Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 13 July 2024

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajiv Dixit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Request changes on 15th-June '13: Criticisms

No criticism found against him in the net.

Objectivity

From the previous edits and existing state of the page, there seems to be a lack of objectivity. The page in its current state does not act as an entry in an encyclopaedia should. Lorcanopolo (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Activist vs conspiracy theorist

I have reverted the article to the April 27 2024 version last edited by DaxServer since the newer version that labelled the subject a "conspiracy theorist" and called his educational qualifications fraudulent (all in[REDACTED] voice) was very poorly sourced to an opinion column in Swarajya (magazine) that I cannot link to because the publication is on the spam-blacklist; a blog; and two deadlinks that I could not access to evaluate.

I noticed that the article has repeatedly been reverted between versions calling Rajiv Dixit either an activist or a conspiracy theorist with no attempts discuss the issue on the talkpage and to possibly present the conflicting views neutrally. So I'm starting this section to stop this slow edit-war.

Pinging admin @IvanVector: to check if page-protection or any WP:ARBIPA page-restrictions are needed, now or as this discussion proceeds. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As suggested by others, you should have checked the older version of this page and you will know that it reflected the version you have reverted. This article has always experienced whitewashing as also observed by Sitush as early as 2016.

Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, was a conspiracy theorist and his degrees were found to be fraudulent. You can check these sources: One of these sources confirm that he also claimed 9/11 was an inside job.

You can see that if this person ever gained significant coverage, then it was all because of the disinformation he spread, or the coverage is about his death. There has been no other reason for reliable sources to provide him coverage for anything else. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive links. I have no issues with including criticism of the subject as long as it is reliably sourced and expressed in encyclopedic terms. Quick notes on the sources:

• The Boomlive article is fine but it mainly focuses on the language of the tweet by Balakrishna that had Dixit's video embedded in it, and does not get into what the video actually said, which is what would be relevant to this article.
• The FirstPost articles are written in polemical terms but should be okay as long as we are careful to use them only to qualify or debunk claims made by Dixit and not those by third parties (such as wikipedia, krantikari.org or rajivdixit.net); of course the[REDACTED] article should not replicate the falsified claims made by those third parties but afaict the current version is not doing that.
• There is no indication reading either the About us section of the author's profile that .thelallantop.com would qualify as a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes.

So, do you have a specific proposal for what to add based on, say, the Boomlive or Firstpost articles, or any other relevant sources?

PS: Given the (IMO) farfetched claims by Rajiv Dixit in the YouTube video embedded in the FirstPost article, aren't there higher quality sources available that address the subject (and not merely the the claims about his education and research work)? I tried a quick search but "Rajiv Dixit" is too common a name to find anything useful immediately. Those more familiar with the subject may be better positioned to find such sources, if they exist. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The Lallantop is a notable outlet and it deserves its own page which I will create. I don't understand why the article from the FirstPost should be called polemical when it is not certainly possible to write about this subject in a more neutral manner without looking like an affiliate of Sangh Parivar. Today, you cannot expect FirstPost to write these articles because it is now a mouthpiece of ruling BJP. I cannot discover any high-quality sources that have provided coverage to this person. There is no scholarly source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Setting the reliability of The Lallantop aside for the moment, what would we even wish to cite this article for? (honest, not rhetorical question). It uncritically regurgitates Dixit's bio incl. the debunked claims about the MTech at IIT etc. and then aggregates many of Dixit's videos with no analytic commentary about the credibility of the claims made in them except for the brief note:

ये दावे राजीव दीक्षित के किए बहुत सारे दावों में से हैं. इनमें से कई दावे विवादास्पद हैं और जवाहरलाल नेहरू से जुड़े दावों समेत कई गलत भी साबित हो चुके हैं. (Trans: "These claims are among the many made by Rajiv dixit. Many of these are controversial and many, including the ones related to Jawaharlal Nehru, have been proven wrong.)

which I guess can be cited to supplement the second article in FirstPost The only original reporting in the Lallantop piece is the material about the various website created after the subject's death that claim to speak on his behalf but should be treated skeptically. This is useful for us editors to know but perhaps not something we need to mention in the[REDACTED] article itself.

So should we move to crafting language about what and how to summarize what these sources say? Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We can start off by turning this entire article into a stub and mention nothing more than the subject being an opponent of modern medicines and spreading disinformation. That would work for now. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a rewrite (ideally started in userspace) but I don't find it useful to weaponize[REDACTED] bios to label a subject rather than provide (properly sourced) information to the reader that explains why those labels may be applicable. Lets not treat this as an WP:RGW effort. Abecedare (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I will now read the new sources which you have provided then see what can be added here.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have seen your new sources and they are not in conflict with the information that I am suggesting. If not "conspiracy theorist", there is still a need to highlight this subject's tendency of spreading disinformation. See the first paragraphs of Mike Enoch, Alex Jones, David Duke, Graham Phillips for getting the idea. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article should at least mention the false biographical claims and the claims about Nehru, for which we have sources. Is it okay with you if I use the sources listed here to develop the article on my own over the next few days (I plan to mainly work on the body rather than the lede to start with)? Then we can discuss any differences of opinions we may have and finalize the lede. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

He generally spread disinformation, and it was not just about Nehru but also about Tagore and others. That's why a blanket statement about him spreading disinformation needs to be there on the first paragraph of the lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If you come across any other fact checks like the Tagore one, please add them here and I'll try to incorporate them when working on the article body (w/o making it too list-y). And then we can decide how exactly the lede should be worded to make it a fair summary of the article/sources. Abecedare (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted for the same reasons given at the beginning of this discussion: the references look very poor, and the use of Misplaced Pages's voice seems inappropriate. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that these sources are unreliable? Your generic response is totally unacceptable especially in the light of the extended discussion already happened above. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been busy with other on/off wiki activities and haven't paid attention to the recent edits to this article. I do intend to get back to it later this week to incorporate the material/sources listed recently (hopefully) in neutral and encyclopedic terms. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, where's your evidence? I suggest picking one reference to start.

Given you did a full revert, are you able to justify all changes? I don't expect you are, given that there's unexplained blanking, if not vandalism. Given that, I have reverted to what appears to be a stable version. If need be we can take it sentence by sentence, ref by ref, for anything you want to include, and see what is actually appropriate for this encyclopedia article. Replacing content will require additional discussion, where we will need to weigh the strength of sources that have opposing viewpoints and information, before we can decide what should be included/emphasized.

Starting with the lede:

Proposed: "who promoted Ayurveda, opposed modern medicine and was notable for spreading disinformation."

Stable: "who promoted Ayurveda and opposed modern medicine and opposed multi-national corporations and promotes swadeshi culture." (dates to Aug 2022 , added by @Malaiya:)

What sources support the different versions? --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING will not work. You haven't explained how any of the newly added sources are unreliable and why we should preserve a whitewashed version that completely ditches the facts for which this subject is actually known for. Your misuse of the word "vandalism" is also apparent. Consider familiarizing yourself with WP:NOTVAND. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Please retract your comments about vandalism, as they misrepresent what I wrote, and ignore the problems in the editing like and . --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hipal I find it illogical of you to claim that you restored a "stable" version despite the new edit war started only after you reverted the new version. I also don't like how you are selectively canvassing an editor. Orientls (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I see many editors (DaxServer, SpacemanSpiff, Ivanvector, and myself) generally agreeing with what the stable version is. You two disagree, which is why we're discussing it. --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Best WP:FOC.

I offered a way forward. Looks like we need to protect the article. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I have protected the article for 2 days. This is my standard warning that if the edit warring continues after protection expires I will block the edit warriors instead. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

Maybe we start with minor changes rather than the lede?

• Alma mater: "Indian Institute Of Technology". I'm not seeing obvious verification of this. Any problem with removing it?
• Location of death: Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. This seems fine. Anyone disagree? --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING and wasting our time instead of addressing your false claims about vandalism and the sources being unreliable since you started edit war by citing these misleading reasons. Orientls agrees with my version but so far nobody else is supporting your version. our stonewalling by talking about non-issue tidbits on infobox in order to distract from the critical information which you removed will not work. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have chosen to not focus on content and policy as is required. Continuing to disrupt good faith attempts to resolve the dispute and create consensus may result in your being blocked or banned. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You should better be concerned about it since you are the only person obstructing any improvements to this article. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: make that your last comment attacking an editor on this page, unless you want it to be your last comment period. There clearly is no consensus regarding whether or not to include this material, judging by the edit-warring now going back many years, and first-mover advantage is not consensus. If you're not here to discuss improvements to the article but only attack anyone who disagrees with your opinion, please go do something else. The only one I see refusing to discuss is you. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I never made any personal attacks and you are misunderstanding the entire dispute. Whenever sourced content is removed, then it is responsibility of the person to explain their edits per WP:REVEXP. That wasn't done here even after repeated calls. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have rewritten the article as per the sources discussed above (and a few that were already in the article). There are sure to be some typos, which I'll try to fix when I read it afresh in a day or so; or your are most welcome to fix them! If there are any substantive comments or objections, I would appreciate them being raised here first so that I have the opportunity to explain the particular editorial choice(s) I made. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That was a bit inappropriate to do in general, especially so in one big edit that makes it extremely difficult to see what you did and why. Can you undo it, and break it up section by section at a minimum, paragraph by paragraph if anything might be unclear. Use descriptive edit summaries too. --Hipal (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: I understand that the diff of the changes would be essentially impossible to follow but since this is pretty short article just reading the prior version and then the rewritten version shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The main difference is of course, the sourcing quality with the rewrite mainly relying on books and scholarship rather than newspaper articles. (Btw, I didn't intend to spring this rewrite as a surprise and did announce my intentions twice earlier). Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

New version looks good. Now that information about him pioneering the trend of disinformation needs to be restored and should be also mentioned on the lead because that's how he is largely known. The cited source verifies the information especially on 2nd paragraph. Orientls (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orientls: Lets hold off on that discussion til Hipal et al have had time to weigh in on the rewrite itself. Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the current dispute and history of disputes, the rewrite might look like WP:OWN by editors with differing viewpoints, rather than an attempt at collaboration. I'll revert it, then someone please take the time to restore any or all of it piece by piece so anyone can easily review what's been done.

Best leave the lede to the end, and change it sentence by sentence.

We should take a very close look at all sources in light of WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

I've started with some of the easier parts. --Hipal (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, I am glad to see you point to WP:NEWSORGINDIA since I wrote it. :)

I'll let you finish with your recent cleanup efforts, which I support, before chiming in further. If you need access to relevant quotes from any of the references listed below, just let me know. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to do much more before next week.

The Dwivedi(2017) reference looks questionable. I'm using Google translate, but what I'm seeing looks like a very amateur "investigation". I don't think it should be used at all. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, you can my read my own review of that and related sources in this and subsequent comments above but, as I remarked to Orientls, perhaps we can table the "disinformation" part of the discussion til you (and others) have had a chance to review the rest of the current article/rewrite. Abecedare (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: You are citing WP:OWN but ironically you are yourself engaging in page ownership. You yourself approved the use of a 2017 FirstPost article but here when discussion concerned about him pioneering the trend of disinformation, you have blindly termed it as "very amatuer" without proving the source to be misleading or unreliable. By making mass reverts and then saying "I doubt I'll be able to do much more before next week" is a clear-cut example of WP:GAMING. Given your edit warring against any critical content, you are clearly trying to treat this subject as some accomplished academic when he was not one. He is known for spreading disinformation and it is a totally undisputed fact. Why don't you show your sources to refute this fact? Orientls (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources

Listing some additional sources that may be useful in further developing the article:

• Kanungo, Pralay (2018). "Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Politics". In Ahmad, Irfan; Kanungo, Pralay (eds.). The Algebra of Warfare-Welfare: A Long View of India’s 2014 Election. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-909753-1.
• Pathak-Narain, Priyanka (2017). Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev. Juggernaut. ISBN 978-93-86228-38-3.
• Khalikova, Venera R. (2017). "The Ayurveda of Baba Ramdev: Biomoral Consumerism, National Duty and the Biopolitics of 'Homegrown' Medicine in India". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 40 (1): 105–122. doi:10.1080/00856401.2017.1266987.

Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Deka, Kaushik (2017). "The political animal". The Baba Ramdev Phenomenon: From Moksha to Market. Rupa. ISBN 978-81-291-4637-3.
• I also found the following book but there are hints that it is self-published, and since it didn't contain anything not supported (or in one case, contradicted) by better sources, I have not cited it in the article itself:

  Kang, Bhavdeep (2016). Gurus: stories of India's leading Babas. Chennai: Westland Ltd. ISBN 9789385152917.

Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• India articles needing attention
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles