Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:14, 11 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India Against Corruption article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about India Against Corruption. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about India Against Corruption at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in January 2013. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Find sources notice

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Misleading Link

The link for Anti-Corruption links to a 1970's Hong-Kong film, it should link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Political_corruption#Opposing_corruption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.168.91 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation - Terms of Use

Relevant extracts:

4. Refraining from Certain Activities

Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include:

   Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud 

           Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;
           With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;

           Engaging in fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Libel

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory.

It is Misplaced Pages policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColSodhi (talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

|}

Meatpuppetry with the usual legalese element - all of this has been discussed before and has been pointed out to the contributor. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)}}

No meatpuppetry. Many Admins have said that the members of the "role account" HRA1924 should instead edit in their personal capacities. TheWikiIndian (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what you have seen is administrators demanding that supporters of an organization follow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sharing of accounts AND a swarm of " new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Misplaced Pages's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement.", ie meat puppets. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Requires cleanup

The Anna Hazare and Ramdev movements were popular movements that drew on common resentment against the ruling classes. It was a movement that saw a lot of middle class youth participating. This article looks like it is referencing from a single source and is giving undue weight to Hindutva which was not really an issue in these protests at all. It needs to be substantially rewritten.Puck42 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that is probably true. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I'm not at all happy with this removal. I would have been happy to see the tags removed, since the stuff is in the body, but the real problem here has been POV-pushing and legal threats. FWIW, the elections - which were irrelevant to this anyway - are now over. We can drop the Hindutva bit from the lead if necessary but I see nothing wrong with the remainder. Please can someone explain. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated in modified form, losing the Hindutva bit. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on edits to Team Anna article

Please state the case for why my sourced edits are being reverted in this rude manner. Lindashiers (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just made a big revert because it looks to me as if someone is yet again trying to turn this into an article about the relatively unknown India Against Corruption pressure group rather than the much more widely known India Against Corruption popular movement. I'm not saying that all of the changes lacked merit but unpicking the good from the bad in these circumstances is difficult. So, I suggest we discuss them bit by bit here first.

As a start to that, this edit rings alarm bells. Yes, there clearly were some elements of copyright violation in the old version. Those could have been fixed very simply by rephrasing but instead the entire thing was removed in favour of some very poorly phrased detailed info about alleged internal rows involving an organisation - Jagruk Nagrik Manch - that may or may not be connected and may or may not be relevant. We don't usually include trivial information and that is what this mostly looks like. I'd appreciate an explanation of why this was in fact significant. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I respond to you, fully, as I shall, please provide a reliable source for this statement you inserted "The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name.". Lindashiers (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, after that "alarm bells" edit (which was to fix your copy-vios), the entire Meera Nanda text/cite was added back after loosely paraphrasing it. The Guha text will also be added back once we both can confirm that it still exists and corresponds to the content you added. Lindashiers (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The "popular movement" thing has been discussed widely, including at WP:DRN, WP:ANI, via WP:OTRS and the WMF, on this very talk page and on numerous other talk pages. Sometimes we have to use a bit of common sense. If the pressure group were notable then it would have its own article and we could avoid the qualification by using a dabhat; alas, there is no such article yet, the notability is moot and so we cannot do that.

Please prove that those were my copyvios or desist from making such claims. This article has gone back and forth an awful lot and while there is a remote possibility that I did in fact breach copyright, the chances of it being me are extremely slim. I'm pretty experienced and I am subject to a phenomenal amount of scrutiny here. I took some screenshots of the Guha book a few hours ago - I can email them to you if you want. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proof . Can you confirm if the Guha book on Googlebooks is a scan of the Indian sub-continent edition or is Penguin's Viking ebook since they both have the same e-ISBN. I see a substantial number of sources on the notability of the RTI activists group. Its a pity you can't come up with a credible source to establish that they are a "pressure group" ... Lindashiers (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are continuing to be rude and aggressive. I'm not dealing with you until you calm down, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, except to say that I accept the diff. No idea why that happened but clearly I cocked-up then. It doesn't make me a serial copyright violator. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush, Time-Out. If you are prepared to fairly reevaluate your POV on this article; I, as an expert, shall disentangle (with sources) the various strands of the Anna/IAC 2010-2012 phenomenon so that 2 "good articles" can emerge - a) Team Anna b) India Against Corruption. Lindashiers (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The alleged POV has been discussed at the various venues before, on umpteen occasions. You want to draft something in your sandbox for review then feel free but you are not doing it in mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you stand by your content that (a) "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" are identical and absolutely interchangeable names for the same movement, (b) The "pressure group" had nothing to do with either (or both) of the foregoing ? I say this because Anna Hazare's name is being dragged into the IAC article, incorrectly. Lindashiers (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You have obviously been around for a long time under another identity. You made the minimum number of edits necessary elsewhere with your current account before you could change things at this article. You are almost certainly familiar with the past discussions about the usage of Team Anna/IAC in this article and the various claims made by the IAC NGO. Some of those are linked on this very talk page. I'm not rehashing it yet again because it really is only a few weeks since we last went through it all at ANI. Lots of people have spent lots of time looking into this and we cannot keep revisiting it on a "first principles" basis. Go write your drafts and we'll review things there. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not responding to your trolling. I have serious issues with your sources (like Guha). You are unable to provide a source for the specific on-page statement / POV text (inserted by you) on the "pressure group". You have reverted accurately sourced text from additional topical (secondary) news sources which clearly demolishes your thesis that IAC and Team Anna are indistinguishable (ignoring that they even fought over the IAC name - including in the High Court of Bombay). You have rejected my AGF offer to simplify (with sources) the strands of the IAC movement so that you can understand it. You have continued to defend what is clearly plagiarism and POV pushing in this article. What else is there left to say? Should experts only edit here on Mondays? Lindashiers (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Lindashiers: Involving yourself in an ArbCom case within a week of your first edit and within your first 100 edits suggests you are not a new user. Please identify what edits you have made to this article or to this talk page previously but not using this account. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteered - "NONE" and "NONE". PS: Are you allowed to ask this of me ? The 2 Arbcom cases I commented on are the only ones currently open. Why haven't you commented there, or is commenting at Arbcom only open to those with more than 1,000 or 10,000 edits ? There is a lot wrong at Misplaced Pages, including blatant plagiarism and sexism, and I am allowed to have my say on it, or am I not ? Lindashiers (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You began editing on 3 September. Your edits have three distinctive features: (1) aggression (2) opinions on IAC which have similarities to a high profile sock/meatpuppet campaign (2) knowledge of WP which new users don't usually have. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I answer you, which I shall, let me pose the counter query - how is it that the 2 conflicted POV pushing editors (1 of them a controversial WP Administrator well known elsewhere for his POV pushing at Misplaced Pages) for this article are both from the UK and now we have a lawyer from the same country popping up to defend this plagiarist /copy-vio-er(?). What strange bond usually connects you ? Lindashiers (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer, most likely, is that we speak the English language and edit Misplaced Pages. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the facts are that (a) England is a very tiny country (and likely to get even tinier in a few days), and (b) that Indians are now the 2nd largest speakers of English after the Yanks, and the days of Empire are past. So get used to it, and let native English speakers read factually correct article(s) and edit at Misplaced Pages. Lindashiers (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost every single question asked of you has been batted off with an "I'll respond later" (paraphrase) and an aggressive counter. You are sounding more and more like Zuggernaut by the minute, especially in your anti-British sentiments. You are not going to get very far if you continue with this style of contribution. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Zuggernaut who ? Why are you aggressively converting a content dispute into a circus with your sexist British cronies jumping into this 3 ring farce? This is so typical of the misogynist system which vitiates Misplaced Pages through and through and obstructs Indians from editing it. PS: Can you respond with your sources ? PPS: Shiva is our God, not yours. Lindashiers (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lindashiers: Several people are watching this topic and your current approach cannot succeed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am here to discuss content and nothing else. If all of you had something against Zuggernaut, its got nothing to do with me. The ongoing dispute is for admitted copyright violation, and continuous denials of it by Sitush.Lindashiers (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, drop the anti-British, anti-male etc sideshow. Answer the basic queries that have been asked of you regarding your past involvement etc and stop deflecting things.

If you wish massively to change this article then feel free to rework it in your userspace and then ask here for a review. Spotting the copyvio was great and no-one has said that everything you want to do is necessarily wrong but you have made and are wanting to make significant changes to this article and they seem to be intended to promote a viewpoint previously adopted by a sock/meat farm. Since that viewpoint has been rejected on countless occasions and you have been adopting an aggressive position from the outset, you'll have to forgive us some doubt. You may be the person who finally manages to turn this article in the direction that the IAC socks/meats wanted but you are not going to do it without collaboration, so I suggest that you make an effort to collaborate. I am sure that any draft will be reviewed neutrally because, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people with whom you have interacted using your current accounts hold any particular POV in relation to the articles that you have been working on. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush. Posting here instead of on your talk page. Insinuations again. Which are my "current accounts" ? Read my lips - I either edit this article equally as a "first class editor" or not at all. There is no shortage of wikis or articles like Pravin Togadia for me to edit-war at - was I so inclined to do so ... with , etc. - and in case you don't know, the actual PTI report from Jaipur of 2002 on which all this particular Togadia propaganda was based was soon retracted. So I say again, if you lack competence please stay out of India related articles when the real experts are on the field. PS: History has already answered Dionne Bunsha's final question (for the moment). Lindashiers (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That was a typo: "current account" is what I meant. And that's it from me. I'm not putting up with this crap any longer. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The alleged copyvio

I'm still trying to work out how I blatantly copyvio'd here. The Duplication Detector reports this but I've never looked at that blog until this week and certainly wouldn't use it as a source, ever. I've just checked it against the Wayback machine, which has only one entry for it here. That entry happens to coincide with the date when Lindashiers (talk · contribs) began editing. Is it possible that the IAC meatfarm have faked the blog in an attempt to discredit me? I'm going to try some more research. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I got it from this. It is fairly close paraphrasing, I admit, but I'll have to leave the judgment to others. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in India
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics