Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Technical Issues Need to be Fixed

The system is reporting that there are too many templates on this page for proper processing. There also appears to be a malformed reference in the page text that is creating problems. One way to fix this is to break up the page into several other pages, but how is something that should be discussed. The first step in any such technical change is to preserve the current text, but attempt to lessen the template load on the servers.--Chip.berlet (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to here Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party - Wiki to avoid confusion?--Chip.berlet (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Any discussion can be carried out on the original talk page; why can't we just break this into archives 2 & 3? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy : Black Money use by Gopinath munde

I have added Controversy section Black Money use in Election by Gopinath munde , senior leader of BJP and added Sources that explicitly say munde dared Election commission to take any action against him. RouLong (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Non Free Logo Discussion

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation about copyrighted party logos. Note that File:Bharatiya Janata Party.svg is copyrighted. Please join the discussion to save the Indian Political Party symbols from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.165.143 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Election Symbol under discussion.

Please join the discussion : Non-free content review at | this entry . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.3.241 (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Section

I just deleted the section "Major Announcements" from the article. The reason for this is not that those announcements are unimportant, but that they should be incorporated into the text on the history of the party. This is something I will work on doing. After all, there are no references to show that these announcements are more significant than all the previous ones made by the BJP, nor any reason why these "announcements" deserve a separate section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ideology

After having worked on this article a little, I strongly feel that the use of block quotes from the party constitution are not suitable for the discussion of its ideology. The constitution of any parties is unlikely to give a straightforward description of its ideology, so we should rely on external (preferably academic) analysis instead, and use quotes only sparingly. Does anybody have any quarrel with this? Shukriya, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious - Hindu nationalism

This rehashed nonsense from the [sensationalistic] media is clearly wrong. We have first seen government in Punjab, which means Sikhs in the BJP (Sidhu), then we have Naqvi and all the Muslim MLA candidates in Kashmir and UP. Then we have seen BJP In power in Nagaland...you aint winning anything there without Baptist votes (and even more seats when the BJP Nagaland chief was alive). Further, after Goa there are now 5 of 21 MLAs who are Catholics, including the one who won with the biggest margin of victory. How then is it "Hindu nationalist"? Are the aforemention slef-loathing? Conversely, its known as the party of development. (Gujarat, Bihar, Punjab, Nagaland, Karnataka (never mind the infighting)(Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).

Nowhere does the article say that the membership of the BJP is exclusively composed of Hindus. The statements are about party ideology. There are a plethora of sources, academic and news sources, calling the BJP Hindu nationalist in its ideology. Rhetorical questions about whether MLAs loathe themselves are not enough to refute these, nor is the fact that the BJP is willing to ally with other parties. Its own website talks about Hindutva. You need to find rigorous sources to back you up here, else this is just POV pushing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okey, Im here to discuss not war and I haven't edited the article.

Now just because sources say it (and the fact that indian media is sensationalist) doesn't mean we blindly paraphrase it. Logic, as indicated above, shows that this is clearly not true. How can a Hindu Nationalist party have Sikh, Muslim and Christian support?(Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).

I don't mean to be antagonistic, but that logic comes under the category of original research. It's not our job to decide what is logical and what is not. We look at what the sources say, and present that, duly weighted. As for the sensationalist media, I am not the biggest fan myself, but both the media and academia call the BJP Hindu Nationalist. Find me a rigorous source that says otherwise, I will happily add it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides, that's not very good logic; a Muslim man might join the party because it gives him the best chance of personal power, even if its policies are against Muslims in general. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

[ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-bjps-own-goal/article2790918.ece >> The BJP's own goal](Lihaas (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)).

Integration of controversy section

After having spent a substantial amount of time editing this article, it seems to me that we should follow WP:CSECTION and merge the criticisms section into the main text. The distinction between "policies" and "criticisms" is not clear as it would seem, and they are magnets for vandals and disgruntled IPs. They are also not near comprehensive enough, which is much easier to fix if they are integrated into the article, as redundant text can then be avoided. Thoughts/comments? UN, DS, Sitush, and any others who have been involved here? Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

India-related articles seem to have an unhealthy fascination with dedicated "Controversy" sections. Almost without exception, they can be dispensed with and should be. The fightback can start here. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sit is right, and integrating the content seems like a good idea to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen even the most unnecessary/short articles over here have a controversy section with some rubbish or the other, doing this (and maybe Congress next?) would be a major improvement. Republican Party, Democratic Party and Labour Party all don't have any such sections nor any unnecessary focus on various events. If we want this to be cleaned up like them, concise and not ever-swelling with redundant content, mostly everything in the crit-section can be merged with the "History" section, and the other such content can be detailed in sub-articles dealing with "Election of x year", "BJP government during the y year" or "Z event". Good luck, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

BJP ruled states image

I just noticed that the map of the states that are under BJP rule shows the BJP as the principle opposition party in Bihar. While this might be true in a strictly numerical interpretation, it is not the case otherwise. Without getting into a debate about the precise nature of the Bihar polity, it is fair to say the BJP is not the principle opposition. How do we change the image? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Answering just your query about changing the image, File:Indian states by bjp.png was originally from User:Vibhijain and modified by User:Wantsallanger...if they're still active they can help here. You can also do this completely on your own by modifying it yourself using any simple image editing program, uploading it and then replacing it.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Official Social Media accounts

Hi all,

I have searched the internet and have found official facebook and twitter accounts of the Bharatiya Janata Party. I have seen that Indian National Congress too have their official facebook and twitter accounts in the external links section. The official accounts are as given below:

• https://www.facebook.com/BJP4India
• https://twitter.com/BJP4India

So is it right to include their official social accounts in the external links section. Work2win (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, because that would be effectively doing their publicity work for them. If they are on the Congress page, they should be removed. Official website is quite enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Vanamonde93 thanks for the information. I have a little doubt regarding politics section, if twitter and facebook accounts should not be allowed for political parties since it does publicity, then i have seen Indian politician's pages having twitter and facebook accounts too added in the external links section. Should that also be removed.

I have one more doubt, if a person is not a politician(film actors, social activists,etc.) then is it admissible to add twitter and facebook in their external links section. Work2win (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi W2W, I'm happy to try to clear things up. In my opinion, including a politician's facebook or twitter would be a violation of notability and npov guidelines. Of course, this is my personal interpretation, which I believe is correct, but others might disagree. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Under our official guidelines for external links, an article should have one and only one link to a site controlled by the subject of the article; in these cases, the subject's official website. So any articles which also have blogs, MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Twitter, etc. links should be cleaned up; see WP:LINKFARM. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Defence Policy Tag

I just replaced an OR tag in the defence policy section, for the following reasons. The section contains unsourced statements about "strong national defence" and "decisive response (to the kargil attack)." These are POV terms, and they are unsourced. More importantly, this being an encyclopedia article and not an editorial, these terms are useless. We need a detailed description of the kargil war response, and of the POTA, not an evaluation of the same. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

M J Akbar (Moved discussion to correct talkpage. Note to Darkness Shines: I am not a sockpuppet of Khabbos for doing this)

I'm a newcomer to wikipedia. I read in the newspaper today (23/3/2014) that the well known Muslim journalist, M J Akbar joined the BJP. I request someone to insert that news in this article with the appropriate citation. I'm scared to do it myself, because I have been reported to the Arbitration Coomiittee for Enforcement already. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This oage is about Modi not about BJP. That any particular individual joins the BJP is not relevant to this article unless it has some specific significnce for Modi.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC) --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In this context, the secularist and critic of the BJP Sanjay Subrahmanyam could be mentioned because of his nomination by the BJP to the Oxford-based chair of Indian Studies which the BJP created. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Update

This article will need new sources and updates based on the Election results, it appears the party has won a majority, of course final results are not in yet however I think people willing to help out should be notified by this to search for reputable sources with wikipedia guidelines and add a section pertaining to today's election result and following days which will no doubt yield information from party officials as to their reaction and plans 70.69.172.92 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no deadline, let's wait a couple of days until the full results are in and the madness has lessened, and then write an NPOV section, and update the lead as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

True, was unaware of how exactly Indian elections work, seems like it will take a while for all of the 'hype' around it cools down, in the mean time I will keep my eyes open if anything reliably citable does pop up 70.69.172.92 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

POV

I tried to soften the pov in the sentence

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

but was reverted by Vanamonde93.

Such a pov statment cannot be said in wikipedia's name, to be neutral you have at least to add "according to XX".

I checked the Republican party article (another article from a country with two large political parties), and even though some of its members are accused of christian fundamentalism or white supremacism, the Republican party article never uses pov-language like fundamentalism.

Another of the the POV problems is in the Hindutva section. 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 may have been bias in textbooks before or after the BJP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you, because those precise terms are used in the source. Besides which, virtually every historian agrees with the hardening of the BJP's stance post 1984; so what precisely are you arguing here? Do you have a source saying this did not happen? Comparisons to another article are not very meaningful. Make your arguments on the basis of policy, please. As for the NCERT section; provide a good source (not a quote from a BJP member) saying that the textbooks were indeed biased earlier, and I will be happy to include it.

Also, just a quick note; references do not have to be given at the end of every sentence, if multiple sentences are based on the same source. Please check the next source given before tagging something. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am now tagging the article with NPOV, because the issues have not been solved at all, only my tags were removed.

• -Bangladesh immigrants and refugees:

"The BJP has a stated policy of opposing "illegal" migration into Indian territory from Bangladesh. The party states that this opposition is because such migration, mostly in the states of Assam and West Bengal, threatens the security, economy, and stability of the country. Several academics have pointed out that the BJP refers to Hindu migrants from Bangladesh as refugees, and reserves the term "illegal" for Muslim migrants. Michael Gillan writes that this is an attempt to use an emotive issue to mobilize Hindu sentiment in a region where the party has not been historically successful."

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?

I would also like to see the quote on which the 3rd sentence ("Several academics...") is based, as I have not found them. 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)?

• "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 would like to see the quote that supports the statement about Hindu fundamentalism. I couldn't find it.

As I said already before, such a statement should also be written neutrally. You have to say, "according to ..."

• "Over the following weeks, waves of violence between Hindus and Muslims erupted all over the country, killing over 2000 people. "

I tagged this in the article, but the tag was removed by Vanamonde93. The source is Al Jazeera and says it is about Gujarat. But the official figures for Gujarat riots are much less than that. Why are not the official numbers used, but older/disputed numbers? --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I just removed your tag, for a simple reason; you are essentially disputing the veracity of the sources, which is rather unreasonable. As a general note, of course you won't find the wikipedia sentence in the source word for word; we paraphrase, to avoid copyvios and excessive length. To answer your specific points:

1) If the source says something about the Congress, go add it there. That is not a reason to remove it here, because the source very clearly supports the statement as currently written. I am unclear about the rest of that complaint; what do you mean by "most migrants would be minorities?"

2) Once again, every source I read (and I read many) talks about the shift towards Hindutva. If you find a source that says otherwise, you are welcome to add it. It does not say "so and so said" because every source says it.

3) The figure of 2000 deaths is accurate. Guha mentions it, as does the al-jazeera source. It is also the official figure. I think you are confusing it with the Gujarat riots, where the official figure is lower. Here is the quote from Guha: "The aftermath of the

event was, however, more deadly still. The main leaders of the BJP, such as L. K. Advani, were taken into protective custody, yet riots broke out in town after town, in an orgy of violence that lasted two months and claimed more than 2,000 lives."

If you have more substantive issues, please raise them. The current objections don't merit a tag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with the US Republican Party is false. White Supremacy was never the policy of the party, or a view held by any mainstream members of the party. I doubt more than a very tiny percentage of members would be white supremacist. Whereas Hindu supremacy is the core policy of the BJP.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Racism

The policies of the BJP is fundamentally based on Hindu nationalism. As is stated on its official website "Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism presents the BJP's conception of Indian nationhood". If an American party was founded on the concept of White Nationalism it would quite rightly be called a White Supremacist or even a Nazi party. Why is the BJP not described as a far right party?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bring us references which call it the far-to-the-right-most-end party and we will add it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

Hello, greetings to all. To be very fair, article missed list of controversies when NDA was in power and hardly maintains neutrality. It only mentions Gujarat Violence. I think article should also cover 2001 Indian Parliament attack, Demolition of the Babri Masjid, Barak Missile scandal, Operation West End, Indian Airlines hijack, etc. controversies which were occurred during Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. Thank you. --103.17.131.201 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article does in fact mention the demolition of the Babri masjid, and gives passing mention to the parliament attacks. The other incidents are not covered because Wikipedia does not report news. If you find reliable sources that give significant coverage to these incidents some time after they occurred, we can then consider including them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct, article covers given issues but without reliable sources it would be unfair to add controversies list by user. (My view).--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst and LK Advani book

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) is deleting the book from the Further reading section, claiming that they are fringe and not notable.

I do not think those 2 books are fringe on the BJP article (they would maybe be on the Indian National Congress page) and even if the autobio is not more notable than the other books, it is still notable.

You said previously Of all the hundreds of books you could have put in, you choose the two most likely to support a BJP POV? Now there are no books with a pro BJP pov left - as those left are critical. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Over the past twenty years or so, there have been a lot of books written that are vaguely related to the BJP, including histories, biographies, and autobiographies. We cannot include every one of them in this list. Therefore, ones we should include are books from neutral authors, ie academics. Which is what the other three books are. Koenrad Elst is very much a fringe figure, and not worthy of mention. I did not say Advani is not notable; but why is he more notable that any other BJP leader? And why is an autobiography a good "extra reading" to have? It would be, only on Advani's page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but there are not that many books that have BJP in the title. LK Advani is not just any BJP leader, he is one of the most prominent ones. But on second thought, I agree that an autobio should not be in this article. On Elst, I don't think 6 words in a 6,000 words article is undue weight. He is also not fringe in the context of Hindu nationalism or BJP. Yes, he is not the most neutral source, but the other sources are hardly neutral either. He is also quoted by the most prominent BJP leaders like LK Advani, even though he is not affiliated with the BJP. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. It's not 6 words out of 6000, it is one book out of 10 or so, which is definitely undue weight. There are relatively neutral academics around, he is unnecessary. Also, the fact that BJP leaders quote him is an argument against him; by that logic, all of SP Mookerjee's writings should be here too, which is absurd. So, please remove him. I haven't examined your other additions, but they seem fine at the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Elst is not a mainstream scholar and his views do not merit much weight relative to more mainstream scholarship.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You have to look at it in the context of the whole article, you can always say that any author has to much weight in single paragraph or even in a single sentence. If half of the books were by Elst or similar authors, or if he would be cited for every fifth argument, I would agree there is a problem, but complaining about a single line, not even a citation, in a 6,000 words article is just nitpicking or censorship. I agree he is not the most mainstream scholar, but in a neutral article, every viewpoint should be represented, and he is currently not overrepresented. SP Mookerjee is affiliated with the BJP, while Elst is not and self-identifies himself as a critic of the BJP in the book. The BJP leader quoted Elst as an unaffiliated author. From the intro of the book, it appears also that other prominent BJP politicians gave information for this particular book, "but of course they bear no responsibility whatsoever for its contents", those with wiki articles are: K.R. Malkani, R.K. Mishra Mr. Balbir Poonj, Kanchan Gupta --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, the argument is not about the entire article, but about the few sources in the "additional reading" section. Elst is being given ~10% of the space there, which is very much undue weight. At this point, you have not provided any new arguments, so I am removing the book, as it was not present in the status quo. What the BJP says about him, and where his info comes from, is not relevant here.Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, since this appears unclear to you, Wikipedia: Further reading says that this section is NOT about providing "the same number of sources from each [POV]" but rather that each source should be neutral and balanced. Elst definitely does not come into this category. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Having commented more on KE talkpages, I'm now more convinced that Elst is notable enough to be in the further reading section. Alone the fact that L.K. Advani, who "had always been the most powerful leader in the BJP with the exception of Vajpayee (and more recently Modi)", said this about Elst in his autobio: "Dr. Koenrad Elst, in his two-volume book titled The Saffron Swastika, marshals an incontrovertible array of facts to debunk slanderous attacks on the BJP by a section of the media" makes it notable enough to have one of his books mentioned. (The link you gave on Further reading above is an essay, and that each book must be neutral is not a requirement, otherwise many notable works could be removed from such sections.) --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, being a fringe figure is not the same as being non-notable. Second, Elst may be notable enough to have his own article; that does not make his views notable enough for the BJP page. His work is better known for dealing with Hindutva, not with the BJP in particular. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MoS of this article vs other major party articles

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 DEM and REP 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). --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Integral humanism

I have added npov, because the article does not discuss at all the official doctrine of BJP,which is Integral Humanism, and the short paragraph on it was recently removed, the article gives more weight to Hindutva, which is not the official doctrine and not part of the party's constitution, and not a doctrine officially supported by party leaders as is Integral Humanism. Many academic sources do focus more on the Hindutva aspect, but the Integral Humanism is the official doctrine and should be covered in the section.

The Integral Humanism aspcect is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted you, because you didn't make an attempt to raise the issue here first. In any case, Integral Humanism is barely mentioned in reliable sources, and so it deserves passing mention at best here. I will work on it, if you will not. Also, note that aspects of their official philosophy have been discussed; self-sufficiency, positive secularism, and so forth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Integral Humanism is the official doctrine of the party, and as such it deserves to be treated as much as Hindutva. Some sources are Elsts Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (he discusses it in about 15 pages), G. Heuze "Ou va l'inde moderne", and Graham "Hindu nationalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 12:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as the discussion on IH is missing, can we put this back into the article?: "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"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 12:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I found 133 references in Questia when I searched for the exact phrase "Integral Humanism". Vanamonde93, in these edits although the edit summary is "Adding/improving reference(s)" I see you have changed the content significantly and all earlier references were replaced. Could you go over the diff once again? For example this favorable (to bjp) statement was removed: " the decisive response and success of military operations bolstered its popularity and image of toughness on national security" and this unfavorable (to bjp) statement added: "They were seen as an attempt to display India's military prowess to the world, as well as a reflection of anti-Pakistan sentiment within the BJP". I kind of feel biased editing here though I may be wrong. Regards. --Jyoti (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I replaced media sources with academic ones, because that is best practice according to our policy. If you disagree with the policy, take it up with Jimbo. If you think I have added OR, then demonstrate where I have mis-represented my sources. Also, please add comments in sequence; it is very confusing otherwise, which is why I moved yours down. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, you response is tangential -- I neither expressed disagreement with any policy nor claimed synthesis by you. --Jyoti (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Calypso; the fact that it is "official" policy counts for very little; as per WP:DUE, we mention it as much as the RS mention it, and that is much less than the mentions given to Hindutva. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOVD tag added. This is the relevant discussion section. --05:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep your comments linear. My response was not the least tangential; I have, over the course of several months, attempted to improve the sourcing in this article, by replacing media sources with better ones, either academic journals or books. In this case, I performed the usual searches through academic databases, found what seemed to be the most direct discussions of BJP defence policy, and presented them here. If there is a bias, it is because party articles are often taken over by their supporters, and so any improvement from there will look unfriendly to the party. It is hardly specific to this page; the same may be said of the Congress page. The only reason I have not edited that, is that it has been undergoing major changes for a while, and I would rather not fight there as well......So what is the issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, because you have not brought up specific issues here. Is there something significant (other than IH, which I said I would add) which has been left out? Is there source mis-representation, or problems of undue weight? Besides, your issues are with one section; if you must tag something, tag the section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Vanamonde93, in these edits although the edit summary is "Adding/improving reference(s)" I see you have changed the content significantly and all earlier references were replaced. Could you go over the diff once again? For example this favorable (to bjp) statement was removed: " the decisive response and success of military operations bolstered its popularity and image of toughness on national security" and this unfavorable (to bjp) statement added: "They were seen as an attempt to display India's military prowess to the world, as well as a reflection of anti-Pakistan sentiment within the BJP". I kind of feel biased editing here though I may be wrong. Regards. I neither expressed disagreement with any policy nor claimed synthesis by you. --Jyoti (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly do not move my responses around at your will, you are detaching my response from appropriate place. --Jyoti (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved your responses because they were making things confusing; if you do not wish me to, I shall not do so again. The simplest way to connect them to a particular response is to ping the user involved. I have explained the diff. I found the most prominent academic sources, and summarized these here. Any "bias" you claim is an academic versus media bias, but policy says academic sources are better. What more explanation are you demanding? The new sources are better, so the old ones were removed; the new sources say (slightly) different things, so the content was changed. That's it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please don't move my response, I made them at the right place. I am not talking about academic versus media bias. Newspaper is also WP:SECONDARY and academic sources do not contradict them here, there is no need to purge such content. --Jyoti (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Defence and terrorism

Vanamonde93, in these edits although the edit summary is "Adding/improving reference(s)" I see you have changed the content significantly and all earlier references were replaced. Could you go over the diff once again? For example this favorable (to bjp) statement was removed: " the decisive response and success of military operations bolstered its popularity and image of toughness on national security" and this unfavorable (to bjp) statement added: "They were seen as an attempt to display India's military prowess to the world, as well as a reflection of anti-Pakistan sentiment within the BJP". I neither express disagreement with any policy nor claim synthesis by you. The edit summary do not reflect the actual edit done, you may want to improve it going forward. I took one example above, both content are referenced, why do you selectively inject un-favorable and eliminate favorable? Newspaper is also reliable and academic sources do not contradict them here, there is no need to purge such content.--Jyoti (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If my edit-summary was inadequate, then I apologize; perhaps it should have said "adding/improving refs and modifying content to fit." I "purged" the media refs, because of WP:DUE and WP:RS. The new sources are more reliable, and represent the general set of RS better, than the old ones. This is amply demonstrated if you look at each source that I removed;

1) Is a review of polls comparing Modi and Vajpayee, with only a few sentences giving tangential mention to defence policy under the latter..

2) Is an interview, without any editorial comments, hence essentially a primary source, and unreliable. Moreover, it is highly critical of the BJP government; and you claim I removed only positive material?

3) A biography of Vajpayee, which is only used to support the statement about mobilization; this can be re-added if people so wish, but it has only passing mention in most sources.

4) Rediff.com, certainly not very reliable.

And once again, to tag something, you need to raise a specific issue; you have not done so. My edits appear non-neutral, because the earlier version was non-neutral in the opposite direction; the outcome is neutral, and so you have no cause for a tag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were inadequate, it is alright, just take care in future. I think I have raised specific issue. Could you refrain from declaring judgement that your edits are neutral? Do you have an academic source that contradicted the ones from paper? You did not merely introduce new references you purged the earlier content and their references. I am not objecting to you adding academic sources. I am objecting to you removing unchallenged content from other reliable source. I see that you have been editing this page for quite long, I will place my trust on your understanding, I have made no edits to this article. If you think you are doing it the right way I am fine with it, I do see you are probably still working on this article. Let this section remain if any other editor wants to comment and you may remove the tag after few days (at least a week). --Jyoti (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I can live with a tag for a short while. Thanks for assuming good faith; as you've noticed, this is not an isolated change. I have been shifting the article towards academic sources for a while, and I am familiar with the literature. To clarify further why these are more appropriate; when copious academic sources exist, as in this case, it is far easier to evaluate due weight than it would be for media sources, even if the media sources are reliable; because authors reference each other, criticise each other, and so forth; also, the process of academic publication is such that recentism is avoided. As to the "unchallenged content;" some of it was challenged, which is why the addition of the "seen as" qualifier; the rest of it was removal because of undue weight. The newspapers will report a hundred things about defence policy (each and every purchase, for instance, and every border foray by militants); but mentioning these would be undue. Is that clearer? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is more to the point, clearer. :-) --Jyoti (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

BJP President

Amit Shah has been appointed as BJP party president. Please modify. Thanks. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)