Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory?

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

---

Started by Jyoti (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

---

WP:FURTHER says that the section is optional. The whole section can be removed; leave alone one book. Only if the book is used by the article as a reference; WP:FRINGE comes into play. Do why need a Rfc to determine this? I suggest immediate closure of the Rfc.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I opened an RfC because another editor insists on excluding this book from that section claiming 'fringe'. It is not used a as a reference in the article, I find it suitable to be added to the section. Redtigerxyz, I have reworded the RfC from "RfC: Is this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst fringe and should be excluded from further reading section of BJP article?" to "RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory?" . Only you, apart from me (RfC requester) had replied, I hope it should be okay. --Jyoti (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Alone the fact that L.K. Advani, who "had always been the most powerful leader in the BJP with the exception of Vajpayee (and more recently Modi)", said this about Elst in his autobiography: "Dr. Koenrad Elst, in his two-volume book titled The Saffron Swastika, marshals an incontrovertible array of facts to debunk slanderous attacks on the BJP by a section of the media" makes it notable enough to have one of his books mentioned. Elst is a controversial author and because of that I think he is treated less fair than other much less notable authors on wikipedia. Some of Elst's other books (Decolonizing the Hindu Mind) also discuss the BJP. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The book under discussion is also critical of the BJP. Elst says: "Anyone who has read my book BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence (1997) will be surprised to see me described as an “advocate of the Sangh Parivar”." Elst is a critic and his books "BJP vis a vis" and "Decolonizing the Hindu mind" are critical of the BJP and Hindutva. Besides, "Decolonizing the Hindu mind" is part of his PhD thesis.

Another scholarly book, Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India by Makarand_Paranjape, cites this book as "the BJP is commonly referred to as the Hindu nationalist party, but as Koenraad Elst (1997) in the second chapter of BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence points out...." --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Notable Author. Work relevant to the article. Work widely available. No citation saying this book represents any fringe theory. --Jyoti (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Eelst is notable, but only because he is considered a fringe extremist by most serious scholars. He is basically a hindutva activist scholar and his work cannot be used to provide any objective commentary. It could be used to provide a pro-hindutva view on certain topics, but it should be used with extreme care.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No mainstream scholar of Indian History gives any weight to Elst; as Maunus says, he is notable precisely because his views are not taken seriously elsewhere. Therefore including him is thoroughly undue, and a violation of WP:ELPOV. Also, per WP:BURDEN, you need to show that he is worthy of inclusion, not the other way around. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Notable author. Also, all views should be presented. Unless there is a WP policy that precludes adding in this author's title, there's no reason to exclude it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Koenraad Elst in further reading.

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

---

At the discussion at ELN, a neutral editor stated that WP:ELBURDEN does in fact apply to further reading sections as well. @Calypsomusic:, @Jyoti.mickey:, are you still going to dispute this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You are rehashing the discussion. It has already been discussed at:

1. My talk page,

2. RFC This talk page

3. External_links/Noticeboard

Do you have any reference that says the book promotes fringe theory? If not, stop. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at ELBURDEN and cannot find any mention of further reading. While I value the opinion of WhatamIdoing, the statement that EL applies also to Further reading is not written in any wikipedia policy, not even in a wikipedia guideline or essay. If this would be the case, WP:EL would have to specify that Further reading also applies to that guideline. There is no policy for Further reading, but there is a guideline at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading. In any case, I see no consensus to exclude it, even if WP:EL would apply.

Would you agree if instead of the Further reading section, Elst is used as source in the article about the topic of Integral Humanism (from what I understood after reading the chapter in "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind", Elsts' analysis is the most detailed scholarly analysis in the secondary sources on the topic of Integral Humanism). --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not, and you certainly do not have consensus to use him as such. If you think ELBURDEN does not apply, what then is the policy governing further reading? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ELBURDEN is not a policy, it is a guideline. Please understand the difference. The guideline is WP:FURTHER, and there is an inactive guideline I linked to above. The reason that there is not more on wikipedia is that most editors agree on " reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." The book adds value to the section because the author is an expert and notable on the topic and the section should include all viewpoints, and a single mention does not violate NPOV, and frankly, I have seen authors, even controversial ones, who don't even a Ph.D. in further reading sections. For example, in the Yasser Arafat Featured Article that you linked above, there is a book by journalist Said Aburish, by author Janet Wallach (no wikipedia page), by editor Andrew_Gowers, by journalist Alan_Hart_(writer), by journalist Danny_Rubenstein and by Avraham_Sela - all who don't even have a Ph.D. (with the exception of Sela, who otherwise is still not very notable). Can you give a reason why not to use Elst as source for Integral Humanism. Are there better scholarly sources available that discuss the concept in detail? Which ones are these? Also, if scholars like Makarand_Paranjape quote the book under discussion, would you agree that the book is quoted instead in the same fashion? --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I did not start the RFC. The RFC expired with more keep than delete votes, which defaults to keep. There is no consensus version without the book. The book was added to the article, you tried to remove it, then somebody started an RFC which expired with more support votes. Frankly, I find your actions over a single line after there was a consensus to keep it, is becoming annoying. It is not the end of the world if you don't agree with every line in an wikipedia article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not my disagreement, the problem is your misunderstanding of consensus. [[WP:|CON|consensus]] is not a vote; therefore, an expired RfC does NOT default to "keep." It defaults to what the article was prior to the RfC. In this case, Jyoti started the RfC shortly after inserting the book into the article; a violation of procedure in any case, but that certainly does not make the consensus version the one with the book. The consensus version is the version prior to the dispute, which does not contain the book. And your comment about a single line applies equally to your opinion in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was keep, while somebody more impartial than us should judge the arguments, there were more keep than delete votes, which means keep. How many support votes would it need in your opinion that it would mean keep. The majority should be enough. Where does it say that this was a violation of RFC procedure? Please provide the link. The consensus version is the version prior to the proposal(RFC). --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read WP:VOTE? Where on earth are you getting "consensus was keep" from? The consensus version is the one before the dispute; the dispute was ongoing when the RfC began, so how on earth can the consensus version be the one when the RfC was started? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Read My talk page, RFC This talk page, External_links/Noticeboard. It has been not disputed by anyone other than you recently. You are against the consensus. Period. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:VOTE is only an essay. (Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, they could only represent minority viewpoints.) The majority of the votes was keep, and the only impartial editor in this (SW3, who has no history to edit or discuss in those kind of articles) voted and argued for keep. How many keep votes would you need in order to accept it? Why is the majority of votes not enough? Of course there will always be someone opposing in an RFC, but if the majority of voters voted keep, it should be keep.

You have also not replied to all the arguments in favor of keep in the discussion. For example, in the Yasser Arafat Featured Article that you linked above, the Further reading section is not as strict as you seem to imply: there is a book by journalist Said Aburish, by author Janet Wallach (no wikipedia page), by editor Andrew_Gowers, by journalist Alan_Hart_(writer), by journalist Danny_Rubenstein and by Avraham_Sela - all who don't even have a Ph.D. (with the exception of Sela, who otherwise is still not very notable). Also, if scholars like Makarand Paranjape quote the book under discussion, would you agree that the book is quoted in the same fashion? --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed per RfC close, and that should be the end of this discussion as well, so closing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Recent revert

I just reverted a couple of edits by an IP address. The first of these changed the number of Lok Sabha seats from 279 (a sourced figure) to 282. Unless you have a newer source, please don't change this. The second change reinserted multiple deleted images, but in such a way that they had still been commented out. I am unsure what purpose this serves; regardless, please discuss here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

About the LS seats: New elections will be held for few seats (like example the Vadodara seat) Narendra Modi Resigns From Vadodara Seat, Will Retain Varanasi. Also, post Gopinath Munde's death election would be held there too. So the seats are bound to change. Given the lousy lazy journalism in India I doubt you would find a single reference giving a total seat count. We would have to search if the Lok Sabha's official website has something on it. Or we would have to synthesis the total figure and explain the count in footnote. Same situation would happen on numerous articles now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure. I'm not wedded to this figure; all I'm saying is that a change needs to have some basis, which the IP was not providing. The number was in fact 282 for some time just after the elections; it was changed when Modi resigned his second seat, Munde died, and something else happened to a third person (can't remember what). The Lok Sabha website ought to be accurate; so should the ECI, provided we use the most recent one. You're dead right about the journalism, I'm very wary of using a media source for this figure. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference formatting

The current citation formats used in the article are rather chaotic, with two styles essentially being combined right now. I am planning to migrate the entire article to either the {{sfn}} or the {{sfnp}} styles, hopefully in the near future. If anybody has objections, or suggestions, I am happy to hear them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been no objections, or indeed no response, of any kind; therefore, I am boldly implementing this. I am not hellbent on keeping it in, but if you revert, at least do me the courtesy of discussing it here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The ideal format would be to use {{sfn}} for books, because they may be referenced multiple times with different page numbers, and ordinary footnotes for news articles. Looking at a footnote such as "The Hindu 2013" is so uninformative that it seems pointless. My two cents. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, we ideally don't want two formats running around, and ordinary footnotes for multiple sections of the same book gets rather messy. The footnote in this case also links to the full reference. That said, I don't think there is anything stopping you from expanding the footnote a little, by tweaking the {{|ref={{harvid|...}}}} parameter in the full reference, and replacing it above. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideological position

There are very, very few sources for centre-right, yet BJP trolls keep adding that in. "Right-wing" is extremely well sourced, as you can see. There are more sources for "far-right" than for "centre-right". BJP is not a liberal-conservative centre-right party, it is a Hindu nationalist party. If BJP is centre-right, then Front National and the Muslim Brotherhood must also be centre-right. BJP's platform is nationalist, populist and its advocacy of classical liberal-conservative reforms are extremely inconsistent (e.g. BJP's position on FDI in retail).

If any party in North America or Europe supported anti-conversion laws, it would be far-right. If any party in North America or Europe supported a ban on homosexuality (League of Polish Families) it would be far-right. If any party in North America or Europe had close affiliations with paramilitary groups (Jobbik), it would be far right. I understand Indian cultural norms are very different from those of the West, hence why I am not advocating the "far-right" label. However, "right-wing" is appropriate and this is reflected in English language media coverage which overwhelmingly applies that label.--86.149.182.212 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the info-box is not the place to fight these wars. Why don't you add text to the article that firmly establishes that BJP is right wing, and then the info-box can reflect that. At the moment, all those citations are off-putting and they violate the current citation style of the article. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel the same too. @Vanamonde93: as major contributor, what do you feel? can you remedy this? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This particular parameter has always seemed a little strange to me, partly because it seeks to reduce a complex set of positions that are not always self-consistent to a single term, and partly because I am not a fan of the two-dimensional political spectrum. That said, I believe the infobox is a summary of the article, and as such does not need to quote from it. The body of the article contains content which shows that the BJP holds right-wing positions broadly speaking, and the sources used in the body (like DiSilvio) do in fact use the term "right-wing." IMO this is enough, and the DiSilvio source can be duplicated from the body as a source so the formatting is fixed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014

(UTC)

It would seem I misread the references a little. DiSilvio was not one of the source I added, but a later addition (confused him with Bobbio; Italian last names, both). I will look for a better source, which I am sure may be found among those that I used when I re-wrote this. Also, upon further thought, it seems appropriate to mention the political position in the lead as well, skeptical though I may be about the term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification; DiSilvio was published in an undergrad journal, ergo not reliable enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, you better mention it both to the lead and infobox. While I posted here, someone did change it back to "centre-right" without saying why. Also, since some might try to fight over it without reading the main prose, I recommend you add citations to both those places and maybe even in-article comments. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good call, will do as soon as I find the time. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hindu politics template

It seems to me that if the template belongs on any page at all, it belongs here. It is true that the BJP is not officially a "Hindu" party; but the overwhelming majority of RS show that it has, at times in the past, functioned as such. Moreover, there is no conceivable way that the topic of Hindu politics is complete without the BJP, even though the BJP itself has a lot to it besides Hindutva. Finally, it is an entry in the template. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose in general elections list

@Ugog Nizdast: Thanks for the CE, my friend. As for the prose in that section; I added it following this discussion. It is repetition, and I would be happy to remove it, I only inserted it to make the section better compliant with WP:EMBED. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember that now. Hmm, I still think it's not needed but I may be interpreting EMBED wrong. Tell you what, this is something you can ask the future reviewer. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that works. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello editors, I have agreed to do the GA review of this page. Will post my comments soon. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Anything yet, Kautilya3? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. I have had a health issue. I thought I had recovered when I accepted to do the review, but it turns out that I was over-optimistic. Let me take till this weekend to see what I can do. If I can't make progress, I will put it back in the pool so that somebody else can pick it up. (I am quite comfortable with the topic, but I am new to GA reviews.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have two concerns: 1. Kautilya3 is an involved editor. He also edits closely with the nominating user Vanamonde93. 2. I think some feedback was given regarding GA earlier which ought to be in the talk page archives. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya has added essentially no new content to this page; he has added only a further reading entry. The rest of his "involvement" is copy-editing and reverting vandals. The editor interaction utility tells you nothing; everybody editing the Indian politics pages will have a comparison that looks very similar. Here is mine and APs; it has more entries than mine and Kautilya's. Besides, there are such things as GA criteria, which he is required to follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

He has expanded that section, added category, done copy-edit. That is called involved. You are wrong -- his edit count is half of mine but overlap with you is way more than between us (you may check the count yourself). GA instructions suggest that reviewer be non-involved. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that AP has an over-active imagination. I am a member of WikiProject India, with my interests declared as "history and politics". I have several hundred pages on my watch list, which I defend against routine vandalism and do touch-ups when I need to. That doesn't mean that I am "involved" in all of them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have explained "involved" above, don't take it out of context. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AmritasyaPutra, Kautilya3 is an involved editor, he can help in getting this page to GA status by contributing. GA review should be done by someone else. -sarvajna (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

From viewing the editing history, I wouldn't consider Kautilya involved. Vandalism reversions and one source addition don't constitute involvement on a page. Wizardman 15:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Wizardman. I look at the editing history and don't see too much involvement. In fact, I can't really say this is involvement. We should probably do a consensus to confirm this. Kautilya3, in my opinion, doesn't get too involved with this. Just confirm this issue with a consensus in the talk page.Vinethemonkey (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lede

• "As of 2014..." might be better as "Since the 2014 general election..." Requires no updating that way.
• The second "As of 2014..." could probably be deleted altogether.
• "and as of November 2014..." Again, could probably delete. See WP:ASOF for more ideas on that line.
  • Done the first two. Not so sure about the third, simply because (unlike many other countries) India does not have synchronized elections, and thus that half of the sentence keeps could keep changing. I can see why you want it tweaked though, and am open to suggestions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bharatiya Jana Sangh (1951–77)

• "The first major campaign of the Jana Sangh was an agitation demanding the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India." This reads a little awkwardly. Maybe "The Jana Sangh's first major campaign centered on a demand for the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India."
• With the footnotes: if notes 10, 11, and 12 are meant to stand for the entire paragraph, why not combine them in to one note, since they're all from the same source. If you want to make each stand for a different section of the paragraph, it would be best to scatter them among the sentences to which they correspond.
• "Mookerjee was arrested for violating orders..." What orders? From whom?
  • Implemented the first suggestion, clarified the third point. I have moved one footnote; I would be open to combining the other two, but am not sure how to do so with the sfn format. How significant of an issue is it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not a big deal. I tweaked the citation myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Janata Party (1977–80)

• "It merged..." The antecedent is a little unclear here.
• " After a brief period of coalition rule, general elections were held in 1980." Did the government collapse, or did they call elections voluntarily. Or does it even work that way in India? I assumed so, by analogy to the UK system, but I'm not sure.
  • I've clarified the first point. Wrt the second; a fragment of the Janata Party led a minority government for a while, with outside support from the Indian National Congress.
    • As to the second: I'd explain exactly that in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Babri Masjid demolition and the Hindutva movement

• "...and made it a part of their election plank." I think this should be "election platform"
• "The BJP withdrew its support to the V.P. Singh government..." should probably be "withdrew its support from the V.P. Singh government..."
• "...leading to fresh elections being called." don't need the last two words here.
• Active voice: "The VHP was briefly banned by the government..." reads better as "The government briefly banned the VHP..."
• Again: "Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the demolition, also was criticised in the report." is better as "The report also criticised Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the demolition."
• "...forcing it to resign after 13 days." Maybe "...forcing the government to resign after 13 days."
  • Done all, as per your suggestions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat Violence

• "On 27 February 2002, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burned outside..." Who burned it?
• "...then Gujarat chief minister..." needs a hyphen, I think: "then-Gujarat chief minister"
  • I've added the hyphen, as you suggested. The other point is more complicated, though, and the wording was actually carefully chosen. The question of who burned the train is a highly controversial one; read Godhra Train burning for details. If you still feel something should be added, please let me know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I take your point. Probably best left as it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

General election defeat 2004, 2009

• The section title is awkward. Maybe just "General election defeats"?
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

General election victory, 2014

• Some detail about the campaign would be good. Why did they win in 2014, but not in the previous two elections? What was different this time?
  • Not ignoring this; this is the only one that requires real research, so I was leaving it till the end. Will work on this now. I didn't when it occurred, because in-the-moment political news coverage in the Indian media tends to be godawful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not just in India! But it doesn't need much, just a line or two. I've found The Economist has good-ish coverage, if you have access to that. If not, I'll take a look myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Coemgenus, I've taken a shot at this. Take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's what was needed, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Social policies and Hindutva

• Spell out the full name of NCERT the first time it's used.
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic policies

• Link "neo-liberal".
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Foreign policy

• "Leading RSS and BJP figures criticised..." Who? Naming one of the critics would make the sentence less nebulous.
• There's a [clarification needed] tag here, and I understand why: earlier you say the Kargil War ended with the ouster of Pakistani troops from a disputed region; here, it says no territory changed hands. Which is it?
  • I've addressed the first point, though the source is rather thin on names. As to the clarify tag; I confess I don't quite see the issue, but this is perhaps because I know the details. Here is what happened; perhaps you can think of a better phrasing. The entire Kashmir region is disputed. Some of the state has been in Pakistani hands since 1948, and some in Indian. Infiltrators from Pakistan were discovered in some Indian held territory, across the Line-of-control that has been in place for a while. After some fighting, the infiltrators were expelled from the previously Indian held territory. The line of control did not shift. Now if there is a concise way to summarize that, I'd be happy to hear it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand now. The first description is probably fine, then. I'd change the second to make it clear that the line of control remained the same, and that Pakistani troops who had crossed it were repelled. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Gave it a shot; further suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I think that works. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the first point has now been deleted by AP, here is the original quote. It is fairly obviously relevant; I welcome suggestions on paraphrasing. "M.S.Golwalkar, the founding guru of BJP’s parent body RSS, ridiculed India’s description as a land of ahimsa (non-violence) since “every Hindu god is armed.” Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh blamed the “ersatz pacifism” of Buddhist, Jain, Vaishnav- Bhakti and Gandhian views for “twisting India’s strategic culture into all kinds of absurdities” and enfeebling a once fierce nation. The argument goes that one has only to peruse core ancient Indian treatises, Arthashastra and Mahabharata, to glean the “essence of the Indian military mind” which enabled Hindu kings to extend their sways as far as Central and Southeast Asia. For ideologue K.N. Govindacharya, forging a Hindu India “embracing Kshatriya/Shakti [warrior] tradition of revolutionaries instead of the timorous Brahminical Bhakti [devotional] tradition” is the main psychological makeover for BJP foreign policy." Chaulia, 2002.

Commenting on invite/request Diff. I think this is not due in this article. Golwalkar was not the founding father of RSS, Hedgewar was. RSS was not the originating body of BJP, it was Jana Sangh. Golwalkar died before the formation of BJP and never fought any election or campained for any party in his life. Mentioning him and relating it to BJP is not correct. I do not see the quote suggesting that India had a militant past and BJP wishes to uphold that. We have very good academic peer reviewed journals discussing India's foreign policy under NDA's regime and we can/have use them. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The point isn't that the BJP was attempting to uphold a militant past, but that the idea of a militant past informed the thinking of the BJP. It is undeniable that Golwalkar was never directly involved with the BJP; it is equally undeniable that he was a major influence on its thinking, especially the old guard from the Jana Sangh days. I think we should get a third opinion here; Coemgenus, what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images

Most look fine, with good fair use justifications where necessary. One question, though:

• On File:Deendayal Upadhyay.png, the uploader claims this pic as "own work". Is that true? It seems unlikely. Is there a better-sourced image available?
  • There doesn't seem to be another image available. If we have doubts about the source, we could simply nix it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Probably ought to nix it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I've taken it out. Since an image bar with two pictures looks a little odd, I've added one of LK Advani, which is appropriate considering his stature within the party. It's listed as a public domain image. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes

• Footnotes 3, 39, 42, 48, 70, 72, 75, 80, 83, 91, and 93 have links that don't actually direct to a long citation in the sources section.
  • Done (or should be, anyway). Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I fixed the rest of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That should do it for now. I'll put this on hold and await your reply. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

Regarding: "its period in power saw a rise in support for the RSS, marked by a wave of communal violence in the early 1980s." BJP came to power first time in 1998. Congress was in power in 1980-98. And for the biggest riot of early 1980s is 1984 sikh riots Congress ministers where directly implicated. This statement is factually impossible. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The full sentence reads "Historian Ramachandra Guha writes that despite the factional wars within the Janata government, its period in power saw a rise in support for the RSS, marked by a wave of communal violence in the early 1980s." This makes it crystal clear that the second part of the sentence refers to the Janata government, not the BJP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Congress was in power in 1980-98. and as I gave reference the biggest communal riot of early 1980s was 1984 anti-Sikh riots for which Congress is held responsible directly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If you had made it clear that your objection was to the dating and not the riots, it would have helped. Here is the quote, and I am tweaking the article appropriately. I suspect that the previous version of the sentence was a product of previous disputes, or alternatively lost in translation with multiple copy-edits. "There was once more a distinct political party to represent and advance the ‘Hindu’ interest. As it happened, the formation of the BJP heralded a wave of religious violence in northern and western India. There were major Hindu-Muslim riots in the Uttar Pradesh towns of Moradabad (August 1980) and Meerut (September–October 1982); in the Bihar town of Biharsharif in April–May 1981; in the Gujarat towns of Vadodara (September 1981), Godhra (October 1981) and Ahmedabad (January 1982); in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, in September 1983; and in the Maharashtra towns of Bhiwandi and Bombay in May–June 1984. In each case the riots ran on for days, with much loss of life and property, and were finally quelled only by armed force." Guha, pg 563-64. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. But do not blame me, I am helping you improve the article. I made my point amply clear. It is alright if you failed to see the point previously; you can always ask your doubts. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering your track record on this page, it is hardly surprising that I bridled somewhat easily. Don't cry wolf, and all that sort of thing; or have you forgotten Koenrad Elst and that book already? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can be more civil. Thank you. Another misrepresentation which was corrected earlier. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

for your review, Coemgenus. I will go through the points you raised, and address them; give me a couple of days. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Guha 2007

Coemgenus, Vanamonde93, I noticed there are some exceptional and highly critical remark mostly sourced to one book Guha 2007. It wasn't an academic thesis or peer reviewed work or even an academic publication. I could not locate it on jstor or questia or mylibrary British Council, I have a non English hard copy but I am not able to match page numbers. It was published by Pan Macmillan which deals with literature publication. And we just noticed a mistake sourced to this book in the section "dubious" above. This raises doubts on using it on 23 occasions for such claims. It is quite possible there are others, how can I check it most suitably (since I do not find it on my no-bars subscription in three reputed sites)? It is also needed because Guha has always been critical of BJP and sympathetic towards Congress (I remember reading his chapter on Emergency where he summarized that India wasn't ready for a brave-heart lady like Indira, indirectly absolving her and putting the blame on common masses for the emergency and its difficulties) and using him for BJP bashing is a suitable deception someone might have done in this article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for using Guha are numerous, and somewhat obvious, if you know the topic. Guha is perhaps the best known, and certainly one of the best known, among Indian historians. India after Gandhi is essentially the only text that comprehensively covers Indian history since its independence. Despite being relatively recent, it is already considered a classic text; I know of several universities, both within in India and outside it, that use it as a course text. I have yet to hear of academics accusing Guha of bias in his scholarship. Finally, Wikipedia does not require neutral sources; only reliable ones, and Guha is eminently reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He is reliable. This source is not so much, and I said why. And I said why we should check again. Any help in that direction is appreciated. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't, really; you've given me some speculations, is all. Palgrave macmillan publishes fiction, certainly, but the bulk of its stuff is academic, and that is what it is known for. It has editorial oversight of the highest quality. This makes it reliable. Unless you bring further information into this discussion, I'm not really interested in pursuing it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I expressed my concern and sought assistance. I humbly disagree that this is an academic publication. And why is not in any online subscription? Who is the editor? I will wait for any other guidance or continue with whatever resource I have. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

On WorldCat, I found 6 libraries within 25 miles of my home that have this book. It seems perfectly reputable to me. I'll assume good faith and accept the source as valid, as far as the GA review is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My main concern is any misrepresentation from it. That was the case in previous section "dubious". --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Update. I may not be able to check further due to time cosntraint. I made two minor improvements according to the source here and here. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Also redone this edit which was removed here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Prose for the table

This concerns mainly the prose for the table at the General election results section. I feel the prose already repeats the content in the above history section, so the table can supplement that rather than have its own section with additional prose. Previously mentioned at Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Prose_in_general_elections_list and Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_3#GA_nom. As reviewer, what do you think? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the first two tables are fine as they are. I had considered earlier suggesting that the list of party presidents be moved to its own article. Since others seem to agree, I'll suggest that now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I will make the move shortly. I intend to just cut and paste, and flesh it out afterward, and any help is welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved the list to List of Presidents of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and other concerns with this article

I have mentioned most of these concerns already (see the archives) but the problems persist in the article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with some of them and not with others. Like the further reading section or order of sections isn't a requirement or a violation. Others should be discussed and improved as part of good article review. I agree with some of the concerns of neutrality raised. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1 (Sources with anti-BJP bias not attributed or balanced)

• There is undue weight given to Guha. He is a notable historian, but the book cited is a history on India, not on the BJP or political parties specifically, and he clearly has an anti-BJP pov. Imagine if the Republican Party Article would rely that much on general history of the U.S. written by an author with an anti-Republican stance. We can cite him, but to add balance other authors should also be used, and his non-neutral statements should be attributed to his opinion.
  • It doesn't seem especially biased to me. And saying other sources should be used is less helpful than saying specifically which other sources should be used. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I also think its usage is 'okay' unless we have a better source saying something contradictory. There was misrepresentation on three occasions, that is fixed now. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say, keep the references, but the controversial should be attributed to Guha, and for some of them, the response by BJP or others should be given. This is not the case in many places. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

2 (Integral Humanism)

• Integral Humanism is the official philosophy of the BJP. It is only mentioned in a single sentence. This is far too less. As long as this is not treated sufficiently in the article, this article should not be a Good Article. (Some sources are Koenraad Elst's Decolonizing the Hindu Mind (he discusses it in about 15 pages), G. Heuze "Ou va l'inde moderne", and Graham "Hindu nationalism".)

"The BJP defines its ideology as based on "integral humanism" and its constitution states that the party is committed to "nationalism and national integration, democracy, Gandhian Socialism, Positive Secularism, that is 'Sarva Dharma Samabhav', and value-based politics".

• • It might be a good idea to include a paragraph on integral humanism. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Coemgenus, I am happy to add details if it is deemed necessary. However, I would point out that the stated ideologies of the BJP are mentioned in various places; "swadeshi" in the economic policies section, and "positive secularism" in the social policies/hindutva. Academic coverage of the BJP has tended not to go into integral humanism very much, nor does it feature prominently in the media; so I personally feel the current level of coverage is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can you say that a single sentence, "The official philosophy of the BJP is "Integral humanism"", is appropriate coverage for the official philosophy of the BJP?--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • • How about this: under "Social policies and Hindutva", add a brief description of what it means. "The official philosophy of the BJP is "Integral humanism", which is [description]." Just enough to let the reader know whether he wants to click the link for more information or be satisfied with the summary. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I would appreciate some help with that. Scholarly interpretations with what IH means are already covered. The summary of IH as created by its proponents is very peacocky, and I have struggled to strike a balance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I may add 2-3 sentences on this over the weekend, using Elst's "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind" from Rupa Publications since that is the book I have available, and is the most detailled scholarly and secondary source I know of on this topic, and maybe 1-2 other sources. I have seen that there are also books with the title "Integral Humanism", but I don't have those. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, balance and NPOV are important. I'm not looking for much, just a sentence or so, reliably sourced --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I could give this a shot; a way around it might be to simply attribute the statement to the BJP constitution or to Deendayal Upadhyay, and thus get around any problems in wording. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I've taken a shot at this; please take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added a fuller description on the meaning and history of the official BJP party doctrine (Integral humanism). It is not perfect, but as it stands now, its ok. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My additions were removed. There should be a fuller description for the official doctrine and philosophy of the BJP.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3

• Why is the style of the sections in this article so different than that of other major political parties, viz the REP, DEM, and Indian congress parties? In absence of a style policy, the Democratic party and Republican party articles should be considered as best practice for major parties articles. In these articles, the orders of the sections starts with economic policies, and then "social policies" (and not social policies and Hindutva). In the Congress Party article, the order also begins with Economics. It would be more neutral if the same Manual of Style would be followed here also. The economy focused politicians in the BJP are arguably more important within the power structure of the BJP.
  • There is no set style for articles about political parties. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with Coemgenus. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really npov, but ok enough. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Article is also missing a lot of information compared to Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States) articles. It should have sections on the BJP's name and symbols (about the BJP flag), more about Integral Humanism, environemental policy,.... It is incomplete. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

4 (textbooks)

• The article criticizes the BJP for the NCERT textbooks, but does only give the viewpoint of the BJP critics, without also mentioning the BJP viewpoint (for example, that there were also accusations of bias in textbooks before and after the BJP).
  • I agree, starting the BJP's rationale for the changes would be useful. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is one source saying "that what was being termed as saffronisation by the Leftists was nothing but correcting the distortions interpolated by Marxist historians. The NCERT books conformed to the national curriculum framework of school education-2000, it said. The Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the curriculum and rejected allegations of saffronisation, the resolution said.Opposition to the UPA’s attempt to change the text would form a weapon in the BJP’s Hindutva arsenal, the resolution hinted. The book developed during the NDA regime gave respect to all communities and religion rather than follow the Marxist attempt at denigrating India’s historical past. In the earlier NCERT text books there were passages that hurt the sensitivities of many communities like the Sikhs, the Brahmins, the Jains and the Jats through “willful denigration.” A national hero like Guru Teg Bahadur was described as a robber who committed plunder, it said."

Maybe we could also cite Arun Shourie on this.

Here we still need a counter-argument from BJP or other source, otherwise it is not neutral. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

5 (illegal immigrants and refugees)

• Section on Bangladesh immigrants and refugees: I have looked up the source, and found this quote in the source: ultimately however it was an Indian government led by the Congress Party under the leadership of Narasimha Rao that after 1991 instated the harshest measures against undocumented immigrants. This means that the source accuses both the BJP and the Congress party, and the Congress party it says had the "harshest measures". So why is this only in the BJP article, and why does it not say that the Congress party is also accused of this. What is the point to have this section in the BJP article at all, if also the Congress party is accused of this, and Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, so what is the issue in saying that most refugees would be minorities (in this case, minorities are Hindu or Christian)?
  • If the source says that Congress did the same or worse, that should be included, unless I'm missing something. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not sure if there is a need to Discuss Congress. Yes, it is a bit overly dramatic. Saying a party is against "illegal migration" is kind of meaningless, can there be a party which is for illegal migration? The narration can be made more neutral. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't see the need to discuss the Congress either. The information is certainly noteworthy, but the place for it is the INC article, which I would work on had I the time. Calypso, if you feel that this needs to be mentioned, go ahead and insert it there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • OK, that makes sense. Let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole paragraph about this should be left out. Firstly, the source criticzes both political parties and the Congress party even more. Secondly, as AP said, it is not noteworthy that a party is against illegal immigration. Thirdly, Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country where attacks against the Hindu and Christian minority happen as they do also in Pakistan, so you would expect Hindu and Christian refugees. I have never heard of attacks of the minorities against the majority Muslims in Bangladesh (but let me know if I'm wrong), so you would expect that Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh are not refugees. Then what is the point of criticizing the BJP for what is more or less common sense? Also, Modi and BJP has acted against the separitists who recently attacked Mulisms in NorthEastern India and the section does not mention it. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think this should be left out, but I have at least added a response from a BJP source. With the addition, it is more neutral. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My addition was removed, making the section again non-neutral. It doesn't matter if the source is older, academic sources are always some years behind. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

6

• "The failure of the moderate strategy championed by Vajpayee led to a shift in the ideology of the party toward a policy of more hardline Hindutva and Hindu fundamentalism". I couldn't find the quote, could the full quote be provided on this talkpage? It is also pov, such a statement should also be written neutrally. You have to say, "according to ..."
  • Are you suggesting that the editor who wrote this was inaccurately summarizing the source? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I can't recall precisely but I think this is a close paraphrase from the source. Having a quote to verify will settle the matter. Attributing is also an option. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It should also be attributed to the source. Can the full quote be provided? But it is ok enough. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

7 (Godhra and Gujarat riots)

• The section on the Gujarat riots. It should clearly state that it was an attack upon Hindus, not merely seen as one. That is what the commission and the court concluded. The section should also state the official numbers of the vicims, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus, and not just estimations.
  • It seems there's a great deal of disagreement about this. It would be nice if you guys could arrive at some consensus that was adequately accurate and neutral. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with Coemgenus, lets leave it like that or you propose a wording and seek consensus. It is a controversial subject and not entirely central to this page. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The language right now is about as neutral as we can make it; raking this up again is just opening a big can of worms. In general, we should trust the academic source over the government one; the court ruling has very little weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't just dismiss this with "raking this up" if s/he has a concern. But yes, s/he should propose a better statement. There is no denying that this page has broad coverage of Babri and 2002 in "BJP(1980-present)" section -- from formation till now! That makes it unbalanced/less focused in that section. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Then we should mention both the official numbers (which many academics will also mention) and the estimates by these scholars, as both are notable, and the opinion of an academic is not necessarily more trustworthy than the court, as they can also be biased. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A discussion that deep gets off topic. As far as this GA review is concerned, let's just leave it be. I doubt everyone can be satisfied with any wording. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It can not be off topic if the section is included in this article. I have concerns that the section is not neutral and have explained the issue. What is so difficult about also including the offical, court or commission version? It is also known that some of the sources used in the article have an anti BJP pov, so where possible, balance should be given. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is not neutral. It makes all kinds of accusations against the BJP, but does not even mention that it was an attack by mobs on the train, and what the actual numbers of the victims were. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

8

• Finally, some books were removed from the further reading section, even though they are on topic:
  • Ramesh N. Rao: Coalition conundrum: the BJP's trials, tribulations, and triumphs, Har Anand Publications, 2001
  • Gurdas M. Ahuja. BJP and the Indian Politics: Policies & Programmes of the Bharatiya Janata Party (1994)
  • Gurdas M. Ahuja. Bharatiya Janata Party and Resurgent India (2004) ISBN 900534-4-2
  • And the book by Elst (see discussion archives).
    • I don't think there's any requirement of even having a further reading section, let alone including every book that every editor thinks is relevant. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree with Coemgenus, let's not even get into this discussion. It is definitely not a concern in a good article review process. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

9 (LK Advani Rath Yatra, other issues)

Another point is that the Babri section is also not neutral. L.K.Advani made reportedly no anti-Muslim remarks during the Rath Yatra, he broke down in tears when the demolition happened and described it as the blackest or saddest day of his life or of India. The way it is written, these nuances in favor of Advani are not explained, which is not neutral. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole article focuses on many instances of allegations of anti-Muslim biases. To be neutral, the article should also mention the Muslim friendly actions by the BJP, for example, Muslim politicians in the BJP, the BJP increased the subsidy the government gives to Muslims for the Haj pilgrimage,etc. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as the GA review is concerned, I think the article achieves a neutral point of view. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone acquainted with the topic, it is obvious that the article is not npov, and I have explained some of these issues. Shouldn't special care given to NPOV in a good article, or am I missing something? There are also a couple of other issues, for example, the article claims that the party is strictly hierarchical, but does not mention that it also has very strong internal democratic processes within the BJP.--Calypsomusic (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The section on LK Advani and his yatra is also very pov. It calls the yatra militant, while it doesn't say that the yatra was entirley peaceful. It implicitly accusses senior leaders of the BJP like Advani for the violence and destruction that happened, although the senior leaders like Advani did their best to avoid any violence. That the yatra itself was responsible for the violence is just one of many opinions (there are other opinions, for example many Muslims accused the PM and his government to let the violence and destruction happen, because once this happened, the public support that the BJP gained would vanish). Other opinions, like that of Advani, needs to be given, which I have begun to include. The article is not balanced, it focuses too much on negative sides. For example, the article has many instances of allegations of anti-Muslim biases. To be balanced, some pro-Muslim actions and dialogue of the BJP could be included. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to put a NPOV tag on the article. But I have now made some additions which make the article more neutral. With some more work, it could hopefully be fairly neutral enough. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag to the article, since my attempts to make the article more neutral were reverted. These issues need to be solved before the tag is removed. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also a whole paragraph on the Liberhans report, but only the anti-BJP opinion, without mentioning the BJP opinion on it. Like elsewhere, there is a strong focus on anti-BJP opinions, while the BJP opinion is left out. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of my concerns I already voiced months ago. I told you already then that one single sentence about Integral Humanism is by far not enough and even pointed you to sources, you could have fixed that during these months. You could also have asked yourself what could you do to make the article more neutral. This requires not just relying on your preferred sources which are biased against the BJP, but also using other sources that are neutral or even sympathetic to the BJP. Special care must be taken for npov for existing policital parties, this has not yet been taken in this article.

The neutrality is the biggest problem in this article. But the article is also missing a lot of important information. There should be a section on the BJP's name and symbols (about the BJP flag), more about Integral Humanism, environemental policy, .... The Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States) articles are much better articles than the BJP article, they have much more breadth and scope. But even these much better articles are not good articles. I won't have much time to work on this this month, but will have more time next month. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated sections needing update/expansion

@Vanamonde93 and Coemgenus: there is nothing in "Defence and terrorism" after 2001 and there is nothing in "Foreigh policy" after 1999. I think we should be able to trace it to a more recent time. I can help with it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is simply because the incidents and policies that were most significant are from that period. There is no point in listing all of the international visits and conferences that the party was involved in. As and when there is a systematic review of the Modi government's foreign policy, it can be added; currently, such does not exist. Newspaper sources are highly suspect in this regard, for reasons I have covered before. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Diff, I have tried to bring it upto 2004 using two academic peer-reviewed Journal articles specifically discussing India's foreign relation and economic stand. Surely we can find references Vanamonde93, and if we do not find peer-reviewed Journal we can still do with other sources, we do not need to necessarily leave the article incomplete if there is a lack of academic journal's covering that particular topic yet. What do you say? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems with additions per se; but the current ones seem to be highly redundant. I will make an attempt to make them less so. Give me a little time. What I was trying to say was that the article is not really incomplete; as is frequent with many governments, the broad policy changes of the government tend to be enacted in the first couple of years, and that has been the case here. Both your additions are accurate but very, very general; the article already covers essentially all those points, at a more detailed level, and I am not convinced we need those. I also feel that given the large number of changes that have been made tonight, we should both hold off of editing the article for 12 hours at the very least, to allow Coemgenus to express their opinions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Vanamonde93, will wait for others to respond. My additions are from peer reviewed academic journals discussing the very specific topic and covering a time frame which is not already discussed. I do not see that it is repetetion. I may add further details if you suggest so, that would be the right way to go as peer reviewed academic journals are best sources. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I take that back, at least in part; the economic policies source is useful, especially now that I have reworded it for clarity. I will take a look at the foreign policy one now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reworded the foreign policy addition slightly (paraphrasing, rather than copying). I have also removed the "re-evaluated relations" sentence, simply because without further context it is not useful (reevaluated from what? what were the new relations?) and this context is not available in the source, which I read. Nonetheless, a post-2004 summary has now been included. Coemgenus, could you take a look? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Y Agreed. I am good with your modifications Vanamonde93, I think "realism" cannot be substituted with "pragmatism", it is debatable and we can simply stick with the word that was used by Lall. What to do you think? --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Good god, the two of us agreed on something? This is a moment to be celebrated. Personally I feel the substitution is fine, but I will change it back, in the interests of moving this review forward. Would you take a look at the "militant past" section above, where I provided the quote? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Commented in that section. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference duplication

According to Ugog Nizdast, who was performed several GA reviews, all material that could be contested requires a supporting inline citation, even if the actual citation is provided later in the paragraph. This was mentioned by Ugog when he looked over the article soon after the nomination [1] and I implemented it soon after. AmritasyaPutra, I would therefore appreciate if you self-reverted the removal of those duplications. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing. In fact, I hold the same opinion and give similar advice when conducting GA reviews. Please add it to any exceptional/contentious statement. It does not require tagging several sentences back to back if they are not exceptional. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then, your definition of what is exceptional is clearly different from his; I duplicated only to those sentences which he tagged. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Y Okay Vanamonde93, I have reverted. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Venkatesan's article

Calypso, if you intend to use the article "The Laxman Line" by Venkatesan, [2], then you should at the very least neutrally represent what he is saying. Here is the full quote; "The new emphasis on gaining the trust of the minorities is inducing certain curious changes in the pattern of utterances issuing from the party leadership. When in Opposition, the BJP lost no opportunity to castigate the Congress(I) for providing a subsi dy in the matter of the air fare for the Haj pilgrimage, which in its eyes then was a symbol of minority appeasement. Today, the BJP proudly advertises its decision to increase the subsidy given to the pilgrims." Venkatesan, 2000. This is outright source mis-representation, because he is accusing the BJP of hypocrisy. I had in fact come across this source during my research; I chose to leave it out precisely because of this. I have removed it for now; if you want to use it, represent it accurately. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read the full article, but used a quote from the article I saw in a book. The point that needs to be illustrated is that the BJP also made pro-Muslim actions and inititiaves, which must also be mentioned. One of them is that it increased the subsidy given to the pilgrims. Rather than deleting the fact, we can add that it previously opposed the subsidy. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding all that you mentioned missing in the current article, be bold and add it yourself. The Good article criteria is more lenient than you think, and criteria 3a concerns the article's coverage, that's entirely upto the reviewer to decide. This review is closed, so use the main talk page henceforth. You've mentioned neutrality concerns at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#Neutrality of this article is disputed and that's still open. We're waiting for you so that a 2nd (technically 3rd) attempt can be made to nominate it for GA. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that WP:BOLD will help here. There is a dispute about neutrality. Calypso seems to have some long-standing grievances and he finds it an opportune moment to raise them. I have suggested a way forward on the talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing comments

I think this is a well-written, fairly NPOV article. I regret that the current edit war is escalating, target than approaching consensus. The nominator has done fine work here, and I hope that if the editors can come to a consensus over the disputed sections, this article may someday achieve Good Article status. But for now, it lacks stability and I must fail it. I'm sorry to do it. It is an illustration of how it is easier to destroy an article than to create one, which is Wikipedia's greatest flaw. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I appreciate the time and effort you put into the review. I would, however, point out that the disputes and edit wars flared up literally in the process of review; might they not then assumed to be a function of the review? Personally, I cannot but help suspect ulterior motive, when an editor comes out from a 6-month period of no editing, to do nothing but raise old disputes on this page. Regardless of whether the article is currently ready for a GA, it seems to me that such behavior can easily be repeated should the article be renominated, and seems like an easy way to preclude it from ever reaching that status. Therefore, I would appreciate you weighing on the disputes rather than abandoning them, especially since some of the "non-neutral" sections are those which you yourself had felt were neutral. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've said, but that doesn't change the fact that the article is now the subject of an edit war. If the editors can all act in good faith and get it under control, I hope you'll resubmit it for GA. I'll gladly review it again and help to pass it if it's up to the standards. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I wasn't so much referring to this nomination as to the discussions here, and to the possibility that it could be edit-warred to a fail on frivolous grounds at any point, regardless of readiness. It seems to me that the only way to nix some of these debates is for a third party to say enough is enough, one way or another, and even that often doesn't do it. If you have any other suggestions, I would be happy to hear them. If you had taken a look through the talk page archives, you would see that a lot of the disputes brought up here, the sources used, whatnot, should have been dead and gone because they have been discussed previously with precisely the same editors. How would you deal with said situation? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear policy

The quote from the source; "Yet the BJP chose to disregard the likely adverse consequences and departed from India's post- 1974 "nuclear option" policy, which had reserved for India the right to weaponize its nuclear capabilities but had not overtly declared its weapons capability. National governments of varying political persuasions had adhered to this strategy for more than two decades." Sumit Ganguly 1999. The source itself refers to it as a "policy;" nonetheless, I have reworded it to read "strategy," since it was obviously not a codified policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such policy. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sikh Violence

The anti-Sikh violence is utterly irrelevant to this article. They were perpetrated by the Congress, and some Congress leaders were punished for it, as they should have been, and others were not, for various dodgy reasons; but all of that has nothing to do with the BJP. The source mentions the riots, and suggests a link to the BJP. The new source simply mentions the Congress role in the sikh riots; why are they relevant here? Mentioning them here is OR of the highest order. If you want context, find a source linking those riots to the Congress, or that shows the relevance of the sikh riots to this page. Since you seem so worried about them, I have tweaked it to read "hindu-muslim" violence, thus excluding the sikh riots. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement needs clarity. It implicates BJP for riots in early 1980s when we can clearly see Congress was in power and involved in riots. The first election that BJP fought was in 1984 where it won a meagre 2 seats. I have put back the clarification tag. You can propose how you want to make that clarification if you are not okay with the way I made it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a change, to address this issue. I don't see any further need for "clarification." The text now only mentions "Hindu-muslim" violence; there is no source showing INC involvement in those in that period. Moreoever, the source says "As it happened, the formation of the BJP heralded a wave of religious violence in northern and western India. There were major Hindu-Muslim riots in the Uttar Pradesh towns of Moradabad (August 1980) and Meerut (September–October 1982); in the Bihar town of Biharsharif in April–May 1981; in the Gujarat towns of Vadodara (September 1981), Godhra (October 1981) and Ahmedabad (January 1982); in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, in September 1983; and in the Maharashtra towns of Bhiwandi and Bombay in May–June 1984. In each case the riots ran on for days, with much loss of life and property, and were finally quelled only by armed force." Guha, 2007. It's pretty clear what he is saying. He says heralded, paraphrased here as "marked." What are you looking for? A statement saying "oh, but the Congress was also involved in riots?" that is irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You may read these biggest Hindu-Muslim riots of early 1980s: 1980 Moradabad riots, Mandai massacre and Nellie massacre. BJP is still non-existent in Mandai and Nellie after 35 years much lesser in 1980s! Yes, Congress government was reigning when these three incidents happened. Summariy saying early 1980s and implicating BJP for rioting does encompass the incidents that I mention and is clearly misleading hence a clarification is much needed. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Are you saying the source is incorrect, or are you suggesting mis-representation? The text DOES NOT say the BJP was responsible for any of these. It says the riots occurred soon after the formation of the BJP. It is necessary, because the next sentence goes on to say that the BJP actually moderated its agenda in those years. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying same thing as you, BJP was not responsible for it. But the context and the present form suggests otherwise. I have tweaked it to remove that ambiguity, if you simply keep reverting I will have no choice but to stick the clarify tag and wait for you to come up with a middle path, I am open to suggestions. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

BJP & RSS to be Given the title of terrorist by a american Court in April?

I see That the BJP is a branch of the RSS, would this latest news update on The NewYork Court order effect The BJP as The BJP is linked to the RSS & would this be a excuse For a future labeling of BJP members? If so would this Ref be needed Here Or just on the RSS wiki?

http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/02/04/usa-new-york-court-to-hear-sikhs-for-justice-lawsuit-against-rss-in-april/92.236.96.38 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

The source provided is not a reliable one. Furthermore, the opinion of a court doesn't hold very much weight on Wikipedia; if a verdict is produced, and reliable secondary sources give it coverage, then we could consider mentioning it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2015

link Gujarat to wiki page Gujarat in the 2002 violence area.. Bhavesh.p.more (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done We don't usually do this if there is already another link in the article (see WP:OVERLINK). However, the links are far enough apart that I have made an exception in this case. If anyone disagrees, please let me know and I will revert. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarify tag

Since AmritasyaPutra adds tags like this [3] and refuses to do his homework, here is the information. The paragraph summarises pages 301-312 of Jaffrelot, 1996. The fact that the communal violence rose "sharply" during the Janata Government and that the former Jana Sanghis were implicated in Aligarph and Jamshedpur riots in 1978-79 are both mentioned on page. 301. The Aligarh riot was investigated by the Minorities Commission and the Jamshedpur riot was investigated by a three-member commission headed by Justice Jitendra Narain. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also a direct quote from the Jitendra Narain report here: [4]. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Why sarcasm and arrogance? It is obligatory to address a clarification tag, deleting it without any discussion and accusing editor of misconduct in edit summary is not the way. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1984 and 1989

The article talks about the success or failure in elections purely by the number of seats won. By this measure, the 1984 performance seems to be a failure and 1989 a grand success. However, the votes received in 1984 were 7%, the same as what the Jana Sangh got in 1971. Similarly, the votes received in 1989 were 11%, only marginally better than 9.4% that Jana Sangh received in 1967. So, neither was 1984 a great failure nor was 1989 a great success. The reason for the large difference in seats is the strength of the competition. In 1984, the Congress was strong and, in 1989, it was weak. This has nothing much to do with the BJP's own performance. It doesn't seem like Malik & Singh understand these subtleties all that well. I am going to cut them out and use a more erudite source like Jaffrelot. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I would not cut them out entirely. Jaffrelot takes a more sociological approach to this, while Malik and Singh are coming from a more political science oriented background, and as such they have different things to contribute. In a first-past-the-post system like India has, absolute percentages count for little, and concentration for much more. Sure, the Congress's strength made a big difference, but the Janata's popularity also seems to have inflated the BJP's vote tally in 1984 without getting it any seats because the votes were so diffuse; the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, on the other hand, concentrated that nine percent of votes in the Hindi heartland, and gave it a lot of seats. We can include Jaffrelot, by all means, but Malik's narrative (which Guha also seems to buy into) doesn't seem to be off the mark. The comparisons to the Jana Sangh, to my mind, don't mean too much, because the same variability of the Congress also affected it; 1971 was the election after the war, when Indira Gandhi had far more support than in 1967 when she was a relative unknown, and the Congress was at war with itself. All in all, might we discuss the changes here first? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Congress got 43% vote in 1971 and 49% in 1984, even though the Jana Sangh/BJP got the same votes in the two cases. That substantiates my assertion that the competition was stronger. (Can you see that the BJP's winning chances went down because the other parties lost votes?) I don't believe Malik and Singh understand numbers well enough to build valid theories. But, in any case, I will use Jaffrelot as the authoritative source, not myself :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(response both to this and to your tp) I'm not underestimating anything, my friend, and I am personally a fan of Jaffrelot as a source. It's just that given a topic so complex and so sensitive, and given further that most media coverage is not good enough for this article, we need to rigidly balance academic views. You may feel that Noorani and Malik are not quote there with respect to the BJP; a priori, though, they do need to be given weight. Malik may occasionally be superficial, but I would also question the wisdom of looking at nationwide vote tallies; they might give the broadest of brush strokes, but little beyond that. Add Jaffrelot, by all means. Or wait until I get back to my good university library; then I'll add him myself; but not to the exclusion of all others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, the statement we have in the article saying that the Vajpayee strategy was "unsuccessful" because the BJP got only 2 Lok Sabha seats is quite naive. It is based on the assumption that seat-wins form the only measure of "success", which most people won't agree with. Political analysts at least look at the vote share in order to gauge success. By this measure, the BJP got over 7% vote, the second largest in that election, and similar to what the Jana Sangh got in a comparable election previously. So, our editorialising, if that is what it is, is misplaced.
• Secondly, the Vajpayee strategy was highly unpopular inside the RSS as well as the RSS activists within the BJP. The RSS was also openly supporting Congress(I) throughout 1980-84 and the Congress(I) had turned Hindu traditionalist. Despite all the moderation, the BJP was still a "political untouchable" due to the dual membership controversy of the Janata times. So, the forces were arrayed against Vajpayee.
• Thirdly, the Vajpayee strategy of moderation was crucial in the long term to make the BJP respectable to the centrist voters and as a potential ally to the centrist parties. We could say that Vajpayee laid a foundation for his future Premiership right there in his 1980-84strategy.

The phenomenal rise of the BJP since those times owes equally to both the Vajpayee moderation and the Advani hard line. Through this dual-pronged strategy, the BJP managed to have its cake and eat it too. We would be remiss not to recognize these facts. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, if you read far enough into the Malik & Singh article, you read "However, the party's leadership was not disheartened as it found that, compared with previous years, the BJP did not fare as poorly as the tally of seats indicated. It concluded that the Congress (I) had benefited from a massive sympathy vote following the murder of Indira Gandhi and that the BJP had lost roughly only one per-cent of votes." (p. 329) The table on p. 330 shows the 1980vote share as 8.6%. I don't know how they calculate it, as it was part of an "alliance." Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed

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

---

I have added a NPOV tag to the article. The discussion is in the GA review page. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 has removed the NPOV tag. This is against NPOV policy. Please wait until the issues are resolved. I have explained why the article is not neutral. This needs to be resolved before removing the NPOV tag. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is not. I quote "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." You have only raised personal concerns on the talk page, and the only secondary sources you have provided are an out-dated Sangh Newspaper and Koenrad Elst, who is a fringe source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What has happened in the GA review was highly unfortunate. I didn't follow closely what were your concerns earlier but I do remember the RFC. Now I also see that you raised issues which either were addressed at that time and/or the reviewer answered them. If you have anything new (emphasis on that) to say, do it now or else drop the stick. How long can you expect everyone else to AGF? And please no walls of text, there's a limit to how much anyone can read. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: I came over to find out why this GA nom failed, and notice that you are contesting its "neutrality." Note that neutrality on Wikipedia means fairly representing all the view points that exist among reliable third party sources. So, to argue the lack of neutrality, you need to specify what reliable third party sources have been omitted. You also need to show that the proportion of the viewpoints in the article differs from their relative prominence among the scholarly sources. So, can you tell us what sources you are claiming to be unrepresented? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From this bold edit that Calypsomusic made [5], I picked up the following 4 sources, which he believes will make the article "neutral."

• Reddy, Sheila (14 April 2008). "Interview "I Was Prepared To Take The Risk"". Outlook India.

This is Advani speaking, not a third party source.

• Elst, K. (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu mind: Ideological development of Hindu revivalism. New Delhi: Rupa & Co.

Elst is a strong supporter of the Hindutva movements and not exactly third party. But, still, if the information he wants to take from here is not contentious, it can be used.

• Venkatesan, V. (29 September 2000). "The Laxman line". Frontline.

Once again, Bangaru Laxman is not a third party source.

• "SC comes to the aid of Chakmas". Organiser. 11 February 1996.

Organiser is not a mainstream newspaper and, hence, not a reliable source. It is also part of the Sangh Parivar and so not third party.

On the whole, other than possibly Elst, none of the other sources can even be cited here as per Wikipedia policies. If Calypsomusic wants to contest neutrality, he needs to bring much stronger sources, especially to contest Ramachandra Guha, a Padma Bhushan-winning academic. He also wants to paint Guha as a "critic" of the BJP. I have seen nothing to say that he was a critic. The book from which the material is taken is a standard book on the history of independent India that is top-class, having put Guha in the top-league of the world's historians. There is nothing to indicate that Guha is biased and needs to be countered by other sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is much the same thing I have been asking Calypso to do for a long while now. Accusations of lack of neutrality mean nothing as long as they are not backed up by sources. Yes, Calypso's changes were reverted; but that is because they did not back them with a single reliable source. With due lack of humility, I have read the majority of academic journal articles that discuss the BJP, and the policy section that I wrote reflects those. Moreover, these scholars are not "critics" of the BJP; they are third party observers. If I had included criticisms of the BJP made by its political opponents (which would be somewhat ridiculous) then it would be appropriate to present the BJP's view on every one of those issues; but that is not the case. Political issues become a terrible mess if described from the point of view of the participants, so we use neutral sources, and coverage in those determines coverage in the article. Even so, "critical" material has been attributed. Giving further space to BJP voices would be undue weight. TL;DR: @Calypsomusic: If you want neutrality concerns taken seriously, provide serious sources backing them up, or prepare to be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on an existing political party, so the neutrality is all the more important, especially if it were a Good Article. Neutrality means including all signficant viewpoints, and the BJP and Hindu nationalist pov is obviously significant in an article on the BJP. I gave many examples of biased sections where the BJP pov is not represented. In addition to the fact that articles on existing political parties are contentious and thus difficult to achieve npov, it is also the case that the majority of academic sources do have an anti-BJP and anti-Hindu nationalist bias. Therefore, it would maybe help, to include more sources with only a moderate anti-Hindu nationalist bias (for example, Heuze is moderatly biased against the BJP.) The problem is that some statements and sections in the article are biased without additional opinions as I explained in the GA section.

The quote from Advani is not directly quoted from a publication by Advani, but from an article on Advani, so it could be ok. In the Times of India source I also added, the same is supported by Lala Ram Gupta. Regarding using Elst on Integral Humanism. His opinion on Integral Humanism (in a book based on his PhD thesis) is not contentious or controversial, and his treatment on this particular topic seems simply to be best scholarly treatment in secondary sources (he says in the book that he is the first scholar to examine it in this level of detail). If this happens to be the best source available for this particular topic, and his opinion on this is not controversial, I don't see a reason not to use it. As I said, I'm busy the next two weeks, so can work more on this afterwards.

All this shows is a spectacular misunderstanding of our policies on neutrality, and especially WP:DUE. Our coverage is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources; you have consistently failed to provide such. Policies aside, commonsense dictates that you would not write about a party using sources from within the party; every political party, from the most humane to the most brutal and bigoted, has justified its actions, would you include their justifications in every instance? Preposterous. Your allegation that academic sources are anti-BJP is quite ridiculous, especially as you fail to back it up; academics tend to be criticize of virtually every mainstream party. Quotes from advani are reliable sources for those quotes, and nothing else. Elst is a fringe source, a previous RfC with which you are well acquainted established that there is no consensus to include him here even in the Further Reading, let alone as a source. If you have a truly policy-bound argument of non-neutrality, I would like to hear it; as of now, you seem content to ignore the "in reliable sources" part of the NPOV policy, and so your argument carries no weight. Besides, you had six months before the GA review in which to raise these issues; the fact that you began editing again precisely during the review, and edited no other page, is interesting, to say the least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: Thanks for getting back. To make progress, you need to start policy-based discussions. For example, the wp:rs policy states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It also states that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material. You are doing the precisely the opposite. You are asking us to value your opinions over and above those of the reliable sources of highest quality (Ramachandra Guha). That cannot be done.

• I understand that Advani has stated that he didn't make any anti-Muslim speeches. I have no reason to doubt that. But that is just one point of evidence among a multitude of facts that the scholars consider before making up their minds. We have to report what they say, not our opinions. In this particular case, I think it would be ok to make the briefest possible mention of Advani's disclaimer, something along the lines of "although Advani himself has denied that he made any anti-Muslim speeches." (Note that this does not actually contradict the quote from Guha because he did not state that Advani made anti-Muslim speeches.)
• Regarding Integral Humanism, I don't think any of us have any objections to including details about it. But nobody has been able to say anything substantive about it. The page on Integral humanism has been undeveloped for several years, with outstanding questions raised on the talk page for over 2 years. If you are able to, please work on that page and provide detail. Then we will be able to summarise it here. This can be done any time, and has nothing to do with the GA nomination.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic, it has been a week and a half, and you have not responded to the points here. Specifically, we require a reliable source contradicting the narratives in the article, which you have not yet provided. Can we take your silence to mean that you can live with this version? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I said two times that I'm too busy this month, and can work on it in March. What was not clear about it? The concerns have been written in the GA review section, you have not replied to most of them. Could you please reply to all of them? --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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