Talk:India Against Corruption: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:28, 18 October 2014 editNeilN (talk \| contribs)134,455 edits →Nuances ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:46, 18 October 2014 edit undoVoceditenore (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers123,168 edits manually archiving old discussions to Talk:India Against Corruption/Archive 3 Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:
	}}		}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__


	== 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.] (]) 04:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Yeah that is probably true. ]] 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
	::No, it isn't. I'm not at all happy with . 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. - ] (]) 18:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
	:::I've reinstated in modified form, losing the Hindutva bit. - ] (]) 09:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::Nice work. ] (]) 15:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

	== Discussion on edits to Team Anna article ==
	{{hat\|Semi-exciting discussion started by a now-indef blocked account, but having little to do with article improvement. ] (]) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)}}
	Please state the case for why my sourced edits are being reverted in this rude manner. ] (]) 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, 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. - ] (]) 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.''". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

	::::The "popular movement" thing has been discussed widely, including at ], ], via ] 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. - ] (]) 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" ... ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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) ] b) ]. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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? ] (]) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

	*{{ping\|Lindashiers}} Involving yourself 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. ] (]) 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 ? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ? ] (]) 10:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::The answer, most likely, is that we speak the English language and edit Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 {{u\|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. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	@Lindashiers: Several people are watching this topic and your current approach cannot succeed. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 ] 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). ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 11:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== The alleged copyvio ==
	{{archive top\|result= Copyvio claim is based on an obvious hoax. The edit in question dates from Nov. 2013. The supposed blog claimed to be the original text from 2011 is in its entirety only one paragraph. It's the only item of substance on a site set up in the last two months and the Wayback Machine's earliest archive for the blog is the same day as the user making the copyvio claim started editing WP (on 3 Sept 2014) ] (]) 21:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)}}
	I'm still trying to work out how I blatantly copyvio'd . The Duplication Detector reports 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 . That entry happens to coincide with the date when {{user\|Lindashiers}} 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. - ] (]) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

	::The whois for the domain that the blog is hosted on seems to suggest that it was not registered until July this year - see . Aside from the blog post referred to, it has pretty much zero content. I'm more and more convinced that I've been screwed over here. - ] (]) 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::I followed a similar train of thought independently of Sitush, and I've come to the same conclusion. ] ]] 17:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::I began to look into this earlier (an attempt at a joe job) and got sidetracked. There was something fishy with Lindashiers' grabbing onto the supposed copyvio and not letting go. I expect we will see more of these kinds of things in the future. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

	{{od}}
	The relevant paragraph from the source that I cited says {{quote\|Hindu nationalism in the wider sense used in this book, complete with the state-temple-corporate complex, was on display in the recent anti-corruption campaigns that rocked the UPA government through much of 2011. A group calling itself "India Against Corruption", whose inner circle was made up largely of lawyers and middle-class professionals, managed to launch a nationwide movement demanding stricter legislation against corruption. IAC turned to two men to rally support for their cause - Baba Ramdev, a prominent tele-yogi and Ayurvedic healer with millions of admirers, especially among the lower-middle classes in small towns, and Anna Hazare, the Gandhian ex-army man turned social reformer, whose core support came from urban middle-classes and idealistic youth. Both men exemplify how smoothly and almost imperceptibly religion blends with politics and business in India these days.}}

	There are two potential close paraphrasing problems in what I wrote:

	*"a populist ] with millions of supporters among the middle-classes of small-town India"

	*"Hazare, too, brought a large support base with him, comprising mostly middle-class people from urban areas and idealistic youths"

	Comments and advice, please. - ] (]) 18:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	:I don't see a problem with the first sentence. "middle-class people from urban areas and idealistic youths" could conceivably be considered too closely paraphrased but it's hard to rewrite without losing accuracy. "middle-class from the cities and younger Indians"? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

	::Hm. The idealism is the key to what went on, though: it drove the popular movement and, later, drove the ]. This was a new breed of socially-conscious, aspirational youth: India was basically experiencing what the US and Europe experienced in the 1960s, when the youths broke away from the hide-bound strictures of gerontocracy etc. - ] (]) 18:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::"socially-conscious younger Indians"? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'm really not seeing a paraphrasing problem. It looks distinct enough to me. (It's certainly not copyright infringement). Given that it looks likely that the linkage to the blog is just an IAC stitch up, I would suggest not wasting more time on this, unless one of our copyvio experts says otherwise. ] (]) 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

	:Going back to that blog post, I notice it's presented as a quotation from Veeresh Malik. It concerns events from October 2010 to late February 2011 and beyond: "by late Feb 2011 P soon realised... demanded we replace him ... who also brought his large support base along with him ... and IAC now attracted ..." It seems to be written with the perspective of more than a few days or weeks, yet it's not only marked as copyright 2011 but also as posted on the blog on 06 April 2011, very soon after late February 2011.
	:It's shown as having been taken from page 93 of something - perhaps a book or a journal - but no title or publisher is given. Several books by Veeresh Malik appear on Amazon with "Look Inside" enabled, but none have 2011 publication dates. Still, looking inside it's striking how different Malik's style is in them from the style of that extract in the blog.
	:The blog appears on a domain that was registered in July 2014. It's the only entry; it's titled "IAC Chronicles Day 2" but there is no Day 1.
	:The perspective is consistent with having been written at a distance of a couple of years. The succinct summary style is consistent, the use of the first person aside, with writing an Misplaced Pages entry. I believe the burden is on anyone accusing {{u\|Sitush}} of copying to show that that this blog is a genuine extract from a work written by Veeresh Malik between late Febrary 2011 and 6 April 2011. ] (]) 19:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

	::Well, I wasn't even aware that the guy has written any books! I wouldn't likely have used them anyway (I don't like using primary sources and Malik is one, as a member of IAC) but I'll go check them now, if I get a better view than you. - ] (]) 19:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::So, this one paragraph (day 2 only) blog is the only item of substance on a site set up in the last two months and the Wayback Machine's earliest archive for the blog is the same day as Lindashiers started editing WP. The alleged copyvio was posted here Nov 2013. Shouldn't we just close this as an obvious hoax? ] (]) 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Yes, please. I can't do it, obviously. - ] (]) 20:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Agreed. There isn't enough evidence of copyright violation and there are many reasons to see it as a hoax. ] (]) 20:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::: is a piece written by Malik and dated 6 April 2011 - but without the text in the blog and with a more personal style. ] (]) 20:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::It is completely irrelevant to the copyvio claim and we're not going to use the opinion of an involved activist, especially not one whose organisation has been deliberately attempting to influence this article for a year or so now. - ] (]) 20:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

	== Copyright followup ==
	{{archive top\| The spurious claims of copyright violation have been discussed multiple times in multiple forums and found to be lacking in basis and merely part of the continued attempts to disrupt this article. -- ] 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)}}
	As a ], I have formally closed the as ''"No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article."'' I also noted there that at most there was very minor close paraphrasing from the book cited and that the blog originally alleged to be the source of the copyvio appears to be a hoax with no convincing evidence that it pre-dates the Misplaced Pages article. I fully concur with ], the administrator who removed the tag (I was about to do it myself). Interestingly, I googled another phrase from WP article and what should a find, but a blatant paste from the WP article (complete with the citation needed tags) added on 14 April 2014 to the official Facebook page of a group claiming to be India Against Corruption . Note that the source is entirely unattributed and is therefore a copyright violation. Misplaced Pages articles are released under a license that '''requires''' attribution. As you can see from the Google results, the article was also copied verbatim into at least two blogs dated December 2013, one month after the material appeared on Misplaced Pages. As for the current paragraph. I suggest some minor re-writes and perhaps putting some distinctively worded phrases (which might suffer loss of original meaning if too loosely paraphrased) inside quote marks. Best wishes, ] (]) 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
	===Comment moved from ]===
	I am posting the comment below which was left at ] by {{User\|Name Defend IPA}} with and will respond to it shortly. – ] (]) 06:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	----
	My principal, who is interested in this matter, politely requests to know from the Wikipeisa "community" and especially from the concerned Misplaced Pages user who uploaded the infringing content, if (a) he denies the existence of the below described email of 06.April.2011, (b) denies that the extract published on the "blog" is a true reproduction of the extract from the said email, (c) if the user has any permission to reproduce the content of the referred email. Name Defend IPA (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	----
	'''Response''' from ], the copyright clerk who closed the listing at ]:

	'''1.''' the purported blog post dated April 2011 from was actually added to that site on the day the copyright violation tag was placed on the article here (3 September '''2014''') .

	'''2.''' The blog post claimed as the source of the copyvio was labeled not as an email but as an extract from a '''2014''' book which they claim quoted the email and is available only to IAC members.

	'''3.''' The problematic passage in the Misplaced Pages article was added incrementally with two edits on 23 November '''2013''': and .

	'''4.''' The blog post purporting to be an email re-quoted in a 2014 book shows an equal if not even greater similarity to the material in the following book published in '''2013''' prior to the passage in the Misplaced Pages article:
	*{{cite book \|title=The God Market: How Globalization is Making India More Hindu \|first=Meera \|last=Nanda \|publisher=NYU Press \|year=2011 \|isbn=9781583673096 \|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vxVvrSevzQsC&pg=PR22 \|pages=xxii-xxiii}}

	'''5.''' The paraphrasing in the Misplaced Pages article was from the 2013 book above which was properly cited as the source. There is no convincing evidence that it was paraphrased from anywhere else. Thus, any alleged copyright infringement is a matter between the group purporting to be the current IAC, Veeresh Malik (the alleged author of the 2014 book), and ] (the confirmed author of the 2013 book).

	'''6.''' While there was some overly close paraphrasing of one or two sentences from Nanda's 2013 book in the Misplaced Pages article, it does not rise to the level of a copyright violation.

	'''7.''' Accusations that the editor who added the material to Misplaced Pages had somehow had access to a 2011 non-public email and used that instead of the published 2013 book are irrelevant to this copyright issue, unprovable, and in my view spurious.

	– ] (]) 07:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thanks Voceditenore, but given everything we know, ] Archiving.-- ] 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

	{{hat\|Collapsing page bloat having absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. The latest disruptive editor has been blocked. Feel free to click "show" for a demonstration of the IAC sock/meatfarm's typical debating style. ] \| ] 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).}}

	== Sarbajit Roy (National Convenor) ==

	I've moved the content from the redirected page here. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Your addition has been removed by me and another editor. Apart from the entirely inappropriate ] given to Mr. Roy and his activities, there is no evidence that Roy and his group have anything to do with the group which is the subject of '''this''' article, apart from their own claims. I have added a brief sentence and quote from the '']'' to that effect at the end of the divergence section. In addition, that lengthy and poorly referenced piece of original research which had constituted the previous "biography" of Roy here was entirely inappropriate to add to this article. There is a reason why {{noredirect\|Sarbajit Roy}} has been protected from re-creation. I suggest you read the background on both talk pages. ] (]) 10:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Please discuss all these things first. ] (]) 11:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::OK, now you please explain how the IAC website "indiaagainstcorruption" was used by Roy's IAC since August 2008. The movement obviously existed at that point of time, ] (]) 11:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::Is there even 1 comment from anyone in this IAC that Roy is not National Convenor of this IAC ? ] (]) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::What evidence do you have that the 2 IACs are different, and also that IAC is not functioning ? ] (]) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::It has been explained to you above. The onus is on you to make your case and gain support from other editors that you do not now have. Until then the article stays per the consensus position. Read ]. Currently, you are edit~warring and if you continue you wil be blocked. ] (]) 11:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::The onus is on whoever is saying that ROY is not IAC National Convenor of the one and only IAC to reply to me. ] (]) 11:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::The article has a list of about 20 persons stated to be in IAC. Is there any reported public remark anywhere from even 1 of them that ROY is not National Convenor of IAC ? After that we will come to the sources which say that Roy is National Convenor of IAC. ] (]) 11:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

	::: {{ec}} Hi, like {{u\|Voceditenore}} mentioned, this page is about the India Against Corruption movement. A section about <s>its</s> <small>(clarified later) </small> the national convener of {{tq\|"a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name"}} as the India Against Corruption movement and his activities are ] on this page. You may take it up with the protecting admin, {{u\|Drmies}}, if you want a separate article at ]. Regards, <span style="border:2px solid grey;">''' ] '''</span>] 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:The question then arises, if Sarbajit Roy is National Convenor and founder of IAC since 2007 as the movement's website claims, then why his name is being repeatedly deleted from this page. ] (]) 12:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::When was the IAC movement founded, who founded it ? ] (]) 12:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::See this , did VK Singh or Anna Hazare respond to this ? ] (]) 12:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Are photographs of IAC's core members since 2006 / 2007 with Hazare and Kejriwal and Sisodia fabricated ? Is it anyones say here that Roy's IAC does not know Kejriwal and his team ?] (]) 12:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Here we have one of India's most respected columnists describing "Team Anna and Baba Ramdev, self-anointed leaders of an assumed following" . What evidence do you have that this duo ever used the name India Against Corruption regularly ? ] (]) 13:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I find this very funny, Mister NQ says that a section on the National Convenor and founder of IAC is UNDUE in an encyclopedic article on India Against Corruption, but he has no difficulty if fabrications on 2 imposter jokers like Ramdev and Hazare written by people who have never met them and who don't have the slightest connection to IAC fill this article ? ] (]) 13:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::An article about an organisation is not the place for long biographies (whether or not a person is involved with that particular organisation) and especially not for a biography that is almost entirely concerned with a person's activities outside the organisation. ] (]) 14:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: I've read through the talk page archives and various noticeboard discussions regarding the so called IAC dispute and have clarified my original comment. Also, what {{u\|NebY}} said. Regards, <span style="border:2px solid grey;">''' ] '''</span>] 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

	:::::::Just in case anyone says that ROY does not know Baba Ramdev and "this" IAC, here they are together in March 2013 , , where other original "founders" of this article's IAC were also present - Chief Justice Tewatia, Maulana Syed Kalbe, Ram Jethmalani, etc. ] (]) 13:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

	{{outdent}}There is multiple evidence from the reliable 3rd party sources in the article that Hazare used the name. See also and . See also ]. There is evidence that Mr. Roy is the convenor of a group now claiming to be India Against Corruption. However, there is no evidence that they are the same group discussed in this article, apart from their own claims, including Roy's quoted claim in ''The Hindu''. As for the photographs, you are referring to showing Hazare et al., they are labelled as them attending a "CIC-RTI convention" and as such are meaningless. Ditto, the fact that Roy may know Ramdev which you have deduced from a youtube video. Whether they know each other or not is immaterial to supporting Roy's claims. You are engaging in the kinds of ] and ] that got Roy's article locked, and are continuing in the same vein as the multiple indefinitely blocked sockpuppets who had edit-warred on that article and this one. ] (]) 13:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

	:Since you are carrying on like another previous editor, I would like to discuss your 3 cited sources. Yes, on 10.Nov.2012 Hazare did claim the name IAC, but on 11.Nov.2012 Kejriwal asked him to buzz off. This had been preceded by the 19.09.2012 meeting between Kejriwal and Anna which was convened by ROY. Finally on 18.Jan.2013 Anna had to drop the name IAC and close his IAC(Anna) office in New Delhi after a criminal case was filed against him by ROY "It is '''curious''' that having wrested the name from Kejriwal, the new Team Anna is all set to drop the brand altogether". Your 2nd. ref is irrelevant. Your 3rd cite - the Pune photograph is a FORGERY. Look closely at the IAC logo being used. And this photo doesn't prove that Anna was using the name. There are enough reliable sources to say that ROY is National Convenor of IAC, there is nothing to say that Anna Hazare had any position whatsoever in IAC, and there is no denial from Anna that Roy is National Convenor of IAC, and Anna has not challenged Roy's public statement that Anna had no role in IAC. ] (]) 14:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Since I have nothing more to say on this, I hope that good sense prevails and both articles comply with the multitude of reliable sources which show {1} that IAC movement was founded in 2007 and has always been with ROY and they never allowed Anna in it. {2} Anna Hazare had nothing to do with IAC and everything to do with "Team Anna" Jan Lokpal movement. {3} Kejriwal and Sisodia were in both movements at certain times. ] (]) 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::You haven't answered Voceditenore's point. But in a sense, it doesn't matter because it is completely unwarranted to have such a section on one person in an article about an organsisation. I note that you have a long Misplaced Pages history going back to 2008, but that you have made very few edits and a significant proportion of those are concerned with promoting Sarbajit Roy. ] (]) 14:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Interestingly, when Duffycharles created the Sarbajit Roy article in January 2011 , there was no mention of Roy having ''"founded the IAC in 2007"'', i.e. 4 years before the WP article was written—plenty of time for reliable sources to have noticed such an event and reported on it. In fact, there was no mention whatsoever of the IAC in Duffycharles's version. I would be most amazed to find a reliable source that verifies such a claim. The assertion that Roy is the convenor of a group also calling itself the IAC, was added in December 2012 by a now indefinitely blocked editor , part of a large sock farm purporting to officially represent the current group calling itself the IAC. (Background .) Unless he has used IPs or other accounts, Duffycharles ceased editing this article (and Misplaced Pages) almost 4 years ago —until 3 days ago. In any case, all this is moot. Irrespective of the unsubstantiated claims and original research, a lengthy description of Roy's biography and RTI activities does not belong in this article. It is quite possible that Roy is notable for his RTI activities and has received coverage in reliable sources for that aspect of his career. My only suggestion is that Duffycharles try to get the article unlocked, although given the history that led to the locking, that may prove very difficult. ] (]) 16:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	*Alright, this needs to be settled. {{U\|Voceditenore}}, you're saying there is no evidence that this Roy is a "convenor" of the organization now called IAC? Interesting. Now, the easiest way to settle it, I suppose, is via an AfD. If this person is notable it will have to be because he chaired IAC--this current IAC, the one that's notable. And if so, the redirect can stand and, who knows, be turned into an article if sources are produced. If this person can ''not'' be proven to be notable by way of connection to this IAC, then the redirect should be deleted. Until there is such a community-endorsed verdict, the protected redirect stands, and the addition of biographical information on this person in this article is undue, unless rigorously sourced--and not via OR, synthesis, photographs, and other such things. ] (]) 18:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Drmies, voceeditenore is saying that there are no reliable sources that link Roy to the IAC. No sources means no inclusion. I don't see much point in testing notability in an AfD (Roy may well be notable otherwise). If Duffycharles or someone else is unable to provide reliable sources linking the two - preferably not from youtube :) - then Roy should stay out of this article. --] <small>(])</small> 22:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::i dont think a redirect should be pointing to this article if the topic of the redirect is not related to the subject of this article. -- ] 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::], ], I see--so if Roy can't redirect here, then it can't redirect anywhere else either, and since the claim of notability relies on "national convenorshipt", it's deletable via A7, I suppose (or, if someone wants to be picky, via MfD, which does allow for an explanation--mind you, the redirect is still protected). I had my finger on the button, but I've had enough admin abuse hurled at me recently, so I'll leave the nominating and the deleting to others. Or {{U\|Bishonen}} can let common sense prevail (i.e., invoke IAR) and just zap it. ] (]) 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::], Roy may well be the Convenor of an organization that now calls itself the IAC, if their website and the claims he puts about n the press are to be believed. But he almost certainly wasn't the Convenor/leader of the IAC that arose in late 2010 and ended in 2012 which is what <u>this WP article</u> is about. His name is not mentioned in that context in any of the sources found so far, in fact it's not mentioned at all. And there is certainly nothing in reliable sources supporting the notion that he founded the IAC in <u>this article</u> in 2007. Yesterday, I added the following to the article referenced to a reliable source.
	::::::''According to the ] of 3 September 2013, "The group, which now runs — and claims to own — the IAC, mostly comprises Right to Information (RTI) activists. The group had taken over the IAC immediately after the split but held its first formal meeting on Monday ." The 2013 group's National Convenor is Sarbajit Roy.''
	:::::So, that's the current state of play. As I said, it is possible that enough reliable, independent sources could be found to support Roy's notability as an RTI activist and to mention that he runs a group now claiming to be the IAC in its new "avatar" (as the ''Hindustan Times'' puts it). If so, an article about him would be viable, but I gather it's been virtually impossible to prevent the previous Roy article from being turned into a morass of OR and BLP violations. So, I have no idea what to do about it. The fact that he is now mentioned in this article, gives slight support to keeping the redirect. There is also the option of an AfD, which might come to the conclusion of ] and start again via the ] process, or even keep it if notability can be reliably established. Who knows? I can pretty much guarantee that if the Roy article is restored, it will be under continual assault by his organization, with yet more OR, POV, legal threats, sockpuppetry, etc. etc.. However, I'm not sure, that's a reason to outright delete it. ] (]) 06:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I hadnt seen the insertion of the mention of Roy- a redirect to the section where he is mentioned ] might be appropriate, otherwise a redirect to some article related to the RTI focus. -- ] 06:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} I've re-redirected the redirect per ]'s suggestion. Though if Roy should be edited out of IAC per consensus, I think the redirect ought to be deleted altogether. TheRedPenOfDoom has also pinged me below with regard to blocking further manifestations of the IAC sock/meatfarm. I know I said I would, and I know Duffycharles is so disruptive and their contribs pattern so shady it's funny, but I'd like to wait just a little longer to see what a checkuser has to say, because of certain circumstances. Should hear back from her today. ] \| ] 09:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

	== For constructive editors ==
	# Here is a very reputed Indian news agency giving the official website URL of India Against Corruption. as "http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org.in/"
	# Here is the Official IAC website saying that Sarbajit Roy and Arvind Kejriwal and others founded the IAC on 26.02.2007 in New Delhi. The same website explains how Arvind Kejriwal was allowed to use the name till 09.12.2010, and when Anna Hazare / Gen V.K. Singh on 10.11.2012 tried to claim the name after Kejriwal's faction exited IAC to form Aam Aadmi Party, how Roy's factions beat them off so that on 18.01.2013 Anna dropped claims to the name.
	# Here on 18.Jan.2013 we have "Anna Hazare publicly declares he will shut down his "IAC Delhi office" and drop all claims to India Against Corruption brand name."
	# Here is a reputed newspaper publishing Roy's claim that he is National Convenor of IAC and that neither Anna Hazare or V.K. Singh are part of IAC. In fact the newspaper deleted their earlier statement that Hazare is connected to IAC.
	# Here is another reputed newspaper describing Sarbajit Roy as National Convenor of IAC and claiming to be the "owner" the IAC brand name which IAC he and his team are running after Kejriwal exited.

	So since we have both ROY and Hazare very publicly claiming the IAC name, and Hazare equally publicly dropping his claim to the IAC name, somebody should come up with a very good explanation for why this article should not be redacted. ] (]) 06:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::off topic, but its no wonder there is still massive corruption when those claiming to be fighting against it spend all their time haranguing against each other to gain space on wikipedia. -- ] 06:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::ROY's team claims on their website that the IAC "movement" was theirs since 26.02.2007 (when the IAC movement was founded), and they took over the "disavowed" IAC "campaign" on 26.Nov.2012 when Kejriwal's team (who were running that campaign) exited to form Aam Aadmi Party. So this article is actually about an IAC campaign which IAC movement has disowned. ROY's movement also claims to own all IAC names, brands, copyrights and logos. The judgment of Bombay High Court in 2012 also clearly established that Anna Hazare by his own statements had no rights or organisation entitled to use the IAC name. Anna also by his own statements did not have access to IAC's volunteer list or access to its funds . ] (]) 07:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::The insertion by Voceditenore in "Divergence" is incorrect. The 3.09.2013 Hindustan Times article is only about the takeover and abandonment of the IAC Lokpal "campaign" for which there were many claimants after the split. The article does not claim that Roy's team only has IAC movement since 2013. It actually states that both Kejriwal and Hazare split "from" the anti-corruption body. The article states that its first formal meeting of the IAC body "after" the 2012 split it abandoned the LokPal campaign. So read this article carefully and correctly. ] (]) 07:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::TRPoD, yes it's all a bit ] ] (]) 07:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::Is that the only reason why you removed the HOAX tag ? This is a '''serious content dispute issue''', so please treat it as such and stay focused. ] (]) 07:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::No, it's ludicrous. The only "serious" issue is the disruption you and your friends cause to good faith editors. ] (]) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::NO ! the serious issue is how a single editor can create a HOAX article and misuse his expert knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures and policies to write false and incorrect things about '''India's leading anti-corruption body'''. If he was a good faith editor, he would have stuck it out through mediation on issues which he had previously agreed to, including if Anna Hazare had anything to do with IAC. Your own edits are looking very MEATY and BRITISH and FRIENDLY ! This whole thread seems to be filled with the "Friends of disgraced Misplaced Pages editor Sitush" Society !! ] (]) 07:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::hmmm...sounding more and more familiar. ] (]) 08:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::'''TROLLING ALERT'''. BTW, do you have anything to contribute to the '''content dispute''' / the sources cited by me / my allegation that the present article is a blatant '''HOAX''' created by your dear departed friend who never attended Cambridge and has been '''HOAXING''' all India connected articles and editors with his silly edits ? ] (]) 08:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

	== HOAX ==
	I am placing a {:hoax} tag, as I believe that this article was created as a deliberate ] to embarrass Misplaced Pages by the main author of this article. ] (]) 06:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:Please dont make ] edits like that. Disruption of the talk page is bad enough. There have already been You are looking very MEAT-y. -- ] 06:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::The record will show that a HOAX tag was placed on this article, and who removed it without discussion. ] (]) 07:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Duffycharles}} of course it was removed without discussion since it was placed without basis and solely in order to disrupt, ]. Such disruptive actions ]. Any more stunt disruptions will result in '''''you''''' being blocked as well. -- ] 07:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::I see from IAC's mailing list (which is viewable online) that Lindashier's copyright agent has taken the copyright email infringement matter to the WMF, after she was indefed. ] (]) 07:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Now that ''is'' on-topic for this thread heading! ] (]) 07:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::::FYI, Lindashier's post to IAC's mailing list contains a "verifiable" link to the email on the mailing list of "Bharat Swabhiman Trust" where it was forwarded on 08.April.2011, and to which many people responded. No wonder Misplaced Pages's contributor is suddenly AWOL :-) ] (]) 07:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::::yes, harassment from the howling hoaxing hordes is a terrible thing.-- ] 08:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} The agent acting for the group now claiming to be the IAC sent a ] takedown notice to the WMF to have an image of the IAC logo removed from Commons. It was duly removed on September 18 , as it was clearly a non-free file and in fact been previously published on the website of the original IAC in March 2011 . Takedown request . However, if their "agent" had sent a takedown request over their spurious claims of text copyright infringement, it was obviously declined. The WMF only publishes takedown notices for items they have removed and they act very quickly on removing infringing content. Incidentally, the IAC tried to get Google to remove the WP article ] from its search results on 23 August 2014. Takedown notice . They tried again on 13 September. Takedown notice (quite interesting reading). Google has so far not acted on the 13 September notice one way or another . So, since the spurious copyright infringement notices (including 2 attempts to blank the article) haven't worked so far, it seems that claims of "hoax" are the new tactic. ] (]) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:It's interesting that the single-purpose IAC editors each have a belligerent attitude—there's no hint of any kind of serious discussion (a serious discussion being one where those involved take an approach consistent with the ''possibility'' that they might change their views). Instead, it's full-on battle. To me that suggests there is a very small number of people involved—possibly just one activist. ] (]) 09:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks for clearing up that indefed contributor ''Lindashiers'' is pursuing her text copyright infringement against Google (not WMF). It's her "sexual harassment" complaint against "Sitush" which is pending with WMF. Google's reply to the 23-Aug-2014 DMC complaint, viewable online, declined those takedowns because the IAC had approached Google directly. That evidentally caused Lindashiers and the "agent" from "Name Defend India" to land up at WP copyright on 3 Sept.2014, and fire their 2nd DMCA barrel after ''Voceditenore'' rejected it. Anyway this is all very interesting, but is the ''Sarbajit Roy'' article to come here or go somewhere else ? ] (]) 09:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	:::That's interesting. Just a few minutes ago you claimed that according to the IAC mailing list:
	::::''" Lindashier's copyright agent has taken the <u>copyright email infringement matter</u> to the WMF, after she was indefed."'' (my underlining).
	:::Now you claim that this is not the case? Re your question about Roy's biography. Roy's biography does not belong in this article, likewise those any of the other people associated with the IAC under any of its guises. ] (]) 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::'''my bad'''. Lindashiers' email was ambiguous where she had complained to. You link to ''chillingeffects'' cleared that up, and a 2nd reading of her email made it clear that she has taken her sexual harassment matter to WMF.] (]) 10:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	*These sections all seem to be about pretty much the same thing; I hope I don't have to put in all of them. In that, I answer your question "is the Sarbajit Roy article to come here or go somewhere else ?", ], as well as addressing the IAC socking and indeed your own disruption. ] \| ] 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
	*:So finally, Misplaced Pages's ultimate weapon is wheeled out to silence criticism, and continue those paid edits which fuel Jimbo's champagne swilling pornographer lifestyle snatched from the lunch money of poor schoolkids. And yes Bishonen .. you are a grandmother .. like Sitush was from Cambridge. So let us see if this CheckUser's results will be any different from the chain of rigged ones before it. ] (]) 10:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== For constructive editors dealing with disruptive editors on this subject matter ==
	:''(I've moved this single possibly useful section out of the hat and out of sequence. ] \| ] 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).)''
	Per the ANI:

	And I believe that {{ping\|Bishonen}} has indicated a . -- ] 9/27/14

	==Disruptive editor blocked==
	On second thoughts, ], and glancing through your other contributions on this
	page, I'll block you for personal attacks and battleground editing for a few days to be going on with, because people may want to use this page for actual discussion, and your bloat and disruption is very distracting. For any further sanctions, stand by for the next "rigged CheckUser result". Incidentally, you didn't make more than four edits between 20 July 2008 and 24 September 2014 (or, shock and horror, did you?), so how do you come to have any notion of our checkuser results wrt IAC socks? Answer on your page, if you wish, because you can't post here; you've been blocked. ] \| ] 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
	:], given Duffycharles's in response to your 72-hour block, I suspect the block may become somewhat longer very quickly. ] (]) 11:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Have reblocked indefinitely per ] -- ] (]) 12:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
	*And now checkuser has established that ] who brought the hoax copyvio claim is a sock of ]. ] (]) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
	:Thanks to ] for creating ]. Could/should there be a link to it toward the top of the page to keep it from being archived with discussion, as a general reference point for editors who come in with no prior awareness of the sockfarm? ] (]) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes, thanks Bish. I've added a note at the top. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

	== Concerns ==		== Concerns ==

Revision as of 17:46, 18 October 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.

Article policies

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

	India portal 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

	Politics portal 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.

This article and talk page have been the target of long term sock and meat puppetry. More information can be found here.

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.

Concerns

These are reviews of the current version of the article, and not of "what should be", "what could be" etc.

Infobox data: In the infobox, Arvind Kejriwal has been mentioned as a "key people". Should we mention in bracket that he is a former member (this is based on what we have in the article now).
Notable members: There is a list of "Notable members" in the article. It is unclear (in the article) whether they had a "formal membership/registration procedure". Is "Members" the right word here? Or something like "participants", "activist" "workers" may be used?
The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name. — it is in our lead. I am facing difficulties to find where it has been discussed in details in articles body, hence, it might be "unsourced" claim.
What is meant by "Pressure group" here?
Those involved with the IAC core committee eventually diverged to form the — unclear. Article mentions, some people stayed even after the split.

Tito☸Dutta 22:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tito, my suggestions re the points you raised would be the following:

1. Remove the infobox completely. Infoboxes are not obligatory and should not be used where they create confusion or over-simplify. Trying to force what appears to be a loose coalition of activists with no organization or formal governance apart from a "core Committee" into a formal organization like Greenpeace or UNICEF (for which {{Infobox organization}} was intended) is counter-productive.

2. Remove the list of "notable members". It adds nothing, and is simply a source of arguments and unreferenced drive-by additions. Where there are reliable sources linking a person to the movement's activities in a significant way, those people should be covered as prose within the article itself.

3. Remove The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name. from the lede. Given the paucity of reliable sources available concerning its present activities (if any) and the apparent contradiction with the quote from the Hindustan Times at the end of the "Divergence" section.

4. Change the sentence in the lede: Those involved with the IAC core committee eventually diverged to form the Aam Aadmi Party and Jantantra Morcha. to something like:

Divisions amongst key members of the IAC's core committee eventually led to a split within the movement. Arvind Kejriwal left to form the Aam Aadmi Party, while Anna Hazare left to form a replacement campaigning group, Jantantra Morcha.

In that respect, I'd also change the heading Divergence to Split.

Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. #1, #2, I agree. good suggestions. #3 If that line is removed, the article becomes only on the movement, the IAC editors are trying to change the article about "an organization" (founded in 2007), I have not studied it still, that needs to be mentioned in the article, at least in a hatnote. #4 -- okay. Thank you once again. --Tito☸Dutta 06:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Long-term solution Tito, so far, there are zero reliable, independent, secondary sources to support the claim that it was founded in 2007. Ditto their other claims. Note that even the Hindustan Times refers to their "owning" the IAC as of September 2013 simply as a claim. So no, that doesn't belong in the article until/unless such sources can be found. Your statement If that line is removed, the article becomes only on the movement is absolutely key here and leads to my suggestion for more long-term solution. My suggestions above are simply an interim solution. This article plus 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement and 2012 Indian anti-corruption movement are all unfortunate consequences of recentism and various groups of activists seeing Misplaced Pages as yet another arm of social media to promote their cause. In the long term all three articles should be merged (with considerable pruning of all three) into 2011 – 2012 Indian anti-corruption movement. Note that there is already a long-standing proposal to merge the 2011 and 2012 Indian anti-corruption movement articles. This article could be a subsection of that merged article. Such a major restructuring would take a lot of work. Perhaps a task force of WikiProject India could take it on. It needs experienced editors thoroughly familiar with the appropriate Indian sources and an ability to write coherent and concise prose. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a wonderful post. It shows both your expertise and your knowledge about this subject and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. I was not following their replies and discussions so far.
Correctly or incorrectly, by "India Against Corruption", news papers, medias etc. mean the movement that gained momentum in India in 2011-12.
Now, they may have an organization with same name and it might be a brand name/generic name type of error as well. But, it needs to be verified.
About merging, I feel, this IAC should be the main article, but, that can/should be discussed in details later. --Tito☸Dutta 08:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Voceditenore's suggestion that we have a single article focused on the larger story of the 2011-2012 movement, which would include the involvement of IAC as well as that of other groupings and the part played by some individuals even as those groupings changed. Merging those descriptions into an article about IAC would produce a much more awkward result, subsuming other narratives into the story of the IAC, viewing events from a single perspective and even omitting material as irrelevant to the subject of IAC. NebY (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This merger has been my proposal for a very long time and I've been working on all three articles to achieve that end. That has involved, and likely will still involve, removing a lot of copyvio as well as the usual fluff. If the IAC pressure group want an article about themselves then, as said umpteen times in the past, they'll have to demonstrate notability. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Voceditenore Remove The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name. Further it is only there claim that the Hindustan Times of 3 September 2013 Published The group, which now runs — and claims to own — the IAC, mostly comprises Right to Information (RTI) activists. This should be removed.Further whether Veeresh Malik is notable puts that He is a Co-convenor and co-founder of the India Against Corruption anti-corruption movement.Now cannot find a source outside there own website.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The IAC organisation exists and there are more sources that could be used to verify this. None that I've ever seen actually confer notability sufficient to justify a separate article but they do verify. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Eg: page 130 of this, an official paper of the Rajya Sabha. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

IAC organization will fail notability for now did search but did not find anything notable that will pass notability .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we have consistently prevented this article from being hijacked by that organisation. That is not the same as saying that the thing should not be mentioned in order to avoid confusion. What I'd really like to pin down is whether they are in fact a registered NGO. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion so far, I have provisionally changed the lede along the lines suggested. I have also removed "along with Team Anna" from the lede. It was problematic for a number of reasons, but primarily because it implies that IAC=Team Anna, which is not strictly true, at least according to the sources. I have also renamed the "Divergence Section" to "Internal split" and made a more precise redirect from Team Anna. I have also made some slight tweaks to the "Internal split" section to bring it more into line with what the sources actually said. For ease of comparison and discussion, see this diff showing the changes I made. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: #1, #2 mentioned above Done. --Tito☸Dutta 05:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific concerns

populist in the lede and elsewhere. This word is misused, often as a perjorative for demagoguery . It should be replaced by the organization's own description "people's movement".
The 2 suggested links for "Further reading"
1. Hensman, Rohini (September 2011). "Converging agendas: Team Anna and the Indian Right"
2. Megwanshi, Bhanwar (5 September 2011). "India: The Communal Character of Anna Hazare’s Movement" - ought to be deleted immediately, as they do not relate to "India Against Corruption" but Anna Hazare's JLPB campaign/s and Hazare's earlier campaigns.
The lede's Divisions amongst key members of the IAC's core committee eventually led to a split within the movement is incorrect. (A) There's no hard evidence that there was ever a "split" within the movement, or (B) That the IAC's core committee ever disagreed. I believe the true position is what the IAC has disclosed on its official website/s, viz. that Mr. Arvind Kejriwal's NGO Public Cause Research Foundation was hired in 2010 by IAC's "Core Committee" to launch a new campaign exclusively against CWG-2010 scams in IAC's name, and that this campaign was soon terminated by IAC Core Committee on 9/Dec/2010 when this new activity of PCRF got enlarged and infiltrated by right wing persons affiliated to the communal Jana Sangh's successor party the BJP. Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Per 1 and 2, I have removed the descriptor "populist" altogether, primarily because "populist" is an inaccurate label which ≠ "people's", but also because it is unnecessary. I have removed the "Further Reading" section with Team Anna and the Indian Right and India: The Communal Character of Anna Hazare’s Movement because although they specifically mention the IAC, they are opinion pieces from a particular political standpoint, not relevant for improving or referencing the article. However, they do contain references to potentially reliable sources, hence I'm linking them here on the talk page. As for 3, your assertions are not supported by the reliable sources, all of which call it a split, splinter, within the movement, amongst the leaders of its core committee etc. The official website of the group now claiming to own the IAC brand is not a reliable source for the assertions you want to replace them with, and in fact, is an even worse "opinion piece" than the other two I removed. Its "History" section is an incoherent rant. It's fine to put that construction on events for your members on your website. It is not a reliable source for this article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For #3 I am referring to a specific paragraph No. 3 here. The referred details of the substantial payment/s from IAC to PCRF are contained in the audited balance sheet/s of the PCRF which can be accessed at PCRF Official website. As these are internal matters between IAC and PCRF, they are hardly likely to be of general interest or published in 2nd.ary sources for such routine matters where the respective parties were admittedly well known to each other. At the same time there is no absolutely no evidence to show that any of the IAC's Core Committee members ever split from IAC, if you differ perhaps you could list their names. A neutral encyclopedic statement would be that Arvind Kejriwal's "team" left the IAC campaign to pursue politics. In fact PCRF is now merged within Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party as per . I have no comment on the "History" section of IAC's website because I observe that IAC has a distinguished editorial board to whom your opinions are better directed. Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Links

Here are some links:-

- Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not checked all these sources, but, #7 FirstPost mentions IAC as an organization. --Tito☸Dutta 03:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Tito, 'IAC' is a juristic person under Indian law. The IAC name was additionally re-registered on 08/Oct/2007 for international use under US Govt laws and there is authentic evidence accessible on-line for this exact name's usage - from 26 August 2008 - under the US Govt. registration. Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I got that point. Thanks. I participated in a similar conflict a year ago (lack of reliable source etc.) Let's see what others think or suggest. --Tito☸Dutta 04:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it ethical for a "retired " conflicted editor like User:Sitush who has off-wiki issues, and who abruptly terminated the mediation on the same conflict last year (from where I got many of these links) to edit on this topic ? Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sotyam Eba Joyate, it is entirely ethical for Sitush to participate here whatever banner he has on his talk page. He has been editing this article since May 2011 to remove attempts at using Misplaced Pages as part of the then-IAC's social media campaign and long before the disruption and long-term abuse by the "current" IAC began. We are discussing here the best way to take this article forward. Please refrain from personalised remarks and especially from commentary on off-wiki issues, and keep to the topic. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore, thanks for your views. However, seeing that there is a pending discussion on WP:AN concerning the off-wiki incidents and its larger implications, and that this editor's disruptive participation for this article eg. is clearly distinguishable from cases like Katsanevas , , I believe my concerns need consensus from Misplaced Pages's wider community or action/s of the WMF. Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sotyam Eba Joyate, Sitush has made no disruptive comments in this current discussion, nor ever on this page, despite numerous baseless attacks and legal threats by your colleagues. I repeat, your comments are irrelevant to the current discussion on improving this article and disruptive. Your linking to defamation lawsuits involving other editors is likewise off-topic, disruptive, and getting very close to implying legal threats. If you have broader concerns about a user, take them to either the Administrators' Noticeboard or the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nuances

http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/annual_report/2011/PPG.pdf (makes it clear that so-called "Team Anna" were appearing for Lokpal Bill in their private capacities, and not as "India Against Corruption". In fact the Committee's final report does not mention IAC anywhere, and only speaks of "Team Anna", "Mr. Hazare's team" etc.)
The Hindustan Times report is "nuanced". For instance while saying in the first sentence that Anna Hazare made IAC's name a household name, the reporter does not say that the public agitation which Hazare led for Jan Lokpal Bill was "India Against Corruption" {paraphrased: "Anna Hazare led a public agitation for Jan Lokpal Bill which made India Against Corruption a household name" does not establish that Hazare's agitation was named IAC}. It then goes to speak of "claimants" for the IAC campaign after both Hazare and Kejriwal split from the IAC. The article then states that (after their split from IAC) Kejriwal formed AAP and Hazare formed Jan Tantra Manch and Kiran Bedi split from Hazare. The controversial phrase "The group, which now runs — and claims to own — the IAC, mostly comprises Right to Information (RTI) activists. The group had taken over the IAC immediately after the split ..." has to be read in the report's previous context of "claimants " for the IAC campaign. That is to say this report is stating that the IAC group took over the IAC campaign and claimed the 'campaign" to announce that Lokpal bill issue is abandoned by the IAC. It is noteworthy that there is no denial from AAP's Manish Sisodia or Hazare that the IAC they split from is the "anti-corruption body" / group which has Roy as National Convenor. Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: Usage of Anna's name in this article and/or in connection with "India Against Corruption". The agreement between "Anna" and IAC of January 2013 is accessible on a google-drive link in public domain. Its pretty clear that Anna, who is not very literate in English, co-signed 2 documents released on 14.Nov.2010 and 01.Dec.2010 in New Delhi with IAC's name under the assurances of his hosts in New Delhi, and he has thereafter never used the name "India Against Corruption", and that the Marathi language newspapers he reads never used the name "India Against Corruption" for his own agitation or else he would have himself objected to such misuse of IAC's name. It is also pretty clearly agreed that Anna personally never made money from usage of IAC's name. Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
For instance on Nov. 10-11 2012, "Avantika Ghosh" reports "Anna claims IAC brand" name (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/anna-s-new-team-wants-an-old-name-says-we-are-india-against-corruption/1029940/) but after the above mentioned "agreement", Ghosh immediately reports on 18 Jan 2013 "Anna drops IAC brand name" (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/anna-drops-iac-brand-name-to-close-delhi-office/1061067/0) and snarkily says "It is curious that having wrested the name from Kejriwal, the new Team Anna is all set to drop the brand altogether." Sotyam Eba Joyate (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, folks? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by an admin. Might I suggest any further posts by sock/meat puppets simply be reverted and the sock told to request an unblock from the original account? That way, the community can place conditions on the potential unblock (e.g., no attacks on Sitush). --NeilN 14:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories: