Talk:Pravin Togadia

message: I was going to list this on VFD, but a google search does turn up some stuff. However, it's mostly about him getting arrested. --InShaneee 16:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This reads like a VHP manifesto, and violates WP:NPOV quite comprehenisvely. Someone needs to fix it. It wont be me. Hornplease 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it.Right now I'm busy cleaning up WP:BLP violations and keeping the anti-Hindu vandals at bay.I will put up criticism sections etc. soon.Hkelkar 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better VHP manifesto than Pseudo-secularist literature. I'll organize into paragraphs.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isnt better. Neither is acceptable.Hornplease 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well instead of calling it names, why not give actual parts of the article you have a problem with.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely slapped a tag on precisely because I dont want to get into another shouting match. There's been enough incivility directed at me recently. Kelkar is working on it, he wants a few days, and I said I will not interfere till then. Hornplease 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This article has not changed in tone since I last checked, above. Am putting a tag on. Hornplease 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hey all, i really dont understand why the tag for foto reuest has been removed by some Ancientanubis. Firstly the article needs to adjust the tone and like any other biographical article this also needs photo, so that people know who has been decribed here. Normaly copyright free fotos are not available so i had put the request for it, so that if anyone has it he may add it. So please dont spoil the WP spirit.  
(Asro 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a photo 59.95.114.118 (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo REquest

message: It is fair enough to remove BLP sources tag as multiple source of reference is available. Removed tag from page.
--atnair (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP source tag removed 

message: If Legal cases, first paragraph is edited, can remove fanpov tag.--atnair (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  fanpov removal suggest 

message: Note that I've just fully protected the article in response to the edit warring today. Please seek consensus for controversial changes here on the talk page, and keep our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines in mind. Also, you may want to consider WP:Dr. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Still BLP tag is placed though citation from reliable sources. ! --atnair (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP tag 

message: "a group of doctors and social activists spearheaded by the Pune-based "Medico Friend Circle" ..." Group is highly non-notable with a few social networking or 2nd hand website sources. I have removed it because it was added hardly a day ago and it is not notable. There are many petitions or complaints around the world. But they don't matter as long as the filer is not notable or some serious action was taken. It is same as someone filing a petition about Togadia to some online based or even offline institute then become popular. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it is not true that it was just a day ago.  There was a single sentence reference to it earlier.  I hunted for a better source and expanded the information.  Your grounds for repeated deletion of the material are weak.  They need to be debated.  Repeating the deletion without reaching consensus is a hostile act, and constitutes the beginning of an edit war. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Since you are concerned about notability, I have added an endorsement by a national journal. So, it should be fine as it currently stands. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time whenever there is objection, version is reverted to pre-edit conflict. There is no notability or importance behind this petition. No a matter that who read it, it is not even a issue. It is more about who filed it and how much it was investigated. Investigation never took place so you are directly promoting this non-notable group. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is why we call it a "controversy".  No conclusion was ever reached.  Whether the group is notable is not the issue.  The petition was notable. It was reported in national newspapers and endorsed by a national journal.  All that we require of the group is that it be credible, which it certainly is.  It is made up of medical professionals, some of them working in leading hospitals like Jaslok and some on the editorial board of the journal cited.  I am inviting  to give us a third opinion. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Petition is a lower form allegation which shouldn't be added until he has been convicted. If he hadn't been investigated it makes even more senseless to have such petition. I am calling User:AmritasyaPutra "to give us a third opinion". Bladesmulti (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content is not worthy of inclusion in my opinion. This page falls under WP:BLP. See this revert -- having a reference to a news article is not the qualifying criteria. Hi Kautilya3, Togadia was appointed as the General Secretary of the VHP nation-wide. was better-worded than replacement of Togadia was groomed for the leadership of national VHP..  Per WP:BRD after the bold edit is reverted the contributor should discuss on talk page. Here the disputed content has been re-inserted twice before any discussion and remains in the article. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Welcome to the discussion.  To give a third opinion, you need to give justification for your view, which I don't see in your comment above.  The link you have provided is to a Narendra Modi discussion.  How is that relevant?  Finally, if you want to raise other issues, please open a new section. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

text:   You have edited your comment after my response, which is confusing.  Now you say "having a reference to a news article is not the qualifying criteria".  What then is the "qualifying criterion"?  You also didn't address the fact that there was an endorsement by national medical journal.  (I have now discovered that there is a formal third opinion process at WP:3.  So I will be requesting it.)  WP:BRD is fine.  But after Vanamonde93 reverted the deletion, Bladesmulti repeated his deletion. I was afraid that would lead to an edit war. There is no need for these repeated reverts while a discussion is going on. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That statement of mine which you quote was not after your edit, it was written 30 min before your response. While a discussion is going on the new content should not be re-inserted. It was re-inserted twice thrice (and remains there) before any discussion had started. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not my doing.  I reinserted it only once, after the discussion started, and after addressing the notability issue that was originally raised.  New objections are being raised now.  That is a different matter. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP. Adding a report which has no rationale or any sort of reflection to his career is purely violation of BLP. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   National newspapers and national journals are not "gossip".  So I don't see the point of this reference.  If this is supposed to be a "violation of BLP," please state what criteria of BLP are violated. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the references and the content that has been added, here is a very detailed and specific response: "The petition was endorsed by the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in its Editorial." is simply not present in the provided reference. For "according to an analysis in the press" see WP:GRAPEVINE. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Thisis the third re-insertion before the discussion started. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

text: It is a BLP violation to add anything that has been unproven and it is nothing more than a non-notable allegation. Your request on 3O will be probably erased because this content dispute  or discussion involves more than 2 users. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Ok, thank you, Stfg.
Filed a Dispute Resolution request at WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. , , , please summarize your views there. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had mentioned this in BLP Noticeboard with my last edit before the 3O request was made because added disputed content remained in the article while the discussion was on. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 13:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying, I have closed the DRN section. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non notable controversy 

message: You have removed content sourced from Dionne Bunsha's book, saying "much better independent sources are needed."  Can you please take look at the wiki page of the book Scarred:_Experiments_with_Violence_in_Gujarat and the author Dionne Bunsha, and explain what kind of better sources you are requiring? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand that BIASED sources have to be used appropriately at Wikipedia. This is not to say that they cannot be used, just that they should be used "properly". Lindashiers (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   I don't see what basis you have to claim that this is a biased source.  The writer is an award-winning journalist of national newspapers.  Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who received large sums of money and fellowships from overseas sources .. to write such books ??? Please see Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources (and how to use them at Wikipedia). In other words, why don't you locate other independent news reports in national newspapers which corroborate Ms. Bunsha's book and CITE them ? Lindashiers (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

text: What nonsense is this? Her book is a secondary source, which references other material, and as such fits all the RS criteria. Take it to RSN if you disagree. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted Lindashiers per WP:BRD. I've no particular comment on the source except to say that it seems likely to be de facto reliable. I'm not sure that the overseas funding issue is relevant or even necessarily correct (unless one is a Hindu nationalist, of course) but I'm open to having someone explain that relevance to me. Alternatively, it could be explained at WP:RSN, as Vanamonde has suggested. What we don't need here right now is more displays of aggressive behaviour: alarm bells are ringing. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the current version. Given that the author has some notability and writings might have some prevalence. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sitush are you seriously suggesting that those 2 extremist sources I deleted are credible ? Are you also saying that Praveen Togadia is Mother Theresa that we should use wishy-washy sources like Dionne Bunsha ? You've got the wrong end of the stick here. Lindashiers (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that you need to stop being disruptive and just stick to discussing. When you get consensus for your changes then they can be implemented. Right now, looking at what has been said by others above, you do not have consensus. What you are doing here is exactly the same as you are doing in other articles: you are going round like a bull in a china shop and, human nature being what it is, you are pretty rapidly pissing off a lot of people. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Self-published sources can be regarded as reliable sources about themselves as per WP:SELFSOURCE.  That is how [1] is used.  The source [2] corroborates the information.  If you have some other source that contradicts this information, please present it. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are okay for non-contentious material about the subject; the instant it becomes contentious, SPS are not okay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted content from Dionne Bunsha 

message: "He moved to Ahmedabad at age 10 and joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) soon after. He received a bachelor's degree (MBBS) in medicine followed by a master's degree (MS) in surgical oncology. He practised as a surgeon for fourteen years, and established a small hospital, Dhanvantri Hospital, in Ahmedabad.[2][3]"
* he joined the RSS at age 11 ?
* he is a super-qualified medical doctor ?
and these ,  are your sources  for such exceptional claims? As a BLP article, this dubious text can be deleted by any editor on sight, without wasting time at any RS/N, until reliable sources are provided, especially since the so-called complaint to the Medical Council of India, did not contain his enrolment number / licence to practice medicine / State of registration, which is mandatory in MCI's prescribed complaint form under their establishing enactment. Lindashiers (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources can be regarded as reliable sources about themselves as per WP:SELFSOURCE.  That is how [1] is used.  The source [2] corroborates the information.  If you have some other source that contradicts this information, please present it. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are okay for non-contentious material about the subject; the instant it becomes contentious, SPS are not okay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: You have deleted the reference to the Leuva Patel affiliation of Togadia.  But, unfortunately, the affiliation is politically significant.  See the articles in , especially the last one where Togadia is explicitly flagged. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bump.  I feel that the caste has to be mentioned when it is sigificant to the career of the person and it has been mentioned by reliable sources. This makes a difference not only here, but in several BLP pages of Indian persons. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leuva Patel 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pravin Togadia. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140903163246/http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/flair/20020317/1.html to http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/flair/20020317/1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: He is politically behaving to conceal fact Hindu Ahead (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have explained to you once already, you need to provide reliable sources to support the content that you add, in order to satisfy our policy on verifiability. Please read both the pages I linked before making any further edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person who is editing bjp ,Narendra Modi and Uma Bharati Wikipedia profile is deleting very noble health activity of Dr Pravin Togadia .