Talk:Ramdev

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article name should be baba ramdev

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)

Article name must remain Swami Ramdev

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)

Article must be renamed as Ramdev

Please remove 'Swami' from the name--202.164.159.178 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dying person

Please remove this from category of living person to dying person [[3]]