Jump to content

Talk:Pandurang Shastri Athavale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyvio

[edit]

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)

Unacceptable content

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.254.52.177 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pandurang Shastri.jpg

[edit]

Image:Pandurang Shastri.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher of india

[edit]

Biased & Unbalanced Philosopher of India

[edit]

Do not compare Swami Vivekanand with Pandurang Shastri. Because he attended the world philosopher conference it doesn't give him right to be equivalent to swami vivekanand. <Agreed, swami Vivekananda was really great intellectual but like Shastriji, he has not caused any change in so many people's individual life in modern times. But Shastriji and his parivar has made change in many people's life in modern times.>

He said he believes in Krishna and Krishna never believed in cast system. Panduranji teaching is completely hyporcate and you can see the present situation of Swadhayay Parivar. <It felt like Kejriwal's follower is editing this information. Kejriwal also didn't fight corruption but when someone is fighting it he opposes it.(With reference to 8-Nov-2016 Modi's policy) Similarly author didn't do anything and when someone is doing something good, Kejriwal's follower is opposing it.>

By Hriday

P.S. I am not opposing any particular person but people must use their own brain to evaluate any leader before you follow him/her. Any great so called philosopher is end of the day are normal human being and therefore can't be great or always right.

Bogus Claim by author of this article

[edit]

Shri Vinoba Bhave was very much impressed with meeting Athvale: This is also a LIE. Ms Nirmala Deshpande, personal secretary of Shri Vinoba Bhave had stated that it was Mr. Athvale who requested this meeting, which lasted only for two hours and at the end of the meeting Vinbo Bhave commented that Mr. Athvale is Garvith (Arrogant). <After reading this article, some might say author is arrogant>

Mr. Athvale is a world renowned Philosopher. What could be more funnier than this? What is his philosophy? Has any of the world renowned philosophers ever considered him as a philosopher? Was he ever invited to any meetings of world renowned philosophers? Did he ever write any book purely on philosophy? Which University uses his book on philosophy as a text book?

This is how the whole fraud started...propaganda, lies and deceit by few people to create and image of Mr. Athvale and gullible Gujaratis believed every lie and no one bothered to check it out to see if there is any truth to these fabricated stories. Dada told us that "Didi is your leader and Varasdar of Gadi".<Smoking alarms seems to be activated as someone is feeling sever jealousy.>. Didi has been telling us that "Dada was an Avatar" and their agents had been telling us regularly that "Whole Athvale family is Divine" and we are "fortunate" to be part of the Karya (Family business).

to your comments :

A) Dadaji never said any of this statements, B) Nobody cares about any other else, who said this

This is what varna Vyavastha its nothing related to caste system. A follower of a "Knowledge based" profession is called a "Brahmin"; A follower of a "Justice / state administration based" profession is called a "Kshatriya"; and a follower of an "finance / economics based" profession is called a "Vaishya". Anyone who is not following any profession is called a "Shudra".

================
[edit]

Hello Gentleman,

without going to deep in anything, don't write such silly comments. Dadaji doesn't need any philosopher certificate from fool like you. He has got many awards from all over the world for his work. Refer below link.

http://www.rmaf.org.ph/newrmaf/main/awardees/awardee/profile/277

You have to read some details about him and then you can write something for him. He has attended 2nd world religious conference by leading indian philosophy and he has proved God Krishna's philosophy among leaders of many other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.115.250 (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pandurang Shastri Athavale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pandurang Shastri Athavale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pandurang_Shastri_Athavale&oldid=1199130195"