Talk:Ekal Vidyalaya

Controversy
This subject is controversial, with some sources seeing the organization as providing a valuable service to poor and marginalized communities, while others see it as pushing a political agenda and doing much less than it claims. The organization's website paints a very positive picture. Sources such as this one attest to its activity in fund-raising abroad. Articles such as this one from the The Telegraph (Kolkata) are positive. This article and this article from The Hindu are fairly neutral, although they mention the political angle. This article from Sabrang Communications is outright hostile. This article from The Hindu backs up Sabrang's claims. It will clearly be difficult to gain consensus about the organization. The best we can do is present the different views and revert attempts to suppress information. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the article's neutrality is disputed. There is a section on Controversy where views criticizing the Foundation or its ideology have been expressed. Most facts and statistics have citations from well-known newspapers. Specifically, if a section appears to be biased or POV, the neutrality of the section may be considered disputed but not that of the whole article. Can we list problems with the article so that they can be addressed and try to remove the neutrality disputed note by representing both the organization and its activities and its criticism in the article. IMHO being an article on EVF, the article should focus more on EVF and its activities than its criticism - as is the practice with most articles on Wikipedia. Nmisra (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sabrang Communications is itself controversial as a source. Refer criticism and controversies related to Teesta Seetalvad on her Wikipedia article and also here. Articles from Sabrang are as neutral and NPOV as articles on Organiser or Panchjanya. Nmisra (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Tags
POV, refimprove, viewpoint, non-RS tags have been added to the article by an editor. Please list the specific issues here and give additional sources to balance the view point (The RS coverage is generally hostile to the organisation and compared to the media coverage, this article is well balanced). If no specific issues are listed to work upon, i will remove the tags in say a week. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

first of all the claim of providing 2 million dolor to some hindu organization like sangh privar in the article is totally biased and pov because ther is no information provided in the source given by the editor --Sandeep (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been taken care of already. I have already reworded the sentence to reflect what the source (Indian express article) actually says. It is now an attributed statement and not given as a fact and it has been balanced by a quote from the VHP media convener to present the other viewpoint. Please take a look again. And list the justifications/specific issues for other tags.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

my friend but the VHP convener had not quoted that some fund is provided to sangh parivar or some other organization so this will be not proper to say that the fund of ekal vidalaya is transfared to some hindu organizations --Sandeep (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have attributed the statement. we are not presenting it as fact. We say "X says something about ekal". Not as fact. It is opinion of one person and it has been presented as such. This is how we attribute criticisms. We dont just present the official viewpoint. I believe that section is quite balanced. It presents the official and other views in a neutral way. Anything else other than that line?--Sodabottle (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

moreover angana is a biased lady towards the hindu front and is also associated with communist front so we can't take his view directly and allege Ekal of doing some activity like giving funds to some other org. this is the source regarding my claim for angana http://hindutvacritique.net/w/index.php?title=Works_of_Angana_Chatterji

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/5249.html

http://www.ivarta.com/cause/C7_2_AC_Flashpoints.htmthe lady is very much biased so instead of taking is view we must try to bring some neutral view to the article. This lady is also detained for supporting kashmir separatist movement which is against the indian nation and there law and criticizing indian goverment work in kashmir http://asiancorrespondent.com/56081/rights-activists-detention-and-indias-kashmir-paranoia/ --Sandeep (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

no my friend how can you say that what some x and y say if you want to put that x statements then you to neutralize that section by putting what y says also otherwise the article will only point that Ekal is doing hindu org funding instead of doing work in education which will be wrong.--Sandeep (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading the original article, I would have to say that Anagana's statement as presented in the article currently is misleading. The Indian express article says "The following Sangh-affiliates, registered charities in the US, allocated sizeable amounts of money under ‘programme services’, disproportionately directed to Hindutva-affiliated groups in India. Per 2006 tax records, Ekal Vidyalaya allocated more than two million dollars to India, India Development Relief Fund (IDRF) allocated 1.6 million USD, and Sewa International USA allocated 284,800 dollars." The article reads "alleges that the organization allocated $2 million in 2006 to India, which was "disproportionately directed to Hindutva-affiliated groups"." The two are not the same, and the context of the IE article has been totally ignored. In the Indian Express article, the author says that unlike the case of Christian and Islamic groups, the money received by Hindutva-affiliated organizations are not monitored by Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976. To illustrate, she quotes that some charities like EVF in US have allocated "money disproportionately" to Hindutva-affiliated groups under the 'program services'. To me, this is more a criticism of the Act not covering Hindutva-affiliated groups, rather than criticism of EVF per se. Quoting without context is misleading, can we please edit this appropriately? Nmisra (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried to correct the presentation. Angana Chatterji's article is not a technical criticism of the FCR Act. It is a passionate attack on Sangh Parivar, and she identifies Ekal Vidyalaya as one of their affiliates. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO your edits violated WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS. Chatterji is critical of Sangh Parivar. Ekal Vidyalaya is associated with Sangh Parivar -> this does not mean Chatterji is critical of EVF. I never said anything about Chatterji's article - but the context in which EVF is specifically named is regarding FCRA Act covering Christian and Islamic groups and not Hindutva groups. Nmisra (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, no need to mention Orissa riots, et cetera, in the Ekal Vidyalaya article. This is not an article on Orissa Riots, or Sangh Parivar, or Chatterji's views on Sangh Parivar. If you want, you may quote more from Angana Chatterji's article in the reference footnote to clarify her but elaborating context in the main body of the article on Ekal Vidyalaya violates both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Nmisra (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Chatterji's article says that the FCR Act is applied stringently when it comes to Christians or Muslims, but is ignored with Hindu nationalists. It goes on to accuse Sangh Parivar of violating the act, of undertaking extensive coercive conversions, and names Ekal Vidyalaya as an affiliate. I have no problem with toning down the presentation of opinions. The subject is obviously emotionally charged. But clearly Chatterji supports the FCR Act and is criticizing the players. The assertion by a prominent intellectual that Ekal Vidyalaya is affiliated with Sangh Parivar is surely relevant in the section on Controversy. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Affiliation with Sangha Parivar has been already stated in the article and cited. Furthermore, affiliation with Sangha Parivar itself is not controversy - I was surprised to read the sentence "It is affiliated with BJP" under controversy! That's like saying anybody affiliated with Democrats or the Republicans in the US is controversial. I have edited and made some changes to make the criticism precise and remove unnecessary content. Nmisra (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the USA an assertion that a US charity was affiliated with a group that had a religious agenda and sponsored violent attacks on Christians would be considered controversial. Assume your audience has no background. Don't take out too much context. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your synthesis (WP:SYNTHESIS) and is also POV (In the USA, ...). If I use your argument, in Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan anybody who is affiliated with Republican party or a supporter of George Bush would be considered controversial -> does that mean Wikipedia should read "XYZ is affiliated with Republican Party" under Controversy section of each Republican Senator? *This article* is not an article on Sangha Parivar or BJP, nor a place to decide whether their agenda is religious or who sponsored the attacks on Christians. It is for the reader to conclude themselves by clicking on the Sangha Parivar/BJP wiki link and reading both sides of the argument. An article on Wikipedia needs to draw from published secondary sources which specifically talk about EVF and not give undue weight to any source which is critical of an affiliated organization. Nmisra (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

removing criticism
The line "In an article in the Daily Times of Pakistan, Khalid Hasan described the Ekal Vidyalayas as having a "curriculum steeped in instilling hatred against non-Hindu religious minorities". is being repeatedly removed first without comment then saying "For education in India no need to quote a Pakistan daily." and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ekal_Vidyalaya&diff=480143366&oldid=480084705 "Refer to schools in non Hindu states and people funding these schools. 37000 arefunded across the globe"] and finally saying "This is the largest educatin movement ini the world and for all.pL quote somethings from reliable sources."

Bvikram, 1) a criticism cannot be removed just because it was published in a source in a country someone might like or not. We have properly attributed who is doing the criticism. This is the english language wikipedia, not the "indian sources only" wikipedia. 2)Dont remove/add stuff by telling people to "look it up" in the edit summaries. All content additions and removals have to be done on the basis of verifiability in reliable sources. If there is a source that counters the criticism, include it with attribution. (see how the article already features, Prakash Sharma's rebuttal of the criticism - that is the way things are handled in wikipedia). 3) The Daily Times is a reliable source. Just because it is from pakistan doesnt make it a unreilable source. Dont blindly remove anything that you dont agree with giving a variety of reasons. It is clear that your removal is being contested - by me in this case -. In such cases use the talk page to discuss and arrive at consensus. Continuously doing the same thing is edit warring--Sodabottle (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have renamed "Controversy" to "Criticism" and added a subsection "Response to Criticism". IMHO the article was earlier one-sided but is now more balanced with adequate views from both detractors and supporters of EVF represented with appropriately cited quotes. I have also moved Criticism section after International Fund Raising since the latter is also an Activity for continuity. I would recommend we do not expand the criticism section any further but focus on activities and facts (number of schools, growth, et cetera) which to make the article better. In other words, lets add more facts about the organization and less views - there are already enough views. Nmisra (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename article
As is obvious, "Ekal Vidyalaya" is one of the 35000+ single-teacher schools. This article is about the foundation that runs these schools and not the individual schools. Even the lead in English and Hindi reads "Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation". Therefore it should be renamed as "Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation". If nobody has any objections, I will make the move. Can make a formal move request as well, but this is a no-brainer so is not required IMHO. Nmisra (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Aervanath (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ekal Vidyalaya → Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. Nmisra (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. As is obvious, "Ekal Vidyalaya" is one of the 35000+ single-teacher schools. This article is about the foundation that runs these schools and not the individual schools. Even the lead in English and Hindi reads "Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation". Therefore it should be renamed as "Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation". Nmisra (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This came up in an earlier discussion on deleting the article. The term "Ekal Vidyalaya" more concise and less restrictive than "Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation". The foundation raises money and provides coordination but does not run the schools.  It is conceivable that the foundation is unaware of, or does not fully endorse, some of the more controversial aspects of the FTS-run Ekal Vidyalayas. I would support an improvement to the lead to make it clear that the article is not solely about the foundation. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is irrelevant now as it was more than two years ago when the article was much smaller and totally one-sided presenting only one side of the picture - i.e. showing the organization or schools in a negative shade. Now the article is much larger and more balanced. Your statements starts with "it is conceivable" - which is original research and should not be a reason to not rename the article. The allegedly controversial aspects (read the subsection "Response to Criticism") are not an issue in naming articles. I do not know where you get this thing from that EVF does not run the schools! Their official site ekal.org states "NGO working in rural and tribal areas, manages non-formal one-teacher schools." As it stands now the article is more about the foundation, so EVF is a better title IMHO. Nmisra (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article |article as of this date says, rather confusingly, At the national level, the schools are run by Ekal Vidyalayas are run by EVF, Friends of Tribals Society (FTS), Bharat Lok Shiksha Parishad (BLSP) and Janhit Sanstha. . In other words, not just by the foundation.  A move request should not be made casually because a fork (two articles on essentially the same topic but with different names) was introduced some time ago. WP must respect copyright of editors on both versions, so the move would be non-trivial. How would the move help readers searching for the article? In general a concise name is preferred when there is no ambiguity.  Aymatth2 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maintain Neutrality
Aymatth2 is requested to maintain NPOV in the article and refrain from adding sentences which amount to synthesis, original research and are out-of-context and irrelevant. Why should Gautier's criticism of Dayal be included in an article on EVF? It may be relevant to the article on Gautier or Dayal, but not here. Also since when did a blog/personal site (a primary source) become a "widely published" source?? I did a quick scan of all references [4], [5], [6] and none of them talks about "poor quality". Nmisra (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Christian Today article AICU president suspects Hindu charitable trust of forming anti–Christian schools for Indian tribals describes John Dayal's hostile view of the schools. François Gautier's opinion piece "Heed the New Hindu Mood" published in Rediff.com asks why the schools are being attacked. Gautier's article "Are we heading towards a Christian India?" of January 2006 calls John Dayal "another known Hindu baiter". The opening paragraph  of "Are we heading towards a Christian India?" also appears in Rediff.com. The two men are engaged in a very public debate about the Ekal Vidyalayas. Possibly Gautier's views should be removed since they are not presented by independent sources, but in my opinion both of his articles are relevant to the section that discussed the controversy. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The views on EVF are relevant here and have been represented adequately. The view of one author about another are out of context here. The Satyameva Jayate blog article does not say anything about Ekal, so including the "Hindu baiter" bit is not relevant to this article. It may be relevant to the article on Dayal or Gautier. Nmisra (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on "Centre stops grants to one-teacher schools" in The Hindu says "The Union Human Resource Development Ministry has stopped grants to 'Ekal Vidyalayas' ... names of many students "enrolled" in the Ekal Vidyalaya registers were copied from government-run schools. Neither was reading and learning material provided to students". It seems reasonable to summarize this as "the schools provide poor quality education". However, perhaps the lead should spell out more explicitly why government funds were withdrawn. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Synthesis again. Incorrect inclusion of names is an irregularity and non-distribution of material is an operational issue. This does not mean poor quality education. Also this was found to be true in three districts in 2005, need not be true for 37,000+ schools. Nmisra (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And again
Aymatth2, please stop pushing POV agenda here. What prompted you to add undue weight to criticism in the lead when there is a section for it? Nmisra (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The government decision to stop grants to Ekal Vidyalayas, and the reason, is rather more than criticism and belongs in the lead. It should not be buried at the back of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead is summary, not details. Quotations simply do not belong to the lead. For the nth time do not drive your anti EVF agenda here, Wiki is not for your propaganda but is supposed to be a neutral source of information. Nmisra (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2 and Nmisra Guys how can this be a part of "pursuit of anti-minority agenda in some school". this is world's largest volunteer education movement. Show me a parallel to just the number of schools they run by anyone else. Minorities in INDIA around 20% - have a look at this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHyEkMa1tUg. Aymatth2 and Nmisra of you should correct the lead section. There was one more question I saw from Aymatth2 Central India govt may have stopped the aid but local state govt support in a lot of state. Reasons are the incumbent government which funded these schools was replaced by a different one which may have a different priorities. They may come back to power again. Its the same as Republicans vs Democrats in US or Labor vs Conservatives in UK, different govt have different priorities. But at the end of day this is a volunteer effort and does not require any govt to support them. Hope this helps and one of you Aymatth2 or Nmisra can correct the lead section. B.vikram.b 22:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet again
Aymatth2, there was no need to remove Gautier's comments from an article in rediff. You are nobody to decide if it is a polemic. It is clear you have an agenda here to vilify the organization. Nmisra (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Gautier's opinion piece in Rediff.com may be allowed, but in my view should be qualified with background from his "Are we heading towards a Christian India?" position so the reader understands where he is coming from. Simply calling him a "French author and journalist" is misleading. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think it may be allowed, why did you remove it in the first place? Is that not driving your agenda? You remove something with a clearly POV summary ("polemic", blah blah), then when I restore you say it may be allowed! Actions like these lower your credibility and ability to remain NPOV on Wikipedia. Nmisra (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not get it (the meaning of NPOV), do you? What about Chatterji and Dayal who have been criticized by some as pursuing a ltist, anti-Hindu and anti-RSS agenda? Why should we not include where they are coming from? Nmisra (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section of this or any other article - the text before the table of contents - should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The section on "Criticism and controversy" must be summarized in the lead. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have analyzed - Have a look again and review once more. the contents belong under Criticism and controversy and Response to Criticism as there are multiple view points and all valid references. Lead section should be only used to stand alone as a concise overview. b.vikram.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC).


 * According to me, what user Aymatth2 says is the correct view per Wikipedia policy. I had earlier such discussions on pages such as Rashtriya Swayamsevaka Sangh. The criticism section is usually present in case of organizations as per above i.e. "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011   13:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Found an example discussion: [example link]. ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011   13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * R.S.S article lead and the discussion you pointed is a joke which shows exactly why Wikipedia is not accepted as a reference in academic papers - going by the discussion, it seems to me that none of the editors involved in that debate have published anything of merit in their life in any peer reviewed journal. This review from a person who has published mathematical papers in peer reviewed journal. Nmisra (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Has to follow standards of Wikipedia, that is about it. The discussion also included comments from my side, F.Y.I.
 * Wikipedia is not begin all end all, plus the usual system bias is a reality. In any case, standards are to be followed, that is the bottom line on Wikipedia.
 * I would also like to point out here that it is meaningless to say anything related to outside. Believe me I have not bragged anything about myself, and for good reasons that it is neither mandatory nor beneficial. All that matters here is the standards. ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011   18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I know the discussion has comments from you. And the fact that after such a long discussion, the lead is still in shambles - see here - shows that the discussion was not only fruitless, it was useless. That is what happens when you have 100 people arguing who all know perfectly how to follow standards without thinking and not a single one does what is the "obviously right" thing to do. Something like fixing the oh-so-horrible-and-ludicrous spelling mistakes of Sanskrit words in your signature which is such a big joke - you may have a lot to brag, but going by the fact that you make six spelling mistakes in four words in your signature does not make me think you do - and this after somebody, who may brag about his publications, told you precisely what to do by typing the correct spelling on your talk page (spoonfeeding?). To sum it up, standards are important, content is more important, and being accurate is most important. Anyway let's not digress more. Nmisra (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I am not doubting anything. I am just saying Wikipedia is more about "people who all know perfectly how to follow standards". Therefore, anything else here such as papers and research in reputed journals or publications of any nature is immaterial. I agree with what you state completely regardless. I am just putting my 2 cents here that is it. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   19:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

b.vikram.b, your edits are a joke as well. You do not proofread (spelling and grammar mistakes), copy enormous amounts of stuff (copyleft or copyright violation), do not even bother to edit properly ("we have not progressed" in a Wiki article?), and simply refuse to behave well. Please try your edits in a sandbox or discuss on talk page if you want this article to be better. Nmisra (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nmisra,Most comments are references from different sites and grammar comes with that like "we". But I agree the contents should be like encyclopedia. The problem with the contents are there are around 37,000 schools Ekal runs and the contents are filled by mostly by groups who may not be having any background of it. There was one more question about the lead section - Yes central India govt may have stopped the aid but local state govt support in a lot of state. Reasons are the BJP government was replaced by Congress which may have a different priorities. I will fill the sections with good references after few days after filling my gaps B.vikram.b 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try finding secondary sources like books, newspaper articles, et cetera which have material on Ekal's mission. Eka's website is a primary source and is not preferred. Looking into regional language sources might help as there is not much information on the mission in English. Also if provincial governments supporting is true, and you can get a secondary reference to support it, one may include this in the article, and in the lead as well. Something like "This was stopped when a committee reported irregularities and pursuit of anti-minority agenda in some schools, though some provincial governments continue to aid them." Yes I know about the BJP and Congress angle (which is the "real" reason why the aid was stopped), but without a secondary reference we cannot add anything about it else it would tantamount to Original Research. Remember WP is not about the truth, but about what is perceived to be the truth and the perceptions here are the references from secondary sources. Nmisra (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

B.vikram.b 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Aymatth2 and Nmisra Guys how can this be a part of "pursuit of anti-minority agenda in some school". this is world's largest volunteer education movement. Show me a parallel to just the number of schools they run by anyone else. Minorities in INDIA around 20% - have a look at this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHyEkMa1tUg. Aymatth2 and Nmisra of you should correct the lead section. There was one more question I saw from Aymatth2 Central India govt may have stopped the aid but local state govt support in a lot of state. Reasons are the incumbent government which funded these schools was replaced by a different one which may have a different priorities. They may come back to power again. Its the same as Republicans vs Democrats in US or Labor vs Conservatives in UK, different govt have different priorities. But at the end of day this is a volunteer effort and does not require any govt to support them. Hope this helps and one of you Aymatth2 or Nmisra can correct the lead section. B.vikram.b 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)
 * If you ask me, I personally do not believe EVF pursues anti-minority agenda as alleged - in fact a prominent Muslim from India, Abid Hussain has served its board. However, Wikipedia is not about what you and I think, it is not even about what is true, but about what is perceived to be true (=how secondary sources report on the subject). The lead has both criticism and response to criticism, which is kind of balanced now, though I still think the coverage of criticism and counter-criticism in both the lead and article is disproportionate. The reason as I have mentioned earlier that there are not much references available on the movement, its operations and impact in English, so finding sources in Hindi or regional languages might help. Having said that, there have been repeated attempts by you and Aymatth2 to bias the article in one direction or the other and both of you need to behave well. Nmisra (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nmisra Aymatth2 Can we move the below section to appropriate section - The Ekal Vidyalaya schools were funded by the Indian Government from 1999–2000 till 2005. This was stopped when a committee reported irregularities and pursuit of anti-minority agenda in some schools.[10] Several authors have said that the schools pursue a Hindu-nationalist agenda and generate hatred towards non-Hindu minorities such as Christians.[11][12] Several other authors have praised the schools' role in providing literacy to millions of children, and stated that the schools do not teach hate and have been the target of a campaign by media and academic networks.B.vikram.b 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Hello,

Anyone needs to add anything at the discussion at WP:Reliable Sources noticeboard please do so.

The link is [| here].

Thanks. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   12:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Alphabets Explain
Why do we need to put anything related to the pro-Hindu nature of movement under the criticism and controversy section. I can understand that the allegations of anti-minority come under controversies but not this one. Its like saying Missionary schools teaching Christian hymns or Madarsas teaching Koran is controversial. Nmisra (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If at all, to be neutral, this should come under the Education section - that there is a focus on Hindu themes and motifs. Pro-hindu is not anti-Muslim or anti-Christian and certainly not controversial. Nmisra (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a relevant comment on the quality of the education provided, since the children were taught an alphabet with six letters missing. Avdhash Kaushal's report for the ministry reproduced the primer and cited it as an example of the school protecting and inculcating Hindu culture rather than imparting alphabetical knowledge, one of the reasons funding should be halted. I have restored the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say this but you are talking sheer nonsense and defying common sense, logic and Wikipedia policies in a single stroke - I congratulate you for killing not two, but three birds with one stone. What you have done is a case of WP:OR and WP:SYN - the Milli Gazette article nowhere says or implies that the emphasis is on teaching Hindu culture rather than teaching the alphabet. You are also giving undue wight to a single report in Milli Gazzette (WP:UNDUE). Hindu focus is not controversial, and neither it is contradictory with teaching alphabet. If you want to add, add under education. Such changes violating WP policies will be reverted. Your track record on this article lowers your credibility as a neutral contributor, as has been shown several times in the past. Nmisra (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote "no Hindu Gods had names beginning with these letters" whereas the cited article says "no names of Hindu Gods beginning with these letters are readily available" - as I see there is lot of difference there. However that is the least serious of my issues with the text - Arjuna, Dhruva adn Jambavan are characters in Hindu texts, but they are not Hindu God[s]. Cows are sacred in Hinduism and considered equivalent to mother, but are not Hindu God[s]. Temples are places where Hindus worship and certainly not Hindu Gods. The article by Mukundan Menon in Milli Gazette says "only names of Hindu Gods" and then gives example of Arjun, Dhruva, Cow, Jambavan, Temple which are factually incorrect. This makes the reliability of the source questionable - remember reliability depends on what a thing is cited for. Given all this, there are issues with WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:MOS (wrong section) with your proposed edits. If at all this is to be added, it should be summarized under Education section with the quote by Menon in the footnotes. Nmisra (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aymatth2 Pl read this recent study done by IIM, Bangalore https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxPTlK91Bh6SZks3NEZxaWtTNXFYdkRWWEdGQThndw/edit B.vikram.b 00:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP does not cite Google Docs. However, a URL is not required if you can cite the publication fully otherwise, e.g. journal, issue, pages - then we do not need a URL. The study can be cited, but not with the Google Docs URL as a source. Nmisra (talk)
 * We are requesting IIM to put the study in Public domain. Either ways read the study.. It is work by IIM which all of us respect so much around the world on the impact of EKAL in INDIA. I do not know why we have so much -ve contents and why? I can put the link once they or someone else publish. Contents will exactly be same.B.vikram.b 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)
 * As Nmisra mentioned, unless such documents are published, Google doc can not be cited as a reference. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   11:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a very good study and being an alumnus of IIM Bangalore, I know it is credible. It will help balance the article. But we have to play by the rules and cannot cite it till it is available on TATA-Dhan or IIMB website. Once it is available, we can cite it, till then you can try your edits in a Sandbox. Nmisra (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored the Milli Gazette content, and added another source to confirm what is said. Please do not remove this sourced information while a discussion is ongoing at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. By all means contribute to this discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What language do you understand? Am I speaking Sanskrit or Greek? Arjun, Dhruva, Jambavan, Cow, Temple are not Hindu Gods - no point in including factually incorrect sources. This not only violates numerous policies but is also factually incorrect as pointed out above. Sabrang report says "The teacher at the Ekal Vidyalaya in Chirchi in Tantnagar block, Singhbhum district, proudly claimed that rather than imparting alphabetical knowledge, he was more intent on protecting “Hindu culture”." It talks about one teacher being more "intent". You falsify the information and say "This enquiry report reproduced the primer, saying the emphasis was on teaching Hindu culture rather than teaching the alphabet". That POV (it is not an enquiry report, SABRANG is not an enquiry commiussion), poorly written (This report?), OR and SYN. Nmisra (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the PDF of the report is not available online. It's possible that the MG interpretation of the report is in error; however, it can be reported as a claim rather than as a fact. The other material doesn't seem to be seriously disputed and there's no reason to exclude it. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a factually inaccurate trivia in a fringe publication would amount to giving undue weight to one side. Also how do you think this is controversial? Focus on Hindu-ethos does not belong under controversy, sorry. This is not Christian Today, it is Wikipedia. Nmisra (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is possible there is a copy of the report in some internet archive - not sure where to look. I would tend to see the report more as a "external sources" item than as a direct source, with the article focusing on what others have said about the report. Using the report directly as a source would somehow seem to be original research, not sure why. MG definitely seems to have been sloppy in saying "god" when presumably they meant something like "religious imagery", but that is what they said. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Aymatth2 - you need to read about IIM and IIT's on wikipedia. Plus have you read this, I am still goinng thru as they have a lot of stuff up there which needs to be on this site. Plus guys we are talking about schools in INDIA. I live in USA but the education system and literacy rate in INDIA is a lot different compared to USA. There is NOTHING wrong with C for COW as it relates in villages well in India like I can relate C for CAT here. Plus English is just one subject, there are math, social, science, Hindi and regional languages in these primary schoolsB.vikram.b 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The selective summary of the Milli Gazette article as "Mukundan Menon cited several instances from the report on the focus on Hindu themes in the schools" does not add any meaningful information. The article has already made it clear that the schools are Hindu-oriented.  I support removal of this content.  The fact that the illustrated primer used to teach children the English alphabet was short six letters is highly relevant.  What kind of primer is that?  This information should be restored as one of the key reasons for stoppage of funding. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * English is a foreign language to most Indians, even more so in rural and tribal regions. Many Government schools in rural and tribal areas do not teach English till class III or class V. This being a non-formal education with focus on regional Indian languages, it is not as relevant as you think. Nmisra (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2 for the last time I will answer this govt funding for you - Yes central India govt stopped the aid but local state govt support in a lot of state. Reasons are the BJP government was replaced by Congress in the elections which had different priorities. Bottom line is EKAL gets funding from people NOT governments, there are 12000 schools just supported from USA irrespective of religious backgrounds. Why this religious angle is being added to this cause is beyond me. If you go to a baptist or catholic schools they may talk about christ but still they will teach the regular course. And in this case EKAL is a volunteer based orgs, may be 80% of population in India is Hindu and may be 80% of volunteers/Sponsors are also Hindus, whats wrong here? Please remove your lead controversy section from lead if you are happy now. B.vikram.b 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)


 * WP:VNT and Truth are useful essays. Wikipedia cannot and should not make judgments on wrong and right. The best we can do is provide a reasonably complete view of what is known or thought about a subject, and that includes presenting as fairly as possible the different viewpoints, events and statements in a controversy.  If Wikipedia comes to be known for one-sided presentation of controversial subjects a huge amount of work will be wasted.  Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2 USA pulled out of Iraq because of govt change, Medicare (Obamacare) was introduced because of democrats coming to power. If he loose the election Republicans will reverse Obamacare for sure. That's not a lead section but in points where they differ in policies. Yes I agree that both sides should be represented. i got engaged because the current contents are not balanced on what EKAL has impacted rural and village INDIA. I will move the sections tomorrow to the respective sections if all ok now, No response required. B.vikram.b 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)
 * B.vikram.b has a point that there is a BJP-Congress or NDA-UPA aspect to the whole debate. This could be represented in the article if a source mentions it to give some more context. Nmisra (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is more important here is are there any sources to support this information or not.
 * If there is an information against any aspect, regarding Christian/Hindu objection, it is to be mentioned with sources. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   06:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No information we taking out. Just want them in right sections ("Controversy" to "Criticism" and added a subsection "Response to Criticism") instead of lead. --B.vikram.b 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rao paper
"Rao, Ramesh; Narayanan, Komerath; Mehra, Beloo; Raman, Chitra; Ramaswami, Sugrutha; Rao, Nagendra (2003). "A Factual Response to the Hate Attack on the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF)". Friends of India and Authors of the Report. Retrieved March 5, 2012."

I've come here from the RSN, where I made a comment about the item two sections up. But I noticed the frequent use of this report in the article  Looking at it, it appears a patently non-neutral report, stating right up   front in the title  that its purpose is to defend a particular organization, and that the opposition to it is that of a hate group. I have no idea whether or not this is a fair characterization; given what I read in the report--and I have now read through it, though not in detail-- and taking the material presented at a balanced presentation, it might not be far from the truth. But I see no reason to assume this. The report shows every sign of not being a balanced presentation: it repeatedly discusses the criticism as inherently invalid because coming from those it characterises as Communists, and makes repeated and pervasive comparisons of the group's critics to Nazis. I consider such rhetoric to be about as strong an indication of bias as possible. They might be right nonetheless--their opponents might indeed be Communists, and they might indeed be employing tactics used by the Nazis, but I cannot see how anyone could assume it. Consequently, I do not see how it can possibly be called a RS for anything at all. It's a model of pure propaganda not pretending to be anything else, and I think all material supported only by it must be removed, and it be referred to as an example of the views of its writers only, and used very carefully and in context. I'd normally say that some indication of probable bias needs to be given, but the very title gives it  blatantly; it would be enough to cite the full title every time; this is an instance where citing by an abbreviated title is misleading.  DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly thanks for discussing this on talk page before making changes. Quick things - reliability of a source depends on what it is used for. Any source can be used for something, as long as quotes and views are attributed and not disguised, it should be fine. A statement like "XYZ described this as blah, blah, blah" is fairly NPOV - the same article quotes Angana Chatterji and Mukundan Menon (both of them have views which are not beyond dispute) - whose reliability is as questionable as that of Ramesh Rao and others. As for specific citations, here is where the report is cited:


 * Appendix K is of the report is cited thrice as a secondary source for Yvette Rosser's report (reference [13] as of now). The appendix is not written by Rao et al but by Yvette Rosser, Rao et al simply reproduce Rosser's report. This is made clear in two cases (that it is indeed Rosser who said this). The third case is in the lead where we have not named any authors (lead should not have details). There should not be any RS or NPOV issue here (attributed views, secondary source).
 * Cited once (reference [14]) in the lead for the phrase "the schools ... have been the target of a campaign by media and academic networks." This has been qualified by "Several other authors ... have stated that ...". It has been made clear that this is the view of some authors, just like the criticism in the lead.
 * Cited once (reference [20] as of now) as one of the two sources for the sentence "Some prominent people who have been on the board of trustees of the foundation include B. K. Modi, founder of ModiCorp, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, former Chief Justice of India; L. M. Singhvi, former High Commissioner for India in the United Kingdom; Abid Hussain, former Indian ambassador to the United States; and several eminent industrialist and celebrities." There is no bias or POV issue here (factual statements), and this fact can be verified by other sources on Internet.
 * Cited once (reference [23]) as a source for "This non-didactic approach has been described as "assimilative and respectful of local cultural norms and belief systems"." IMHO this is the only place where one may say the presentation as it stands currently is not NPOV. It needs mentioning of the authors names to be clear as to who has described this approach thus. As long as views are attributed, there should not be any issues.
 * Cited once (reference [51]) as a source for "Ramesh Rao, professor of Communication at Truman State University, and others wrote that "there has been a concerted campaign against the Ekal Vidyalayas by a combination of media and academic networks ... try as they might, they really cannot find anything wrong with the schools"." The main author has been clearly named with their affiliation here, I don't know if it makes sense to name all six of them.
 * What do you think given the above points? Nmisra (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum, to the best of my knowledge, the report by Rao et al does not compare the group's critics to Nazis. Where did you get that from? On the contrary, it is the authors of the Sabrang/FOIL report who have compared IDRF and RSS affiliated organizations to Nazis. Nmisra (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * what is needed to be repeated is not the list of authors but the title of the report, because the title is what shows the bias.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully concur. A Factual Response to the Hate Attack on the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF) should be cited only where there is no alternative source, and should be named in full when cited.  Preferably it would be used only in the section on "Controversy", and then its title should be spelled out.  The title of the report to which it responds (The Foreign Exchange of Hate - IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva), also mentioned in the "Controversy" section, should also be spelled out, and the connection between the two reports noted.  Assuming there is no objection, I will make these changes. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reminder - if there are no objections, I will make this change later today or tomorrow... Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made the changes. I strongly support finding other sources to substantiate content in the sections other than "Response to criticism" and replacing the Rao source with these other sources. However, where the Rao report is still used as a source it should be named.  Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should the long title of a report be required for non-controversial facts (like who is on Board of Governors), and even in the lead which is supposed to be a summary? Also why is it needed for statements which are supported by multiple independent sources? I have made some changes so that the article is easier to read. It is important to Keep Wikipedia unbiased, but that does not mean you make it difficult for the reader by mentioning a report title ad infinitum. Aknla (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Rao report is far from neutral and independent, as its title shows. It is legitimate to discuss the Rao report and the Sabrang report that triggered it in the section on controversy.  DGG's point, which I support, is that if the Rao report must be used as a source of information in other parts of the article, at minimum the name must be spelled out each time so the reader can assess the reliability of the information.  Much better, though, to use independent sources in place of the Rao report - or to drop the information if it is not central to the article and is not confirmed by any other source. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

More biasing by Aymatth2
In this edit, Aymatth2 quoted something out of context which is irrelevant to the topic. From the cited text, A criticized B's views on C, but this is an article on D. A=Rao et al, B=Sabrang, C=Hindutva, D=Ekal. Moreover, in the cited text, A attack B for their rhetoric intent in which B compare C to "Nazi idea", so this is really a criticism of critics of Hindutva. Aymatth2 put this under the Criticism section of the EVF article which is grossly misleading. Other editors please note that this user has a long track record of such edits which bias the article. Nmisra (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with above comments. The study by IIM Banglore will be in public domain movement has impact INDIA https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxPTlK91Bh6SZks3NEZxaWtTNXFYdkRWWEdGQThndw. Aymatth2 please read this before making any further comments. It does not even make a reference to any religion, its purely a education movement which has impacted 40,000 villages, lets keep it that way. This is the first movement outside christian missionaries may be thats why so much Hindu related text. But the point is there are 15,000 schools just from USA and that cannot come from Hindus for SURE. Aymatth2 again requesting you to read before making further comments on EKAL. --B.vikram.b 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)

Too much biased article, Why?
Why so much christian stuff on EKAL page, just because it was initiated in India. This article needs to be re-done by someone who understands EKAL schools. 40,000 schools cannot be captured like this. They need more contents. B.vikram.b (talk 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated removal of criticism
In 2002 Sabrang Communications published a report titled The Foreign Exchange of Hate - IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva that strongly criticized the way in which funds raised by the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF) were being used, including criticism of the Ekal Vidyalayas. In March 2003 a group calling themselves "Friends of India" published a riposte titled A Factual Response to the Hate Attack on the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF). Several books discuss the controversy, referring to one or both of these reports.

Both reports show strong biases, so neither should be used as a source for factual information on the Ekal Vidyalayas. However, the controversy was widely discussed and should therefore be described in the section on "Controversy and criticism". All mention of the criticism in the Sabrang Communications report has been repeatedly removed from the article, although the article continues to quote views given in the "Friends of India" response. I am not interested in getting into an edit war, so request that some other editor restore the information about the Sabrang report to give balance. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

from which an entire line "misusing these funds, and using the grants for creating disharmony amongst religious groups" is added to the article. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per source from Hindu in criticism section, this line is per an earlier report 'misusing these funds, and using the grants for creating disharmony amongst religious groups and creating a political cadre' & not per Govt. report/committe. If my impression from the source is accurate, I will change the line. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   04:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the Hindu article about stoppage of government funding in 2005 is that the sequence was a complaint, an enquiry/study, an enquiry report and stoppage of funds based on that report. That is the way governments work.  The section on "Suspension of government funding" accurately reflects this.  I would leave it as is, and certainly not remove anything.  The 2002 Sabrang report is completely unrelated. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sequence mentioned by you is not supported to say there was a complaint then a study at the beginning. The report also does not say that the earlier study was done by the Govt. The content on the article however makes it appear that the earlier study was also done by the Govt., therefore lacks clarity per me. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   18:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of any "earlier study". The Hindu article has typical newspaper article structure.  The first two paragraphs summarize the article: "government stops grants after study".  The next three paragraphs repeat the story with more detail: "Funded since 1999-2000 ... complaints ... enquiry ordered ... report ... funding stopped".  The last four paragraphs each describe further aspects in yet more detail.  This structure gives the reader the main information up front and lets the editor cut the story after para 2, or after para 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9.  Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying though the article does not clarify whether the earlier study was an independent study or as mentioned by you. If it is so, one can not assume substance according to me otherwise it is fine. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   20:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no hint in the Hindu article of any "earlier study" from a mystery source that the government decided to accept. That would indeed be news.  But this is irrelevant.  The Hindu article is a good source for some of the reasons why government stopped funding, regardless of who funded the study.  I notice the Milli Gazette article has been removed yet again.  It gives a more detailed explanation of the reasons for stopping funding, and backs up The Hindu article.  Many other sources are available, as a simple search in Google Books will show.  Aymatth2 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the second paragraph from [| this source]"This follows a study which revealed that the FTS was misusing these funds, and using the grants for creating disharmony amongst religious groups and creating a political cadre."
 * The entire page of the milligazette article([[| this link]) is copied from [| this page] as mentioned at the bottom, which is again not accessible. Per discussion on reliable sources noticeboard ([| here]), there is no consensus that articles from milligazette can be considered reliable and not unbiased. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   07:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hindu says very clearly that the grants were stopped following the study. The Milli Gazette article (which was not removed since there was no consensus that it was unreliable, my mistake) confirms this, as do other sources. The Milli Gazette article has a link to a page named "Mukundan C Menon.htm" on the old Indian Currents website.  Presumably the page held a biography of the article's author, the late Mukundan C. Menon, who often wrote for Indian Currents.  Seven years later the link no longer works.  I do not understand how this is relevant in any way.  Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I am getting your first point. I understand also that Mukundan C. Menon was a personality of repute and recognized also. Though my understanding is that if the link no longer works, you can substitute the link with another for the same article. It is a suggestion for sourcing. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   19:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to pass your suggestion for cleaning up the dead link in their archived article to Milli Gazette. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IIM Bangalore
Gentlemen - Pl read this to understand the impact of ekal schools a study conducted by IIM Banglore https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxPTlK91Bh6SZks3NEZxaWtTNXFYdkRWWEdGQThndw/edit?pli=1 All the comments on EKAL are Hindu related whereas its an education movement running 40000 schools. Criticizing just because the effort was started in villages in INDIA should not be the reason to criticize. What EKAL has achieved all of you should read on this study conducted in 2011-12 instead of putting isolated links from 2005. This article needs to be reviewed or proper links should be added, it does not capture what EKAL has achieved in INDIA or at least that part should be captured. I am new to wikipedia but can see the contents vs the support EKAL has in USA among all  communities. I need to understand wikipedia policies before making further changes but if one of you can help put th econtents will be nice.B.vikram.b (talk 11:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going into details from last week Aymatth2 you need to take a pause on commenting on EKAL page, All you do is put so much biased contents which does not reflect the in anyway the impact of EKAL, at least make an attempt to read the above study to understand. You have some agenda here to vilify the EKAL if I go thru the history of changes. This will be at least 4th or 5th time I am requesting you to go thru the study and make an attempt to have unbiased opinion on EKAL. Please do not make further changes to EKAL page for now. B.vikram.b (talk 12:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The IIM Bangalore report appears to be a review of Ekal Vidyalayas commissioned by the Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation.
 * The introduction is upbeat although the body of the report makes criticisms, for example (page 37 section 3.2.4) "Less than 40% of teachers teach formal school subjects regularly. Even among formal school subjects, priority is to teach mother language. This may be due to lack of ability of teachers in handling other formal school subjects ... The system of monitoring attendance of children needs to be strengthened, as it is not being done uniformly" etc..
 * A very negative view could be constructed by selective excerpts from this report. For example (page 27 section 2.3) "5.85 % of key informants in Ekal villages responded that health seeking behaviour of the villagers in the Ekal operational areas has increased".  How about the other 94.15%?  How many said it had decreased?
 * As a Google document there is of course no way of knowing what its origins are - anyone could take a copy and put their own modified version into Google docs. Even if genuine, a review of the Ekal Vidyalayas commissioned by the EV foundation is not a good source for an article on the EV foundation. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2 Nice that you reading it. There are few who cannot be convinced, you may be one of them. Feel free to send a mail to IIM Bangalore to confirm or the foundation who did this study. I cannot help much if you do not have faith in IIM. Sometimes I feel the same with MIT graduates here in USA. May be spend few more minutes reading about IIT's and IIM's. You should refrain from editing any INDIA related material as you seem to have a very biased openion about the culture and country. Can you refer us to any positive contents you have written so far about any so far. Plus on EKAL and village comment the only thing will satisfy you will be a visit to a remote village. I am repeating this again You have some agenda to vilify the Organization. Pl avoid altering the EKAL Page.B.vikram.b (talk 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Google Docs report does seem to have been prepared by students of the Tata-Dhan Academy following direction and guidelines from D.V.R. Seshadri of the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. A project like this is consistent with D.V.R. Seshadri's interests, if a bit different from what he usually does, and the research would be a good practical exercise for the students.  I am inclined to think that the report is genuine.  A fake would be a very elaborate hoax, easily exposed.  But the report contains many damaging assertions about the schools, which gives reason to doubt whether it was intended for publication. There is also a possibility that this is a doctored version of the original.  Certainly it cannot be used as a source in this article.  Aymatth2 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You simply just ignore all points and continue to go on the path to vilify the Organization. Let people decide what you doing here. BTW anything +ve about INDIA or Indian culture you have written ever. B.vikram.b (talk 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In Media Now
The joint report by TATA-Dhan and Prof Seshadri has been reported in media now. Here are the links I will make edits to add the summary. Aknla (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Express Buzz
 * The Hindu
 * CNN-IBN

POV edits by Aymatth2 (yet again)
Going by the article history and talk page, Aymatth2 appears to be driving his POV agenda again and again.
 * In this this edit, Aymatth2 removed information without reading the Chatterjee source. On the second page of the source, the Jacob Chatterjee article (which may be a biased source) mentions names of trustees including Subhash Chandra, P N Bhagwati, L M Singhvi, and former Indian ambassador to US (a reference to Abid Hussein, he is probably not named because he is from a minority group in India and the article is critical of the anti-minority agenda). Rao source does the same. So both sources, one critical and one defending the organization name them as trustees/board members so no need to mention title of one source.
 * I did not spot the second page of the Chatterjee source, just the page the cited url pointed to. I have no problem with adding a link to the second page, and suggest that the link to the Rao report be removed. If the Rao report citation is retained, the report should of course be named. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

All right so I assume you have no problems in dropping the name of report in this particular instance. Let me know if you disagree and why. Aknla (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Aymatth2 removed a portion of response to criticism from the lead and called Gautier a "hardly neutral" source which is the editor's personal opinion (maybe WP:IDONTLIKETHAT). This is again biasing - there is no reason to assume that supporters of EVF are not neutral and should be named, and critics of EVF are neutral and so they should not be. Furthermore, Aymatth2 just does not get it that lead should have summary and details should be in the relevant section. Maybe his English is poor, or maybe his intellectual level is, or both.
 * Gautier is a columnist and the source is a Rediff opinion piece. This is hardly a neutral source.  The Ekal Vidyalaya schools are mentioned in passing.  If this source is to be quoted, it should be identified and quoted accurately, and that is what I did. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Even Tehelka which has history of being against a particular political party cannot be taken as a neutral source. Same about Sabrang, Angana, a Pakistani source on India, et cetera. Lead is summary and not details. "Supporters of Ekal Vidyalaya" in lead, and naming actual supporters in section makes more sense. Otherwise you have to name Tehelka, Christial Council, Sabrang Communications all as sources in lead since they are also hardly reliable, and the lead will become a cluttered mess of details with all these names. I have no objection to the sources being named in sections, but not in the lead please. From WP:MOS - "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Hence "Critics of EVF" and "Supporters of EVF" rather than actual names of authors and reports. Aknla (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Over these three edits, Aymatth2 removed cited text which was favourable to EVF. The cited source has a clear statements like "Ekal’s concept of one-teacher schools and their contribution to literacy and empowerment of citizens in the rural and tribal areas of India have been roundly applauded by the state governments and social organizations."
 * I missed that comment in the Indo American News report. This is a very small paper and the article reads like a press release: "For more information about Ekal Vidyalaya USA, contact Subhash Gupta at 1-855-EKALUSA (352-5872) or email ekalusa@ekalvidya.org."  But I suppose it can be quoted.

Then a better way would be to add "According to XYZ source" rather than removing it altogether. Thoughts? Given these highly POV edits to bias the article again and again, I think the above user should be banned from editing this article. I am rolling back all changes. Aknla (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As agree in an earlier discussion on this talk page, where the Rao report is mentioned it must be named in full. If you have any problems with my edits on this article, there are various noticeboards where you can report them. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the report critical of Ekal Vidyalaya, with titles like "It’s still religion, stupid" must be also quoted with the title. About daily times article, which looks like an article just to criticize and nothing much, its title also should be mentioned. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011   20:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above makes sense when Rao report is only source, not when there are multiple sources. Also not in the lead. Aknla (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with quoting titles and sources (authors and/or publications) for any content that could be considered controversial or opinionated. Given the level of debate on this talk page, that may apply to almost every source. I suspect that if that were done throughout the article the general reader would not get very far before they thought "this is a battlefield" and decided to look elsewhere for information. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is precisely why the lead should not have long names of report. "Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Aknla (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we then agree on the following?
 * Remove all source details like author names (Rao or Gautier, or Tehelka or Sabrang or Angana or Khalid Hasan - each of which could be biased) and titles of reports (Foreign Exchange of Hate, or Response to Hate Attack) from the lead. The alternative is to quote all of these in the lead (on both criticism and support or response to criticism) and make it a mess.
 * No. Wherever an opinion is expressed, as in "they are doing a great job" or "they are doing a lousy job", the person who expressed that opinion should be identified and briefly described - including in the lead. The lead does not have to reproduce all the opinions.  A sample is sufficient, as in "There has been controversy about the Ekal Vidyalayas.  For example, John Dayal, president of the All India Catholic Union ... Francois Gautier, author and journalist ..." Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then one may remove both positive and negative opinions from lead. The lead need not have details. See WP:MOSLEAD.


 * Remove source names for board of directors / trustees part which is supported by multiple sources.
 * Anywhere the Rao report is used as a source it must be named. But the Rao source can be dropped here since Chatterjee source is sufficient to validate this bit. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both sources may be biased, but this bit is not controversial or POV. It is about who all


 * Put back the Indo American News report praise and attribute it correctly. IAN is the "first and oldest South Asian publication in Texas" and "currently in it’s 30th year of publication" so no need to remove this, better to attribute by saying something like "An Indo-American News press release said that ....".
 * "An Ekal Vidyalaya USA press release said ..."
 * It is not an Ekal USA press release. What makes you think so? It is a report by Indo American News (a 30 year old news source) which gives contact of Ekal USA at the end. It is common in many news reports to have contact of a charity at end.

I will wait for a week before changing stuff back. Aknla (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first thing, which should be done immediately, is to name the Rao report in full everywhere it is cited, as previously agreed on this talk page. It would be preferable to cite the Rao report only in the section on controversy. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry only partly agree with this. Multiple reasons. First, it should be named only when opinions are used from it and not when it is used for factual details (e.g. who is on board) or as a secondary source (e.g. Yvette Rosser). Secondly same should be used for all potentially POV opinions, including that by critics of EVF. Aknla (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Aymatth2 You should refrain from commenting on this like we discussed last time. B.vikram.b (talk 22:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Abhishek191288's mischief
In this edit, the incompetent editor confused a new statement added to the article to be a part of an old dispute. The new statement is sourced and I am reverting your change. I wish people read the changed and edit summaries of other users before reverting. I don't bother if you report me, but you will end up being embarassed for being overenthusiastic since this edit is not a part of the edit war. Aknla (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly a quacker per this. :P &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 11:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep guessing, but what you call a quacker pointed out your incompetency in editing Wikipedia above (to which you have no answer), which means you are probably dumber than a log of wood. Mind answering why you reverted new information which was sourced? Aknla (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics
Let's get back to first principles. Changes that violate any of these basic principles may be removed after discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead section should summarize all the key points in the article.
 * 2) Most sources should be independent of the subject organization.
 * 3) Sources for the facts presented should be reliable in the sense that they may be presumed to have checked the information presented.
 * 4) Reputable mainstream journals such as The Hindu, The Telegraph or The Indian Express are good sources.
 * 5) The article should give a direct, factual view of the organization's history, activities, finances, structure and so on.
 * 6) It should avoid hype and fluff, and should present the information from a neutral viewpoint.
 * 7) Where there has been controversy, that controversy should be described in a neutral fashion: "he said this; she said that".
 * 8) Opinions should be presented sparing, ideally limited to the controversy section.
 * 9) Where opinions are presented, the article should name the person giving the opinion and briefly describe who they are.
 * 10) Where a formal report takes a strong position on the organization, for or against, the report should be named each time it is cited.
 * 11) As far as possible, such reports should be cited only in the section on controversy, and should not cited as sources of facts.

Aymatth2 as I requested you last time pl refrain from commenting on India related websites IIM's, EKAL, culture included. you have something against. Show me a single comment which you find positive. B.vikram.b (talk 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ekal Vidyalaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805232831/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C11%5C09%5Cstory_9-11-2008_pg1_5 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\11\09\story_9-11-2008_pg1_5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)