This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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 "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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 lineThis 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.
is added to the article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)misusing these funds, and using the grants for creating disharmony amongst religious groups
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)
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 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)
Going by the article history and talk page, Aymatth2 appears to be driving his POV agenda again and again.
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)
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)
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)
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?
I will wait for a week before changing stuff back. Aknla ( talk) 02:16, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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 "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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 lineThis 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.
is added to the article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)misusing these funds, and using the grants for creating disharmony amongst religious groups
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)
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 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)
Going by the article history and talk page, Aymatth2 appears to be driving his POV agenda again and again.
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)
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)
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)
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?
I will wait for a week before changing stuff back. Aknla ( talk) 02:16, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)