Talk:Vidya Bharati/Archive 1

Dubious
It "is the single largest organization in the field of education as of 2007". What does that even mean? Most students? Most institutions? Most money? Most teachers? Obviously, this needs a reference so we can know what it even means. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

POV
In my opinion, the entire text of the article is POV, probably lifted from the Organisation web site or some magazine verbatim. There is no point in copyediting any of it. We need to find reliable secondary sources and create new content. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I mean, if somebody wished to copy-edit, I am not going to attempt to dissuade them, but copy-editing is mostly useful only after solid content has been added, and that is not the case here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Friends, I started it well before you two guys made this comment. I did some work and realized the POV and no-reference and copyvio issue and started working on those too. I purged entire sections! And I did wait few days for more content to come in, which did not happen so I consider I can continue with my work and improve it. If you think I should not, then just remove the tag from article page and leave me a message! Cheers! -- AmritasyaPutra T 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, can one of you put POV tags on the sections? I will try and write new sections, and we can get rid of the old ones when it is done. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio
The philosophy etc section is a copyvio from here. Not attempting to deal with it myself, because the tag is still in place. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's more than likely that the rest is from the website, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So what does the tag mean? User:AmritasyaPutra removes it when he is editing, and puts it back when he is done, which seems backwards to me. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's two different tags; he removed the tag, but inserted  . I'm raising the issue here, so long as he is "using" it, it's his hot potato. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you got the tag backwards.  Can you remove it please, since you are not working on it any more? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

RSS
If the connection to the RSS is removed as part of a copy-edit, that would be the most ridiculous copy-edit I have ever seen. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, please add it with reference. Copy-edit does not deal with verification of content. Is the copy-edit tag removed, is it over? Regards. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 15:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will stop copy-edit. There are no references in this article and I suspect copyvio and was working on that but it would be wonderful if you can add more references before I proceed. I can copy-edit after that. Thank you. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 15:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to waste time inserting references, if your approach to them is the same as at ABISY. Having spent a long time finding and reading a scholarly work only to see it removed through an edit war, I am not inclined to do the same here without assurances of some kind from you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 00:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was clear enough; if you feel you can disregard any scholarly source on the subject, then I will waste no time finding them. I want an assurance that you will accept the use of such, unlike what you did at ABISY. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? Go with the complaint to ANI -- Do not spoil this talk page! Provide them at least one diff where I deleted a scholarly reference on ABISY? PERIOD. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am "spoiling" nothing; you need to brush up your definition of a personal attack. This organisation is closely related to the RSS, and your copy-edit removed that. Those are facts you cannot deny. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide a diff link where I deleted a reference on this page or ABISY. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 03:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have myself added the provided reference with the mention of RSS. Thank you. -- AmritasyaPutra T 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is all I bloody asked for in the first place. Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * lol! You are unpredictably funny and stupid! Then why did you not merely say so instead of dragging ABISY here? I have never deleted any citation a matter of fact! Regards. -- AmritasyaPutra T 21:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

who is indulging in PAs now? My first post here merely said that the link to the RSS should not be removed. Now you added it, so I thanked you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You. -- AmritasyaPutra T 02:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You call me stupid, and in the next sentence say that I am attacking you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Lede
Is there a principle that the first sentence of the lede has to be from the primary source, and the second sentence from a secondary sentence? If so, where can I find it? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference style
So, this edit at 14 september 2014 changed the reference style from inline to sfn, and this edit at 16 september changed it to - what's it called? I think it looks awful!

Personally I prefer sfn; it gives a very good overview of sources, and is very handsome when you're editing.

Regarding the change of style: I agree with AmritasyaPutra that it should have been discussed first. Ah, it's a great topic for disputes... I've had a few too, in my Wiki-career. Are you finished already discussing? ;)

Best to all of you,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wishes! I don't know if the discussion had been concluded.  I think both of us dislike the way the page looks like now, but AmritasyaPutra forced me to do it.  The problem actually started earlir with this revert  of AmritasyaPutra, who maintained that there should be no such thing called a "Bibliography" section.  If we had such a section, both reflist and sfn styles could have been combined without interference.  At that time, AmritasyaPutra had locked the page, and so I was writing my text on my own computer where I used sfn style for books (as I normally do).  When Amritasya unlocked the page, I had the problem of merging his changes with mine, which I did and uploaded the merged text.  If Amritasya had allowed me to have a Bibliography section, this problem would not have arisen.   Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I love Bibliography-sections. Have a look at User:Joshua_Jonathan/Sources. I can easily copy-paste a source, and use sfn to refer to it. It's great. And a bibliography-section gives a neat overview of sources. Very useful if you want to know more.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 Eh? Could you stop that personal commentary on me please? Check the last response in that section and check the body, I repeated several times in the end keep it your way I don't care, and if you want to keep it the earlier way which I used remove the rn tags and gave you the relevant doc. You can check I have not touched the article after I said I will not be editing it -- do you really choose to overlook it? I had not locked it, I was doing a major cleanup and you yourself above admitted it was admirable work. -- AmritasyaPutra T 10:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Enough... Please, stop biting. It won't work.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * okay, I had also said it is indeed cluttered and that was not exactly what was before. -- AmritasyaPutra T 11:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the references back to sfn format. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading Padmaja Nair
I am unable to find out who this woman is. The reference book (Religious political parties and their welfare work: Relations between the RSS, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Vidya Bharati Schools in India) linked in the article doesn't seem to introduce the author. Do we know anything about her credentials? Lets sort this thing first and then we will look at the statements taken from her article as reference. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Might be a pen name? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * She is listed as a "consultant" (contract researcher) on a DFID-funded project here: . The value of this report is that it is more detailed than the other sources and it is available online. If you find anything questionable, please let me know and we can hunt for other sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the document is "Working Paper" and is not reviewed per the website. -- AmritasyaPutra T 02:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoever inserted this book may have downloaded from somewhere, what was the website? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bladesmulti, I was referring to "http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/" which says "This ePapers repository contains material that has not been through a formal peer-review process". -- AmritasyaPutra T 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was discussed before? You should really try RS noticeboard since Dharmadakshya has also questioned. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has been discussed before, this particular reference has been added one day back by kautilya3. -- AmritasyaPutra T 04:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is listed in book stores with "University of Birmingham" as the publisher, e.g.,. So, officially it is a book. Unofficially, I can say that this kind of a publication is part of commissioned research projects by aid agencies, where somebody is contracted to do field research to collect source material and provide the basis for further analysis by the core research team. Their reports are made available normally to the agencies themselves or, in this case, to the wider academic community as source material that they can base their research on. I would use such a source only for factual information, not analysis. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Does she say 1978? The organizations's website and (Jaffrelot, 2011) both say 1977 as the formation year. -- AmritasyaPutra T 09:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That kind of confusion is not unnatural in founding an organisation, for instance, an opening ceremony happen in one year but the official registration a little later. We should use whatever date the organisation itself claims. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point -- the article body has 1978 based on this source. The Infobox has 1977 which I had put earlier. -- AmritasyaPutra T 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize. I have now changed it to "1977-78" to account for the ambiguity in the sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call this book reliable even if published by UoB. She bases her most content from "interviews" with ABC peoples. Read the reference list she jots down at the end of the book. In case we were to trust the authoress for such hearsay statements, she should independently have some notability of her own in the subject. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With an academic work, it isn't just the author who makes it reliable, it is the publisher as well. A University publisher has editorial oversight, and as such endorses the work of the author. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "This ePapers repository contains material that has not been through a formal peer-review process". §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Missed that. Remove, or treat with a fistful of salt. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I am treating it with a fistful of salt: for facts, not analysis. However, User:Dharmadhyaksha is saying that even the facts might be questionable because they might be obtained from "ABC people." (I suppose he means the members/officials of the organisation.) I have been looking for corroboration from other sources for some of the wild claims. So, stay tuned. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There were two items from Padmaja Nair which I thought were questionable: (i) the issue of BJP politicians giving the schools land, (ii) Vidya Bharati opening schools abroad. For the first item, I found corroboration from Sundar's article.  So, I am retaining it.  For the second item, I didn't find any corroboration.  So, I am commenting it out.  Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Name
Recently, some editors have changed the spelling of the name in the lead to "Vidya Bharti." It is true that the organisation's web site spells the name that way. However, on Google Books, "Vidya Bharti" gives about 300 hits whereas "Vidya Bharati" gives more than 3,000. So it seems a preponderance of the reliable sources use the old spelling. I suggest that we retain that. (The official spelling will be in Hindi/Dev Nagari anyway. This is just a question of how it is transliterated in English.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe our policy weights common names over official names, unless there is a violation of NPOV involved. WP:COMMONNAME. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It has been proposed that Saraswati Shishu Mandir be merged into Vidya Bharati. I agree with the proposal, as they seem to be about the same organization. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Saraswati Shishu Mandir is just a "brand name" used by Vidya Bharati for primary schools. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - You are right. These are just Vidya Bharati schools as can be seen here http://www.vidyabharti.net.in/EN/School. Gotitbro (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)