Talk:National RTI Forum

Changes to article

Hello, I have reverted recent changes to this article, and request that interested editors discuss further changes to the article on this talk page. The article went through the AfD process and was kept, in large part, because of the references I added. Another editor tried to remove them, and much additional material. By the way, I have no conflict of interest as that editor claimed in the edit summary, because all I know about this group is what I've learned from reading reliable sources. The sources cited should be considered reliable, as they are major professional journalistic sources in India. An external link to an organization's website is perfectly acceptable in an article about that organization. Please make future edits on the basis of consensus with other interested editors. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1) Neither the first nor the second reference bear out the claim that the murdered activists belonged to the organisation or had any serious connection with the organisation. 2) The first reference clearly brings out (to anybody who knows India) that this organisation is a "local" organisation centered in and around "Lucknow-Kanpur" in Uttar Pradesh. 3) A careful reading of the first reference shows that the meeting being covered was organised by the IIM-Lucknow and not the NRF. 4) The fact that the first reference is unreliable is seen from its false claim that the NRF is an "association" (whereas it is actually only a 2 person "Trust" of the husband and wife pair behind this article, and the wife has a COI and and for socking (pending) (I was referring to "nutanthakurlko" and not you for COI - so sorry). 5) The first reference is local coverage of a "local" event. It did not make the national edition of the Times of India. 6) The second reference makes it clear that the NRF is a "newly formed association". NRF's long term notability is suspect. In any case the 2nd ref is not a reliable source and has no pretensions to serious peer / editorial review. Furthermore the ref to NRF in #2 is only a passing mention 7) neither of these 2 refs bears out the extraordinary claims I deleted "National RTI Forum is a grassroots anti-corruption organization in India that advocates for government openness under the terms of the 2005 Right to Information Act.". More later. Insofar as the "RTI gallantry awards" are concerned, the NRF was formed after all these activists deaths, and is a brazen publicity seeking attempt to raise funds in the names of these "marytrs" (all the info is available on-line if you search) RobertRosen (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cullen, the article does not make coherent sense now. With the main claim gone that the murdered activists belonged to the NRF, where is the notability / value of its awards? RobertRosen (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cullen, you did not respond to my last edit on this page, before reverting my edits to the article. I have now added some material which I shall source/cite in due course. The cites I have provided so far should cause you to re-evaluate your passion for defending this organisation. RobertRosen (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Badly sourced POV edits

The article has recently been filled with POV atacks based on personal opinion and unreliable sources. I appeal to RobertRosen to correct this situation, but will do it myself if he fails to do so. This article must be written with an NPOV tone. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am copying the messages you posted on my talk page.

Hello, I will give you a few hours to have the opportunity to remove all material you've added that violates the neutral point of view. The court case is a primary source - it is not allowed. Blogs are not allowed. Spam is not allowed. Personal accusations are not allowed. Everything in this article mus be backed by reliable sources. Do not inject your personal point of view into the article. That is simply not allowed, and it will not stay in the article. Do not add material until you have the reliable sources to back it up. This is non-negotiable. Immediately disclose any conflict of interest you may have regarding this article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should discuss this on the article's talk(discussion) page only. This will allow other editors to assist us better. You have also raised several technical issues. I perceive these to be "wikilawyering". I will have to research intensively the technical points raised by you, such as if citing the "reported" version of a court's decision qualifies as RS or not. As I have conveyed to you previously I am as equally concerned as you that the article should conform to all applicable Wiki norms especially 5P, NPOV, (and 3RR). RobertRosen (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindly revisit your premises. In the present instance, the secondary source which I have cited is the official report of a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (India's 2nd largest / highest court) based on affidavits of the article subject Dr.NutanThakur (the primary source) which was "reviewed" by a division bench of Lord Justices with the expert participation (peer review) of the author's counsel (defending) and the Attorney General of the State of Uttar Pradesh (India's largest State) and also the Standing Counsel for the Union of India (opposing). In my opinion this meets all the criteria for RS. There is no original research / synthesis by me - exact quotes, neither is my NPOV compromised. I can carry out similar exercises for my other citations if you want. I can also provide at least 3 other similar judgments (or you can dig them out yourself)RobertRosen (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why I've removed RobertRosen's recent additions

I hereby formally ask RobertRosen to declare any and all conflicts of interest that he may have regarding this organization National RTI Forum, or any of its members. I also ask him to read assume good faith before doing things comparable to describing my edits as "bollocks" in his edit summaries, as he did in this matter the other day.

I want to go though the material added by RobertRosen recently, and explain why I have removed it. Let me remind all editors that the result of a recent Articles for Deletion debate was to Keep this article. We must keep this article in full compliance with Wikipedia policy.

There is no point in emphasizing when the organization was formed. New organizations can be notable. I have removed those comments and the first reference.

The second reference is unacceptable for two reasons: It is an 2006 article from the Hindustan Times, however the organization was not founded until 2010, so this reference is irrelevant to this particular article. Also, the Hindustan Times article does not support the negative tone of RobertRosen's comments. The Hindustan Times article says that Amitabh Thakur was "manhandled" and describes his opponents as part of "the criminal-cop nexus". Thakur is portrayed as the victim, not the guilty party. I can't imagine how RobertRosen thinks that this Hindustan Times article can be used to justify this negative language. I have removed that language and the reference.

The third reference is the group's own website, which is used to reference the statement that it is a "2 person forum". This is false, because the website has a "new members" section listing six other people, and an "about" page which lists about 80 people across India as state representatives. I have removed this claim, unsupported by the reference given.

Now we come to the court case, and the only reference is a lengthy quotation from the judge's ruling. This is not an appropriate reference, because it is a primary source, defined as "accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event". A judge's ruling is a primary source because the judge is directly involved in adjudicating the court case. An example of a secondary source would be a newspaper or magazine article or book about the case, written by a professional journalist or author.

Now we have statements such as "regularly use to institute frivolous legal proceedings" and "which they almost invariably lose". These are conclusions demonstrating a strongly negative point of view instead of the neutral point of view that is required in a Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia editor is not permitted to express such a point of view on their own, and if such POV is to be included in the article, it must be based on reliable, secondary, independent sources, which are lacking in this case, and it must also be balanced with other notable and contrasting points of view. Even if such reliable sources expressing this negative point of view were found, we must be careful not to give undue weight to such information.

We come now to reference five, which purports to be a YahooGroups posting by one of the leaders of National RTI Forum. Simply put, YahooGroups posts are not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. YahooGroups has no fact checking or reputation for accuracy. RobertRosen admitted to me on January 25 that he knew that material from YahooGroups was not a reliable source. Did he forget? It doesn't matter if the material is favorable or unfavorable to National RTI Forum - it doesn't belong as a Wikipedia reference, so I have removed it.

I conclude by appealing to RobertRosen and other editors to comply with the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines necessary to ensure verifiability and the neutral point of view. I will be watching this and related articles. Thank you.

I see no point in edit warring with you. I have trimmed the article to conform exactly to 5P. Kindly respect my edits. I have no COI for this article. If anything I am better situated to generally understand the ground reality for this organisation and the people behind it.RobertRosen (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

RobertRosen, I assume good faith and therefore believe that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. I respect your edits but I will not agree with them unless your changes are based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines and what the reliable sources say. I have reverted your deletions. You have gone from the extreme of adding unsourced POV material to the opposite extreme of removing well-sourced neutral material. Neither is an acceptable approach. A vague mention of the five pillars is not enough. Detailed explanations are required. Stable changes to this article must be based on consensus with interested editors, which includes me.

Your understanding of the "ground reality" may be useful, but may also make it difficult for you to edit from the neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors can write about any topic whatsoever, and I write about worldwide topics. We don't require "ground reality" because we rely on what the reliable sources say, guided by policy and guidelines. You're perfectly free to write or edit articles about Northern California, where I live, as long as you follow policy as I do. Cullen328 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cullen. I repeat that I have no wish to editwar with you. At the present time we are the only 2 editors on this article - till we agree there is no consensus. Unlike you, I am not attempting to draw new editors here to vote-stack. As a very long time Wikipedia 'user' (as distinguished from 'editor') I am perhaps more interested than you that quality of this encyclopedia be maintained. I would also request you to kindly stop reverting my edits, I know the 5P as well as you do (if not better !!!). In passing I may mention that the path of confrontation you are adopting is not conducive to a healthy and mutual respect between editors. Had you replied to my queries on this talk page, I would never have added that controversial (but well sourced) material. Had you respected my comments, I would have deleted/modified it on my own. By talking past me (presuming that you can wikilawyer better than I) instead of talking to me, and by unilaterally editwarring, you cannot achieve consensus.RobertRosen (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above, this article has been extensively edited by people with COI and through sockpuppets. Hence I am editing this article strictly to conform to 5P (which I AGF you know) especially for WP:RS, WP:V. In passing, I can also inform you that there are 2 (distinct / different) Amitabh Thakurs who are senior police officers (IPS). The notable one is in the Central Bureau of Investigation (like FBI) at Mumbai, the other one is cooling his heels and floating fake RTI organisations to save his career through his wife's media contacts and wikipedia articles. I also counsel you not to take a proprietary interest in this article because of the AFD process and your role in it. Considering your edit history, and because I sense that you are reasonable, I am not initiating the dispute processes for when only 2 editors are involved (such as seeking 3rd Opinion) Till other editors are involved, I put it to you that no material should be inserted (including by reinsertion) henceforth without BOTH of us agreeing on this talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Two police officers with the same name

Please furnish sources to back your statement that there are two officers with the same name, and explain to me, in as much detail as you can, which of the stories I see in Google News refer to Thakur A and which refer to Thakur B. I am assuming that the references to various cities or governmental agencies will serve to verify the truth if what you are saying. Here is where your knowledge "on the ground" as it were, can possibly help us reach consensus. In the mean time, I ask you to point me to reliable sources that take a more critical view of this organization than what I have read. Please be aware that I did not seek out another editor to take my side. I saw a message right above my watchlist about welcoming new users and noticed with great surprise that this new editor had an interest in RTI. I reached out to him as you did. I had no way at all of knowing if he would agree or disagree with me on this or any other matter. If this appeared as vote stacking to you, I apologize. That was not my intent. I do not want to fight with you. I simply want to be sure that the articles on my watch list comply with Wikipedia policies and procedures. Reasonable summation of what the reliable sources say is all I ask. Let's work together to come up with a stable version of this article, and move on. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. the Amitabh (@Amitav) Thakur IPS who is the CBI cop - (notable for being assigned the "Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case" [1], and "MCI Ketan Desai case" [2]is from the 1998 Orissa cadre. His DOB is 11/08/1972 and he was posted to the CBI on 06/08/2009. His IPS ID no. is 19981014. His image is here [3]. His notability is established by this [4]

OTH, the Amitabh Thakur of NRTIForum is from the Uttar Pradesh (1992) cadre, is on extraordinary (ie. unpaid) leave from 09/06/2009 till the present, His DOB is 16/06/1968. His IPS ID number is 19921024. His image is here [5]. His notability is here [6]

I am not replying to your other points at present till we get over this one (IMHO, a "super sleuth" versus a disgruntled-politicised cop). BTW I have access to this info courtesy "indiatopcop", so its not directly in public domain (but you can backcheck from the info I've given you - like this [7]). RobertRosen (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the information you have kindly supplied, I now understand that there are two notable Indian police officers of the same (or similar) name. Thank you for your efforts. I wish you had mentioned this earlier. Accordingly, I recommend that we write a new article about the Mumbai Thakur, and that each article have a hat note at the top, for example: "For the Mumbai officer, see Amitav Thakur" and "For the Lucknow officer, see Amitabh Thakur". Exact wording can be adjusted. I am assuming the first names are the same but can be transliterated with different spellings - is that correct?

Also, I note that the 2006 Express India article, like the 2006 Hindustan Times article discussed above, does not cast the Lucknow Thakur in a negative light. Both articles seem to portray him as the innocent victim of violence by unethical officers connected with corrupt politicians. These sources can't be used to tarnish his reputation in any way, as WP:BLP is very strict on such matters.

So far, I have not seen a single reliable source that justifies critical or negative language about the Lucknow Thakur or his organization National RTI Forum. I invite you to furnish such sources, and I will discuss them with you with an open mind. They could be translated from another language, as long as the translation is accurate and neutral. You are certainly entitled to your negative POV about him and his group. Perhaps if I knew all the facts myself, I would agree with you. Perhaps not. But what is certain is that this article has to reflect what the reliable sources say, not what any individual editor's personal opinion about the topic is. Right now, the lead sentence of the article is very weak, since it does not say what the goals of this organization are. Please critique the previous lead sentence.

By the way, I made some comments about this matter on Mike Lynch's talk page. I don't know if you've had the chance to take a look.

As a gesture of cooperation toward you, I have not yet followed up with the new editor abishek singh who expressed an interest in RTI. I wanted to let things settle down between us, and I will inform you of any on-Wikipedia communication with him, and will initiate no off-Wikipedia communication. If by chance he contacts me by email, for example, I will let you know. I want you to be assured that I am not trying to vote stack.

You've expressed the opinion that I have been wikilawyering and talking past you. I also had the impression until your most recent communication that you were talking past me. I regret our past difficulties. Discussing solid information based on solid sources moves the discussion to a whole new level for me. Now, perhaps we can move on and communicate better, and truly collaborate to improve this article. I want anyone in India (or the world) looking for information about either of these officers or this organization to have accurate, neutral information. I take the same stance on every article I've written or edited extensively. That is truly all I want. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cullen, I truly want to work positively with you. There is unfortunately a cultural bias/divide inherent in the Wikipedia process which makes this very difficult. The first among this is the insistence on "reliable sources". Its all very well for mature and literate societies which have a mature press and a thriving academic university process from which reliable sources emerge. Unfortunately LDC (less developed countries) do not have these institutions in place as yet. When for instance you say that the official report of a High Court judgment is not RS but a planted piece in a local city edition (albeit a national) newspaper is, then you (and wikipedia) really dont understand (as yet) how LDCs work (and which institutions are reliable and fair). I would prefer that Abhishek not be brought into this since it could affect our future real world linkages. Baby steps not giant leaps.RobertRosen (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia philosophy

RobertRosen, you have raised some grander philosophical issues that I find quite thought provoking but which I am unsure belong on the talk page of this article. When dealing with a specific article, we have to be guided, in my opinion, by established policy, guidelines and precedent. I have some thoughts on these issues, specifically on different views on India's role in the 21st century world. In other venues, we can discuss broader issues and work toward changing consensus on policy issues. But not here. You have asked me to stay away from your talk page. What do think is the appropriate place for this discussion? Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jim, you are always welcome to discuss grand generalities on my talk page. You missed my "indiatopcop" [8] reference. For me a reliable source is when I pick up a phone and talk to people whom either of the Amitabh Thakur's have served under. Frankly neither of them deserve a Wiki article of their own. The only reason we are having this discussion is because Amitabh-1's wife began this article to popularise her husband, indulged in massive SPA and found 1 "fool" (in the sense of "no cause is lost if there is 1 fool prepared to fight for it") to defend it after she was exposed. Left to themselves no Wiki user (especially a user from India) is concerned about either of the Amitabh Thakurs. Now on another article of yours "kalpataru day". Asking me or "Mike" to comment is like asking exponents of Bishul Yisrael to comment on Bishul Akum or vice versa, so I would prefer not to comment. Lets both of us leave this article the way it is and move on and let it be somebody else's baby.RobertRosen (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Abhishek

Is "Abhiskek" a nickname for the officer in Mumbai also named Thakur? If so, how would he be "involved" if there was a well-sourced Wikipedia article about him that made it clear that he was an entirely different individual than the Lucknow based Thakur? That would seem to be a service to him as well as to any Wikipedia users who would simply expect to find accurate information when searching about an Indian police officer named "Amitabh Thakur". I now know that there are two. Shouldn't other Wikipedia users know this as well? Is there, possibly, a third with the same name? After all, India has over a billion people. It is possible, I suppose. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No you misunderstand me. Having Abhishek on this page could affect our (ie. mine and his) real world interactions. "Amitabh" and "Amitav" are one and the same, since the letter "v" equates to "bh" in Eastern India (Orissa). Abhishek is not Amitabh. "Thakur" is a "caste" which some people use as a surname. In Bihar (from where BOTH these Thakur's actually hail from) Thakur denotes a middle hierarchy "Kshatriya" (ie. fighter / kulak class).RobertRosen (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)