Talk:Rahul Gandhi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:45, 9 April 2007

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Removal

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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. [[1]], [[2]] Rubber soul 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ==Controversy==
-I have added this section in light of a recent discovery I made wrt Rahul Gandhi.  The mainstream (and in my opinion fairly reputable) website Rediff.com [http://www.rediff.com] highlighted a story about Mr. Gandhi launching legal action against another website (in my opinion not highly reputable) Hinduunity.org [http://www.hinduunity.org] for unflattering remarks surrounding allegations of gang rape by Gandhi of a young Indian woman.
-I realize this is a highly controversial subject for such a public figure and up-and-coming young politician, however after conducting a fair amount of research I felt that the topic was most appropriate for just those very reasons.  Mr. Gandhi hails from the powerful Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has been in power for a good deal of Independent India's history.  As the world's largest democracy and "future superpower," I find this intense scrutiny of its leaders not unwarranted.
-Furthermore, I was attempting to highlight the reaction of the Indian Government, alleged to have banned the reporting site (I can't verify if that is true).  In the United States and other vibrant democracies figureheads are subject to great criticism and even ridicule.  A strong democratic society such as the one India purports to be should not, in my humble opinion, merely attempt to ban all "mean" things out of existence.  This is not the first time the GoI has reacted in such a manner (ref: Blogspot, certain Yahoo! Groups, etc. being banned).
-This is my first attempt at something like this, so please forgive any grave errors but do fix them.  Comments and of course massive edits are always welcome.  [[User:Rubber soul|Rubber soul]] 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-There is no way to verify whether the girl even exists. Care should be taken to ensure wikipedia is not used to spread wild canards. [[[User:202.78.236.56|202.78.236.56]] 10:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]
-I'm moving the last line about Devi's existence/non-existence to the first paragraph since its more appropriate to where we are first introduced to her, including an alleged picture of her, and improves the article flow.  I'm also adding a link to former Congress Party worker Rajesh Srivastava's RahulGandhi.net, unrelated to this "Controversy" section of the article, but interesting nonetheless.  (And btw, how's the weather in Kolkata these days? Avez-vous vu des canards récemment ? Vous voir !) =)
-[[User:Rubber soul|Rubber soul]] 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-On second thought, there are hundreds of millions of people in India whose existence is "not independently verifiable" for a variety of reasons: lack of documentation, oppression, ostracisim, etc.  I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, however, so I have left the edit as describe above.
 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. --[[User:SohanDsouza|SohanDsouza]] 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)