यसरी दिइँदैछ शुक्लाकलीलाई तालिम. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual information that could affect how readers evaluate the described practice.

The article describes the training method in detail, including: “सुरुको तीन दिन एउटा खम्बामा बाँधेर छेउमै आगो बालेर रात दिन भाषा र मानिसलाई बसाउन सिकाउने काम गरिएको हो । त्यतिबेला हात्तीलाई रात दिन बस्न र सुत्न समेत दिइँदैन । ‘बस्न र सुत्न दिए बिर्सिन सक्छ भनेर लगातार तालिम दिइन्छ,’ …” This is presented as a normal training step, but the article does not mention any discussion of animal welfare standards, veterinary oversight, or whether such methods are considered humane or controversial. It also omits any expert or regulatory view on acceptable training practices.

4 suggestions

Add context from independent experts (e.g., veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal welfare organizations) on whether tying an elephant to a post, keeping a fire nearby, and preventing it from sleeping for three days aligns with current welfare standards.

Include any existing regulations or guidelines in Nepal regarding elephant training and clarify whether these practices comply with them.

Mention if there are alternative, less stressful training methods and whether the park has considered or adopted them.

Clarify any monitoring of the elephant’s health and stress levels during training (e.g., veterinary checks, behavioral indicators) to give readers a fuller picture.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one perspective on a practice or issue when other relevant perspectives exist.

The article exclusively reflects the viewpoint of park staff and mahouts: their goals (patrolling, rescue, safari), their explanations of methods, and their assessment that “अहिले त धेरै सिकिसकेको छ, अब विस्तारै सबै सजिलो हुँदै जान्छ ।” There is no voice from animal welfare advocates, independent experts, or any local residents who might have concerns about the training methods or the use of elephants for tourism and patrolling.

4 suggestions

Include at least one independent expert comment (e.g., wildlife or animal welfare specialist) evaluating the described training methods and their impact on elephant well-being.

If there are known concerns or debates about using elephants for safaris and patrolling, briefly summarize them and, if possible, include responses from park authorities.

Add perspectives from local community members beyond those who simply enjoy watching and giving fruit/money, for example anyone who questions or supports the practice for specific reasons.

Clarify that the article is primarily descriptive of park practice and note explicitly if alternative views were sought but unavailable.

Appeal to emotion (mild, implicit)

Using emotionally appealing imagery or framing that can subtly encourage readers to accept a practice without critical evaluation.

Phrases like “एकातिर सानो हात्ती । अर्कोतिर ठूलो हात्ती । सानो हात्तीलाई दायाँ बायाँ जान नदिन डोरीले बाँधिएको छ ।” and descriptions of locals crowding to see the elephant and giving fruit and money create a gentle, endearing narrative around the training and public interaction. While not overtly manipulative, this warm framing may make readers less likely to question the more severe aspects of training (e.g., sleep deprivation, being tied to a post with fire nearby) that are mentioned but not critically examined.

3 suggestions

Maintain the descriptive tone but balance emotional elements with neutral, factual context about potential stress or risks to the elephant during training.

After emotionally appealing descriptions (e.g., crowds giving fruit), add a brief note on any rules or guidelines to ensure the elephant’s safety and prevent overfeeding or stress from crowds.

Avoid implying that public enjoyment alone validates the training practice; instead, clearly separate description of public reaction from evaluation of the method’s appropriateness.