Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party

	This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2010!
	Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

Neutrality of this article is disputed

I have added a NPOV tag to the article. The discussion is in the GA review page. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 has removed the NPOV tag. This is against NPOV policy. Please wait until the issues are resolved. I have explained why the article is not neutral. This needs to be resolved before removing the NPOV tag. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is not. I quote "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." You have only raised personal concerns on the talk page, and the only secondary sources you have provided are an out-dated Sangh Newspaper and Koenrad Elst, who is a fringe source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What has happened in the GA review was highly unfortunate. I didn't follow closely what were your concerns earlier but I do remember the RFC. Now I also see that you raised issues which either were addressed at that time and/or the reviewer answered them. If you have anything new (emphasis on that) to say, do it now or else drop the stick. How long can you expect everyone else to AGF? And please no walls of text, there's a limit to how much anyone can read. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: I came over to find out why this GA nom failed, and notice that you are contesting its "neutrality." Note that neutrality on Wikipedia means fairly representing all the view points that exist among reliable third party sources. So, to argue the lack of neutrality, you need to specify what reliable third party sources have been omitted. You also need to show that the proportion of the viewpoints in the article differs from their relative prominence among the scholarly sources. So, can you tell us what sources you are claiming to be unrepresented? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From this bold edit that Calypsomusic made [1], I picked up the following 4 sources, which he believes will make the article "neutral."

• Reddy, Sheila (14 April 2008). "Interview "I Was Prepared To Take The Risk"". Outlook India.

This is Advani speaking, not a third party source.

• Elst, K. (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu mind: Ideological development of Hindu revivalism. New Delhi: Rupa & Co.

Elst is a strong supporter of the Hindutva movements and not exactly third party. But, still, if the information he wants to take from here is not contentious, it can be used.

• Venkatesan, V. (29 September 2000). "The Laxman line". Frontline.

Once again, Bangaru Laxman is not a third party source.

• "SC comes to the aid of Chakmas". Organiser. 11 February 1996.

Organiser is not a mainstream newspaper and, hence, not a reliable source. It is also part of the Sangh Parivar and so not third party.

On the whole, other than possibly Elst, none of the other sources can even be cited here as per Wikipedia policies. If Calypsomusic wants to contest neutrality, he needs to bring much stronger sources, especially to contest Ramachandra Guha, a Padma Bhushan-winning academic. He also wants to paint Guha as a "critic" of the BJP. I have seen nothing to say that he was a critic. The book from which the material is taken is a standard book on the history of independent India that is top-class, having put Guha in the top-league of the world's historians. There is nothing to indicate that Guha is biased and needs to be countered by other sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is much the same thing I have been asking Calypso to do for a long while now. Accusations of lack of neutrality mean nothing as long as they are not backed up by sources. Yes, Calypso's changes were reverted; but that is because they did not back them with a single reliable source. With due lack of humility, I have read the majority of academic journal articles that discuss the BJP, and the policy section that I wrote reflects those. Moreover, these scholars are not "critics" of the BJP; they are third party observers. If I had included criticisms of the BJP made by its political opponents (which would be somewhat ridiculous) then it would be appropriate to present the BJP's view on every one of those issues; but that is not the case. Political issues become a terrible mess if described from the point of view of the participants, so we use neutral sources, and coverage in those determines coverage in the article. Even so, "critical" material has been attributed. Giving further space to BJP voices would be undue weight. TL;DR: @Calypsomusic: If you want neutrality concerns taken seriously, provide serious sources backing them up, or prepare to be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on an existing political party, so the neutrality is all the more important, especially if it were a Good Article. Neutrality means including all signficant viewpoints, and the BJP and Hindu nationalist pov is obviously significant in an article on the BJP. I gave many examples of biased sections where the BJP pov is not represented. In addition to the fact that articles on existing political parties are contentious and thus difficult to achieve npov, it is also the case that the majority of academic sources do have an anti-BJP and anti-Hindu nationalist bias. Therefore, it would maybe help, to include more sources with only a moderate anti-Hindu nationalist bias (for example, Heuze is moderatly biased against the BJP.) The problem is that some statements and sections in the article are biased without additional opinions as I explained in the GA section.

The quote from Advani is not directly quoted from a publication by Advani, but from an article on Advani, so it could be ok. In the Times of India source I also added, the same is supported by Lala Ram Gupta. Regarding using Elst on Integral Humanism. His opinion on Integral Humanism (in a book based on his PhD thesis) is not contentious or controversial, and his treatment on this particular topic seems simply to be best scholarly treatment in secondary sources (he says in the book that he is the first scholar to examine it in this level of detail). If this happens to be the best source available for this particular topic, and his opinion on this is not controversial, I don't see a reason not to use it. As I said, I'm busy the next two weeks, so can work more on this afterwards.

All this shows is a spectacular misunderstanding of our policies on neutrality, and especially WP:DUE. Our coverage is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources; you have consistently failed to provide such. Policies aside, commonsense dictates that you would not write about a party using sources from within the party; every political party, from the most humane to the most brutal and bigoted, has justified its actions, would you include their justifications in every instance? Preposterous. Your allegation that academic sources are anti-BJP is quite ridiculous, especially as you fail to back it up; academics tend to be criticize of virtually every mainstream party. Quotes from advani are reliable sources for those quotes, and nothing else. Elst is a fringe source, a previous RfC with which you are well acquainted established that there is no consensus to include him here even in the Further Reading, let alone as a source. If you have a truly policy-bound argument of non-neutrality, I would like to hear it; as of now, you seem content to ignore the "in reliable sources" part of the NPOV policy, and so your argument carries no weight. Besides, you had six months before the GA review in which to raise these issues; the fact that you began editing again precisely during the review, and edited no other page, is interesting, to say the least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Thanks for getting back. To make progress, you need to start policy-based discussions. For example, the wp:rs policy states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It also states that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material. You are doing the precisely the opposite. You are asking us to value your opinions over and above those of the reliable sources of highest quality (Ramachandra Guha). That cannot be done.

• I understand that Advani has stated that he didn't make any anti-Muslim speeches. I have no reason to doubt that. But that is just one point of evidence among a multitude of facts that the scholars consider before making up their minds. We have to report what they say, not our opinions. In this particular case, I think it would be ok to make the briefest possible mention of Advani's disclaimer, something along the lines of "although Advani himself has denied that he made any anti-Muslim speeches." (Note that this does not actually contradict the quote from Guha because he did not state that Advani made anti-Muslim speeches.)
• Regarding Integral Humanism, I don't think any of us have any objections to including details about it. But nobody has been able to say anything substantive about it. The page on Integral humanism has been undeveloped for several years, with outstanding questions raised on the talk page for over 2 years. If you are able to, please work on that page and provide detail. Then we will be able to summarise it here. This can be done any time, and has nothing to do with the GA nomination.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic, it has been a week and a half, and you have not responded to the points here. Specifically, we require a reliable source contradicting the narratives in the article, which you have not yet provided. Can we take your silence to mean that you can live with this version? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I said two times that I'm too busy this month, and can work on it in March. What was not clear about it? The concerns have been written in the GA review section, you have not replied to most of them. Could you please reply to all of them? --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

BJP & RSS to be Given the title of terrorist by a american Court in April?

I see That the BJP is a branch of the RSS, would this latest news update on The NewYork Court order effect The BJP as The BJP is linked to the RSS & would this be a excuse For a future labeling of BJP members? If so would this Ref be needed Here Or just on the RSS wiki?

http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/02/04/usa-new-york-court-to-hear-sikhs-for-justice-lawsuit-against-rss-in-april/92.236.96.38 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

The source provided is not a reliable one. Furthermore, the opinion of a court doesn't hold very much weight on Wikipedia; if a verdict is produced, and reliable secondary sources give it coverage, then we could consider mentioning it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2015

link Gujarat to wiki page Gujarat in the 2002 violence area.. Bhavesh.p.more (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done We don't usually do this if there is already another link in the article (see WP:OVERLINK). However, the links are far enough apart that I have made an exception in this case. If anyone disagrees, please let me know and I will revert. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

1984 and 1989

The article talks about the success or failure in elections purely by the number of seats won. By this measure, the 1984 performance seems to be a failure and 1989 a grand success. However, the votes received in 1984 were 7%, the same as what the Jana Sangh got in 1971. Similarly, the votes received in 1989 were 11%, only marginally better than 9.4% that Jana Sangh received in 1967. So, neither was 1984 a great failure nor was 1989 a great success. The reason for the large difference in seats is the strength of the competition. In 1984, the Congress was strong and, in 1989, it was weak. This has nothing much to do with the BJP's own performance. It doesn't seem like Malik & Singh understand these subtleties all that well. I am going to cut them out and use a more erudite source like Jaffrelot. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I would not cut them out entirely. Jaffrelot takes a more sociological approach to this, while Malik and Singh are coming from a more political science oriented background, and as such they have different things to contribute. In a first-past-the-post system like India has, absolute percentages count for little, and concentration for much more. Sure, the Congress's strength made a big difference, but the Janata's popularity also seems to have inflated the BJP's vote tally in 1984 without getting it any seats because the votes were so diffuse; the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, on the other hand, concentrated that nine percent of votes in the Hindi heartland, and gave it a lot of seats. We can include Jaffrelot, by all means, but Malik's narrative (which Guha also seems to buy into) doesn't seem to be off the mark. The comparisons to the Jana Sangh, to my mind, don't mean too much, because the same variability of the Congress also affected it; 1971 was the election after the war, when Indira Gandhi had far more support than in 1967 when she was a relative unknown, and the Congress was at war with itself. All in all, might we discuss the changes here first? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Congress got 43% vote in 1971 and 49% in 1984, even though the Jana Sangh/BJP got the same votes in the two cases. That substantiates my assertion that the competition was stronger. (Can you see that the BJP's winning chances went down because the other parties lost votes?) I don't believe Malik and Singh understand numbers well enough to build valid theories. But, in any case, I will use Jaffrelot as the authoritative source, not myself :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(response both to this and to your tp) I'm not underestimating anything, my friend, and I am personally a fan of Jaffrelot as a source. It's just that given a topic so complex and so sensitive, and given further that most media coverage is not good enough for this article, we need to rigidly balance academic views. You may feel that Noorani and Malik are not quote there with respect to the BJP; a priori, though, they do need to be given weight. Malik may occasionally be superficial, but I would also question the wisdom of looking at nationwide vote tallies; they might give the broadest of brush strokes, but little beyond that. Add Jaffrelot, by all means. Or wait until I get back to my good university library; then I'll add him myself; but not to the exclusion of all others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, the statement we have in the article saying that the Vajpayee strategy was "unsuccessful" because the BJP got only 2 Lok Sabha seats is quite naive. It is based on the assumption that seat-wins form the only measure of "success", which most people won't agree with. Political analysts at least look at the vote share in order to gauge success. By this measure, the BJP got over 7% vote, the second largest in that election, and similar to what the Jana Sangh got in a comparable election previously. So, our editorialising, if that is what it is, is misplaced.
• Secondly, the Vajpayee strategy was highly unpopular inside the RSS as well as the RSS activists within the BJP. The RSS was also openly supporting Congress(I) throughout 1980-84 and the Congress(I) had turned Hindu traditionalist. Despite all the moderation, the BJP was still a "political untouchable" due to the dual membership controversy of the Janata times. So, the forces were arrayed against Vajpayee.
• Thirdly, the Vajpayee strategy of moderation was crucial in the long term to make the BJP respectable to the centrist voters and as a potential ally to the centrist parties. We could say that Vajpayee laid a foundation for his future Premiership right there in his 1980-84strategy.

The phenomenal rise of the BJP since those times owes equally to both the Vajpayee moderation and the Advani hard line. Through this dual-pronged strategy, the BJP managed to have its cake and eat it too. We would be remiss not to recognize these facts. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, if you read far enough into the Malik & Singh article, you read "However, the party's leadership was not disheartened as it found that, compared with previous years, the BJP did not fare as poorly as the tally of seats indicated. It concluded that the Congress (I) had benefited from a massive sympathy vote following the murder of Indira Gandhi and that the BJP had lost roughly only one per-cent of votes." (p. 329) The table on p. 330 shows the 1980vote share as 8.6%. I don't know how they calculate it, as it was part of an "alliance." Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarify tag

Since AmritasyaPutra adds tags like this [2] and refuses to do his homework, here is the information. The paragraph summarises pages 301-312 of Jaffrelot, 1996. The fact that the communal violence rose "sharply" during the Janata Government and that the former Jana Sanghis were implicated in Aligarph and Jamshedpur riots in 1978-79 are both mentioned on page. 301. The Aligarh riot was investigated by the Minorities Commission and the Jamshedpur riot was investigated by a three-member commission headed by Justice Jitendra Narain. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also a direct quote from the Jitendra Narain report here: [3]. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Why sarcasm and arrogance? It is obligatory to address a clarification tag, deleting it without any discussion and accusing editor of misconduct in edit summary is not the way. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Godhra train burning

The section on the Godhra train burning in the BJP article is using weasel words to avoid stating by whom the train was burned, even though the article BJP contains paragraph upon paragraph on the related Gujarat incidents. It's like saying that Muath al-Kasasbeh was burned alive, but avoiding to state that he was burned by ISIS militants.

The Godhra train burning happened when a Muslim mob set fire with highly inflammable liquids on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims and hindered the fire fighting systems. A court convicted 31 Muslims for the incident and the conspiracy for the crime.

The section should clearly state that the train was set on fire by a mob and that people have been convicted for it. (as the wikipedia articles already state).

Secondly, the paragraph should also state the official numbers of the victims in the riots that followed (800 Muslims, 250 Hindus), and not only estimates which could be inflated and/or ignore Hindu victims.

I propose to change the statement:

On 27 February 2002, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burned outside the town of Godhra, killing 59 people. The incident was seen as an attack upon Hindus, and sparked off massive anti-Muslim violence across the state of Gujarat that lasted several weeks. The death toll estimated was as high as 2000, while 150,000 were displaced.

to:

On 27 February 2002, a Muslim mob set on fire a train wagon carrying passengers returning from Ayodhya, killing 59 people, including twenty-seven women and ten children, who were burned alive. This incident sparked off a cycle of communal violence across the state of Gujarat that lasted several weeks. The riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus, and many more were forced to seek shelter in refugee camps. Some observers have estimated the death toll to be as high as 2000, while 150,000 were displaced.

Also AP has shown that the article gives too much weight on Godhra/Babri/Gujarat riots (which are all related). Indeed, in the period 1980 to 1998 (18 years), about 95% of the article is on this issue. Did nothing else happen in these 18 years for the BJP?.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no scholarly consensus on how the fire started. The various viewpoints can be covered, and are being covered, on the Godhra train burning page. It is undue to get into those issues on this page. There is widespread consensus, however, that the ensuing communal violence has consolidated the Hindu vote and helped the BJP and Modi get re-elected. I think the current paragraph is at the right level of detail. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Did BJP do Godhra? What were the ~30 odd Muslims convicted in Godhra burning case for? Ridiculous. Anyways, my important concern is more than 50% of 35 years of history of BJP is Babri and Godhra together. Isn't it unbalanced? --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So, you are arguing for fewer words, whereas Calypsomusic is wanting more words? Please feel free to raise other issues separately, without interfering with the RFC. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I responded to your bias and also raised concern of balance. --AmritasyaPutra^T 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that if the article goes into that much detail as it does, then it should also detail that the fire was started by a mob, with 30+ convictions in court, and the official numbers of the victims, which also show that there were Hindu victims as well.

• Oppose - Going by the presented sources alone, which are self-published and unreliable. The first site has an author with questionable credentials. The other two are just blogs. C'mon...if you want the wording to be changed, we are going to need proper reliable sources. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

These are secondary sources: NDTV, theguardian. What is your take on more than 50% of 35 years of BJP devoted to Godhra and Babri, is it not unbalanced? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where do these sources support the wording of the RFC? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's not what the OP for this has asked for, regarding that we could start a separate topic. The weight given to the sections "2002 Gujarat violence" and "Babri Masjid demolition and the Hindutva movement" among the main "BJP (1980–present)" header seems fine to me since I assume that's how the current reliable sources highlight it.

The OP has tagged NPOV to one of those sections and started this. I assume the NPOV concern is only what's asked here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere did I imply that these sources should be used in the article. The statements can already be found in the Godhra/Gujarat articles. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want them used, why bring them up? If they are not of sufficient reliability to use in the article, they are of no use on the talk page either. The articles don't say that the train was burnt by a mob; the articles describe the controversy, as they should. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You also seem to be one of the main contributors on the Godhra train burning article (not implying that it is a problem, but should be stated).

• Oppose As the others have already said, there is no scholarly consensus on how the fire began, and the majority of them tend to actually oppose the conspiracy theory. None of the sources provided by Calypso are reliable. Furthermore, court rulings have little weight here, and actually the conviction is not very relevant here. Similarly, the academic source is the more appropriate one for the death toll. I will address the concern about too much weight below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the fire was started by the Hindus themselves, that they burned themselves alive? As I said above, nowhere did I imply that these sources should be used in the article. The statements can already be found in the Godhra/Gujarat articles. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that the article gives weight to one view (the claim that 2000 or as some say even 3000 Muslims died), while it doesn't mention other at least as notable views (the view that 800 Muslims and 250 Hindus died). To be neutral, the official numbers, or at least both numbers should be mentioned. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they should not, because "official" statistics have much less weight on Wikipedia than scholarly ones. You said you feel like the section has too much weight; now you want to expand it by adding more statistics? Moreover, the train burning is not the important part of the section; the riots are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Note I have notified the largest contributors to the riots page, the train burning page, and this page to vote here, with the exception of those who are inactive or blocked (of which there are a surprising number). Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Banerjee committe which clearly says that it was an accident happened as a consequence of those Rishis igniting the stove to cook their own food inside the train. Banerjee committe report clearly says this with evidences of fuel not being poured from outside. This was submitted in the parliament and passed. But was made to rejected by the court. It seems to be a question of fact rather than the question of law. There have been a lot of conspiracies which were not brought out to the world by the law and law makers. Wasif (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So you believe it was the Hindu's fault and they burned themselves alive while cooking food. But why didn't the 60 Hindus then move out of the train compartment or out of the train when the fire started? --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, there may be a way to introduce the fact that the attack is widely believed to have been by Muslims, but the proposed "Muslim mob" wording is not the right way to do it. Perhaps something along the lines that the attack was attributed to local Muslims, and generated strong anti-Muslim sentiment (and BJP fanned the flames). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is ridiculous I do not support at all. Framing BJP as culprit is utter bullshit and nonsense. Thanks--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 12:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you happen to know what this RfC is about? It's topic doesn't seem directly related to your argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Neither wordings are correct. నిజానికి (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose . Incomplete rfc and text indicates hardly any improvement. Fundarise (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Why is the RFC incomplete? Please elaborate. Comments on this RFC should not be focused on the exact wording, which can be changed, but on the changes to the text that are required. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Request: Colors

Please change colors of some areas in the picture . A coalition can be in power but a coalition be cannot be in opposition. Further in Telangana Jana reddy of the congress is the leader of oppostion in assembly , then how can nda be the main opposition. [Comment by User:205.167.78.7]. Moved from text of article by Donner60. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that picture is a bit of an issue, and my artistic abilities have never been the best. I'll see what I can do. However, it's certainly possible for an alliance to be in the opposition; the NDA remained an alliance through ten years of being in the opposition in Parliament. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So what the IP says is right? Telangana is in the wrong colour in present version of File:Indian states 2015 NDA.png? If work needs to be done, the file history there shows that one editor has been regularly updating it and could be contacted for this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Relative weight

AP and Calypso have been raising concerns over the relative weight given to the different history sections. These concerns are a little misplaced. Here's why; any analysis of the BJP's history has to include the Jana Sangh, because they were distinct bodies only in a superficial way, and much of the later ideology was shaped by the earlier organization. So, looking at the history section as a whole, it contains 2306 words, excluding titles and such. Of these, 187, or 8%, are related to the riots; hardly undue weight, considering how much coverage is given to the party's role therein. Of the rest, 651 words, or 28%, cover the entire Babri Masjid agitation. This is a 16-year period, and the rise of the BJP from a relatively minor party to that of a national party was very closely related to this movement; the coverage, if anything, is a little low. Calculating a combined weight for the riots and the Masjid makes very little sense, because they are not directly related. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think AP's point is that the Babri demolition and the Gujarat 2002 (not riots in general) are given undue weightage. But I think these were important elements of the BJP's rise to power, and the weight given is commensurate with their importance. However, I would feel more comfortable if the article comments on the role of these campaigns on BJP's rise, backed by sources. But I don't see this as an urgent issue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

These two events are more than 50% of the 35 years of history of the BJP in the article presently. Did BJP do the Godhra train burning and subsequent riots? Of course mention them, but explaining exclusively these and convey... here you have the history of BJP... is odd. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Did I not just demonstrate that it is not actually 50%? If you are going to be legalistic and interpret BJP history as beginning in 1980, then chew on this; the Babri Masjid section describes 16 years, or 46% of this period; so once again, the relative weight is entirely appropriate. Nobody says that the "BJP did Godhra;" but Godhra and the BJP are inseparable in much of the coverage that the BJP has received since, and per WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE, we have to cover it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you did not. If you want to hammer your opinion only and remain absolutely closed to any suggestions then chew on this: I will drop any discussion and goto article edit links directly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 00:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Two can play at that game. If you want your suggestions to be taken seriously, I suggest you back them up with evidence. Particularly, explain why you think they are undue weight (as I did), rather than simply insisting that it is undue weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You show intention of fighting and not collaboration. I have explained my concern and it can be discussed and a middle way found. It is a pity that you believe that Godhra and Babri are all there is to 35 years of history of this party. Your tone reeks of a fighting attitude and you show zero intention of any discussion, rather, it is quite clear you created this section to declare your preconceive decision. By all means, continue, I will not waste my time with you here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think too that the article gives too much weight on Godhra/Babri/Gujarat riots (which are all related). Indeed, in the period 1980 to 1998 (18 years), about 90% of the article is on this issue. Did nothing else happen in these 18 years for the BJP?. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes very little sense. The demolition happened in 1992; the movement lasted many years before that, and its impact was crucial to the rise of the BJP. Every source discussing the BJP's history agrees on that. There was plenty of other stuff as well; the article covers every election in that period, and the government collapse. The Gujarat riots happened in 2002; what on earth do you mean by saying that it dominates the period before 1998? And why on earth are you clubbing two phenomena that occurred several years apart, and calling them one issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please fellas, calm down. If any of you want my two annas on this, I say this: one side says there is too much weight given to at least two areas; would adding content to the remaining areas solve this issue? Just like how these two areas are covered by the present sources, shouldn't the sources detail those areas of lesser coverage too? If the current sources don't, I don't see any major weight issue. The next distant possibility is maybe there could be equally reliable sources to compare with, but that depends on whether anybody can bring them here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Y Can't agree more. Yes, those events need not go, other events need to come in. And we need to find a middle way. As far as I know newspaper is wp:secondary and unless they are contradicted by another source they can be used too. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no bar against newspaper reports per se, but when we are discussing such historical happenings over a long period of time, newspapers won't make good sources. We would end up cherry picking stuff which may have no scholarly standing. Doesn't the Malik & Singh article have enough material? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is, see WP:HISTRS; so emphasis on "equally reliable sources to compare with". Yes, newspapers are secondary sources but so is all what is considered as RSes. In general, RSes are third-party secondary sources. Remember that what is a RS also depends on what subject we are using it for. An history article, will use journals by historians (preferably well-cited among their peers); similarly, scientific peer-reviewed journals for a biology article. Newspaper sources are used in day-to-day topics and in scholarly topics such as these, they can only be used to supplement or add basic information. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

When I rewrote this article approximately a year ago, I very deliberately did not use newspaper sources. Newspapers give in-the-moment coverage, and their reports are often inadequate with the benefit of hindsight. This is true for incidents, but is even more true for analysis of any kind. A slight exception could be made for articles that look back at older events; even there, though, they tend to be questionable. A second problem, in some ways more serious, is that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of newspaper articles about the BJP. It is absolutely impossible to figure out due weight. HISTRS is already limiting their use, but what I'm trying to say is that even in the absence of HISTRS, newspaper sources in this article (and any article with such huge coverage) is a bad idea. I thoroughly support the use of journal articles; I would just add the qualifier that they should be articles that cover some aspect of the BJP in some detail (of which there are quite a few, but not an overwhelming number) rather than having tangential coverage (of which there are exponentially more). Ugog, I appreciate your input, as always; in this instance, though, it might be a good idea for you to take a gander at the distribution of sources yourself. A huge amount of the academic coverage of the BJP is devoted to the two things at issue here; I had to dig far deeper to cover the rest of the article. If we were to simply go by coverage, the riots section would be three times the size. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That may be because many political commentators focus on the controversies, but this article is supposed to be on the political party, not just the controversies. Do the books which are only about the BJP, like those of Ahuja Gurdas, and not just on Hindutva in general, also focus that much on riots?

In any case, there is also a lot of pertinent information completely missing in this article, like a section on the names and symbols of the BJP (the BJP flag), the environmental and energy policies of the BJP, etc. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources, Calypso, sources. Find RS covering these topics in detail, and I will add them myself. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "political commentaries," but journal articles in the history, sociology and political science areas most certainly tend to focus on the riots, and before that, on the Babri Masjid movement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, "the riots section would be three times the size" huh? Kudos to you for, in spite of that and all what's happened, expanding this and trying to cover the rest of the areas. This article has come a long way... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We all are RSS only

“RSS is not an external force. I am from the RSS. The Prime Minister himself is a RSS volunteer. We are (RSS members) from childhood and will remain till we are alive,” [Rajnath] Singh said at the HT Leadership summit. What our Physicist Home Minister is saying is that the RSS is not an "external" body to be influencing the government. RSS is running the Government. BJP is just a brand name being used by the RSS. This is the point that our article misses. So does all of Wikipedia as well as the national and international press. How do we fix it? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like original research or a conspiracy theory. He does not say anything even remotely close to BJP being a brand name of the RSS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

All right. So what exactly is he saying in your opinion? Why is RSS not an external force? Kautilya3 (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3's statement "..This is the point that our article misses. So does all of Wikipedia as well as the national and international press." sums it up. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Your time is better spent analysing Rajnath Singh's statements than analysing my statements. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking others to do "original analysis"? Are you asking us to ignore your statements? --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The two-time President of the BJP is publicly contradicting the implicit assumption of our article that the BJP is an independent organisation. The BJP is not sometimes regarded as the political wing of the RSS. It is the political wing of the RSS. If you want to contradict it, please find a reliable source. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, in principle, I could agree with you; in practice, I find it far more productive to examine policy and activity than to look at precisely how closely related the two organizations are. Anybody who doesn't believe they are closely related is either extremely naive or has failed to read the sources; but the foreign policy of the BJP can be analysed as such without mentioning at every step that the RSS has a hand in forming it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, according to your logic the Republican party in America is merely the political wing of Protestantism since George W Bush and others say they are ardent Evangelicals.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Protestantism is a belief system; the RSS is an organization. The analogy is incorrect. This entire discussion, though, is not content related; keeping NOTFORUM in mind, I'd be glad if an uninvolved editor hats this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is of course content-related, not content that exists at the moment, but the content that should be there. Both of you have an interesting perspective on the issue.

• Victoria seems to think RSS is like a religion, which agrees with the Jaffrelot's characterisation of it as a "Hindu nationalistic sect." But Jaffrelot isn't saying that RSS is purely a religion, because it is a nationalistic sect. It wants to impose its religion on the nation. In fact, Jaffrelot characterizes the RSS as the "Raj Guru" of the BJP, a decidedly political role.
• You are saying that we (you) don't care where the BJP people come from, we just go by what they do. That is not a politically tenable position, but I won't go into that. But the fact that the BJP acts under the influence of a Raj Guru, an extra-constitutional authority that isn't subject scrutiny or constitutional checks and balances, is a piece of information that should be there in the article. Without it, it is incomplete.

Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, calm down. I did not say that I personally do not care; in fact I was careful to make that distinction. I have read a huge number of BJP related sources; and there are a few sources which say that they have occasionally gone against the RSS (particularly with respect to globalization). There are plenty more that treat it as a separate organization. And however much the pair of us might respect Jaffrelot as a source, we have no choice but to give those other views weight. I didn't say its antecedants didn't matter; I said that useful policy descriptions may be produced without digging into the antecedants. We are still arguing over precisely how close the RSS and the BJP are; given how murky these waters are, and how many people have written subtly different things about them, there is not going to be immediate agreement here. Which is why I find it unproductive. What is it you would have us do? Replace all analytical sources with Jaffrelot? Say in the first line that the BJP and the RSS are identical? You know as well as I that that will not fly. If you want to add Jaffrelot to the organizational structure section, do so by all means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Calypso's objections

@Calypsomusic:; we asked you to bring forward your objections so that they could be addressed and the GA process could move forward. You've begun the RfC, but you haven't brought forth any other objections. Can we assume that this is your only issue? If not, you should raise them now, rather than sequentially. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted the comments again on the talkpage below. If you could add your opinion on the points raised. Thanks. Will try to do some edits in the article later. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic:, I have mentioned this before, but I am going to ask you one last time, before you really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Simply restating supposed neutrality issues is not getting you anywhere. The US party articles are irrelevant; see WP:OTHER. What you need to do is to provide reliable, third party, sources that contradict what mas been said in this article. Until you do that, there really isn't much substance down below for me to respond to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and other concerns with this article

Most of the issues were mentioned at various places in the archives. Since they are archived, I'm posting them again from the archives for review and discussion below:--Calypsomusic (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned most of these concerns already (see the archives) but the problems persist in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with some of them and not with others. Like the further reading section or order of sections isn't a requirement or a violation. Others should be discussed and improved as part of good article review. I agree with some of the concerns of neutrality raised. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Your idea of "neutrality" is not correct. Wikipedia doesn't attempt to be "neutral". It aims to represent the scholarly consensus. Any minority views can be represented, if necessary, by inline attribution. But there is no requirement that the minority views should be covered. It depends on the context. So, to argue that the article is not neutral, you must:

• demonstrate that it does not represent scholarly consensus (for which you must have read the literature widely), or
• argue that there are important minority views that should be represented.

The minority views also have the same reliable source requirements as the majority views. Guha is in my opinion a good representative of the mainstream view. To contest his conclusions, you need minority sources of equal stature. I doubt if there are any such sources. Malik & Singh are quite sympathetic to the cause of Hindu nationalism, and their views have been given some space. So the "balance" has been achieved in my opinion. It would be far better if you argued on the basis of facts rather than views. (I have made these comments earlier, but you seem to have ignore them.) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am ok to use Elst's Decolonising Hindu Mind if you need to him to contest anything, but note that he is a self-declared Hindu revivalist. So, he represents a POV. He is not mainstream. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1 (Sources with anti-BJP bias not attributed or balanced)

• 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)
    • I also think its usage is 'okay' unless we have a better source saying something contradictory. There was misrepresentation on three occasions, that is fixed now. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say, keep the references, but the controversial should be attributed to Guha, and for some of them, the response by BJP or others should be given. This is not the case in many places. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: For this to proceed, you need to state what you think is controversial. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

2 (Integral Humanism)

• 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".)

"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".

• • It might be a good idea to include a paragraph on integral humanism. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Coemgenus, I am happy to add details if it is deemed necessary. However, I would point out that the stated ideologies of the BJP are mentioned in various places; "swadeshi" in the economic policies section, and "positive secularism" in the social policies/hindutva. Academic coverage of the BJP has tended not to go into integral humanism very much, nor does it feature prominently in the media; so I personally feel the current level of coverage is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can you say that a single sentence, "The official philosophy of the BJP is "Integral humanism"", is appropriate coverage for the official philosophy of the BJP?--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • • How about this: under "Social policies and Hindutva", add a brief description of what it means. "The official philosophy of the BJP is "Integral humanism", which is [description]." Just enough to let the reader know whether he wants to click the link for more information or be satisfied with the summary. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I would appreciate some help with that. Scholarly interpretations with what IH means are already covered. The summary of IH as created by its proponents is very peacocky, and I have struggled to strike a balance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I may add 2-3 sentences on this over the weekend, using Elst's "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind" from Rupa Publications since that is the book I have available, and is the most detailled scholarly and secondary source I know of on this topic, and maybe 1-2 other sources. I have seen that there are also books with the title "Integral Humanism", but I don't have those. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, balance and NPOV are important. I'm not looking for much, just a sentence or so, reliably sourced --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I could give this a shot; a way around it might be to simply attribute the statement to the BJP constitution or to Deendayal Upadhyay, and thus get around any problems in wording. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I've taken a shot at this; please take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added a fuller description on the meaning and history of the official BJP party doctrine (Integral humanism). It is not perfect, but as it stands now, its ok. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My additions were removed. There should be a fuller description for the official doctrine and philosophy of the BJP.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Can you give a diff for your addition? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

3

• 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)
    • I agree with Coemgenus. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really npov, but ok enough. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Article is also missing a lot of information compared to Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States) articles. It should have sections on the BJP's name and symbols (about the BJP flag), more about Integral Humanism, environemental policy,.... It is incomplete. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: You can add whatever you think is missing. They will of course be discussed if there are disagreements. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

4 (textbooks)

• 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)

Here is one source saying "that what was being termed as saffronisation by the Leftists was nothing but correcting the distortions interpolated by Marxist historians. The NCERT books conformed to the national curriculum framework of school education-2000, it said. The Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the curriculum and rejected allegations of saffronisation, the resolution said.Opposition to the UPA’s attempt to change the text would form a weapon in the BJP’s Hindutva arsenal, the resolution hinted. The book developed during the NDA regime gave respect to all communities and religion rather than follow the Marxist attempt at denigrating India’s historical past. In the earlier NCERT text books there were passages that hurt the sensitivities of many communities like the Sikhs, the Brahmins, the Jains and the Jats through “willful denigration.” A national hero like Guru Teg Bahadur was described as a robber who committed plunder, it said."

Maybe we could also cite Arun Shourie on this.

Here we still need a counter-argument from BJP or other source, otherwise it is not neutral. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Please find a reliable third party source as per WP:HISTRS. A newspaper reporting BJP statements is not a reliable source. We can't use Arun Shourie because he is not third party. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

5 (illegal immigrants and refugees)

• 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)
    • I am not sure if there is a need to Discuss Congress. Yes, it is a bit overly dramatic. Saying a party is against "illegal migration" is kind of meaningless, can there be a party which is for illegal migration? The narration can be made more neutral. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't see the need to discuss the Congress either. The information is certainly noteworthy, but the place for it is the INC article, which I would work on had I the time. Calypso, if you feel that this needs to be mentioned, go ahead and insert it there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • OK, that makes sense. Let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole paragraph about this should be left out. Firstly, the source criticzes both political parties and the Congress party even more. Secondly, as AP said, it is not noteworthy that a party is against illegal immigration. Thirdly, Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country where attacks against the Hindu and Christian minority happen as they do also in Pakistan, so you would expect Hindu and Christian refugees. I have never heard of attacks of the minorities against the majority Muslims in Bangladesh (but let me know if I'm wrong), so you would expect that Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh are not refugees. Then what is the point of criticizing the BJP for what is more or less common sense? Also, Modi and BJP has acted against the separitists who recently attacked Mulisms in NorthEastern India and the section does not mention it. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think this should be left out, but I have at least added a response from a BJP source. With the addition, it is more neutral. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My addition was removed, making the section again non-neutral. It doesn't matter if the source is older, academic sources are always some years behind. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Once again, you need to find sources as required by WP:HISTRS. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

6 Shift in ideology

• "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)
    • I can't recall precisely but I think this is a close paraphrase from the source. Having a quote to verify will settle the matter. Attributing is also an option. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It should also be attributed to the source. Can the full quote be provided? But it is ok enough. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I had a problem with this statement too because I don't think the Vajpayee strategy "failed". Neither did the BJP think it failed. I will work on this section over the next week. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

7 (Godhra and Gujarat riots)

• 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)
    • I agree with Coemgenus, lets leave it like that or you propose a wording and seek consensus. It is a controversial subject and not entirely central to this page. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The language right now is about as neutral as we can make it; raking this up again is just opening a big can of worms. In general, we should trust the academic source over the government one; the court ruling has very little weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't just dismiss this with "raking this up" if s/he has a concern. But yes, s/he should propose a better statement. There is no denying that this page has broad coverage of Babri and 2002 in "BJP(1980-present)" section -- from formation till now! That makes it unbalanced/less focused in that section. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Then we should mention both the official numbers (which many academics will also mention) and the estimates by these scholars, as both are notable, and the opinion of an academic is not necessarily more trustworthy than the court, as they can also be biased. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A discussion that deep gets off topic. As far as this GA review is concerned, let's just leave it be. I doubt everyone can be satisfied with any wording. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It can not be off topic if the section is included in this article. I have concerns that the section is not neutral and have explained the issue. What is so difficult about also including the offical, court or commission version? It is also known that some of the sources used in the article have an anti BJP pov, so where possible, balance should be given. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is not neutral. It makes all kinds of accusations against the BJP, but does not even mention that it was an attack by mobs on the train, and what the actual numbers of the victims were. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: We don't know what the actual numbers of the victims were, because many deaths always go unreported in India. In this particular case, we have reliable sources saying that the police actively blocked the Muslim deaths from being recorded. So, the official figures should not be used in my opinion. As for the attack on the train, the facts are unclear in the scholarly consensus. The court and the commission haven't done anything to dispel the confusion. So, that is where the things stand. All that we can say is that the people in Gujarat believed that a Muslim mob had set the coach on fire. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

8 Further reading

• 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).
    • 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)
      • I agree with Coemgenus, let's not even get into this discussion. It is definitely not a concern in a good article review process. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I see one book of Ahuja and one of Ramesh Rao are in the Further Reading section right now. They are lightweight sources compared to all other high quality books listed there. (2 citations for Ahuja and none for Rao.) Do we want more such sources? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

9 (LK Advani Rath Yatra, other issues)

Another point is that the Babri section is also not neutral. L.K.Advani made reportedly no anti-Muslim remarks during the Rath Yatra, he broke down in tears when the demolition happened and described it as the blackest or saddest day of his life or of India. The way it is written, these nuances in favor of Advani are not explained, which is not neutral. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole article focuses on many instances of allegations of anti-Muslim biases. To be neutral, the article should also mention the Muslim friendly actions by the BJP, for example, Muslim politicians in the BJP, the BJP increased the subsidy the government gives to Muslims for the Haj pilgrimage,etc. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as the GA review is concerned, I think the article achieves a neutral point of view. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone acquainted with the topic, it is obvious that the article is not npov, and I have explained some of these issues. Shouldn't special care given to NPOV in a good article, or am I missing something? There are also a couple of other issues, for example, the article claims that the party is strictly hierarchical, but does not mention that it also has very strong internal democratic processes within the BJP.--Calypsomusic (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The section on LK Advani and his yatra is also very pov. It calls the yatra militant, while it doesn't say that the yatra was entirley peaceful. It implicitly accusses senior leaders of the BJP like Advani for the violence and destruction that happened, although the senior leaders like Advani did their best to avoid any violence. That the yatra itself was responsible for the violence is just one of many opinions (there are other opinions, for example many Muslims accused the PM and his government to let the violence and destruction happen, because once this happened, the public support that the BJP gained would vanish). Other opinions, like that of Advani, needs to be given, which I have begun to include. The article is not balanced, it focuses too much on negative sides. For example, the article has many instances of allegations of anti-Muslim biases. To be balanced, some pro-Muslim actions and dialogue of the BJP could be included. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to put a NPOV tag on the article. But I have now made some additions which make the article more neutral. With some more work, it could hopefully be fairly neutral enough. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag to the article, since my attempts to make the article more neutral were reverted. These issues need to be solved before the tag is removed. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also a whole paragraph on the Liberhans report, but only the anti-BJP opinion, without mentioning the BJP opinion on it. Like elsewhere, there is a strong focus on anti-BJP opinions, while the BJP opinion is left out. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of my concerns I already voiced months ago. I told you already then that one single sentence about Integral Humanism is by far not enough and even pointed you to sources, you could have fixed that during these months. You could also have asked yourself what could you do to make the article more neutral. This requires not just relying on your preferred sources which are biased against the BJP, but also using other sources that are neutral or even sympathetic to the BJP. Special care must be taken for npov for existing policital parties, this has not yet been taken in this article.

The neutrality is the biggest problem in this article. But the article is also missing a lot of important information. There should be a section on the BJP's name and symbols (about the BJP flag), more about Integral Humanism, environemental policy, .... The Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States) articles are much better articles than the BJP article, they have much more breadth and scope. But even these much better articles are not good articles. I won't have much time to work on this this month, but will have more time next month. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: If this diff [4] is the one you are talking about, all your new material is either statements by BJP politicians or sympathisers like Elst published in non-mainstream locations which don't quality under WP:HISTRS. You haven't cited a single third party reliable source. You can't claim that neutrality is missing on the basis of this! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)