Talk:Swami Ramdev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

==Swami Ramdev==

Just by taking a look at the article, one can tell that there are gross stylistic errors, and an uncyclopedic tone. As I am unfamiliar with the swami world, I'm sending it to the Cleanup Taskforce to inspect and improve it. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Added to User:Nonstopdrivel/Desk Ekantik ^talk 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC) It seems that this page on Swami Ramdev has been edited by Leftist bodies.I strongly object to their false propoganda regarding Swami Ramdev.Indeed his Pranayama techniques have brought relief to thousands of people including me.

[edit] Re-write

I have attempted a major re-write of the article. Peer Reviews are invited. -Mayuresh 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

jhdwvcjkdebvcdeghfcjswbwvkwdghvcnwdmgfdwb cndwgmndw

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Re-write

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

[edit] Npov 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".

...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'.

[edit] Date of birth

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)

[edit] 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*****

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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);

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Major Contributors

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] UNO

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

[edit] Clarifications on the latest edit

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.
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.
The laboratory report from Indian Health Ministry is genuine. Relevant reference is sited in the article itself.
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)

[edit] 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:

Legendry? It is an unnecessary superlative unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Controversial may be a better word. But I desist from using it.
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.
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)

[edit] Does Wikipedia require unsourced and propaganda materials?

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."

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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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.Baka man 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

Talk:Swami Ramdev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re-write

[edit] Re-write

[edit] Npov and sources required

[edit] Date of birth

[edit] Copyright Violation

[edit] Copyright Violation Continued

[edit] divya yoga link

[edit] THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

[edit] SOME OBSERVATIONS ON COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

[edit] Major Contributors

[edit] Picture

[edit] UNO

[edit] Clarifications on the latest edit

[edit] Do we need superlatives?

[edit] Does Wikipedia require unsourced and propaganda materials?

[edit] Swami ramdev, LETS FIND TRUTH

[edit] Last edit related to user Hornplease

[edit] For user Hornplease on references

[edit] Revert last deletion

[edit] User Hornplease

[edit] User Arunayurved

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search