Talk:Pandurang Shastri Athavale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Maharashtra may be able to help!

---

This article was taken practically verbatim from http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/new- age-catalysts/athavale/athavale-shastri.asp and is ©Lifepositive.com Inc. Likewise the image that accompanied the article. It needs to be rewritten with original material. If the original poster[1] had permission to use the copyrighted material, it must be properly documented on this page. --Kbh3rd 02:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Unacceptable content 2 an appeal to both editors 3 World Religious Conference 4 Recent Removal 5 Rewrite & Cleanup

[edit] Unacceptable content

Please stop adding biased content and copyrighted material to this article and removing content from it, as it is in violation of Wikipedia policy. What is so badly wrong with the current version that it must continuously be fiddled with? - ulayiti 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Despite significant improvements, this article is still very biased. Especially sentences such as 'The motive underlying their work is the gratitude and love they have towards God whom they feel is with and within us' have no place in an encyclopedia. I have also grown a bit bored of constantly having to revert and edit this article (particularly as it is now longer than it used to be) and could use some help. I am also requesting whoever edits this article to take Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy into consideration. - ulayiti (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I oppose the facts under-estimated by Ulayiti , this writer has not found the truth herself. As of wikipedia i have found that wikipedia is all about facts and things that exist. I think the writer should first confirm that the facts mentioned are true or not and 'I m getting bored' has no view in wikipedia because if facts are found to be boring then thats an individual question.

Please have a look at WP:NPOV. Wikipedia operates under a strong 'neutral point of view' policy. Some of your edits are far from conforming to this, especially the adding of sentences such as, 'These powerful thoughts have strength to change the quality of one's life, quality of society, quality of world community in general as well as the unity of the world.' This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, and things in it should be represented neutrally. You are welcome to add verifiable and factual information to the project.

I also did not state that the facts are boring, I said I'm getting bored of constantly having to revert the addition of non-facts into this article. (And by the way, I'm a he, not a she.) - ulayiti (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ulayiti's biased writing and reverting of facts is annoying. If it wants to see the proofs, do your own research. Don't expect people to put in proofs for every line. Read the book, "Vital Connetion" before you revert any more edits.

'These thoughts make Hindu a better Hindu' is not a fact, it's an opinion. Opinions have no place in an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is also not supposed so say things like 'if you want proof, do your own research'. I will continue to revert your edits until you can come up with something useful. Your edits are also borderline vandalism, and might lead to you being blocked from editing. Please stop. - ulayiti (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the statement is removed. Please educate youself before considering yourself worthy of reverting other people's edits to suit your views.

I have edited the article to make it more neutral in tone, and fixed some grammar and spelling mistakes. Please tell me whether you are all right with the current version. Also, I think some of the Swadhyay section should be merged into the article on Svadhyaya. - ulayiti (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I formally object Ulayiti's unrestricted modifications and distortion of facts. His/Her intelorence to good activities done by individual of other faith/nationality is unacceptable. Just because you are administrator does not mean you can go on and destroy good information. Shame on you Ulayiti.

I've left you a note on your user talk page, as this is no longer discussion about the article. - ulayiti (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well i regret for using she for he , but sir i would like to make some things clear. Facts are facts and to show you some facts please refer the link below http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationAthavalePan.htm and also this http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html please look out that the person whom we are talking about has been awarded for what you have been objecting here. U wanted proofs here is the proof , please goahead and get more details(dont ge biased while doing so) theres a lot that has been published on internet about this man. So please take back what you have said and spend your some time on reading some writing instead of just blindly writing about someone even before knowing who he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.254.52.177 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Please refrain from misrepresenting my views and removing my comments. I haven't been objecting to any awards received by Athavale, just your biased representation of him. Also, your blanking of this page amounts to vandalism, so I've issued warning on your user talk page. - ulayiti (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a party to this discussion here, but as a long-time Wikipedia user, I would like to interject a few points here.

First, the anonymous user above is incorrect in telling User:Ulayiti, "If it wants to see the proofs, do your own research. Don't expect people to put in proofs for every line."

One of the basic policies of Wikipedia is that the burden of proof for anything added to an article rests "squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim." (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability.) Note that, in Wikipedia:Citing sources, it is clearly stated as policy that, "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." (emphasis added).

There's a very simple reason for this policy. Say somebody were to add a line saying that the Moon is made of green cheese. If the burden of proof were not on the person making that claim, then it would be impossible to remove that line, because other editors would have to find proof that every inch of the Moon has been searched and that no green cheese has been found.

Therefore, User:Ulayiti is justified in removing unsourced (or poorly sourced) controversial claims from this article. (Poorly sourced claims would be those that cite unreliable sources or sources that are biased either in favor of or against Pandurang Athavale.) The anonymous user has the burden of proof, not User:Ulayiti and therefore the anonymous user must cite sources and must provide proof. Especially when adding controversial material (or any material that is challenged), users are required by Wikipedia policy to, in the anonymous user's words, "put in proofs for every line."

On another note, the anonymous user is assuming bad faith on the part of User:Ulayiti, as is seen in the following comment: "His/Her intelorence to good activities done by individual of other faith/nationality is unacceptable." This is a violation of Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). From what I see here, User:Ulayiti has not done anything nor said anything to justify being accused of racism or any other kind of prejudice.

From my brief look at this article's history, it seems to constantly move between two extremes; it is either biased strongly in favor of Athavale or strongly against him. It needs to be neutral, per Wikipedia policy. --Hnsampat 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] an appeal to both editors

Could I appeal to you both to invoke more of the policy Wikipedia:Cite your sources? You may also want to try out Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Mamawrites ^{& listens} 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How about getting information from the official website of the movement? It would only seem logical to do so. What the external world observes is different than what is truly there. Please refer to [www.swadhyay.org] for correct information.

The above argument is totally fake, Can you please tell me, 'what need to be modify and in which way', inorder to meet the neutrality conditions of the weekipedia.

www.swadhyay.org is self created website of Pandurang Shashtri's followers. Does this website give information like breaking of bones of many by Swadhyayees or killing of Pankaj Trivedi by Swadhyayees. The police have investigated the murder of Pankaj Trivedi, arrested 10 including three close confidants of Didi and their bail applications are rejected by different courts stating that prima facie the involvement of arrested persons is apparent. Does this website speak of non-use or mis-use of charitable funds by them? Swadhyayee 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Religious Conference

I have been trying all evening to find a source for this Second World Religious Conference with Arthur Compton in attendance. When I do search in google the only mention of a Second World Religious Conference come from sources quoting Swadyay based literature. Please give a reference or a citation for this conference. There are in fact World Religious Conferences that were held in Kyoto Japan, but the first one was held in 1968, 14 years after this article states a "Second World Religious Conference" was held there and attend by Mr. Athavale. No mention of Arthur Compton ever attending such an event or meeting Athavale is ever mentioned anywhere except by articles from Swadyay or extrapolating from Swadyay. Please, please, please find a true citation for this fact such as a newspaper article or a published journal article and not a Swadyay publication.

I think providing a few citations for many of the otherwise unproven subjective "facts" listed would go a long way in vindicating and verifying the biography presented here. --68.10.148.99 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Navoid

[edit] Recent Removal

I removed the following few sentences as I don't see how they're quite relevant:

The Iranian Majid Rahnema called Swadhyay a "silent yet singing revolution."

Who's this person and why is it relevant? Seems more appropriate on the Swadhyay pariwar page anyway.

In an Gita elocution competition dating December 31, 2004, 1.45 millions youth of age 16 through 30 of different religions took part. The speakers were from 16 states of India as well as Canada, USA, UK, East and South Africa, Middle East, New Zealand and Australia spanning 5 subcontinents and 12 languages - English, Gujarati, Marathi, Hindi, Sanskrit, Bangla, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Konkani and Nepali. Forty-five percent of the participants were female.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Swadhyay or Athavale. If you want to add this back, please make its relevant more clear.

--Superdosh 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite & Cleanup

If somebody could rewrite this page in a more structured layout, specifically to match the quality seen on the Ted Haggard page, it would be fantastic. I can work on this around December 8, 2006. If anyone can get to it sooner, it would be fantastic.

--FOBioPatel 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)