Talk:Bikram Choudhury

Analysis of sources is at best footnote material
This is a biography of a living person, not an academic discussion. Analysis of sources is at best footnote material, at worst wholly irrelevant. If there are agreed facts then they can go in the main text; if there are disputed claims, and many of Choudhury's claims are at least that, if not demonstrably false, then we can say so. Thus it's fine to say "Choudhury claimed that he did X,[23] but X did not exist at the time.[24]" If there is useful material in the sources involved, then that material needs to be extracted and stated in plain terms, Choudhury said this, someone else said that. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What you called academic discussion / analysis of the sources, I consider to be the due attribution needed per WP:NPOV of relevant and properly sourced information. Can you please elaborate what part of my edit was an academic discussion or an analysis of the sources and why?
 * I have changed the misleading statement of him not studying at an early age under Ghosh as it seems to have induced some readers like yourself to mistakenly misinterpret that he never studied under Ghosh at all. I assume that that is what caused you to use WP:OR to defend that he based his practice only on Ghosh's writings. No source stated that and also no source stated that he never studied under Ghosh. How would you reword the rest of the information? Do you have any objection to including the fact that most of the time at Ghosh gymnasium his focus was on bodybuilding and massage? any objection in mentioning that he spent only 6 months on learning Asanas and that there were other aspects of his training that he did not have time to finish? If is just a matter of reformatting the information feel free to make a suggestion. Please note that the paragraph starts mentioning both sources as due attribution. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Kindly do not accuse me of OR, it's wholly unjustified: I will not tolerate anything else in that direction. Your recent bit of rewording was fine, if more is needed go on like that. The statements about what he did at the gym are a good idea; of course they show yet more of Choudhury's deceptiveness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am happy to apologize and take back the part about original research. I am not accusing you. I have have come across your work in the past and I know you are a good editor. I was simply justifying and explaining my own edit. I don´t think that your comment "This is a biography of a living person, not an academic discussion. Analysis of sources is at best footnote material, at worst wholly irrelevant" was appropriate and it´s tone along with a previous claim in an edit summary of edit warring frankly surprised me. I know you acted 100% in good faith when you changed my edit back to "based on the writings" even if it was not backed by the references. To me it was clearly a misunderstanding of what the sources and the phrase I changed in this article were saying. That was the only reason for me to clarify the text. In the process I found additional relevant information to improve the article. BTW, I also want to clarify that I have absolutely no interest in defending or attacking the subject of this BLP. It is clear that many of his claims are false, but of course, that does not imply that all that he says has to be false. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bikram teaching.jpg