Talk:Ramdev/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright Violation

- External article on "Marsh Infosys" (http://www.marsh.in/html/yoga/yoga.htm) has mostly identical content in some paras with section Swami on Wiki page. This external article states the Wiki page for Baba Ramdev as a reference - Most of the content in SWAMI section of current version was submitted by me (username Wikipost) as original material based on info received from Divvya Yoga Trust personnel (its current version reflects additional Wiki user community modifications) - So, if this section and its content are the source of the copyright issue then ******THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION*****

'from the website' "Copyright © 2006 Marsh InfoZys Birhana Road Kanpur India. All Rights Reserved".

There you have it. They copyrighted the content. Therefore legally the content cannot be re-distributed here.

I have re-inserted the template, pending peer review. Sfacets 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Continued

I think you misread the copyright notice - the copyright is a part of their template for their (Marsh InfoZys) WHOLE WEBSITE. ALL their pages say this.

For example - if you visit their Products Page you will see mention of various Microsoft Products - yet NO MENTION of Microsoft copyright - only their own copyright notice at the bottom. Using the same inference as used to infer copyright infraction in the Swami Ramdev article, this would imply that they (Marz InfoZys) hold the Copyright to these names not Microsoft !

This site (Marsh) is for a Technical Consulting company that designs websites - not a publisher of magazine content. From the references they cite (IN PARTICULAR THEY MENTION WIKI PAGE ON SWAMI RAMDEV AS A SOURCE), it looks like they put together their article as an assembly of content from various sources on the Internet.

If indeed copright was a concern, surely they would have raised the copyright issue as opposed to mentioning the Wikipage for Swami Ramdev as a reference !

Since you have concerns about the Copyright, it may be of help to contact them and see if they

• share your concerns about copyright violations and if they do
• What is their legitimate basis for the claim  ?

This would lend more credibility to there being a contention as opposed to an assumption inferred from a web page

Wikipost

THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

Posted below is the text in e-mails from Aquanile/Marsh confirming THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I have deleted the name of the individual responding - to respect their privacy. If you feel a great desire to still pursue this, you can verify for yourself by writing to the companies above through their web-site.

......I explicitly state that the original material (before 31 August ) is not copyrighted by either Aquanile UK or by Marsh India and was intended to be used to support Yoga propagation efforts of Swami Ramdev rather than for any commercial purposes.

.....In fact, if you desire, I can remove the entire material from my website or else reword it so that you can put the original material once again on the wiki page........

The material was largely compiled from the wiki page on wikipedia and there was no copyright violation intended and the clear reference was on the page regarding Swami Ramdev........

The two companies have no direct affiliation with Baba Ramdev or with yoga camps. .....

(They have also posted on the previous version of the article page to confirm there is no issue here - user Sanevoice)

SO, THIS MATTER OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IS RESOLVED !

Wikipost 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

This unproductive exercise of raising unfounded copyright issues illustrates several items:

- Just browsing the web to "discover" articles with similar content does not make an individual a copyright expert.

- Proper conduct at Wiki should, above all, SHOW RESPECT for the contributions made by legitimate participants.

In this case, individuals who chose to delete content on the basis of some mythical copyright claim violated this tenet by:

- NOT TAKING THE TIME OR EFFORT TO VERIFY THE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION and DISREGARDED INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTED THEIR CLAIM.

Most of all, they DEMEANED WIKI ITSELF.

For when they deleted most of the content on Swami WITHOUT MAKING THE EFFORT TO REPLACE IT, they left the page as one mostly related to the controversy. Surely, Wiki is meant to provide a more robust perspective than this !

Leaves one wondering as to whether these self-appointed guardians of Wiki are exercising responsible stewardship or just indulging in posting expressions of stunted egos.....

Wikipost 16:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please wikipost, I have been rewriting it. I commented out the section, so that I could slowly get the article back into shape. Don't get angry at me.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No problems here Baka - Now and Before always value your contributions. Thanks for your efforts ! Wikipost 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to this article's Major Contributors, as of 2006

I would like to thank User:Sfacets, User:MANOJTV, and USer:Wikipost for their work on the article. Between us 4 we account for 31% (106) of the edits. Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for picture

Can anyone find a picture of Baba Ramdevji ?Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the previous one? Ekantik 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A typical Google Image search will find a few. Example. Ekantik 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications on the edit in November 2006

1. The first part of the section on the Controversy is clear about who first brought the issue into lime light. The names of CPM and its leader Brinda Karat are clearly mentioned. The words 'deliberately', 'raked up' etc are POVs and need not form part of Wikipedia.
2. The issues raised by the critics have not died out and they are still relevant, especially those related to labelling of Ayurvedic medicines & details of the ingredients.
3. The laboratory report from Indian Health Ministry is genuine. Relevant reference is sited in the article itself.
4. The fact that CPM is part of the United Progressive Alliance is not relevant here. Hence that sentence is removed. MANOJTV 09:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need superlatives?

"(Ramdev) is a legendary figure in India. He has revolutionized the way of treatment of diseases based on Yoga. Millions of individuals take advantage of his techniques which are broadcasted on TV, by practicing Pranayama".

I delete the above sentences for the following reasons:

1. Legendry? It is an unnecessary superlative unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Controversial may be a better word. But I desist from using it.
2. What precisely is the revolution Ramdev made in treatment based on Yoga? He did nothing of that sort. He Just made use of the existing knowledge of Yoga which has been around for centuries. Rather, he trivialised the practice of Ayurveda and Yoga.
3. Is it correct to say that millions of individuals are practising yoga by watching his TV broadcast? Do we have any statistics? Utmost, one can claim that millions are watching his TV broadcast; but not practising.MANOJTV 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments with no obvious context

Swami ramdev, LETS FIND TRUTH

Rather than arguing about who he is and making opppinions lets get the facts , i suggfest contacting divya yog mandir trust and the govt. of india —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.56.219 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

User Arunayurved

All the material provided in the Work section that you deleted is sourced from the material in the referene cited (Life Positive article). Kindly read the article in detail and you will find verification of the items. Regarding the "missing.." section, per Wiki requirements, in order to allow the content you should provide a reference.

Work section

All the material in this section is cited from the the ref "Messiah of Yoga". This content is intentionally delineted with the ref links, both before and after. In the past, viewers have taken separate assertions of the items herein and deleted them citing the need for references (see the history of this page for details) - hence the bracketing.

Debate between user Hornplease and user Wikipost

Last edit related to user Hornplease

- Incorrect English

- See related link in article - it is not a "claim" but a statement from Swami Ramdev (a categorical denial)

- The allegations regarding the cure for AIDs (and other ailments) contended that Swami Ramdev did not use a scientific basis for his claims. Even AFTER these accusations KIIT still chose to award Swami Ramdev a degree and do this in a ceremony presided over by a Nobel laureate in the field of Science. It shows recognition of Swami Ramdev's work by a reputed institution in the field of Science and Technology. Surely they are not doing this to recognize Swami Ramdev "unscientific" accomplishments. This is a relevant and important fact for readers to know in context

- If you are unsure of what words mean, a dictionary is a better source for look-up than is an encyclopedia (your May 1 edit) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipost (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

A categorical denial is all very well, but it is reported as a claim.

The degree is irrelevant to that section. You can place it in honours and awards. Hornplease 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All claims need sources. I am removing all "Claims" without a source.Bakaman 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Or you could have found a source. Too much effort, perhaps. Anyway, I've reverted you and added sources. Hornplease 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(1)if you see the links that already existed for this section - they begin with "I made no..." , "I never made.." this is what is a categorical denial - not a "claim" of denial

(2)The allegations in this section were made with the underlying contention that his work was unscientific. It is appropriate to mention a fact (also an opposing view) here that a well-known Science and Technology university is awarding him a Doctorate ,that is recognizing his work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipost (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) A categorical denial, when reported in WP's voice, is a claim. "I made no" is merely Swami Ramdev claiming not to. WP cannot give it more credence than that. Hornplease 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(2) In the absence of a reliable source indicating that the doctorate was awarded as a repudiation to any views quoted in the article, to place it there is original research through synthesis. Please replace that item in the proper section. Hornplease 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For user Hornplease on references

- Click on link 3 at the end of the para for details on degree

- Click on KIIT link to learn about details on its programs on science,technology and research

- Click on Swami Ramdev (divyayoga) website and go to links on homepage under "Our Activities and Services" and then "Yoga Training through TV" - viewership quoted as 20 million

- On same home page as above under section "Others" click on "Effect of Yoga and Pranayam" and "Experience of..." for quotes and data on health outcomes

Wikipost 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add these links yourself. The commentary on KIIT, on 'the vedic science' and so on and so forth are not permissible. Unless you do so, I will revert to the earlier version in due course. Hornplease 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert last deletion

SOME OBSERVATIONS:

• Deletions in Pranayam section

A simple visit to the Pranayama section on Wiki itself would have provided the references needed.

• Need for Citation

In the section - Work, Teaching and Honours - the sentence " Total viewership..." is tagged for citation needed. Interestingly, the link (number 2) right before this sentence begins - provides that exact same reference !!!

• Similarly,by clicking on Ayurveda in this section one obtains a comprehensive reference for Ayurveda on Wiki itself !

So is one to infer that by requiring the need for a citation here - the "contributor" is questioning the validity of Wiki as a reference ???

From a general perspective the situation appears to be;

- An individual visits the page to read the article - Sees some material that in their view is not meeting standards - Takes one of two actions

OPTION 1

- Deletes the material and/or tags it for somebody else to improve OR

OPTION 2

- Puts in a little due diligence to assimilate the article

(for example - Looks at external links and/or Wiki itself to see if these may have information that helps resolve te heir concern)

- Edits article to format presentation to include repositioned references as suited to their needs - Then cites still unresolved material as unreferenced

Seems to me that OPTION2 is a far better definition of a productive exercise and much more meaningful contribution - one beneficial to the whole Wiki community.

Wikipost 23:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Per basic WP policy, WP itself is not a reference, and the onus is on those inserting material to cite it. Hornplease 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference on Wiki provides a whole bunch of EXTERNAL references - makes no sense to repeat them - reasonable

 to point to the "parent" article which lists all these external references.
  

Wikipost 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User Hornplease

- can't have it both ways. Ask for reference and then call it advertising ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipost (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 Jul 2007 (UTC)

I sought reference for the statements made about pranayama from a WP:RS. Please do so. Hornplease 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

- Disagree with you about the reference not meeting Wiki standards. Please explain specifics of your interpreation of Wiki rules that you think disqualify this content, as opposed to just citing a link to the general page.

Provide a citation for each of the claims made in the text you persist in introducing before introducing them. The citation should be from a book published by a major publisher, a reputable news organisation or a scholarly source. Hornplease 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not agree with your reasons for deleting this para:

First a quote from Wiki policy pages - which, perhaps, you may have overlooked

1. Wiki RS Page:

".....Note that this page is a guideline, not a policy; it thus contains recommendations and allows exceptions..."

Consequently, you can't just pick a line and say "wiki is not a good reference...." and then delete the para.

• • Once again - the Pranayam page on Wiki provides AMPLE EXTERNAL references from which its material is comprised and thus serves as an acceptable source for this para in Swami Ramdev. No need to repeat the info it presents

If you happen to disgree with the content of the Pranayam page and/or its references - why not put your challenge/assertions in writing ? You seem to be an intelligent person capable of this effort.

2.Wikipedia:Verifiability

"....The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth......"

• • Once again - the Pranayam references in this para to Swami Ramdev website provide the links for verifiability. In fact, they were inserted at your request ! So you can't now disqualify them as advertising. Why don't you reword the link name to suit your fancy. After all, as as ardent fan of Wiki policy, I'm sure you don't want to do away with this verifiability.

3. Wikipedia:Attribution

".....A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.....

Swami Ramdev website does not fall under any of the above descriptions. His work and institutions are under constant scrutiny by a host of individuals (such as Brinda Karat). Any unfounded assertions would be fodder for the press and lead to articles that would soon be cited on the Wiki page. This scrutiny, in a fashion, is akin to a "public review" process ensuring any "high-flying" claims receive swift and punishing criticism. Additionally his work has received significant recognition (as cited in the article) from well respected institutions and individuals including a visit with the President of India and a garden tea party hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at the Buckingham Palace(see his Web site home page for related links). Surely, this is not the felicitation granted a "source" that is extremist, relies on rumour.......etc.

If you disagree, then abiding by your own standards why don't you provide references supporting your view.

24.116.139.52 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't need to. You need to provide independent citations. It's that simple. Hornplease 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-write of entire article

Hi all. I have attempted a re-write. Peer reviews are invited. -Mayuresh 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had a second pass at this. Peer reviews are invited. -Mayuresh 10:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk about links

divya yoga link

Do we all agree it is an ok link to use? I don't think either Wikipost or Sfacets got a problem with it, but anon IP's are removing it. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree !! Wikipost 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC);

Baba Ramdev Video Online

As baba ramdev is leading yog guru. all of us yog enthugiast wish to see him doing yog abhyas on each and every day. www.totalbhakti.com create a web page on baba ramdev yog. which you find on www.totalbhakti.com. this give us liberty to see the yog mudra performing by baba ramdev whenever we want to see. atlast it,s free. all other renound gurus video are also available on totalbhakti.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.146.50 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

UNO

Need to disambiguate UNO (currently points to disamibugation page, which one?) RJFJR 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bracket References

Added these back. In several instances prior, other editors have first removed these and then deleted individual sentences from the section stating the statements are not backed by a valid external reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipost (talk • contribs) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean this. Wikipedia convention is to have references in footnotes, not as "See this reference for the following material". Shreevatsa (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history on this page (you will need to go back a lot) you'll see that other editors have picked individual sentences as unreferenced and then deleted the content. For instance, the sentence about his focus on Pranayama or attendance at his camp. They have done this despite the footnote you mention. Just as, in your previous edit you mention that you did not look at the source at all, other editors have not looked at the footnote but picked on a sentence as unreferenced. If you feel more comfortable with the style you edited in perhaps you could edit in the footnote as reference at the end of each sentence rather than at the end of each paragraphd

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipost (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the footnote was probably not there when the reference was deleted. If such a thing happened, the proper response is to reinsert the cited material (if the reference is indeed a reliable source), not to add phrases several paragraphs away saying "See this reference for the following material" or "See this reference for the preceding material". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what the accepted style is. (Yes, adding the footnote at the end of every sentence is okay, if necessary: go ahead and do so if you want.) Also, in future, please discuss on this talk page and arrive at a consensus before reverting changes on the article: you seem to be close to violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.In regards to your comments - some observations

Some of the edits I referred to have been enacted despite the footnote being present at the end, for example (and this is just one of them),

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Ramdev&diff=185385143&oldid=185223125

Every so often there are changes enacted by "drive-by" editors, who drop-in on the page to comment on form. Some of them are well-meaning (such as yourself) and take the time to fix what they observe as an infraction. On the other hand, some are quick to delete content based on a perceived violation of rules. However, they put in minimal effort to view the rest of the page for related content, let alone contribute a solution. Almost seems like if they were to come across poetry, it would be chastised for grammatical transgression !

Ultimately. I believe, Wiki's value lies in providing verifiable content as opposed to a rigid adherence to purity of form. Wiki policy also suggests this by virtue of the use of the word "guideliness" in its framework of rules

Anyway, enough said - no need to spend more of your time or mine on this. It was refreshing to experience a critique coupled with an effort implementing a solution that added value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipost (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh... if cited information was removed, it ought to be re-inserted, I guess... I would like to see this article improved. As for the formatting issue, I agree: it is a trivial one indeed, but wars have been fought over lesser things :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

is there a cure or a Yoga Exercise for genitalia Herpes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.160.19 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

• http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,635306,00.html (german)

Ramdev is a real homophobian man in India. In all european countries homosexuality is legal and since a long time all german, english, french or netherlands scientists know that homosexuality isn't a disease. Ramdev should go to hell, if that is his opinion. 92.252.83.186 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories

An anonymous user is persistently trying to add Category:Homophobia, Category:Hate, Category:Phobias, and Category:Sexual and gender prejudices to the page. I think these categories are excessive and inappropriate, before edit-warring too much, I wonder what others think of this? Shreevatsa (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I see two questions. One question is whether any of these categories collect entries similar in format to Ramdev's article. The other question is whether Ramdev's article belongs in any of these categories. The categories "Hate", "Phobias", and "Sexual and gender prejudices" do not currently contain many links to biographies, so I do not think those are even applicable for adding to this article. The category "Homophobia" does, so if Ramdev is a homophobe and that fact is relevant to his wikipedia entry, then I think that category should be in place.

A google search for "Ramdev" and "homophobia" turns up lots of links, like this one. I think is it merely a statement of fact that Ramdev is a homophobe, and that right now he is either the most prominent or one of the most prominent homophobes protesting the recent decriminalization of homosexuality by the Delhi Supreme court. I am keeping Category:Homophobia in the article, and I am removing the other three categories that are present right now. I also do not want to edit war about this, so if anyone disagrees then talk more on this page. Blue Rasberry 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A vast majority of South Asian public figures oppose homosexuality. Being a critic of the gay lifestyle does not make Ramdev fit for inclusion in category:homophobia since he is not "not considered widely known for [his] homophobic stances". He is known much more for his nativist controversy and his criticism of multinational companies and secularists.Pectore^talk 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of SA public figures oppose homosexuality. I agree with you that it is irrelevant whether Ramdev is a critic of the gay lifestyle, because being a critic does not mean that a person is a homophobe. I also agree that Ramdev has notoriety primarily for reasons other than being involved in the opposition to the gay rights movement. However, he has become the most visible figure in India opposing the recent decriminalization of homosexuality, and this homophobia has attracted international media attention, so I do not share your conclusion that he is not considered widely known for his homophobic stances.

I am asserting that his open hostility to gay rights and his stated intent to fight against gay rights through the Indian legal system makes him a homophobe. Would you agree with that? I also say that he has gotten international attention because of this stance. I just cited the BBC, and there is a German-language link above, and I could find more major news sources around the world if that would help. Does the existence of news articles by major media providers in different parts of the world convince you that he is widely known for the stances described in the articles?

If you either think he is not a homophobe, or you think he is not widely known for being this way, could you say why? I would like to reinsert the category that you removed. Blue Rasberry 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, his notability as a person is hardly tied to his position on "gay sex" which him and probably 99% of Indians consider sinful in some way. When you look at the google news hits (keeping in mind google terms a lot of left-wing blogs, which are always critical of Ramdev, as "news sites), the only time Ramdev even got any press was only in July 2009. We are halfway through August, and if this was a great issue on Ramdev's notability, there would surely be a news article attacking Ramdev this month (since the South Asian media is quite slanted towards the left). Now contrast this with the bones controversy, which still got hits from January 2006 till January 2009.

Next, you say "I agree...being a critic does not mean that a person is a homophobe" then you say "I do not share your conclusion that he is not considered widely known for his homophobic stances". So you are already defining him as homophobic when you have rejected the premise for calling him homophobic. Through a google search of homophobic Ramdev I have found nary an article that calls him homophobic in anyway, instead defining him as "representative of the majoritarian view", among other things.Pectore^talk 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that his notability is not tied to his position on gay sex and I agree that the majority of Indians disapprove of homosexuality. I think you are saying these things to indicate that Ramdev's views are normal within the context of his culture, and I know that they are. But that Ramdev shares ideology with the majority view of his culture is irrelevant. My premise for calling him homophobic is that he is a major social leader that has made a public declaration that he intends to expend his resources fighting against gay rights in the supreme court of his country. I am defining his homophobia with demonstrable, unusual action, and not the private thoughts that he or anyone else have in their heads. I dispute that nothing has been said about Ramdev this month, as one of the links that I gave above quotes someone at the Mumbai Gay Pride celebration saying that Ramdev is "homophobic" and there are other like articles from August. [1] [2]. I agree that this issue is not getting attention like the bones controversy, but I also am asserting that this issue is getting enough attention to merit Ramdev's inclusion with the ranks of other entries in the homophobia category. If anyone in India can be called "homophobic," then I think that Ramdev can. I am not sure whether you think it is possible for an Indian in India to be homophobic.

You might be right that Ramdev will not protest homosexuality in the future, or otherwise not get into the news again for it, and if he does not, then I agree that he probably should not get the homophobia tag by virtue of that tag giving undue weight to his position in the suppression of gay rights. However, if Ramdev continues to draw international attention to himself because of his opposition to gay rights, then I would more strongly favor the placement of that category tag on this article. Any other comments from anyone? Blue Rasberry 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone in India can be called "homophobic," then I think that Ramdev(almost)everyone can. :-)

IMO, the criterion for whether to include a category is whether it is "defining" of the person, not whether the person's inclusion in the category is clear or not. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent). Also of note Bluerasberry is that your "midday" link is a link to a tabloid in India. Just because some random "gay activist" calls Ramdev a homophobe, doesn't automatically create a reason for inclusion. Your other two sources do not mention the word "homophobic" or related variants, in any sense of the word.Pectore^talk 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is but proper that in a secular country like India, religious views about homosexuality is not legally imposed on the entire population. For Baba Ramdev to think that homosexuality is a sickness which deserves treatment is okay because that's his view as a health provider. But I don't know what to make of the report that he would take to the streets to protest the judgment of the courts. I think we should not be in any hurry to label Baba Ramdev as homophobic or whatever in the article. Let's wait and see what he does. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pratyaahaara

For the meaning 'specific diet' ['prati'+'aahaara'], compare Kashika Vritti on Panini II.3.2: "na bubhukshitam prati bhaati kincit" ["to a hungry man nothing is of any account"], and the usage 'praty-agni'. - Monier-Williams Dictionary. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about medical claims

Npov about medical claims, and sources required

statements like...

"Viewers of the TV show and attendees at the camp have reported significant improvements in their health - citing relief from many illnesses such as Diabetes, Heart Disease, Arthritis, Thyroid Problems, Hypertension, Stomach ailments and different types of cancer without the use of any medicines. But it should also be noted that most of these 'patients' speak on television for the first time and are over awed by the situation. Like most human beings in such situations, these patients are suceptible to exageration, which may explain the so called miracles he is rumored to perform".

Baba Ramdev is a good example for the youth of India and not Tharoor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.243.226 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

...demonstrate this. Don't remove the templates untill issues are resolved. Sfacets 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

...No one is saying all doctors are fools, but why do people say this about a medicne system, Indian medicne system. Colas are not good for health , this is an open secret now, Govts across are banning them in schools, please listen to this man (Ramdev Ji) 2-3 times before juding him.

...No one is judging him. I was merely referring to the previous content of the article, which has happily been removed. However, this article still needs a major cleanup. As far asthe "Indian" medicine system is concerned, you are way off the mark. Nobody is calling Ayurveda practitioners 'fools'. It is a widely recognised and followed practice in India. Swami'ji' is not the be all and end all of Ayurveda. As far as Colas being 'not good for health' being an open secret, please follow your own advice as to collecting proper information before condemning something. Govts ban lots of things: all are not necessarily due to actual compulsions. There may be political motives. However, if you do think they are bad for health, please state your views exactly, i.e., how are they worse for health than say, lemonade? I will try to counter them. Might even make an interesting discussion. Please note that this is an academic exercise --- I have the utmost respet for Swami'ji'.

Does Wikipedia require unsourced and propaganda materials relating to medical claims?

Is there any factual information in the following sentence which I have jus now removed from the article?

"Viewers of the TV show and attendees at the camp have reported significant improvements in their health - citing relief from many illnesses such as Diabetes, Heart Disease, Arthritis, Thyroid Problems, Hypertension, Stomach ailments and different types of cancer without the use of any medicines. He does not claim to be GOD or do miracles. Yoga is a science and needs to be studied before rejecting the positives effectives experienced by people after practising Yoga or Pranayam."

1. Significant improvement in the health of diseases such major ailments as cancer patients by pratising Yoga, that too by following methods taught by Ramdev! What is the source of this claim? Did anybody conduct any test under controlled conditions about the afficacy of Ramdev's method of Yoga?

While practising yoga definitely have beneficial effects, one should be careful before coming out with fantastic claims. Wikipedia should not be used as a propaganda page of any swami or godman. MANOJTV 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Disagree with complete removal of this para and have reinserted a few lines. My reasons being:

- Wiki articles are meant to bring to its readers balanced viewpoints based on reasonably objective information. Hopefully, this effort then provides some basis for the reader to move towards making an "informed" inference.

- It is reasonable to assume that many of the readers visiting this Swami Ramdev page would be curious to know - What benefits do the people who attend his programs seem to gain ? (as opposed to say just wanting to know about his upbringing or educational background)

- Published testimonials and studies are available through Swami Ramdev's organization of program members experiencing benefits such as reduction in blood sugar levels (Diabetes), blood pressure (Hypertension)and cholesterol (Heart Disease). As regards mention of curing cancer, I agree that more data needs to be provided.

As a side note:

If this para is deemed unsuitable then for the sake of consistency the whole section on the Controversy should be deleted too. After all, Brinda Karat's allegations were scientifically disproved ! But in the spirit of Wiki this would then no longer provide a "balanced" viewpoint.....

RESPONSE:#2. Well it is not only people who are awed to be in front of the t.v. seem to gain from this. My friends mother is living proof of his treatment. His pranayama cured her of a skin disease for which the doctors said there was no cure, only strong anti-allergic injections. It is only after that I believe that he is a genuine. Brinda karat's allegations are baseless but have been included in this wiki. I think that is not a balanced POV. Because as everyone knows Brinda allegations were false. But instead of the wiki saying that since the allegations were proved false Baba ramdev remains popular. Infact the Wiki it is trying to imply that "inspite of the controversies" Baba Ramdev remains popular. Wikipost 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Issues

Article had too many tags (some of them redundant). Collapsed into 3 most important in sync with WP policy on this issue. Sbohra 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbohra (talk • contribs)

Controversies section

I think this news belong to the Controversies section.

Baba Ramdev’s cure for hair loss blocks woman’s food pipe A 39-year-old Bhayandar resident, who consumed ayurvedic powder to prevent loss of hair promoted by and sold at Baba Ramdev's yoga institute had to undergo surgery lasting three hours to clear out the block from her food pipe to the abdomen. http://mumbaimirror.com/article/15/2011051620110516033811382ad49a8b/Baba-Ramdev%E2%80%99s-cure-for-hair-loss-blocks-woman%E2%80%99s-food-pipe.html -Abhishikt 22:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Major problems in this page

There are many severe problems with the page.

• Un-encyclopaedic: From grammatical mistakes, using weasel words to sounding like news releases. Many instances of this spread all over the article
• Neutrality:The article is definitely non-neutral. There are jabs against congressmen, and PYP has been called a base institute. Also, most of the material seems to be taken from news articles, so it offers analyses and opinions, which are conflicting in different parts.
• Unorganised: There is distinct overlap between sections, points are repeated etc.
• Lack of references:Many claims are not backed up by references.

I am trying to resolves as many of these issues as possible, and tagging the article appropriately about the rest of them. Apoorv020 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I have done almost all the cleanup I could do. Somebody, please go over the article once and remove any tags that you feel are not required any longer(after a discussion of course). Apoorv020 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems resolved

Whatever problem I could sort out, I did. Re-edited and re-written version is before its viewers even then if someone is not satisfied he may come forward , suggest and improve it. Most welcome.Krantmlverma (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the article is ready for removing the refimprove tag or the un-encyclopaedic tag. The non-neutrality seems to be ok now, but many sections still feel like news releases. There are grammatical mistakes all over the place, and the use of weasel words continues. For example take the first sentencec of the bographies setion: "Born in the house of an ordinary[weasel word] family of Gulab Devi and Ram Nivas Yadav, at a village Ali Saiyad Pur of Mahendragarh district in Haryana state of India[grammatically incorrect], Ram Krishna was inspired by the portrates [wrong spelling] of Ram Prasad 'Bismil' and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose hanged in his room. [citation missing] As soon as he grew up and read the Autobiography of Ram Prasad 'Bismil', his mind was totally washed [does not even make sense]."

The proper way to do this is to err on the side of retaining tags and only remove them after discussion on the page. Apoorv020 (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

None of the bio details in the "Early life" section are cited (birthdate, initial inspiration by a poster, education). DMacks (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags removed

I have added an image of his mother and father, given his date of birth and cited the sources whereever required.Krantmlverma (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, give notice of a few days and wait for some concensus before removing those tags. I, for one, they should not be removed at this stage. Apoorv020 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, numerous single-use anonymous editors have chosen to use this page to air their personal opinions on this person and his activities, and also cut'n'pasted news items and press-release/interview-snippets about his current activities. That fails WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS...shall I continue? No, I shall semi-protect this page to allow those interested in actually fixing its pre-existing problems to do so without having to waste time cleaning up this new mess too. DMacks (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Dmacks-I agree about the semi-protection. The article is right now in a very non-neutral state, along with all the existing problems. Apoorv020 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with semi-protection as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. I notice DMacks only set it for three days, so we'll see if it needs to be renewed.   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.242.63.107, 7 June 2011

please change fast unto detah to fast unto death

115.242.63.107 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dying person

Please remove this from category of living person to dying person [[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi1618 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

lol! There is no such category. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

May be such a category should be started as lotta people in India r gonna fast till death!!!--Vi1618 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That is silly! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 17:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality of segment describing ramleela ground episode is questionable. It looks biased.NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.71.26 (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article name should be baba ramdev

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

Page moved to Ramdev. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Swami Ramdev → Baba Ramdev – I think article name must be baba Ramdev instead of Swami Ramdev which is his less popular name.Suggestion!!!--abhishek (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The most common name should be used, preferably with out any honorifics unless those are always used. Neither Swami nor Baba (honorific) are ideal, but his birth name seems a bit obscure. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic).   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article name should be changed to Baba Ramdev, which is his most popular name though there isn't much difference between Swami and Baba with respect to honorifics. --Anilmuthineni (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he is more popularly known as Baba Ramdev. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any metrics on this matter? Google results, or other source-based surveys? It's often a pain to define "most common" when it comes to article names.   Will Beback  talk  10:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Typing on "Baba Ramdev" gives 7,450,000 results in 0.12 seconds on google,while "Swami Ramdev" gives 824,000 results in 0.18 seconds.Which shows that Baba ramdev is more searched and used term.--abhishek (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. We already have a Baba Ramdev page, which includes a different person with similar-spelled name and a movie with the same-spelling. The other-spelling name is obviously not a blocking issue. However, the movie does use the same name-spelling, but confusingly is not about this person (but rather the other-spelled one). Regarding google-counting, which is explicitly warned against as a sole good criterion for WP:COMMONNAME, are the hits for "Baba Ramdev" really about the Swami, vs the movie? DMacks (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

One article is Baba Ramdevji and another one is Baba Ramdev (film) which certainly is not Baba Ramdev.Even now Baba Ramdev redirects to Swami Ramdev itself using

"Baba Ramdev" redirects here. For other uses, see Baba Ramdev (disambiguation).

--abhishek (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have that redirect mis-interpretted. The "real" disambiguation page is currently Baba Ramdev. There is also a Baba Ramdev (disambiguation) page that redirects to it. Or are you proposing how it could be (pending this discussion) rather than stating how it now is? DMacks (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your last sentence confused me.Would you please elaborate?--abhishek (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "Baba Ramdev is now a redirect". That is false. I was trying to figure out why you would say it. I thought that maybe you were proposing a change. DMacks (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am proposing that article name should be Baba Ramdev,and Swami Ramdev would redirect to this only.But then Baba Ramdev (disambiguation) needs to be taken care of.--abhishek (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• In my personal openion the name of this article not should but remain as it is i.e. Swami Ramdev. Whereever Baba Ramdev was shown in [[ ]] I have replaced it either by or and all the tags were removed. I think now the problem is solved.Krantmlverma (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You removed tags without solving the problem they indicated. I re-added the tags. For example, if there is a statement that is not supported by a cite, you are not allowed to remove the "cite needed" note and now claim "there are no cites needed". I replaced the tags. Per WP:BLP policy, statements about people must be cited or removed if other editors complain about lack of support. DMacks (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this comment into the preceding section, since it also comments on that rename-request. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Article must be renamed as Ramdev. Please remove 'Swami' from the name--202.164.159.178 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that this article in The Indian Express refers to the subject simply as "Ramdev.[4] From a WP perspective it'd be best to avoid using honorifics. Is "Ramdev" sufficiently common and unique to qualify as the name for this article? Ramdev currently redirects here.   Will Beback  talk  16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I am able to determine, he changed his name to Ramdev. Swami is a title, earned as a result of his studies at a gurukul or something. However, such titles are not recognised under Indian law, so his legal name is still Ramdev. Also, he is often referred in the media as Baba Ramdev instead of Swami Ramdev. Apoorv020 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Keeping all these points in mind, I feel that the article should be named Ramdev, since it is a recognisable name for him, and this avoids the controversy over Baba Ramdev and Swami Ramdev. Apoorv020 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Birth date

What is the date of Birth of Baba Ramdev,the article states 1965,but one anon.editor made it 1935.I am putting it here for discussion and reverting the edits of unknown user.Holy -- + -- Warrior 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just visited some websites officially associated with Ramdev, and I also am having trouble confirming this guy's date of birth. When I do see some biography about Ramdev that says he was born in 1965, I also am seeing other information that seems pulled verbatim from the wikipedia article, so I cannot say that the date of birth shown on those kinds of pages is any more reliable. Does anyone have any reputable source for confirming his date of birth? Blue Rasberry 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

When was Swami Ramdev born? Google searches throw up 1965, 1953, and 1943, all from unreliable sources. The current addition (1974), though it is "sourced" to a random forum, is almost certainly wrong. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know the answer, but I can say that his official website does not say and I can confirm that lots of unreliable websites either say something strange or quote wikipedia in this matter. I also am unable to find this information. Blue Rasberry 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose that until we find a reliable source we should not mention any date of birth at all. Instead we could mention that there isn't any information available about the same. Why add to the confusion, especially since many people quote Wikipedia! I will try to call the head office of his organization to confirm about the same... but would that qualify as a reliable source? SanskritGuy (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the date until someone finds a reliable source for giving this kind of information. I removed it just now.

A call to the Swami Ramdev's office and having them verbally tell you his date of birth would qualify as a reliable source, but it would not meet verifiability so we need something more. If they have a published biography that they could either link to, email, or mail you, then that would meet that requirement. The written source does not have to be online, although if it is not it would be good if they could put it online or otherwise give WP:PERMISSION to for someone else to put it online so everyone can see it.

Please share if anything comes of this. Blue Rasberry 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Baba Ramdev has travelled out of the country. Without a valid Passport it is impossible to do so. A passport will require Date of Birth. So that is a good start. Now if we could only get our hands of a scanned copy of his passport :-P . I think there must be some way to obtain date of birth. If he has a passport he would have a voters Id card that requires the date or birth. He attended school till the eighth standard(class) in Shahbajpur, So a school records could give a verifyable age too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.179.252 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A full 30 minute report on IBN Live said his year of birth as 1971 by his elder brother. As of now, I'm not able to locate that video on their website. Will update once I get the link. Kannan Reddy (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV for the Protest at Delhi section

I've cleaned up some of the text in the Protest at Delhi section to be a bit more neutral, but it still needs quite a bit of work. If somebody more familiar with the situation, or at least somebody who could pick out which references are reliable could work on cleaning it up, that would be the best way to go about this. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV tag removed

I have edited this section in order to meet wikipedian standard and removed the tag. Kindly watch it attentively and still if anything is found unjustified it may be removed from or added to the sub-section.Krantmlverma (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Some body had used the tags without assigning the reason or editing the matter, because it is very easy putting a tag but it is more difficult to devote valuable time and edit any article. Even then looking into problems of wikipedia I have once again edited this article and removed the tags, to which please watch. Thanks,Krantmlverma (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Leznar, 16 July 2011

Vandalism still continues. Introductory paragraph clearly reflects the same. Where is the mention of "notoriety" by the associated person in any of the "References" ?

Leznar (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Article is now unprotected and you can make the edits yourself. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Early Life

Some body has made the following changes: Cast from yadav to jat,date of birth and place of birth also. Please ascertain who has done this and if it is wrong please revert.Thanks.Krantmlverma (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no citation given to support either the previous or current birthdate. This has apparently been a long-standing concern (see #Birth date discussion previously on this talkpage). Therefore, I've removed it altogether per WP:V policy. I'll take a look at the location later. For the record, it doesn't matter who makes a change, since we are all just editors bound to use external reliable sources rather than relying on our own knowledge. If you know a source that would have this information, please let us know so we can resolve the matter. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you fixed it. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a verifiable source for the line "After reading this small booklet he went to the caves of Himalaya and practiced intense self-discipline and meditation.", if not could this be removed please, as this could be said to be propaganda. Mannu.ray (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me! this is neither vandalism nor any propaganda but it is a fact. This book (Yogik Sadhan) can be seen in the library of Patanjali Yogpeeth at Haridwar. Relative references have been given there.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)} Today I have undone the revision 472074861 of RobertRosen after giving references of the book Yogik Sadhan in this section of the article.Krantmlverma (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Black Money

It's unclear to me what "black money" really means. I believe it should be replaced with more specific language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.112.178 (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary of political advocacy in lede

I tried to rewrite it a bit after it had been removed completely. I don't like my rewrite much, but I think it's an improvement over what was there. Given all the references and content on his political advocacy, it should be summarized in some way in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not using popular honorific for Indian Religious/Spiritual leaders!

At one hand we are using popular name of the celebrities and not actual name at other hand we are not using proper honorific applied universally. There is no Ramdev It should be "Baba Ramdev" Similarly There is no Ravi Shankar it is always "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar".

Whole world know them from that name! When you are using Swami Samarth or Sai Baba of Shirdi then use proper name for others too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Move Plan

Can we move this page to Baba Ramdev ? If you look at the common usage even in media he is reffered to as Baba Ramdev. He might be called as Ramdev in headlines but Baba Ramdev is the common name for this person.It is like L.K. Advani reffered as Advani in the headlines but L.K.Advani in subsequent story. [5],[6],[7]. I see that there was a discussion above but I had to start a new one as it was closed.--sarvajna (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Birth date still not sourced

Going back through all the discussions and edits, I cannot find anyone providing a reliable source for his birthdate. Since it's still being disputed, I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On 17 November 2012 at 21:15, User:82.9.214.48 changed the birth date to the 26th December without discussion on the talk page or providing citation. Did not want to automatically revert as this issue has still not being resolved.EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Can birth date be verified?

The date was changed from 26 December 1965 to 11 January 1971 here. As far as I can tell, the article is gone. Can anyone find it or a replacement?

This says 11 Jan 1965, but looks like a press release. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it, pending editors finding sources that clarify the multiple dates he and his organizations have provided at different times, recently causing legal problems when inaccurate information was used for a passport application. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

cancer paition

namste guruji mera maataji ko bhut problems hora hai unko tarpse tretment hona hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veerusdodamani (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

cancer paition

namste guruji mera maataji ko bhut problems hora hai unko tarpse tretment hona hai

kya app ke passe treat milega — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veerusdodamani (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

fulwa ka tel jo ki haddi tutne par aaye hui sujan ko kam karta hai

sriman babji mai praveen agrawal ratlam madhya pradesh me niwas karta hu mujhe kisi up ke vyakti ne bataya ki fjulwa ka tel lagane se haddi tutne par aaye hui sujan kam ho jati hai par yaha ratlam me fulwa samajh me nahi aaraha isko kisi aur nam se jaja jata hai kya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.211.137 (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Birth date

Is this reliable enough for his birth date?69.157.118.203 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Given Talk:Ramdev#Can_birth_date_be_verified.3F, I'd be more comfortable with a better source. I was hoping there would be some statements made about the passport problems, if not some actual investigative journalism. Has anyone looked? --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ramdev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110831031853/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/News-Feed/newdelhi/Before-Ramdev-black-money-fast-panel-set-up/Article1-703190.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Before-Ramdev-black-money-fast-panel-set-up/Article1-703190.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Ramdev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101016064306/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Baba-Ramdev-buys-Scottish-island/Article1-458920.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Baba-Ramdev-buys-Scottish-island/Article1-458920.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113044718/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/After-crackdown-Ramdevs-followers-split/799859/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/After-crackdown-Ramdevs-followers-split/799859/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113051240/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Girls-who-shielded-Baba-were-told-he-wants-to-bless-them/799747/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Girls-who-shielded-Baba-were-told-he-wants-to-bless-them/799747/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120104165035/http://www.newsbullet.in/video/india/11370-ramlila-ground-cctv-footage-recovered- to http://www.newsbullet.in/video/india/11370-ramlila-ground-cctv-footage-recovered-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120719023428/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/India-news/Maharashtra/Anna-Ramdev-attack-govt-on-corruption/Article1-890410.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Maharashtra/Anna-Ramdev-attack-govt-on-corruption/Article1-890410.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609042226/http://www.indiablooms.com:80/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails050611h.php to http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails050611h.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120124011307/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/it-is-an-attack-on-democracy-bjp/articleshow/8732357.cms to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/it-is-an-attack-on-democracy-bjp/articleshow/8732357.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609024556/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Anna-to-fast-in-support-of-Baba-Ramdev/Article1-706052.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Anna-to-fast-in-support-of-Baba-Ramdev/Article1-706052.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608061013/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Thousands-fast-in-Maharashtra-in-Ramdev-s-support/Article1-705711.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Thousands-fast-in-Maharashtra-in-Ramdev-s-support/Article1-705711.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120115074448/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/12/activists-take-on-corrupt-politicians-in-india.html to http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/12/activists-take-on-corrupt-politicians-in-india.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060421182040/http://www.expressindia.com:80/fullstory.php?newsid=61019 to http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=61019
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829053514/http://www.punjabnewsline.com:80/content/view/2664/39/ to http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/2664/39/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ramdev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717083939/http://in.news.yahoo.com:80/cpi-m-deplores-police-action-against-ramdev-092500684.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/cpi-m-deplores-police-action-against-ramdev-092500684.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726114839/http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9490899&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL to http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9490899&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=78569

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ramdev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016064306/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Baba-Ramdev-buys-Scottish-island/Article1-458920.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Baba-Ramdev-buys-Scottish-island/Article1-458920.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831031853/http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Before-Ramdev-black-money-fast-panel-set-up/Article1-703190.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Before-Ramdev-black-money-fast-panel-set-up/Article1-703190.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042226/http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails050611h.php to http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails050611h.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726114839/http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9490899&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL to http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=9490899&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=78569

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ramdev. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.news.yahoo.com/cpi-m-deplores-police-action-against-ramdev-092500684.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Age of babaramdev

Though babaji is 50-51 but his actual age is more than 200 years old, one needs years of experience of yoga atleast 50 years to master the yoga at such an extent. It is claimed that he has lived in himalayas for many years and practise yoga there. Abhishek.ram (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ramdev. 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/20110713025220/http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails050611h.php to http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails050611h.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Organizations founded

For organizations that he founded that do not meet WP:CORP, a very brief description may deserve mention in this article, but let's keep them brief and encyclopedic to avoid WP:NOT problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal name

Hi @GreaterPonce665:, your revert here is wrong per legal documents, i.e., court documents et all e.g. this High Court case (which I cited in the lead) the WP:LEGALNAME here is Swami Ramdev not a pseudonym and would thus begin the lead. The same is the case with Yogi Adityanath whose birthname is different but as shown in government and election documents his legal name is indeed Yogi Adityanath. Gotitbro (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:, thanks for letting me know. Was not aware he chose it as his legal name. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Note about sanctions relating to covid

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo old

He is alive his photo should reflect at least his health, grace, glory etc. The BW photo really? And that too from 2002... RashmikantT (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Very old photo RashmikantT (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References to "Swami"

In an edit (link) the references to Swami and the explanatory footnotes were removed. Could they be restored or do they violate any policies? -- DaxServer (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editor involved: @Param.arora -- DaxServer (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References were not directed towards any reliable sources. They were in fact directed to the footnotes. The title of Swami was reportedly given to Ramdev by Swami Shankar Dev. Shankar Dev founded the Divya Yog Mandir and Patanjali Yogpeeth trusts. Those who knew Shankar Dev doubt he ever envisaged the trusts to become multi-crore business ventures—a belief that now hangs heavy over the mystery surrounding the swami's disappearance on July 14, 2007." - The case of a missing guru (The Indian Express)

References should be added at the end of a sentence not at the second word of the article. You may please try hyperlinks wherever possible to give readers more to read on words like “baba” and “swami”. This page is not for blind followers only but also for those want to get a neutral point of view on Ramdev ji. Param.arora (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Restoring lead deleted by blocked user

I have restored the sourced content from history (revision). It was removed by @Param.arora. (See above discussion as well). -- DaxServer (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection and cleanup

I see that there's already a request for further protection for this article. Thank you.

I'm looking at this version(18:38, 25 May 2021) as something fairly stable to work from as far as cleanup goes.

Prior to that version, I see a number of other edits that need review and possible rollback: HomosexualityKapalbhati Rajiv DixitHeartfulness.

After that version, any substantial expansion or changes to the lede should be considered for rollback, and all editors adding such content be warned if they've not been already. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal Homosexuality: I have moved the 1 to its own section under controversies 2. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Heartfulness: 1: @Interesting Geek has removed heading in edit 2. The source cited, in the first edit, does not state that Ramdev practices Heartfulness, but rather the meditation center was only opened in his presence. Thus this becomes unsourced and should be deleted. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've identified the additions by name for easier reference. --Hipal (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(Updated) I have moved section "Loan default by Ruchi Soya Industries" (Special:Diff/1026107586) to Patanjali Patanjali Ayurved as the content does not add anything to this article, but is rather relevant to Patanjali. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything added after the version identified above that is not clearly about Ramdev and not clearly of encyclopedic value should be removed until there's consensus for inclusion. Clearly there are WP:BATTLE problems here. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Coronil - Comments on medicine as medical terrorism

Could the comments be added under Coronil section from source? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me what more concerning Ramdev there is to add from that source, as the source doesn't mention anything new about Ramdev. --Hipal (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead expansion

“His vested interest in businesses, which is really what he is behind the sham of being a yogi… it has been documented to some extent… So in some sense, he has a political sanction and therefore has a large degree of impunity in getting away with what he does,” a senior journalist Nitin Sethi told Al Jazeera.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor1008 (talk • contribs)

Ramdev was accused of corrupting Patanjali's Yoga by selling "programmes like kapalbhati". Patanjali Yog Sutras does not mention Kalalbhati.

Ramdev's Guru Acharya Baldevji was a popular Arya Samaji political / religious leader. Ramdev follows all the reforms made by Arya Samaj excluding Idol worship.

References

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Ramdev declared net worth of his assets at around "Rs 1,100 crore" in 2013. He refused to comment on the number of companies he owns.

References

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor1008 I don't think this goes into the lead, but somewhere in the article, not sure where. -- DaxServer (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. And be careful with how it is phrased. This is from a prepared statement from Ramdev, and not independently checked. --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

New York Times article on Ramdev

According to the NYTimes reference, Ramdev is a

"bombastic TV personality whose relation to the truth is elastic" 

and

"a populist tycoon, protected from critics (and even, to some extent, from the law) by a vast following and a claim to holy purpose." 

Furthermore, the reporter calls Ramdev's biopic a "shambolic melodrama that seemed to treat Ramdev almost as a divine messenger".

Clearly "populist tycoon" and "bombastic TV personality" are used to describe Ramdev in the NYTimes article: The Billionaire Yogi Behind Modi’s Rise

To say, Ramdev's "relation to the truth is elastic" - is the same as saying that Ramdev "is not really truthful". Paraphrasing is not the same as WP:OR.

Moreover, more recently published media acknowledges that Ramdev has lied in public several times. Adding these references makes the above claim stronger but it's still not WP:OR

Some People are wondering why Ramdev is being taken so seriously?

The problem becomes serious when the misinformation spreaded by him can lead to deaths or serious damage to health of public, at large.

Considering the negative impact that Ramdev's false claims can have on general public health, he should be taken more seriously by responsible editors.

Although Ramdev became a laughing stock especially after he was caught by a police constable in public dressed as an injured woman to escape a police raid, the damage he is causing is not a laughing matter.

It is precisely for this reason that the PM of India had to intervene in the public debate around Vaccination in India. Earlier, Ramdev publicly condemned Vaccination and other medical practices.

The PM Modi's intervention helped the country recover from the damage caused by Ramdev's false claims.

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, that's OR on your part. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor1008: Exactly what @Hipal said. To summarise - people have died because false claims by Ramdev were allowed to circulate. [...] (Several other statements as well.) Yes, he made false claims - which are fact-checked and published in reliable sources, like BBC News and several others. But no sources said what you summarised. That's pure WP:OR. It should be verifiable WP:VERIFY. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph was removed as per WP:RS. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor1008 Yes, the talk pages are to talk. You made your arguments and have been told that it is OR.

Your post as a whole is OR, not just the sentence that I quoted. You took the NYT column and towards the end, you made your conclusions and claims. I was just referring to one sentence. (Maybe I should have been more clear in my previous comment.) -- DaxServer (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "has been told"? This is not correct English. If two people told him (you and the egotistic Hipal) somehow you think this is a consensus? I seek consensus according to the Wikigames Rule book Maravelous (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maravelous <sarcasm>I blame my keyboard for the construed appalling grammatical non-constructive construction.</sarcasm>

You are free to comment on this discussion and provide your inputs, in seeking consensus. No one can stop you, unless it is archived and further comments are closed and the only way is to open a new discussion.

Also, calling people names is a direct violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. I now see that you also made comments against Hipal on your talk page. Based on your contributions, I am now in an understanding that you are not here to comment on this discussion about Ramdev, but to comment on Hipal. This must stop now. -- DaxServer (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of notability from lede

This looks like simple removal of notability from the article lede.

@Wikieditor1008:, could you explain why you feel it's OR? --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The references cited do not say that he "popularised" yoga or ayurveda. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's not an appropriate summary?

I'm not sure why the first ref was there.

The second begins, Baba Ramdev is a spiritual leader known for his contributions in yoga and Ayurveda.

The NYTimes ref says, One by one, the dignitaries rose to recount Ramdev’s extraordinary career: how he brought physical fitness to the Indian middle class with his mass yoga camps and television empire; how he built his medicine-and-consumer-goods company, Patanjali Ayurved, into a multibillion-dollar colossus. and At the time, relatively few Indians practiced yoga, even as millions of Americans were doing sun salutations and intoning their namastes. It was considered an austere discipline linked to ancient texts, too complex and rigorous for ordinary people. Ramdev changed that. He is a lower-caste Hindu who speaks in a playful, down-to-earth language. He simplified the breathing exercises and postures, making them accessible to anyone. Yet he also urged his listeners to be proud of yoga, calling it a quintessential expression of the wisdom contained in the sacred Hindu texts. and Yoga is only half of Ramdev’s work. He and Balkrishna also use their television empire to tout the healing virtues of Patanjali’s ayurvedic medicines and health foods, rooted in the supposedly curative powers of herbal and mineral compounds. Western scientists view ayurveda (the “science of life”) with skepticism, and studies have found that some ayurvedic products contain toxic levels of heavy metals, usually from soil or ash, in the mix. But in India they have become a booming business, thanks in part to Ramdev's marketing efforts. --Hipal (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Two references were cited The first reference was like you said irrelevant. The second reference there, mentioned contribution only.

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And you're ignoring the NYTimes? Do you understand WP:LEDE? --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The dignitaries mentioned in the NYTimes articles are politicians assembled in the stadium in Delhi to watch Ramdev's biopic. With due respect, their words should not be quoted in the lede of a Wikipedia article.

Interestingly, in the next paragraph, the NYRef calls his biopic "a shambolic melodrama that seemed to treat Ramdev almost as a divine messenger."

The author of the article also calls him a "bombastic TV personality whose relation to the truth is elastic" and "a populist tycoon, protected from critics (and even, to some extent, from the law) by a vast following and a claim to holy purpose."

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about the biopic.

We are talking about his fundamental notability. The last two quotes above demonstrate it and support the content being reintroduced. --Hipal (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The second last quote you mentioned emphasises more on him 'simplifying' yoga to make it popular. In effect, marketing yoga and changing its form to suit demand.

The last quote also emphasises on Ramdev's marketing efforts, partly responsible for the boom in Ayurveda business in India.

In the process of simplifying yoga, the experts on Yoga claim he sold "short-cuts" to yoga and falsely claimed them as a cure for all diseases. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

But the content is proper, primarily known for his popularising Yoga and Ayurveda in India, correct? --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As per the principles of summary, the lede should include his career in Television. As per the weight age of this topic under the Yoga section in the main body. His presence on television and shares in news media channels must also be expanded. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You're changing the subject, and you aren't seeing me disagree that the lede may need other changes. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I believe the content needs to be restored as a primary part of his notability. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No opposition then? --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it, removing the first ref that was originally used and adding the NYTimes ref. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus: Expanding section on Homosexuality

1. Content from 2009:

   In July 2009, the Delhi High Court passed a judgement on treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime as a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. Following the verdict, Ramdev has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the verdict. He quoted Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas and contended that homosexuality is a curable disease. He suggested that it can be treated by yoga, pranayam and other meditation techniques. He argued that the reduction of penal provisions would increase homosexual acts, which is primarily responsible for the spread of HIV. In the petition, he stated that if the High Court's decision is allowed to sustain, it would have catastrophic effects on the moral fabric of society and will jeopardise the institution of marriage itself.

2. Based on the above addition, the content from 2013 can be modified as:

   [...] homosexuality a bad addiction and once again claimed he can cure it by yoga

3. The current content from 2013 can be expanded as from the existing citation:

   He also questioned the contribution of the gay community in streams like science and economics.

References

-- DaxServer (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated with #2 -- DaxServer (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Striking off #2 as it changes the meaning of the sentence. In #1, Ramdev didn't personally offer to cure with yoga but only in #2. Thus adding once again would mean that he offered in #1. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Knock, knock, pinging to regenerate for comments. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm busy to the point where I think there are multiple discussions on this, but am not going to look at this time. Something's probably due, but introducing it with the background first seems to undercut what we should be emphasizing, his viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Other discussion: Talk:Ramdev#Protection_and_cleanup --Hipal (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Please remove |url=The Billionaire Yogi Behind Modi’s Rise since that's the title, not the url and the title is already listed in the citation. 98.230.196.188 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Kapalbhati can't kill you, its a pranayam, kapalbhati heals whole abdomen, including liver. Pranay Singh (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for Kapalbhati section

The Kapalbhati section as of the version Special:PermanentLink/1027892356#Kapalbhati is marked as WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT by one editor and as not by another. Please discuss here for a consensus. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The section is not WP:OR as it only reiterates what is written in the articles. Nothing new is proposed or concluded.

The section is not WP:UNDUE because people's lives are at stake. As mentioned, many patients have reported problems caused by doing Kapalbhati as per sourced. And the doctors and yoga experts have advised not to continue this practice. This is a case of misleading people and is rightly placed under controversies.

This section is not WP:COAT because Ramdev has undeniably taught kapalbhati (also mentioned in the sources) to thousands of people. The ethical question you must ask is "who will be held responsible for deaths and damage caused by practice of kapalbhati in the future?" the attempts have been made by the qualified doctors, qualified yoga teachers and journalists to warn people of the dangers of kapalbhati.

This is nothing less than a controversy.

I also request admin @DMacks to facilitate a fair decision as per the guidelines of Wikipedia regarding the section discussed.

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor1008 I don't think an administrator's intervention is required at this point of time, because the discussion has just started. -- DaxServer (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think admin assistance is close to a necessity at this point. I was going to request article protection before I saw this. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've contacted DMacks directly and requested full protection. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:COAT can not be used on an assumption that the subject is not related to the controversy in discussion.

WP:UNDUE can not be used to delete any content that goes against the editor's own POV.

WP:OR can not be used to delete content clearly mentioned in the verifiable and reliable sources cited.

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is required for inclusion. You don't have it. Please revert.

Please note that I previously indicated the section needed review and possible rollback. --Hipal (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The section is not WP:OR as it only reiterates what is written in the articles. Don't misrepresent other editors. There is OR in it, especially Most Yoga experts have warned that Kalalbhati is life threatening. It can cause "burnout and nervous system exhaustion" and should be stopped immediately. Many patients have reported problems caused by doing Kapalbhati. Compare to what the article actually says. To start, compare to Most experts say that recklessly practising Kapalbhati can at the very least make you seriously ill.

WP:UNDUE can not be used to delete any content that goes against the editor's own POV. So you believe that this is about editors' points of view? Please WP:FOC, rather than make assumptions about other editors' POV and that they are editing against POV.

WP:COAT can not be used on an assumption that the subject is not related to the controversy in discussion. That's not what COAT is about at all. My concern is that the section is being used to describe kalalbhati, poorly, for the purposes of attacking Ramdev. --Hipal (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"can at the very least make you seriously ill" means this is the least that can be expected from practising kapalbhati recklessly. The author also adds that 31 cases of heart attack were linked with reckless practice of kapalbhati.

WP:FOC applies to everyone

WP:COAT "Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack" Wikieditor1008 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor1008 Just a note: you are only making this a bit more worse by adding the content to the section, when a consensus and an admin intervention is requested. Special:Diff/1027930761, not to mention the unfortunate MOS:BOLDFACE/MOS:NOBOLD. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"can at the very least make you seriously ill" means this is the least that can be expected from practising kapalbhati recklessly That's OR when used to support what's actually in dispute. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You could change it to exactly 'how' the text says. That dispute could be settled that way. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

So you agree that it's OR as written? I so, please remove it until we find a version that does have consensus. --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's not OR. You have raised concerns about the POV which almost certainly can be settled by rephrasing or using direct quotations. The fact remains that many experts on yoga and medicine have raised concerns over Kapalbhati being marketed by Ramdev as a "cure-all", considering Kapalbhati is known to cause health problems (declared by qualified doctors) Wikieditor1008 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it's OR. --Hipal (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done Wikieditor1008 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet.

Wikieditor1008 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The logic must prevail. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus. Will you continue to edit-war over it after it is removed, as required? --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I think it should all be removed until we've found better sources and context for any inclusion of the subject (such as his general views and methods for teaching yoga). --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC could be useful to determine them? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get the recent disruption resolved. Open RfCs are rarely helpful for settling such disputes.

We do need more, experienced editors helping with this article. Maybe an open RfC would help attracting such people. --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would, just like on Ayurveda? -- DaxServer (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not the same situation at all. Ayurveda gets a great deal of attention. The RfC is there to help address the coordinated efforts to change the pov of the article against Wikipedia's policies. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that this section had to be completely removed rather than just removing or rewriting the problematic bits? There seemed to be some useful information. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

BLP.

If someone wanted to work on a section about Ramdev's beliefs and contributions to Yoga, some mention of Kapalbhati would likely be DUE in it. --Hipal (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone could start a section about Ramdev's beliefs and contributions to Yoga, but this is about health concerns related to a specific yogic practice recommended by Ramdev, raised by some medical authorities and Yoga experts like Iyengar. There might have been some non-NPOV paraphrasing of the sources going on, as you suggest above, but this could be addressed. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The section was deleted violating the consensus. Kindly restore the same. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus. Claiming otherwise is disruptive and could result in a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I've requested protection again. Edit-warring in a BLP to include questionable content is not a way forward in this dispute. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The content you questioned: "Most Yoga experts have warned that Kalalbhati is life threatening. It can cause burnout and nervous system exhaustion and should be stopped immediately. Many patients have reported problems caused by doing Kapalbhati... Most experts say that recklessly practising Kapalbhati can at the very least make you seriously ill" was removed, and other changes were made, prior to your revert, so we are no longer talking about the same thing.

What is your problem with the current content? Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe we both agreed that some mention might be due in a section about Ramdev's beliefs and contributions to Yoga. --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I don’t see anything wrong with someone starting such a section, but in relation to the Kapalbhati section I didn’t see anything wrong with simply removing the bits you had identified as problematic. That is what was done, along with some rewriting for a more neutral tone. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

Taking criticism out of context in this manner is still problematic re BLP and POV. Let's look closer. --Hipal (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

August 10 version

Concerns have been raised about Ramdev's promotion of Kapalbhati as a "cure-all". Ramdev claims that "the problem of heart blockage can be overcome by doing Kapalbhati daily in the morning and evening" and that practice of pranayamas, including kapalbhati, regulates blood pressure, cures heart related problems, and eradicates all communicable and non-communicable diseases. However, Cardiologists have cautioned patients with heart disease and high blood pressure against practising kapalbhati and bhastrika since they can exacerbate the problem. The Asian Heart Institute (AHI) found a correlation between heart ailments and certain types of Kapalbhati practice. Kapalbhati can also be dangerous for people suffering from a hernia.

B.K.S. Iyengar has criticised Ramdev for corrupting Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga with the promotion of programmes like kapalbhati. According to Iyengar, the Yog Sutras of Patanjali do not mention Kapalbhati or Bhastrika. He warns about the dangers of Ramdev "selling Kapalbhati" as "a short cut" in the "TV-yoga craze". Other Yoga experts have warned that reckless practice of Kapalbhati can make a person seriously ill. Gayatri sums up the general criticism by quoting a shloka from Yajurveda and Samaveda:

" Yatha sinho gaja vyadho, bhavedvashya shanaiha shanaiha. Thartheva sevitho vayurnyartha hanthi sadhakam (Just like an elephant, a lion or a tiger can be tamed slowly and gradually, in the same way a practitioner should tame his breath slowly, slowly or else it kills the practitioner himself)."

— Yogachudamani Upanishad, Verse 118

References

This is the last version. [8].

Why does it deserve a section to itself?

Why is it the first subsection under the already problematic (WP:CSECTION) "Controversies" section?

Why are we giving Gayatri's viewpoints such weight? Why are we even using him as a reference?

Let's find some agreement on what references are actually suitable and how much weight they should be given. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Kapalbhati and Bhastrika owing to their high velocity are condemned by the Vedas, as pointed by Gayatri. Her article in the leading newspaper daily of India deserves due weightage. Wikieditor1008 (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You like it, but that's not relevant when simply personal opinion without any basis in policy. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Its a warning. A caution against ill practice of kapalbhati and bhastrika. Apparently, people have died doing reckless practice of kapalbhati.

I don't think it was Gayatri's "viewpoint" that the section in question was weighting. Her article is a summary of a number of viewpoints from medical sources such as the Asian Heart Institute and Yoga authorities such as B.K.S. Iyengar. It includes a discussion of the possible benefits of Kapalbhati if practiced correctly under strict supervision, and a response from Patanjali Yogpeeth to the criticism .

At the moment 'Kapalbhati' is not the first subsection: it isn't there at all. It doesn't have to be the first subsection, it could just as well be the last, or moved to a less 'controversial' section if someone creates one.

Re your first question, it seems to me that it is important information about a health issue, particularly in relation to people with heart issues. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't see why Gayatri's viewpoints deserve any mention. The ref appears to be an opinion piece, that should not be used in a BLP at all.

Health issues fall under WP:MEDRS. There are no MEDRS sources here at all.

We apparently have yoga experts who disagree with each other, and almost nothing from the subject of this article. That's a huge problem. I suggest working on the details and debate about Kapalbhati in Kapalabhati. --Hipal (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Gayatri's "viewpoints" are not mentioned, so whether or not they "deserve" to be mentioned is irrelevant. The ref is not merely personal opinion: it is a summary, in a major newspaper, of criticisms made from a number of sources, including some that certainly "deserve" to be at least reported. Note that the criticisms do not relate to kapalbhati/bhastrika per se, but to Ramdev's unchecked promotion of it as a cure-all and as being particularly beneficial for people with heart conditions. Using a number of sources, not just Gayatri's article, the wp section mentions these reservations about unchecked promotion and practice of kapalbhati. It includes a summary of Ramdev's claims for kapalbhati, as reported by the television station he broadcasts on. Further response to the criticism, from Ramdev or Patanjali Yogpeeth, could also be included. There is some in Gayatri's article, but you might not want to use that... Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm insisting we find consensus on whether the Gayatri article meets BLP-quality. As far as I can tell, it's an opinion piece from someone that is not a professional journalist. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's an opinion piece in the sense that she reports opinions about Kapalbhati from a wide range of people, including heart specialists and internationally revered yoga teachers, not to mention those of Patanjali Yogpeeth itself. And Gayatri is indeed a professional journalist.[9] Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So she's a freelance writer and author, correct? --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? As far as I can tell, she is a professional journalist and author. I believe she used to be a reporter for the Times of India. Like a lot of authors and journalists she has no doubt done some freelancing. Her article reports the views of a variety of people, including cardiologists and respected yoga teachers, and a response from Ramdev's organisation. You said "it's an opinion piece from someone that is not a professional journalist". That's wrong on both counts, so is there any reason we can't use it? Harold the Sheep (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This is BLP. Don't misrepresent the situation, nor make this into a battleground. After I thanked you for the link to the information on her I wrote So she's a freelance writer and author, correct?. That's my current assessment of the author.

In general, as freelance work, it's not as reliable nor important than if it had been published by a staff writer.

The very heavy use of this reference is problematic. The fact that it's over a decade old makes it questionable if it should be used at all. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You have repeatedly suggested, contrary to the facts, that this article is just the opinions of someone who isn't a professional journalist, so telling others not to misrepresent the situation is not a good idea. In this case, I think BLP would be more concerned about the quality of the source, it's author and the nature of its content, than about the specific issue of whether or not the author was a staff writer at the time. You call it "very heavy use of this reference", but most of the 4 brief uses of it could be exchanged for other references above, as they are covering the same issues. Would this change anything? Or the Gayatri source could be removed altogether, although I cannot understand why you are so opposed to it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot focus on my current perspective, then you are misrepresenting the situation. Stop it.

I'm opposed to it because it appears to be low quality. If it can be replaced by others, identify them or propose a rewrite based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you haven't actually read the references, including Gayatri. If you had, you would know what I'm talking about. And it's getting a little hard to keep track of your rather obscure and transient "current perspectives", so you must forgive me if I inadvertently fail to "stop it."

You implied above, multiple times, that the article is low quality because it is an opinion piece written by someone who isn't a professional journalist. If that is no longer a part of your "current perspective", you haven't said so. But the fact that it turns out that you have (unintentionally of course) misrepresented the situation is surely relevant, according to your own logic, to the question of whether or not the source is "low quality". So I ask (not unreasonably IMHO) that you take that into consideration.

My own "current perspective", which has remained the same since I first described the article to you on August 12, is that it contains potentially invaluable information for people who think Kapalbhati is going to cure their heart problems and indeed all other diseases that they might happen to contract. Cardiologists and renowned yoga teachers questioning such a claim, pointing out the potential dangers of it, and a journalist reporting on it, is not surprizing and not a matter to be casually dismissed. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems you are unable to work collaboratively with others as required. Arbitration enforcement applies to this article to address exactly such problems. Please reassess your approach. --Hipal (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And with that vacuous response I fear the discussion has attained a truly vogonesque level of bureaucratic pointlessness. I'll leave you to it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are withdrawing from the dispute, then thank you. --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The references are refering to Ramdev misleading people into doing kapalbhati as a cure-all. In fact, he is known to to encourage fast paced breathing exercises to youth and kids. Iyenger was not the only yoga expert to express disappointment with Ramdev's yoga credential after he failed to continue a liquid fast for a week. Finally, lets not forget he was caught dressed as a woman and had recently commented that nobody's dad can arrest him (ramdev).

The government will take the due course. It seems only then the Wikipedia editor's will take the ongoing damage caused by Ramdev's controversial practice of kapalbhati and bhastrika (with its root in Nath, Vajrayan Buddhism and Tantra). Wikieditor1008 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources

There's a 2016 NYTimes article that might be useful for sourcing here, Balkrishna and Patanjali, and probably others where required.

References

— DaxServer (talk to me) 07:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Vaccination

How about this? Ramdev: India’s most famous yoga guru to take Covid vaccine after berating doctors and modern medicine in The Independent vom 11 Juni 2021.--Kyopy (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Claim of businessman?

Most of the stake of Patanjali is with Balkrishna, Ramdev doesn't have any stake in Patanjali, do we still consider him as businessman? Amitized (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the subject as a businessman, an entrepreneur, or both. Cedar777 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth

It appears the subject's date of birth is not consistently represented by sources as stated here. The book Gurus of Modern Yoga published in 2014 by Oxford University Press[10] lists the year of birth as 1975. The later birthdate of 1975 also appears to be supported by the ages listed for his older and younger brothers.

• Younger Brother: Ram Bharat listed as 38 in this article from 2016 (putting his birth year at approximately 1977)
• Older Brother: Devdutt listed as 48 in this article from 2017 (putting his birth year at approximately 1969)

Ramdev would be the oldest if born in 1965 as some sources claim, whereas if born in 1975, this would fit him into the correct order between his siblings per several sources. Cedar777 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

The NPOV tag has been up since May 2021. There are some subsections that could use reliable sources, but I wonder what else can be done to the article (e.g., improve the structure and/or balance) to remove the NPOV tag? JetGreen40 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed any unsourced language and added some reliables sources throughout the article consistent with WP:RSP. The article has better balance now as well. I'm open to discussing any further changes that may be needed to remove the NPOV tag. JetGreen40 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work.

I've not been able to keep track of all that's been done since I added the tag. The relevant talk page discussions begin at Talk:Ramdev/Archive_1#References_to_"Swami".

I'm not sure the lede has been expanded enough since that tag was added [11].

Are we mentioning all areas/events for which he's notable? --Hipal (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and sharing the archived discussions. I removed the tag related to the lead after adding language about his influence and political activities. In regards to mentioning all the notable events, I'm happy to restore that tag if it makes sense to add any other events from the article. I recently mentioned his comments about medicine and yoga. JetGreen40 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a start, though maybe too generic. Given the article structure and how well known he is, it's not clear what should be added. I don't have the time to search through the refs to determine what has lasting notability vs just passing mention at the time of an event. --Hipal (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• The controversy section could probably be merged in other sections. Ramdev#Labour_law_violations_and_animal_contents seems to be about his organization and not BLP content. Ramdev#Rajiv_Dixit died of a heart attack and current text seems to imply the article subject had a role in it. Probably need to go through the cpntroversy section and if not high quality on WP:RSP then content needs to go. Every trivial and controversial comment doesnt get added to wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Jtbobwaysf,

  I agree. It's obvious that this article will need some major work to improve it. I'd love for you to help out if you have the bandwidth! RealPharmer3 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Kapalbhati rewrite

I'm not sure what to make of the recent rewrite from:

Medical concerns have been raised about Ramdev's promotion of Kapalbhati as a "cure-all". Ramdev made controversial claims that, "the problem of heart blockage can be overcome by doing Kapalbhati daily in the morning and evening," and that the practice of pranayamas, including kapalbhati, regulates blood pressure, cures heart related problems, and eradicates all communicable and non-communicable diseases. On the contrary, cardiologists repeatedly cautioned patients with heart disease and high blood pressure against practicing kapalbhati and bhastrika since they can exacerbate the problem. The Asian Heart Institute (AHI) found a correlation between heart ailments and certain types of Kapalbhati practice. Kapalbhati can also be dangerous for people suffering from a hernia.

B.K.S. Iyengar has criticised Ramdev for corrupting Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga with the promotion of programmes like kapalbhati. According to Iyengar, the Yog Sutras of Patanjali do not mention Kapalbhati or Bhastrika. He warns about the dangers of Ramdev "selling Kapalbhati" as "a shortcut" in the "TV-yoga craze". Other Yoga experts have warned that reckless practice of Kapalbhati can make a person seriously ill.

References

to:

While conducting an independent study, the Asian Heart Institute (AHI) found that 31 cases of cardiac arrest were linked to reckless practice of kapalbhati. Kapalbhati can also be dangerous for people suffering from a hernia. According to Iyengar, the Yog Sutras of Patanjali do not mention Kapalbhati or Bhastrika. He warns about the dangers of Ramdev "selling Kapalbhati" as "a shortcut" in the "TV-yoga craze". Other Yoga experts have warned that reckless practice of Kapalbhati can make a person seriously ill.

References

I'm unclear if there's any improvement in references, only a change in pov. --Hipal (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page history and editing history, the required consensus for inclusion of any of the information was never achieved. --Hipal (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Hipal,

I saw that many of my edits to the article were reverted, and I would like to discuss them. Let me begin with saying, I have no objection to having content that may be unpopular for the subject in the article, but as this is a BLP, it's important to abide by the strict guidelines in place for these types of articles. I've made many edits in the controversy section, beginning with inputting a tag into the article - because i dont believe a controversy section is needed for a living person, we should try to integrate as much content as we can within the article without creating a new section for it.

Now I can explain my rationale for why I have made specific edits on the article, and I am all ears for your opinion. There is a lot to unpack and discuss, so I'll go sentence by sentence.

1. Medical concerns have been raised about Ramdev's promotion of Kapalbhati as a "cure-all". Ramdev made controversial claims that, "the problem of heart blockage can be overcome by doing Kapalbhati daily in the morning and evening," and that the practice of pranayamas, including kapalbhati, regulates blood pressure, cures heart related problems, and eradicates all communicable and non-communicable diseases

First, if we take a look at these two sentences that I removed from the Kapalbhati section - they are sourced from IndiaTVNews. This is not regarded as a high-quality secondary source in any regard. If claims are going be made about the subject, they should not rely on a low-quality source. WP:BLPRS WP:RSPSS

Additionally, in this reporting, the source was used in the Wikipedia article, but the editor is synthesizing its meaning - Wikipedia has a policy against performing original research (WP:NOR). Additionally, the editor simply copy and pasted, "the problem of heart blockage can be overcome by doing Kapalbhati daily in the morning and evening", which was written by the author of the IndiaTVNews article but, does not show to be an actual quote from Ramdev and again, comes from a low-quality source.

2. On the contrary, cardiologists repeatedly cautioned patients with heart disease and high blood pressure against practicing kapalbhati and bhastrika since they can exacerbate the problem.

This sentence is cited with an article from telegraph which has nothing to do with Ramdev and is simply a doctors opinion on the type yoga. In the telegraph, Dr. Kumar writes "patients with heart disease and high blood pressure should avoid practising kapalbhati and bhastrika pranayama. If practising kapalbhati, exhalation should be gentle." This quote is not at all the same as what was written in Wikipedia. And in the second source by Times of India it states, "Kapalbhati, bhastrika pranayama is prohibited for people suffering from heart disease, high blood pressure or hernia. For kapalbhati, exhalation must be gentle for beginners, do not use excessive force." The source does not mention of Ramdev in the article and also has nothing to do with him. Editors are synthesizing information (WP:NOR) and including it in an article about someone who teaches the specific type of yoga as opposition.

3. The Asian Heart Institute (AHI) found a correlation between heart ailments and certain types of Kapalbhati practice.

I removed this because the editor is making a medical claim without the appropriate medical evidence, so technically, this information shouldn't be included at all- please refer to WP:MEDPOP. Additionally, the Mint article says that 31 cases of cardiac arrest were linked to reckless kapalbhati. But, that is also not what was written in the Wikipedia article. The article speaks of a correlation between the kapalbhati practice and cardiac arrest, but it is not clear if a statistically significant correlation has been identified.

4. B.K.S. Iyengar has criticised Ramdev for corrupting Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga with the promotion of programmes like kapalbhati.

Lastly, I removed this sentence because the Times of India article that this is cited with does not state this. Lyengar made comments about his opinion on the kapalbhati but the article clearly states that,"He said this without naming Ramdev".

So overall, I saw a lot of discrepancies in the article and I think a lot of work is necessary to address it. I am open to working with you and other editors to bring high-quality and factual information to the article - so please let me know your thoughts and we can discuss! RealPharmer3 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Short answer: Best if it stays out per the previous discussions.

Longer answer: I'm extremely concerned that the version you created whitewashed most if not all information relevant to this article. Comparing the before vs after references easily seen above seems to show that the quality of the references was severely reduced in the process.--Hipal (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal,

I am open to hearing your thoughts on the points that I have raised. I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean and I feel that we wont be able to have a constructive discussion if we cant specifically discuss what you disagree with.

I am not whitewashing the article. I believe that all editors have the freedom to add whatever they deem fitting to the article, whether it be negative or positive, but it should be sourced appropriately. Please refer to WP:NOT, and specifically WP:SOAPBOX which clearly explains, "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Also, WP:FORUM explains that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - which I am also trying to clean up within this article.

If you can find properly sourced content for the article, then the content can be considered. Any disparaging claims on a WP:BLP must be properly sourced, and dubious sources which are not WP:RS for BLP's are not appropriate. If you have some high-quality secondary sources, please feel free to add them and we can discuss them. If there are no high-quality sources, then the content is WP:UNDUE on a BLP.

Lastly, because I feel we have not reached a consensus, it would be helpful to get a few opinions from other editors. @Jtbobwaysf if you have the time and bandwidth, would you mind taking a look at this discussion and giving an opinion on the topic at hand? Also, @Valjean and @JetGreen40, I have seen that you both of you have shown interest in the article so opening the floor up to you both as well to hear your thoughts. I have given my justification (above) for why I made specific edits! Again, I am very open to understanding everyones opinions and reaching a consensus that will improve the article. Thanks. RealPharmer3 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

My comment was brief and to the point. I don't believe you understood. Best start with the references. --Hipal (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have any issues with the language that @RealPharmer3 removed or edited, especially considering that it wasn’t reliable or entirely relevant and is consistent with WP:BLPREMOVE. However, I also see where @Hipal is coming from. The rewrite doesn’t leave a strong enough connection to Ramdev and nor does it contain any high-quality sources.

As for ideas on how to move forward, does it make sense to incorporate a sentence or two about Kapalbhati in another area of the article (e.g., television) if someone finds a reliable source that meets WP:RSP? I personally couldn’t find any sources that are worthy of including, but if anyone else finds one then we could merge it into another section as @Jtbobwaysf alluded to more generally in the section above. JetGreen40 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I broke my arm, gonna have sit this one out. Please add my weight to valjeans comments, if he choose to chime in. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Birth year

• Talk:Ramdev/Archive_1#Birth_date
• Talk:Ramdev/Archive_1#Birth_date_still_not_sourced
• Talk:Ramdev/Archive_1#Can_birth_date_be_verified?
• Talk:Ramdev/Archive_1#Birth_date_2
• Talk:Ramdev/Archive_1#Date_of_birth

I'm not seeing any references that clear up the confusion, but we do have a reference that states that Ramdev would not give an answer when asked. Per WP:DOB we should include all years for which we have reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal,

Thank you for providing this. RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)