Wikipedia

Talk:Subramanian Swamy/Archive 1

< Talk:Subramanian Swamy
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Gotitbro in topic Conspiracy theorist
Archive 1

Did You Know?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...that this article was featured on the Did You Know? section of the Main Page on 22 September, 2005. The entry read "...that Dr.Subramanian Swamy worked towards normalizing relations between India & China and in 1981 he persuaded Deng Xiaoping to open the Kailash Mansarovar in Tibet to Hindu pilgrims from India? " --Gurubrahma 12:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Guoyeu or Hanyu

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, can someone knowledgeable throw light on what dialect of Chinese language, Dr. Subramanian Swamy was expert at? The page had Guoyeu before anon changed it to Hanyu. Asking just to confirm if it isn't a case of vandalism.....Gurubrahma 05:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad stuff

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is this article in a terrible state regarding NPOV? There is a lot of denigrating language about Swamy's opponents, as well as undue glorification. There is also a need for Wikification, modernization. - User:Rama's Arrow.

I don't know if this is bad stuff or badly written stuff. However, as a new user had added these exploits, I asked him to give the references as well as provide copyright info for the picture. I am yet to hear from him about the same. I've put a section-NPOV tag as the NPOV tag was placed above this section; I've removed the attention tag as it asks for a better tag to replace it, which the section-NPOV tag does so. --Gurubrahma 10:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you or anyone else is entitled to move against this "Exploits" section, since it is so explicitly problematic. Any explanations from the user will not change the fact that its problematic.

I applied the "ATTENTION" tag becoz: This whole article is about a man who leads a party that barely wins 1 seat in parliament each time. he has done no special work in his life. Most Indian PMs have smaller bios here! Somebody has to strip down the crap and produce a legitimate article. - User:Rama's Arrow.

Exploits Reference

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all,

The exploits reference can be found in the following page:

Janata Party

The exploits have been placed because they are a integral part of Subramaniam Swamy, that made him famous. This is the same reason due to which the theory of relativity has been placed in the Albert Einstein section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.193.118 (talk • contribs)

Well, I think that quote sort of summarizes why this article needs to be rewritten. All the three points in the exploits section needs to be backe dup with sources. As I suppose you may understand, refering back to the JP website won't do. --Soman 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert multiple edits on 15 December 2005 --> Explanation

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have reverted multiple edits by User:Gmauruthi as they are verbatim copyvio from [1]. This also does away the need for having the POV-section tag and factual accuracy tag inserted by other editors as the section itself is removed because of the copyvio. In the process, I've also reverted POV rant by an anon IP. The reversion has removed a fair-use image which I would not reinstate (as I'm not sure if it qualifies under fair use) and a link to Janata Party website which I would re-insert shortly. Trust this solves all the issues. --Gurubrahma 06:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship Act

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If nobody can give me a reliable reference for the Sonia Gandhi story, I'm editing it out. Hornplease 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week. No response, so its being edited out. Hornplease 06:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no NPOV here??

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I do not understand why this article doesn't have an NPOV tag? As far as I can see the only references are either written by or associated with Dr Swamy himself. This is cause for serious concern. I am going to put in an NPOV tag here in a few days - however, I thought i'll put in a notice in the talk page before I do that. --Rev.bayes 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Added a reference that balances things a bit. Removing tag. Strangely hard to find something actually NPOV about Swamy, but every single reference to him in the papers seems to be accompanied with some sort of snide adjective. Usually 'maverick'. Hornplease 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I still think that this article is in poor shape. What do we do about it? I don't know.. but definitely using information from Dr Swamy's website is not going to help us.. Right now, I won't revert the NPOV tag.. you have any suggestions on what we can do? write to me on my talk page.. --Rev.bayes 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Harvard

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Will the single-purpose accounts who persist in adding misleading text about Dr. Swamy's time at Harvard please source their additions? Hornplease 04:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deng Xiaoping

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How can a ordinary MP from India possibly meet the premier of China? I think such a meeting is fictional. Anwar (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rajiv Gandhi Assasination Case's Jain Comission report says he is important person of the case, to be investgated. He should be having links with the assiasination of Rajiv Gandhi.

Watch the following video, which gives a new angle about him. Its true or false; its in the hands of CBI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PY-yKwbH0c&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIXQf_lxoms&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhZYhtG_1SE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2klM8KEzNU&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagatbabu (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Murder case

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the following addition, per WP:BLP policy; the facts stated are not given in the source - there is no mention of Swamy in the link.  Chzz  ►  17:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder Case

Subramanian Swamy is a strong supporter of Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Mutt , the prime accused in the infamous Sankararaman murder case.<ref>http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/21kanchi.htm</ref>

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section "All Caste Becomes Priest Act. Tamil Nadu, 2006"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the above section, which contained the following content:

The bill in the Assembly of Tamil Nadu in 2006 laid the foundation for bringing the social reform of enabling every Hindu,and Dalits without any discrimination by caste, to become archakas in Hindu Temples.[1] The Governments plan was to demolish caste barriers in the State by training non-Brahmins to become archaka (priests) and offering them jobs in temples that come under the purview of the State Government.[2] The Government order has been challenged by the Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Nala Sangam, Thennindia Thirukkoil Archagargal Paripalana Sabhai and other such hereditary priests’ organisations in the Supreme Court and secured a stay against the order. The case is pending in the court.Subramanya Swamy is advocating against this All Caste Becomes Priest act and was instrumental in getting a stay from the Supreme Court to prevent the implementation of Tamil Nadu all caste becomes Priest Act.[3][4]
  1. ^ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/tn-passes-bill-on-appointment-of-priests/11128/
  2. ^ http://www.hindu-blog.com/2008/04/revolutionary-change-dalit-hindu-temple.html
  3. ^ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/let-caste-be-no-bar-for-priests-dmk/10647-1-2.html
  4. ^ http://www.dailypioneer.com/200712/SMALLSCREEN/SMALLSCREEN.html

Not a single one of the alleged references mentioned Subramanian Swamy, let alone support that he was "instrumental" in getting the stay from the Supreme Court. If this section is to be restored, it should contain third-party references which actually discuss his views, to prove that his views on the matter are notable and that he actually played a notable role in the events surrounding the act. Finally, there is no evidence that the bill was actually called "All Caste Becomes Priest Act"; I only see this term on Wikipedia, and I can't find any news coverage which actually names the bill rather than merely describing it. cab (call) 14:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hindu and Subramania Swamy

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can somebody throw light on the relationship between the newspaper The Hindu and Subramania Swamy. I ask this because the newspaper reports about every press conference he arranges, publishes every press statement he makes, publishes prominently articles written by him.

Andamannicobar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

Economic Reforms in India

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 3 citations for this section are an article written by Dr. Swamy, a book written by him and his profile at an institution where he is the chairman which makes me wonder exactly how neutral (or true) the information is. Ashwan (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Swami and RSS

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

subramanian Swami was former member of RSS--Vicharam (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image(Photograph) has "Moral issues" portrays "unfairly demean or ridicule the subject" see Wikipedia:Image use policy., "out of context to present a person in a a false or disparaging light". it looks as ferocious & "negative in appearance", Editors shall provide image, fair portrayal of him.Thistorian (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is Encyclopedia,in Biography of living persons, long sentences should be avoided , trimmed & Summarised. excess informations like who said what? why? his reactions, what others felt, others opinion, shows like "Diary" & leads to trivia. Information in Controversy section should not be more detailed than actual whole Biography. It is negative portrayal & Maligning. Neutrality should be maintained. Thistorian (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP Issues and semi protection

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the section on the Twitter controversy and placed the article under semi protection for 2 weeks, as a result of the constant reverting. Please do not include defamatory quotes or tweets, even if they are sourced. All content added to this article must be subject to Wikipedia's neutrality and biographies of living persons policies. Harryboyles 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on "Views on homosexuality"

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, all @Widr, @Frosty, @NeilN my query is regarding is on addition of heading in the article "Views on homosexuality". I have searched on the internet and youtube and have found that his view on homosexuality had come only once as his personal tweet. He had never again expressed his views again in the public press and social media, etc like wise he had expressed on other topics such as Economic and foreign affairs, corruption, religious views,views on Gandhi-Nehru family, etc repeatedly.

My question is that is it right to include his view on the topic, when that view had been expressed only once through twitter only, and not through the electronic media directly. Isn't it should be counted be as a trivial case and not be counted as a encyclopedic topic being included in wikipedia, it may appear as a case of vandalism also. Work2win (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on your arguments, I would support the removal. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion with editors @Widr, @Frosty and @NeilN on their talk pages, talkpageWidr, talkpageFrosty and talkpageNeilN, i am now proceeding with removal of heading "Views on homosexuality" in the article. Work2win (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I disagree with your edit note, saying that the information was "totally unencyclopedic and lacking a reliable citation." The Hindustan Times seems like a reliable source to me and so does the article on Firstpost. Easy to Google plenty more. The tweet itself is even still visible. I could maybe agree that there hasn't been sufficient coverage because he has not further commented about it, but there clearly is some coverage and the information is not out of place in his article. Fnordware (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I, too, disagree with edit summary but agree with the edit. One tweet does not really translate to "Views on homosexuality". --NeilN talk to me 21:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Fnordware thanks for pointing out the error

well first of all whatever editing i have done is with the consensus with editors who had also agreed with the point. You can raise your point with the editors and involve others. Second thing, not everything covered in the media should be put in the wiki articles, there are lot of news related with film industry(actor's personal lives) covered by the same mainstream media. To be very specific, for eg. there are many allegations put forward by Swamy against the Gandhi-Nehru family and covered by all the reliable media, should that also be included, only those which are consistent with policies of Wikipedia are finally accepted. The media publishes almost everything including anyone's view whether it is relevant or not. You can see Rahul Gandhi talk page where discussion shows why much of the data present in main media is not accepted in the article. Work2win (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I have removed the content of the 'controversy' section, because I do not believe that the facts are verified by the sources provided, per WP:BLP. Content was as follows;  Chzz  ►  17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Defamation.

Subramanian Swamy has a record of making defamatory remarks against prominent leaders like Jayalalithaa , Sonia Gandhi , P.chidambram etc , he has been accused of writting articles with false information and has lost lakhs of money due to defamation suits [1]

Hindutva

Subramanian Swamy believes in Hindutva and hindu nationalism and has opposed parties considered to be in the Secular group , he has given make firery speeches against Christians and Muslims and his party allied with the BJP although his party not won a single Lok Sabha seat since 1998 recently.[2][3][4]

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination

In January 1991, Swamy played the key role in dismissing Karunanidhi's government on the grounds of the ltte infiltration in Tamil Nadu. During Karunanidhi's rule, Rajiv Gandhi made 13 visits to Tamil Nadu between 1989 and 1991 and came to no harm. When the state came under President's rule in January 1991, Swamy had become the de-facto chief minister. Every day he used to declare that he had wiped out the ltte's presence in the state. It was in the fifth month of Swamy's rule that Rajiv Gandhi was killed in Tamil Nadu .The Outlook Magazine criticized Mr Swamy on his book on Rajiv's Assassination , the magazine said -' it's the turn of a poorly structured mystery novel to masquerade as an investigative book that purports to unearth the hidden truths behind the murder of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. His title focuses purely on his agenda: to deflect and refract the questions posed to him after May 21, 1991, the day the human bomb felled Rajiv Gandhi'. 'This renders Swamy's every sentence suspect, and ensures that his book fails even as a murder mystery, providing no solutions'. [5]


THIS PERSON IS TRYING TO PROTECT SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY , THE REFERNCE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE , I OPPOSE THIS , WIKIPEDIA CANNOT BE CALLED NEUTRAL FOR SUCH ELEMENTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestinformer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1819/18190100.htm
  2. ^ http://communalism.blogspot.com/2010/04/bal-thackeray-and-subramanian-swamy-two.html
  3. ^ http://greathindu.com/2008/02/from-savarkar-to-modi-the-unofficial-history-of-modern-hindu-nationalists/
  4. ^ http://www.lokvani.com/lokvani/article.php?article_id=4323
  5. ^ http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?209511

PLEASE SEE MY E MAIL ON 1 RAMAR SETHU PROJECT NO CUTTING , NO DREGING. COST 300 Cr 1 Yr PAID BACK IN 5 MONTHS

2 MULLAI PERIYAR DAM FIELD TESTING AT MWL + 155 Feet COST 470 Cr 3 Yrs

ANDY APPAN M E , E E PWD 98404 63337 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.111.139 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Blog links should not be considered valid references, because they just illustrate viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecacuee (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are self-published sources see WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPEL, WP:BLPFR, every one please, quote the rules for better editing & understanding.Thistorian (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am adding Rajiv Gandhi assassination case issue. It is about Jain Commission. It cast doubt about his dealings and suspects him in the plot. We have to just mention about it. Without it Rajiv Gandhi assassination case is not completed one.. So i added small para. --Kurumban (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Subramanian Swamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Subramanian Swamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subramanian Swamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

external link?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would an interview with Subramanian Swamy from 1987 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_C4A2F865578E4A4792944415C1C49351 (I helped with the site, so it would be conflict of interest for me to just add it.) Mccallucc (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Subramanian Swamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Qwertyuiop2017 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Qwertyuiop2017 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

{{wayback}}

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The wayback template is dead. Please stop using it. It doesn't work. -- GreenC 01:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Subramanian Swamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subramanian Swamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He is not anti-muslim. Utpalutkarsh (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. @Utpalutkarsh: See above discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Edited the 'Anti-Muslim views' section.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The section is poorly written. Out of the four points mentioned there, three aren't even Anti-Muslim (more like pro-Hindu) and the bullet points aren't "suggestions" as the word mentioned there. For the fourth point, the article doesn't even mention Muslims in the voting right context. He has advocated that for all "Non-Hindus".

"Swamy had written a similar column in the new Indian Express...". I don't see any source for this, don't find anything on looking up either. Removed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazingcaptain (talk • contribs) 06:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, removed the "disenfranchisement of Muslims" part as it is uncited and looks like the words in the article have been contorted there. Read the article properly before you contest that change. Amazingcaptain (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Half of what is mentioned in the section aren't even his "views". They're just statements and FIRs. Why is it mentioned in the section? Let's remove that as well.

As a result of his "reprehensible" views in the articles, Harvard University cancelled two economics courses taught at the university by Swamy.[147][2]

On 3 August 2011 the National Commission for Minorities decided to file civil charges against Swamy for the article and promoting on the basis of religion.[148] On 4 October 2011 the Delhi Police registered the case.[149] Swamy was then granted police protection by the Delhi High Court.[150] On 30 January 2012 Swamy was granted anticipatory bail by the court with the condition that he would not write such articles in the future.[151]

@Amazingcaptain: the source for "disenfranchisement of Muslims" clearly says "argued that Muslims should be barred from voting in India unless they acknowledged their Hindu ancestry." What have I not read correctly? The Harvard material also belongs. I've removed the unsourced text that you added to it. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Mr. Subramanian Swamy is not ANTI-MUSLIM. He is liberal minded. Please remove this connotation. Wikirichiepedia (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it was fairly clear what the user was requesting, Jack Frost. Anyway, removed in this edit. The content added in early April without discussion by Snooganssnoogans. The sources seem to be talking about a single op-ed written circa 2011 where he suggested that Muslims in India were descended from Hindus, and there were other, perhaps extreme opinions about curing terrorism that could have been seen as unfavourable toward Muslims. But a single op-ed 9 years ago doesn't sound like the basis for describing the subject as someone who is chiefly known for being anti-Muslim as the lead suggests. He even says in an article by The Atlantic that he is not against all Muslims. Since this is potentially defamatory, anyone wishing to reinstate it should seek consensus for inclusion per WP:BLP norms, and Wikirichiepedia you should consider watching this talk page in case someone does argue for its reinstatement. I likely won't be participating.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Why does it matter what he self-describes as? The proposed Wikipedia text does not say "Swamy says he is against all Muslims". It just describes him as "anti-Muslim" due to the brazenly anti-Muslim commentary he has engaged in (as reported by RS). The guy literally calls for the demolition of mosques and the disenfranchisement of Muslims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans What's the source for disenfranchisement of Muslims? Looks like you've contorted the words of the article. Regarding the removal of Mosques, he's asked for removal of those mosques which were made in place of temples. I'll be removing it as anti muslim part as it violates the BLP norms. CC: Cyphoidbomb Amazingcaptain (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The sources are all cited. Pretending not to see them is not an excuse to remove RS content. In fact, it's tendentious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of RS content

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

One editor removed RS content which describes the BJP as Hindu Nationalist and the Janata Party as right-wing. There's no excuse for removing these descriptions. It's absolutely crucial context to most readers who will not be familiar with these parties. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's not needed as we have already estabilished that he is a Hindu Nationalist. Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Do not cite BLP to arbitrarily remove RS content that you happen to dislike; BLP instead requires a cautious and balanced treatment of material that draws from reliable sources. As for his anti-Muslim stance, many of the longstanding sources that you have now removed from the lead (for instance, [2] or [3]) substantiate it. I hope you begin to take a more constructive approach to editing and discussion rather than misapplying WP policies and blatant POV pushing. RedHotPear (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@RedHotPear:Could you tell me where do your reliable sources say/infer that "he is known for his Anti-Muslim views?" If you read one of the sources that you cited, it actually says something else. The political parties leaning doesn't add much in my opinion as we have already explicitly mentioned in the lede already that he is a Hindu Nationalist. Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@RedHotPear: and @Snooganssnoogans: How about we change it to something along "Known for his Hindu Nationalist views, Swamy was a long-time member of the Janata Party, serving as its president until 2013 when he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)."
  • Hi there, it does seem this content in the lede is in dispute so I would suggest all editors stop edit warring it back in without a clear consensus, thanks. Perhaps the best place to find concensus is the wp:blpn report, this also seems to not be a major concern as there is plenty of content currently in the body of the article including some recenly expanded that details claims regarding this issue, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of 'Anti-Muslim

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

@Doug Weller: I will reiterate Cyphoidbomb's comment. The sources seem to be talking about a single op-ed written circa 2011 where he suggested that Muslims in India were descended from Hindus, and there were other, perhaps extreme opinions about curing terrorism that could have been seen as unfavourable toward Muslims. But a single op-ed 9 years ago doesn't sound like the basis for describing the subject as someone who is chiefly known for being anti-Muslim as the lead suggests. He even says in an article by The Atlantic that he is not against all Muslims. Since this is potentially defamatory, anyone wishing to reinstate it should seek consensus for inclusion per WP:BLP norms.

I will be removing it. Do not add it before seeking consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazingcaptain (talk • contribs)

On the other hand, the fact that his article resulted in his losing his Harvard teaching sessions should be included. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I agree on that. Regarding the disenfranchisement, it was my bad. I misinterpreted the original op-ed he wrote. I thought he is not talking about just Muslims and all Indians in general. On re-reading I see it is directed only towards Muslims. Also, regarding what you called my unsourced bit, it's taken from the same op-ed.It got removed I think, will add that bit back and cite it. Amazingcaptain (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Amazingcaptain: we need secondary sources, not something he wrote. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: No, we can use it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources This says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."Amazingcaptain (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Amazingcaptain: are you actually saying that the op-ed "does not involve claims about third parties"? But that's not the issue anyway, it's not a self-published source, it's a published source by him. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: No, my point is we can use articles published by the subject of the articles. In this case, moreover, it is relevant as the discussion is about the article he wrote.

@Snooganssnoogans: Please read the discussion above. I'll be reverting your "he's known for being anti-muslim", and it shouldn't be there until a consensus is reached. Do not revert it. Regarding the Imran Khan Nazi comparison comment you added, it's unrelated to the section and comments like those shouldn't exist on BLPs. I find it funny that even though you know it's a BLP violation, you still added it - you started the below discussion talking about how comparison to Hitler is unencyclopedic but still you are doing something similar in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vladimir_Putin:_Comparison_to_Hitler. I'll be removing that as well. Amazingcaptain (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

An MP being involved in an international dispute is clearly notable (it's not the same as a major leader being vaguely linked to Hitler for various reasons), and it clearly fits within a section about his anti-Muslim hostility. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans:I disagree on that. First thing, the section is about his views on Muslims, not about Imran Khan's views on him. Not to mention, comparing someone with Nazis in itself doesn't look encyclopedic. I have no problem in it being added back if others think it is relevant to the section. -Amazingcaptain (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a question. Should “demotion of mosques” be “demolition of mosques”? Demoting them does not make much sense, here. Kleuske (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear: There's already a discussion going on on this page as well as on the BLP page, why would you add it back before building a consensus? Also, where do your sources say he is known for being a Hindu Nationalist or an Anti-Muslim person? One of the sources that are cited on that line says this also. "“Swamy is a closet secularist,” Mr. Nalapat said. “Otherwise, how do you explain his family?” Mr. Swamy’s wife, Roxna, is a member of the Parsi community, which emigrated centuries ago from Iran. One of his sons-in-law is Muslim." Regarding the Imran Khan comment, it doesn't fit the section and it looks highly unencyclopedic. Imran is no subject matter expert, adding his opinion doesn't add much to Swamy's biography.Amazingcaptain (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't wish to be part of the debate, so I'll drop my note and let you all discuss. When I answered the edit request in this discussion, one of the concerns I had was whether or not it was proper due weight to suggest in the lead that the subject is quote-unquote "known" for their anti-Muslim views, which implies that this is a significant part of why they are notable, when the basis of this assertion appears to be a single op-ed from 2011. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that we should only use his last name

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That's what our guidelines say. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:What exactly are you referring to? Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on restructuring this article

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, I think this article is not properly structured. Can we work on restructuring this article?

There are two separate sections for 'Early Life and Education' and 'Personal Life'. This is inconsistent with most of the Wikipedia articles I have seen. I was referring to Barack_Obama's article as it's a featured article, I think it's a good reference article. I think we can have a section called 'Early Life and Career' and in it we can have multiple sections like 'Education', 'Family', 'Religion', 'Academic Career', 'Political Career'.. maybe if we can gather info on his 'Wealth' then a section for that. The 'Personal Life' section can be replaced with 'Family' as in it we just have details of his family. I think the order should be like this.

  • Lede
  • Early Life and Career
    • Education
    • Family and Personal Life
      • Religion (We can mention about him being a Hindu nationalist in this section as well)
    • Academic Career
    • Political Career
  • Court Petitions
  • Campaign against black money (I am not sure about this one as this section is very short and not sure if it deserves a section of its own. Suggestions welcome)
  • Views
    • all the subsections
  • Controversies (Do you guys think we can have this section as well? Would be a good place to mention about his lectures getting cancelled at Harvard.)
  • Honors and awards
  • Books, research papers and journals

Please give your ideas as well.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have made the changes to the article. Some points to highlight -

  • I removed the Sania Mirza statement from the Hindu Nationalism section as it doesn't relate to Hindu Nationalism. I couldn't find any other section in which I could put it. Feel free to add it back to a relevant section if there is any.
  • His comment on "minorities must accept the Hindu foundation of India" was mentioned in "Hindu Nationalism" section as well as in "Muslim" section. I removed the first one.
  • I have added that BJP is a right wing party in the politics section, also I have added a "citation needed" tag on Janata Party as I'm not sure if it is actually a Right wing party.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Could you show me the citation for Janata Party being a right wing political party? I am sure it is but I couldn't find any citation. Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Being accused of edit warring

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Hi,

In the article, there exists a statement that says "Swamy was one of the founding members of the right-wing Janata Party". I couldn't find a reference that Janata Party is a right-wing party. There is a citation at the end of the sentence which links to this book - http://worldcat.org/oclc/1090162885. I cannot access the book, however I searched extensively regarding "Janata Party" being a right wing party, even searched for quotes in this book and I couldn't find any references for it.Since I couldn't find anything, I added an inline 'citation needed' next to it. An editor reverted my changes saying that the citation is already present. I did not revert their changes but started a conversation here and asked them to provide the source for it as I clearly couldn't find it anywhere. Even the exact statement/quote from the book would have sufficed. I waited for a reasonable time but they didn't reply so I added the inline "citation needed" again. They again revert it without providing any information and add an edit warring warning on my talk page.

This same user in the past was edit warring claiming Subramanian Swamy is Anti-Muslim and said it is referenced in sources when in reality the referenced articles didn't mention anything about Swamy being being known for being Anti-Muslim. At that time also they added an Edit Warring warning on my talk page.

In both of this cases, they are failing to maintain an NPOV which is against BLP guidelines.

Can someone please tell me if I am in the wrong here and anything I could have differently since I think I have followed all the guidelines, started a discussion, waited for a reasonable time. This user on the other hand didn't wish to communicate at all and just reverts my changes adds edit-warring warnings on my talk page. I totally understand this party may be a right-wing party, I just don't like this behavior.


Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your idea of what NPOV is, is simply incorrect. Neutral means that we summarize what independent sources say without editorializing it ourselves. Omitting "anti-muslim" when several RS call him anti-muslim, would be an NPOV violation. The same for the simple fact that a respected source called Janata Party "right-wing". As far as the excerpt, you could have clicked the link and read it yourself, but no one is going to post the content of a source because it would violate copyright policies. Praxidicae (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please read what I have written again? I perfectly understand what NPOV is. I know one can be critical of a person and still maintain NPOV. However, none of the sources mentioned that Swamy is "Anti-Muslim" however this editor went on claiming it is mentioned in the sources which it WAS NOT. Same goes for Janata Party being "right-wing". It isn't mentioned in the source. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=asyxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT196#v=onepage&q&f=false This is the "source" which doesn't say about "Janata Party" being a right-wing party as the other editor claims. Janata Dal and Janata Party are two different parties. Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Many reliable sources have described him as anti-Muslim (including [4] and [5]). You are right that the "known for" phrasing may have been too strong, but the "anti-Muslim" descriptor is perfectly NPOV, and your insistence on removing any instance of this description is problematic. RedHotPear (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Swamy in 2020: "No, not all people are equal, Muslims do not fall into the equal category" ([6] or [7]). Not anti-Muslim? Perhaps you support him and the BJP, but you should not attempt to override the descriptors used by reliable sources. Despite all your claims of BLP/NPOV, what actually violates BLP/NPOV is your selective removal of information that you perceive to be unfavorable. RedHotPear (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, @Snooganssnoogans:. Next time before you accuse someone of edit warring and "tendentious edits", please read the sources you cite properly. I would appreciate if you also remove the edit warring warning from my page since you now understand where I was coming from. Amazingcaptain (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards:, You are correct that he was a member of the Janata Party and not Janata Dal. Do we have a source that Janata Party is a right wing party? If not can we remove it? The source talks about "Janata Dal" and not "Janata Party". Amazingcaptain (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Swamy was never a member of the Janata Dal.He was a member of the Janata Party and joined the BJP in 2013 .The reference which states Janata Dal instead of Janata Party is factually incorrect.
Yes, I understand that. My question is, if it is factually incorrect, should we let it stay in this article? Amazingcaptain (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain what bit of text is still controversial here? I provided a long explanation at INB [8] about why we need to take care with what labels are applied to the Janata Party; but I'm confused as to what else the argument here is about. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure either, Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs). Your explanation is highly appreciated, and I believe that the current consensus is to leave out the ideological descriptor out of caution. This section seems to primarily be Amazingcaptain's effort to assert some sort of righteousness rather than any specific textual disputes. RedHotPear (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Muslims

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It should be noted that the editorial recommending Muslims to acknowledge their Hindu Ancestry was not written by him. He has said numerous times that the content of the article was extracted from a book he wrote on Countering Islamic Terrorism, without his permission.

However, he has stood by his statements, just saying that the extracted portion was not adequate to explain his intentions.

His intentions, as he has said, is this.

Islam is becoming a global religion. To prevent any radicalisation of muslims, we must make them identify a common cultural past with Hindus. Muslims should see their national identity above their religious identity. Islamic leaders in India prefer to see muslims as descendents of those muslim invaders who came to india. DNA studies have proved the opposite and have said that they were converted during the mughal period. He merely wishes them to share a common culture with India and Hindus instead of the Middle east and Arabs.

And, on the interview that became popular,

Wire has apologized for editing the interview but has repeatedly refused to publish the whole interview for reasons unknown. According to dr Swamy, the context was made for Mulsims of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh where Islam is promoted as a state religion and other religions are not supported and supressed. He says that to India, the muslims and the minorities of these countries are not equal to the law. In many SC judgements, it has been stated that the right to equality is valid for people of same backgorund. We cannot treat muslims of pakistan as equal to the hindus or other minorities living there....

So, please change muslims in india to muslims of pakistan....

And, there is evidence to show that everytime there is a large muslim population in a country, even if they are in minority, they terrorize the majority, It would be humane to mention this when criticizing him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduRenaissance (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Professorship

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The professorship details are inaccurate. He was a visiting professor at Harvard, never an Assistant professor or an Associate Professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymeese1&2&3 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anonymeese1&2&3: And yet it's attributed to two sources.[9][10] Barring anything more reliable that corrects this information as erroneous, not sure what to do about it here. We can't change it simply because you think it is innacurate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • In section 6.2.1 about this person's stance on LGBT rights, can someone replace "z" in "decriminalized" and "criticized" with "s"? Indian English, which should be used as the subject is Indian, is based on British English which does not use "z" in these words.
  • Can someone replace the "a." with "A" in the title of section 4.5.1? The section refers to A Raja and hence must have the "a" as a capital letter.
  • Can someone replace "him" with "himself" in "He identifies him as a Brahmin" in the section on his early life and education?

45.251.33.193 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. NedFausa (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Subramanian Swamy's Political Career section is unorganized. Just like George Fernandes's page [1], Swamy's political career section can be divided into "Early year"(which is already there), "Emergency era", "Minister of Commerce and Law", "1998-1999 era"(When he brought down Vajpayee's government). Electoral history subsection is not required, instead we can make new Section[named "Position held"] to add all the electoral history with other positions he held.

I am posting first in this talk page instead of directly doing this because Administrator are very rigid. They just revert all the changes without even caring for all the hardwork which is put into it.

Edit : I did some changes like removing line "Swamy was a long-time member......" in Early Politcs subsection as this incident is of 2013 so it should not be in early politics and it was already there in Later Years section in another form (last line). (2) I removed line "In the Narasimha Rao government..." in Minister of Commerce and Law of India subsection, as this incident did not happen when he was commerce minister. This happened in 1994 but he was commerce minister in 1990-1991. And first line of Later Years was this only. And I added the line In his book, Swamy asserts that Manmohan Singh acknowledges his role as well. also there in Later years section after that line. (3) Also added some more information about Minister of Commerce and Law of India section with required citation. Vanamonde93 Dshrm (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshrm (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


Dshrm (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the fairly brief political career section requires further division. Electoral history should probably be a separate section, yes. This is not a not a CV, so a complete list of positions held isn't appropriate as a list; those positions should be in the prose and/or infobox, as appropriate. The biggest problem with this article is the length and disorganization of the court petitions and views sections, and need to be framed in a coherent way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam and Kautilya3:, this is a disastrously disorganized article, and I find myself too overcommitted to do anything about it; do either of you have the time and inclination? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fernandes

To remove View section

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Views of any person keeps on changing. So I don't think it should be part of Wikipedia page. And some part of views can be added in Political career and Later years sections like his visit to China in 1981 and about Tamil Nadu politics. Dshrm (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Conspiracy Theorist word should be removed 2409:4042:2D9C:147D:0:0:688B:2310 (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am not seeing the justification for this recently added descriptive in the lead. He appears to have aired controversial/unsubstantiated claims as this source puts forth but which only mentions the label in passing. The second source is also more about BJP dissidents, including Swami, rather than his conspiracy theories.

Even beyond these sources, the preponderance of the sources on the page (and the article itself) focus on his economics, politics and litigation rather than him being a prominent conspiracy theorist. This label is generally reserved for people who are patently known for airing conspiracy theories not for people who have in addition to their primary vocations aired them. See for e.g. the articles and Talk page discussions of Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and others where similar labelling has been rejected for the leads. Gotitbro (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Subramanian_Swamy/Archive_1&oldid=1244010531"