Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lede

• "As of 2014..." might be better as "Since the 2014 general election..." Requires no updating that way.
• The second "As of 2014..." could probably be deleted altogether.
• "and as of November 2014..." Again, could probably delete. See WP:ASOF for more ideas on that line.
  • Done the first two. Not so sure about the third, simply because (unlike many other countries) India does not have synchronized elections, and thus that half of the sentence keeps changing. I can see why you want it tweaked though, and am open to suggestions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bharatiya Jana Sangh (1951–77)

• "The first major campaign of the Jana Sangh was an agitation demanding the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India." This reads a little awkwardly. Maybe "The Jana Sangh's first major campaign centered on a demand for the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India."
• With the footnotes: if notes 10, 11, and 12 are meant to stand for the entire paragraph, why not combine them in to one note, since they're all from the same source. If you want to make each stand for a different section of the paragraph, it would be best to scatter them among the sentences to which they correspond.
• "Mookerjee was arrested for violating orders..." What orders? From whom?
  • Implemented the first suggestion, clarified the third point. I have moved one footnote; I would be open to combining the other two, but am not sure how to do so with the sfn format. How significant of an issue is it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not a big deal. I tweaked the citation myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Janata Party (1977–80)

• "It merged..." The antecedent is a little unclear here.
• " After a brief period of coalition rule, general elections were held in 1980." Did the government collapse, or did they call elections voluntarily. Or does it even work that way in India? I assumed so, by analogy to the UK system, but I'm not sure.
  • I've clarified the first point. Wrt the second; a fragment of the Janata Party led a minority government for a while, with outside support from the Indian National Congress.
    • As to the second: I'd explain exactly that in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Babri Masjid demolition and the Hindutva movement

• "...and made it a part of their election plank." I think this should be "election platform"
• "The BJP withdrew its support to the V.P. Singh government..." should probably be "withdrew its support from the V.P. Singh government..."
• "...leading to fresh elections being called." don't need the last two words here.
• Active voice: "The VHP was briefly banned by the government..." reads better as "The government briefly banned the VHP..."
• Again: "Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the demolition, also was criticised in the report." is better as "The report also criticised Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the demolition."
• "...forcing it to resign after 13 days." Maybe "...forcing the government to resign after 13 days."
  • Done all, as per your suggestions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat Violence

• "On 27 February 2002, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burned outside..." Who burned it?
• "...then Gujarat chief minister..." needs a hyphen, I think: "then-Gujarat chief minister"
  • I've added the hyphen, as you suggested. The other point is more complicated, though, and the wording was actually carefully chosen. The question of who burned the train is a highly controversial one; read Godhra Train burning for details. If you still feel something should be added, please let me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I take your point. Probably best left as it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

General election defeat 2004, 2009

• The section title is awkward. Maybe just "General election defeats"?
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

General election victory, 2014

• Some detail about the campaign would be good. Why did they win in 2014, but not in the previous two elections? What was different this time?
  • Not ignoring this; this is the only one that requires real research, so I was leaving it till the end. Will work on this now. I didn't when it occurred, because in-the-moment political news coverage in the Indian media tends to be godawful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not just in India! But it doesn't need much, just a line or two. I've found The Economist has good-ish coverage, if you have access to that. If not, I'll take a look myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Social policies and Hindutva

• Spell out the full name of NCERT the first time it's used.
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic policies

• Link "neo-liberal".
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Foreign policy

• "Leading RSS and BJP figures criticised..." Who? Naming one of the critics would make the sentence less nebulous.
• There's a [clarification needed] tag here, and I understand why: earlier you say the Kargil War ended with the ouster of Pakistani troops from a disputed region; here, it says no territory changed hands. Which is it?
  • I've addressed the first point, though the source is rather thin on names. As to the clarify tag; I confess I don't quite see the issue, but this is perhaps because I know the details. Here is what happened; perhaps you can think of a better phrasing. The entire Kashmir region is disputed. Some of the state has been in Pakistani hands since 1948, and some in Indian. Infiltrators from Pakistan were discovered in some Indian held territory, across the Line-of-control that has been in place for a while. After some fighting, the infiltrators were expelled from the previously Indian held territory. The line of control did not shift. Now if there is a concise way to summarize that, I'd be happy to hear it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand now. The first description is probably fine, then. I'd change the second to make it clear that the line of control remained the same, and that Pakistani troops who had crossed it were repelled. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Gave it a shot; further suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I think that works. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Images

Most look fine, with good fair use justifications where necessary. One question, though:

• On File:Deendayal Upadhyay.png, the uploader claims this pic as "own work". Is that true? It seems unlikely. Is there a better-sourced image available?
  • There doesn't seem to be another image available. If we have doubts about the source, we could simply nix it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Probably ought to nix it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I've taken it out. Since an image bar with two pictures looks a little odd, I've added one of LK Advani, which is appropriate considering his stature within the party. It's listed as a public domain image. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes

• Footnotes 3, 39, 42, 48, 70, 72, 75, 80, 83, 91, and 93 have links that don't actually direct to a long citation in the sources section.
  • Done (or should be, anyway). Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I fixed the rest of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That should do it for now. I'll put this on hold and await your reply. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

Regarding: "its period in power saw a rise in support for the RSS, marked by a wave of communal violence in the early 1980s." BJP came to power first time in 1998. Congress was in power in 1980-98. And for the biggest riot of early 1980s is 1984 sikh riots Congress ministers where directly implicated. This statement is factually impossible. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The full sentence reads "Historian Ramachandra Guha writes that despite the factional wars within the Janata government, its period in power saw a rise in support for the RSS, marked by a wave of communal violence in the early 1980s." This makes it crystal clear that the second part of the sentence refers to the Janata government, not the BJP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congress was in power in 1980-98. and as I gave reference the biggest communal riot of early 1980s was 1984 anti-Sikh riots for which Congress is held responsible directly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you had made it clear that your objection was to the dating and not the riots, it would have helped. Here is the quote, and I am tweaking the article appropriately. I suspect that the previous version of the sentence was a product of previous disputes, or alternatively lost in translation with multiple copy-edits. "There was once more a distinct political party to represent and advance the ‘Hindu’ interest. As it happened, the formation of the BJP heralded a wave of religious violence in northern and western India. There were major Hindu-Muslim riots in the Uttar Pradesh towns of Moradabad (August 1980) and Meerut (September–October 1982); in the Bihar town of Biharsharif in April–May 1981; in the Gujarat towns of Vadodara (September 1981), Godhra (October 1981) and Ahmedabad (January 1982); in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, in September 1983; and in the Maharashtra towns of Bhiwandi and Bombay in May–June 1984. In each case the riots ran on for days, with much loss of life and property, and were finally quelled only by armed force." Guha, pg 563-64. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. But do not blame me, I am helping you improve the article. I made my point amply clear. It is alright if you failed to see the point previously; you can always ask your doubts. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering your track record on this page, it is hardly surprising that I bridled somewhat easily. Don't cry wolf, and all that sort of thing; or have you forgotten Koenrad Elst and that book already? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can be more civil. Thank you. Another misrepresentation which was corrected earlier. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

for your review, Coemgenus. I will go through the points you raised, and address them; give me a couple of days. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Guha 2007

Coemgenus, Vanamonde93, I noticed there are some exceptional and highly critical remark mostly sourced to one book Guha 2007. It wasn't an academic thesis or peer reviewed work or even an academic publication. I could not locate it on jstor or questia or mylibrary British Council, I have a non English hard copy but I am not able to match page numbers. It was published by Pan Macmillan which deals with literature publication. And we just noticed a mistake sourced to this book in the section "dubious" above. This raises doubts on using it on 23 occasions for such claims. It is quite possible there are others, how can I check it most suitably (since I do not find it on my no-bars subscription in three reputed sites)? It is also needed because Guha has always been critical of BJP and sympathetic towards Congress (I remember reading his chapter on Emergency where he summarized that India wasn't ready for a brave-heart lady like Indira, indirectly absolving her and putting the blame on common masses for the emergency and its difficulties) and using him for BJP bashing is a suitable deception someone might have done in this article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for using Guha are numerous, and somewhat obvious, if you know the topic. Guha is perhaps the best known, and certainly one of the best known, among Indian historians. India after Gandhi is essentially the only text that comprehensively covers Indian history since its independence. Despite being relatively recent, it is already considered a classic text; I know of several universities, both within in India and outside it, that use it as a course text. I have yet to hear of academics accusing Guha of bias in his scholarship. Finally, Wikipedia does not require neutral sources; only reliable ones, and Guha is eminently reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He is reliable. This source is not so much, and I said why. And I said why we should check again. Any help in that direction is appreciated. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't, really; you've given me some speculations, is all. Palgrave macmillan publishes fiction, certainly, but the bulk of its stuff is academic, and that is what it is known for. It has editorial oversight of the highest quality. This makes it reliable. Unless you bring further information into this discussion, I'm not really interested in pursuing it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I expressed my concern and sought assistance. I humbly disagree that this is an academic publication. And why is not in any online subscription? Who is the editor? I will wait for any other guidance or continue with whatever resource I have. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

On WorldCat, I found 6 libraries within 25 miles of my home that have this book. It seems perfectly reputable to me. I'll assume good faith and accept the source as valid, as far as the GA review is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My main concern is any misrepresentation from it. That was the case in previous section "dubious". --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Update. I may not be able to check further due to time cosntraint. I made two minor improvements according to the source here and here. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Also redone this edit which was removed here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Prose for the table

This concerns mainly the prose for the table at the General election results section. I feel the prose already repeats the content in the above history section, so the table can supplement that rather than have its own section with additional prose. Previously mentioned at Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Prose_in_general_elections_list and Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_3#GA_nom. As reviewer, what do you think? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the first two tables are fine as they are. I had considered earlier suggesting that the list of party presidents be moved to its own article. Since others seem to agree, I'll suggest that now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and other concerns with this article

I have mentioned most of these concerns already (see the archives) but the problems persist in the article.

• There is undue weight given to Guha. He is a notable historian, but the book cited is a history on India, not on the BJP or political parties specifically, and he clearly has an anti-BJP pov. Imagine if the Republican Party Article would rely that much on general history of the U.S. written by an author with an anti-Republican stance. We can cite him, but to add balance other authors should also be used, and his non-neutral statements should be attributed to his opinion.
  • It doesn't seem especially biased to me. And saying other sources should be used is less helpful than saying specifically which other sources should be used. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Integral Humanism is the official philosophy of the BJP. It is only mentioned in a single sentence. This is far too less. As long as this is not treated sufficiently in the article, this article should not be a Good Article. (Some sources are Koenraad Elst's Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (he discusses it in about 15 pages), G. Heuze "Ou va l'inde moderne", and Graham "Hindu nationalism".)
  • It might be a good idea to include a paragraph on integral humanism. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• • The BJP defines its ideology as based on "integral humanism" and its constitution states that the party is committed to "nationalism and national integration, democracy, Gandhian Socialism, Positive Secularism, that is 'Sarva Dharma Samabhav', and value-based politics".

• Why is the style of the sections in this article so different than that of other major political parties, viz the REP, DEM, and Indian congress parties? In absence of a style policy, the Democratic party and Republican party articles should be considered as best practice for major parties articles. In these articles, the orders of the sections starts with economic policies, and then "social policies" (and not social policies and Hindutva). In the Congress Party article, the order also begins with Economics. It would be more neutral if the same Manual of Style would be followed here also. The economy focused politicians in the BJP are arguably more important within the power structure of the BJP.
  • There is no set style for articles about political parties. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• The article criticizes the BJP for the NCERT textbooks, but does only give the viewpoint of the BJP critics, without also mentioning the BJP viewpoint (for example, that there were also accusations of bias in textbooks before and after the BJP).
  • I agree, starting the BJP's rationale for the changes would be useful. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Section on Bangladesh immigrants and refugees: I have looked up the source, and found this quote in the source: ultimately however it was an Indian government led by the Congress Party under the leadership of Narasimha Rao that after 1991 instated the harshest measures against undocumented immigrants. This means that the source accuses both the BJP and the Congress party, and the Congress party it says had the "harshest measures". So why is this only in the BJP article, and why does it not say that the Congress party is also accused of this. What is the point to have this section in the BJP article at all, if also the Congress party is accused of this, and Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, so what is the issue in saying that most refugees would be minorities (in this case, minorities are Hindu or Christian)?
  • If the source says that Congress did the same or worse, that should be included, unless I'm missing something. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The failure of the moderate strategy championed by Vajpayee led to a shift in the ideology of the party toward a policy of more hardline Hindutva and Hindu fundamentalism". I couldn't find the quote, could the full quote be provided on this talkpage? It is also pov, such a statement should also be written neutrally. You have to say, "according to ..."
  • Are you suggesting that the editor who wrote this was inaccurately summarizing the source? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• The section on the Gujarat riots. It should clearly state that it was an attack upon Hindus, not merely seen as one. That is what the commission and the court concluded. The section should also state the official numbers of the vicims, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus, and not just estimations.
  • It seems there's a great deal of disagreement about this. It would be nice if you guys could arrive at some consensus that was adequately accurate and neutral. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Finally, some books were removed from the further reading section, even though they are on topic:
  • Ramesh N. Rao: Coalition conundrum: the BJP's trials, tribulations, and triumphs, Har Anand Publications, 2001
  • Gurdas M. Ahuja. BJP and the Indian Politics: Policies & Programmes of the Bharatiya Janata Party (1994)
  • Gurdas M. Ahuja. Bharatiya Janata Party and Resurgent India (2004) ISBN 900534-4-2
  • And the book by Elst (see discussion archives).

--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • I don't think there's any requirement of even having a further reading section, let alone including every book that every editor thinks is relevant. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)