Talk:Ramdev

Grammar and general quality
The grammar for most of this article is atrocious. I'm trying to proofread it, albeit slowly, but every time I come back to the article I find poorly-written additions. Besides mechanistic issues, many claims are non-neutral, unsourced statements about Ramdev. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected to encourage editors to put a little more thought and work into their changes -- does anyone have thoughts on this? Morrowulf (talk) 4 July 2011 (EST)

Looking for consensus
Hello all,

Looking for discussion on two subsections within the controversies section of this article, I dont think they provide anything beneficial to the article.


 * 1) Rajiv Dixit subsection - I previously tried to clean this subsection up, but after thinking about its role in the page, its clear that this section offers a dispropriate space for a viewpoint of a small minority, and shouldn't be included in this article (please refer to WP:BLPBALANCE). The topic is given undue weight because this section presents an allegation made by a small minority as if it is an idea held by a larger group of people, please refer to WP:WEIGHT.
 * 2) Biography subsection - Is there evidence that he called for the halt in selling this? It's unclear to me how much of the information that is written currently in this section actually pertains to his involvement with it..

Open to thoughts, thanks :) RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re Rajiv Dixit: NYTimes is a "viewpoint of a small minority"?
 * Re Biography: Without searching RSN and POVN for discussions about the references, I'm wondering if it the section should be included. --Hipal (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Hipal,
 * Rajiv Dixit: Well, the NYTimes article says, "Some of his friends believe that Ramdev resented Dixit’s own rising celebrity, and they publicly speculated about foul play. But the cardiac arrest was cited as the cause of death, and Ramdev has dismissed efforts to implicate him as a conspiracy by his political enemies." This information was published in the Times (not as its own article, only a couple sentences to mention it), and it clearly says that only a few held this opinion, so is there merit? Also, I don't believe there was enough evidence of his involvement in Dixit's death for further investigation either.
 * Biography: I dont think this section should be kept, please let me know if you also agree. RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes thought it worth including. We probably should as well. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)