Talk:Nirmala Srivastava

List of references from the article
Hello again. I've just compiled a list of scholarly references used in this article and in the Sahaja Yoga article. It seems that the scholarly references are more inclined to use the honorific title. There is a variety but most often it is "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" which is often shortened to "Shri Mataji". This is interesting because the shortened version is made up of two, purely honorific names. Here is the list:

Judith Coney, Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement (1999) – Sri Mataji Nirmala Devi, shortened to Sri Mataji (used most often). Only one reference to Nirmala Srivastava.

Hinduism Today - Mataji Nirmala Devi

Kakar, Sudhir (1984) Shamans, Mystics and Doctors: A Psychological Inquiry into India and Its Healing Traditions - Mata Nirmala Devi

Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama Bin Laden 2005 by Timothy R. Furnish & Michael Rubin - Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

Inform brochure - Her Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Srivastava

http://www.irelandyoga.org - Shri Mataji

Thorax International Journal of Respiratory Medicine - HH Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

Barrett, David V. The New Believers - Shri Mataji

Claes Nobel - Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

WIPO  - Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Srivastava, shortened to Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi; or Shri Mataji.

Freelion (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 proposed rename of article
Most of the scholarly references use a version of "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and given her worldwide following, Nirmala Srivastava will be known even more commonly by her honorific name as time goes on. I suggest again that this article's name be changed to the more commonly used honorific name as per the exception to the general rule of not using honorifics. Freelion (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. And you need to start a new discussion, not post messages at the end of old ones. Imc (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Golly Imc, that's officious of you :) Would you care to elaborate? Willbeback, is it the discussion here you were referring to as not reflecting consensus or the discussion on the use of the rules on honorifics? Freelion (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The linked page, Naming conventions (Indic), is a proposed guideline and the relevant section is particularly disputed. Until such time as that is settled, the more relevant page is Naming conventions (people). It says "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)." Why the subject is known by several name, some including honorifics, I don't see that one is preferred unambiguously.   Will Beback    talk    00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be some variation in the honorific names but will you grant that it is unambiguous that Nirmala Srivasta is least known by the name she was born with? Freelion (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An indirectly relevant section is Manual_of_Style_(biographies).   Will Beback    talk    01:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on that I would propose the title of the article be changed to "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" with an explanation in the first paragraph of her married name (not born with, sorry) and her more widely known honorific title. Further references to her name could be as "Nirmala Srivastava" without the honorifics... Freelion (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Her birth name, or whichever name does not include honorifics, is the one we should use. For comparison, the article on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was recently renamed to Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader), even though it required using a disambiguator. Aside from apparent followers of Shankar, the input from Wikipedia editors strongly supported the move. See Talk:Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader)/Archive_1. We can initiate a similar, formal move discussion if you like, in order to gain wider input from the community.    Will Beback    talk    02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The choice of either birth name or married name can be decided per wp:COMMONNAME, but that does not extend to ignoring Naming conventions (people) and creating an excuse for using honorifics, titles and such other gibberish in article names. Otherwise every article about a doctor, nurse, sheriff, constable, politician, second-assistant-deputy-dogcatcher, mister, master, missus, miss, or what-have-you would soon have a move debate going. We have better things to do with our time. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks LeadSongDog and Will Beback, I've referred to those articles and have the following quotes which I think apply here.
 * From wp:COMMONNAME: The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name, and even if it appears to pass judgement on the person (as with Alfred the Great).


 * 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).


 * From Naming conventions (people): The title of the article should be that which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.


 * So it comes back to what I have demonstrated above - the subject is least known by her married name and more commonly known by her honorific name. Ravi Shankar is different because most people know him without the honorific title - the "Sri Sri" at the beginning was superfluous. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi is quite different from Nirmala Srivastava but it's what she is most commonly known as and referred to by reliable sources. Freelion (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Shri", "Mataji", and "Devi" are all honorifics or epithets. "Devi" means "goddess". While it's fine for her followers to call her a goddess, it's not an appropriate usage for a neutral encyclopedia.
 * You have not demonstrated that "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" is the most common usage in English - you have provided citations to sources which use that or variations of it. It's arguable that "Mahatma Gandhi" is the most common name, but Wikipedia prefers to use "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as the name of the article. Likewise, "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" is a commonly used variant, with followers sometimes just calling him "Shri Shri", but that's not how the Wikipedi article is titled. If you'd like to pursue this we can start a formal move discussion. Exactly which name are you proposing?   Will Beback    talk    01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind going for the formal move discussion if you could do the honors Will Beback. I'm proposing the Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi name as the one which is most commonly known. I just looked at another reference and see that Claes Nobel also refered to her with this title. I'll add that to the list above. The name of the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article seems to contravene the guidelines that I have listed in my last comment. It seems cut and dry to me that Mahatma is the name most commonly in use but this seems to have been lost in discussion on that talk page. There are other articles which use the honorific title "Sri" when it is the name in common useage, e.g. Sri Ramana Maharshi. Freelion (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, that article is actually at Ramana Maharshi, with a redirect from Sri Ramana Maharshi. Likewise, redirects to this article include Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, Mataji Nirmala Devi, Shri Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava, Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava, Nirmala Salve, and Nirmala Shrivastava.
 * I'll go ahead and start a formal move discussion with your proposed name.   Will Beback    talk    04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, not the best example but there are plenty of other articles out there beginning with the honorary title of Sri. Freelion (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If so they should probably be moved. In any case, "other stuff exists" is not a good argument on Wikipedia when it comes to issues pertaining to an individual article.   Will Beback    talk    06:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it doesn't really matter about the name being honorary or not when it is the name by which someone is mostly known by. It's just the common name, even if it does pass judgment on the person, like "Alfred the Great". This is clearly spelt out in wp:COMMONNAME which covers exactly this type of situation - Wikipedia uses the name most commonly used by reliable sources even if the name does seem to pass judgment. The only question is which name is the subject of this article referred to the most by reliable sources. The answer is certainly not "Nirmala Srivastava", her married name. Counting the sources listed in this article (as listed above) will give us "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi", which is also the name used by her devotees. Freelion (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a strong bias against using honorifics in article names. That's why the article is at Jesus, instead of "Jesus Christ". Anyway, we've both made our positions clear. Let's see if uninvolved editors have any input.   Will Beback    talk    00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Alfred the Great is a red herring. It is only one of our Alfred articles, and comes under wp:PRECISE. If we had articles on other people named "Nirmala Srivastava" there might be a need for additional words to distinguish this one, but that is not the case. Even then, those words would have to follow wp:UE and the other parts of wp:Article titles, not just the wp:COMMONNAME part. Hence we could have: Nirmala Srivastava, known to her devotees as "illustrious respected mother Nirmala goddess" (Hindi:"Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi") was ... LeadSongDog come howl!  04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi LeadSongDog, are you sure you're not offering us a red herring yourself? The article on Alfred the Great is called that because it is his common name, it just happens that it is also being precise. You can't get any more precise than using someone's common name when it is unique. In regards to your other suggesion, there's no harm in translating the meaning of the subject's common name but the article name itself would not need to be anglicized. Freelion (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Alfred the Great has been controversial. Talk:Alfred the Great/Archive 1 I count at least three discussions there. There's probably another dozen at other pages. Etc.   Will Beback    talk    01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Freelion forgot to actually read wp:PRECISE and wp:UE. Otherwise, I can't understand that 01:05, 24 March post. These are not my ideas, they are the established consensus on how articles should be titled. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:PRECISE and wp:UE are secondary to the case in hand. wp:PRECISE calls for Wikipedia articles to be no more precise than they have to be. Articles only need to be titled with a more precise name when it would otherwise be ambiguous, such as two people with the same name. That is not relevant in this case.


 * wp:UE is about using the English spelling of a person's name if there is one (in this case there isn't). The foreign name can be translated into English and as I've said, this is appropriate in the body of the article.


 * However, for the title of the article, the most important rule we have is wp:COMMONNAME which specifically allows for the use of honorifics if it can be established that the subject is commonly referred to in that manor by reliable sources. Leadsongdog, could you please explain why you believe wp:COMMONNAME does not apply in this case? A clarification: Naming conventions, people is the relevant section which specifically allows for honorifics. Freelion (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to show why we should consider that "the most important rule we have is wp:COMMONNAME"? So far as I can tell, it is just one of the criteria to apply in choosing titles, and not anything like the most important. wp:PRECISE says "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." wp:UE links to wp:EN as the main guideline, the very first para of which says "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different." Please don't cherry-pick the parts of guidelines to suit your POV, it is unbecoming. Unless you are actually prepared to argue that nearly every King, Mayor, Judge, Pope, Doctor, and Honorable Member should have their articles so titled, how can you justify this case? It is simply inconsistent. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Leadsongdog, wp:COMMONNAME is still the most relevant advice to refer to, along with Naming conventions, people when deciding whether or not to use an honorific name in the title of this article. It certainly would be more important than wp:UE and wp:EN which do not have any relevance here as explained in my last post, and further below.


 * You have not answered my question as to how the advice given at wp:COMMONNAME does not apply to this article. You have only repeated the assertion that there is a consensus against using honorifics in Wikipedia, however you have not addressed the fact that Naming conventions, people specifically allows for the use of honorifics in cases where most reliable sources use the honorific name. This exception can also apply to Indian names as stated at Naming conventions (Indic). The question is, what is the name used by most reliable sources?


 * Please refer to the list of references from the article above and you will find the most common is "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and also "Her Honorable Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". MOS:HONORIFIC discourages the use of "Her Honourable" so we are left with "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". There is no reason to translate this into English for the title of the article as it has not been done by reliable sources and there is no variant English spelling; so wp:UE does not apply here. The relevant advice for Indian names is at Naming conventions (Indic) which discourages titles and honorifics but allows exceptions to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title. If you look at the reliable sources, there is no reason to leave the title of this article as the subject's married name since she is not widely known by this name. Freelion (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems you are still confusing the intention of wp:COMMONNAME. Just because an honorific is commonly used with a name does not make it part of the name. Since you bring it up, I'm sure you can see at that it has remained as just a proposed guideline for several years principally because a few people are having trouble grasping this. Other parts of the proposal are essentially uncontentious, but this goes hard against established practice in the rest of WP. For the vast majority of biographic articles, the name of the article approximates the subject's legal name. COMMONNAME is principally for those who are best known by false names, such as used by actors. Please stop trying to twist it into some kind of general rule to justify inserting these honorifics and titles. LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * wp:COMMONNAME is not the general rule of naming a biography but it does provide an exception to the general rule of using a person's real full name. It says to use the name most commonly in use. Furthermore, Naming conventions, people supports the use of honorifics in the person's common name. Do you propose that we ignore these guidelines which seem specifically formulated for articles like this? You still have not explained why you believe the above two links do not apply in this case.


 * The subject is known most widely by her honorific title. The honorifics are not just used with the name but actually form the name by which she is most widely known: Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. If you want to argue that "Devi" is also honorary because it means goddess, you might as well say that Nirmala is honorary because it means immaculate. "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" is composed with honorary words but the fact is, it is the name most commonly in use. You can call it a stage name in which case the above guidelines most definitely apply. Freelion (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Passing?
Several IP editors added today as the last day of the subject's life. I reverted them because I cannot find any confirmation online. If it is true then kindly provide some link to an official source or news site.  Will Beback   talk    22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. There is no official announcement as yet. Yogiwallah (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. My condolences. However I'm sure you can understand why we need to have a reliable source for this before adding it to the article.   Will Beback    talk    00:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here's the official announcement: http://www.sahajayogablog.org/2011/02/darshan.html Yogiwallah (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article.   Will Beback    talk    22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the official obituary: http://www.sahajaworldfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=222%3Ashri-matajis-orbituary&catid=1&Itemid=240 Yogiwallah (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: not moved. Consensus is that the honorific shouldn't be used. Dpmuk (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nirmala Srivastava → Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi — This is a courtesy posting. User:Freelion suggests moving the article per wp:COMMONNAME because he says that the proposed name is used more commonly in popular and scholarly sources than the subject's birth name. I recommend keeping the article at the birth name because the proposed name includes three honorifics or laudatory epithets, and is just one of several terms by which the subject is known. The page name has been discussed previously at Talk:Nirmala Srivastava/Archive 1.  Will Beback   talk    05:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per Will Beback . Avoid honorifics in titles. --Bejnar (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * wp:COMMONNAME suggests titling the article as the person's name that is most commonly referred to in reliable sources and Naming conventions, people specifically allows for the use of honorifics when the subject is commonly referred to in that manor by reliable sources. Freelion (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the exception is narrower than that, it says: ''Honorifics ... 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. I stand by my keep. --Bejnar (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the list of references above (at the end of the original move discussion, just before the 2011 heading)? The subject is most often referred to with the honorific name by reliable sources. Freelion (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep at brief and common name; where there are several common names, as here, we generally choose the most concise and least loaded one. Compare Arthur Conan Doyle, although Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is more common. When and if the proposed name becomes routine (as Alfred the Great is), the opposition here will have melted away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The list of references above show a majority of the use of the proposed name "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi", as well as the shortened version, Shri Mataji. The longer version, "H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" (Her Honourable) can have the "H.H." taken off as per MOS:HONORIFIC. How much of a majority do we need? Freelion (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That was not meant to be a rhetorical question by the way. How do we ascertain the common name for the article from the list of reliable sources? See new subsection above for reference. Freelion (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless the reliable source actually discusses the topic of naming, honorifics, styles, titles, forms of address and so forth it won't be much use. If the writing exhibits a disregard for the distinction between these it won't be much use. Sources written from within her movement or by followers won't be much use. That should greatly shorten the search. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Leadsongdog, the reliable sources do not need to "discuss the topic of naming". You are just making up your own rules now. The reliable sources from the article are listed above in a new subsection. None of them are self published. Now please tell me - which name is used most often by the reliable sources? Freelion (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This move has already gone past its normal discussion time. There's a back-up on page moves due to the laziness of admins. Darn them! Let's not focus on the name so much, there are many redirects and names in the text. The subject is still just recently passed. There are better ways of improving the article than fighting over the title. Do we have any new sources for the memorials?   Will Beback    talk    10:16, 15 April 2011 (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.

File:Shri-Mataji-Nirmala-Devi-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Australia.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion
I have provided a rationale (for the use of the image in this article) on the image description page. Freelion (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Shri Mataji was never closely associated with Rajneesh
I don't know what made the editor add this.Any ways he has rightly added that in 1970 Shri Mataji visited Rajneesh's ashram and was shocked to see him fooling people in the name of sex and Kundalini.Then she decided to start Sahaja Yoga and thereafter she never visited his ashram.It was just once by accident.And it doesn't matter what Sudhir Kakar thinks.There are many people who make different claims and you just can't possibly go on adding everyone's claim.You don't have a source which says "Nirmala Srivastava was closely associated with Rajneesh in her apprenticeship years" and I presume Sudhir Kakar too doesn't have any such source rather than just guessing and making blind claims.Even if you have a source that says "Sudhir Kakar wrote that Nirmala Srivastava was closely associated with Rajneesh in her apprenticeship years",it won't make those rumours true because it is solely based on one person's opinion which isn't true.I humbly request the editor to delete this content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.154.200 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I understand your concern. The rules of Wikipedia are that everything is backed up by a published reference, see this article about the rules. Although this isn't perfect, it certainly does help provide a 'rule of law'; otherwise people could just say anything they liked. If you would like to help out, I encourage you to find some new reliable sources which back up your point of view. Freelion (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The 161 page of a Sahaja Yoga certified book called "Tenth Incarnation" reads this "the Osho fans claimed that Shri Mataji was his disciple.Of course she refuted their ridiculous charge and recounted that on the contrary she had warned him in 1970 not to destroy the innocence of the seekers."
 * Unfortunately,I do not have any internet source regarding this matter.You won't find controversies on the official Sahaja Yoga websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.208.231 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Author? Publication year? Publisher? LeadSongDog come howl!  13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Author is Yogi Mahajan and the publisher is NITL (the official publisher for all Sahaja Yoga books,audios,videos) You can find other details regarding the book here-
 * http://www.nitl.co.in/Public/ShoppingCart/ItemDetails.aspx??Sfxytu597nt5+M+OYF8rasXxWw5RMRSpXbXkt29KyTNQrrw5TM1gKFdZwrg06neeZKn8eAZDqpIruoO1f3vPDA==
 * According to this it hasn't been released yet. It doesn't show a publication date, and I couldn't find a library listing anywhere. It does however hint that it is only part of a biography by Mahajan. The Library of Congress lists here a 1999 biography of Nirmala by Mahajan, identified as ISBN 8120815904. Every reliable publisher (and many unreliable ones) have used ISBNs for many years. These are the best way to identify the work, and are used by booksellers worldwide. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is already available for shopping on NITL which means it has already been released.Trust me I have bought the book and read it.I have given you enough evidences.Please remove the content or at least add the content which I gave you from the book in defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.53.73 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have the book, why not provide full citation information, instead of forcing other people to try and figure it out? LeadSongDog come howl!  02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear anon, please read of this link and you can supply the reference from your book. It says ISBNs are optional. Freelion (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the official release of the book-http://www.sahajayogablog.org/2011/06/sahaj-gyaan-newsletter-3-new-book.html .Thank you Freelion,I will right away add the content in defence.

Why doesnt this page mention anything about Ms. Shrivastavas claims to divinity?
I dont think this page provides all the information available regarding this woman that is found in the sources of Sahaja Yoga itself. In this it matches up nicely to the actual Sahaja Yoga practice of starting off the initiate with the meditation etc. practices and once they are suggestible, only then bring up the claims of divinity at an `advanced` level. This is the same technique as used in Transcendental Meditation, except there you cant find a website outright calling the guru a god from an official group source.

http://www.adishakti.org/

http://adishakti.org/shri_mataji.htm

I will leave it to inquisitive readers to find the photograph which purports to show angels descending around a picture of `Mataji`. Once again a familiar issue with `godmen` (women?). I commend Nirmala Shrivastava for her charisma and ingenuity in pulling this off. Nevertheless, I dont wish to assert my personal view about her but only want the article to correctly reflect the actual propagated message. Neither this page nor Sahaja Yoga explains any of this. If no one brings up a substantial objection I shall make the relevant edits when logged in. There is additionally information regarding Sahaja Yoga and Ms. Shrivastava on websites from former adherents but I am not referencing such sources, nor do I believe it to be necessary to do so to present a balanced picture. 94.197.120.44 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nirmala Srivastava. 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 tag to http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1018&doc_id=4971
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306201943/http://www.tnsahaj.org/AdiSakthiByThirumoolar.htm to http://www.tnsahaj.org/AdiSakthiByThirumoolar.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715091513/http://www.pksacademy.com/about.htm to http://www.pksacademy.com/about.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nirmala Srivastava. 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://web.archive.org/web/20060504041003/http://www.shrimataji.net/albums/biography/ShriMatajiNirmalaDevi-SelectedBiography_files/frame.htm to http://www.shrimataji.net/albums/biography/ShriMatajiNirmalaDevi-SelectedBiography_files/frame.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)