Talk:Rahul Gandhi

Removal

Much of this talk page has been [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Hornplease 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of this talkpage has been removed per WP:BLP; see diff [1]. Hornplease 04:46, 9 April 2007

Someone as high profile in politics as Rajiv Gandhi should not be ashamed to declare his own religion so that people can understand his motivation for his statement and policies.

Can someone upload the photo from the CiC-Indian Government website? Its in the public domain according to Indian copyright law. Tri400 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it qualifies for PD everywhere, though. Shall check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 04:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Rahul Gandhi's Religious Affiliation

Where are the media enquiries that say Rahul Gandhi studied as Raul Vinci? I could only stumble upon blogs which claim so. Couldn't find any media references. Until someone comes up with a verifiable source proving the claim, let the section be marked as disputed. Can the statement be deleted upon failure to bring up verifiable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperornutz (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its true he holds Italian Visa Is Rahul Gandhi an Indian Citizen ? If Yes, then please attach a scan copy of His Indian passport, His name on Passport and Italian Visa.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.165.73 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 

Controversies

Clean up/Weasels

I have added the two tags- in particular, the article really needs a fairly extensive rewrite in order to improve the English and get the meaning across more appropriately. There are some instances of weasels in there also- particularly edits like 'For reasons that are open to speculation, there have never been an effort to refute this from the Congress Party or from his family.'; speculation by whom? What kind of speculation? I don't know nearly enough about the subject to resolve these issues. Badgerpatrol 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

HinduUnity.org Controversy

Okay, I don't really give much credit to the allegations, but now that Rahul Gandhi has responded with a libel case and HU forums has been shut down, this whole affair deserves some mention. --SohanDsouza 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the part on WP:BLP at the top of the page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."--SohanDsouza 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Hopefully someone with more time/energy will mention, accurately and in the spirit of WP:BLP, recent controversies surrounding the subject of this article that refer to what some others have mentioned above. [[2]], [[3]] Rubber soul 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman vs. Hornplease POV Dispute

I think that while there has been much notable criticism of this particular individual and his prominence in Indian politics, the particular insertion of a single isolated quote from a non-notable individual is clear POV-pushing, in an attempt to link the subject of this article with the linkfarm that is the Anti-Hindu article. If other individuals can be found repeating the allegation - which is really has no informative content, and is merely an expression of contempt - I will of course revise my suspicions. Till then, it seems undue weight given to a minortity opinion. Hornplease 04:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He is quite a notable figure, selective BLP "policing" is irrelevant here. The quote in fact did not link to the article. You lie once, then you lie more to cover up the lies you already lied about. The opinion by Malhotra, former head of the Janata Party, BJP Parlimentary spokesman, Deputy leader in Lok Sabha, chief whip etc. One doesnt need to be a Singh, Advani, Jaitley, or Modi to be notable. There are plenty of notable figures.Bakaman 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read BLP. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this allegation is notable - in that it caused a furore, was widely reported, was hotly denied, had any impact at all; that it is well-documented in multiple published sources, and that it does not represent the views of a tiny minority. You have not demonstrated any of that, unlike I tend to do if I wish to add unpleasant material. Hornplease 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please indicate what you mean by 'selective'? Are there any articles you wish to direct my attention to?Hornplease 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's merely a sampling, taken from a 5 second google search that you were obviously too scared to execute sify, the tribune, dna India. It is well documented in multiple reliable sources and henceforth and attempts to whitewash this legitimate criticism will be counted as vandalism, a fairly charitable description of your edits vis a vis Hinduism related pages.Bakaman 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And how have you demonstrated it does not represent the views of a tiny minority, viz. this Malhotra person? You must admit, it is a little insane. Hornplease 08:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and do be silent about 'vandalism'. Until you discover what a reliable source is, presumably when sitting under an apple tree and being hit on the head by the Encylopaedia Britannica, you had best not accuse people policing the degeneration of this resource of vandalism. Hornplease 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided multiple mainstream links (its on every major newspaper in India). Your analogy is impotent and ridiculous, and I note that I dont need TerryJ-Ho's acolyte to lecture me about anything.Bakaman 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accusations, not multiple repetitions of the same accusation. Do try to keep up, my dear chap, you slow us all down so much.

Who the hell is Terry-j-ho?

Do you even know what acolyte means? Hornplease 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you are unable to read {{cquote|The Bharatiya Janata Party on Tuesday expressed outrage over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's remarks BJP - Rahul's remarks anti-Hindu. Since english is my first language I am aware that an acolyte is a devoted follower, and you are a devoted follower of terryjho, BhaiSaab and company. Bakaman 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite able to read that. The reference is to what that particular leader said, again, as a simple perusal of the article - an approach I have been recommending to you for months! - would indicate. BLP requires multiple accusations from notable figures to be reported in order to qualify for an article of someone who receives this much press - a figure this public.

I am pleased to discover that English is your first language. However, the lack of willingness to read and hastiness with citations are far greater impediments than any language barrier.

I am not sure why I am detailed as a detailed follower of a bunch of banned, disruptive users. Unlike you, I satisfy none of the requirements for tendentiousness. Also, I have no sympathy for their POV, or POV-pushers in general. At least you have that in common with them, as well as with Kelkar, whom I notice I am not a follower of. Hornplease 09:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been covered in multiple news sources. Anything related to babri in dozens of mainstream newspapers is notable. Vijay Kumar Malhotra is notable, being in rank similar to a Union_Minister. The criticism is notable, and it was documented in a dispassionate, verbatim manner.Bakaman 01:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It is a single statement made by a party functionary. We have a threshold for inclusion in articles, and every negative statement made about a major public figure simply does not cut it. As I said, multiple accusations from notable figures to be reported in order to qualify for an article of someone who receives this much press - a figure this public. Please stop re-adding this material. you have been reprimanded for edit warring just recently. Hornplease 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Samajwadi parties and the Left Front also used the same moniker. People have called him anti-Muslim as well (same TOI link). Gandhi seems to be a magnet for controversy. It really isnt my fault your views on Gandhi do not resonate with a large section of the major political figures in India.Bakaman 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the man, merely asked for an additional reference. If you wish to add the TOI article, do so, with the entire quote. Hornplease 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rahul gandhi's Picture

• Http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=bagish.wordpress.com&url=http://www.esearchclick.com/blog/2009/12/most-searched-in-2009/

• Http://im.rediff.com/money/2008/mar/31rahul.jpg

Lead Section

I propose improvement of lead section as it had only few lines and articles is very looking quite nuteral so we must increase the content in lead section with nuteral refrences sources. I had removed an unsourced claim from lead section. If some one have some source if will request him to restore it with that source. Regards(Sandeep 09:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

College Education

No mention at all of his time at St. Stephen's (he left after a year)? Also the link to the article purportedly about his graduating from Rollins doesn't work, and the claim that his move was due to security concerns seemingly needs a citation as well. 140.247.5.185 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"but his academic records show that he attempted to obtain the said degree in 2004-2005, and failed to secure passing grades in National Economic Planning and Policy." why is Bold being used? It reeks of political propoganda. Is this information even accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.157.70 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not a trinity college almam matter, so please stop refering him as one. check reference in the relevant section. --Krishna Kumar 00:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Rollins College is not part of University of Florida — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinpremraj (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Drroadies, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO PROOF

Swiss Bank Accounts Swiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte [2] in 11 November 1991 revealed that Rahul was the beneficiary of accounts worth $2 billion dollars controlled by his mother Sonia Gandhi.[37][38] Harvard scholar Yevgenia Albats cited KGB correspondence about payments to Rajiv Gandhi and his family, which had been arranged by Viktor Chebrikov,[39][40] which shows that KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov sought in writing an "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi" from the CPSU in December 1985. Payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family and "have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.[39] In 1992 the media confronted the Russian government with the Albats disclosure. The Russian government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure and defended it as necessary for "Soviet ideological interest."[40] On 14 June 2002, the Delhi High Court peremptorily dismissed a Writ Petition (WP(C) 3856/2002)[41][verification needed] filed by Janata Party President, former Union minister and frivolous litigator Dr. Subramanian Swamy[42][verification needed] seeking CBI inquiry into allegations by a Russian journalist Dr. Albats that KGB funds were paid to members of the Gandhi family.[citation needed] Boston Airport In 2005 Four lawyers including Prem Chandra Sharma filed a public litigation petition in the High Court. They requested that information be made available to the public in regards to an incident on September 21, 2001 at Boston Airport where Rahul Gandhi and his Spanish girlfriend Veronique[43] were detained by the FBI for questioning, and verification if Mr. Gandhi was carrying $200,000 in cash which he was unable to explain to the airport authorities.[44][45] The lawyers provided further evidence that Mr. Gandhi's release may have been secured by Brajesh Misra the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to the Indian ambassador to the US and the Union Home Secretary to make a disclosure about the episode.[44] However previously, The Hindu newspaper had reported that according to "a senior" Indian diplomat there had been no involvement by the Indian envoy to the US in the matter.[45]

Drroadies (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The section you copied appears to have many inline citations to reliable sources. Those sources appear to support the content. Please provide any conflicting sources you have and suggest how to change the content to include the existing sources and your conflicting sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been removed yesterday by an editor who has done few other edits. I reverted it together with changes that introduced spelling errors by the same editor, and some vandalism that occurred later. When I did so, I overlooked the edit summary "Deleted para titled "Boston Airport" as charges were never filed nor substantiated.", and I apologize for writing "deleted referenced text without apparent reason" in my edit summary. Still, I don't think the edit was helpful. If they were not substantiated, the correct and honest way to deal with that is to find a reliable source saying so, and add it to the section. In that case, the section can be shortened, and may even not deserve a section of its own, but if it's not mentioned at all, how should people know that it was unsubstantiated? — Sebastian 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be deleted in part, particularly because atleast some of the references point not to a investigative news article but to a weekly column written by a Gurumurthy where he has expressed his opinion not backed up by fact. I think we must recognise the difference between a NEWS piece detailing the subjects alleged wealth and a columnist writing his opinion. Ashlonerider (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He hasnt done Masters in Economics from Harvard latter he was forced to remove it from his bio data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.165.73 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of this page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Weasel language, and grammar error to boot

One user keeps adding "one of" to "the most prominent political family", thereby repeatedly introducing a grammar error. Even if it weren't for the grammar error, it is questionable how this edit improves the article. It may make sense when the status of most prominent family is contentious, but that doesn't seem to be the case in India. It raises the obvious question: Who are the other most prominent political families? If we can't point to at least some contenders, then I feel the addition is Weasel language that we better do without. I posted that question at Talk:Nehru–Gandhi family first and I would ask to keep the discussion there since it is about the family, not about Rahul. — Sebastian 04:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ashlonerider, 21 Dec 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} THE FOLLOWING SECTION ON NIIRA RADIA NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. Reason being: Gross misrepresentation of facts.

The entire section is based on the story carried in outlook which has been quoted selectively to portray that Rahul Gandhi is somehow linked to the controversy. There is a single mention of "Rahul", but no further mention of Rahul Gandhi. How can one be so sure that the Rahul being spoken about here is indeed Rahul Gandhi?

At the very least we should look for more sources to corroborate that Rahul being talked about is indeed Rahul Gandhi. --Ashlonerider (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ashlonerider, 22 Dec 2010

The section on "Comparison between RSS and SIMI", the OP had made a very biased entry, right down to accusing the concerned individual of loosing his mental balance! The reference given is a link to an article in the Pioneer, a news outlet run by Chandan Mitra, a BJP MP. That orig post read as follows.

Orig entry:

Comparison of RSS and SIMI

During a visit to Madhya Pradesh in October 2010, he compared the RSS with the banned terrorist organization SIMI saying RSS is also fanatical and fundamental like SIMI. These statements of his, got huge criticism from different quarters of the country. The BJP reaction was - "Only a sick mind can do it (compare RSS to SIMI). He seems to have lost his mental balance."

I edited this to a more neutral POV with appropriate links to reference from generally neutral sources like Outlook and the Times.

New post:

Comparison of RSS and SIMI

Mr.Rahul Gandhi has been consistent in his criticism of right-wing groups like the RSS and SIMI throughout his career, a view that has bought him accolades as well as criticism. On 6th October 2010, while on a tour of Madhya Pradesh, he clearly outlined that according to him, the RSS and the SIMI were the same and that both held fundamentalist views. This has clearly been a long held belief with Gandhi Jr. since he is alleged to have repeated the same point of view in conversations with the US officials as was revealed by WikiLeaks cables.

The reaction from the BJP was predictably bitter. "Only a sick mind can do it (compare RSS to SIMI). He seems to have lost his mental balance."

Leaders from other parties however have defended the statements made by Rahul Gandhi pointing out to the involvement of the RSS related groups in recent incidents in Malegaon and Ajmer.

---

This entry was deleted and the original biased entry was restored by someone. can someone please intervene to ensure that the neutrality of the page is maintained and biased POV's like the original Post are neutralised? Ashlonerider (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favour of including this as it may be a big news right now but will be forgotten in a week. It is really no big deal. The Congress says something and the BJP operplays it and blast the Congress and then vice-versa. I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

the section in the way it was originally written out should never have been there as it was a tu-tu main-main rendition.

I edited the entry to reflect a broader picture of what Rahul has been consistently saying, one of his pet-themes if you will, of domestic right-wing terror being a greater threat to India than external terror. Hope this edit reflects this.

Ashlonerider (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is biased in referring to the "right-wing RSS" -- why is this descriptor automatically attached to the RSS, but "left-wing" is not automatically attached to other groups or parties? The selective prefacing of such descriptors serves to project some organizations as "deviants" while the omission of comparable descriptors for others then makes them seem "normal" by comparison. The article should not seek to legitimize or de-legitimize rival opinions or political views through such embellishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.141.37 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment exposed by Wikileaks

This section, starting from its title is pure POV pushing. The wikileaks "expose" being referred to here talks about how Rahul Gandhi talked to US officials highlighting the involvement of right-wing hindu groups like the RSS in terrorist activities but the poster clearly makes a biased POV push by labelling the wikileaks expose as evidence of Rahul Gandhi being "anti-Hindu".I dont think it is correct to arrive at a conclusion of pro or anti anything based on wikileaks expose. This angle of Rahuls comments on RSS links to terror is amply covered in the previous section "Comparison of RSS and SIMI". Suggest deletion of entire section. --Ashlonerider (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

Ok, I tried to tag this with {{Article issues}} but the pending revisions gets in the way. I have little patience right now, so my quick notes will have to be here: citecheck; reason=poor use of sources which may or may not be reliable: uploaded certificate scan? Poor citation style. -84user (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article, even though informative, is unbalanced. Look at the controversy section. This is larger than the entire article itself(minus the section). It seems this man goes creating controversy, but in truth, he creates less controversy than many of the main Indian politicians. For instance what does these two paragraphs have to do with Rahul Gandhi? And why it is mentioned "Rahul Gandhi's party appointed". Was he part of the decision?

"In 2004, Rahul Gandhi's party appointed Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister. Manmohan Singh was the only international leader to initially refuse to receive black money data provided by the German authorities during 2008 Liechtenstein tax affair.[42][43] Under pressure from the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Manmohan Singh government later reluctantly agreed to accept a part of the data but stoutly refused to make it public.

In 2010, a group of concerned eminent Indian citizens consisting of KPS Gill, Ram Jethmalani and Subhash Kashyap amongst others petitioned the Supreme Court to ask the Manmohan Singh government to make the list of names of Indian citizens with black money in Liechtenstein Bank public. The Manmohan Singh government in response refused to make the names of Indian account holders in Liechtenstein bank public. Following which the Supreme Court questioned the government’s reluctance to disclose the names of Indian nationals who have stashed black money largely earned through illegitimate means in foreign banks, asking “what is the big deal about it?” [44] In 2011, the Supreme court again lashed out at the government for inaction in the Swiss Bank matter. [45]

This controversy had risen in the wake of the 2006 Swiss Banking Association report." Mathew Joy (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Gang rape of Sukanya Devi.

ADDED THIS ON CONTROVERSY SECTION

Sukanya singh missing case.

On March 1st 2011 an Indian high court sent a notice to Rahul about the whereabouts of a young girl, Sukanya Singh aka Sukanya Devi who went missing after meeting Rahul. . Kishore Samrite, a former party legislator, accused Rahul and his foreigner friends of allegedly assaulting Sukanya Singh.. The petition alleged that Sukanya and her parents are in illegal detention of Rahul since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userkevin (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done--The HC notice related news has been updated however there are no known & reliable sources that indicate that Sukanya Singh was raped. Charges in court are only for missing person (including parents). Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above.AKS (comment) 11:45, 15 July 2011 (IST)

Wikipedia not accepting the Sukanya singh missing case section.

Wikipedia is not accepting the Sukanya Singh alleged gang rape section.

I edited the controversy section with many reference to the Sukanya singh case but Wiki is not accepting the edits. Is it ruled by the congress party too.

Suppression and clear violation of Free press and Freedom of speech

Sukanya Singh missing case

On March 1st 2011 an Indian high court sent a notice to Rahul about the whereabouts of a young girl, Sukanya Singh aka Sukanya Devi who went missing after meeting Rahul. . Kishore Samrite, a former party legislator, accused Rahul and his foreigner friends of allegedly assaulting Sukanya Singh.. The petition alleged that Sukanya and her parents are in illegal detention of Rahul since 2007.

This is not a page for listing of every controversy he has been involved in. If we include every controversy, then this will not remain a biographical article. Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 14:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is being deleted because the court has thrown out the case against rahul gandhi saying there was never any proof or cmplaint filed. As such until some modicum of proof emerges that can reliably link Rahul gandhi to the crime it would be irresposible to add it to the article. check for further dtails
Tca achintya (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Y Done--The HC notice related news has been updated however there are no known & reliable sources that indicate that Sukanya Singh was raped. Charges in court are only for missing person (including parents). Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above.AKS (comment) 11:51, 15 July 2011 (IST)

When there are no sources to support anything solid, there should be no mention of it. Simply per WP:BLP. Lynch7 08:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MikeLynch the section which you are reverting is properly sourced. I will request other Wikipedia administrators to intervene here and stop MikeLynch from reverting properly sourced article. I have following objection on the MikeLynch edits:

• In the discussion you are mentioning that there is no proper source that Sukanya Devi was raped by Rahul Gandhi. I accept this fact because there are no solid sources or reference. You tube has a lot many video which proves that Rahul Gandhi raped Sukanya Devi but since no news paper covered this issue so it is ok (everyone knows about Indian media biasness). But you are reverting the section about HC notice to Rahul Gandhi about Sukanya devi detention. Source of this article is economic times article which everyone must consider as solid source.
• I have second objection that you mentioning Sukanya Devi case and revering not only Sukanya Devi detention related section but you are reverting many other topics also. E.g. you are reverting section about the Rahul Gandhi comment about Mumbai terror attack. How you can revert this properly sourced section blindly?Mdabdul (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Very poor source in this article

The sources used for many points in this article are of a very poor quality, or openly biased. For example, one source about the alleged black money is an opinion piece by a BJP (the opposition party) appointee. In another case, Rahul Gandhi's detention at Boston airport with $200,000 is presented as fact whereas the original news sources themselves have no confirmation of this. Finally, some sources here are unreachable or unverifiable. In particular, the black money issue relies heavily on "KGB: The Sate within a State" which makes absurd claims like Sonia Gandhi being a KGB agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagwad (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Auditorium issue

The criticism section on the auditorium was removed because:

• Cartoons by Ajit Ninan cannot be cited. He writes cartoons everyday, and such writing can be called satirical at best.
• This is not a place to include every controversy he has been involved in.

Yes Michael? •^Talk 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Xionbox^₪ 12:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Extremists

This section is being intentionally deleted by some editors even though his interview leaked by wiki-leaks is a fact and reported by almost all newspaper in India. His remarks caused a major uproar and controversy and the necessary citation of newspaper are given. Then why User:MikeLynch has deleted whole section???? This is pure vandalism.

Glad to see you have started a thread here. My edit summary read: POV language. discuss in talk before adding. I do not see my edits as vandalism, by a long shot. Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

These are some of the sentences which have been added; and I feel that these do not adhere to NPOV and WP:BLP, among others.

• Recently, in December, 2010, his image has been tarnished, when tapes of his talks with an American ambassador, were leaked by Wikileaks.

• He informed the American ambassador that Hindu extremist groups could pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militants.

Also, an ABVP source cannot be used, as that is obviously not reliable (in connection with this article). Awaiting comments. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I feel that much of the criticism section is given undue importance. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While one can remove or modify the sentence * His image has been tarnished but the word He informed American ambassador that Hindu extremist groups could pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militants. is taken from the cited sources published in Indian newspaper. Till date there is no denial from Rahul neither he has asked for an apology from newspapers or sued them for making such comment on him. And it was the biggest recent controversy surrounding him, so you cannot delete such an important information from this page, that is what I think.Jethwarp (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether he has sued them or not is absolutely immaterial to our discussion here. There is a mention of his image being tarnished. How?, according to whom?? How does this qualify as a controversy?. If these questions are answered with proper sources, then it should be better. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the lead and as per me the fact that he has neither accepted or denied his statements as mentioned by Wikileaks, amounts to a controversyJethwarp (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of unneccessary moderation is being used by some senior editors in this article, heavy bias is evident in this article.--Krishna Kumar 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Controversies sub-section Boston Airport detainment

I think that I am correct in assuming that only those paras or text can be entered which have a relevant and legitimate reference available on the Internet.

In the case of reference No 33, there is no link available on the Internet. In the absence of this link being available this would need to be removed.

Reference No. 34 clearly contradicts the earlier missing reference No. 33 and also states that the so-called incident has been denied by both the US and the Indian Authorities.

There is a whole para of text relating to Subramaniam Swamy which reads as under “ Subramaniam Swamy filed a Freedom of Information Act application with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for investigation of records. FBI told Swamy that they would hand over the investigation records if he got a “no objection certificate” from Rahul Gandhi. In request of the same, Swamy wrote a letter to Rahul Gandhi saying if he had nothing to hide then give him the permission for investigation. Rahul Gandhi received the mail but never replied to him.” There is no Reference given for this entire para.

In the absence of Reference No. 33, the contradiction clearly stated in Reference No. 34 and no Reference given for the Swamy para, the entire sub-section would need to be removed.

The Article would require to be amended accordingly.

Vishvjit (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that link seems to be broken. I found an unbroken link recently though; will add it. Will also remove unsourced material in violation of WP:BLP. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that the lnk for Reference 33 is still not working.

I may also point out that the Times of India in an article on the 9th of May clearly states that the petition filed in the High Court regarding the Boston Incident has been dismissed by the Court

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-03-09/india/27857680_1_pil-rashtra-raksha-manch-petition

The text of the article reads as under:

PIL against Rahul Gandhi rejected PTI, Mar 9, 2005, 10.04pm IST LUCKNOW: Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected a PIL on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's alleged detention in Boston airport in the US in 2001.

The division bench comprising justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice M A Khan rejected the petition filed by four secretaries of the Rashtra Raksha Manch.

In the light of the above some further action needs to be taken Vishvjit (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR EDIT

Regarding Section Controversies Sub-section Boston Airport detainment

This reads as under:-

In 2005, four lawyers including Prem Chandra Sharma filed a public litigation petition in the High Court. They requested that information be made available to the public in regard to an alleged incident on September 21, 2001 at Boston Airport where Rahul Gandhi was detained by the FBI for 9 hours for questioning, and verification if Mr. Gandhi was carrying $200,000 in cash which he was unable to explain to the airport authorities.[32][33]

The lawyers provided further evidence that Mr. Gandhi's release may have been secured by Brijesh Mishra the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to the Indian ambassador to the US and the Union Home Secretary to make a disclosure about the episode.[32] However previously, The Hindu newspaper had reported that according to "a senior" Indian diplomat there had been no involvement by the Indian envoy to the US in the matter.[33]

Reference No. 32 is from The Times of India dated 8th March,2005. This reference is not available on the internet. Reference No. 33 is from The Hindu dated 29th September, 2001. This clearly states that both the Indian Authorities as well as the United States Authorities have denied the incident.

The Times of India in an article dated 3rd September, 2005 clearly states that the Public Interest Litigation filed against Mr. Rahul Gandhi has been rejected by the Lucknow High Court. The text of the article is as under:-

'PIL against Rahul Gandhi rejected PTI, Mar 9, 2005, 10.04pm IST LUCKNOW: Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected a PIL on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's alleged detention in Boston airport in the US in 2001.

The division bench comprising justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice M A Khan rejected the petition filed by four secretaries of the Rashtra Raksha Manch.

The link for this article is http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-03-09/india/27857680_1_pil-rashtra-raksha-manch-petition

It is obvious that the so called incident was denied by the authorities in 2001 itself as reported in The Hindu. Relying on a subsequent Times of India report of 8th March, 2005 does not make any sense especially in the light of The Times of India report of 9th March, 2005 which shows that the case has been rejected by the High Court.

I propose that, in the light of the above discussion, the entire sub-section should be immediately removed. Vishvjit (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You better contact rgpk or someone else on this; I am quite busy. Yes Michael? •^Talk 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section. The Hindu article makes no mention of money and the Times of India article is unverifiable. Since this is a BLP, allegations of a negative nature need a high level of sourcing for inclusion. --rgpk (comment) 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reference is still missing and the logic for removal remains as explained above but it seems to have been put back. Haw can one deal with this situation? Vishvjit (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that it was removed without explanation. Reverted it. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ankush.sak, 9 June 2011

Rahul Gandhi was arrested/detained with his Columbian girlfriend Veronique Cartelli, ALLEGEDLY, the Daughter of Drug Mafia with $160000 by FBI at Boston Airport in september 2001 .

Ankush.sak (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

N Not done Per WP:BLP, negative allegations about a living person need a high level of sourcing. Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above. --rgpk (comment) 22:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

Article of Rahul Gandhi is highly biased - Missing details of his girlfriend, FBI and other allegations. Everyone should post their matter on Rahul Gandhi wiki page and NOT on talk page. If it is deleted by any means - you can write to wikipedia in making this page protected. Please post all your content in wiki. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly see the discussions above to find out why exactly those things are not mentioned in the article. Lynch7 05:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The page has been edited against the conclusions in many of the above discussions. can any editor explain the reasons for these edits, and why the entire controversies sub-section has been deleted..??? Please Answer..--Krishna Kumar 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Please read the above discussions once again. Lynch7 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the controversies section, I request you to read WP:CSECTION. It is not necessary for an article to have a controversies section; in fact, it is discouraged. This, however, does not mean that the article should be one sided; it means that the controversies and criticism have to be integrated into the article (as is done here, and in many other BLPs). So, I request you to read the talk page, as well as the article comprehensively. Lynch7 12:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nvltec, 15 July 2011

1. Rahul Gandhi's name on His Italian Passport is Raul Vinci. He did not take up this name for Secrect Purposeses. 2. Rahul Gandhi did not complete his B.A. infact he has gone to all colleges but failed every where. 3. Rahul Gandhi is a Catholic Christian. 4. His girlfriend, Veronique is daughter of Colombian Mafia Drug Lord.

Nvltec (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

N Not done Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above. --AKS (comment) 11:16, 15 July 2011 (IST)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)}

```` Edit request Pushie K August 25 2011 Factual error regarding his educational background"

Cambridge confirms Rahul Gandhi's M. phil degree

Find below the link that verifies that he received the M.phil degree from Cambridge. I hate when particularly politically motivated people post barf about someone. Not an Indian citizen myself but this caught my eye when some idiot posted this as a link on face book.

Please change accordingly. I am pretty sure Rahul Gandhi doesn't care but this bugged me for some reason. Y Done Will change in a bit. Lynch7 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.102.124.143, 28 August 2011

Rahul Gandhi's Nationality: Italian

122.102.124.143 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.102.126.176, 30 August 2011

Nationality Of Rahul Gandhi: Italian

122.102.126.176 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.166.49.249, 5 September 2011

Information provided is WRONG. consider http://www.facebook.com/notes/amogha-abbur/a-daring-letter-by-an-iitan-to-rahul-gandhi-plz-read-and-repost/238535999520991 a letter by IIT student from India. Kumarpchandran (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jangamsourabh, 13 September 2011

I want to know the educational qualification of Mr.Rahul Gandhi which he had earned from Harward?? Jangamsourabh (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC) N Not done. This is not the place for content related enquiries. Lynch7 13:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 113.193.151.89, 21 September 2011

rahul gandhi is not an indian

113.193.151.89 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lynch7 17:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Hello Sir/Madam Recently Mr. Subramanian Swamy a proffessor at Havard and President of Janata Party has made some revealations about Rahul Gandhi, especially his education. Keeping in mind that whenever he has gone to court he has been able to convince the judges especially in India. I would like to have your permisssion to edit this page. Rather I would suggest you to edit the page keeping in mind. Also as Mr. Subramaniam Swamy has pointed out that he has beeen arrested by FBI at nework airport for illlegal posssesion of currency exceeding the limit by 16 times. Thus, I request you to kindly edit this page to ensure that people get access to true and correct information.

Thanking You ( To whomsoever it may concern) A true Indian who stands for truth on net

Donttrytoguessmyname (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: In order to request rights to edit this page you would need to post at WP:RFR under the confirmed section. Though I believe that if you make one more edit now anywhere on Wikipedia you will be auto-confirmed and therefore can edit the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

Rahul Gandhi Harvard Truth

150.210.231.20 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Add |partner = Veronique in the infobox. Sources already given in the article.(#17, #18) 117.204.81.37 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

done.Beefcake6412 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That just might be a bit outdated. Not been in the news recently, so its best to avoid any stale information. Yes Michael? •<sup>Talk</sup> 06:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, spouse is not the same as partner, there's a difference. Yes Michael? •<sup>Talk</sup> 06:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree Strongly - Well, we can take the example of this article's infobox for inclusion of the name of Shri Rahul Gandhi's partner. And moreover, when a person has reportedly informed the media about his partner, the news does not become stale in anyway until and unless he informs his break-up with his partner in a similar fashion. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Rahul Gandhi with Manmohan Singh.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rahul Gandhi with Manmohan Singh.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)