Talk:Yogi Adityanath

Firebrand Hindutva image

@Rayabhari: you have removed this descriptor from the lead claiming that it was a BLP violation. Can you explain what part of the BLP policy you are referring to? And, have you checked what the reliable sources say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have also reviewed your other deletions, most of which are of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nature, despite being well-supported by reliable sources. I am going to reinstate all the content that you have deleted. Please discuss any concerns here and achieve consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel there should be consensus before adding words like "fire brand" etc., in wikipedia, as here the style used is not like "investigative journalism" and predominent style of wikipedia is encyclopedic. "undated video", "alledged act" etc. cannot be used as a source for an encyclopedia like wikipedia. However, I respect your efforts in developing the article, but my concern is, can we have a consensus before adding "spicy" like information, undated youtube video as source etc. in this encyclopedia? Rayabhari (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Eventhough reliable sources/newspapers/websites mention word "firebrand", I feel the same word cannot be used in wikipedia. I invite other editors to comment on this. Rayabhari (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please state your arguments in terms of Wikipedia policies, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV, not based on your personal feelings. What you call "spicy" information has been here for years, and it has been widely reported in the Indian newspapers yesterday.

The description of "firebrand" has been used in every second news source I have seen. It was used by BBC News yesterday, and New York Times today [1]. It is safe to say that there is consensus among reliable sources regarding the description. Your personal feelings cannot count for more than reliable sources.

Regarding your other objections, an "undated video" does not become any less of a video and the statements made there do not become any less of statements. Once again, reliable sources have used the information.

Alleged acts are reported all over the Wikipedia as well as respectable sources. There is nothing non-encyclopedic about them. I will in due course find better scholarly sources and add their content. Please be assured that they will be a lot more damning than the news reports that have been used so far. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your interest in finding sources that are more "damning" doesn't lend itself to neutrality. Yogi is not a "priest." He doesn't preside over religious rituals. "firebrand" is a subjective appellation and does not belong in the summary of his position as a chief minister. There are plenty of references where he is shown as compassionate and an environmentalist as well. e.g. http://www.hindustantimes.com/assembly-elections/up-chief-minister-aditya-nath-a-hindutva-leader-green-saint-and-animal-lover/story-Mu2hd6JZZerxAeHTxNdCMP.html Puck42 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "undated video" and "reportedly during a public speech at Azamgarh", they were taken directly from reliable sources, and were written as per those sources. Moreover the video present over there, clearly serves as an evidence to the statements made. I'm not sure on what basis that content was deleted problematically, along with other well-sourced and relevant material, simply in the name of BLP. — Vamsee614 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues

"He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a militant youth organisation that has been involved in communal violence." - words like "militant" and "communal violence" should be avoided. That sentence makes it sound like he is a terrorist head. 42.109.171.198 (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If his position is considered militant by reliable sources, then no. Again, militancy is not synonymous with terrorism. El_C 11:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

One or two incidents do not make an organization "militant". Whatever the meaning of "militancy" is, the "militant organization" tag is used for groups that are mainly in the news for militant activities (such as Boko Haram). Calling Hindu Yuva Vahini militant is outright defamatory. 42.109.167.101 (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Boko Haram is primarily known for terrorism rather than militancy. El_C 06:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you check Mass media usage of militant word, it says:

The mass media sometimes uses the term "militant" in the context of terrorism. Journalists sometimes apply the term militant to movements using terrorism as a tactic. The mass media also has used the term militant groups or radical militants for terrorist organizations. --Swami16 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hinduvtava firebrand

What is there to write off Yogi as an Hindutava firebrand, that too in the introductary line itself? Why this pseudo-secularist bias? Look at Asauddin Owaisi's page. His speeches are ten times more inflammatory. Why the hell isn't he mentioned as an Islamic firebrand? Oooooobygod (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place of "Original Research", which is to say it demands 'reliable' textual references for a point to be made, which for such a point shall be media outlets, and media has long been infiltrated by autocrats such that most 'reliable' media outlets tend to be either anti-factual pro-emotional, or outright pro-islamic extremism parlours. isoham (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I support this statement of yours. Just because he is a Hindu monk, biased media frames him as "firebrand"? He has worked for everyone in his constituency irrespective of their religion. This is so shameful! Shame on the hindus who find no fault in Owaisi but supports Yogi as "firebrand". IndianFeminist (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Check the counter view, I have added in the end. It is well cited. May be that can be used to balance this article. --Swami16 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove the opinionated words "firebrand", "extremist", "militant" and "communal violence".

Self manufactured and opinionated words like "Hindutva firebrand" cannot be used in wikipedia. It should be a neutral encyclopedia. They are used only by prejudiced people who want to defame the democratically elected CM. Also remove the bigoted adjectives for hindu yuva vahini. It is not a militant organisation. As if it is killing people like ISIS. Please dont write like NDTV editors. This is most trusted wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.45.225 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

For one last time, militant does not mean terrorist. The word "militant" in the article is linked to a page for clarity, where the first line in the lead itself says, "The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and is usually used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'." And this is today's news — [2] [3] [4]

As for "Hindutva firebrand", it is observed by a large number of reliable sources, for which I can add at least a 5 more in citations. Apparently, he has a very popular image, as the same. Moreover there is already a citation overkill for it, and you're calling that a "self-manufactured POV"! Hmm. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

This article has a lot of subject's comments during various occasions. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of any person, it is an encyclopedia. No. of quotes and comments of subject of the article need to be significantly reduced from the article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pankaj is right, and this issue has been hashed out on the talk pages of many political biographies. Unless a particular soundbyte is shown to have received substantial and lasting press coverage, it is out of place. What we need is analysis, secondary sources talking about what he has said. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the content of debate has not been specific, I assume that we are talking about the 'Controversies' section. The quotes in that section are obviously not present as a mouthpiece of the person, as it was pointed out. The section lists out the person's multiple statements that were controversial, as observed so by reliable sources. And in that case, it is better to quote his exact statements instead of writing in editor's own words, to avoid confusion and prevent non-neutral POVs. The person was not such a highly significant personality before he became the Chief Minister of UP. So its unusual to expect "substantial and lasting" press coverage to any of his statements in the past, and secondary sources analyzing about them. May be we can find some related news channel debates, other politicians criticizing his statements and quite a few op-eds on them. I don't think its wise to insert any of such things. However, much of the extensive coverage about his past started after he became the Chief Minister. And his controversial statements were inserted in the article only when several reliable sources stated them as controversial, also during the time when those statements were made. The references are present in the citations. Anyway if some specific content is pointed out as inappropriate by any editor, with reason, that would be helpful for us to work upon. — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Politicians often make statements, and media usually reports what they said. That doesn't make it notable. It tends to be WP:TRIVIA. However, if a source talks about something more than just what politician said, it might be considered for inclusion. If we start including each and every comment of a politician, then, articles like Narendra Modi will be nothing but statements and speeches. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Modi has not been Yogi in the level of controversy in statements. No notable source has yet said that Modi has an image as any "firebrand", there is reason why numerous sources say Yogi has such an image. In any case, I repeat, please point out the specific statements in the section, which are usual sound-bites of a politician, and did not attract much controversy acc to sources, so that we can remove them. I did not object to it. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, you can start with reverting this. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why? I have added it, as I felt it deserves a place in the article, since it is observed by several reliable sources as one of his top controversial and inciteful statements against Muslims. Here, the Huffington Post cites this particular comment in an article that explicitly deals with his statements made against Muslims, when Amnesty International India asked him to retract his communal remarks. - [5] — Tyler Durden (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Durden: You are misunderstanding the argument, or at any rate, misunderstanding what I am saying. Adityanath has received criticism for many of his positions; and this criticism needs to be covered. What it does not need is an extensive quote. A summary from a secondary source is enough: and occasionally, a brief quote, if it is absolutely necessary to get the point across. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Chill mate, feel free to brief any long quotes that are too large to get the point across. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, all Indian politican pages suffer from this problem, and this is no exception. At least here, we have some decent content before the Controversies section. If somebody has the energy and enthusiasm, they can tie all these controversies into a narrative. Barring that, I don't see what we can do about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Counterpoint

1. His muslim followers has said that Yogi does not oppose Muslims but Wahhabi Islam, which is believed to be ideology of IS and other terror groups.
2. The guru bhai of yogi was a born muslim.
3. He conducts a two hour biweekly Jan Darbaar where member of every community including muslims pay visit to him seeking help.
4. Zakir Ali, a muslim, has been handling office work along with most important papers like land documents safe and secure since 2004. Young Mohd Moan is one of the caretakers at the cow shelter inside the compound. Mohd Yaseen, who is in his 70s, is in charge of all the construction work at the mutt and at its properties outside.
5. Yogi Adiyanath is known as green saint and animal lover by his supporters.

The best thing for you to do would be to come up with a couple of well-sourced sentences (keeping WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in mind), and invite comments on those sentences. Please don't go off into media bias and stuff like that. Make it factual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good? I have made the edits. Check above. --Swami16 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, what you have above is propaganda. That is not we put into an encyclopedia. It needs to be factual, and cut out argumentation and commentary. And, I said a couple of sentences. Anything more than that would be undue. What is "ground reporting"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ground reporting means going to the place and interviewing in the locality to know the picture.

I am trying to soften his image and request moderator to include following points wherever they seem fit. I have backed my points from reputed sources. --Swami16 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

In the "Controversies" section, please remove the sentence "In March 2011, the documentary film Saffron War - Radicalization of Hinduism[60] accused Adityanath of promoting communal disharmony through a Virat Hindustan rally in rural Uttar Pradesh."[61]. Firstly, it is sourced to a primary source i.e the video. The credibility of this documentary is not established. A certain "Satyen K. Bordoloi" doesn't seem to be notable enough for, lets say, not having an article on Wikipedia itself. His notability needs to be established. The second source of thewire.in is dated 21 March 2017 which in ditto copies this sentence that has been on wiki before 21 March. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing. — Tyler Durden (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is definitely not WP:RS and should be removed. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I found reliable sources and added them. I think its fine now. — Tyler Durden (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You found YouTube as WP:RS? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, you did not see the citations I added. I took Ram Puniyani's column in The Milli Gazette as WP:RS.

• Milli Gazette describes itself as Indian Muslims' leading English newspaper. There goes neutrality out of the window 106.209.248.97 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not specify how the content lacked WP:NPOV. Anyway I don't think Ram Puniyani is a biased sourced. Also see WP:BIASED. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• Burden is on you to prove that a self proclaimed pro-Muslim website is neutral enough for anti-Hindu articles. Also, the question of notability of the documentary still stays. Coverage in a pro-Muslim website doesn't help much to better its situation. Puniyani is self-proclaimed social worker. By acad he is a biomed engineer. Though unsourced, our article on him says that he ia anti-Hindu. Also, "the documentary accused him" is highly unencylopedic as anyone can accuse anyone. 223.180.28.0 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving this debate. Let any other interested editors decide if Ram Puniyani's observations published in The Milli Gazette can be documented. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 01:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Is the "controversies" section in compliance with BLP? Shouldn't the content be moved to relavant sections dissolving the section titled "controversies"? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Such sections exist when the article relies more on newsbytes and jots down random incidences just because they happened. WP:FART needs to be kept in mind and eventually only encyclopedic points should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.141.248 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

In the lead section change

Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and politician with an image as a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) "firebrand" to Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and politician who is a supporter of the Hindutva ideology and has a firebrand Hindu nationalist image. Rewording the paragraph for better understanding. South Indian Geek (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed above. "Firebrand" is a noun, not an adjective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ok, sure, but the placing of the words doesn't seem right. It is a bit confusing as Hindutva is an ideology. Can the lead section be rewritten properly without changing the intended meaning of the content ? For example - A continuation sentence beginning with A firebrand of the Hindutva ideology, he has acquired an image of a Hindu nationalist. Something based on that line, maybe ? South Indian Geek (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am referring this to Vanamonde93. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and South Indian Geek: Sorry, the proposed change does not seem grammatical to me. While it is true that "Hindutva" is an ideology, it is also a word that has been coopted from a language other than English: and is therefore not treated the same way as the word "Marxism" (for instance) by authors. There is one point here which might need further discussion, though. The "Firebrand" is part of his image, while the "Hindutva ideology" seems to me to be more than his image: in the sense that that isn't even a contested label...but separating these is tricky. Vanamonde (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Question: Why is "firebrand" being used in lead without justifying it down in the whole article. Encyclopedia shouldn't simply use negolisms that media uses just because plenty references are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.141.248 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Firebrand" is not a "negolism" (whatever that might be) and it is not a neologism either. It's a common term in English, and it is overwhelmingly supported by the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Hey I have a suggestion. Maybe write it like this -"Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and politician with an image as a Hindutva firebrand. He is a Hindu nationalist who is the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh." Is this sentence grammatically current? All I did was removed that bracket present in the current version and added a new sentence, so grammar should be right. "Hindutva (Hindu nationalist)" present in the current version is just incorrect as Hindutva and Hindu nationalist are two separate things. Thanks 86.97.130.50 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, though I'm inclined to swap the order a little bit there: "Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and Hindu nationalist politician who is the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He has an image as a Hindutva firebrand." If nobody raises objections, I will implement this shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

^ I approve. — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hey Guys the image in the Infobox does not show who is Yogi Adityanath in detail and a person can get confused who is who. Suggest finding a new image from Flickr or some where else. 2.51.18.126 (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reordering

Hello friends, I have reordering his lead section (only cut and paste) because the recent Hindutva sentence addition after Chief Minister of UP cuts of the details of his appointed date in March 2017 which was orginally in a flow. Request experienced users to check if this is ok. Thapa 75 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted you for now, simply because the previous version seemed to have consensus, as well as because it is good form to go from the general to the specific. The "Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister" is applicable to the last few months of his biography: the description of this image, to his whole career. Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thapa 75: I have fixed the issue of 'flow' now, which you've pointed out. It was my mistake in an earlier edit. Thanks for noticing it. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Some issues

In some sections there are about 7 references regarding his Hindu nationalist thinking. Why so many of them ? Just take the most reliable sources and cite them, as 1-3 reliable sources are better than 7-8 sources that may be trusted. Also, an MP in India is given the title Honble as states on the page The Honourable with refs. Here Yogi Adityanath is an MP of Gorakhpur so think of adding that in the start ?2.51.18.126 (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The large number of citations are probably because these issues are often contested. Once the subject settles down, somebody will clean them up. As for "The Honourable" see WP:HONORIFICS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Real name

His real name is contested- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/world/asia/firebrand-hindu-cleric-yogi-adityanath-picked-as-uttar-pradesh-minister.html?_r=0 , http://www.tehelka.com/2014/09/yogi-adityanath-bjp-hindutva-uttar-pradesh-elections-by-poll/ , http://www.thenational.ae/world/south-asia/anti-muslim-leaders-appointment-as-new-uttar-pradesh-chief-raises-questions , http://www.rajnikantvscidjokes.in/8-facts-didnt-know-priest-politician-yogi-adityanath/, https://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-miracle/20170331/281951722658638 , http://www.hindustantimes.com/assembly-elections/who-is-yogi-adityanath-mp-head-of-gorakhnath-temple-and-a-political-rabble-rouser/story-tTAP7eBbg5nrTU93NLLZbO.htmletc links say that his birth name is Ajay Mohan Bisht. Many other refs are also there. I suggest it may be removed from the lead Infobox until there is confirmstion on which is the real name. @Kautilya3: Your opinion ? 2.51.18.126 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I made a correction, sinch "Singh" is a generic surname that somebody could have made up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Good points to be added about Yogi

1. His Muslim followers has said that Yogi does not oppose Muslims but Wahhabi Islam, which is believed to be ideology of IS and other terrorist groups.
2. The Guru Bhai of Yogi was a born Muslim.
3. He conducts a two hour biweekly Jan Darbaar where the members of every community including Muslims pay visit to him seeking help.
4. Zakir Ali, a Muslim, has been handling office work along with most important papers like land documents safe and secure since 2004. Young Mohd Moan is one of the caretakers at the cow shelter inside the compound. Mohd Yaseen, who is in his 70s, is in charge of all the construction work at the mutt and at its properties outside.
5. Yogi Adiyanath is known as green saint and animal lover by his supporters.

References

'references provided for every points, after study it looks like points are not biased and there is some reality in it. There is no objection from my side. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 05:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kswarrior: I don't think all of these should be added as they are not encyclopedic points in my opinion. The first point may be included, but needed to be modified as believed to is not to be used in an Encyclopedia. The Second point can be included in an already existing sentence, stating his Guru (Avaidyanath right?) is a Muslim. Fourthe point may be included in the Gorakhnath Math page, if notable. @Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93: your opinions ?2.51.19.151 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I presented these points to challenge the impression of negative image (anti-muslim, communal) one gets after reading this wiki article. I request moderators to try to balance this article to maintain encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. --Swami16 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Swami16 It is essential that the guidelines of Wikipedia are respected. This article desperatly begs neturality as it is too focused on the narrative of the left. For example there is no mention of any of the services he has provided to the public and the development that has happened. Also missing is the Law and order situation in UP which attributed the rise of the Hindu Milita and Firebrand politics. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You guys don't get it. Wikipedia only adds notable stuff, not trivia. This is clearly trivia.31.215.112.31 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

31.215.112.31 It is not wise either to just stick to left leaning narratives to write an encyclopedic article. The both side must be given equal treatment. --Swami16 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No need to go into detail about Hindu Yuva Vahini

There is too much detail regarding Hindu Yuva Vahini. It should only be noted that Yogi Aditya Nath is the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini. The details indirectly attribute to Yogi Aditya Nath whereas Yogi Adityanath does not head or run the group. If the readers wish to learn about Hindu Yuva Vahini they can click on the link. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yogi does not support violence and have strictly asked people to adhere to maintaining law and order. Recently, six member of Hindu Yuva Vahini were arrested under his rule for taking law in their hands. --Swami16 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yogi in popular media

There is a flood of songs on Yogi Adiyanaath in Bhojpuri and Hindi language.

Northern part of the state has seen several Hindi and Bhojpuri songs that congratulate the new Uttar Pradesh chief minister. The songs affirm that now the state can hope for good administration under his leadership, along with making it safer for women. They are being used to claim that Adityanath will be a strong and powerful chief minister.

--Swami16 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References