Talk:Rajiv Dixit

Request changes on 15th-June '13: Criticisms

No criticism found against him in the net.

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 wikipedia 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:[1][2][3][4] 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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[5] and spreading disinformation.[6][7] 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 wikipedia 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.[8] 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 Wikipedia'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 [9], 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 [10] and [11]. --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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_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)

Article rewrite

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[12] 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)

• Hipal and others: To make my earlier rewrite easier to review, see my 15 edits between this and this. In the edit-summary of each, I have explained the change I made and the reasoning. Hopefully, this will make it easier to point out which specific change(s) you or anyone else objects to and we can concentrate the discussion on those bits. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The recent revert of the version by Abecedare is unproductive and unhelpful especially since it is obstructing any improvements to this article. It was clearly possible to make those minor edits to the existing version instead of restoring the problematic one. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent the situation, given the subsequent edits that I made to the article after my previous comments here aimed at improving the article. --Hipal (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Abecedare. That helps a great deal.

The Jansatta ref looks poor. I'd prefer something better, but we may be able to get by with it if we're careful. --Hipal (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The JanSatta article contains information about Dixit's education that we know to be false (to its credit, it hedges the information with a qualifier "दावा किया जाता है कि...", ie, "it is claimed that..."). In the rewrite, I cite Pathaik-Narain instead. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The first change (05:17) removes three refs, which seems fine. Kumaraswamy (2010) is a brief obit, so it should be fine to remove. Narain (2009) briefly mentions Dixit, "Dixit, who had launched the Aazadi Bachao Andolan (save the freedom movement) in early 1990s, has been a campaigner for the protection of Indian industries. " Bist (2004) uses a quote from Dixit and identifies him as "the man behind the Azadi Bachao Andolan (Save Independence Movement)". --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Some addditional notes: Kumaraswamy is a fellow swadeshi activist and the remembrance he wrote (which contains factual errors) cannot be cited except with attribution and only for his personal opinion. Narain is Pathak-Narain, whose 2017 book the rewrite cites extensively. Bisht (2004) piece is fine; just redundant given the availability of better sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

with the stated mission to "counter the onslaught of foreign multinationals and the western culture on Indians, their values, and on the Indian economy in general" should be replaced by a description from an independent, secondary source's analysis. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(sorry, hadn't see your comment earlier) Hipal, as you'll see in the overall rewrite, Dixit's message of swadeshi economics is conveyed in various terms in the lede, in the 1st para of the career section (where the quote from ABA's mission statement, also used by the cited secondary source, is included), and in the Ideology and rhetoric section. Of course, once the initial fisking of the rewrite is done to confirm whether it is preferable to the status quo version, continued improvement of any of these presentations can continue as part of regular editing. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is my version. Tell me if you see any problem and if you see any then consider providing a policy based argument. Orientls (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

[13] Editing in such a way suggests WP:OWN and WP:GAMING, and dismisses all the work that editors have been doing since the article was locked. Thank you for self-reverting. --Hipal (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the 05:21, 13 July 2024 changes, modifying it slightly to better organize the material. We should include a description of Bharat Swabhiman Andolan. --Hipal (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Goof point about adding a gloss about BSA. But IMO it would be preferable to finish the initial review of the rewrite, and reinstating the parts that that there are no fundamental objections to, before we start on further improvements just so that we don't have forking versions that we have to track mentally. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't cause any problems, I'll continue to make minor improvements as we move along, and document anything else. --Hipal (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with 05:50, 13 July 2024 . The refs look much too poor to use for such information. --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Lets address that once the rest of the article is in shape since I believe that will be the crux of the dispute between the various editors involved. Let me know when you have finished your review of the rest of the rewrite; I have only a couple of small suggested changes to the edits you have made, which we should be able to quickly resolve before addressing the "falsehoods" issue. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests for Hipal to describe why he believes those WP:RSs detailing the very common instances of fake news by this person, he hasn't answered. I had also asked him to provide if he has a source which would claim that he didn't spread disinformation, but there is no answer for that either. I have restored the reliably sourced information now. Orientls (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't too helpful IMO. Lets get back to the consensus building process...

I believe Hipal has completed their initial review of the rewrite. I'll post the relatively minor suggestion I have (unrelated to the misinformation bit) in the next 24h, and once we have settled those, I'd suggest opening a discussion/RFC on the falsehood issues. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have notified WP:INB. Per policy, there has to be a serious dispute before starting an RfC which does not exist here. I see only Hipal is removing the paragraph about disinformation despite this subject got most of the coverage because of the disinformation he spread. I asked Hipal weeks ago; "Where is your evidence that these sources are unreliable?" Nothing has been changed since. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Unreliable"? "Poor". There's a difference. We're writing an encyclopedia article here, or at least should be.

See WP:ONUS. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I remember reading this old version by Winged Blades of Godric and didn't really saw any problem. Why the article has been significantly modified to ignore critical facts? Yes this person was a fake news peddler and it cannot be ignored. What is the issue with the FirstPost article? The Quint is a reliable source and The Lallantop is IFCN certified. It is absurd to call them unreliable. Capitals00 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Evidence please. It's unclear if these are just personal opinions.

  There's a difference between "unreliable" and "poor".

  The use of Wikipedia's voice was brought up over a month ago. I agreed with the concern. It apparently remains unchallenged. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Evidence for what? These articles are not "just personal opinions" but well researched articles. I hope you are not really trying to say that all these reliable outlets are simply conspiring against a fake news peddler. Capitals00 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Evidence for your statements: "...critical facts", "...IFCN certified".

I hope you... I've no idea what you mean, but it seems to be straying away from AGF. Please WP:FOC and ask for clarification. --Hipal (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Now there you go. You dispute things without providing any rebuttal. The above discussion proves that. Yes they are "critical facts" supported by the reliable sources and Lallantop is an IFCN certified fact-checker.[14] I am aware of WP:CPUSH thus you need to better address the concern over your editing instead of falsely accusing others of misconduct. Capitals00 (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Please revert and FOC. This is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

First you should describe your reason for this tag bombing.[15] You are yet to do that. Orientls (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your tagging of the content is misleading. Here are the translations[16][17] of the relevant paragraphs from cited the sources. They totally verify the information. Capitals00 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Verification is not the issue. [18] --Hipal (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why don't you describe the issue with these reliable sources? Orientls (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the situation.

The sources don't appear reliable for the specific information. The content appears to present a minority viewpoint deserving little or no coverage. The information should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice without better sources. The information does not belong in the lede without both better sources and broader coverage. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Hipal: Reviewing the differences between my rewrite and your revision, I am fine with almost all the changes. Aside from the misinformation issue, which is best discussed separately, I just have one significant and a few minor suggestions/questions:
  1. (significant) I believe we need to add back the (sourced) phrase , which Ramdev considers to be "an irresponsible, wicked conspiracy" against him. because otherwise the article will be talking about suspicion against Ramdev without presenting his response. This would raise BLP issue (see last sentence of WP:BLPPUBLIC) with regards to Ramdev.
  2. (minor) We can safely remove the Jansatta citation, since unlike what said in this edit summary, even the "thousands of speeches" part is already supported by the cited Pathak-Narain source.
  3. (minor) The current article is tagged with {{Full citations needed}}. Is this still relevant because at least on a quick glance I don't spot which citation needs to be expanded upon.

Once we have the above mentioned issues resolved, we can move onto the "misinformation" discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Re #1 - This article is about Dixit. I'd rather tone down BLP content related to Ramdev, if necessary, than provide a soapbox for such conspiracy mongering.

Re #2 - Are there problems with the Jansatta ref? Could it be used elsewhere?

Re #3 - If I recall correctly, there were refs missing authors/dates/publishers. I don't know if it's been corrected. Go ahead and remove the tag if you think we have full information for all the refs now. --Hipal (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Will reply in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 13:11, 31 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)

Changes to lede

Re [19]: @Allan Nonymous: Which sources and content support these changes? --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Dis/Misinformation in lede

Apologies if I'm overlooking something, but having the content about his spreading dis/misinformation in the lede is the one major area of dispute from the discussions above that remains unresolved. I've been waiting for Abecedare to return, but I think we've waited long enough.

[20] "The sources don't appear reliable for the specific information. The content appears to present a minority viewpoint deserving little or no coverage. The information should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice without better sources. The information does not belong in the lede without both better sources and broader coverage."

Basically, I agree with all of Abecedare's concerns, and I don't believe they've been addressed very thoroughly nor in a way that demonstrates consensus for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@AllanNonymous where is sourece for the above content. If no source present then we have to remove this content. Thank you Aditya Bijarniya (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

He was also noted for spreading disinformation.

References

That is the content in dispute. --Hipal (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeating your refuted point of views will not help you. Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, was a conspiracy theorist. This is a permanent fact. If you are really serious about sourcing then take it to WP:RSN because here you are the only person who is unnecessarily disputing the quality of these reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be sourced, I canot verfiy how good those soruces are so that is a question for wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for these soruces to be raised at RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion. After looking closer, I think both should be considered unreliable. Anyone know why LallanTop is duplicated? --Hipal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and trimmed it down given the discussion at RSN. --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion saw 3 editors,[21] which includes you, Ratnahastin (who entirely disagreed with you) and Slatersteven (who only suggested specific focus on the reliability of sources). Nobody would consider it as consensus for your mass removal. I have removed the unnecessary tags since you are still alone with calling these reliable sources unreliable. Orientls (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)