Talk:Sadhguru: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support per nominator, and

talk) 22:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There are many independent sources (g-books g-newspapers) referring to the person as Jaggi Vasudev. It's hard to have clarity about which is used most often.

talk) 18:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

1. Sadguru and Satguru are same, as the first line of the page says. Sadguru-Sadhguru is similar to Shri-Sri: transliteration quirks.
2. To Amakuru's point, even that particular English spelling - with h - isn't unique to him. Saibaba was also called so. He was popular enough that ngram results would include him too (all the previous links are from books). And there are numerous others less famous on English Internet - See for eg, Maruthanallur Sadhguru Swamigal, Sadhguru Sri Sharavana Baba, Sadhguru Sainath, Sadhguru Siddharoodha, Bijoy_Krishna_Goswami#Manifestation_as_SadhGuru.
3. Sadguru is used widely for a lot of other spiritual leaders. It's also an honorific for Shankaracharya (who himself, in Viveka Chudamani, calls Govinda as Sadguru) as well as Sringeri mutt pontiffs. Just look at how many books refer to Jesus as Sadguru, if you need more proof that it's an honorific.
4. Similar move was argued in Ravi Shankar's case and fell through. All those arguments apply here like

   WP:TITLESINTITLES
5. Most strongly though, per

   talk) 11:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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

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

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

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

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

   Re 5, 101 results? what did you click? I see >2 lakh.

   talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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

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

     talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

     ]

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

     ]

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

Above comment from

WP:SPA focused on editing Kalki Bhagawan, (a competing guru). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Yet another

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

]

You seem to be under the impression that all ad hominems are improper. That is a common misconception. Ad homenims can be valid when the person's background or motivations is relevant on the matter being discussed, as is the case here. Also, your invocation of

talk) 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The user goes to full attack and seems to

WP:CANVASS, probably should be investigated. Maybe it is more of a paid editing issue over at Kalki Bhagawan. I must admit I am not an expert in either subject, while I have heard of this article subject Kalki I had never heard of it until I looked at the edits of Ronyrockford as it the 'strong oppose' caught my attention was snow was nearly falling on the rest of the inputs, just looked out of place. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Furthermore, this is definitely not a common way to spell

IAST. ध "dh," and Satguru or Sadguru is never spelled with ध. The "dh" only appears sometimes in South Indian names, but it's certainly not a standard or universally accepted spelling. Softyleonito421 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

disamb page is okay, but that doesn't address

WP:NPOVNAME

. Is Sadhguru so uniquely associated with him and Jaggi Vasudev so rarely, that neutrality can be broken?

Re Satguru/Sadhguru transliteration, you've ignored every rebuttal made above with no new data.

talk) 03:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no requirement of "unique association". For instance, there are thousands of Shivanandas, Krishnanandas, and Muktanandas in India, whereas our articles (

Krishnananda, Muktananda) talk about those known best. Similarly, many people can be locally referred to as sadhguru (usually sadguru, though), even if the term is most commonly used for this particular guy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Much like

Mother Theresa (A. G. Bojaxhiu), Yogiji Maharaj (J. Vasani), Guru Maharaj Ji (M. A. Ibrahim), Shastriji Maharaj (D. Patel), and countless others. But so what? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Mother Theresa, not just Mother. And commonness has been considered overwhelming enough to override NPOV, to warrant mention in

WP:NPOVNAME

. Where is that argument made here?

(Also note that move to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev is not being discussed, move to Sadhguru is)

talk) 18:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Sadhguru is honorific in Indian English. Maybe it is common name for the subject in Indian English (but there are enough other instances to doubt it) and definitely not common enough to overcome

talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Please do read discussions above or from the last time this move was requested, before making assertions that have been refuted repeatedly.

talk) 18:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Google fight Sadhguru wins 200 to 5 against Jaggi Vasudev. Sadhguru is the
  WP:NICKNAME of the subject of the article, also the argument as to various alternate Romanisations is fatuous Sadhguru is how the subject spells it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Only Wikipedia is alone with giving more importance to "jaggi vasudev" while all mainstream sources refer him as "Sadhguru". Sanjoydey33 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He is the sole person who is widely referred to as "Sadhguru",
  WP:COMMONNAME speaks for itself. Give Your a Break 15:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. This particular spelling, "Sadhguru", redirects to this article about JV and is arguably and obviously the
  ed. ^put'r there 17:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

Sadhguru, as an honorific (like Most Honoured, HRH etc), certainly imparts a value judgement to Indian English speakers.

talk) 04:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk) 14:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

]

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

Support Going by Wikipedia's policy of using commonly recognizable names^[1] as the title, this article's title too should be changed to "Sadhguru", as the world knows him by this name only. And there are innumerable Wikipedia articles where the title is given by the most recognized name. For Ex; SZA^[2] Now, her birth name is "Solána Imani Rowe", but her Wiki page title is SZA, as she is commonly known by this name.

Adding an excerpt from the "Wikipedia:Article titles" ^[3] page to validate my point: ″Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.″

And in this case, be it United Nations^[4], World Economic Forum^[5], UNCCD^[6], or Indian Government Press Releases^[7]- everywhere he is referred to as "Sadhguru". So, going by the Wikipedia rule, the preferred title of this page should be "Sadhguru". Hobbit and Elf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As per Wikipedia's policy of Deciding on an article title^[8], a good article title has five characteristics - Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision and Consistency. The name 'Sadhguru' is definitely most recognizable as compared to Jaggi Vasudev, he is popularly known as Sadhguru. It is also consistent with the pattern of titles, I agree with the example provided for artists, such as Akon, and even SZA, who's actual name is "Solána Imani Rowe", but the Wiki page title is SZA. Sadhguru is not an honorific in this case since it is not preceding his name, it is standalone. Iawaken 29 November 2021 (UTC)