Jump to content

Talk:Patanjali Ayurved

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patanjali Ayurved. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent major expansion of the article

[edit]

I spent a fair amount of time expanding this article, using multiple reliable sources (archives of The Hindu, The Times of India, and so on) only to have the edits reverted without actual review on the grounds that they were "too large" and "seemed suspicious". I'm not interested in starting an edit war, or indeed in investigating why these edits should have been reverted based on someone's feelings about them, rather than on the actual content - but anyone who wants to work on the article further is welcome to use the list of sources and details that I spent a substantial amount of time culling out. --Naushervan (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal:, please could you give some examples of questionable content in the edits. TSventon (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that anyone who felt the edits were too long to review is unlikely to have actually reviewed them in any detail, as indicated by the vague response below. --Naushervan (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:FOC and WP:TALK. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said "extremely questionable". Potentially actionable under WP:GS and WP:AC/DS, turning the article towards WP:ATTACK.
There is definitely BLP information in there, so the burden is on those seeking inclusion.
Pick any portion and we can discuss it. Note that basically I think the edits got worse and worse over time. I wasn't too concerned with the first edit, but the BLP problems and other problems got worse with each edits.
You're asking for examples when there was a section titled "Political support and allegations of crony capitalism"?! --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how BLP is being invoked for documented litigation against a corporation? Additionally, any criminal cases cited are also publicly documented and relate to company officials doing company business. Finally, the section titled "allegations of crony capitalism" - had you read the article and seen the (reliable) sources cited, you would realised that the allegations are being raised in response to the company itself issuing public statements describing criticism of their products as being politically motivated. Since this is something that newspapers reporting on corporate affairs see fit document and quote from the company's own statements, I'm not sure where you come from. I do note that you say "pick any portion and we can discuss it." As someone who removed edits that have actual sources, I think the onus is on you to do that. I've provided reliable sources for everything I've included. All you've indicated is you disagree. To the best of my knowledge this is still an encyclopedia and not a collection of things Hipal feels okay about. --Naushervan (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The removed section that I identified by section title began, Ramdev has been closely linked with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party prior to the establishment of Patanjali, with the RSS holding events at Ramdev's Yoga institute, the Patanjali Yogpeeth, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi frequently featuring Ramdev as a guest at public speeches. That's BLP info, correct? --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naushervan, a 20kb edit is a little much to parse; I suggest you implement the non-controversial pieces of that in smaller chunks, and bring the rest here for discussion. Also, a section title like "allegations of crony capitalism" is usually inadvisable, regardless of the content. Hipal, the content you point may be covered by BLP, but the only content you have highlighted here isn't controversial at all; more specific responses would be helpful, once Naushervan has explained what they wish to add. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the section title being problematic.
We agree that BLP applies.
I agree that Naushervan may want to try to restore non-controversial information in small chunks, then we can work from there.
I believe it inappropriate to start a section with the information I quoted above, regardless of what the section title may be.
I'm happy to address specific questions. --Hipal (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. I would like to point out that including information about Ramdev's links with BJP and RSS is not something that I did for my own entertainment, or on the basis of random allegations, but by because he, the company's CEO and other company officials have released public statements invoking these links as a response to regulatory action against them. When I provide detailed sources for the same, including a reliably sourced quote from Ramdev in which he claims regulatory action against him is being taken because of his company's political associations, I did not realise that in addition to showing the evidence, I had to cater to your feelings about it as well. In sum, the fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue. Again, I'd like to point out that you have not actually engaged with content or sources, but repeatedly stated that you feel the additions are not suited. In my opinion, when a company's product is withdrawn from the market and they provide public statements for the reasons for that withdrawal, you can and should include the information for that. If the company suggests that the reasons are political, I don't see the harm in recording it as long as one isn't taking a stance on the truth of the company's claims - which I did not, by limiting myself to quoting them and sourcing it - but according to you, this is BLP. Despite the same reason being provided occurs five times, by the company itself, for five different products, and being adequately sourced, according to you, including that information is not reliable. It honestly seems to me that you are confusing your own feelings about the information with what is controversial - if you can show me that the sources I provided are unreliable, or that they did not say what I said they did in fact say, then it would be different, but you're not doing that. Finally, when extensive literature on Patanjali's expansion notes that it has benefited from disproportionate regulatory enforcement,to have a section documenting those instances doesn't seem incorrect. To sum up, nothing you have said here, following the reverts, indicates to me that you are acting in good faith, so I'm disengaging from this article, and from you. Please don't tag any further. --Naushervan (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disengaging from this article Thank you. I'd hoped we could fold back in some of those edits, but if you cannot collaborate with others, then this may be the best alternative. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why discussing Ramdev's relationship (or lack thereof) with Modi is inappropriate, when that information is reliably sourced? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As BLP info, please explain why it is not.
I already pointed out that sanctions apply, and much of these edits look like attempts to attack the company and the individuals involved.
Starting a section by focusing on the individuals seems grossly inappropriate. --Hipal (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange interpretation of BLP. I'm not saying the content belongs there; that's a matter for discussion here. You are saying that BLP prohibits it completely, and therefore you need to justify that rather extraordinary claim, because further discussion of that content isn't necessary if it is prohibited by BLP (which it isn't). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying at all. Please avoid assumptions and conclusions that might represent others.
How about you make a case for the inclusion of something? --Hipal (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking to expand the article; I'm simply telling you that your argument against some of the proposed content is quite invalid. If you don't want to substantiate it further, that's fine by me. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you know my arguments at this point. We agreed on the basics of how to resolve this dispute, yet no one has taken up doing the work to do so. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Biodiversity Resources

[edit]

This was added [1] without explanation. I'm guessing that auto-translate was used on legalese. It's not apparant how to salvage it: --Hipal (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The access to biodiversity resources and befit sharing raised in Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India.[1] The moot question was whether An Indian company having no foreign participation in terms of shareholding and management is mandated to Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) of biological resources or fair and equitable benefit sharing (FEBS) with local communities under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.[2] The Uttarakhand High Court in the Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India held that all Indian companies which are extracting biological resources are liable to seek prior approval as well as share part of their revenue with indigenous and local communities having traditional knowledge.[3]

References

  1. ^ Nomani, Z.M. (2020). "Case Comment: Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India". Biotechnology Law Report. 39(2): 122–128.
  2. ^ Nomani, M.Z.M. (2019). "The Access and Benefit-Sharing Regime: An Environmental Justice Perspective". Environmental Policy and Law. 49(4/5): 259–263.
  3. ^ 2018 Supreme Court Cases Online Uttarkhand 1035

Which age group is patanjali attributed to?

[edit]

Which age group is patanjali attributed to 2409:4041:2E9B:CE2D:0:0:3408:4501 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

May be useful for updating article:

  • June 11, 2019. Reuters. Dash for growth at yoga guru Baba Ramdev's company Patanjali leads to stumbles [2]

Cedar777 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New source

[edit]

Big new report on this quackery biz: https://marianne.net/monde/asie/les-recettes-de-patanjali-le-geant-pharmaceutique-indien-entre-ayurveda-et-charlatanisme - probably useful here. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patanjali_Ayurved&oldid=1246866400"