Talk:India Against Corruption/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Complaint of inaccurate information about India Against Corruption

Complaint sent to <info-en-q@wikimedia.org> (Privacy portions are taken out)

To:

Wikipedia Complaint section

This is to bring to your notice that the Wikipedia article on "India Against Corruption" is factually incorrect and requires to be corrected very urgently.

Kindly note that some miscreants had misused the name, brand and other Intellectual property of India Against Corruption (a 90 year old body) during the period Jan.2011-Sep.2012. Those persons were taken to task and have made suitable reparations to us.

Tens of thousands of persons had been cheated and deceived by these persons describing themselves as "India Against Corruption" during 2011-2012, and your article is causing their victims to wrongly identify our 90 year old body as being these scamsters.

Due to the high ranking of the Wikipedia article in search results, India Against Corruption is consequently getting defamed and is also receiving legal notices and threats from various persons and authorities as a result also of Wikipedia's mischievous, false and skewed article.

It is therefore a matter of great urgency that Wikipedia does not pass off / promote the illegal actions of those deceivers (which took place in the period 2011-2012) as "India Against Corruption". All the websites (used by the scammers to promote themselves and issue press releases faithfully reproduced in the media) have been shut down. The scammers have also apologised and publicly agreed not to use the name of IAC henceforth - hence IAC did not prosecute them as many persons advised us to do.

The IAC is a 90 year old revolutionary body and is least interested in either media publicity (what you call reliable secondary sources) or having a Wikipedia article about itself.

Kindly do the needful

National Spokesperson India Against Corruption

www.indiaagainstcorruption.org.in

You need to tell us what you take issue with; What material needs to be changed? --Mdann52talk to me! 11:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Ideally we would like this article to be "stubbed" permanently. The other option being proposed to have 2 articles, one for IAC_(Team Anna) and other for IAC_(NGO) is unacceptable to us. There are already detailed Wikipedia articles on the 2011 and 2012 Indian anti-corruption movements. Under no circumstances is IAC prepared to (a) validate / accept that these movements used the IAC's name or brand lawfully, or (b) to allow/permit the association of IAC's name with these movements. We also submit at the outset that IAC is reluctant to work within Wikipedia's framework of policies as these have been used to publicise and glorify persons who stole and misused our identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:72D:0:A928:C888:EE9B:8A91 (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Another mischievous user associated with promoting Anna Hazare has just added the following malfide and incorrect statement to contnue the defamation against India Against Corruption "the movement continues with the IAC promoting the Jan Lokpal agenda through rallies and hunger fasts.[1] [2]". Neither of the 2 references has any mention of India Against Corruption. The person who made the change is also thereafter misrepresenting IAC on other articles with mischievous edits the official website of IAC after verifying that it indeed is the correct one - please note that there are many other nefarious pseudo sites posing as their official website +++ both are linked to the India against corruption wiki page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:72D:0:A928:C888:EE9B:8A91 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

for more on this see WP:HD#Article "India Against Corruption etc. DES (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It would be easier if the requests for the article were straight forward in what the article should say. The earliest reference to "India Against Corruption" I found is from December 3, 2010.[9] Please provide a bulleted dated list of the events after December 3, 2010 that highlight the history India Against Corruption. Once we have an idea of the structured history of the "India Against Corruption", it will be easier to find sourcing for the article and expand the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • These issues have all be dealt with in prior discussions on this talk page. What we are seeing is a small group of raucous people who simply do not accept how Wikipedia works. It has, for example, already been explained that there is nothing to stop us having two articles - one about the popular movement and one about the NGO - if reliable sources for the notability etc of the NGO can be found. That proviso seems unlikely to be attainable because it is not in fact notable: it appears to be a small pressure group with a private mailing list and an incredibly bad website. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The 'incredibly' bad website refers to the meeting of 18.Oct.2010 when the HRA's willingness to loan the name of IAC for the andolan was circulated (the private documents are with IAC). The incredibly bad website itself discloses 2 controversial letters (written / signed without any authority) in name of IAC on 01 December 2010_to PM and CJI. Those 2 letters are the 'cause of action' for HRA and they are again accessible now from that incredibly bad website thanks to IAC's private archives. The communications of 9 Dec. 2010 objecting to association of Ramdev and Agnivesh etc and not to use IAC name are also carefully preserved and unimpeachable. The incredibly bad website refers to registration of domain "indiaagainstcorruption.org" by Kejriwal on 17.11.2010 to send those 2 letters. We have already made it clear that we are not in the least concerned about HOW Wikipedia works. You are not listening to us - unimpeachable primary documents trump so-called secondary sources when it comes to objectionable internet content.
  1. Jreferee: We shall certainly explain what edits we want made. Sitush should retract his offensive remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:GNG, for starters. Given your repeated use of "us" and "we", I think that perusal of WP:MEAT and WP:COI might also be beneficial. Please also note that given the dispute, we cannot rely on that IAC website for anything more than a basic statement along the lines of "An organisation exists that calls itself India Against Corruption. The organisation says that it was founded as a part of the HRA in YYYY, became moribund and was then revived in YYYY." That sort of thing.

Bearing in mind all of the past discussion, if you still don't like this then you'll need to get Wikipedia's policies changed because dispute resolution is not going to come up with a different outcome based on the allegations that have been made. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this issue has been discussed and no clear consensus was reached. Sam Sailor Sing 19:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Delhi High Court

We are not qualified to interpret the law in these circumstances - let's leave it to those who are, as per discussions above. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

According to 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C7, "the Government of India has directed all Information Technology intermediaries (including foreign ones like Wikipedia)". A link was provided previously: www.livelaw.in, Delhi HC directs Google, Facebook to appoint a grievance officer and disclose their grievance redressal mechanism. According to this article, "The Court made these observations while hearing a PIL [W.P.(C) 3672/2012] alleging that the websites have no mechanism for protection of children from on line abuse." And also, "The Court also sought the Centre’s stand on the petitioner’s allegation that Delhi Police, Indian Railways and others have created accounts on social networking sites despite government departments being barred from doing so under the law." Tell me, what danger is there for children to be abused online at Wikipedia? And what government departments have created Wikipedia-pages? Where is Wikipedia mentioned at all in this article? I'm would like to see the official jurisprudence of this Court-direction, instead of the IAC-interpretations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I also gave the link to the actual judgement [10] and clarified that Wikipedia is certainly an intermediary even if its disputed that its a social networking site. And just to put a very fine point on it, the person who obtained the judgment is the chief adviser/strategist of the non-organisation to which IAC is opposed. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As Sitush suggests, we are no longer discussing this .2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes

A starting point for notability of IAC is here [11]. It confirms that the official website inserted by some a kind editor yesterday as an external link is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

After observing some recent edits (perhaps warring) on this page, IAC is concerned about this [12] edit by Notthebestusername. We would like it corrected and the facebook page link removed. Thanks. Sitush has done it, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jreferee: The link you found is actually a "comment" by an IIT-iian businessman friend of Kejriwal. He is not a reporter for Hindustan Times (although he did doodle a little). The comment is not subject to any editorial process and makes a miserably unreliable source. And yet, it is still fairly accurate and corresponds to what the official IAC website says.

"Kiran Bedi announced that the group will spearhead a movement with the name of “India Against Corruption” or “Bhrashtachar ke Virudh Janyudh”. She exhorted people to participate, and sought their inputs on the alternative Lokpal Bill is available on the movement’s website - www.indiaagainstcorruption.org . She emphasized, “We want it to be really a people’s bill."

The photos on IAC website for both the meetings of 14/Nov./2010 and 01/Dec/2010 show that they were then only operating under the banner (in Hindi) of Bhrashtachar ke Virudh Janyudh which translates exactly as "Peoples War Against Corruption" as the IAC website says. On 9.Dec.2010 IAC refused usage of its name to them. The first time Kiran Bedi and Kejriwal actually used (illegally) the IAC name/banner in public was at the 31.Jan.2011 meeting at Ramlila Grounds New Delhi.2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of the "official" website of IAC has to be clarified immediately, since Sitush has removed the external link. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible to clarify the official site unless the actual scope of this article is accepted. At present, you seem not to accept it. If you look back a few months on this talk page, you'll see a fair few discussions about it. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well then, as per you, which is the official website of the India Against Corruption movement ? and seeing as how the present website which you removed was never discussed.

Have looked back. The previous discussions for which a RFC (?) was raised is about an uncloaked redirect of the www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in domain to a secure subdirectory on riseup.net. The obstructive user ThinkYouth who repeatedly blocked the discussion (pretending not to understand the issues) so as to oppose the insertion of the URL left Wikipedia wth the following immortal words "(Fuck off.. admins wiki r total biased)" 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note per WP:BOLD. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We have some issues with this, you wrote
According to the HRA, the term "IAC" was dubbed in 1973 by Raj Narain as a renaming of "India Against Colonialism". According to the HRA, the name "IAC" came to be used in 2007 for a movement to monitor accounts of the Common Wealth Games of 2010. Thereafter the name came in use by the popular movement against corruption. The HRA objects against the use of the term "IAC" by this popular movement.[1]
There is a difference between HRA and HRSA. After 1925, HRA opened many public faces like HRSA, RSS, IAC etc. IAC is one of a large number of such public faces. HRA is a private body of persons. HRA does not comment on or against anything publicly (like you have said in the note), It is IAC (not HRA) which is objecting to use of its name (conferred by HRA) for the agitation for the LokPal. IAC has no objection to its name being used for the anti-corruption movement (aka andolan) against excesses of Congress Govt. which peaked in 2010-2011. IAC repeats for better clarity - IAC fully backed and participated in the 2011 anti-corruption movement, it objected to use of its name for Lokpal Bill andolan (which was a separate andolan) and to association of persons like Ramdev, Agnivesh, Kiran Bedi, Aruna Roy etc. under its banner. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • IAC objects to inclusion of these 2 External Links.[13], [14]. Neither of these are reliable sources, both are biased, and they deal with Team Anna's Jan Lokpal movement and don't refer at all to "India Against Corruption"'s anti-corruption movement. IAC is being maligned by such disparaging articles written by dubious "activists". India Against Corruption is a secular Hindutva movement and is not affiliated to the RSS, and we want this and all such similar innuendoes / claims deleted in the body text immediately. NB: RSS has not been affiliated to HRA for many decades after Dr. Hedgewar passed away.
  • IAC also object to inclusion of this book for further reading "Citizens Against Corruption: Report from the Front Line" as further reading. IAC was never a part of any "Citizens Against Corruption" initiative by PTF and the book contains no material to support such a claim. There is only 1 reference to IAC in the book (around pg. 34) and that is in context of Anna's movement for Jan Lokpal.
  • IAC objects to the following sentence "Those at the head of IAC became known as Team Anna.[4]". The source clearly mentions that Team Anna was only formed with "his forces" after the movement disintegrated in 2012. The source also says that Anna was only a "nominal" leader prior to formation of Team Anna. Certainly IAC never accepted Anna Hazare as its leader or ever dealt with him for the 2011 movement.
2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added a nuance to the note. As for the "Further reading" and the links: the article is about "IAC/Team Anna", not about "IAC (HRA)"; the linked articles are not sources, but further reading on AIC/TA, not on your organisation. Same for the book; it's not about your organisation, but about the events of 2011/2012. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Please read source no. 4 which clearly says that essentially Team Anna formed in around Sept 19 2012. In which case the point of this article to equate IAC and TA is flawed. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
References to the India Against Corruption lokpal etc movement long predate 19 Sept 2012 and far exceed references to the NGO. That is your problem and we both know that you cannot resolve it. I say again, the HRA organisation has no place on Wikipedia because it is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You evaded my query on your weaselly usage for source 4 which says no such thing and actually goes against you. This problem has been caused by your attempt to prove that IAC and Team Anna are one and the same thing. Up until 1 month back we had 2 perfectly stable and separate articles - one on IAC and the other on Team Anna. Like you there are many people who were not involved with the movement or had only 2nd/3rd hand accounts of it who find it amusing to concoct their theories of what happened (like seeing canals on Mars). We'll go through this article and see what notable bits about the present IAC have been deleted by you and that other editor. It is not as though there are no references to IAC in the media. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Joshua

Your notes are confusing the issue even further.

  1. There is no such thing as IAC(HRA).
  2. There has been no "split" in the IAC since 2007 or even since 1973.
  3. There is no such thing as "Team Anna". It has always been "Team Arvind" running that part of the JanLokpal movement. (there are several sources which say this, easily locatable)
  4. On IAC's "foundation" day 26/Feb/2007 all senior leaders of India Against Corruption were present (Veeresh Malik, Arvind Kejriwal, Sarbajit Roy, Manish Sisodia). In fact the previous day at least 200 concerned people were present on the spot to ensure a meeting of minds between them which took place in the benign presence of the police.
  5. The 19 Sept 2012 meeting (article source [15]) when Team Anna formed was acrimonious because the previous day Anna's people had been told by Kejriwal and Bhushans that name of IAC stays with HRA exclusively and they can't use it. To which they were stunned and retaliated that Arvind should not use Anna's name for their political party. The rabid reaction of Anna's forces at the time to this "deal" with HRA can be seen at websites like [16] (follow the menu link "IAC FIASCO")
  6. There are additional refs [17] and [18] linked from IAC's website, for the next week, which clearly show that Anna Hazare and his people then were dummys as far as IAC is concerned and didn't even have a list of volunteers or access to any funds of IAC.
"There is no such thing as "Team Anna"" - "The 19 Sept 2012 meeting when Team Anna formed" - ?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The article source [19] says a) "Anna Hazare" became the nominal leader of the protest forces (p.185) after his fast on 5.April. 2011, b) In 2012 the JanLokPal movement began disinitegrating and Hazare gathered his forces into what is called "Team Anna" (p.186). This source also confirms that the 31 Jan 2011 nationwise protests in many cities across India were then not under "India Against Corruption" and were separate "uprisings" in solidarity from a wide section of NGOs and were not even about Lokpal Bill. It was really only at the Delhi protest on 31 Jan 2011 at RamLila ground where because a large white stage backdrop with "India Against Corruption" (in bold red letters on the top) was (mis)used that the media called the LokPal movement "India Against Corruption".
The starting point for this entire mischief is this letter [20]. This is the first letter sent as "IAC" the address, phone number and website are all Arvind Kejriwal's to support his LokPal Bill. After the IAC complained about name misuse they stopped calling themselves as IAC for some time. Then on 31/Jan/2011 the main sponsor of the Delhi rally (a leading media house) insisted / imposed that the name of "India Against Corruption" would be used on the backdrop (IAC was not consulted and is blacklisted by that group). After another protest by IAC, Anna's 5/April/2011 fast backdrop did not have IAC banner/tag, but the media houses kept on using the IAC name anyhow for boosting their own ratings and to mislead the public.
So yes, there was no "Team Anna" till the disintegrations in the Lokpal andolan began happening from Oct 2011 onwards and the main burstup on 19.Sept.2012. Once again the phrase "Team Anna" was coined by the media houses. 2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as IAC(C) either. The blogspot source is clearly an abusive rant site by anonymous persons to disparage India Against Corruption. IAC does not agree that it should be used as a source about IAC. It should be corrected. 2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You provided the link to this site: "The rabid reaction of Anna's forces at the time to this "deal" with HRA can be seen at websites like [21] (follow the menu link "IAC FIASCO")". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
We provided it as a typical counter-reaction of "Team Anna" volunteers (at the time) to Kejriwal returning/restoring the IAC movement back to HRA and shutting Team Anna out of using the IAC name. We certainly didn't provide it to say there is actually any IAC(Colonialization).2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Offensive behaviour of Sitush

This is a consequence from a formal request for correction of Wikipedia's article on India Against Corruption initially sent by the spokesperson of the organisation. The request was sent from the official email ID of IAC. In fact 2 emails were sent which went unanswered. Sitush fails to appreciate that affected subjects of Wikipedia's articles are not bound to respect or follow Wikipedia's internal guidelines like Wikipedia's contributors are. IAC's "Conflict of Interest" was disclosed at the start of the preceeding section when we ("we", "us", "our" etc. means IAC) requested edits to be made on "our" behalf. It is cause for concern if articles in category "request for edit" have a backlog for editors and the waiting time is 3 months, IAC cannot abide such delay. As far as policy COMMONNAME is concerned, IAC is advised that the policy covers the situation where a single article subject is known by many names. IAC is not claiming to be the same as "Team Anna" or some movements associated with him and others .. far from it !!! 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of my alleged behavioural failings etc here. Hopefully, you'll get yet more input from people new to this article. I doubt that it will differ from what I've said previously but, hey, you never know. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
So, what's the problem? There are two organisations with the same name; the oldest one wants this article to be about their organisation; and Sitush reminds them how Wikipedia works? Is that the baseline? And there are no reliable sources on "the old one"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed: zero book-sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No. indeedy not. There is ONE organisation (the old one). The other one was a sham floated by Kiran Bedi (an ex Police officer) which cheated many people [22], [23]. The old one wants this page to be stubbed.2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, to be blunt, the old one doesn't necessarily get to make that call: that's not how Wikipedia works. subjects of Wikipedia's articles are not bound to respect or follow Wikipedia's internal guidelines like Wikipedia's contributors are is actually not true; nobody owns any particular article, not even their subjects. The subjects of articles, while they are of course free to make requests about their article, are still beholden to Wikipedia's norms, just like everyone else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well to be equally blunt, the Government of India has directed all Information Technology intermediaries (including foreign ones like Wikipedia) (under orders of India's second highest Court in a petition brought against Google and Facebook by a Hindu nationalist) to either comply with India's IT laws by appointing a single point Grievance Officer to remove content in 36 hours, or be "blocked" like Google and Facebook were in China. Both Google and Facebook have complied as have many other US sites due to their substantial readership and revenues from India. Wikipedia had opened its only office outside of the USA in India for the same reason. (For the n'th time - this is not a legal threat). Please read the preceding discussion on "Help_Desk" first. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think that you can let the Foundation decide what relevance the laws of India have to Wikipedia. It is not our problem and while your point is interesting, it has no obvious direct relevance to the content of this article. This talk page is intended for discussion of improvements to the article, not generic policy matters etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well then luckily for the Foundation the Delhi High Court order I linked to (see above) has already decided it for them. India's laws also apply, ie. if Wikipedia wants to be read in India (and receive revenue from India). The issue is if Wikipedia's processes to take down content on notice from an affected Indian person are compliant with Indian law whch requires such content to be first taken down within 36 hours and then resolved within 30 days. Hence IAC is repeatedly requesting for the article to be stubbed. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And under what circumstance or charge would such a "Grievance Officer" have to remove content in 36 hours? Any complaint goes? Lack of sources is a valid reason? Does it also include censorship of Talk page-contributions were no reliable sources are given for claims? Can we ask the Delhi High Court to remove allegations against Wikipedia-editors? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Its very well defined in the law, which is actually a law based on the United Nations model law passed by many signatories to that Treaty. The USA has a problem obeying the UN when it doesn't suit them [24]. The Indian law specifies removal of disparaging content, objectionable content, content which is in violation of any law of India etc. such as to impersonate another person. [25] 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Look, please just drop this line of argument here. You are not going to succeed with it unless the WMF step in. They may well do (they are aware of the issue) but until that time you will gain nothing by repeatedly referencing a legal ruling in India. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression that you are indeed trying to chill other contributors. Keep it up and I'll make sure that you are blocked. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The only point IAC is making is that the content on this article page is incorrect and should be corrected as soon as possible. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fine but you have to make your arguments based on Wikipedia policy, not the law of India. I can assure you that the legal bods at the Wikimedia Foundation have been made aware of that latter aspect. Until they come up with some pointers, we can only deal with changes based on policy. And, as I've said umpteen times before above, policy favours the movement as being the primary usage but does not exclude the possibility of a separate article for the NGO. As an example of vehemently-declared arguments regarding the law of India vs. Wikipedia, the law "lost" when it came to depicting maps of India. Such maps are strictly controlled in India itself in order to reflect India's opinion regarding territorial disputes ... but the WMF basically said that those laws do not apply to Wikipedia, although contributors based in India itself who might choose to add the maps should exercise care just in case they were sued/charged as individuals. My suspicion is that the same will apply here. And I have no connection to India. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'v read the threads; I suggest we rename thus article "India Against Corruption/Team Anna", and we add a line in the lead and a short section, or just a note, that there is also "IAC-HRR" (that's the correct name?), even though we don't have accurate sources. Or an external link, with a short explanation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

IAC has already rejected this option. So would you prefer to await WMF's decision on our case, or will you do it on your own ? We have no objection to the present content being moved (appropriately) back to the "Team Anna" page where it was till last month until Sitush decided to merge these articles. Sitush has already expressed that the present Wikiepdia editors on this talk page are not competent to evaluate the legal issues/ consequences involved in this case. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Team Anna contained very little at the point prior to the merge. And this article was a policy disaster zone about a non-notable group. Don't like it now? That's tough, I guess.- Sitush (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the Team Anna article was approximately correct (factually) [26] and ought to have been left in place to be used as a base for future developments of those Team Anna or Team Arvind or Team-donkey. The decision to merge with IAC was taken without any consultation/template being placed and it is incorrect to say that "IAC" and "Team Anna" are one and the same thing. Please produce any authentic document which shows that "Team Anna" was "India Against Corruption organisation" or even "India Against Corruption movement". You cannot and neither can Anna and he has admitted it at many places in reliable sources. There was an issue of misuse of IAC's name by Arvind Kejriwal to promote a movement for his version of a Lokpal Bill, that has been resolved and he has publicly [27] made the reparation acceptable to IAC. And it was equally public [28] that IAC had not taken the issue of "Team Anna"'s Lokpal Bill and Committee lying down. The IAC's complaints brought it formally to notice of Govt.of India that Arvind Kejriwal along with Prashant Bhushan was widely circulating a hatchet job on P.Chidambaram (the Finance Minister who controls Arvind's IRS cadre) allegedly written by "Advocate Arun K. Agrawal" (@author of "Reliance the Real Natwar" Fwd by Shanti Bhushan [29], [30], [31] ) and for which Arvind had to eventually pay Rs. 9+ lakhs. So please understand that a) There was no Team Anna (that is a convenient media fiction), it was only Team Arvind b) IAC has forgiven Arvind, he has done good research on corruption and increased public awareness, he has also paid the price, and all parties (except Wikipedia and a few page vandals) have moved on. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You are drifting into the realms of legal arguments again. And you are using truly unacceptable sources such as sites hosted on the groups.google.com domain. Please don't: both the arguments and such sites are just a waste of electrons. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a polite reporting of a potential legal problem concerning defamatory etc information published by Wikipedia about IAC. IAC is here to assist you and other Wikipedians in resolving a potential legal problem for Wikipedia in which your edits/reverts are essentially the centre of controversy. We are simply showing you some primary evidence (emails) which are directly usable in a court of law, unlike hearsay evidence (secondary sources) which are not I also ask you to read WP:DOLT very carefully. 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Quite frankly, bringing up the legality of the situation seems like a poorly disguised attempt to quash any opinions of Indian-based Editors that do not conform with the potentially biased view of the IAC. The IAC view may be correct, but in my opinion it is inherently biased. The article can only be expected to display the common interpretation of reliable sources. I see that below there have been listed many sources, i hope that you can see that this is the way forward and that infact Ad Hominem attacks against User:Sitush and scaremongering will get the IAC nowhere in regards to factual information being displayed on Wikipedia. Just present the reliable sources in a constructive manner. (Cesdeva (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
IAC has made it clear from the start of our intervention that a) We are not here as Wikipedia editors b) We are not concerned about Wikipedia's rules and internal processes/policies c) Our conflict of interest precludes us from directly editing these article pages as it shall inevitably lead to edit warring with editors seeking to apply policies. d) That our endeavor to assist Wikipedia's editors to correct the perceived problem in no way diminishes any/all other rights and remedies IAC possesses in the real world where primary sources rule the field. We objected to Sitush's characterisation of IAC as "small group of raucous people ... a small pressure group with a private mailing list and an incredibly bad website." as an attempt to prejudice other editors against us.

FYI: Several of IAC's mailing lists are public, the primary IAC website "IAC#RG" has 25,000+ active subscribers at the present time and is publicly viewable and archived at many locations. 2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You say "We are not concerned about Wikipedia's rules and internal processes/policies". How do you expect anything to change if you don't even acknowledge the paradigms in which this website operates? You are currently trying to fit a square into a round hole. Make yourself abit rounder. (Cesdeva (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Please see our efforts below: We see that Wikipedia publishes content relying on previously published reliable secondary sources. The question is how, if at all, does Wikipedia deal with unpublished unimpeachable primary documents held by a person affected by Wikipedia's published content ? 2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I see. Per WP:PSTS "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.", so i can see the difficulty yourself and others have had in establishing a clear interpretation amongst yourselves. As far as i can tell, the page move seems to have helped alot. Hopefully the end is nigh. (Cesdeva (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi, this HRA1924: Can you justify Wiki's following text now on article

After the split of both Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal from the IAC, it was taken over by Right to Information (RTI) activists,[web 10] and "managed by the Core Committee which regularly reports to Hindustan Republican Association."[web 1] In September 2013, Sarbajit Roy claimed to be the national convenor of IAC, which by now comprised mostly Right to Information (RTI) activists. The membership appears to have abandoned the Lokpal demands, which they no longer considered to be practical but which the AAP was still promoting; IAC aimed to concentrate their efforts on RTI matters.[web 10]

The websource [32] doesn't say that RTI activists took over after both Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal from the IAC, it really says that IAC has seemingly abandoned the Lokpal issue after both had left the IAC.

The same websource also says about the RTI activists group "The group had taken over the IAC immediately after the split".

The final deadline of the split was officially anounced on 2nd October 2012 [33] to take place on the 26th of November 2012 when Aam Aadmi Party was actually formed. On 26th of October 2012 Roy was internally named as successor to take over IAC people's campaign (jan andolan) on the IAC mailing lists as National Convenor (IAC-HQ) and thereafter from 26th of November 2012 as National Convenor (IAC). On 2nd November 2012 this was also announced on the IAC's new website [34]. Published records of these emails automatically archived are accessible here [35], [36]. It is also confirmed by the Annual Report of the IAC [37].

So why it is wrongly written that Sarbajit Roy claimed to be national convenor of IAC in September 2013 when he had claimed to be national convenor in October 2012 itself ?

So why it is wrongly written that Sarbajit Roy took over after split of Anna Hazare from IAC ? Sequence is other way about :----. Kejriwal leaves, Roy takes over, Kiran Bedi leaves, Anna leaves.

And how come it is written that Anna Hazare was leader of India Against Corruption. Is there any similar proper document wherein Anna has claimed to be leader of IAC ? On what date did Anna become leader of IAC ? If so in what post ? If he was leader of India Against Corruption in May 2012 why was he having his JanLokPal public meetings as BVJA [38] ?

And how come it is written that Ramdev was the figurehead for IAC and then he was replaced by Anna Hazare ? On what date did this happen ? Are there any IAC official documents (like record of meetings) for this ?

All these are questions troubling us which should be explained to Wiki's readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The HindustanTimes -article is from september 2013; therefor the claim being dated september 2013 (I guess). It says: "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."
Three sources are given for Hazare's leadership. You can verify them yourself.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

List of URLs

Please find below a preliminary list of bare urls which IAC believes could be used to reference a stand-alone article for "India Against Corruption" (non-Anna Hazare Lok Pal movement).

(NB: some are duplicates of press agency stories. In others IAC has been wrongly identified as "Team Anna" or Anna Hazare supporters between 26/10/2012 and 18/01/2013. Others show that IAC movement is still active today, or that some present IAC core team were present during Anna Hazare "India Against Corruption" protests and marches etc. and so on). Some of these links may need to be compared / supported with appropriate primary documents to resolve ambiguous or incorrect text.

Disclaimer: These links are only to assist Wikipedians, IAC (unlike Wikipedia) prefers to rely on its primary sources.

Please add new links at the bottom

  1. [39] (Official public website of IAC organisation)
  2. [40] (Official website of IAC movement - mainly private.)
  3. [41]
  4. [42]
  5. [43]
  6. [44]
  7. [45]
  8. [46]
  9. [47]
  10. [48]
  11. [49]
  12. [50]
  13. [51]
  14. [52]
  15. [53]
  16. [54]
  17. [55]
  18. [56]
  19. [57]
  20. [58]
  21. [59]
  22. [60]
  23. [61]
  24. [62]
  25. [63]
  26. [64]
  27. [65]
  28. [66]
  29. [67]
  30. [68]
  31. [69]
  32. [70]
  33. [71]
  34. [72]
  35. [73]
  36. [74]
  37. [75]
  38. [76]
  39. [77]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments/assessment
  • 1, 2, 16, 21, 22 and 39 are primary sources
  • 3 appears to be regurgitating content from the HRA IAC website or perhaps from ourselves. It includes an astonishing definition of Hindutva, a philosophy that is more commonly believed to be xenophobic, anti-Muslim etc.
  • 4, 18, 27 to 34 are moneylife reports - that will probably need to go to WP:RSN because (a) it is not a mainstream news outlet; (b) it is primarily a personal finances media organisation; (c) it is run by a husband-and-wife team; (d) its writers are mostly not journalists but rather finance experts; and (e) it appears intent on muckraking (not necessarily a bad thing but you'd expect any significant ones to appear in more mainstream outlets)
  • 5 is a report that mentions a challenge by Roy and only notes his IAC connection in passing. might be ok for a WP article about the man but not for one about the organisation
  • 6 to 8 are fine but confuse me on several points, in particular because I'm sure that AcorruptionfreeIndia, who was conducting a similar campaign here to that of the IP, was adamant that Hazare had nothing to do with IAC. The story is basically about antagonism between Hazare and Kejriwal's new AAP + the mailing list hacking allegation. Please note that these three are all using the same newsfeed from IANS, ie: it is the same story told three times..
  • 9 is ok but just highlights the confusion. It notes that Dixit is claiming to be a co-ordinator for the HRA IAC and has allegedly been spamming Kejriwal's supporters etc using a gmail address. This is precisely my point regarding how the underground nature of the HRA-affiliated body works against it on Wikipedia.
  • 10 is dead, while 26 makes it clear that the Aamjanata source is an advocacy blog-type website. Useless for WP:RS
  • 11 has the same issues as [9]. Note that both of these stories referring to allegations of usurpation appear around the time that Kejriwal and Hazare were disagreeing about politicisation - a disagreement that soon after saw the foundation of the AAP. Does the HRA-affiliated IAC have any connection to the AAP? That would be logical if Kejriwal's trajectory was unbroken.
  • 12 is yet another version on the Hazare IAC vs Kejriwal IAC claim, this time coming after the announcement of AAP formation. It has the same problems as those reviewed above, with the added difficulty that it seems Hazare's unit have been blaming government hackers before deciding to blame Kejriwal. I'm not even sure that Hazare was really in the loop because he had already said that he was setting up his own organisation (later established as Jatantra Morcha)
  • 13 is about Kejriwal and a spat with the government + Digivijaya Singh. I don't see the relevance as it certainly doesn't get us any closer to determining whether the "anti-corruption" IAC is or is not the same as the HRA version
  • 14 and 15 have the same problem. They're not advancing the issue of whether Hazare/Kejriwal etc constitute a separate IAC or whether they usurped something etc. There is no mention of the HRA affiliate and the stories focus on the well-known split that resulted in the AAP and JM.
  • 17 says nothing that is not already in the article. I'm not checking right now but I'm fairly sure that I've read this exact item before and that it is or was cited
  • 19 is just bizarre, saying in 2013 that "The listener had brought the issue to the attention of India Against Corruption, which had been formed in the wake of the agitation by Anna Hazare." & mentioning Roy as the IAC convenor. Nothing wrong with the Roy bit - we already say that - but to suggest that IAC was formed after Hazare's agitation is an obvious misrepresentation: both the HRA and the anti-corruption efforts of 2011 etc show this to be wrong. Useless.
More to come. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


    • 1,2 are Official Sites for present IAC organisation and movement respectively.
    • 16 is an independent / reasonably popular / 3rd party / specialist website on RTI / republishing salient portions from IAC's submissions to Parliament about hugely controversial RTI Amendment Bill, hence meeting all ingredients of reliable source - the actual work authored by 4 of India's leading RTI activists is available on IAC movement website which is presumably where they obtained it from. The source makes no exceptional claim about IAC, and is usable if only to show that IAC is not inactive but is still making representations to the same Palriamentary Committee which decided text of Lokpal Bill. Also did any other IAC file to Parliament on such an important Bill ?
    • 21,22 are merely to show that Roy's IAC appeared before and was recognised by Delhi's Electricity Tariff regulator in hugely controversial proceedings where Aam Aadmi Party and Bhartiya Janta Party.also appeared (which were the main election issue of both parties). There are other sources on this - like [78] which we did not cite because of BLP issues for the 90 minute private hearing granted to IAC - the official record of which is at [79].
    • 39 is merely to contradict the artiile's statement that Roy had claimed in Sept. 2013 to be National Convenor of IAC - when this claim was on the IAC website as far back as 2/Nov/2012 - and which supports the on page citation from Hindustan Times that Roy's team took over "immediately after the split"
    • 3 This source is conservatively reproducing text from IAC organisation's website. This landing / category page of Firstpost for all IAC related articles supercedes the old one dated 17/August/2011 which was copied from Wikipedi's article on 2011 movement. The present Firstpost page incorporates editorial processes with IAC's people for fact checking. The definition of Hindutva is the ancient one of the HRA and of the Vedas.
  • 4, 18, 27 to 34 are moneylife reports
    • Moneylife is among India's most widely respected financial news outlets with a print edition. Monelylife has been cleared for Google News for years. The "wife" is Sucheta Dalal - very well known for her integrity and scam busting (winner of a Padmashree) who exposed Harshad Mehta scam. The husband is equally well known (don't recall his name offhand). Some of these sources were included as first person accounts written by Veeresh Malik recording his presence during the Anna IAC campaign. If "corruption" is not a financial issue then what issue is it ?
    • 5 is one of a set of 3 news sources which confirm that India Against Corruption (not Roy) stalled this Rs. 900 crore scam. It was an intervention by "Roy and other IAC affiliated persons". The newspaper is the daily morning paper (print edition) of India Today which refers to the earlier Moneylife story and is their own independent investigation - This story was the entire page 2 that day and is in a mainstream publication with a reputation for fact checking. Roy's petition succeedes and DDA cancelled the change of land use until the land ownership isse is resolved in High Court (which was done on 25/11/2013).
    • 6-8, These 3 sources (actually all based 1 on IANS) show how prominent national news outlets don't do any fact checking. The press release by Ajay Dixit of IAC-HRA issued in Dec 2012 doesn't mention anywhere that it is on behalf of Anna Hazare or he is affilated to Anna Hazare or that it was Team Anna's mailing list which was hacked. The media just reproduces it blindly because Anna is the news. So this is about IAC's mailing list having 27,000 subscribers which was hacked and disabled because that list was among the first to circulate the pictures of the dying cop surrounded by protestors.
    • 9, This again shows that media (which till then was merely reproducing handouts from Kejriwal's PR machine) didn't have a clue about Team Anna or IAC. And it actually suited IAC then not to clarify this issue. Ajay Dixit has never claimed to represent anybody other than IAC-HRA. Ajay Dixit could do it because the IAC had been given the volunteer lists of Kejriwal's IAC campaign (which Anna never got). So these are articles about IAC's methods of taking over the movement after the split.
    • 10 is corrected to [80]. This is the actual text of Ajay Dixit's Press Release published as received by a non-IAC source (shows it is not Original Research I guess).
    • 26 is the exactly the sort of websites read by activists - if cited sources like Schoen can heavily rely on similar advocacy blogs in New York, these are perhaps even more authentic. The issue here is how does 26 treat its primary sources.
more coming 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You can't do things such a provide links to reliable sources in order to prove that those sources are not in fact reliable for the subject, and in particular you cannot do it if the only other support you have consists of statements made by the group itself, press releases from its members, legal filings etc. You are engaging in massive synthesis/original research when you do this. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't know the participants or the dates. 19 is correct. Which "IAC" is being referred to in the story ? As far as the lay public is concerned, IAC (campaign) was formed after Anna's agitation. Anna was with the agitation/protest since at least 14 Nov. 2010 (on which date "at least 10,000 people" were present as per Kejriwal). The IAC name was first publicly used on 30.Jan 2011 at the Delhi Ramlila ground protest. 19 is also in google news and is a source independent of IAC.2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Move

Ha! What's in a name! Per WP:BOLD and CRIB, India Against Corruption campaign ("the India Against Corruption (IAC) Movement") I've moved this page to avoid further confusion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

IAC shares your humour :-). Now lets be serious. 2 articles a) "India Against Corruption" for IAC and b) "Jantantra Morcha" / "Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Andolan" for Team Anna [81], [82] . Most of the present content of this page moves to "Team Anna" alongwith all the scholarly attacks on that movement which Sitush has located and the righteous ones you have. The IAC has enough notability on its own for an article about the IAC organisation/movement. With enough interlinking between the 2 articles it can be ensured that Wikipedia's general readers don't get confused between the 2 movements.

Please also understand the formidable "image" problem IAC has versus Aam Aadmi Party and Jantantra Morcha which are starting off with clean slates at Wikipedia, while IAC is saddled with the mess/confusion they created.

Just to get the essential dates clear for the start/end of the various movements. This will enable the present article's errors to be corrected.

  1. 1924-1925 : Formation of "India Against Corruption" body (then as India Against Colonialisation) by HRA which was later renamed India Against Corruption 'ie. IAC organisation.
  2. 26/Feb/2007 Foundation day of present "India Against Corruption" movement by Veeresh Malik, Sarbajit Roy, Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia etc. (IAC movement was exclusively managed by Malik / Roy /Humjanenge for Commonwealth Games RTI campaign under agreement with HRA through Roy)
  3. 01/Dec/2010 Announcement of an "India Against Corruption" campaign by Arvind Kejriwal and others (incl. Anna Hazare) at National Sports Club New Delhi for a JanLokpal Bill. This campaign later also became known as Anna Hazare's "India Against Corruption" campaign during the 2011 and 2012 Indian anti-corruption protests. It was unsanctioned by HRA.
  4. 02/Aug/2012 Announcement by Arvind Kejriwal that IAC campaign is going "political"
  5. 19/Sep/2012 Announcement by Anna Hazare of split in IAC campaign
  6. 26/Oct/2012 Er. Sarbajit Roy nominated by HRA as"National Convenor" to manage all IAC movements and protect its title(s) and other intellectual assets. This is announced in IAC's mailing list as well as in Humjanenge. On 02/Nov/2012 the IAC movement website "www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in" is started - hosted on riseup.net to communicate the views of the IAC movement to volunteers.
  7. 26/Nov/2012 Aam Aadmi Party is formed, simultaneously the IAC campaign is exclusively returned to HRA through Er. Sarbajit Roy who immediately takes over and appoints Mr. Veeresh Malik as Co-Convenor IAC.
  8. 24/12/2012 Dr. Kiran Bedi resigns from IAC campaign
  9. 18/01/2013 It is announced on behalf of Anna Hazare that they shall no longer use name of "India Against Corruption" but will campaign as BVJA (later Jantantra Morcha) in future

E&oe

2A00:2381:72D:0:8813:DF3A:8CFE:F9E (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please revert that move. You should surely be aware that it is controversial. Although I use the term "movement" in discussions here in order to differentiate it from the HRA organisation, it is not commonly called the India Against Corruption Movement in the sources. Being bold is fine but this move is not appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
On behalf of the high respect I've got for you as a Wikipedia-editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. If we were indeed to have two articles then the arrangement should be something like:
I'm not sure that "organisation" is the best way to distinguish the two but something like that would apply. However, until the notability of the "organisation" is ascertained, there isn't a need for this arrangement. The IP has provided many links in a section above but a lot of them are pretty tangential things and a lot are simply not reliable (as they appear to admit themselves when they note that there are primary sources in the list). It is unfortunate that the sort-of underground nature of the HRA-affiliated body works against its notability: finding independent sources that really discuss it is tricky and we are not a soapbox for the thing. I'll try to work through that list of links today & provide some assessment of each one. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure anymore that there should be two articles. Apparently, the popular movement has been taken over by HRA-activists; I don't see any difference with the HRA-IAC (and neither do they, I guess). I tend to believe the HRA-IAC that they were first; but it's also clear that the popular movement gained a huge momentum, and can be considered WP:COMMONNAME. It comes down to the question: did the HRA-IAC indeed have legal rights to the name? There is this interesting text on their website from a "PRESS RELEASE / 10.November.2012 on behalf of The India Against Corruption national anti-corruption movement":

"India Against Corruption states that all graphics, logos, and brand names of the India Against Corruption movement were placed in the public domain and free of copyright a long time ago by their authors and creators. In view of this ground reality it is very well known to all concerned parties that there was never any copyrighted trademark or logo for India Against Corruption as the same could not be done."

It's up to the IAC (either HRA-IAC or RTI-IAC) to show the documents which prove their claim of legal rights to the name. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That (a single article) has been my point all along. Unfortunately, I've been sidetracked by issues elsewhere and by the interminable efforts of a few activists here and thus expansion/improvement of the article ground to a halt. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope I've got it right now, and that we can move on now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I've not even looked at what you've been doing on the articles. When I do, my main concern will be re: original research/synthesis plus reliable sources - if those issues are ok then I'll be happy. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Look we are happy that there is much better understanding emerging now among we 3 editors. When the previous sets of edits and warring was taking place by a AAP troll on this article in June-July 2013 there were legal cases going on in the Supreme Court about funds of IAC which were transferred to Aam Aadmi Party [83], title of those funds, who would audit accounts of IAC campaign etc. That was resolved on 29.Aug.2013 by AAP's statement in Supreme Court making it easy for HRA to drop their grievances against AAP.

We also agree that there can be 1 article for IAC if it is not skewed against IAC-HRA, and clear distinctions are made with equal weightage between IAC's a) organisation b) movement c) campaign(s). It must also be understood that Hindi word 'andolan' can be translated as both "movement" as well as "campaign". which has led to confusion in the sources - especially foreign sources.

The Press Release on 10.Nov.2012 (actually 11 Nov.) was issued on behalf of IAC (Arvind Kejriwal) faction - so its drafting favored them to ward off HRA or other persons making claims against them. On that date both IACs were operating simultaneously but essentially independently of each other [84] and note the trail email of Arvind Kejriwal <parivartanindia@gmail.com> at 4:38 pm making it clear he is in loop. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This case seems to brighten up. On your part, please understand that we're not involved in the IAC, or any Indian protest against corruption, so the details and specific interests may not always be very clear at once to us. But (to speak for myself), we're trying to learn. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
We suggest the following text to better clarify the opening paragraph of body text.

"According to the present IAC movement, their movement (which in 2007 included Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia) monitored accounts of the forthcoming 2010 Commonwealth Games, with IAC filing a series of coordinated Right to Information (RTI) requests between 2007 and 2010 to elicit information from the Government bodies and Games Organising Committees. According to the present IAC movement, their name "India Against Corruption" was used to campaign for Jan Lokpal Bill by Arvind Kejriwal from 01 Dec 2010, which the movement objected to as usage of the IAC name had been obtained only for agitation against excesses of Congress government. With the formation of Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party to agitate for JanLokPal Bill by political means, the IAC campaign was immediately taken over by IAC movement under national convenor Sarbajit Roy on 26 November 2012 and the campaign for LokPal dissolved."

2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to think it over, though I do think we also have to keep "the general reader" in mind: where-as the sepcific history is highly relevant to those involved, it is probably less relevant to a general reader who wants to know more about the 2011 protests. Those who are interested in the specifics, can read the IAC-webpage, as I did, and which I provided me with useful information.
Reading it a few times, I see the points you want to make. I've only used part of it, for now; I want it to be thoroughly sourced (I stake my good name it, when I change it), and I can't check it with your website now.
By the way, another question: what are the objections of your organisation against Vivekananda? I understand that he's sort of a 'national hero' in India? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously we cannot give an "official" answer to the Vivekananda question. The origins probably involve the following a) HRA is mainly a Brahmin controlled movement b) HRA objects to Vivekananda's version of Hinduism now promoted through Ramakrishna missions etc. (after Ramakrishna Paramhans' death) which is derived from foreign (mainly US Unitarian) sources and which is diametrically opposite to what Ramakrishna preached n his own lifetime (There is a famous court case in the Supreme Court where the Mission has repudiated on affidavit virtually all Ramakrishna's teachings and said that they are not Hindus), c) the alliance between Ramakrishna Mission and RSS (which HRA now treats as another foreign controlled body). 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India_Against_Corruption/Archive_2&oldid=1164846816"