Talk:Swadhyaya Movement

message: In recent articles, the the Swadhyaya Pariwar have come under scrutiny of the indian government for the alleged murder of someone who exposed their questionable distribution of funds, I don't understand why the following was deleted instead of being edited.
Okay, this page had a "context" tag and a single sentence that didn't seem to impart much information. Although I have only a slight knowledge of the philosophy, I have at least got the article started. Anyone with more information, please jump in. --rhmoore 08:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just found this article with the random article button. Very unprofessional looking. Will some please clean it up? Stoneice02 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite, revisited

message: I've copied the 'Swadhyay' section from Pandurang Shastri Athavale here, since it's much more relevant to this article. I'll let someone who actually knows something about the subject merge it properly into the article. - ulayiti (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I think the complete talk is on the basis of assumptions though truth is there in this but the core issue is that when as a common swadhyayee who is following dadaji there is no question of money come in long ways apart from that the policy of money which dadaji accepeted in his parivar is totally diffrent i dont want to describe it here because the person who is writing this is wel aware of that and i would say maore aware of that but the question is when ur not even asked to give and yet u give and then again they keep condition that u only give if u feel you are giving it without asking about the use of that money then after that why u look for that.
Samarpan is the word which they use and pls understand that. See No body ask for money in sawadhya parivar from me though i work activly in this since long.And 'i call every body  here who want to test Swadhyay parivar they come and join at parivar you will get and give love and money will not come in picture if you yourself not show interest.'Ref: Your message for clean up on page Swadhyay Parivar. You have not put your comments on discussion page. What's the point, until you give your say? "Swadhyay Parivar" is behind the killing of Pankaj Trivedi (on 15/06/2006 at Ahmedabad, India). Pankaj Trivedi had filed bonafide suit to get a temple opened which was closed down by leader of Swadhyay Parivar. Pankaj Trivedi was instrumental in erection of the temple in question and was an old associate of Swadhyay Parivar. The temple is built on Govt. land from the charitable funds of public. Pankaj Trivedi also questioned non-utilisation of millions of U.S. dollars, collected by Swadhyay Parivar for relief work for victims of earthquake of Kutch, India. The Swadhyay Parivar is in habit of non-utilising charitable trusts' funds and later controlling them privately. Pankaj Trivedi objected to this civil wrong. Pankaj Trivedi was found to be bonafide by The High Court at Ahmedabad, India which quashed 22 false criminal cases against Pankaj Trivedi and others. The High Court was kind enough to record it's observation in it's order quashing cases against Pankaj Trivedi.
Since, Pankaj Trivedi was legally right and winning the cases, a plot to kill him came in shape in The High Court premises as confessed by the killers-followers of Swadhyay Parivar. According the plot, he was brutally killed on 15/06/2006. Police have arrested people of Swadhyay Parivar.
Swadhyay Parivar desire to bury it's criminal activities and for the purpose they want glorified and false things projected on public forums like Wikipedia.
Could an encyclopedia be allowed to be used for such malicious objective?
Swadhyayee 08:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is very difficult to read. A lot of it seems to assume the reader has a preexisting knowledge on the subject. I don't even know where to start. One thing that definitely sticks out is the fact that you tell the reader to read the talk page for more information. I don't know WP's policy on this, but I find it hard to believe that that's kosher. Stoneice02 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only two users I know of with much knowledge of Swadhyaya. One is myself, the other is Swadhyayee. After a couple of my problems on a CfD are sorted out, I will try to make this article better, I need a bit of time. Any other users who know a bit about Swadhyaya are appreciated. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's your suggestion for clean up, Stoneice02? 

message: 'Swadhyayee' should update us on status of this case. I believe Police has clreared Jayshree didi from all the charges. There are few bad people who don't like good things in the world, Dadaji said "The god lives in everyone. Each single person is 'Dev' to us. Sometime the god tests us in form of a bad person, who is not bad actualy."
God bless you.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.73.202.34 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we can find some articles on an update on the case, it should not be in the article. Stoneice02 06:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on case?

message: The uncatorgized tag  should not be removed until the article is catorgorized.Stoneice02 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncatorgized tag

message: I just saw an edit that was made today which I think was a positive direction to go in. Anyone else agree? I saw we incorportate those changes into the article. Stoneice02 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good addition?

message: This page is a constant place of section blanking. I am doing my best warning the vandals (usually IP addresses) but could use everyone's help. In the future, if you revert vandalism from this page (please put "rv" in the edit summary) please visit the vandal's Talk page and add one of the following warnings:
* ~~~~ - for blatant vandlism
* ~~~~ - for deleting content (most common)
For a full list of warning templates, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
Stoneice02 16:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I think restructuring the entire article to fit the exact same format as the Scientology article would be a fantastic step forward towards cleanup. I will move forward with this cleanup in December, if nobody else is able to pick up the ball until then.
FOBioPatel 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I agree, there must be change in the swadhyay parivar defination. It is utmost wrong and ignorance to defame and demoralize such a pious and unhateful movement. Those who do hate the Swadhyay karya should not ever try to define swadhyay because they themselves don't know what swadhyay is, if they choose to speak out nonsense against Didi and the whole karya. If they wer true swadhyayees, they would know that true swadhyayees would continue to move forward instead of holding on to this whole Pankaj Trivedi mess and true swadhyayees don't come to swadhyay just because they want to; it is because they believe that Dadaji truly made a difference in their lives with his thoughts and actions and watn to continue to recieve his inspiring and uplifting thoughts. So i'm all for changing the defination in wikipedia.
The user here-in above has not preferred to sign his comments.  The history reflect that this comments are made by one regd. user: Arjun.  This is to clear the mis-conception that the above comments were made by "johnpseudo". swadhyayee 03:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for any particular view, and users who are personally involved in the article they are editing should be careful not to include bias in favor of their point-of-view.  If there is a controversy involving the definition of Swadhyay Parivar, editors should cite their facts, mention the controversy, and try to limit their edits to verifiable facts.  johnpseudo 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clear up my view:I respect Dadaji, but I'm an ex-Swadhyayee.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swadhyay parivar 

message: protected this page. Please discuss the issues germane to the page below. To clear up my view, I have respect for Mr. Athavale, but do not really care for swadhyay otherwise. The Pankaj Trivedi  murder deserves its own page because of the vast info available on it. I'm not knowledgeable on the other issues, which is why I hope the editors involved can use reliable sources to back up whatever views they may have on swadhyay.Bakaman 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look you are looking at swadhyay too emotionally, as is every other editor here. Pankaj trivedi is just the tip of the iceberg, I have heard of other controversies as well which can be documented here.Bakaman 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Baka,
There may be so many other controversies.  I have no idea what you are referring to but it may fall under the above headings I mentioned.  I am trying to keep myself away from commenting on the lack of necessary character for persons heading a religious/spiritual organisation.  I am not agreeable to all negative inclusions here but I am avoiding disputes.  My objections are against the removal of facts and weblinks damaging Swadhyay Parivar's intentions to continue false projection about them.  When good people for good cause take support of notorious elements they can not be termed as a good organisation.  Here, the faith in God is less and the faith is more in an individual with bad/good influence over society which is exactly opposite to what is needed to be nurtured within oneself and within society viz. have faith in God and in good motivated actions.
Pankaj Trivedi's murder may be a tip of iceberg but it's height of wrongs.  If a person or organisation is deviating from righteousness and someone draws attention, instead of thanking him and changing, should he be killed to cover up and continue wrongs!!!  How idiotic, ruthless and in-human?  Just put a leg in the shoes of his spouse, son or daughter and think.  How a family could miss his dear one whose life is taken away in barbaric way?  Today, people of Swadhyay Parivar mis-interpret court's order on Wikipedia and try to project that Bharat Bhat was not involved in murder of Pankaj Trivedi.  The trial of murder has not begun, when it starts, just see the lies of defense. swadhyayee 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not have any emotional connection to the page but noted as you did that it was the site of a protracted struggle. Therefore I provided some possible solutions.Bakaman 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Can we remove all the sentences which have citation needed and the citation is not provided —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.222.183.3 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he/she was referring to the actual page, not the talk page, so yes 203xxx, you may offer to clean up but still discuss anything which may be objected to. Thanks GizzaChat © 09:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Citationless sentences 

message: The only properly referenced section here is the 'controversy' section and the remaining article is poorly sourced with equally opposite promotional statements, both need to be trimmed down if we are to maintain WP:NPOV. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Currently the History section is more like Motivation. Should we rename? Ideally we should have 2 separate sections, but reliable source describing beginning of the movement is required.
Activities like Daily Kendra, Chintanika Kendra, Vruksh mandir, Yogeshwar Krishi, Hira Mandir, Brass Mandir, Matsya Gandha are missing or misplaced under Overview. 1 line describing each of them in Activities section will help reader to get an idea.
Reg. neutrality(NPOV) I think it is already well balanced, to help understand reader the movement from Motivation to current state including activities. I have skipped many controversies backed by reliable sources since that would hamper understanding full picture.
Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: User:Alpaniraj has repeatedly added huge amounts of uncited content which appears to have been cut & pasted from unreliable sources, in gross violation of WP:COPYVIO. editors may want to note that removing unsourced content is necessary under our BLP policy, as is removing COPYVIO. Replacing that content is a serious violation of policy, and will be treated as such. Don't do it. Roxy the dog. bark 20:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say so. Roxy the dog. bark 23:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and [[WP:COPYVIO]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Swadhyay Parivar. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090426051319/http://www.psbt.org/screening/movie_review/248 to http://www.psbt.org/screening/movie_review/248
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) 20:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: As you are interested in religions, I want to bring it to your attention. This article is complete mess. There are good academic references listed in Reference and notes. Would you like to rewrite it completely ?-Nizil (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The article is in poor shape indeed. Will do a quick clean and some bandaging for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite