Talk:Nirmala Srivastava

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nirmala Srivastava article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
Oct 2004 - 16 June 2006 June 2006 – June 2006

Contents 1 Self as a proper noun 2 What should be linked to 3 Image Nirmala1.jpg position 4 Other discussion pages 5 Citations needed 6 Reference 7 Image:Nirmala1.jpg 8 Mediation Cabal 9 Rename 10 Flag photo 11 2007 Indian flag controversy

[edit] Self as a proper noun

I would just like to point out, after several reversions, that 'Self' in the context of this article is being used as a Proper Noun, and as such is capitalised. Sfacets 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should be linked to

According to WP:EL Wikipedia rules on external links should be:

• proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)
• Contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

and should not:

• Contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view

[edit] Image Nirmala1.jpg position

I am using firefox (linux) and find the image on the right does not collide with the 'contents' block, when it is on the left it looks awkward. Maybe problem with my browser, please help? Also on biography pages the usual place of the image is the right hand side! Perhaps putting it on the left has some reason? IrfanAli 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other discussion pages

Please also note extensive discussions on the Sahaja Yoga entry. Sahajhist 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

I have requested details of source materials from those involved with the Sahaja Yoga websites which have used these statements for several years. Thank you for pointing this out. Sahajhist 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Please do not remove the reference to the University of Virginia website.[1] It is a valid and credible source. --NovaSTL 08:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No its not. Its a student essay from the year 2000. This issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page attached to the Sahaja Yoga entry. Please read. Sahajhist 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not an essay. It's research published by a reliable source overseen by an expert in the field. The date is irrelevant. No one has found pointed to anything in the article that's incorrect. -Will Beback 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is an essay and, btw by an undergraduate student. The date is very relevant. Sahajhist 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before several times why the date is relevant but you never responded. So, why is the date relevant? Are we only allowing weblinks to articles by PhDs? If so, there won't be many links left. -Will Beback 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of date is that an article that is written in the present tense about a subject can be misleading when changes have occured in regards to said subject.

No one said anything about needing a PhD, however (as previously discussed on the Sahaja Yoga discussion page) references to work by author(s) of unclear academic standing may be removed at any time. Sfacets 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule anywhere in Wikipedia that says that. If you want that to be the rule for these articles then we're going to have to remove virtually every link, including the "official" ones. But you can't make that the rule for some links but not for others. -Will Beback

06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose you continue this discussion on the Sahaja Yoga Talk page, where the discussion originated. Sfacets 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(ftr:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)Sfacets

How about this link [2]? Also, she was born Christian? I find that hard to believe.71.97.245.142 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. Nirmala's brother, H.P.Salve, confirms this in his memoirs (see main page for citation). Sahajhist 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nirmala1.jpg

Image:Nirmala1.jpg - Do we know what year this photo was taken? It appears to be quite old. -Will Beback · † · 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the question you were referring to? Does it matter? Sfacets 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It matters. When was this photo taken? -Will Beback · † · 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the date important to you? Please state your reasons. Sahajhist 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does this request meet with such resistance? It's a simple question. -Will Beback · † · 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Compared to this photograph [3], taken March 14, 2006 (which is among the best recent photos I've seen), the Image:Nirmala1.jpg appears to have been taken at least 20 or 30 years ago. -Will Beback · † · 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with the dating is that very few of the early photos have precise dates. See Geoffrey Godfrey (compiler), The Divine Mother: 1008 photographs of Shri Mataji (London: Life Eternal Trust, 2000) Sahajhist 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard in this case. Sfacets claims to have taken the photo himself.[4][5] -Will Beback · † · 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hello all, I am the mediator for your case. Please remember to keep things civil, and I thank you for choosing voluntary mediation for your dispute resolution. All parties to this case, please respond on the case page within 96 hours with what you would like to see come from this mediation.

[edit] Rename

This aricle should be moved to the name most people refer to Shri Nirmala Srivastava as per WP:COMMONNAME - ie 'Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi' - it should never have been moved in fact. Sfacets 12:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shri" is an honorific title and we don't include those in article names. What is the proof of the relative use of the names? -Will Beback · † · 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

how much proof do you want? From 1970 to date, worldwide, the founder of Sahaja Yoga has been known (and continues to be known) as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Sahajhist 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, since the orticle was originally titled "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" it is up to Will Be Back to justify the move (which was never discussed or agred upon) he made in the first place. Sfacets 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I can't find any sign that this article was ever at "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". If it was it should have been moved because "Shri" is an honorific title. -Will Beback · † · 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should return to where it once was [6] Sahajhist 11:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Sfacets 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that the article was ever at that name. In any case, our guideleins say that we don't include honorific titles. Are you proposing that we ignore the guidelines? -Will Beback · † · 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the article was once at 'Mataji Nirmala Devi' and is currently redirected from there to 'Nirmala Srivastava' The proposal is to revert as per WP:COMMONNAME Sahajhist 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that user:Toh (not me) moved it from "Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava" to "Nirmala Shrivastava" [7] because "Mataji" is also an honorific title. Minus the honorifics, the choices seem to be "Nirmala Devi" or the present "Nirmala Srivastava". Between those two which can be shown to be more common should be used. I believe that "Nirmala Srivastava" is her legal name, but if can be shown that "Nirmala Devi" is used more frequently then I don't object to using that for the article title. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And, just to be thorough, I see absolutely no evidence that the article was ever at "Mataji Nirmala Devi" or "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". -Will Beback · † · 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the reality is that "Mataji Nirmala Devi" is the name most widely used, usually prefixed by Shri. Wikipedia editors need to recognise that this is the reality and name the article accordingly, with appropriate redirect(s) Sahajhist 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that but you haven't offered any proof. -Will Beback · † · 01:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You have only to look at the amount of published works using each name. Sfacets 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice you've previously removed the title "Shri" from the text of other articles. Why is it appropriate for this guru but not for others? -Will Beback · † · 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was following arguments provided by yourself. This was a long time ago, since then I have become aware of the issues relating to using the most common name on wikipedia. Sfacets 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So you remove the term from other articles but you want to add it to the title of this article. I'm not impressed by that level of neutrality. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you from the past? Did you just skip over what I just said? Sfacets 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be insulting. I read exactly what you said. "Shri" is an honorific and does not belong in the title of an article, anymore than "Her Holiness" would. -Will Beback · † · 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then stop implying impropriety on my part. I told you the reasons why I made that decision now, and why things are different now. I can see why you have been accused of stalking users in the past. Sfacets 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag photo

The following statement has been issued regarding this matter:

"Our Deepest Respect to our National Flag

We Sahaja Yogis have the highest and deepest respect for our National Flag, which is the symbol of our National Freedom. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi participated actively in the Quit India Movement. Her father Shri P K Salve was imprisoned by the British because he participated actively in Mahatma Gandhiji’s Freedom movement. It is inconceivable that any member of Shri Mataji’s family would tolerate even the slightest disrespect to our National Flag.

Possibly, at an Independence Day function held abroad, some foreigner Sahaja Yogi brought our Flag and without meaning any disrespect, kept it on the ground. The Flag was respectfully removed immediately on being noticed.

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi asks us all to respect National Flags of all countries.

This unintended but serious mistake is greatly regretted. Not even the slightest disrespect to our National Flag will ever be tolerated.

To all those whose feelings have been hurt by this wholly unintended and unfortunate error, we express the assurance that we fully share their anguish and we extend our deeply felt and sincerest regrets and unqualified apologies. For H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Sahaja Yoga Trust Rajendra Kumar Trustee" [8] Sahajhist 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the assertion that it is a copyright violation? I think it'd be better to restore the photo along with a mention of this letter. -Will Beback · † · 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

if you restore the photo, you expose Wikipedia to legal action. The photo is clearly copyrighted material. Sahajhist 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Who is the copyright holder? B) How do we know this? -Will Beback · † · 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we assume that the people posting the photo are the copyright holders? Unless someone provides evidence otherwise it's a reasonable assumption. -Will Beback · † · 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, thats not a reasonable assumption. The person doing the posting has to provide the evidence, not the other way round. Sahajhist 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The photos have been posted on various blogs, so one of them must be the copyright holder... The editor needs to seek permission from the original copyright holder (the person who took the photo). Sfacets 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have got the free copyright for the images.Parvez 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From who? Sfacets 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is confidential. If needed i will submit to wikipedia.Parvez 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You need to show proof that you own the license to the image, otherwise you cannot upload it. Feel free to contact Wikipedia about it, and then (if you get a(n) (positive) answer you may upload the images again. Sfacets 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The holder of the copyright is known to me. He has already had the photos removed from flikr (part of Yahoo). Sahajhist 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Indian flag controversy

An editor removed the material at Nirmala Srivastava#2007 Indian flag controversy, withthe edit summary:

• (rmv unsourced content) [9]

Yet the material clearly references a reliable source.[10] -Will Beback · † · 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I mis-read the Yahoo source and mistook it for a Yahoo groups link. My bad. Sfacets 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)