Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

BJP and Muslims

Calypsomusic gave the reference of p. 359ff of Elst's Decolonizing the Hindu Mind as a reference for "BJP and Muslims." However, I find on p. 362, "On this point, I must agree with secularist perceptions about RSS insincerity: at least in some cases, anti-Muslim feelings are hiding just beneath the surface of Muslim-friendly statements." I have also read after the recent elections that the BJP fielded many Muslim candidates, but few of them got elected. Its own party members generally won't vote for Muslim candidates, leave alone other supporters. 100 years of propaganda isn't going to be washed away by just mouthing a few platitudes by the top leaders. So, Calypso, what do you want to say about "BJP and Muslims"? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Me, I'm still inclined to think of him as a fringe source; but perhaps this will change Calyspo's views a little. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

First, the chapter also says that the Sangh Parivar often "tries to minimize Hindu animosity against Islam". The chapter shows:

• Vajpayee inducted the diplomat Syed Shahbuddin into the Rajya Sabha.
• The West Bengal BJP put up 1,600 Muslim candidates, in the panchayat elections a a sizable number won. Shyam Khosla. Courtship of convenience, Indian Express, 5.9.1993.
• The Muslim presence in the Lok Sabha rose by one in the 1998 elections due to the win by BJP candidate Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, a Shia Muslim. And in the 1998 cabinet he became junior minster. He is vice president of the BJP. This should be included.
• Sikander Bakht, the Muslim BJP minister, one of the most well known BJP Muslims. This should be included.

The record is mixed, but the article is lacking in discussing the pro-Muslim overtures of the BJP, while it discusses many allegations of anti-Muslim bias.

The following instance show both sides of the relation, and should be included:

• When in opposition, the BJP castigated the Congress for providing a subsidy in the matter of the air fare for the Haj pilgrimage, but when it came to power, it advertised its decision to increase the subsidy given to the pilgrims. V. Venkatesan, The Laxman Line. Frontline 29.9.2000, p.7. Calypsomusic (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I have explained this before, but once more unto the breach. Venkatesan's article is highly critical of the BJP. Cherry picking a "positive" statement out of it is source misrepresentation. If we use the source, we would have to say that the BJP was being highly hypocritical towards Muslims. You have provided no source, and no policy based reason, to include these other items. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: There is no "Hindu animosity" against Islam, other than from the Sangh Parivar. A statement like this, which I didn't notice in the chapter, goes against your case. So, I would suggest you don't push views like this. Koenraad Elst has no qualifications whatsoever to talk about "Hindus". He is neither a sociologist nor a religious studies scholar. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde&Kautilya. Once again, I have explained this before, but once more unto the breach. Present one reliable reference that rejects the person in its entirety (the way you keep unilaterally declaring) is unreliable. If you cannot present even one such source, then shut up. His OIT is debated, his work on BJP and Veda has not been controversial. If not, present a reliable source. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you derive satisfaction from mimicking me, go right ahead; but that doesn't change your understanding of WP:FRINGE. You were told once before that such a source was not needed, and that statement was about the use of Elst, on this page, so I suggest that you go look for other sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeating yourself won't change the fact that you fail to present even one reliable reference saying Elst's work on Hinduism or BJP is fringe. We are driven by policy not individual editors' personal bias. I am absolutely open to reconsider if you give a reliable source; otherwise we see no excuse to propose such a blanket censorship. I rest my case. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you're resting your case, seeing as you were told to do so six months ago at ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calypsomusic: I still can't find the statement that the Sangh Parivar "tries to minimize Hindu animosity against Islam" in this chapter. Where is it? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: since you fail to present even one reliable reference saying Elst's work on Hinduism or BJP is fringe for more than ten days, I think we concur there is an agreement over its use. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You tried to use this argument in the RfC about Elst in the further reading section. The closing admin told you that such a source was not necessary, because there were indications that the book was fringe, and that the argument you made were based on a misunderstanding of policy. Why you are repeating the same argument is beyond me. Basic indicators are easy to find. Of the scholars here who have written significantly on this topic, Elst's books have far fewer citations than Thapar, or Guha, or Jaffrelot, or Gupta, or Nussbaum; and less even than Chaulia, Malik, and so forth. If you follow the citations, there are a number of instances where he is used as an example of Hindu nationalist revisionism, pseudoscience, and so forth. That is quite enough, as you have already been told. Drop the stick and move on. If, in the entire world of scholarship on Hindu nationalism, you are dependent on one author to make your case, you need to move on anyhow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That RfC was regarding including a book in Further Reading section. Anyone seeing this talk page can clearly see you are bludgeoning. Why can't you produce, or reproduce as you say, even a single reliable reference in your favor? I have said unequivocally that if you can do so I have no objection in agreeing with you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave you evidence; if you were sincere about figuring out Elst's status, you would have pursued it. Why can you not do as I suggested, and look through the number and circumstance of Elst's citations? this gives ample examples of the way in which mainstream scholarship sees Elst, and this is his work on Hindutva. Any of the scholarly pieces in that list are quite adequate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of casting aspersion on my sincerity give at least one specific reliable source that "work of Elst on BJP is fringe" and I promise I won't use him. I asked specific question, answer directly instead of stonewalling. If he is fringe universally, like you profess without evidence, then I couldn't make these edits: 1, 2, 3 --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the best thing you can do is to put into the Koenraad Elst page whatever positive information you can find, and open an RfC. Until then the decision of the old RfC stands. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As per RfC the Further Reading section does not have that entry, there is no opposition to RfC. Why can't either of you simply give at least one specific reliable source that "work of Elst on BJP is fringe"? Unless that is done, I assume there is no such evidence. Expect no further response from me unless such a source is produced. Instead of stonewalling just give one single reliable reference as repeatedly requested to demonstrate that "work of Elst on BJP is fringe". --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not stonewalling to provide evidence in the form of a link rather than a citation. Did you follow the link or not? I also listed evidence in terms of number of citations; did you verify that? Your continued demand shows a complete misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE. Fringe works are not fringe because one reliable source says so. They are fringe because mainstream academia ignores them, and when it does cover them, it is to say that they have radical/extreme beliefs. I have provided a reference for this; the first two entries in the linked list, for starters; Sokal and Bergunder. Follow the link. Read them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The old RfC had 3 supports and 2 opposes. The closing admin said the supports didn't seem to understand Wikipedia policies. I don't think anything has changed since then. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

From the RFC we learned that the source V. Venkatesan, The Laxman Line. Frontline 29.9.2000 can be used, even though the source is hostile to the BJP, and it is not necessary to mention this hostility (but allowed). That is what Zero said. So we can add a sentence like this: The BJP, while often criticized for its alleged anti-Muslim bias by political adversaries and the media, has also made efforts to woo the Muslim vote. When in opposition, the BJP castigated the Congress for providing a subsidy in the matter of the air fare for the Haj pilgrimage, but when it came to power, it advertised its decision to increase the subsidy given to the pilgrims. V. Venkatesan, The Laxman Line. Frontline 29.9.2000, p.7. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The first part of that sentence is OR. Venkatesan portrays the effort as hypocritical, and you are trying to make it sound genuine, using the same source. The rest of the stuff is acceptable, but with its grammar corrected, of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Guha references

Vanamonde93 I guess there are many editions of the Guha book, and the page numbers don't match. It would be better to replace the references to page numbers by section numbers. I realize that it would take while to do so. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm hesitant, if only because a) with later editions this might also change and b) the usual crowd of suspects on this page is going to scream "failed verification" as soon as we make the cite less specific. We can satisfy WP:V by providing the isbn and thus the edition, making it possible to track down, if need be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

Could some page watcher please revert this edit? It is unsupported by the source, which still says 47/243, and the source is the official website, which is regularly updates. I have already made one revert in the last 24 hours, and although this may be an exception, I'd rather not take the chance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Seats in state assemblies

@Geography101:; where are you getting these numbers] from? If you have a reliable source, please add it; if you do not, please remove the content you added, because given that it is contentious, we cannot keep it in without a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bush versus Putin image

I think per WP:CAPTION, whatever text is mentioned there should first be there in prose as well. Captions are merely used to attract the reader to the said para. Noticed that even Putin isn't mentioned in the article. @Vanamonde93:What does the given source for it say on it, why don't you expand that too in the article. Prosewise, shouldn't Bush (relations with US) be mentioned as well?

Regarding which image, it's much more complicated and unfortunately we don't have much space. Putting both is out of the question, too much focus on Vajpayee. Comments? ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not too bothered; I reverted because unexplained changes on pages like this that tend to attract POV pushers bother me, but I was being careless; an explanation had been provided. Yes, I had neglected WP:CAPTION, but there's not much weight given in the sources to US-India relations, nor to India-Russia relations at that point in time (or not in a way that makes it relevant to the BJP). Actually, given WP:Caption it seems like the best thing to do is find a picture of Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif, since their meetings are actually mentioned in sources covering the BJP. I'm a little too busy with RL right now to take care of that, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Strength in each state list

I can exactly back this up properly with any guideline but I feel this list is excessive. I cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT (though this is embedded). Documenting each BJP in each state is way too much effort versus its very little encyclopaedic value though I appreciate the good faith efforts. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I saw the edit, but did nothing about it due to RL commitments. In the Indian electoral system, as it is currently set up, total seats in state assemblies actually means very little, and is going be really difficult to maintain; the current list is hard enough, god knows. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sikkim

The ruling party of Sikkim has joined North-East Democratic Alliance, which is a part of the NDA. So should Sikkim be considered a NDA-ruled state? Bharatiya29 09:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

PDP

@Ghatus: To the best of my knowledge, J&K PDP is not a member of NDA. List of NDA members. Hence, the dark orange for J&K is not appropriate. Alternatively, you can keep the colouring and describe dark orange as BJP coalitions (rather than NDA). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Political Position be center-right to right wing?

When some authors attribute BJP as center-right and some as right-wing, why shouldn't that be correctly stated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VediKboy (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@VediKboy: Please provide suitable references. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bharatiya Janata Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718181833/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183222/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Vajpayee-Putin pic

I suggest the removal of the picture of AB Vajpayee and Vladimir Putin together. The picture is misleading, the BJP has never had any special policy vis-à-vis Russia or Putin, Indo-Russian relations have been evergreen. To put the picture on the page is misleading as it gives the impression of BJP being a pro-Putin or pro-Russia party, which it is not. In fact Vajpayee administration was noted for improving Indo-US relations, which though is a different subject. I am hoping to remove the picture, if anyone has any objection, kindly reply. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The picture does not suggest that the BJP had a special relationship with Russia: it was merely one of a handful of foreign policy related pictures that was chosen for inclusion here. If you want to replace it with a better suited image, go ahead, but there doesn't seem to be good reason to just remove it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Early stance on Sikh violence

This removal at Vajpayee career mentioned their early stance on it (not just violence even the Operation) after the formation; btw regarding that article...both those given refs don't support anything, don't know why they are even there. As such, this would be a valuable mention to the Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Formation_and_early_days section. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Internal party democracy

Does the BJP hold elections to fill organizational positions ? If not then how are office holders selected ?Jonathansammy (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that people are appointed to any particular office by the individual ranking immediately above that office: but this is based on my knowledge of individual appointments. When I rewrote this article, I was not able to find sources discussing the appointment process: it is possible that some exist in Hindi or another Indian language. I am virtually certain that no internal elections are held. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I better do more research on this topic. Being more or less the only party in India that is not a family fiefdom, it would be nice if the party also had internal democracy. Well, may be we can not have it all! Jonathansammy (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This paper discusses Intra-party democracy in BJP and the INC. It seems not much information is available these two major parties or, for that matter, from most other parties in India.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I could not find anything in writing anywhere but I think what Vanamonde says is what is done; the higher office bearers decide the lower office bearers. If you happen to understand Hindi (or maybe it's available in English too) you will find many videos on Youtube of leaders of BJP saying that the national committee of the party will decide on which roles they would perform. I can not right now bring that video here but I recall Smriti Irani answering likewise in few interviews when questioned what her future roles in government would be. It would be easy to shortlist the interviews of politicians taken sometime before elections. However, I don't think this system is applied for the president of BJP as well. Maybe they have another system for the highest post; something for us to dig out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

In principle, the post of the President is elected. At least in a couple of cases, there were genuine contests. But, more often, the electee is pre-decided in closed-door meetings of the Working Committee. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

References

General election results table prose

This edit reminded me of this. /Archive_3#GA_nom was where prose was introduced for this table which I think was taken from the rest of the article. I've reread MOS:EMBED and MOS:TABLE, no where does it mention it needs extra introductory prose or anything of that sort. The table itself is relevant because of its useful figures such as %votes, seat change, voter's swing etc which cannot be in prose.

The only reason I can see this prose being useful is, a reader going directly to that section would need some background. The basic results are covered in the history section so the table should probably be nested as a subsection there to imply its introduction is covered by that section. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with changing this, but I do feel that on a topic as large as this one, the possibility that folks will go straight to a certain subsection is not to be dismissed, and that a little redundancy for the sake of clarity might be acceptable. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk)

Change in political position of BJP

BJP is a centre right - wing party and not just right wing party, their ideology includes little hindutva and nationalism but not Hindu nationalism. Since hindutva is already added is list of ideology of BJP in the wikipedia page , so please change the word Hindu nationalism to nationalism in ideology block of BJP page and edit the political position of BJP from right to centre right as BJP doesn't support any kind of monarchy and it is also progressive and liberal in its functioning and ideology and also the biggest democratic political party in the world who's leaders are considered as pro-centre wing leaders across the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A50C:B388:0:0:746:F0B0 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The single left-right spectrum we use is a bit of a problem, but as long as we are using that, "right-wing" is quite accurate, and is predominantly what reliable sources use. A party does not have to be monarchist or fascist to be right-wing: those would usually be considered far-right. Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sikkim

The "Presence in various states" section says that the BJP is a junior ally in the Sikkim government, but it does not even have a MLA there. The ruling party SDF is member of the NDA, but how does that makes BJP a junior ally in the state? Bharatiya29 08:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your correct.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718184911/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1984/Vol_I_LS_84.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/statisticalreports/LS_1984/Vol_I_LS_84.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183934/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/statisticalreports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183558/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/VOL_I_91.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/VOL_I_91.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism is not claimed by the party

In the ideologies section, the 'hindu nationalist' ideology is mentioned without a source from the party or its members. Instead an article related to safety of minorities is mentioned from an obscure and non-verified news station. This must be removed as it is POV and not party-claimed. I request the administrator to delete the 'hindu nationalist' part if no sources from the party itself are found and thus the POV of the source is established. - Nishant.sankhe (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This piece of information is included because the article is not written from the point of view of the party, but from the point of view of what reliable sources say about the party. Please read WP:NPOV for further information about this. Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the party claims it as well [1]. Its fans want to pretend. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bharatiya Janata Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327120655/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf to http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/kargil/JA00199.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521204946/http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?237182 to http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?237182

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017

Actually BJP was formed by A.B.Vajpayee in 1980. i've seen it in newschannel Parth Dev Bundela (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Have any sources? -- Alexf^(talk) 12:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources can't be provided here, because this notion is a gross over-simplification, as the article itself shows. Vanamonde (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160526113451/http://thewire.in/2016/05/25/bjp-crafts-north-east-democratic-alliance-to-make-the-region-congress-mukt-38680/ to http://thewire.in/2016/05/25/bjp-crafts-north-east-democratic-alliance-to-make-the-region-congress-mukt-38680/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

The name of the Founder should be added. Maditya2003 (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Whose name should be added and where should it be added? Gulumeemee (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Broken sidebar

Undo this edit (self explanatory). 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:CDEA:F1B5:5A60:59A7 (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 03:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Internal Party Democracy

The article does not say much on how party office holders ( at levels) are selected/elected.Any content on this and general internal party democracy will improve the quality of the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Founders"

@Qwerty3594: The reasons you describe in your edit summary are good enough for discussing that link in the body. However, the infobox does not provide that context. At the moment, the infobox is saying that the party was founded on 6 April 1980, which is correct, by two men who died in 1953 and 1968, which is quite preposterous. Please self-revert. The place to discuss Upadhyay's and Mukherjee's influence on the party (which was considerable) is in the body of the article. Also, if you're an attendee at "BJP meets" then it is likely that you have a conflict of interest on this article, and you should not be editing it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I went by what is mentioned in the BJP official website. I may or may not be a attendee of their meets, but its a well known facts that their rallys are shown on news channels, and u can clearly see the garlanded photos of the founders. It was indeed founded in 1980, but the party that split from the janata party is the same party called BJS that merged into the janata party in 1977. See the preceded by: it says BJS and Janata Party, so the founders of the party are same, just the name is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs)

@Qwerty3594: Can you not see that you have created a fundamental contradiction in the infobox? This page is about the BJP. The legacy of its predecessor is a nuanced matter best suited to the body of the article. The "founders" you have listed were dead when the party was founded. Vanamonde (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What's more, arguing to include these based on seeing photographs at rallys is pure original research, in case that was not obvious. Do you have any sources to back up your suggestion? Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I will undo my edits if it makes u happy. But we cant change the facts. The partys website is the proof and by source for my contribution. AB Vajpayee was the president of BJS till 1977 until its merger with the Janata Party, Later in 1980 the BJS faction in the Janata party split from the Janata Party and renamed it to BJP with AB Vajpayee again becoming its president. The BJP may be a new name but its roots, ideology, principles lie in the BJS. Clearly its says that SP Mukherjee and Deendayal Upadhyay are the founders, and i have no other source other than the partys official website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs)

@Qwerty3594: Yes, please undo your edit. I'm not denying that Upadhyay and Mukherjee had a huge influence on the BJP; read the rest of the article, which acknowledges their role (and most of which I wrote). The infobox is for presenting extremely simplified information. It has no place for the "BJP was the successor of the BJS and had most of the same people" explanation; it states facts without context. In such a situation, listing the BJS founders as the BJP's founders is plainly incorrect. Also, please sign and indent your posts. Vanamonde (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Distancing the BJP from the Alt-right

The BJP has been accused of being ideologically linked to Hate groups of Americans. Is there any way an excellent wikipedian could rectify this?126.3.54.112 (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I'm not seeing a link to the Alt-right anywhere in this article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamond93, being "ideologically linked" to "far" rights groups is not something that should be allowed to contaminate the BJP article. Mass-media and counter-terrorism pundits playing `Cowboys and Indians` with grassroots movements is what should be prevented.

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. We present what reliable sources say. High-quality scholarly sources link the BJP to right-wing and Hindu-nationalist groups (and the BJP's own ideology is described as such, too); so our article says as much. Vanamonde (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cannot find a reliable source with a published article with a basic search on the web just now. Not saying it might not be possible, but a reliable source is really required for such a claim.Chip.berlet (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@ChipBerlet, perhaps Hindi or Urdu sources?126.3.17.188 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The IP made a similar request at Talk:Alt-right, but there's no mention of the BJP in that aticle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

BJP is Centre-right party

This should be amended as BJP is a centre right party and isn't similar to a conventional right wing party Kv Dubey (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before; among reliable sources, particularly scholarly sources that cover the BJP in depth, it is generally described as a right-wing party. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bharatiya Janata Party (icon).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lotos flower symbol.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Founder of BJP

Hi @Vanamonde93: Is it necessary to mention the founders of the party in the infobox. Given that it is successor of the Janata party rather than being found by any particular person.Thanks--Priyansh90 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The succession is mentioned in another field. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Time to update this page?

NOTHING at all in the opening paragraphs about the 2019 LANDSLIDE victory? Really? Really??? Come on...get on the ball, Wikipedia. You ALWAYS seem to drag your feet when it's the Right that win a massive victory.118.15.183.146 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Rajya Sabha Leader is Thawar Chandr Gehlot, not Nitmala Sitaraman. Kindly update. Awasthi Siddhant (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bjp's state government

Which is the 20th state where nda government???? Shankar.nishant (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Election Symbol Lotus BJP.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

BJP is a Centre-right political party

The article says "BJP is a right-wing party". Please change it to "BJP is a Centre-right political party" - Nive Gayatri (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The highest-quality sources we have tend to describe it as a right-wing party. See WP:DUE; our narrative needs to reflect the best sources on the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the information that BJP being a centre-right party is revised/replaced with right-wing. Shivasena is indeed right wing party but BJP as far as I have read about it was that it is a centre-right party. I really doubt what these "highest-quality sources" are??? Just because mention 1776 declaration of American Independence may be written as treason by some 'highest-quality sources' in Great Britain. That doesn't mean USA is bound to face British trail for treason. We all know how biased the India media and academics are. So, it is better to keep neutrality rather than getting swayed by some of these "highest-quality sources", who are doing their best to do the Indian-version of Cambridge Analytica.

For example, refer this article https://www.firstpost.com/politics/bjps-policies-reflect-its-clear-hindutva-ideology-should-not-be-confused-with-conservative-right-wing-politics-4581061.html, where it was mentioned somewhere, "Can we see such a difference between 'Left' and 'Right' in India? The answer is no. The BJP is not opposed to either abortion or gay rights. In fact, it was the Congress government that first opposed gay rights in court and later reversed its position."

Bsskchaitanya (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE carefully. The best sources we have are scholarly sources, and the vast majority of them describe the BJP as "right-wing". Arguing that the BJP cannot be right-wing because the INC opposed gay rights at some point is original research, and is forbidden. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ofcourse, I know what NPOV means. I was editor in Wikipedia since 2005, though inactive now. I would like to know what are these scholarly sources??? There are many scholarly sources which term BJP as 'far-right' and the left-extremist Maoists in India as mere left. I suggest to keep both ideologies, centre-right and right wing. Else, It is better to invite more people rather than a single person like you to give a better representation of information. Who knows, may be you are biased against Indian political parties. I am not accusing you but tell this from my personal experience. Many non-Indian wikipedians who know almost nothing about some local histories tend to show off their wikipedian rules just to remove the information. This is a kind of texual racism too. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to establish consensus for your change, per WP:BRD, and not simply edit-war it in. My nationality is utterly irrelevant here; and you need to be very careful when claiming that something is racism, per WP:NPA. Consensus among scholarly sources is obvious; a search on google scholar for "right wing Bharatiya Janata Party", for instance, produces 400+ results; for "centre right Bharatiya Janata Party", only 12. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Textual racism - LOL; you might have cited Ashish Nandy as well .... ∯WBG^converse 18:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Making the article neutral

The article seems to be biased against BJP in the first paragraph itself.

Please add this line in the first paragraph.

"BJP believes in positive secularism which is amongst its five guiding prinicples."

link

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishang123 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This is sourced to the BJP itself, not from an independent source. But in any case, this information is already covered later in the article. Placing a statement to this effect in the very first paragraph probably gives it WP:UNDUE prominence. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to explain the phrase in any case, not just what the party says it means but it's critics. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What Doug Weller says is absolutely correct; the only issue is that a number of concepts and terms that the party and its adherents throw around are completely ignored by RS, presumably on the grounds that they are not necessary to understand the party's philosophy. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the explanation and the lie are covered here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This is even better. I love that quote! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BJP Election Symbol.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

BJP's controversial engagement with corporate,media,purchading MLA, funding, intervention in administration!

Why this page is protected? dhillon 14:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Raj2092 due to continuous WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING by pro and anti BJP editors. You can still edit this article by making WP:EDITREQUEST click the link to understand how to do it DBigXrayᗙ 14:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)