Talk:India Against Corruption

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sitush (talk | contribs) at 11:10, 10 September 2014 (→Discussion on edits to Team Anna article: you'll only get somewhere here if you collaborate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:10, 10 September 2014 by Sitush (talk | contribs) (→Discussion on edits to Team Anna article: you'll only get somewhere here if you collaborate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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)

Big revert

I just made a big revert. There is a thread somewhere above concerning the unilateral change to citation style but, worse, I've just looked at the article for the first time in a couple of weeks & there seemed to be, for example, an introduction of completely unnecessary cites of the Encyclopaedia Britannica etc. I've left a note at User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#IAC in the hope that we can rescue anything that is deserving. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, IP. Please can you provide a single reliable source either from the earlier version or elsewhere that explicitly says that the "India Against Corruption" referred to by the media during 2011-2012 was usurped from the HRA organisation. No deductions, no adding of two sources to form a synthesis - just a straight reference. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

2 straight media sources which both covered "IAC" (generic) extensively from 2010. Firstpost.com today clearly says that we are the official IAC. This report refers to the usurption in Dec 2012 whereas in 2011 they wrote stuff like this . Their article is a straight report from the primary source , . The date is corrororated from this photo . The facts of IAC's disputes with "Team Anna" in Orissa immediately after 26 Nov. 2012 (2nd cutoff date) are here , , . This on 24.Oct.2012 was probably among the first mainstream articles on IAC-HRA (no mention of Anna here). What IAC also has is a large number of unimpeachable corespondence, RTI requests, official replies and statutory Appeals filed in name of IAC between 2008 and 2011 to Government bodies - mainly related to 2010 Commonwealth Games mischiefs which nobody in India has been able to dispute.2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No - you are conflating: we need a source that says the HRA IAC were responsible for the 2011-2012 protest movement, which is what this article is about. The HRA IAC itself is seemingly not a notable organisation. We've covered all this ground before: unless you can directly connect the protest movement as being organised by the HRA body, nothing is going to change. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of sources refer to the protest movement. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On my talk page, Sitush says that my recent edit is "not a useful reinstatement" and that "The claims of a non-notable organisation carry no weight when compared to the thousands of media reports that say otherwise." As I understand it, the media sources use the name "IAC" or "India Against Corruption" to refer to both the HRA-related group (now claiming to be the sole legitimate user of that name) and to the group also known as "Team Anna" and to a wider movement with which both were to some extent associated. Please coirrect me if this is incorrect. If this is correct, then the views of the HRA-related organization, as part of the article subject, should be included (if they can be reliably ascertained, such as from that group's own publications) although they should not be given undue weight nor be allowed to have the final word nor be treated as the definitive statement of fsact on the issues. DES 19:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DES - all we are asking for is balanced treament whereby we are not defamed for actions of others/imposters. @Sitush, you are again beating around the bush. IAC-HRA has never claimed that IAC-HRA organised the 2011-12 protests. IAC-HRA says that the 2 main protest movements Anna's LPB and Ramdev's "Return Black Money" had nothing to do with IAC except that both these illiterate fellows were misled into once signing a letter to the Prime Minister on a cheap laser printout "letterhead" with the words "India Against Corruption" in English on 01.Dec.2010 (This letter was never delivered to the PM). After that neither of them used this name for a very long time - ie. till August 2011 - see the photographs. Insofar as IAC-HRA's notability goes there are several mainstream news sources which say that the IAC movement is now with the HRA and it is doing notable anti-corruption things (like blocking UIDAI's HeadQuarters) and causing Radio Stations to apolgise etc. Why thousands of sources (incorrectly) refer to the protest movement as "IAC" was due to criminal fraud, forgery and impersonation by 3 of the signatories to that letter. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. - 2001:558:1400:10:F8EC:295:110E:1DB4 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

??? Who is this IP. Is this DES ? If so, you've captured the essence of it very well. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All of my edits to this page are signed with my user name. All hte various IP editors seem as if they are editing from the same PoV. Note that it is not allowed for one person to attempt to seem to be multiple people to increase the apparent support behind a position, or to influence a discussion. See WP:SOCK. I am not doing that here (or anywhere) and I hope that no one else is either. DES 20:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That "Agreed" was not done by us. We see that a similar IP has been blocked for "Duck Attack" edits. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not correct unless you take the word of the HRA body, which we cannot do because no independent sources verify it. The situation is actually akin to one that would require a disambiguation but we can't do that either ... because thus far the HRA body has not even been able to show that it is notable. What is happening here is an attempt at mob rule by people who won't even create accounts and claim to be affiliated with what amounts to an underground organisation. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

IAC has not opened a Misplaced Pages Account for this dispute as there may be legal terms and conditions or other clauses of adhesion associated with such accounts which diminish IAC's legal rights. As this now essentially seems to be a face-off between IAC and User:Sitush who had again reverted to his previous version while attempts of other editors to reach consensus was underway, IAC requests that some editor shall open a Mediation request file for this article (IAC cannot do so without opening an account). The grounds for which are '(a) 'whether the apellations "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" refer to the same entity or not', and (b) whether libellous, defamatory and other wise disparaging statements emanating from misuse of the India Against Corruption's title(s) by third parties should be associated with the actual India Against Corruption movement in Misplaced Pages's article(s)'. As a courtesy to IAC, we expect "Misplaced Pages" to stub or severely trim this article to remove the disputed content previously indicated by us on this talk page while the dispute is ongoing. As conclusive evidence that "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" are not one and the same body, IAC cites which is the official Parliament Report on Lokpal Bill. It is replete with references to Anna, Anna Hazare, Team Anna, Anna's team etc, and names Anna, Prashant Bhushan, Kiran Bedi., Arvind Kejriwal etc as witnesses before it, but there is not even a single reference to "India Against Corruption" in this report, (because IAC had formally complained about misuse of its name for Lokpal Bill campaign to the Rajya Sabha Chairman/Speaker, saying that IAC opposed Lokpal Bill on principle) 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

actually what this appears to be is a stand off between Sitush supporting Misplaced Pages policies and a swarm of meatpuppet proponants of a group attempting to hijack wikipedia with legal threats, personal attacks and incessant WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT disruptive behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 2 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)

Categories: