Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

No Mention of the BJP IT CELL

I am yet to recover from the shock after finding out that this page does not mention IT Cell anywhere. I wonder how it reached GA status. The BJP IT CELL, seems to be notable enough to have its own article. And at the very least a section dedicated on this page. Several books have been written on it. The Award winning "I am a Troll" being one of them. The only mention of BJP IT cell was found in this biography at Prodyut_Bora#National_Convenor,_IT_Cell_(2007-09)--DBigXrayᗙ 07:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

So wikipedia is also biased! dhillon 14:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj2092 (talk • contribs)

No It means something is found lacking in the article, and I pointed the problem here so that someone can WP:FIXITDBigXrayᗙ 14:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

BJP IT Cell currently re-directs to BJP. Suggest adding it as a section on the BJP page itself? Prad2609 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Prad2609, yes. please add. DBigXrayᗙ 16:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The page reached GA status soon after the party won the 2014 general election. Its activities since then aren't covered in detail, which is a problem that needs to be fixed. I haven't had the time to fix it, and apparently, no one else has either. Incidentally, if the IT cell is that important, it ought to have it's own article, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Internal party democracy

Does the BJP hold any internal party elections at lower level such as village, city ward, taluka, district etc.? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• BJP India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

I'm starting this thread to initiate a discussion on "ideology" mentioned against BJP. Please feel free to weigh in.

Classifying BJP as "Right Wing" seems like a misappropriation and forcefully trying to paint this political party a shade for the heck of it. Party itself has never claimed any such wing based association and their policies have glimpses across the political ideology spectrum. Counter-vies are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bmmanjesh (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, but let's give some context from my talk page where you said: "who is going to decide what is reliable source? Some leftist group of people? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be what people say? Put it to public poll and let people's opinion decide. You can't decide you are the sole caretaker of "truth" and others aren't." " Using a news article or a book as reference is equally misleading because a news article or a book too are "someone's opinion". So, it is better to go with what factual information indicates or official classification in the absence of factual information. In India, except CPI(M) and other communist parties, none of the major political outfits such as BJP, INC, AAP subscribe to "wing-based" politics. Why trying to force it upon Indian polity? Looks malevolent and some kind of vilification against the country to make it fit into a Western dogma." Doug Weller talk 10:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

‎Bmmanjesh, I asked you on your talk page to read WP:DUE. You clearly have either not done so, or failed to understand it. Our description of the BJP matches what the highest-quality sources say about it. What the public thinks, or what you or I think, is utterly irrelevant. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 This thread was started before that... I am quite unsure of your opinion ["What the public thinks" is utterly irrelevant] is in line with Wikipedia ethos. But I prefer to ignore it for now.

Doug Weller Yes, I said that and still stand by it. Trying to impose Western dogma of "wing" politics on India is quite bizarre. But, that feeling is niche at this moment (even in India) and popular among certain intellectual circles. (Personally, I find the whole "wing based" identity politics quite archaic and unintelligent in today's world irrespective of the country). So, I get that Wikipedia tries to go with popular opinions which is a good thing. I recently started to be active on the editing side of Wiki. So, guidelines were overlooked I guess.

Bmmanjesh (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

Manasbose, you make a couple of dozen edits with no edit summaries whatsoever. This is not good. Please remove the colours you have added to the text. Otherwise, I would be forced to revert all your edits at one go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• BJP Election Symbol.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lotus BJP.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BJP election symbol.svg -783x768.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• BJP election symbol.svg -783x768.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing cn tags

Regarding revision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&oldid=968894578 Aman.kumar.goel if the information is already sourced, at least go to the effort of repeating the inline citations at the end of the lead, so it is clear where the claims are actually coming from. As of the moment, it is entirely unclear. VineFynn (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not redundant, if the reader cannot see where the claim is coming from it is not properly cited. VineFynn (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

VineFynn It is very much. Most users go through lead just to have an incite. So a lead essentially should be a excerpt from article. Indeed adding same citations for same thing everywhere is redundant and unnecessary congestion of lead. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is in fact codified in the MOS at WP:CITELEAD. I personally find it helpful to insert them in the lead on contentious articles, but it's quite clearly not a requirement. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also codified in the manual of style that it depends on the contentiousness of the subject matter, and I already stated in two seperate change notes, the statement is pretty obviously contentious in a political sense.

One other thing codified in the manual of style is that you should probably just add citations when people ask for them instead of cavilling. VineFynn (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

National conservatism

I am concerned that this does not represent what most sources say. Of the three sources cited, only one actually supports this text. Aman.kumar.goel, please explain why you've cited page 263 of a 224-page book, or how "nationalist-conservative" on page 78 [1] is the equivalent of the specific ideology of national conservatism. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I assume these terms are interchangeable. Another equivalent is "National conservative". This can be added as a better source. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how the terms are interchangeable; also, you haven't answered my question about the other source. The new source you found isn't really a book, it's a diploma thesis released by a self-publishing company, and so it isn't reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is self-published source so it cannot be used, but which 'other source' you are referring to? Cms.org.pl? It says "national-conservative Indian People’s Party (Bharatiya Janata Party – BJP)", and it is written by a Polish political scientist. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pathik source, for which I see you've corrected the page number. I do not have access to page 62; can you provide a quote? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That source calls Hindutva to be national conservative in nature while describing the ideological basis of BJP. It can be removed since we have better sources available for this information. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My point is, it's still mentioned at all only in a handful of sources, and so likely constitutes undue weight. I would like to see substantially more sourcing before it's retained in the infobox. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed until more detailed sources are discovered. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Deputy CM

Is Deputy Chief Minister notable enough to remain in this article? -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Manasbose: Do you mean the list? Probably not, both for reasons of due weight and practicality. It's only possible today because the list of deputy chief ministers isn't that long, but given how fast state governments can turn over it's likely to grow quickly. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

Hi @Vanamonde93: the "Right-wing populism" ideology in the infobox should be removed immediately. Because the first source is stated by a journalist of a news outlet which is noted for Pro-BJP. The Daily News and Analysis redirects to Zee News; it does not qualify in WP:RSP. Its more like an opinion article. The second source page 23 does not mention anything about BJP's affiliation towards Right-wing populist ideology. In the entire book no where does it mention about BJP. I have checked thoroughly. Without reliable sources it is better to remove that ideology. Also, add Neoliberalism in the infobox, which the party is historically noted for. Thanks--202.78.236.6 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wodak et al source does not support "right-wing populism". I agree that a single DNA piece isn't sufficient; I will look for more sourcing, and have removed the label pending further sources. I don't see how anything at RSP supports your claim that DNA is a generally unreliable source, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Bharatiya jinnah party" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bharatiya jinnah party. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 26#Bharatiya jinnah party until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Add Welfare / Welfare capitalism in the infobox?

While doing some search I found this which calls BJP a Welfare party. Hence I did some more searches. And there I found lots of other references mentioning BJP as Welfare capitalist party. So should we add it in the infobox? Please leave your opinions. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a reliable source; see also my reply above. The infobox is meant for summary, not including every detail; that's what the text is for. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Changing Party type from "Right-Wing" only to "Centre-Right or Right-wing"

I think that "Right-Wing" here comes from many assumptions and biases, as many steps taken by the party do not reflect its ideology to be right-winged, like lifting the ban on LGBT communities from practicing their rights, and many more, therefore it's social democratic platform should be considered in the "centre to centre-right" of politics and accordingly changes on the Wiki page should occur. This is a suggestion and speculation on how this article's page is worded when compared to other Indian political party Wiki pages, it seems biased. UltraWikipedion (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian right can't be equated to that of western one over same definitions of progressivism given that set of Indian philosophical thoughts is different from those in west or middle east. Atheism, homosexuality and third geneders etc. weren't really barred in Indian religions. BJP's pursuit of soft and aggressive stances or centre left positions on few issues, at multiple instances of time may be able to make a case. But this context cannot. This political party essentially is Indian right or right wing in Indian contexts where its "majority" leans. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So, now I want to know does such terms like "Right Wing" which have general common usage on Wikipedia allow for especial context uses as in here, which might give a foreign reader a false view of the party ideology, I would then suggest to change it to Indian Right and construct a page or link the wiki definition of the same. UltraWikipedion (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to change this description, they need to demonstrate that the current one does not reflect what most reliable sources say about the topic. Anything else is original research, and does not carry much weight. I'm no fan of the one-dimensional political spectrum for classification myself; but it's what most authors use, and for better or for worse we're stuck with it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Even analytically, the concensus among authors is best to go with. BJP has a history of softened stances to aggressive policies. Barely any scholastic sources call it a centre right or far right party. It being at least right wing is a concensus though and can be displayed undisputedly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I'm wondering if we work upon splitting "Ideology" in infobox into majority & factions? Would help in reflecting both, protectionist policies as well as neoliberal positions of party. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, we would need a source discussing ideological disparities within the party. There's already some discussion of protectionist sentiment in the RSS vs liberalization during the first NDA government, but that can happen because some sources specifically made that comparison. Sources that just talk about one or the other are insufficient. Also, unless there's a large quantity of them, they are going to be undue weight in the infobox and are better treated in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that opinion. The BJP is a clear "right-wing" party and is based on anti-Islamic sentiment, nationalism and Hindu tradition.--삭은사과 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

BJP clearly has no anti-Islamic sentiment, as by passing The Muslim Women Act, 2019 and criminalizing the Triple Talakh in India, they showed that ensuring basic Human Rights for everyone is a need, irrespective of religion and empowered the Muslim Women. The Hindu Tradition already establishes the idea and need for secularism. As far as the Nationalism is concerned, there is a Basic need for politicians and especially the leaders to be nationalistic, and if they are not, I am afraid, what do they want to do with the country and where do they want to lead it ? UltraWikipedion (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree : BJP clearly is a very diverse political party which includes policies from centre-right to right wing. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment : BJP has many socially “Liberal” policies including Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, women's reservation bill, transgender rights and welfare schemes and woman marriage age reform and woman empowerment. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

References

 Disagree : I still think that in the strong region of the BJP, the absurdity by the cattle vigilante, the honor murder, and the caste system is serious. Objection to describe as 'Centre-right to right-wing' in the corresponding document infobox. This party is still a 'Right-wing' party.--삭은사과 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what are you even talking about. In most cases the “cow vigilantes" are not even primary members of the BJP. And you mentioned “honor murder” and “caste system”, could you explain what do you even mean? -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree UltraWikipedion, the party is definitely moderate right on a lot of issues but further right on others. "Centre-Right or Right-wing" would be a better descriptor. May also be important to note how despite the INC's socialist history, the party's political position is described as a mere "Centre to centre-left". Prolix 💬 14:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Essentially all of this argumentation is original research. It doesn't matter what policies the BJP has passed, or what it's various members have gotten up to. What reliable sources say about its ideology is all that matters. If you want to change the descriptor in the infobox, Manasbose, you need to demonstrate that "centre-right" is a more common descriptor than "right-wing"; reams of information about specific government policies doesn't count for anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, the issue here is 'centre-right' as a term is rarely used in media reporting if at all. Party ideologies tend to be boiled down to the binaries of left/right. That said, there are sources that talk about BJP's recent shift toward the centre:

  There are other sources that refer to BJP as a centre right party:

  No one here is advocating for a change of the descriptor to 'Centre-Right' only. 'Centre-Right or Right-wing' definitely adds more nuance given their changing stance on various issues. Prolix 💬 15:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Prolix:, I'm not really referring to the Indian media, but to books and scholarly sources, which overwhelmingly refer to the BJP as "right-wing". Detailed articles about the BJP in the international media also overwhelmingly use "right-wing". WP:DUE does not permit any other descriptor under the circumstances. Also, intentionally or otherwise, you're playing a little fast and loose with the sources. You've offered an interview and an opinion piece as evidence for changing positions; The Diplomat source does not describe the BJP as center-right; the HT source suggests it moved towards the center, and then has moved again towards hardline Hindutva; the FPJ journal, aside from being of dubious reliability, is explicitly making the point that Modi's BJP is more ideologically extreme than the BJP of the early 90s. In other words, none of your sources are good enough for the argument you are making, and two of them actively contradict it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, Opinion sources are fair game, if a party's political ideology was a matter of fact then their recent policies as pointed out by Manasbose are valid. The HT source doesn't even mention Hindutva in context to BJP's current politics, it only speaks of discontent that has formed in the NDA of late, you seem to be paraphrasing quite liberally here. The diplomat source was meant to demonstrate the BJP joining the IDU which describes itself as the 'global alliance of the centre right'. I agree with you on the FPJ source though, it does indeed seem to contradict my stance. I am not proposing my sources as an end all repository of information upon which to base this change. I do feel that reliable sources are a must but you're advocating for waiting for books and scholarly sources which could take years to document a change in the party's politics which has primarily taken place in the past year or so. So what do you propose as a stopgap until research papers and books become available? Prolix 💬 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Opinion sources are most certainly not fair game for factual information, unless the authors themselves are considerable authorities on the subject (and often, not even then). "What would you propose as a stopgap" is a leading question. The "right-wing" descriptor reflects what high-quality reliable sources currently say about the party. If and when consensus among such sources changes, we update the article, as required by WP:DUE. No stopgap is necessary, and any change that isn't based on assessing the consensus of reliable sources would be a policy-violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Moreover, please do not under any circumstances describe good faith edits as vandalism, as you did here. If you did that by accident, you owe 삭은사과 an apology; if you did so on purpose, you need to carefully read WP:NOTVAND. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, It wasn't an accident and I hadn't read WP:NOTVAND before, I'll be more careful next time. Thanks for pointing this out! Prolix 💬 18:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, both the currently cited sources for BJP's 'right wing' ideology are more than a decade old. Those studies are clearly outdated and do not reflect the party's current position. Should Wikipedia use outdated sources to justify its content? Prolix 💬 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Switching the references is a trivial matter; the important question is whether contemporary sources use the same language, and overwhelmingly, they do. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, What are these contemporary sources though? If they exist why haven't they been added to this article? Prolix 💬 18:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Here's a few; [2], [3], [4], [5]. They haven't been added because, as I said before, it isn't urgent; recent sources do not differ from older ones in their assessment of the BJP's general ideology. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, thanks for linking these. I think if a more recent source is available and is on par or better than the previous one it should be replaced or added alongside the existing sources. Prolix 💬 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I support keeping the position as 'right-wing'. This is well sourced. There are some sources that call it a 'centre right' or 'far right' party, but these are a minority. Right-wing is a good compromise.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Liberal Conservative

Since we're already talking about right wing or centre right, I propose adding Liberal conservatism in the ideology of the party. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

also propose addition of economic liberalisation as already mentioned in it's economics policy section. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree : I think the BJP is still not moderate enough to be called a center-right. --삭은사과 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

삭은사과, that is not pertinent to this discussion. If you don't have an opinion on this issue I suggest you strike your comment. Prolix 💬 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree Manasbose, I definitely think that economic liberalisation should be added to the ideology section. The recent privatization announcements and the reduction in business regulations shows a further shift of the party towards liberalisation and should be represented in the infobox. Not too sure about liberal conservatism though since the government is also reluctant on free trade with certain countries not to mention the plethora of tariffs they've added lately. Prolix 💬 14:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please provide reliable sources showing that the party is broadly described as being "Liberal Conservative". Also, "economic liberalisation" is not an ideology. The relevant ideological descriptor is "neoliberalism", which is in fact often used for the BJP, and which I have no objection to adding. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Vanamonde93, kindly add 'neoliberalism' when possible. Prolix 💬 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93: would you please add Neoliberalism in the infobox with Source 1 Page 207 Source 2 or Source 3. Whichever you find suitable. Thanks--103.102.116.221 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on finding sources; why are you in such a hurry? You may use the edit-request template, if you cannot wait for me to do some searches. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now added "neoliberalism", with accompanying sources, two of which are contemporary and one of which refers to the Vajpayee government. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent Job @Vanamonde93. You could have clubbed three sources under one ref. So that it would look less clutter inside the infobox. Thanks--103.102.116.221 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

'Neoliberalism' is rarely used in Wikipedia political party infoboxes as it is often used as a vague pejorative; there are very few parties that identify themselves as 'neoliberal' – it tends to be a label applied by those opposed to said party (e.g. the 'Feminist Review', which is one of the journal sources used in the infobox). 'Economic liberalism' is used in the infobox of virtually every other political party that advocates for liberal economic policies. That said, it is mistaken to describe the BJP as either neoliberal or economically liberal without describing the post-1990s Indian National Congress the same way (you can find many sources calling that party neoliberal). Unlike Western 'neoliberals'/economic liberals, BJP politicians never cite the thinkers mentioned on the WP neoliberalism page like Hayek and Friedman; neither do they hail the free market itself. Their support for economically liberal reforms – like the Congress, and like most Western social democratic parties – is on an issue-by-issue basis rather than an ideological one. They just as often adopt economically populist or economic nationalist policies (economic nationalism was formerly in the infobox for this page). One policy example is retail, where the BJP takes a much more economic nationalist stance against the involvement of foreign multinational companies than the Congress does. One of the signature policy initiatives of the Modi government was the 2016 demonetisation, which was overwhelmingly opposed by liberal economists and was similar to policy undertaken by the socialist government of Venezuela in the same year. Furthermore, there are policy differences between the economic approaches taken by the Vajpayee and Modi governments.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Jay942942, thank you for your original research but as it has been pointed out in the discussions above, there are plenty of sources that support the addition of neoliberalism as an ideology for BJP. Prolix 💬 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not original research. There are plenty of sources that support the addition of neoliberalism as an ideology for the Congress. Even the Gopalakrishnan source used to describe BJP as neoliberal in the infobox describes Congress as "India's main neoliberal political force". If the two parties have the same ideology, what's the purpose of including it at all?--Jay942942 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Further, the Wikipedia page for neoliberalism calls it "the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism", not an ideology in itself. It also describes it as a very vague term: "the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly debate".--Jay942942 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• The fact remains that "Neoliberalism" is a widespread descriptor of the BJP's policy. Whether the party itself adheres to that isn't relevant; political parties very often dislike the descriptors used for them. If "Neoliberal" is used for the INC by the preponderance of sources exploring its economic policy, then go ahead and add it there; that's not relevant to this page, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding 'liberal conservatism' as upon searching for them, there seem to be very few sources that support this claim.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Populism

Hi @Vanamonde93:, Please add Populism ideology in the infobox as majority of the sources state that the party has some sort of adherence to the ideology. Though this may be prevalent during Modi's regime nonetheless since its inception it do follows populist principals whether its on economic or on social issues. Also note majority of the sources state only "Populism" not "Right-wing populism". Check these sources Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 Thanks--103.102.116.221 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not, thanks. The infobox is meant to reflect the prominent descriptors of party ideology, not every single one. It's far too cluttered as it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It would have been better if you had add this ideology. Anyway since you're not keen to add any more new ideology in the infobox and keep only the notable ones. Fine. One request I have please club the three sources of Neoliberalism under one ref in the infobox. It would look the infobox less clutter. Thanks--103.102.116.221 (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing populism is central to the BJP's ideology, and is well sourced in international media. I would strongly support returning it to the infobox.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Please remove "Right-wing populism" ideology from the infobox immediately, a new user added that ideology without much discussion on the talk page. Moreover the sources do not confirm that ideology. Thanks--202.78.236.33 (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop asking me to make every edit on your behalf. I have watchlisted this page, but I do not have the time to check or perform every last edit. If you have an edit you wish to make, please use the edit-request template, or better yet, register an account so eventually you can make the edits yourself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

Please remove "Right-wing populism" ideology from the infobox immediately, a new User:Jay942942 added that ideology on 8th October without much discussion on the talk page and reaching consensus. Moreover the sources do not confirm that ideology at all. Either provide reliable sources or else remove it. Thanks--202.78.236.33 (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The linked reliable sources *do* confirm the party's ideology as right-wing populist; FWIW I would personally consider the neoliberal tag less explicit than right-wing populism. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bjp student wing

Bjp has no student wing.. abvp is not bjp's wing Its rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh's wing Sanmay5336 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden's cabinet

I don't see how this content is relevant to the BJP's foreign policy; it reflects Biden's policies, not the BJP's. If you disagree, please establish consensus for it's inclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

INCREASE THE SEAT NUMBER IN RAJYA SABHA TO 95 BY 3 SEATS MORE (2 IN GUJRAT AND 1 IN ASSAM) 157.34.84.121 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources for the changes you'd like made, then change the template back to answered=no and someone will take a look again. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)