Jump to content

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

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. --AmritasyaPutraT 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)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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.
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)

I'm not against using Guha, but with ca. 23 references he may be used too much in the article. His book is a populist history of India, it would be preferable to use books specific on the BJP like those of Ahuja Gurdas, or at least books on Hindu nationalism, like those of Jacoliot, Heuzé or Elst.

I have skimmed through Guha's book and it is obvious that he is biased against the BJP.

    • The article is an astonishing collection of vituperative attacks on the Sangh Parivar, the RSS, the Hindutvadins, the Hindus of the diaspora, the Internet Hindus etc. [1]
    • Ramachandra Guha himself claims that he’s a lapsed Marxist, a claim that’s suspect because this Hindu piece faithfully follows the Marxist template. [2]
    • A hallmark of any desi-liberal, ...is feeble censoring, sometimes even tacit justification of virulent wave of Islamism-Leftist violence while unleashing a verbal fusillade against a benign form of nationalism that essentially emerged as a counter mobilization response to such these twin forces of organized brutalities. [3]
    • Guha:"As a citizen, I detest right-wing Hindu nationalism, I will vote for any other party." [4]

As the links above show, he is clearly not neutral when it comes to the BJP, so it is justifiable to be concerned about neutrality if there is too much reliance on such source(s).--Calypsomusic (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the links above are reliable in any sense of the word. Any "bias" might be "obvious" to you; but his book is the definitive history of post-independence India, and as such you need to find more than a blog to discredit it. Remember, a source does not have to be neutral; it only has to be reliable. Fringe sources are in a category of their own. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Calypsomusic: I am sorry that you have missed the question that has been asked. What in our article is "controversial"? The opinions of random Hindutva bloggers on what they think of Guha don't make any difference. If you are claiming that there is stuff in our article that is "controversial," you need to show other high quality reliable sources that have different views or contradict what is in our article. The blog posts you mention are not reliable sources, and they have little to do with the content of this article. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2 (Integral Humanism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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)
Here (I can rewrite that part better): [5] On this specific topic, Integral Humanism, Elst's analysis seems to be the best scholarly analysis available in the secondary sources. 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.
Here we have to think what is best for wikipedia, and use the source that is the best for the specific topic. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Elst is a fringe source. Find another. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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.
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4 (education policy)

  • 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).
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)
I sense abf towards calypso and an attempt to fillibuster on behalf of Kautilya3 hence I am going to be blunt: present a scholarly reference that Arun Shourie is unreliable or shut up. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Shourie is a BJP member, therefore not secondary. End of story. If anybody is engaged in filibustering it is Calypso, who is the one posted 24kb of text here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The education policy section only mentions one controversy, without attempting to show any comprehensive description of the BJP policy on education . How on earth can this be neutral?--Calypsomusic (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources! Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I notice that a comment about the education policy has been added [6] and since reverted. I agree with the revert. The comment is bland and misleading (as if Indian textbooks never covered the history of Indian freedom movement!) It also doesn't make clear when this policy was made (speaks in the present tense) and what the BJP did about it while it was in power. More substance is needed. Note also that Ahuja, with only 2 citations on Google Scholar, is a fringe source. He can't be taken to represent the scholarly consensus. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There was an even larger problem with one of the sources; Partha Ghosh was published well before the BJP changes to the NCERT were made. This is source misrepresentation of the most blatant kind. In addition to the stuff Kautilya says, "Ram company" is a complete unknown, with nothing significant to their name other than Ahuja's book, and no information available about them; nothing whatsoever to show that they are reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Koenraad Elst (Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, p. 354), Gurdas Ahuja is part of the "Sangh Parivar circles". According to another reliable source[1], this book is a "semi-official history" of the BJP. So, this author is a BJP insider, and doesn't qualify as a third party source. He is out. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking up on that. Yes, that certainly takes him out as a source; he should probably be removed from the further reading as well, although I feel less strongly about him than Elst. Vanamonde93 (talk) 3:50 am, 24 March 2015, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)

References

  1. ^ Malik, Iftikhar Haider (2005). Jihad, Hindutva and the Taliban: South Asia at the Crossroads. Oxford University Press. p. 121. ISBN 0195977904.
IIRC, he says in the first pages of the book that he is not a BJP member. But he is probably close to the BJP, and definitely sympathetic to the BJP. But even if he would be a primary source, Wikipedia allows for the use of primary source for non controversial statements. The Republican party and Democratic party article include references from their party websites. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between a primary source and a non-third party source, and the problems with each are different. The problem is not that he is "primary," it is that he is affiliated, and therefore unreliable. Since you are claiming that undue weight is given to BJP critics, this source is not useful, because you cannot use an unreliable source to determine due weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

5 (illegal immigrants and refugees)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:47, 4 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6 Shift in ideology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • "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 ..."
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7 (Godhra and Gujarat riots)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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. --AmritasyaPutraT 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. --AmritasyaPutraT 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)
I don't know enough about the block on recording the numbers you mention, but we have estimates of the Muslim and Hindu victimes, and those estimates tally well with the number of families who received state benefits because of the riots. see here [7]
Are we supposed to believe that 31 were convicted by the court in the train carnage incident on belief? Willful blindness! It was clearly judged to be a planned carnage after years of investigation. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia policies, we only report as facts those notions that have scholarly consensus. If the court judgement did not alter the scholarly consensus, we can't be held responsible for it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The point in including the Gujarat riots is not to rehash the dispute or point out how many was killed etc. This article is about the BJP and hence focus should be on the BJP and its members conduct during and after the riots. It is hard to imagine that an article about a political party that had prominent members who condoned and participated in genocidal violence, and whose leader excused it, would not mention this fact. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • gujaratriots.com is not a reliable source. Also, please add your comments at the end of the section, else they are liable to be ignored, because people may not see them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8 Further reading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9 (LK Advani Rath Yatra, other issues)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [8] 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)
hist is an essay. Have you also read biased and selfsource? Why filibuster someone with tons of policy words? Focus on content. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New comment on Babri demolition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article alleges that the Babri demolition was the product of a conspiracy by the Sangh Parivar, and not a spontaneous act. But the state was ruled by Congress then, and INC party leader and prime minister Narasimha Rao was seen by most Muslims as the "culprit No 1. and super villain in this case.", since the only party that benefited from the Babri destruction was the INC, not the BJP. As long as the mosque stoeed, the BJP could use it as a rallying point, but if it was destroyed in a bjp related action, this could be used by the INC against the BJP and reverse the BJPs march to power. The article should point this out too. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you have some reliable sources that express this particular viewpoint then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
My source for this is mostly Elst's "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind", but if Vanamonde93 prefers, he can replace that with another source. Since most Muslims accused N. Rao of allowing it to happen, as also the eminent Syed S. in the article link above, this seems notable enough.
The top leaders of the Sangh (Advani, Ashok Singhal of VHP, Seshadri of RSS) made appeals to maintain discipline and refrain from vandalism. They pleaded in vain for sticking to the planned programme and Advani had tears in his eyes when seeing the breakdown of RSS discipline. Rajat Sharma said in the Sunday Observer the leaders were shell shocked, at loss for words, and down and demoralized. Even Communist observer Manini Chatterjee wrote "the leaders had long surrendered all capacity to lead".
Vanamonde says that government courts and reports carry very little weight, but he is relying on them when it suits him, using the Liberhan commission for allegations against the BJP leadership, while omitting the notable accusations against INC leader Rao. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Elst can be considered an objective or neutral source, particularly not on what Muslims thought or believed at any given point in time. Very moving to hear about Advani's tears at the breakdown of discipline, though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I am willing to look at Elst (without speaking for anybody else). Please give the page numbers for all your references to Elst. As for Rao and INC, this is a page on BJP. If you want to put the blame on Rao or INC, you need to do so on those pages, not here. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The page numbers in Decolonizing the Hindu mind are:
  • pp 167 on Tibet policy
  • pp 170 on BJP internal democracy
  • pp 175 on Babri, and N. Rao
  • pp 171ff on the BJP constitution
  • pp 185ff on the BJP manifesto
  • pp 359ff on the BJP and Muslims
  • pp 490ff on Integral Humanism
Due apologies, kautilya, but I am not willing to use Elst as a source; he is a fringe source, and an RfC established that there was no consensus to use him even in further reading on this page. What anybody says about Rao is utterly irrelevant here. Sure, the man may not have done all he could; but if you are interested in that, go add it on his page, after finding a real source. twocircles.net is most certainly not a reliable source, and the burden for sourcing is on you. I am not going out and hunting for sources for things you should feel should be in the article; I reviewed the literature when I re-wrote the thing, and if there was such a source out there, I would have found it. For the Liberhan commission thing, look at the RfC.Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now looked at the Elst's section on Babri demolition. I don't see him contradicting anything said in our article. All his information is hearsay from (presumably) Sangh Parivar sources. It was pre-Liberhan. So it is out of date too. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking up on that. Calypso, we are still waiting on sources, then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The RFC to censor Elst from the further reading section was about one particular book in the further reading section. The majority of voters also voted for inclusion. References must be evaluated on a case by case basis. You have elsewhere supported the heavy use of Martha Nussbaum as a source. Well, she also relies on Elst when analyzing Gandhi and Godse, so should we now remove and censor references to Nussbaum, or should we respect it and therefore have the same liberty when choosing the best available sources, which in some cases may be Elst? --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfC demomstrated that there was no consensus to include Elst in the Further Reading section, and this had nothing to do with censorship, as you were told many many times [9] [10] [11] By talking about the majority of voters, you just continue to show that you do not understand how consensus is determined. As such, the standard for sources is certainly not lower, and so Elst cannot be used. Nussbaum is not a fringe source. I doubt very much that she ever agrees whole-heartedly with Elst; she might analyse him, which is different. Which is also besides the point, because we are not scholars; we analyse and present scholarly views. Elst is a fringe source, Nussbaum is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Nussbaum writes in a footnote in her book "the Clash within": "For an account of the two plots, with further references, see K Elst, Gandhi and Godse: A review and a Critique" and has numerous references to Elsts' book in the footnotes, see also p.165 ff., p.362 ff. To her credit, she is clearly using Elst as a source on Gandhi and Godse, even though they are in the opposite political camp. She at least can recognize a reliable source when presented with one. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And no, unfortunately she is not analyzing Elst in her book (might have been interesting), but only other writers like Shourie. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, but not helpful here, I'm afraid. Your task remains the same. If you wish for the phrasing of this section (or any other) to be changed, you need to produce a mainstream, secondary, reliable source that contradicts the narration given here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Calypsomusic: I am not sure what you are trying to say. Nussbaum is a reliable source. You can report her writings as fact here, even if those views originally came from Elst. If you are claiming that Elst is mainstream just because Nussbaum cites him, that won't be accepted. So, please don't waste your time arguing that. The book Decolonizing the Hindu Mind published by a mainstream publisher is the only possible source you can use, provided the views you want to state are not contentitious. Please accept Wikipedia policies for what they are and make progress in the discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that previous Elst RfC, I would say that any source by him should first be subject to a vetting process of some kind (RSN, RfC, something) before being used. Which is a restatement of what Kautilya says, really; only if there is thoroughly non-contentious material from Elst can it be used without too much of a problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10 (Missing sections or information)

There should be a section on the BJP's name and symbols (about the BJP flag), more about Integral Humanism, environemental policy, energy policy. There should also be something about the contents of the BJP constitution and maybe the BJP election manifesto.

In the foreign policy we should add the fact that Vajpayee formally expressed India's acceptance of China's claim of Tibet, a position diametrically opposed to the one stated in the BJS election manifestoes. (My source is Elst: Decolonizing the Hindu mind, which refers to Jaiswal: "The Glory and the Shame", Organiser, 21.7.1996., but we can use other source if you know one, and we could also add Modi's stance on this issue.)--Calypsomusic (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add whatever you think is necesary and be prepared to defend it based on Wikipedia policies. As you know, many people think Elst is a fringe source. So, more mainstream sources would be preferable. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm using Elst more to find out what is missing is in the article, for which purpose he is useful, as that kind of perspective is largely missing in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The articles for the Democratic Party and for the Republican party have plenty of references to primary sources such as gop.com and democrats.org. It would be very helpful if like in this article we could cite (sporadically) from the BJP constitution, the BJP manifesto or from leaders like Vayapee directly. But since we have the precedent of the major DEM and REP articles, we can cite directly from the primary sources (as long as it is not too much). The REP and DEM articles are major, established articles, compared to the much smaller INC and BJP articles. Calypsomusic (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. See Other stuff exists. There is no policy-compliant reason to use those articles as models. Moreover, this point has been raised before, and you were asked then to read WP:OTHER, so I am getting the feeling that this is a case of I didn't hear that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHER is usually used in case of a deletion discussion, its a common practice to use some other article as a model and there is no harm in doing that. Sometime we need use some Common Sense .-sarvajna (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is harm; article coverage is based on source coverage, and source coverage differs very significantly from one political party to another. We need to create the structure of this article based on weightage in reliable sources, which has been done. Why should we use those articles as models? On what basis do you say that those have a more balanced coverage than this one? What is the policy-based reason to use as a model articles about parties very different from the subject of this one? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to put words in my mouth and act as if you did not hear what I said. There need not be a policy based reason for everything, sometimes you need to use your common sense. Second I did not ask you to move away from RS. What is wrong to quote BJP source when it looks like the party sources are being used in many other articles?. Don't give me "Other Stuff" here, you can save it for a delete discussion. -sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Van, read WP:OWN and WP:BLUD then look at this page. Let there be discussion. WP:WL is stupid... as you can see you are not taking genuine and valid replies but going on and on. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
That statement is based on a misunderstanding of those links. If POV related changes have to be made, they need to be supported by a secondary, mainstream, reliable source. That is all I have been asking for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said otherwise, you can stop WP:BLUD. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_6&oldid=689268036"