Talk:India Development and Relief Fund

Sabrangs

Not a reliable source in any sense. First off, it is headed by Teesta Setalvad, who apart from being a political critic of the Gujarat government, has also been accused of charged including perjury and money laundering. More importantly though, its own admission is that it is pro-"secular" and anti-"communal" and not a dispassionate news source. Usage of this source (especially in the context of attacking an organization Sabrang is politically opposed to) is a clear violation of WP:NPOV or WP:RS.Pectore^talk 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• According to this source, the accusation against Teesta Setalvad appears to be a forgery, presumably by some opponent. Communalism Combat is indeed clear about its policies, as are many newspapers and magazines. Thus The Economist states openly that it is in favor of free trade and free markets, against capital punishment and so on. That does not make it unreliable. Where an established journal reports events that are plausible, easily checked and uncontroversial, it is reasonable to use it as source. Statements that are questionable or potentially damaging require stronger sourcing. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Making any equivalency between Communalism Combat and the Economist is absolutely laughable. One is a fringe source of questionable reliability headed by a likely perjurer (and at best a major political activist who is not a journalist) and the other is one of the most famous and broad journalistic works in the world.Pectore^talk 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A common quality is that they are both for secularism and against communalism. The Economist also opposes state involvement in religion and hate attacks against minorities. These are standard values shared by all advanced democracies, often written into their basic laws. Few editors would think this means The Economist is "not a dispassionate news source". Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Planned Edits

Hello everyone. I updated the introductory section with information from IDRF's website and Guidestar filings. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia; please let me know if my edits are lacking in proper references, and I'll search for some new ones. I have a copy of the published response to the Sabrang report, "IDRF: Let the Facts Speak," (LOC Control number 2003096065), so I will be adding more information from it. Nomenphile (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You need to be careful to make sure the article remains primarily a view of the organization as viewed from outside, by independent sources. You can take uncontroversial information from the organization's own publications to a limited extent, but if you take too much there is a risk it will start to look like an advertisement for the IDRF. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Aymath, thanks for the information. The published report seems independent of IDRF, as are its authors, Ramesh Rao, Narayanan Komerath, Beloo Mehra, CHitra Raman, Sugrutha Ramamswami, and Nagendra Rao. In this India Abroad article, reporter Aziz Haniffa explains how the group was formed and writes "Prakash and Vijay Pallod, regional vice president and media coordinator for IDRF, told India Abroad IDRF provided no support for the FoI report except for providing details and information regarding IDRF projects. They acknowledged they were helping to disseminate the FoI report" The book, and the online report's acknowledgement section, mention that the authors requested records from IDRF's Abhay Belambe. With your warning in mind, I will focus on the parts of the book which have the most robust citations (esp. footnotes to media articles about IDRF's grantee organizations). Nomenphile (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)