Talk:Shakuntala Devi

message: Tried to expand a bit. Her faith seems important to her, many of the sites about her are Ganesha related or even New Age, so felt like adding it.--T. Anthony 04:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see since I was gone the sources were removed and the tone set to more story-telling. It was a nice story so I'll put it on the talk page if someone is mad I removed it.--T. Anthony 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay now that that's done I returned it to the version I did and then did some clean up. She is a rather unusual person so the temptation to get kind of peculiar or over-awed in doing an article on her is maybe inevitable. Still that should probably be resisted.--T. Anthony 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: There are three sources and I removed the storyish aspects.--T. Anthony 06:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it better? 

message: Removed vandalism that ran thus: 
Shakuntala Devi is a scam artist. You will see her ad's for being a astrologer who can predict your future and solve your problems in India Abroad and other newspapers. First of all she will try to sell you all sort of Indian necklaces which have holy powers, for 500 dollars or 1000 dollars. Than she will only give you a two or three minute generic talk of how your life will be long and your health will be fine. This lady is a first class charlatan and hustler. She is not worth the 65 dollar telephone consultation she charges or even worth a in-person visit.
People please be careful of her sales marketing gimmicks and spread the honest word after you indulge in her services on here. So people can be careful and aware of this Cheat and Thief. She is no Devi.
Retained for curious interest :) --Shreevatsa 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have seen her advertisements from time to time claiming to be an astrologer.  The ad actually shows her pictures with various celebrities and notable people and she claims she can predict you future.  Without going into whether she is a fraud or legitimate, it should be mentioned that she is currently involved in a astrology/numerology business.Inf fg (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Do feel free to add it to the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can vouch for the charlatan claims. I went to see her with my father, who was in a difficult time in his business, hoping maybe she could help him out with some advice. We knew nothing about her at the time and met with her after seeing an advert in a London newspaper. I was in my teens and we met with her in a London based place (i forget the exact location). She spent approx 5-7 mins, she took my fathers date of birth and told him what day it had been , then told him he would live to age 80 something, and charged him £50 for the privilege! her assistant ushered us out, collected the money at the front desk and unceremoniously showed us the door. Now this was at a time when you could buy a really nice second hand Honda Accord or Toyota for £200, so £50 was a lot of money. My father was so perplexed, as he got nothing of value from that meeting. lost a considerable amount of money and ended up dieing at age 56. People like her should be jailed, not praised. 92.41.218.193 (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: No she died.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.28.44 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is she still alive and where she lives? 

message: According to BLP, removed reference to text on homosexuality since I could find no credible citation that says the author of the book on homosexuality is the same as this person. --Jacob.jose (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same reaction as you at first, but then I saw references such as  and , so I've decided to let it be, and even tag it, so that editors with interest in the topic can try to get it better referenced. -- Presearch (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And then there's India Today, which claims she's a non-homosexual... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And R.I.P. Shakuntala Devi, math-evangelist and ally of the queer community, which claims her ex-husband was a gay man, and that's why their marriage failed and why she decided to "look at the subject of homosexuality more closely and try to understand it". Guy Harris (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: Deleted the personal life section because that's all it had in it and it was already flagged as baseless. Put it back with something either neutral, doesn't reflect negatively or has a source. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see was already there, so restored appropriately. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology readings 

message: According to the New York Times article, she did it in 50 seconds and the computer took 62 seconds.  174.91.0.240 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vs Univac 

message: There seems to be debate on the birth date.  Google has 120k articles for 1929 and 20k articles for 1939.  I reverted a change to 1939 as there was no source associated with changing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaxxon (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Date 

message: What kind of information is hidden in the sentence "Some people can't write 201 digits in 50 sec."? Some people even can't write 1 digit, because they never learned it... same as some people even can't ride a bicycle... so what do you want us to learn from it? Pls remove such nonsense! (93.134.229.112 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information? 

message: 125.63.103.205 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I think there is a typo in the section which covers her book on homosexuality. The section reads "In ends with a call for decriminalising" , it should be "It ends with a call for decriminalising"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.146.90 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually noticed it myself earlier, and just now saw the request. – RobinHood70 talk 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Is the Google reference even needed? It seems someone just wanted to feel special and edit a Wikipedia article. In a year, the Google doodle won't matter and no one will care.
165.91.173.7 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . Shreevatsa (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done:. "Cube root" is fine. That's even the name of the article on Wikipedia: cube root. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Rest in peace. I never knew much about her until i read this. The world lost a great genius and I could not realise the depth of loss. May India produce more geniuses like her. As far as I am concerned I know that I am no genius at math.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.23.18 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIP 

message: ==Legacy==
On November 4, 2013, Google honored her life with a Google Doodle.
Apblinn (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is trivia, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Stfg (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 November 2013 

message: Currently the article states that the doodle was for her 84th birthday - as if she were alive.  Should have read something like "for what would have been her 84th birthday" or similar, imo.
bugsym5 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2013 (EST)
:Agreed, and corrected. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Bias, bias, bias... this article is so biased. Just list her accomplishments and stop going on like she's a deity. Idiots.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.193.82 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias, Bias Bias 

message: Devi died in April 2013. (See also #Death.)
This sentence runs a little awkwardly. At least the # should be removed, but it might be better to edit and combine this with the "death" subsection. 69.91.197.39 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's awkward. The death section was so tiny that it didn't justify a separate section, and having it so far from the rest of the biography made no sense. I've merged it into the biog. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: "Examples of the problems presented to Devi were calculating the cube root of 61,629,875, and the seventh root of 170,859,375."
These problems are hardly difficult. Assuming the roots are integer, each must end in 5. The cube root of 64,000,000 is 400, so the cube root of 61,629,875 must be just under that, or 395. 10^7 is 10,000,000, 20^7 is 1,280,000,000, and the given number is in between, so the root must be 15.
The cube root of 188,132,517 is a little less simple, but it's easily shown to be between 500 (cube root of 125,000,000) and 600 (cube root of 216,000,000). It must end in 3. Determining the middle digit is trickier, but doable (since 188m is approx. 150% of 125m, the cube root must be approx. 115% of 500).
Note to the person who wrote this paragraph above: Using percentages for exponential calculations is absolutely bizarre and will not give you accurate results. Please do not use linear percentage calculations while dealing with numbers that are to the power of 7. It is absolutely shameful that you have chosen to spread such incorrect mathematical ideas to all the readers of this wikipedia page. Your mathematics is wrong, however, please do put in further research as I believe you have the basic understanding of making approximations, and COULD end up correct your own false claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.181.3 (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Difficulty" of problems 

message: The end of the fourth sentence under the heading "Biography" has the word "calculation" misspelled.
25thfret (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done: the only difference between your edit and what is in the article is the removal of the word "He" at the beginning of the sentence, which is grammatically incorrect. Can you explain more clearly what you wish to be changed? Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakuntala Devi page Typo. 

message: User:Iamtheone21 made some not-so-helpful edits and removed the entire (well-sourced) section about homosexuality with: The mention of homosexuality is still a contraversial subject to many viewers. To avoid conflict and to make this as politically correct as possible, I omitted the section on homosexuality. Wikipedia is not censored. If there is an issue with this material please indicate that here, and suggest changes. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:FreeRangeFrog made some not-so-helpful reversions to the omitted portion on homosexuality with:" Wikipedia is not censored. This is true, however I would like to report that this page is full of examples of indirect racism. There is the issue of putting an individual on a pedestal and praising them, however there is also the other extreme of using diction as to bring a negative air to the article. The section on  homosexuality must be removed because of this issue. If you believe that there is an issue with making this article seem as unbiased as possible, then you are doing Wikipedia a great disservice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheone21 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iamtheone21, could you explain what you mean by "using diction as to bring a negative air to the article" and by "indirect racism"? Shreevatsa (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indirect racism isn't the issue. If you want to bring that up, I suggest you do so in another section and cite examples. As to the issue of her book on homosexuality, you will need to demonstrate clearly how its presence in any way detracts from or biases the article. Keep in mind, however, that a subject being controversial isn't considered sufficient reason to avoid it on Wikipedia. – RobinHood70 talk 07:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content 

message: The beginning of the article mentions Devi has written numerous books, including non-fiction texts about mathematics, puzzles, and astrology. Wikipedia says that astrology is pseudoscience. Am I misreading the article here or should that sentence be rewritten? Because if it's pseudoscience, it doesn't follow (to me anyway) that it is necessarily nonfiction. Thoughts?
Mrcsmcln (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made a good point. I agree that positioning astrology as "non-fiction" is not accurate and I considered changing the sentence to "fictional novels as well as texts about..." to remain ambiguous about astrology (which technically isn't "fiction" either, at least not in the literary sense), but "fictional novels" would also be redundant. I figured it would be best to just remove the word "non-fiction" from the sentence as I think the main dichotomy here is fictional prose (i.e. novels which tend to tell "stories") versus books that impart more informational-based prose, regardless of the arguable validity or empirical nature of said "information". Hope that makes sense. If anyone else wants to chime in with a better choice of wording, feel free.  Cheers! --Marchije•speak/peek 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology is pseudoscience 

message: Why is :Category:Indian astrologers okay and does not have to be sourced, but :Category:20th-century astrologers and :Category:21st-century astrologers must be sourced? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs to be removed as well then since that's unsourced. A lot of unsourced CATs are being added to this article lately. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the sourced sentence "In addition to her work as a mental calculator, Devi was an astrologer and an author of several books, including cookbooks and novels", as well as the listing of her book "Astrology for You" is not enough? It seems weird to me that you do not seem to have an issue with those. In my experience, categories are not usually sourced directly but are a natural consequence of sourced content in the article. See WP:CATV: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - My apologies. I misread the sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Thank you. This confused me a bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  - Welcome brother. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Indira Gandhi said, “Shakuntala, remember, I got so many ambassadors all over the world, but you are a very special  ambassador. Because you are a rowing ambassador, you are a mathematical ambassador. Who can win fame for India and build up close relationships between country to country.”Indira Gandhi Said to Shakuntala Devi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lekhreads (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indira Gandhi said to Shakuntala Devi 

message: Before editing this page, go read the defenition of mathematician, she didn't have any formal education, she never presented any paper on any topic in mathematics, and i highly doubt she knew anything about mathematics at all. (And knowing mathematics doesn't make anyone mathematician)
So, it's valid to say that she was a mental calculator not a mathematician. The Authority (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who says she was an mathematician?