Talk:Amit Shah/Archive 1

Untitled
citation provided for the sentence "Sohrabuddin Shaikh, a known criminal' is from a blog.Blog is not a reliable source as per wikipedia policy.--Vicharam (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
The article refers to Sohrabuddin Shaikh as an alleged terrorist in the introduction and then refers to him as a 'known criminal' later on. This condemns him even though such allegations were never proved in court. Further will never be proved as he has already died. This should be changed.

The supreme courts decision to ban him from gujarat is called a 'political witch-hunt'. Is the author trying to allege that the supreme court is on a political witch-hunt of some minor politician and if so then we should have an entire wikipedia article about it not some cursory line here.

Thank you

Issues
Looks like the material that is supposed to be in the body is present in the lead of the article.-sarvajna (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * will further work on it, tomorrow or on weekend.-sarvajna (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Role in fake encounter
@ the IP who's trying to change the title of the section; he HAS a "role" of some kind in the encounter case, because he was home minister. It might be a benign role. He might not be guilty. But he supervised the police officers as a part of his ministerial position. So, changing it to "alleged role" implies that it is "alleged" that he was home minister, which of course is ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a funny argument, so since he was a home minister (he was actually a junior minister) he has a role in any crime committed by the police? So going by your logic Obama has a role in every crime of US army(whatever they are) as he is the president of US? We need to make it clear that Amit Shah might have had a role in the encounter but we are not sure -sarvajna (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarvajna, don't be silly. There is a difference between saying "the home minister has a role in any decision involving senior police officers" (which is what I'm saying) and saying "any government official is responsible for anything done by a state employee" which is the straw man you are setting up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93 I just streched your own logic, no, the home minister need not have a role in all the decisions taken by the police officers. You mean to say a police officer decided to slap a beggar and home minister has a role in it? It would be a stupid argument. The encounter is fake so if Amit Shah had a role he would be behind bars now. What is being investigated is whether he was really involved in it or not. When you say that he had a role in fake encounter, you are passing a judgement that he was involved in orchestrating the encounter, which is not known. Whether the home minister was involved or had a role in the decision of police to kill Sohrabuddin Sheikh is something that is being investigated, it means that it is alleged that Shah had a role in the decision of police to kill Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Also what you are doing by saying the home minister has a role in any decision involving senior police officers" (which is what I'm saying) is passing a judgement which is not only OR but also imposing your own POV  -sarvajna (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately being obtuse? A bunch of the SENIOR police officers, reporting DIRECTLY to Shah, have been arrested. So don't give me bullshit about policemen slapping beggars. "Role" does not mean he took the decision; it means that the position he held was ultimately responsible for it. If it turns out he had nothing to do with the actual killing, then his "role" would be being ignorant of what his subordinates were doing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * so you are saying it means that the position he held was ultimately responsible for it, this is OR and your POV. He or his position is not resposible, not yet. -sarvajna (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're either being obtuse, or your understanding of the terms "responsible" and "role" are slightly messed up. He was home minister. His subordinates have been indicted. Are you disputing that? no, because we RS proving that. Which means, as I've been repeating from the get go, that he has a role, of some kind, BY DEFINITION. It is the equivalent of saying that a teacher has a role in any classroom incident (regardless of his participation) or that the prime minister has a role in every cabinet decision. Saying he has a role is NOT the same as saying he was guilty, of ANYTHING. It says the incident happened in his department, and his direct subordinates were involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thank you. Now tell me why are we including the fake encounter thing in this article? because it is alleged that Amit Shah is resposible or involved and that is why it becomes noteworthy. Why are we not mentioning any other incidents that happened when Shah was a minister? because either they are not noteworthy or if there were any criminal incidents, Shah was not linked with them. So in this context when you use the term Role it would mean that he might have been involved which is not neutral, may be we can change it Alleged involvment. You are right, by Definition Amit Shah had a role and that was being a minister, similarly Manmohan Singh had a role of being a prime minister when the incident took place. I had a role of being the citizen of the country in which the incident took place so it makes no sense to use that logic and say irrespective of what the outcome of the case is Shah did have a role. If my memory serves me right, the term "role" is used in the media to very much mean "involvment" (not just as a minister but as a culprit).-sarvajna (talk) 09:01, 15 February

2014 (UTC) Stop creating meaningless analogies. Shah's role was much greater than yours or Manmohan Singh's, because of the nature of his role as home minister. On that point, you're being utterly ridiculous. If the argument is about the nature of the word "role," however, I suggest you do some reading first. No academic will ever argue that "he has no role": they will only ever say "he had no active role" or something along those lines. It is the nature of his role that the section is about. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah Vanamonde93,now I see what you are doing, you are trying to mask your own POV with some ridiculous concept of the term "role", so here is what I see in some reliable source here it says He was arrested by the CBI on July 25 when he had gone to the agency's office in response to its summons to answer questions on his alleged role in the murder Please note it has nothing to do about his role as a minister. I hope you posses enough capacity to understand, here is another example The CBI has been cautious over the alleged role of Shah, stating that the investigations in the case may continue if the court so desired  so the next time you come up with some imaginary explanation I suggest you do some readying. Well you might be knowing about pot calling back the kettle, don't you. -sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will ignore your accusations, and only ask this; you admitted above that Shah had a role, by definition. Why are you now reversing your position? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed the section title to simply "Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter." That way, it's not POV in either direction, and the text can speak for itself. This is also the more accepted title form across politician pages. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No issues from my end, Thank you. -sarvajna (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (just to add Nope, I am not reversing my stand. Yes Amit Shah had a role of Junior Home Minister, Modi was the Home Minister. Like I said everyone had a role however when you use the term role in "Role in an encounter" the term "role" is used as in "role as a culprit" (As shown in RS' above) . This is how it is used in India atleast. He is not being investigated just because he was a minister, he is being investigated because there are allegations that he is involved) -sarvajna (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag
I just tagged this article for tone, because a lot of the content is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, especially the bits about his campaign management. Colloquialisms, fan-siteish prose, and bad english abound (and yes, I know the page uses Indian english.) Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Death of Soharbuddin Sheikh section needs to be re-written so it is summarized in a few sentences. I'll probably do that in the next few days if someone else doesn't do it first. -- Neil N  talk to me  14:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * as I understand this issue, although the extent of Shah's role in the death is very much under dispute, the fact that it was a "fake" or "staged" encounter is not under dispute, and is supported by every source we have here. So, I feel that the heading should reflect that (although I agree that it needs trimming). Is there something that I am missing? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanamonde93. I changed the name as per the discussion at Talk:Sohrabuddin_Sheikh_fake_encounter. If you believe the old name is more accurate and meets NPOV, please feel free to revert me. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um. I thought I had read the TP there, missed that, for some reason. On reading it, though, this is what I feel. The new title is neutral, but to the point of being factually incomplete, rather like referring to 9/11 as an "air traffic accident." I have not been active on the main page, but I think we have discretion to use a different term here, and so we should move it back. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Role in death of Soharbuddin Sheikh? "Fake encounter" sounds odd to me. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "staged encounter"? It still sounds a little contrived, but I think gets at the nature of the death. There was a discussion here a while back about including the word "role," and consensus was against, though I was in favour., what do you feel? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have no issues with either "staged encounter" or even "death of Soharbuddin Sheikh". Coming to the term "role", like we discussed above there is no confirmation yet that he had a role in staging the encounter. Just because he was a junior minister (Modi was the actual Home Minister) we cannot name the title "Role in death of Soharbuddin Sheikh" or something like that. Since Vanamonde felt that "Alleged role.." is not a good title so we had it changed to the current title. I was looking at this article, it doesn't use the term role but just the name of the incident. If there is a precedence to use "Alleged role of xyz in xyz" then may be we can use it. This is a BLP, if you read Indian media source (I mentioned few in the section above) they use the phrase "alleged role" because the "role" that is being investigated is not whether he was a minister or not but whether he had any role in staging the encounter. It is very early in the morning so I hope I have made myself clear :-) .-sarvajna (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1984 anti-Sikh riots here they have used the title "Alleged Role of Amitabh Bachchan", may be you can find some other articles also.-sarvajna (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Having had a few months to think about it, I am now not in favour of a "role in xyx" title. Since Sarvajna seems fine with "staged encounter" I am going ahead and changing it to that; Neil, if you have serious issues you may revert me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No issues here. -- Neil N  talk to me  03:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
this revert has misleading edit summary. --AmritasyaPutra T 03:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way is it misleading? The sentence begins "Shah was accused of orchestrating...." etc, which is saying that it was an accusation, and not necessarily true. The link there is only to the concept of an encounter killing. And regardless of whether the killings were, in fact, fake encounters, he was accused of orchestrating fake encounters. The "alleged" qualifier is redundant, and the edit summary perfectly accurate. And it is rather ironic that you accuse me of hounding, when you do something like this, at a page that I began editing 8 months before you did. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "accused" and "alleged" are for totally different subject, your edit summary is indeed misleading. I first edited this article in June, this is October. --AmritasyaPutra T 04:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I first edited this article last September, and am numerically the major contributor, so don't give me that; if there is anybody doing any following here, it is you. He was accused of orchestrating fake encounters, not of orchestrating alleged fake encounters; if the encounter was a real one, he could not have orchestrated it. And frankly, I could care less about the edit-summary; the qualifier there is redundant and poor english, and I don't have the time to argue about my edit summary. Unless you begin an edit-war here, this discussion is over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake encounter case
The charges where dropped. Reference. WP:BLPCRIME is extremely clear about what cannot be included in such case. And to put three sentences regarding it in the lead is totally undue. --AmritasyaPutra T 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole section reads like a fact file, he is not convicted and charges were dropped. The whole section needs improvement .-sarvajna (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Amit Shah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018155653/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Cop-transfers-part-of-Shah-plan/Article1-577692.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/cop-transfers-part-of-shah-plan/article1-577692.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion
Amit Shah is really a Jain. He had visited a Jain temple just before surrendering in 2010. Malaiya (talk)

Contrary to popular belief, Amit Shah is not a Jain. Yes, you have read it correctly, and this myth has been propagated due to some poorly researched media stories on him. In Gujarat, two communities use the 'Shah' surname. People belonging to the Hindu Baniya caste and the Jains. At times, this creates confusion and misunderstanding as being seen in Amit Shah's case. Several media articles in Gujarati newspapers contain this detail on his religion. This detail can also be ascertained from his Voter ID card or Aadhar Card if these are available in public domain. Last year, his son also got married as per Hindu rites and rituals.

Cheme77 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The current source in the article that supports Amit Shah being a Jain is an Economist blog post. It's better to remove this bit from the article, considering that other sources disagree. For example, states: "Reacting on Babbar’s remark CM Rupani said that Shah was Hindu Vaishnav Vanik and the Bollywood actor’s claim on his religion was completed baseless". utcursch &#124; talk 15:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

He is a Jain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatyaugrasen (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Amittu Shaji
Amit Shah is fondly called Amittu Shaji in Kerala. Please include it in the article. I had added a reference for the same but people are telling it is a trivial matter. Please understand the feelings of Keralites. We have lost Kummanam to Mizoram and now you are telling our feelings about Amittu Shaji is trivial. Not fair.


 * ❌ .. trivial and Undue --Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

42.111.131.157 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC) How could you have an important e force as semi-protected page in a way crucial election time! Doesn't this work against wiki's own rules?
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 election update
The article only talks about "In 2018 the party lost power in the states of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh." What about 2019 general election success credited to Amit Shah by political experts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.170.48 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019
ABVP is the student wing of BJP, and not RSS. 2402:3A80:1360:EB5B:644A:1085:2193:347F (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ That's not true. From ABVP's own website: "Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad is not the students' wing of BJP". ABVP was established in 1949, BJP in 1980. utcursch &#124; talk 13:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2019
The Rajya Sabha seat that Amit Shah held was recently assumed by Dr. S. Jaishankar in a Rajya Sabha by-election. He should be featured as a successor to that seat on Amit Shah's page (i.e. "Succeeded by - S. Jaishankar).

Also, for parallelism with the term 'Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha' as well as other Rajya Sabha members' offices in infoboxes, the title of Amit Shah's office as a Rajya Sabha MP should be changed from "MP of Rajya Sabha for Gujarat" to "Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha"; with the sub-heading within that office being "Constituency - Gujarat". 70.29.38.15 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:44, 8 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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Amit shah.jpg

Nickname
I have removed the nickname in the infobox. The sources cited use the term Chanakya to describe him, but don't mention that it is his nickname. An analogy I can provide is like how the term "Quisling" can be used to describe a politician; descriptive but not a nickname. For a nickname, there has to be sources which actually acknowledge it. Describing someone as Chanakya is very common in Indian politics and many other politicians have been described as such (but that doesn't make it their nickname.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

POV
There is a lot of POV in this article...

For instance: " BJP also won 13 seats in Goa and now tactfully runs a coalition government with Manohar Parrikar as the CM for the 4th time."

The fact of the matter is that the BJP manipulated to come to power in Goa despite winning just 13 seats in a 40 member Assembly! 

Also: "working tirelessly for the organisation" right in the opening section. Very biased, no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.12.132 (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace
We need a real source for where he was born, since this has not been resolved. I have reverted edits based on google claiming he was born in Chicago, but that is not a real source. In absence of such, though, please maintain status quo.Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Chicago!! where did that come from. I agree, we need better sources.-sarvajna (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * He stated in an interview that he was born in Mumbai: "Shah, who says he was born in Mumbai—rubbishing claims that he was born in Chicago—belongs to a wealthy family from Mehsana.." (http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/his-master-s-mind). Malaiya (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Chicago is far-fetched, and that Mumbai is likely; considering his position, however, it is probably better to wait until a real source is found, rather than something he said himself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the official Gujarat Legislative Assembly website: http://www.gujaratassembly.gov.in/epahmedabad.htm#SHRI_AMIT_ANILCHANDRA_SHAH  which states Mumbai as a his place of birth.  Note that formal registration of births has been a requirement only since 1969. (Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969)  Malaiya (talk)


 * As per Telegraph India, Amit Shah was born in Chicago. The Wiki page does not have any reference that points to the source that he was born in Mumbai. As per Telegraph India, Shah was born in Chicago: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140406/jsp/7days/18160790.jsp


 * "Shah — born in Chicago into a business family — worked as a stock broker and served the RSS and the Sangh's student front, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, in Ahmedabad." M  13:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msirsiwal (talk • contribs)

He is actually a tadipaar Wikiepdiaca (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Right. Amit Shah is a jain. How to change on Wikipedia page? Sudjangra (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
Amit shah has raised voice for a nationwide NRC also. However the Home Minister has clarified that there is no relation between CAA and NRC. Wiki realgems (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahmedfalah7711 (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) This is regarding the Wikipedia page of Amit Shah well even if you consider quora as non trusted source of information so let me remind you if information and incident is being testified by the multiple source the information is bound to be authentic. Here is another source, now coming to quora yes one answer or two answer can be wrong but i have cited 2 threads in which majority of the answers were same. This clearly state the authenticity. Regards I am expecting an authentic source which state that Amit shah was born in hindu vaishnav family.


 * Check the sources you deleted in your edits, for starters. In this source, Shah himself says "I Am A Hindu Vaishnav, Not Jain". Self-identifications like this seals the deal, when it comes to Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Amit Shah and Udit Raj.jpg

Reception
@SerChevalerie As far as I am aware, reception is not a ideal verb for that section, and controversies would be better as the section is full of controversies and not any positive comments. Until there are some positive reactions which can be added, calling it a reception can't be justified. I understand that you sought to make my edits more neutral, however, it would have been better if you would have also edited the fanboys edits to a more neutral POV. Most of the lines in my edit are supported, word to word, by esteemed articles of Indian and International Newspapers, fulfilling the guidelines of the page you referred to. My viewpoint is that that in an article that is predominantly inclined towards the person covered by the article, some heavy negative criticism is required to make it a balanced one. The only solution I can offer is that I and maybe you can work on making all sections of this article neutral. Until then, that heavy section is required for balancing. Looking forward to more collaboration FlyingNinja1 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the specific material being discussed, but a section devoted to negative material is a terrible idea in any biography. If negative material exists in reliable secondary sources, it needs to be given due weight, but in the appropriate section of the article. In this case criticism of Shah is all about his political activity, so it should go in the relevant subsection of "political career". Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with ., please see WP:CSECTION. Additionally, the recent edit that you reverted of mine dealt with WP:BLP: this article is about Shah, and a relevant discussion on Hindutva is not necessary here, especially with a separate article already existing for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Amit Shah
Most parts of the introductory sections refers to the subjects early life. So I think they should be added to the section Early Life. Got a Smart Ideatalk to me 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the lead is supposed to summarize the main body of the article, which it seems to do well so far. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion: it should be mentioned that his nickname with the public is "Mota Bhai". Mota means "big" and also "elder" in Gujarati, and Bhai means brother. Also: there's often confusion because in Hindi, "Mota" means "fat", and people with only Hindi familiarity think Mota Bhai means fat brother, but that's not really what's happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.196.139 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021
Please remove the section "mohan delkar harassment plea". It has little relevance to amit shah, and is being POV-pushed by a single editor called Veej, who is dumping the same content on many articles and seems to be a WP:PROMOTIONAL account. 183.83.147.181 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. It seems to be quite off topic for an article on Amit Shah from what I can see. Volteer1 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it literally illustrates a potential failing by a professional politican which is politically embarrassing. Just as a PR guru having a PR disaster or a sportsperson fluffing an easy goal, political fails are relevant. It's biographical. Political biographies don't only list positive achievements. See Boris Johnson Veej (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As informed to you elsewhere on many pages, Shah is not directly named by Delkar in suicide note. Hence am removing all of it as irrelevant. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021
Too many unnecessary words used in intro like "he had been the..." instead of "he was" finish it! Plus there is no mention of him being the trustee of somnath mandir and "chief" strategist on what accounts? 106.66.227.175 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shri Amit Anil Chandra Shah MP official portrait, 2019.jpg

Intro is made lengthy without NO reason
His winnings strike could be placed under one title Say he win 10 more times would u really mention each one in intro plus his losses extra? RashmikantT (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted
This citation was removed by user:DaxServer claiming WP:BRD fails verification. That citation was clearly showing the criminal charges against him. Please revert the removal of content.--Irshadpp (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Irshadpp The source doesn't state that the "... decision did not go down well with many of the party members, who saw him as a liability ..." but only verifies part of the sentence about the criminal charges. I also mentioned in the edit summary that the source of this statement might be in the next citation, in the next line. I could not verify it as I have to purchase the book. If someone who has access to it, please verify. Or perhaps provide citations that would verify the whole sentence in question. If the citation I removed would be appropriate, at least for the partial sentence, please do so. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As the url is archived, there no purchase required to view it.Irshadpp (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Irshadpp I actually meant another url that comes after "Political analysts such as Shekhar Gupta termed the decision as a blunder". I should have linked the article in my earlier comment. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Irshadpp You have now added your citation of The Hindu for the arrest. "Shah was arrested on 25 July 2010 in connection with the Sohrabuddin case". The citation does not provide any arrest details, but only that the efforts of locating him for the arrests. Can you find another source? -- DaxServer (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation for arrest removed as discussed aboveIrshadpp (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Amit shah official portrait.jpg

Hyaluliya
Game 106.209.153.43 (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Home minister Amit Shah.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * UHM Amit Shah.jpg