Talk:Rahul Gandhi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal

Much of this talk page has been [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Hornplease 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of this talkpage has been removed per WP:BLP; see diff [1]. Hornplease 04:46, 9 April 2007

Someone as high profile in politics as Rajiv Gandhi should not be ashamed to declare his own religion so that people can understand his motivation for his statement and policies.

Can someone upload the photo from the CiC-Indian Government website? Its in the public domain according to Indian copyright law. Tri400 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it qualifies for PD everywhere, though. Shall check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 04:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Rahul Gandhi's Religious Affiliation

Where are the media enquiries that say Rahul Gandhi studied as Raul Vinci? I could only stumble upon blogs which claim so. Couldn't find any media references. Until someone comes up with a verifiable source proving the claim, let the section be marked as disputed. Can the statement be deleted upon failure to bring up verifiable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperornutz (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its true he holds Italian Visa Is Rahul Gandhi an Indian Citizen ? If Yes, then please attach a scan copy of His Indian passport, His name on Passport and Italian Visa.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.165.73 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 

Controversies

Clean up/Weasels

I have added the two tags- in particular, the article really needs a fairly extensive rewrite in order to improve the English and get the meaning across more appropriately. There are some instances of weasels in there also- particularly edits like 'For reasons that are open to speculation, there have never been an effort to refute this from the Congress Party or from his family.'; speculation by whom? What kind of speculation? I don't know nearly enough about the subject to resolve these issues. Badgerpatrol 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

HinduUnity.org Controversy

Okay, I don't really give much credit to the allegations, but now that Rahul Gandhi has responded with a libel case and HU forums has been shut down, this whole affair deserves some mention. --SohanDsouza 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the part on WP:BLP at the top of the page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."--SohanDsouza 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Hopefully someone with more time/energy will mention, accurately and in the spirit of WP:BLP, recent controversies surrounding the subject of this article that refer to what some others have mentioned above. [[2]], [[3]] Rubber soul 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman vs. Hornplease POV Dispute

I think that while there has been much notable criticism of this particular individual and his prominence in Indian politics, the particular insertion of a single isolated quote from a non-notable individual is clear POV-pushing, in an attempt to link the subject of this article with the linkfarm that is the Anti-Hindu article. If other individuals can be found repeating the allegation - which is really has no informative content, and is merely an expression of contempt - I will of course revise my suspicions. Till then, it seems undue weight given to a minortity opinion. Hornplease 04:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He is quite a notable figure, selective BLP "policing" is irrelevant here. The quote in fact did not link to the article. You lie once, then you lie more to cover up the lies you already lied about. The opinion by Malhotra, former head of the Janata Party, BJP Parlimentary spokesman, Deputy leader in Lok Sabha, chief whip etc. One doesnt need to be a Singh, Advani, Jaitley, or Modi to be notable. There are plenty of notable figures.Bakaman 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read BLP. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this allegation is notable - in that it caused a furore, was widely reported, was hotly denied, had any impact at all; that it is well-documented in multiple published sources, and that it does not represent the views of a tiny minority. You have not demonstrated any of that, unlike I tend to do if I wish to add unpleasant material. Hornplease 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please indicate what you mean by 'selective'? Are there any articles you wish to direct my attention to?Hornplease 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's merely a sampling, taken from a 5 second google search that you were obviously too scared to execute sify, the tribune, dna India. It is well documented in multiple reliable sources and henceforth and attempts to whitewash this legitimate criticism will be counted as vandalism, a fairly charitable description of your edits vis a vis Hinduism related pages.Bakaman 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And how have you demonstrated it does not represent the views of a tiny minority, viz. this Malhotra person? You must admit, it is a little insane. Hornplease 08:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and do be silent about 'vandalism'. Until you discover what a reliable source is, presumably when sitting under an apple tree and being hit on the head by the Encylopaedia Britannica, you had best not accuse people policing the degeneration of this resource of vandalism. Hornplease 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided multiple mainstream links (its on every major newspaper in India). Your analogy is impotent and ridiculous, and I note that I dont need TerryJ-Ho's acolyte to lecture me about anything.Bakaman 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accusations, not multiple repetitions of the same accusation. Do try to keep up, my dear chap, you slow us all down so much.

Who the hell is Terry-j-ho?

Do you even know what acolyte means? Hornplease 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you are unable to read {{cquote|The Bharatiya Janata Party on Tuesday expressed outrage over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's remarks BJP - Rahul's remarks anti-Hindu. Since english is my first language I am aware that an acolyte is a devoted follower, and you are a devoted follower of terryjho, BhaiSaab and company. Bakaman 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite able to read that. The reference is to what that particular leader said, again, as a simple perusal of the article - an approach I have been recommending to you for months! - would indicate. BLP requires multiple accusations from notable figures to be reported in order to qualify for an article of someone who receives this much press - a figure this public.

I am pleased to discover that English is your first language. However, the lack of willingness to read and hastiness with citations are far greater impediments than any language barrier.

I am not sure why I am detailed as a detailed follower of a bunch of banned, disruptive users. Unlike you, I satisfy none of the requirements for tendentiousness. Also, I have no sympathy for their POV, or POV-pushers in general. At least you have that in common with them, as well as with Kelkar, whom I notice I am not a follower of. Hornplease 09:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been covered in multiple news sources. Anything related to babri in dozens of mainstream newspapers is notable. Vijay Kumar Malhotra is notable, being in rank similar to a Union_Minister. The criticism is notable, and it was documented in a dispassionate, verbatim manner.Bakaman 01:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It is a single statement made by a party functionary. We have a threshold for inclusion in articles, and every negative statement made about a major public figure simply does not cut it. As I said, multiple accusations from notable figures to be reported in order to qualify for an article of someone who receives this much press - a figure this public. Please stop re-adding this material. you have been reprimanded for edit warring just recently. Hornplease 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Samajwadi parties and the Left Front also used the same moniker. People have called him anti-Muslim as well (same TOI link). Gandhi seems to be a magnet for controversy. It really isnt my fault your views on Gandhi do not resonate with a large section of the major political figures in India.Bakaman 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the man, merely asked for an additional reference. If you wish to add the TOI article, do so, with the entire quote. Hornplease 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rahul gandhi's Picture

• File:Http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=bagish.wordpress.com&url=http://www.esearchclick.com/blog/2009/12/most-searched-in-2009/

• File:Http://im.rediff.com/money/2008/mar/31rahul.jpg

Lead Section

I propose improvement of lead section as it had only few lines and articles is very looking quite nuteral so we must increase the content in lead section with nuteral refrences sources. I had removed an unsourced claim from lead section. If some one have some source if will request him to restore it with that source. Regards(Sandeep 09:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

College Education

No mention at all of his time at St. Stephen's (he left after a year)? Also the link to the article purportedly about his graduating from Rollins doesn't work, and the claim that his move was due to security concerns seemingly needs a citation as well. 140.247.5.185 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"but his academic records show that he attempted to obtain the said degree in 2004-2005, and failed to secure passing grades in National Economic Planning and Policy." why is Bold being used? It reeks of political propoganda. Is this information even accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.157.70 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not a trinity college almam matter, so please stop refering him as one. check reference in the relevant section. --Krishna Kumar 00:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Rollins College is not part of University of Florida — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinpremraj (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done

The information on his college degrees are false, please edit that information from the wikipedia source. Rahul gandhi never graduated from cambridge university, this information is misguiding, you can confirm this information from the cambridge university.

Without any concrete evidence about this person's qualification should not be mentioned on the page.

Rahul gandhi was terminated from Harvard University due to lack of IQ.Apatroticindian (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)--Apatroticindian (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Drroadies, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. THERE IS NO PROOF

Swiss Bank Accounts Swiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte [2] in 11 November 1991 revealed that Rahul was the beneficiary of accounts worth $2 billion dollars controlled by his mother Sonia Gandhi.[37][38] Harvard scholar Yevgenia Albats cited KGB correspondence about payments to Rajiv Gandhi and his family, which had been arranged by Viktor Chebrikov,[39][40] which shows that KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov sought in writing an "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi" from the CPSU in December 1985. Payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family and "have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.[39] In 1992 the media confronted the Russian government with the Albats disclosure. The Russian government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure and defended it as necessary for "Soviet ideological interest."[40] On 14 June 2002, the Delhi High Court peremptorily dismissed a Writ Petition (WP(C) 3856/2002)[41][verification needed] filed by Janata Party President, former Union minister and frivolous litigator Dr. Subramanian Swamy[42][verification needed] seeking CBI inquiry into allegations by a Russian journalist Dr. Albats that KGB funds were paid to members of the Gandhi family.[citation needed] Boston Airport In 2005 Four lawyers including Prem Chandra Sharma filed a public litigation petition in the High Court. They requested that information be made available to the public in regards to an incident on September 21, 2001 at Boston Airport where Rahul Gandhi and his Spanish girlfriend Veronique[43] were detained by the FBI for questioning, and verification if Mr. Gandhi was carrying $200,000 in cash which he was unable to explain to the airport authorities.[44][45] The lawyers provided further evidence that Mr. Gandhi's release may have been secured by Brajesh Misra the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to the Indian ambassador to the US and the Union Home Secretary to make a disclosure about the episode.[44] However previously, The Hindu newspaper had reported that according to "a senior" Indian diplomat there had been no involvement by the Indian envoy to the US in the matter.[45]

Drroadies (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The section you copied appears to have many inline citations to reliable sources. Those sources appear to support the content. Please provide any conflicting sources you have and suggest how to change the content to include the existing sources and your conflicting sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been removed yesterday by an editor who has done few other edits. I reverted it together with changes that introduced spelling errors by the same editor, and some vandalism that occurred later. When I did so, I overlooked the edit summary "Deleted para titled "Boston Airport" as charges were never filed nor substantiated.", and I apologize for writing "deleted referenced text without apparent reason" in my edit summary. Still, I don't think the edit was helpful. If they were not substantiated, the correct and honest way to deal with that is to find a reliable source saying so, and add it to the section. In that case, the section can be shortened, and may even not deserve a section of its own, but if it's not mentioned at all, how should people know that it was unsubstantiated? — Sebastian 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be deleted in part, particularly because atleast some of the references point not to a investigative news article but to a weekly column written by a Gurumurthy where he has expressed his opinion not backed up by fact. I think we must recognise the difference between a NEWS piece detailing the subjects alleged wealth and a columnist writing his opinion. Ashlonerider (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He hasnt done Masters in Economics from Harvard latter he was forced to remove it from his bio data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.165.73 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of this page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Weasel language, and grammar error to boot

One user keeps adding "one of" to "the most prominent political family", thereby repeatedly introducing a grammar error. Even if it weren't for the grammar error, it is questionable how this edit improves the article. It may make sense when the status of most prominent family is contentious, but that doesn't seem to be the case in India. It raises the obvious question: Who are the other most prominent political families? If we can't point to at least some contenders, then I feel the addition is Weasel language that we better do without. I posted that question at Talk:Nehru–Gandhi family first and I would ask to keep the discussion there since it is about the family, not about Rahul. — Sebastian 04:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ashlonerider, 21 Dec 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} THE FOLLOWING SECTION ON NIIRA RADIA NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. Reason being: Gross misrepresentation of facts.

The entire section is based on the story carried in outlook which has been quoted selectively to portray that Rahul Gandhi is somehow linked to the controversy. There is a single mention of "Rahul", but no further mention of Rahul Gandhi. How can one be so sure that the Rahul being spoken about here is indeed Rahul Gandhi?

At the very least we should look for more sources to corroborate that Rahul being talked about is indeed Rahul Gandhi. --Ashlonerider (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ashlonerider, 22 Dec 2010

The section on "Comparison between RSS and SIMI", the OP had made a very biased entry, right down to accusing the concerned individual of loosing his mental balance! The reference given is a link to an article in the Pioneer, a news outlet run by Chandan Mitra, a BJP MP. That orig post read as follows.

Orig entry:

Comparison of RSS and SIMI

During a visit to Madhya Pradesh in October 2010, he compared the RSS with the banned terrorist organization SIMI saying RSS is also fanatical and fundamental like SIMI. These statements of his, got huge criticism from different quarters of the country. The BJP reaction was - "Only a sick mind can do it (compare RSS to SIMI). He seems to have lost his mental balance."

I edited this to a more neutral POV with appropriate links to reference from generally neutral sources like Outlook and the Times.

New post:

Comparison of RSS and SIMI

Mr.Rahul Gandhi has been consistent in his criticism of right-wing groups like the RSS and SIMI throughout his career, a view that has bought him accolades as well as criticism. On 6th October 2010, while on a tour of Madhya Pradesh, he clearly outlined that according to him, the RSS and the SIMI were the same and that both held fundamentalist views. This has clearly been a long held belief with Gandhi Jr. since he is alleged to have repeated the same point of view in conversations with the US officials as was revealed by WikiLeaks cables.

The reaction from the BJP was predictably bitter. "Only a sick mind can do it (compare RSS to SIMI). He seems to have lost his mental balance."

Leaders from other parties however have defended the statements made by Rahul Gandhi pointing out to the involvement of the RSS related groups in recent incidents in Malegaon and Ajmer.

---

This entry was deleted and the original biased entry was restored by someone. can someone please intervene to ensure that the neutrality of the page is maintained and biased POV's like the original Post are neutralised? Ashlonerider (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favour of including this as it may be a big news right now but will be forgotten in a week. It is really no big deal. The Congress says something and the BJP operplays it and blast the Congress and then vice-versa. I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

the section in the way it was originally written out should never have been there as it was a tu-tu main-main rendition.

I edited the entry to reflect a broader picture of what Rahul has been consistently saying, one of his pet-themes if you will, of domestic right-wing terror being a greater threat to India than external terror. Hope this edit reflects this.

Ashlonerider (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is biased in referring to the "right-wing RSS" -- why is this descriptor automatically attached to the RSS, but "left-wing" is not automatically attached to other groups or parties? The selective prefacing of such descriptors serves to project some organizations as "deviants" while the omission of comparable descriptors for others then makes them seem "normal" by comparison. The article should not seek to legitimize or de-legitimize rival opinions or political views through such embellishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.141.37 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu sentiment exposed by Wikileaks

This section, starting from its title is pure POV pushing. The wikileaks "expose" being referred to here talks about how Rahul Gandhi talked to US officials highlighting the involvement of right-wing hindu groups like the RSS in terrorist activities but the poster clearly makes a biased POV push by labelling the wikileaks expose as evidence of Rahul Gandhi being "anti-Hindu".I dont think it is correct to arrive at a conclusion of pro or anti anything based on wikileaks expose. This angle of Rahuls comments on RSS links to terror is amply covered in the previous section "Comparison of RSS and SIMI". Suggest deletion of entire section. --Ashlonerider (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

Ok, I tried to tag this with {{Article issues}} but the pending revisions gets in the way. I have little patience right now, so my quick notes will have to be here: citecheck; reason=poor use of sources which may or may not be reliable: uploaded certificate scan? Poor citation style. -84user (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article, even though informative, is unbalanced. Look at the controversy section. This is larger than the entire article itself(minus the section). It seems this man goes creating controversy, but in truth, he creates less controversy than many of the main Indian politicians. For instance what does these two paragraphs have to do with Rahul Gandhi? And why it is mentioned "Rahul Gandhi's party appointed". Was he part of the decision?

"In 2004, Rahul Gandhi's party appointed Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister. Manmohan Singh was the only international leader to initially refuse to receive black money data provided by the German authorities during 2008 Liechtenstein tax affair.[42][43] Under pressure from the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Manmohan Singh government later reluctantly agreed to accept a part of the data but stoutly refused to make it public.

In 2010, a group of concerned eminent Indian citizens consisting of KPS Gill, Ram Jethmalani and Subhash Kashyap amongst others petitioned the Supreme Court to ask the Manmohan Singh government to make the list of names of Indian citizens with black money in Liechtenstein Bank public. The Manmohan Singh government in response refused to make the names of Indian account holders in Liechtenstein bank public. Following which the Supreme Court questioned the government’s reluctance to disclose the names of Indian nationals who have stashed black money largely earned through illegitimate means in foreign banks, asking “what is the big deal about it?” [44] In 2011, the Supreme court again lashed out at the government for inaction in the Swiss Bank matter. [45]

This controversy had risen in the wake of the 2006 Swiss Banking Association report." Mathew Joy (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Gang rape of Sukanya Devi.

ADDED THIS ON CONTROVERSY SECTION

Sukanya singh missing case.

On March 1st 2011 an Indian high court sent a notice to Rahul about the whereabouts of a young girl, Sukanya Singh aka Sukanya Devi who went missing after meeting Rahul. . Kishore Samrite, a former party legislator, accused Rahul and his foreigner friends of allegedly assaulting Sukanya Singh.. The petition alleged that Sukanya and her parents are in illegal detention of Rahul since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userkevin (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done--The HC notice related news has been updated however there are no known & reliable sources that indicate that Sukanya Singh was raped. Charges in court are only for missing person (including parents). Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above.AKS (comment) 11:45, 15 July 2011 (IST)

Wikipedia not accepting the Sukanya singh missing case section.

Wikipedia is not accepting the Sukanya Singh alleged gang rape section.

I edited the controversy section with many reference to the Sukanya singh case but Wiki is not accepting the edits. Is it ruled by the congress party too.

Suppression and clear violation of Free press and Freedom of speech

Sukanya Devi missing case

On March 1st 2011 an Indian high court sent a notice to Rahul about the whereabouts of a young girl, Sukanya Singh aka Sukanya Devi who went missing after meeting Rahul. . Kishore Samrite, a former party legislator, accused Rahul and his foreigner friends of allegedly assaulting Sukanya Singh.. The petition alleged that Sukanya and her parents are in illegal detention of Rahul since 2007.

This is not a page for listing of every controversy he has been involved in. If we include every controversy, then this will not remain a biographical article. Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 14:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is being deleted because the court has thrown out the case against rahul gandhi saying there was never any proof or cmplaint filed. As such until some modicum of proof emerges that can reliably link Rahul gandhi to the crime it would be irresposible to add it to the article. check for further dtails
Tca achintya (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done--The HC notice related news has been updated however there are no known & reliable sources that indicate that Sukanya Singh was raped. Charges in court are only for missing person (including parents). Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above.AKS (comment) 11:51, 15 July 2011 (IST)

When there are no sources to support anything solid, there should be no mention of it. Simply per WP:BLP. Lynch7 08:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MikeLynch the section which you are reverting is properly sourced. I will request other Wikipedia administrators to intervene here and stop MikeLynch from reverting properly sourced article. I have following objection on the MikeLynch edits:

• In the discussion you are mentioning that there is no proper source that Sukanya Devi was raped by Rahul Gandhi. I accept this fact because there are no solid sources or reference. You tube has a lot many video which proves that Rahul Gandhi raped Sukanya Devi but since no news paper covered this issue so it is ok (everyone knows about Indian media biasness). But you are reverting the section about HC notice to Rahul Gandhi about Sukanya devi detention. Source of this article is economic times article which everyone must consider as solid source.
• I have second objection that you mentioning Sukanya Devi case and revering not only Sukanya Devi detention related section but you are reverting many other topics also. E.g. you are reverting section about the Rahul Gandhi comment about Mumbai terror attack. How you can revert this properly sourced section blindly?Mdabdul (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose adding controversy section back in, and mentioning charges as being disputed. A controversy in and of itself meets notability requirements, if only to provide context for reputation and public relations. Durga Destroyer (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Very poor source in this article

The sources used for many points in this article are of a very poor quality, or openly biased. For example, one source about the alleged black money is an opinion piece by a BJP (the opposition party) appointee. In another case, Rahul Gandhi's detention at Boston airport with $200,000 is presented as fact whereas the original news sources themselves have no confirmation of this. Finally, some sources here are unreachable or unverifiable. In particular, the black money issue relies heavily on "KGB: The Sate within a State" which makes absurd claims like Sonia Gandhi being a KGB agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagwad (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Auditorium issue

The criticism section on the auditorium was removed because:

• Cartoons by Ajit Ninan cannot be cited. He writes cartoons everyday, and such writing can be called satirical at best.
• This is not a place to include every controversy he has been involved in.

Yes Michael? •^Talk 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Xionbox^₪ 12:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Extremists

This section is being intentionally deleted by some editors even though his interview leaked by wiki-leaks is a fact and reported by almost all newspaper in India. His remarks caused a major uproar and controversy and the necessary citation of newspaper are given. Then why User:MikeLynch has deleted whole section???? This is pure vandalism.

Glad to see you have started a thread here. My edit summary read: POV language. discuss in talk before adding. I do not see my edits as vandalism, by a long shot. Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

These are some of the sentences which have been added; and I feel that these do not adhere to NPOV and WP:BLP, among others.

• Recently, in December, 2010, his image has been tarnished, when tapes of his talks with an American ambassador, were leaked by Wikileaks.

• He informed the American ambassador that Hindu extremist groups could pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militants.

Also, an ABVP source cannot be used, as that is obviously not reliable (in connection with this article). Awaiting comments. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I feel that much of the criticism section is given undue importance. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While one can remove or modify the sentence * His image has been tarnished but the word He informed American ambassador that Hindu extremist groups could pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militants. is taken from the cited sources published in Indian newspaper. Till date there is no denial from Rahul neither he has asked for an apology from newspapers or sued them for making such comment on him. And it was the biggest recent controversy surrounding him, so you cannot delete such an important information from this page, that is what I think.Jethwarp (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether he has sued them or not is absolutely immaterial to our discussion here. There is a mention of his image being tarnished. How?, according to whom?? How does this qualify as a controversy?. If these questions are answered with proper sources, then it should be better. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the lead and as per me the fact that he has neither accepted or denied his statements as mentioned by Wikileaks, amounts to a controversyJethwarp (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of unneccessary moderation is being used by some senior editors in this article, heavy bias is evident in this article.--Krishna Kumar 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Controversies sub-section Boston Airport detainment

I think that I am correct in assuming that only those paras or text can be entered which have a relevant and legitimate reference available on the Internet.

In the case of reference No 33, there is no link available on the Internet. In the absence of this link being available this would need to be removed.

Reference No. 34 clearly contradicts the earlier missing reference No. 33 and also states that the so-called incident has been denied by both the US and the Indian Authorities.

There is a whole para of text relating to Subramaniam Swamy which reads as under “ Subramaniam Swamy filed a Freedom of Information Act application with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for investigation of records. FBI told Swamy that they would hand over the investigation records if he got a “no objection certificate” from Rahul Gandhi. In request of the same, Swamy wrote a letter to Rahul Gandhi saying if he had nothing to hide then give him the permission for investigation. Rahul Gandhi received the mail but never replied to him.” There is no Reference given for this entire para.

In the absence of Reference No. 33, the contradiction clearly stated in Reference No. 34 and no Reference given for the Swamy para, the entire sub-section would need to be removed.

The Article would require to be amended accordingly.

Vishvjit (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that link seems to be broken. I found an unbroken link recently though; will add it. Will also remove unsourced material in violation of WP:BLP. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that the lnk for Reference 33 is still not working.

I may also point out that the Times of India in an article on the 9th of May clearly states that the petition filed in the High Court regarding the Boston Incident has been dismissed by the Court

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-03-09/india/27857680_1_pil-rashtra-raksha-manch-petition

The text of the article reads as under:

PIL against Rahul Gandhi rejected PTI, Mar 9, 2005, 10.04pm IST LUCKNOW: Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected a PIL on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's alleged detention in Boston airport in the US in 2001.

The division bench comprising justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice M A Khan rejected the petition filed by four secretaries of the Rashtra Raksha Manch.

In the light of the above some further action needs to be taken Vishvjit (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR EDIT

Regarding Section Controversies Sub-section Boston Airport detainment

This reads as under:-

In 2005, four lawyers including Prem Chandra Sharma filed a public litigation petition in the High Court. They requested that information be made available to the public in regard to an alleged incident on September 21, 2001 at Boston Airport where Rahul Gandhi was detained by the FBI for 9 hours for questioning, and verification if Mr. Gandhi was carrying $200,000 in cash which he was unable to explain to the airport authorities.[32][33]

The lawyers provided further evidence that Mr. Gandhi's release may have been secured by Brijesh Mishra the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to the Indian ambassador to the US and the Union Home Secretary to make a disclosure about the episode.[32] However previously, The Hindu newspaper had reported that according to "a senior" Indian diplomat there had been no involvement by the Indian envoy to the US in the matter.[33]

Reference No. 32 is from The Times of India dated 8th March,2005. This reference is not available on the internet. Reference No. 33 is from The Hindu dated 29th September, 2001. This clearly states that both the Indian Authorities as well as the United States Authorities have denied the incident.

The Times of India in an article dated 3rd September, 2005 clearly states that the Public Interest Litigation filed against Mr. Rahul Gandhi has been rejected by the Lucknow High Court. The text of the article is as under:-

'PIL against Rahul Gandhi rejected PTI, Mar 9, 2005, 10.04pm IST LUCKNOW: Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected a PIL on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's alleged detention in Boston airport in the US in 2001.

The division bench comprising justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice M A Khan rejected the petition filed by four secretaries of the Rashtra Raksha Manch.

The link for this article is http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-03-09/india/27857680_1_pil-rashtra-raksha-manch-petition

It is obvious that the so called incident was denied by the authorities in 2001 itself as reported in The Hindu. Relying on a subsequent Times of India report of 8th March, 2005 does not make any sense especially in the light of The Times of India report of 9th March, 2005 which shows that the case has been rejected by the High Court.

I propose that, in the light of the above discussion, the entire sub-section should be immediately removed. Vishvjit (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You better contact rgpk or someone else on this; I am quite busy. Yes Michael? •^Talk 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section. The Hindu article makes no mention of money and the Times of India article is unverifiable. Since this is a BLP, allegations of a negative nature need a high level of sourcing for inclusion. --rgpk (comment) 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reference is still missing and the logic for removal remains as explained above but it seems to have been put back. Haw can one deal with this situation? Vishvjit (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that it was removed without explanation. Reverted it. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ankush.sak, 9 June 2011

Rahul Gandhi was arrested/detained with his Columbian girlfriend Veronique Cartelli, ALLEGEDLY, the Daughter of Drug Mafia with $160000 by FBI at Boston Airport in september 2001 .

Ankush.sak (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:BLP, negative allegations about a living person need a high level of sourcing. Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above. --rgpk (comment) 22:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

Article of Rahul Gandhi is highly biased - Missing details of his girlfriend, FBI and other allegations. Everyone should post their matter on Rahul Gandhi wiki page and NOT on talk page. If it is deleted by any means - you can write to wikipedia in making this page protected. Please post all your content in wiki. Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly see the discussions above to find out why exactly those things are not mentioned in the article. Lynch7 05:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The page has been edited against the conclusions in many of the above discussions. can any editor explain the reasons for these edits, and why the entire controversies sub-section has been deleted..??? Please Answer..--Krishna Kumar 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Please read the above discussions once again. Lynch7 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the controversies section, I request you to read WP:CSECTION. It is not necessary for an article to have a controversies section; in fact, it is discouraged. This, however, does not mean that the article should be one sided; it means that the controversies and criticism have to be integrated into the article (as is done here, and in many other BLPs). So, I request you to read the talk page, as well as the article comprehensively. Lynch7 12:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nvltec, 15 July 2011

1. Rahul Gandhi's name on His Italian Passport is Raul Vinci. He did not take up this name for Secrect Purposeses. 2. Rahul Gandhi did not complete his B.A. infact he has gone to all colleges but failed every where. 3. Rahul Gandhi is a Catholic Christian. 4. His girlfriend, Veronique is daughter of Colombian Mafia Drug Lord.

Nvltec (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide several reliable sources that unequivocally back up the statement above. --AKS (comment) 11:16, 15 July 2011 (IST)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)}

```` Edit request Pushie K August 25 2011 Factual error regarding his educational background"

Cambridge confirms Rahul Gandhi's M. phil degree

Find below the link that verifies that he received the M.phil degree from Cambridge. I hate when particularly politically motivated people post barf about someone. Not an Indian citizen myself but this caught my eye when some idiot posted this as a link on face book.

Please change accordingly. I am pretty sure Rahul Gandhi doesn't care but this bugged me for some reason.  Done Will change in a bit. Lynch7 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.102.124.143, 28 August 2011

Rahul Gandhi's Nationality: Italian

122.102.124.143 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.102.126.176, 30 August 2011

Nationality Of Rahul Gandhi: Italian

122.102.126.176 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.166.49.249, 5 September 2011

Information provided is WRONG. consider http://www.facebook.com/notes/amogha-abbur/a-daring-letter-by-an-iitan-to-rahul-gandhi-plz-read-and-repost/238535999520991 a letter by IIT student from India. Kumarpchandran (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jangamsourabh, 13 September 2011

I want to know the educational qualification of Mr.Rahul Gandhi which he had earned from Harward?? Jangamsourabh (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)  Not done. This is not the place for content related enquiries. Lynch7 13:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 113.193.151.89, 21 September 2011

rahul gandhi is not an indian

113.193.151.89 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lynch7 17:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Hello Sir/Madam Recently Mr. Subramanian Swamy a proffessor at Havard and President of Janata Party has made some revealations about Rahul Gandhi, especially his education. Keeping in mind that whenever he has gone to court he has been able to convince the judges especially in India. I would like to have your permisssion to edit this page. Rather I would suggest you to edit the page keeping in mind. Also as Mr. Subramaniam Swamy has pointed out that he has beeen arrested by FBI at nework airport for illlegal posssesion of currency exceeding the limit by 16 times. Thus, I request you to kindly edit this page to ensure that people get access to true and correct information.

Thanking You ( To whomsoever it may concern) A true Indian who stands for truth on net

Donttrytoguessmyname (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: In order to request rights to edit this page you would need to post at WP:RFR under the confirmed section. Though I believe that if you make one more edit now anywhere on Wikipedia you will be auto-confirmed and therefore can edit the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

Rahul Gandhi Harvard Truth

150.210.231.20 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Add |partner = Veronique in the infobox. Sources already given in the article.(#17, #18) 117.204.81.37 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

done.Beefcake6412 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That just might be a bit outdated. Not been in the news recently, so its best to avoid any stale information. Yes Michael? •<sup>Talk</sup> 06:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, spouse is not the same as partner, there's a difference. Yes Michael? •<sup>Talk</sup> 06:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree Strongly - Well, we can take the example of this article's infobox for inclusion of the name of Shri Rahul Gandhi's partner. And moreover, when a person has reportedly informed the media about his partner, the news does not become stale in anyway until and unless he informs his break-up with his partner in a similar fashion. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Rahul Gandhi with Manmohan Singh.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rahul Gandhi with Manmohan Singh.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012

Please Update Sukanya Devi(Political and legal issues) as Petitioner moved to supreme court

petitioner moved to supreme court and has challenged it saying it was illegal and arbitrary and issued without application of mind.

Reference News paper links - http://www.rediff.com/news/report/sc-notice-to-rahul-up-govt-on-ex-mlas-plea/20110406.htm

                            http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-26/india/29931360_1_kishore-samrite-hc-order-petition

Mukesh patel12 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to edit the page with details of the 2012 UP assembly elections.

I would like to edit the page with the details of the 2012 UP assembly elections. The following is a brief gist of what I intend to update - (The source for all of what I want to add below are observations, editorials and articles by reputed media houses like NDTV, TOI, Deccan Herald, DNA , CNN-IBN etc.)

1) The fact that Rahul Gandhi wanted to up his party's seats in that particular election. He had invested time and energy for the past seven years.

2) He had carried the image of a "tough and angry young man" during his election campaign.

3) His sister Priyanka Vadra, husband Robert Vadra too helped in his campaign

4) He came under a bit of flak for his remark that UP people were "begging for a living" in Mumbai etc.

5) The "media" touted this election to be a stepping stone for him to take national responsibility and the build up was a sort of a test bed for him.

6) The results came and Rahul's party was relegated to fourth place after SP, BSP and BJP. And Rahul accepted it as a defeat and that he shall take it in his stride.(He had held a press conference to confirm the same)

Please let know is it fine to add the above piece as a sub-section "2012 UP Assembly elections" in his section "Political Career". And, if it is fine, how do I go about adding it, since it is locked ?

98.180.212.101 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)joy

• I'll suggest making a paragraph and placing it here for review by other editors. Also kindly place the relevant source links from where you might be sourcing the information. Thanks. Wifione <sup>Message</sup> 15:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Assembly seats won for 2012 UP elections misstated

Kindly note the number of seats won by the Congress party in 2012 UP assembly elections alone is 28, an increase of 6 seats from the 2007 of 22 seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combatshadowz (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder II             refer my email of last week

Dear Sir I have a plan to salve the burning problem of corruption in India without spending even a penny from public revenue. It will create twenty lacks entrepreneurs within a month and salve problem of unemployment also. Some points of the plan are also discussed with 20 groups of different fields ninety percent of those are agree with the above facts and appreciated. If this plan is executed all over India, the Executer (A young person like you or any other upto gain become realty) will become a very strong person who can kept India corruption free and the damages created by Shree Anna and Kejariwal, is not only recovered but also become big gain for executer. Kindly fix a meeting for 10 to 20 minutes to discuss the plan of real implementation for taking all the gains of the plan Date 27/11/12

Savita mishra

Secretary women congress ALLAHABAD CITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.153.95 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Detention at Boston airport

Rahul gandhi was detained by FBI at Boston airport, I am not sure under which section should I add this because he was not into politics at that time. Here are the sources, this one is from Mid-day and this one from the frontline/ The Hindu. --sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Actually the news publish by The Hindu and Mid-day is questionable which by the way means possibility situation, no proper confirmation by both the news's that he's been detained by FBI. Article starts with "Was Rahul Gandhi detained by FBI?" ; and here on Wikipedia we can't put hoaxes matters. Although you're free to edit but the reference shouldn't depict possibility situation. Feel free to ask if you've any doubt. Thanking you --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS <sup>☣</sup> 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from 2.50.249.75

SECOND PARAGRAPH, FIRST LINE "His parents, Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, have served as the Prime Minister of India and the President of the Congress respectively".

THIS SENTENCE MISLEAD THAT BOTH OF HIS PARENTS SERVED AS PRIME MINISTERS. PLEASE NOTE THAT SONIA GNADHI NEVER SERVED AS THE PM OF INDIA. BOTH OF THEM SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONGRESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.249.75 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Degree from harward is given wrong http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/latest-news/rahul-was-awarded-m-phil-degree-in-1995-cambridge/452535/

He was awarded the M.Phil in Development Studies in 1995

• Sentence is written by keeping Rajiv Gandhi in mind. It doesn't describe SONIA GNADHI served as the Prime Minister of India. Thanking You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS <sup>☣</sup> 15:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Pappu

It is covered widely in media and I have given sources. Rahul Gandhi is commonly referred as 'Pappu' (naive) by his critics in social media like twitter.[4][5][6]. If 'Yamraj' can be included in Narendra Modi, why not Pappu in this article? neo (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not news? Also, Tit for Tat editing is inappropriate. I can't speak for other articles, but why is his nickname on social media relevant to an enclycopediac entry? I think a public image section might be useful considering the issue of Rahul Gandhi's percieved inexperience according to the BJP. But, randomly throwing in the fact that some people decided to nickname him 'Pappu' yesterday is hardly relevant is it? Cliniic (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Also WP is not a battlefield. We may disagree regarding content, but can we maintain civility? Accusing me of censorship is not going to solve disputes. I have called on Sitush to arbitrate the dispute, not to "push censorship."Cliniic (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted in main part because the Pappu term is apparently potentially derogatory. The issue was raised at Wikipedia_talk:INB#BLP_vandalism:_Rahul_Gandhi_and_Pappu and on some user talk pages, which hasn't exactly helped matters. This is where it should be discussed. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ohh!!! Overly excited to write bad stuff about Modi, now you don't have that am-as-neutral-as-neutron garb Sitush? Whats wrong in writing that Gandhi is publicly referred as Pappu? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never wanted to insert "bad stuff" about anyone. Now either take me to ANI or belt up with your absurd accusations. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That thread was started by myself because of IPs using unsourced, unencyclopedic language like this. Lateron User:utcursch wrote it in encyclopedic language and has included in that 'Pappu' article. How it is 'derogatory' if it is covered in reputed sources? neo (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding whether the thing should be in or out of this article. The pair of you were edit warring more than discussing, and the discussion that was taking place was happening across all sorts of talk pages. Sort it out here, please, and if you cannot reach agreement after a few days then the matter can be escalated to WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Sorry, it seems I had opened edit box before your comment. neo (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am gonna add that pappu stuff back. Not in lead as that's not the right place but in a new section which can be expanded sooner or later. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• THen you will be reverted, per WP:BRD. The B and R bits have already been done, so the D bit applies. You should know better than this, Dharma. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So, this is all some tit-for-tat retaliation for the content dispute on the Narendra Modi page? Can somebody actually explain why the page should include some trivia (Pappu) of the day material? Wikipedia is not news. Pappu is not criticism either. It is a childish and degratory playground insult. Anyway, I plan on substantially rewriting some of the political articles including this one before the general elections. Then, I plan to add a public image section ala Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi. I get the general gist of the criticism re his perceived inexperience according to the BJP and other critics. I plan to include that. Cliniic (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful if we could work out just how long this pappu thing has been used in relation to RG? I mean, if it has been in common use as a nickname or similar for years and is not obscene etc then it would likely be ok, whereas if it is more a storm-in-a-teacup thing then it would be undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Pappu is a playground insult. North India's equivalent of redneck or hillbilly. Cliniic (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It should be included because a vast population off-wiki thought it important enough to tweet and re-tweet about it. Even newspapers have thought it important enough to report that such trend existed. It has nothing to do with Modi. I mentioned Modi here only because Sitush is very keen to add such stuff on that article but exclude it from here under the pretense of editwarring or whatever. You are free to include whatever you wish to here or anywhere but there is no need to exclude this because you find it derogatory and thats why you were directed towards WP:NOTCENSORED. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please dont make it personal. It is not about me. I've argued against the inclusion of Pappu not because I find it degratory, but because it does not add anything to the article. It is trivia. Cliniic (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: Pappu is not a recent trend with Gandhi. He has been referred as Pappu in April also. Source. Apparently #PappuCII has trended in April in relation to Gandhi's speech at Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Meet. Source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

More refs Rahul Gandhi mocked for 'beehive' speech, When #pappuCII addressed industry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: I have included another criticism. I know, you and Clinic will come up with some reason to remove it. Remember wikipedia is not censored, so pls stop reverting sourced criticism. neo (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I have no interest in this article nor indeed in the politics of India, whereas you and Dharma have both shown yourselves to be pro-BJP. I'm not convinced that these terms - Pappu here, Yamraj (?) at Modi - are of any great significance: politicians calling each other names and the usual Twitter frenzy from idiots do not make for a notable point, and especially not unless they gain some long term traction (eg: Thatcher became so recognised as the "Iron Lady" that she turned it to her advantage. If Gandhi is widely considered to be naive then say that but, in any event, the point of what I did was purely to get you lot talking, not to take sides. The edit warring was unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sub section

(just in case my edit box needs this)

Personality and Image

So, we are going to pick and choose tidbits from hearsay now?

btw The same reference: http://m.outlookindia.com/story.aspx?sid=4&aid=271019

[quote]

The Hindu placed two Wikileak cables on Mr Gandhi came into public domain yesterday, one of 2005 which inter alia states the following:

...He claims that the word among Congress insiders, including those in the coterie surrounding Sonia Gandhi, is that Rahul will never become Prime Minister for several reasons. ...claimed that it is increasingly common knowledge that Rahul suffers from ""personality problems"" of an emotional or psychological nature that are severe enough to prevent him from functioning as PM...

....claimed that Gandhi dynastic politics had no future, as the family has run out of prime ministerial candidates with appropriate charisma. Indira Gandhi was the last member of the dynasty capable of being an effective PM and Rajiv would never have won re-election had he not been assassinated. ...implied that the common impression among Congress insiders is that Rahul is far below even his father in political ability.

and one of 2009 which concluded thus:

Gandhi came off as a practiced politician who knew how to get his message across and was comfortable with the nuts and bolts of party organization and vote counting. He was precise and articulate and demonstrated a mastery that belied the image some have of Gandhi as a dilettante. Given his commitment to party building, it seems unlikely he would seek a Cabinet position anytime soon. While his party work will professionalize and democratize Congress, it will also create a cadre of party loyalists which will be useful as Gandhi moves into a position where he can be a credible candidate for Prime Minister. [/quote]

pick and choose or what?

Cliniic (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If wikileaks reports are to be included, then it should be sourced directly and made it known that wikileaks has been used as a primary source. Instead, it appears as of now as if the content has been sourced from a reliable secondary source. This is actually the conclusion of the article: "It is very difficult to give a comprehensive answer to this question because there is very little known about him" Cliniic (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

apologies, just seen that the text does make it clear that it has been sourced from the wikileak cables. However, not stating the conclusion of the reference seems to be an oversight. I am making a few additions. Cliniic (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So include that but don't remove criticism. Wikileaks source is already used in article to compare hindu 'extremists' with muslim militants. neo (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've done just that. Neverthless, I think we could do with a trimming instead of using whole quotes. Also, the section should be renamed. Opinion of certain US diplomatic officials is hardly public image in India is it? Cliniic (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I am pretty certain this "claimed that it is increasingly common knowledge that Rahul suffers from "personality problems" of an emotional or psychological nature" violates WP:BLP. Also, where in the ref does it state that the first report is from a conversation the US ambassador had with Saeed Naqvi? Cliniic (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Check WP:RSN archives for Wikileaks. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think from the first report we can include the part about the criticism of his political ability. But the claims of "personality problems" is highly contentious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops Cliniic (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See, I told that you both will come up with some reason. That cable is widely covered all over media. It does not cover his personal details like home address. You will go on claiming that all criticism is trivia, childish, source abuse or gossiping. And other things will be added so don't worry about section name. neo (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but are we serious? It is not even the "assessment" by the US diplomatic staff? But, quoting a man who is roughly quoting another man claiming to have "heard" stuff from Congress insiders? Cliniic (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is now WP:Synthesis and WP:OR research on your part.

This is the entire ref:[quote] Rahul a 'lacklustre leader'

Mulford had in March 2005 sent a cable titled, "Rahul Gandhi: Lacklustre Leader".

"Naqvi stated that the Gandhi family always preferred that Rahul's sister, Priyanka, enter politics, as she was judged to be more intelligent and savvy. Arguing that Sonia Gandhi has a protective feeling regarding her son, Naqvi speculated that Sonia apparently went against her better judgment and selected Rahul over his sister as heir apparent," the cable reads.

"The common impression among Congress insiders is that Rahul is far below even his father in political ability. He (Naqvi) claims that the word among Congress insiders, including those in the coterie surrounding Sonia Gandhi, is that Rahul will never become Prime Minister for several reasons."

However, in its own assessment, the embassy says: "We, unlike Naqvi, are not yet prepared to write him off just yet."[/quote]

You are choosing tidbits hear and there to support assertions. Cliniic (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The wikileaks documens dont support the claim that the conversion was a report from a conversation the US ambassador Mulford had in India. See here, http://www.thehindu.com/news/the-india-cables/the-cables/article1556773.ece This is from Naqvi's conversation with some staff named Poloff. The full text "In a March 1 conversation with Poloff, influential columnist and political insider Saeed Naqvi commented on Rahul Gandhi at some length. Naqvi prefaced his remarks by noting that he was a personal friend of Rahul's father, Rajiv Gandhi, and a well-wisher of the Gandhi family. Naqvi was initially delighted when Sonia Gandhi projected Rahul as the heir apparent, but has since lost faith. He claims that the word among Congress insiders, including those in the coterie surrounding Sonia Gandhi, is that Rahul will never become Prime Minister for several reasons. Saying that he ""refused to indulge in gossip,"" Naqvi claimed that it is increasingly common knowledge that Rahul suffers from ""personality problems"" of an emotional or psychological nature that are severe enough to prevent him from functioning as PM. "

Even the embassy text has quote marks to the part where Naqvi he "refuses to indulge in gossip. First the text stated it was the assesment of the US ambassador first, then it has been edited to look like a report from a US ambassador. What is going on? Cliniic (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sub section

If multiple reliable sources cover remarks of a beggar then it has importance. They decided its importance. Only because you think that it is not important doesn't make it worthless. By this or that reason you are trying to remove criticism. neo (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Clinic: US envoy in India considered that assessment of Rahul Gandhi by Naqvi deserve importance. That is why he sent cable to US Government. Not only that, multiple reputed media houses also thought it is important to report this cable to 1.2 billion people of India. And finding refs does not constitue OR. Also I have mentioned exactly what is reported in media. If they chose to mention just certain part of cable then you can't blame me. Show them wikipedia policy, not to me. neo (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop accusing me of trying to remove criticism? Have I reverted the recent additions? No. Furthermore, what I referred to OR on your part was your first revision making it look like that the conversation was between Mulford and Naqvi. In fact, it was between Naqvi and a staff named Poloff. It is considered synthesis since you attributed Poloff's conversation to a conversation between Mulford and Naqvi. The recent revisions have, however, have changed to relfect the reality. Anyway, there are still a few problems. The current revision makes it look like that the US cable was assessing Gandhi as a lacklustre leader whereas in fact they it stated "We, unlike Naqvi, are not yet prepared to write him off just yet." That was from 2005. The later cable from 2009 makes it clear as to the embassy staff's actual assessment. I won't dispute the additions if you change the wording and order of the text to actually reflect the contents of the cable. Or better yet, I shall make the edits and you see if it is acceptable or not? Also, lastly I will point out that the current revision violates WP:BLP. Claiming that Gandhi suffers from mental problems is a contentious claim, particularly when the source anonymous and the intermediary is a political columnist. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. I think this "Saying that he ""refused to indulge in gossip,"" Naqvi claimed that it is increasingly common knowledge that Rahul suffers from ""personality problems"" of an emotional or psychological nature that are severe enough to prevent him from functioning as PM" perfectly fits that. What are his sources? The so called "Congress insiders"? Cliniic (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed wording and have added conclusion of cable. Now to address your last problem, pls don't treat that "personality problem" as 'official medical condition' of Rahul Gandhi and I have not posted it secretely from some hospital. It is all over media. People or politicians commonly call each other mad or give personality assessment. That doesn't mean that it is real medical condition. It is form of criticism. I have also included descriptions by Narayana Murthy and Tony Blair that Rahul Gandhi is "very idealistic, very decent, most talented etc". Why that is not BLP issue for you? Is that official analysis by some psychologists? And don't expect Naqvi or Mulford to disclose names of congress insiders or expect audio recordings which are duly certified by some labs and analysis by inquiry commission of psychologists. We go by what is stated in reliable sources. That's all. neo (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of criticism or praise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged

"This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." No matter if Naqvi is a political columnist. What he is doing here amounts to tabaloid journalism. Cliniic (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Naqvi claims that he "refuses to indulge in gossip," but "that it is increasingly common knowledge" that Gandhi suffers from some sort of emotional trauma. How is it not gossip and libel? And common knowledge to whom? Congress insiders? Are they all hiding Gandhi's "problem" in some sort of big conspiracy? Cliniic (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sub section

(due to edit box limit) @Clinic: (1) You left out following sentence from this policy you cited:

This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

If you think that India Today and Outlook (magazine) are tabloid news media, you can go to WP:RSN. (2) I have sourced my edits from India Today and Outlook. But you are quoting original cable text and asking me "hey! Naqvi said that he do not indulge in gossiping. But it looks gossiping!" Am I supposed comment or chat over things which are not in source at all? neo (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I say India Today or Outlook are tabloids? No. I referred to Naqvi "quoting" the increasingly "common" knowledge of these Congress "insiders" who have remained anonymous. This is tabloid journalism .They are not validated just because they have been quoted verbatim by the Outlook. In fact, the Outlook commentary declares it is impossible to make an assessment since so little is known of Gandhi while the India Today ommits such claims (mental trauma) entirely. These are exceptional claims which rest entirely on a single primary source.

I think we should go for an rfc since both of us are entrenched in our positions. Cliniic (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Take this following text from article:

In December 2010 during the United States diplomatic cables leak, WikiLeaks leaked a cable dated 3 August 2009, where the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh had hosted a lunch on 20 July 2009 for the then General Secretary of the AICC, Rahul Gandhi. One of the guests who was invited for the lunch was the then United States Ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer. In a "candid conversation" with Roemer, he said that he believes Hindu extremists pose a greater threat to his country than Muslim militants. Rahul Gandhi referred specifically to more-polarising figures in the Bharatiya Janata Party. Also responding to the ambassador's query about the activities in the region by the Islamist militant organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Rahul Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India's indigenous Muslim population.

This whole text is included in article on the basis of same single primary source. But you never had any problem on its inclusion. I don't have any problem with Rfc. neo (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That text is not making contentious and libelous claims against named living persons. I don't see how it is related except also being part of the wikileaks cables. Anyway, let's go ahead with the rfc. Will you make the request or should I? Cliniic (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What you believe is not "contentious and libelous" but anyway, as you think it is fit for Rfc, pls do it. neo (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been away for a while now. Getting to the rfc right away Cliniic (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Does the personality and image section violate WP:BLP

Does the personality and image section violate the WP:BLP policies? There is a disagreement regarding the content of the section. The current revision reads like tabloid journalism verging on the libelous in context of claims that it is "increasingly common knowledge that Rahul suffers from ""personality problems"" of an emotional or psychological nature that are severe enough to prevent him from functioning as PM." Cliniic (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. WP:BLPGOSSIP seems to apply here. WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests that such material be summarized neutrally if it is added; at the very least, this section needs to be rewritten. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will get to work right away unless anyone has more to add. Cliniic (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is surely WP:BLPGOSSIP, no valid references nor citations and should not be used and if present should be removed as per WP:BLPREMOVE.  A m i t  웃   02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cliniic (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2013

His/Her I don't know, According to profile, I would like to say "His Mother Sonia Gandhi did not work as Prime minister" 182.73.235.1 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The article is quite clear about her role. "His parents, Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, have served as the Prime Minister of India and the President of the Congress respectively". --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 14:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Receiving money from KGB (edit request)

Rajiv Gandhi and his family including Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi received money from KGB. The payments were authorised by a resolution and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers, and had been coming since 1971. In December 2001, Subramanian Swamy filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, acting on which the court ordered CBI to ascertain the truth of the allegations in May 2002. After two years, the CBI told the Court that Russia would not entertain such queries without a registered FIR.

Since the Rajiv Gandhi (former PM of India) page mentions the above, this should be mentioned on Rahul's page too. This guy is being projected as the next Prime Minister of India. A fact like this cannot be suppressed, considering that the Russians confirm that KGB paid Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. --70.76.85.36 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, we need high quality sources so we need hard news articles, not opinion pieces. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 23:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Pappu

Wats wrong with this in intro.

Rahul Gandhi has been nick-named as Pappu by Netizens of india.

--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced and does not belong in the lead. Wikipedia is not the news. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 20:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

India time and economics times are not poorly sourced, there many references from these news sites all over WP--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of more sources if these two does not satisfy, here are some more This is an identification for RG as given by Netizens. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You can make your thoughts known here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rahul_Gandhi. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 20:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Cast

Look at the line ".... Gandhi is a Brahmin[1][2] and has served as a General Secretary in the All India Congress Committee and represents Amethi as its Member of Parliament (MP)......." in the lead section.

Mention of cast of Rahul does not fit the rest of the facts in the sentence. Cast of a person should belong to the "Personal Life". So I moved it there.

''Prabhakar Sarma Neog'' (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Caste?

"Gandhi is a Brahmin by caste" :- I have removed this well sourced statement, for following reasons, which other editors kindly discuss:

He gave the statement casually(?) in other context. He was justifying that he is secretary and belongs to a particular caste, just to please voters/people of that particular caste.

One cannot belong to a totally unrelated caste just by giving a statement. As such, this statement cannot be considered as a self declaration.

As it is a well known fact that (a)his father is a Parsi and (b) his mother is christian, his statement should be viewed in a different angle, rather than as self declaration.

Other editors, kindly comment on this. Rayabhari (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above assessment. One can change his/her religion but not the caste. Since Rahul's mother is an Italian Christian and his father was a mix of Parsi and Brahmin, his caste cannot be defined. So it is best avoid mentioning his caste here. Salih (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments: To add weight to Your point of view You have to Cite a (news) Source (parallel to Your claim) (if any) following-up the controversy,[7] in which Rahul Gandi have himself issued a clarification for the comments, as he made the comments. I have not found any, otherwise I could have texted it here. I AM sure You don't believe that Rahul Gandhi never said "I am a Brahmin...and general secretary in the party." As a gentleman puts it: "Rahul Gandhi's remark 'I am a Brahmin, and I am general secretary of the party' would have been dismissed as a stray thoughtless remark if it were not for the fact that it shows a trend in his thinking."[8]

However, "Gandhi is a Brahmin by caste" would surely need to be rephrased. Maybe as: "Gandhi considers himself a Brahmin / Gandhi sees himself as a Brahmin". "Gandhi believes in Brahminism" can also be a choice, as You say that his father and mother are Parsi and Christian, respectively. Our last choice could be: "Gandhi once said, I am a Brahmin and general secretary in the party."[9] Please comment on the suggestions, which one should it be ?! ← Abstruce 11:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The links seem to refer to an old comment. Has he made a similar comment in more recent times? - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

He does not appear to have made such comments in recent days. <R to Abstruce-> If we have to use his statement as "Brahmin", it should mention the occasion during which he said he is a brahmin(to gather support/votes from that particular community). Rayabhari (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I want to comment that it is not a good argument to say that he did not said it this year (when it is abundantly clear that he said it last year, and the comments were straight away picked-up by Indian media and Official Opposition (India)). The links are from last year, not even years back !

I revise My comments and suggest that we should add it in a way describing them as comments from Rahul Gandhi as the general secretary of the Ruling party which drew controversy from the Opposition party. And, I suggest We add a new sub-Section titled "Controversies" in the Political career. I don't see any policy violation with that, and that would be in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Anyways, Rayabhari, did You found any news report (if any) in which Rahul Gandi have himself issued a clarification (if any) for the comments, in response to the critical criticism by Bharatiya Janata Party. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I could not find any such news report. Rayabhari (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

But, that does not certainly end the discussion !! Please share Your comments on the suggestion of adding a sub-section titled "Controversies" in the "Political career" section. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 08:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should have a sub section titled "controversies" and his remark on Brahminism can be suitably included, as discussed above.Gandhi once said I am a Brahmin, apparently to appease a section of society and this comment was severely critisized by opposition parties.- may be OK. Rayabhari (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will agree with Your above posted suggestion (as texted in italics). Let's wait for another two days, and if no other Wikipedian objects to that or suggest some rephrasing, then We can add it the way as suggested by You. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's okay to have a section on controversy, but if you want include something like ...apparently to appease a section of society..., then it has to be backed up by a strong and neutral source. Salih (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I guess, let's revise the sentence one more time !! Well, Hindustan Times [10], The Indian Express [11] and The Times of India [12] ([13]) have published a common analyses by the Press Trust of India: "Interestingly, both these parties feel they should have wooed the upper castes, especially the brahmans, to increase their seat tally." So, how about: 'Gandhi once said "I am a Brahmin" during the Indian National Congress' assessment meeting, held following the loss in the 2012 legislative assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh, which the media saw as an attempt to appease a section of society, and this comment was also severely critisised by the Bharatiya Janata Party.' Friends, please comment !! ← Abstruce 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the media which saw the Brhamin thing as an attempt to appease a section of society. Media was just reporting the BJP's criticism. So the wording could be as follows - 'Gandhi once said "I am a Brahmin" during the Indian National Congress' assessment meeting, held following the loss in the 2012 legislative assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh, which the Bharatiya Janata Party saw as an attempt to appease a section of society'. Thanks. Salih (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Salih, PTI's own analyses (at the end of news articles) was: "Interestingly, both these parties feel they should have wooed the upper castes, especially the brahmans, to increase their seat tally." Even regarding Your suggestion (after reading the text from news Sources, once again), I would suggest that a little rephrasing has to be done to Your suggestion: 'Gandhi once said "I am a Brahmin" during the Indian National Congress' assessment meeting, held following the loss in the 2012 legislative assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh, which drew criticism from the Bharatiya Janata Party as the BJP saw the comments an attempt to appease a section of society.'

May be: 'Gandhi once said "I am a Brahmin" during the Indian National Congress' assessment meeting, held following the loss in the 2012 legislative assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh, which the Press Trust of India saw as an attempt to appease a section of society, and this comment was severely critisised by the Bharatiya Janata Party also.' ← Abstruce 10:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think we are stating the obvious here: the BJP criticise everything that he does or says, simply because opposing political groups always take pot-shots at each other. It was a one-off remark and was made some time ago. He seems not to have repeated it and I'm not even sure that it was other than a verbal faux-pas. If evidence emerges that he personally (not the INC) are courting the Brahmin vote then perhaps there is some merit but as things stand it does seem to me that the comment is not terribly important. Caste is a social construct and anyone can claim anything. Equally, any news agency can interpret it in any way that they choose.

If some academic work were to refer to the issue then the emphasis might be justified but unless/until then it seems trivial. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sitush's assessment here. It seems to be a one-off remark and thus doesn’t worth mentioning at all. Salih (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:We are again moving there, what We resolved some posts back, in this very section. Dear Friends, as You can view, on Wikipedia, a considerable amount of content on active politicians has been sourced from mainstream reputed news agencies. In case of an active politician, Citing a collective work from a reputed news agency like Press Trust of India, which was published by Indian media like Hindustan Times, The Times of India, The Indian Express may be fine. I can safely say that it would not be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The comments are from last year's review meeting of INC. I think We can hold on to the interpretation by PTI (which is a WP:Reliable). Rather than posting our personal opinions on what Gandhi actually meant by saying that without a Source, a Wikipedian should better do that with some Sources that are parallel to His claims. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 12:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Friends, I would still wait till 31<sup>st</sup> for the comments (if any) based on Wikipedia's policies if You still may believe that any of Wikipedia's policy would be violated by the addition of the content: 'Gandhi once said "I am a Brahmin"[14] during the Indian National Congress' assessment meeting, held following the loss in the 2012 legislative assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh, which the Press Trust of India saw as an attempt to appease a section of society, and this comment was also criticised by the Bharatiya Janata Party.' ← Abstruce 21:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the 'Press Trust of India' who is criticizing Gandhi's remarks; they are merely reporting the BJP's criticism. See the following sources, [15], [16]. So it's just one political party attacking the rival party; see Sitush's comment above. Salih (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:Dear Salih, Who is suggesting to add that PTI criticized Gandhi's comments ?! Kindly, re-read the above suggested quotation from My last post. Anyways, PTI's own analyses (at the end of news articles) was: "Interestingly, both these parties feel they should have wooed the upper castes, especially the brahmans, to increase their seat tally." Besides, I have read Sitush's comments above and Your as well. And, I have commented after reading them.

Also, since BJP is the leading party in National Democratic Alliance (India) (opposition coalition of United Progressive Alliance (India)), it holds notability, and it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

And, since the issue of caste is involved here, which is a significant subject of political debates in India, this criticism by BJP is not just like any another case of criticism but a very notable one. Dear Friend, if You are still against the inclusion of the sentence (whether rephrased or not), We may have to go for a WP:Dispute resolution ?! Would You like to suggest a rephrasing to the sentence suggested in My last post ?! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 19:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Salih, You may also want to note that Gandhi's comments are from 2012, the comments were not said decades back. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 19:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Abstruce asked me to comment here. First, an easy point--we can't include the point about the "wooing the upper castes" because the article does not say that that is what Gandhi's statement was intended to do. That "wooing claim" is placed "near" the Gandhi statement, but it's not directly commenting on it. As such, connecting them together would be original research. The harder point is whether to include any of this at all. We certainly can't make OR analyses about who his parents were and thus deduce that he was or wasn't in a certain caste; we could quote a reliable source that does that, but we can't do it ourselves. But if we want to include the statement at face value, the question is whether either it or the BJP response is WP:DUE. I'm inclined to say that, for certain, the BJP response is not (as someone else pointed out, that's just regular political banter). As for the original statement, I'm not sure, though I'd personally lean against. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know if the statement plays an important part in his overall life story; has he done work directly related to caste? Is he famous for affirming or denying caste relationships? If it's not really important to his life, and if no sources are discussing his caste outside of this one comment, then it seems like something we should probably avoid including. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I invited Qwyrxian to comment here Thank You Qwyrxian for sharing Your views that BJP's criticism of Gandhi was "just regular political banter" and that it does not holds WP:WEIGHT. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 10:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The comment by Rahul Gandhi on caste (Brahmin) does not merit to be included in the article (that is, it may not be considered as self declaration of his own caste) and we may altogether avoid his comment on "Brahmin" . To Qwyrxian > He has not done any great work directly related to caste and he is not famous in affirming or denying caste relationship, except this stray remark. So we should avoid including this, as Q said.Rayabhari (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rayabhari, everyone in this discussion had already agreed not to include that the sentence "Gandhi is a Brahmin by caste." We are discussing whether or not to include a section titled "controversies", and mention BJP's criticism in an impartial tone. I have recently placed a dent from where the discussion shifted the other way (for the sake of other readers as well, toavoid any confusion). Please re-read the above posts, specially the ones after the dent. This may specifically be helpful to You, Dear. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 16:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We are? I must be the one who is confused. How are we going to mention the BJP's criticism without mentioning what Gandhi said? - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Friend, glad that You asked I shall clarify !! Actually, earlier We were discussing whether or not to keep the sentence "Gandhi is a Brahmin by caste." on the Article (added that way by User:Psneog [17]). But, soon We thought that it is not a good idea to keep it that way. Then I posted:

I revise My comments and suggest that we should add it in a way describing them as comments from Rahul Gandhi as the general secretary of the Ruling party which drew controversy from the Opposition party. And, I suggest We add a new sub-Section titled "Controversies" in the Political career. I don't see any policy violation with that, and that would be in accordance with WP:NPOV.

It's like.... We did not want to add that Gandhi is a Brahmin, but have a controversy section and describe Gandhi's comments as controversial comments attracting criticism. We do not want to let the readers of this WP Article to have a belief/confirmation that WP is convinced that Gandhi is a Brahmin, but adding it like that Gandhi said some comments which attracted criticism from political opposition. I hope I was able to explain ?! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 19:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dedicated controversy sections are a bad idea, especially in BLPs. They attract trouble and rarely add much except overemphasis on negatives. Any controversies of note should be worked into the general prose of the article, not stuck as a list or whatever in a separate section. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To Abstruce> When we are not mentioning his Brahmin declaration, there is no point in putting it indirectly by detailing about the criticism on it by other party. We may altogether avoid this comment and reactions to it. However, controversies generated by him on other topics like ISI support to rioters etc. may be added, if the magnitude of such controversies are notable. - Rayabhari (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments to Rayabhari: I AM not suggesting "not mentioning his Brahmin declaration", but have suggested to mention it in a way that the readers of this WP Article don't get a confirmation that WP is convinced that Gandhi is a Brahmin, but instead adding it in a way that Gandhi said some comments which attracted criticism from political opposition. Before changing Your views now, You had also agreed to that and even Yourself suggested adding: "Gandhi once said I am a Brahmin, apparently to appease a section of society and this comment was severely critisized by opposition parties." I AM posting My comments in English, why are You showing confusion now about what I AM suggesting, when earlier You had discussed it, comfortably ?!

And, since the issue of caste is involved here, which is a significant subject of political debates in India, this criticism by BJP is not just like any another case of criticism but a very notable one. But, I think You are also saying that the magnitude of this controversy is not notable, and this consensus also seems have gone parallel to Your point of view, and You can be sure that I do respect WP:CONSENSUS, but this one has actually surprised Me ([18] [19] [20]). I think, We should have initiated the discussion in a better way (Wikipedia:Requests for comment) ← Abstruce 16:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Abstruce, the Brahmin thing is not going in this article in any form unless there are further developments. There is consensus that it should not be mentioned directly and to mention it by the back door route is simply not on when the consensus was also that it was the usual back-and-forth of politics. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My Dear Friend, You can be sure that I have read and do respect WP:CONSENSUS, and aware that there must be further developments. However, I respectfully think that You may have chosen better words than "back door route". Sincerely, ← Abstruce 06:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Swarupananda Patra (President of Odisha Minority Forum) had reacted strongly Gandhi's remarks. A sentence from the article: "Gandhi after extensive stock-taking of the Congress party's electoral loss in Uttar Pradesh has probably felt that minorities are not a trustworthy community for votes, which is completely untrue." Patra even used the words "minority shunning attitude" for the INC. ← Abstruce 06:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

I have reverted this as Wikipedia is not the news. Politicians are always saying something that is taken as controversial to someone. Time is needed to tell if the incident is biographically significant. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 18:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I agree that Wikipedia is not the news, but this is not a news. Responsible community and two former CE is discussing about this issue and saying this is immature statement and definitely biographically significant. There is nothing political, if yes then anybody can say anything? No if you hold a such high level post within party, you can not make loose comments. So I think it should be added in controversial section.GKCH (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's the news. From what you've wrote, the Election Committee has called upon Gandhi to explain some of his remarks. That's it so far. And "No if you hold a such high level post within party, you can not make loose comments." is a bit of soapboxing on your part. Now, if action is taken by the Election Committee in the future, we could add it to the Political career section depending on its magnitude. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 05:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• No I am not agree with your explanation. "The commission is prima facie of the view that your aforesaid speeches are violative of above-referred sub-paras (1), (2) and (3) of Para 1 of the Model Code of Conduct for political parties and candidates. Therefore, the Election Commission of lndia calls upon you to explain by 11.30 hours on Nov 4, 2013 as to why action should not be taken against you for the above mentioned violations of the Model Code of Conduct," all this happen after a process of EC internal screening. I added this only after when EC served the notice. In general EC does not take such steps against those are high level politicians. So this is definitely controversy. One more thing I want to request you please do not revert edits, which are reliable referenced, same you can do after discussion.GKCH (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, I reverted, and now we're discussing. If the EC's request is rare, as you say it is, then you need to provide a reference stating that. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 06:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly news. If we were to similarly add all the news items that Rahul Gandhi is quoted in, this article is doomed. There is no notable depth of this EC news item. If tomorrow, the EC bans Gandhi for such statements, perhaps this might attain a notable quotient. Not right now. This is a BLP and there's no reason to hurry. We all can wait for a couple of months to see what might come of this. Wifione <sup>Message</sup> 05:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Now, we can add this in controversy section. There is clear verdict stated by CEC that in last points "the Commission is not satisfied with the explanation furnished by you in reply to the Commission's above referred notice; Now therefore, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by you in your reply under reference, the Commission hereby convey its displeasure and advises you to be more circumspect in you public utterances during election campaigns." [21] GKCH (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Still seems like news only without depth of significance. Wifione <sup>Message</sup> 10:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. And having three paragraphs on what amounted to a slap on the wrist is highly WP:UNDUE. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Grateful for Semi-Protection

Thanks for semi-protecting this page. Lots of vandalism is happening on this page. People should understand that it's encyclopedia not some news website or social networking site or blog. User needs to understand. Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS <sup>☣</sup> 15:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Corruption Allegations

I still think there should be some mention of this, even if it is small because a court case is opened against Rahul. It is an actual legal case in which Rahul is indicted. It has gone beyond simple allegations to the judicial system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.184.132 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You have provided no sources stating that Gandhi was indicted. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This ref here does: http://news.oneindia.in/2013/03/16/subramanian-swamy-s-victory-against-sonia-rahul-gandhi-1173225.html

"Metropolitan Magistrate Gomti Minocha of Patiala House Courts, New Delhi took cognisance of the complaint on Friday and directed the Janata Party supremo to testify in the case on Jul 9, 2013. The complaint was first heard by link magistrate Ambika Singh on Feb 14." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.184.132 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is not an indictment of Gandhi. It is currently a complaint. Please do some research on the term. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 16:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I came to this wiki page to see what relgion he was

Could you add his relgious information, is he a athiest,hindu,buddhist,catholic?

Noticed that he is the only indian politian without any information on relgion,if he is a athiest please write itin this page82.38.160.153 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)ved

We cannot add a religion until a reliable source publishes what Gandhi states what religion he follows. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

Are any of these points noteworthy for the article? --Calypsomusic (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• His comments on the Anti-Sikh riots, which have sparked protests by large numbers of Sikhs.

"He also insisted that the Congress government in 1984 “was not aiding and abetting the riots” but had tried to stop the violence. Observers took issue with Mr. Gandhi’s take on history. “This was factually wrong. I even tweeted it as the interview was playing out,” said Siddharth Varadarajan, political analyst and senior journalist. http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/how-rahul-gandhi-did-in-his-first-tv-interview/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

• Corruption charges against him or his family and party

"Mr. Gandhi’s answers were brief when it came to questions about corruption scandals that have plagued the administration of the United Progressive Alliance, the governing coalition. Interestingly, when Mr. Goswami was grilling Mr. Gandhi about the big corruption scandals, he did not ask about Mr. Gandhi’s brother-in-law, Robert Vadra, who has been accused of profiting illegally from real estate deals. More than once during the interview, Mr. Gandhi gave the Congress party credit for introducing the Lokpal and other anticorruption bills in the Parliament. However, he did not mention that the party had initially resisted passing the bills, only doing so after huge public protests led by Anna Hazare and his followers. http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/how-rahul-gandhi-did-in-his-first-tv-interview/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

• KGB charges

"There is also a murky side to Rahul's history that is in the public domain. Alas, it is inescapable that along with his dynastic Prime Ministerial entitlement, he must also inherit the sins of his dynasty. KGB archives after the fall of the Soviet Union reveal that since 1982, when Indira Gandhi was still the Prime Minister, Soviet trading agencies were channelling funds into a company controlled by her son and Rahul's father, the future Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/unpleasant-truths-about-rahul

Yes - I think this can be added, if we read and use citations from the book by Yevgenia Markovna Albats and citations from the KGB archives (I am not sure where one can get the latter from) - not the Ram Jethmalani article (Sunday Guardian) since the original source lies elsewhere.

• Politically inexperienced

"Critics said that he is politically too inexperienced and has not made any substantive contribution in the last few years to solve the major problems facing India.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/elections-india?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

Again, exactly who is making these charges? For example, the KGB thing was written by a political opponent - hardly reliable or notable. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember WP:NOTNEWS This is a Bio,and Politicians are known for this,surely they will speak something everyday but Wikipedia will not include everything therefore we can't include the Sikh Comment I am sure he comments on lots of things daily in rallies and meetings,the charges against his relatives here we will have to take care of WP:BLP has any action been taken against his relatives? any Police Complaint or any action by any Government? thirdly the KGB charges same WP:BLP and it's not related to this Bio,It's about Rajiv Gandhi.Fourth the Inexperience comment.... Political experts may have their own view and it's normal in politics it has nothing to do with this Bio.. Janmejai (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

I reverted the addition of Sharad Pawar's comments under WP:NOTNEWS. MS, you might believe they are significant because they come from "the third most important person," but the source you have given portrays it as news. You need something better to establish notability over and above every statement that is printed in the paper. Also, now that it's been reverted, you need to discuss it here first. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Open Manifesto

To understand people's difficulties easily he started open manifesto. This helps people to express their problems and difficulties. Also this helps the government to make their policies worthy. He got good response for this program all over the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajakt Rane (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny speeches

it looks like anything negative about Rahul Gandhi is deleted and the page is lacking neutrality and maintained by those who appear to be close to Rahul Gandhi. During the LokSabha elections, Rahul Gandhi simply managed to be heard in the media because of his funny speeches and my section was deleted. I propose including this section to the wikipedia section of Rahul Gandhi

Several speeches delivered by Rahul Gandhi during the 2014 LokSabha elections turned out to be funny because of incorrect usage of language and it did not reflect a coherent thought process. Some of them evoked funny responses from the social media. . Below, we mention the most popular ones:

1. "In Gujarat, two out of one (not one out of two) person is malnourished". In response to this funny speech, Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi's rival in the 2014 LokSabha elections remarked "The way Rahul Baba is making statements with a dash of comedy in them, I think the TV show of Kapil Sharma may soon have to shut shop". .

2. When asked a question by Arnab Goswami on whether he thinks if Narendra Modi was responsible for Gujarat riots, Rahul Gandhi replied "Women should be in power" which was totally out of context.

3. "This morning, I got up at night" .

If Gandhi's speaking gaffes are that notable, they should be covered in an encyclopedic manner, with sources showing it is a notable overall issue, and not under "funny speeches". [22] --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 12:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe his nonsensical use of physics - escape velocity also should have come here.

But then, some Indians (and often those who edit Wikipedia articles in particular) tend to be touchy about making fun about gaffes by their politicians (however idiotic they might be) unlike Bushisms and Clintonisms which Americans do not mind having chuckles due to (though one would need to check where on wikipedia the two have been tabulated)

Neutrality Dispute

This is a hagiography not a biography. It looks like anything controversial about him has been deleted from the article and there is no criticism at all of a major public figure. Is it possible for someone to be a leading politician and there is absolutely no controversies or criticisms? Plenty abound of course, but it looks like they have all been deleted. The talk page has listed a whole section of deletions with referenced sources. Unless some of these are reinstated the NPOV tag should remain.

Puck42 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples include the serious allegations of Swiss bank accounts, rape case, his passport and educations credentials that have been raised by credible sources and are discussed in this talk page. Puck42 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think these are credible sources then you need to read (or reread and understand) WP:RS and WP:BLP. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 12:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We can debate each of the references but during the debate the neutrality dispute still remains. Claiming the page is neutral cannot be a unilateral decision of one side. This page is completely one-sided and biased currently. Please read WP:NPOV Puck42 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Visiting Harvard Professor Subramaniam Swami is hardly a source which is not credible, especially since the validity of the lawsuit is not in dispute. http://news.oneindia.in/2013/03/16/subramanian-swamy-s-victory-against-sonia-rahul-gandhi-1173225.html This needs to be covered, restoring NPOV tag. Puck42 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of allegations by NDTV, including original documents. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/subramanian-swamy-s-allegations-against-sonia-and-rahul-gandhi-read-full-statement-287339 Puck42 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be covered as serious charges, even if they are currently under judicial review. Puck42 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

These are unproven allegations by a political opponent - Talk:Rahul_Gandhi#Corruption_Allegations. Please do a lot better with your next proposal. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 00:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you feel additional information should be added to make the article neutral, please do so by all means, quoting acceptable references. I agree that wiki articles should present both sides fo a person, including charges - irrespective of whether they have been proven or not (and of course, with an appropriate note mentioning whether the charges were proven or they are just that - charges). Readers will make their own surmises based on teh nature of references mentioned. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason for Revert

This is hardly something new; every prominent politician does things that appear in the newspaper. Therefore, a single news item is not sufficient to show notability in such an article. It needs sustained coverage in the media, or else coverage in academia, something to show it is more than news. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ya, the revert is fine. It should be included in a 3000 pages' biography. Tito☸Dutta 17:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Did you even read this message before reverting me for inadequate explanation? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

Please change Nehru-Gandhi family reference to Nehru only as they are not the descendants of Gandhi Vappana (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Nehru–Gandhi family is accurate. More than one family has the name Gandhi. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Name used

Throughout the article, Rahul Gandhi is being referred to by the name "Gandhi", right from the first paragraph, this is incorrect and out of context too. Either use Rahul Gandhi or Rahul, because Gandhi in no way can refer solely to he him. Wiki for a link that distinguishes first and family names. If someone is kind enough, kindly state one valid reason. Check other personality articles and either change all of them or do it here. 122.178.205.102 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)clark

Guideline: WP:SURNAME. And an easy example contradicting your assertion: Indira Gandhi. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a neutral articles

This article seems to be copied straight from some Congress mouhtpiece describing its leader. No mention of his goof ups during speeches, his controversial statement regarding inclusion of some Congress leaders in Sikh massacre'84, National Herald case, where even court has issued hima summon, , pathetic condition of his Loksabha constituency Amethi, his entering inside poll booths during Loksabha elections . Everything just seems to vanish as this person is Rahul Gandhi and not some 'right gringe', who otherwise would have a negative point after every two sentences. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Any gaffes he may have made are not included in the article because Wikipedia is not a news website. Aside from that, if there are salient facts that you believe should be included, and you have reliable sources for those facts, then feel free to add them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add to that. Except the National Herald issue, everything else that you've listed are simply news items and not notable. Why don't you follow the National Herald issue, and use verifiable and reliable sources to put the material into the biography? If in doubt, place the same here on the talk page for comments before placing the same within the biography. Thanks. Wifione <sup>Message</sup> 08:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2014

The external links on this page needs to be modified. The link that is listed as his official website opens a random broken webpage. This is clearly not the website of the leader of the largest and oldest political party in India hence we should delete that reference. In addition as a reliable reference to a website we can add the link to the Congress party website where his profile if given. I have provided the link also (refer: http://inc.in/LeaderProfile.aspx?Id=997&&Org=Profile). We can also add the profile link to the Government of India's website for Members of Parliament (refer: http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Members/Biography.aspx?mpsno=4074). This needs to be corrected.

Shashank.S.Shukla (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: removed dead link, replaced it wit the inc.in one. Didn't do the other one. Cannolis (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

Jeetpalyadavg (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC) i edit rahul gandhi account

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} <sup>(e • t • c)</sup> 13:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

1.38.19.245 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No request Cannolis (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

93.169.26.32 (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Mr. Rahuji BJP Ambassador Shashi Tharoorine partyil Ninnum Purathaku, Congressine Rakshiku, allenkil Congress Janagalal Ottapedum

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

"Rahul portrayed himself as a uniter of the country" = "Gandhi portrayed himself as a unifier of the country"

66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current grammar? Stickee (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Uniter" seems to be attached predominately to slogans/campaigns. If the text is a quote then it should be uniter but if it is what is written about the person then it should be unifier. Also, it is more difficult and time consuming to determine of "unite'r'" (23,000 hits; unifier, 35,000 hits) is a typo of "unite'd'".66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

Rahul Gandhi never graduated from Harvard University, as he dropped out after 1st semester. So how can Harvard University be listed under Alma Mater?

Thames79 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka <sup>Talk to me!</sup> <sub>See what I have done</sub> 11:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

Also known in media as pappu BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on 16-11-2015 alleged that Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi has claimed himself to be a British national before the authorities there and has demanded that he be stripped of Indian citizenship and Lok Sabha membership. Subramanian Swamy. PTI Subramanian Swamy. PTI Circulating copies of documents extracted purportedly from the company law authorities of Britain, he told a press conference here that Gandhi had declared himself as a British national in the documents related to a now-dissolved. he said in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is a violation of constitutional provisions and demanded that action be taken against Gandhi.

Gogo-crime-master (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Rahul_Gandhi/Archive_1#Pappu --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

122.160.17.103 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No actual request made. And this is English Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)