that's not notable itself needs to verified with a high-quality, clearly independent source that indicates why the award is noteworthy and why Shankar received it. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, Jytdog [19] is unavailable to explain why the tags were added or to evaluate how well the article has been cleaned up since.

Art of Living appears to have large scale public relations efforts that make it difficult to find clearly independent sources, and very difficult to find any in-depth biographies on Shankar. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The lede needs a rewrite, but short term could be trimmed so it says more about Shankar than AoL and IAHV. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)