Talk:Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

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.
• 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.
• His accounts are not open to public scrutiny, hence no one knows what he does with the millions he makes.
• His main source of income is the fees charged to teach "Sudarshan Kriya" doesn't even have the usual cost element to it, as he brilliantly manipulates volunteers to teach for free or almost negligible pay. Until about couple of years ago, these volunteer teachers were not only teaching for free but also used their own homes as schools.
• 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.
• 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.

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.132.238.58 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 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 (<-- learn to spell, dumbass) 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)

[edit] 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)... —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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.

[edit] 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. Worse yet, they had us doing all kind of horrific activities, like lying on our backs and pretending to cry like babies to 'free ourselves'. 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was 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) .

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

ashwin

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Move Proposal

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
• Support: after some research and comparisons, almost all honorifics are excluded from article titles. Compare Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Tenzin Gyatso; compare and; the categories I looked at within 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)

[edit] 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.