Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 1

Neutral Voices Please
This talk page seriously needs neutral voices, the article itself needs more information most importantly regarding various cells within the party and its performance as the principal opposition since 2004. I have removed the template in the top most part of the page because its really not required as the article is fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshpradhans (talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In Opposition
Since 2004 the party has been in the opposition. A section should be included in the page pertaining to its role as the leading opposition party of India. ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.145.20 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
This article is terrible, this talk page is terrible, and this entire subject is severely in need of neutral voices. It seems that the entire collective editing this article is composed of party supporters. This is not acceptable. I am not an expert and cannot personally contribute, but someone should. There should at minimum be a clearly defined "criticism" section. --Jammoe (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia... ... Jamesia (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

BJP IS BEST PARTY NOW SHOWING,BECAUSE OF CONGRESS GOING TO RISE ALL TYPE OF LIVING THINGS,NOT CONTROLING,INTERESTING IN SHAREMARKET SHOW- MIDDLE CLASS INCOME GOING DOWN,INTEREST INCOME GOING DOWN, BHARTIYA JANTA PARTY BEST -RAMIZ SAIYAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.165.226 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jammoe. Whoever this is (Ramiz Saiyad), please note that this is Wikipedia and not your personal domain to post personal comments. Lets all work together for a better Wikipedia Swaroop (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

thae article is too pro BJP, it doesnt give much significance that the BJP is the politicial organization which mainly belives in hindu nationalism , under the controversies the hate speeches of advani and the 1983 assam riots and the tehelka corruption expose do not figure if wikipedia is neutral it should these items too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestinformer (talk • contribs) 06:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideology vs. Objectives/Policies
I do not see any reason that both sections are needed in this article. They can be easily combined into one consistent section highlighting party ideology and listing the primary objectives of the ideology. I just wanted to know if anyone disagreed with me before I made any attempt at it. --Rahulpat (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

political oppurtunism, duplicity and evidence manipulation

BJP's politics also give a probably correct impression that it has to be regarded as a contemporary legatee of many medieval deccan dynasties like chalukyas etc. There are a number of strong reasons behind this. BJP has had its origins in the karnataka-maharashtra-andhra region, the home to the above mentioned dynasties. The political activities of BJP in tamilnadu like supporting a non-existent matha at kanchi etc, show that it wants to gain foothold in tamil south. BJP, Has previously attempted and still continues to covertly and overtly take up the management and “ownership” of ancient temples of tamil nadu. For this purpose it is working alongside pseudo-scholars, and pseudo-intellectuals to forge an identity to connect it to those temples historically. It has already created its own versions of many available ancient texts and documents of ancient tamil dynasties, with the help of pseudo-intellectuals. The RSS organization regularly brings in people at different position who take up tamil names and claim to be “tamil brahmins”. It has also attempted to systematically spread misinformation that these “brahmins”(whom it has sponsored) were the ones who have descended from(references: www.bharathavarsha.com/iyer.html) those who were patronized by ancient tamil clans (chola/pallavas), even though it is well known that the former were inveterate foes of the latter and that during that age there was a perpetual trade embargo implemented most effectively by the cholas. The term “iyer” used by southern BJP functionaries is a very recent one and not prevalent during ancient times. The brahminical identity of many such people itself remains a suspect. A good number of these people are from deccan. With the help of anti-socials and vested interests within the state of TN and south they create an identity for themselves linking them to the state from remote past. The usual modus operandi is by trying to enter into matrimonial relationships with those who are presumed to be “natives”.

The tainted kanchi acharya is known to be a hardcore supporter of both BJP and shiv sena and those parties have used that falseful math’s influence to gain political ascendancy.But this is not only for generally known motives of gaining power in tamil south. The less known reason seems to be the fact that BJP, considering the humiliating defeat and further annihilations suffered by medieval deccani dynasties like chalukyas etc at the hands of the powerful and imperialist ancient tamil royal races of cholas and pallavas,sees an oppurtunity now centuries after the demise of the above mentioned tamil royalties, to make up for those humiliations.Infact, this did not happen all of a sudden. foundations of this were laid by titular(under british supervision) deccan chiefs of tanjore from 18th century on and to a lesser extent by the nayaks of vijayanagar dynasty. All of whom came down atleast a few centuries after the demise of the brilliant chola empire. The nayak chiefs and their nobles are also guilty of manipulating and forging the available authentic grants belonging to cholas and pallavas and also smuggling a few. It is well known fact that the deccani dynasties among the others were natural enemies of the powerful chola and pallava emperors and the latter never really considered giving up their enmity with the former, renewing it time and again by dispatching exceptionally predatory expeditions to deccan.

These activities point to the astonishing level of opportunism displayed by BJP and their sly character. Considering BJP as a political option violates the most fundamental, universal and timeless truth about rights to governance.

Further it is well possible to prove that the kargil conflict of 1999 was stage managed by BJP because it envied what it saw as a "congress led" 1971 win over pakistan. An operation similar to 1986 brasstacks was also staged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.119.160 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me
Andhra Pradesh is not economically stagnant. Check your facts before posting idiocy. Yes the Defeat of TDP was the reason NDA couldn't survive. But the TDP was defeated because of other reasons. Such as farmers felt Chandrababu Naidu didn't care about them and the Congress promised Free Electricity which they've failed to withhold. --138.88.117.66 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the BJP's slogans is "true Hindus vote BJP". Recently the prime minister got into a controversy for saying that Hindutva and Indianness are the same. They recently got re-elected in Gujarat using the Hindu nationalist platform. To the BJP, Hindutva doesn't conflict with secularism, Hindutva is secularism. A screwed up world view, but that's how it is. -- Arvindn


 * isn't this is pseudo-secular view?


 * isn't the very term 'pseudo-secular' a pro-Hindutva POV term? --Soman 04:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How so, Abdul Kalam is a Muslim. But he is respected widely among the BJP. As a matter BJP offered support to him in the first place. Actually all BJP wants to unity among Hindus and Indians.--71.163.68.87 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We may agree that Hindutva implies secularism. But many sections of the BJP itself do not say so. Has the BJP ever advertised itself as secular? To speak about secularism, we have to drag the RSS into the discussion. Swaroop (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

POV to justify politics
The article currently says, "It [the BJP] has allied with regional parties to roll back the left-of-centre tendencies formerly endorsed by the Congress Party, which dominated Indian politics for four decades." This is clearly a point of view meant to justify the BJP's random alliance with parties of disparate ideological orientations merely to get hold of power, after it failed to secure a majority of its own. Such statements tend to bias the neutrality of the article concerned. --fredericknoronha 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

'''

may god save you indians from religion based fanatics & terrorist escorts. was there a single paragraph which didnt offer speculative bjp favourable views & which through omission of glaring realities tried to portray as if bjp was a unlucky loser which deserved to win!! Ksense (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is your POV
BJP doesn't consider itself to be "Hindu nationalist." You consider it to be so. According to BJP, Hindutva and Indianness are the same. That is exactly the point here. They consider themselves to be Indian Nationalist party. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim became the President of India thanks to them. Please leave out politics and post only facts.


 * Political science also classifies the BJP as hindu nationalist party. -- till we *) 12:24, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone mention the violence in Gujarat? The BJP was accused of condoning it or even supporting it. mr100percent 7:51, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, some white supremacists are members of the US Republican Party. Should we mention that in the Republican party page? It was done by people who just so happened to be members. Also, it is pro    da calling the BJP "Hindu nationalists" Doesn't the republicans have a Christian nationalist agenda?


 * Agree. The Wikipedia article should reflect the official stance of the party and not the perceived one. Salilb (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight confusion
In the second paragraph after the list of presidents, it says:

The BJP considers itself to be a secular party and [...] However the BJP is considered by some to be a secular party.

Either the 'however' should be reworded, or something else got mixed up. Iaen 14:03, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

ideology?
So is the party left-wing, right-wing, socialist, centerist or what?


 * Some would claim that it is      t.  Obviously the BJP and it's supporters would dispute that. But it resists analysis in terms of left/right.  It's a nationalist party.


 * Which by the way, is a classical      t rhetoric. All major       t movements have used the claim of "neither left nor right, just for the nation".


 * When writing the article, in order to keep it non-biased it should include both criticism as well as the self-describtion of BJP themselves. However, when discussing the party ideology the article would be incomplete without a through presentation of BJP's roots in BJS, relations to RSS/Sangh Parivar, role in fueling communal clashes, etc. --Soman 07:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, calling the BJP      t. A nice pinko tactic. Perhaps Brinda Karat used that no?Bakaman Bakatalk  21:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm sorry to point it out to you, but it is a historically correct statement. Mussolini and other always claimed to be neither leftwing nor rightwing (which to some extent can be explained by the incorporation of both left and right ideas into      t ideological construct). 2. However, I did not call BJP       t in my preceding remark. I just wish to point out limitations of "resists analysis in terms of left/right" (left/right is virtually never an issue of self-identification. If the economical policies of BJP are to be studied, then BJP places itself firmly on the rightwing flank of Indian politics). Also I question the logic of seeing nationalist and       t as mutually exclusive categories. After all virtually all       ts are nationalists, whereas not all nationalists are       ts. 3. I hope you're aware that 'pinko' is not a very swadeshi term. --Soman 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the article. They pride themselves on being conservative.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

use of Bharat
Some of the latest versions of the page use Bharat in place of India in the text. As the Bharat article redirects to the India one, i think it would make sense to replace 'Bharat' with 'India' in most cases since India is the term most commonly used in English Vino s 13:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

using india in place of Bharat is similar to change name of our mother under influence of some looters (here british) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.95.19 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

POV
This is way too pro-pov. There is no mention of the BJP's repeated attempts to rewrite history and their numerous antisemitic comments. This group claims that Hindu civilization began 111.5 trillion years ago... a few trillion before the big bang. KI 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of BJP in the link you gave above. I consider tagging the article as POV as an act of vandalism and I am hence removing the tag. --Deepak|वार्ता 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Caste system in India and BJP
Though India is Democratic and Republic all the Political parties supports Caste system and Religion. There is no scientific progress and thinking and all political parties also support reservation on caste system. vkvora 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Article seems to be sustained by BJP
This is no NPOV article - It only contains BJP Propoganda.They should mention Gujarat and also the rioting as a show of Model BJP ruled state.

I strongly agree. I'm from the US reading this article in order to understand Indian politics--and therefore without knowledge or experience for bias--but the wording sounds like it should have been written for the BJP website itself. If you are going to clean a page of any negative content, couldn't you at least be a bit more subtle about it? --124.123.119.232 (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RSS VHP BJP were created by BRAHMIN MAFIA to see that only brahmins rule india and only upper castes become wealthy, educated & progressive
A.B. Vajpayee (Ex.P.M.) is a brahmin.

--Anirudh777 07:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats why we have Bangaru Laxman and other smart former dalits in power in the BJP right? Yeah, that's why we have vice-president of BJP a muslim right?

Yes off course because to confuse and to gain muslims votes and eye wash for mulsim community nothing else. Eg: After Gujrat Riots Abdul Kalam Made President of India because to use as the duster for what BJP had done in Gujrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.4.133 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No use debating that guys, its present in every political party. Caste equations are formed everywhere. Most of it is only eyewash. Swaroop (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Bakasuprman will no doubt be able to justify his recent revert of my careful editing of some recent uncited additions? Hornplease 04:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question CAN A PARTY WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING THE COUNTRY ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS AND INSIGHTING HATRED AMOUNG TWO COMMUNITIES BE GIVING CHANCE TO RULE OUR NATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussaine (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed Wording
I changed the word orgy to the word outburst as I did not find orgy to be an appropriate word to use within this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenjikuronin (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised
How is it that the Gujarat riots are mentioned in this article while the US Republican Party article talks nothing about KKK et all.

Wikipedia is overrun by Congress fans trying to destroy BJPs good image if anything.--Milki 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but many of us have no love for the neo-liberal, pro-Washington direction taken by the INC. We're just smart enough to realise that right-wing Hindu nationalists who form alliances with neo-Nazi parties like Shiv Sena are far worse.


 * If you feel the KKK deserves a place in the Repulblican Party article, please add it there. The Gujarat riots are here because they were a significant development that occurred while the BJP was in power at both centre and state. Note that the Congress article clearly mentions the 1984 riots.Hornplease 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You tell me, do or do they not deserve a place. Along with that I have no problem in adding that the Democrats once supported slavery and Republicans oppose it.--Milki 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think they do, but there's a difference in my eyes between the KKK and the Gujarat riots. More to the point, if you think they deserve a place, this isnt where you should discuss it.Hornplease 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between these really ? Although the Gujarat riots have happened during our tenure, there is no proof to show our direct involvement (and the statement is non sourced). The KKK activities however have showed solid links towards the Republican Part and many Southern Democrats (in mid 1800s) clearly supported Slavery.--Milki 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The only sites that support the BJP-Riots-Godhra-Gencide conspiracy theory are left-wing soapboxes. This is like blaming the British for the Moplah massacre. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I Have a Simple Question about BJP, VHP, RSS, Bajrand Dal Etc. These people Want to build Ram Rajya, Is this is what mean Ram Rajya(Gujrat Riots) mean. Killing Innocent People, Raping There own Indians, Sister, mothers etc. Then Every one should think about These Parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.4.133 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with 122.172.4.133. We learn in our class 1 that all Indians are our brothers and sisters. I won't comment anything about the BJP, RSS and Bajrang Dal, though the Bajrang Dal was shown to have a hand in the Mangalore pub attack. And whoever wants mention of KKK in the Republican Party page can by all means go and add it there. Swaroop (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC) . ThJay942942 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There is really no link between the GOP and the KKK. The Republican Party, like the Northern wing of the Democratic Party, has generally been supportive of civil rights and strongly opposed the Klan at the time the KKK were the strongest, in the early 20th century. The Southern Strategy, on the other hand, does require a mention and has been mentioned in that article. Please do more research.  --Jay942942 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A few words and Gujarat Riots (Please Read if you have anything to say about it)
I'm removing the Gujarat Riots reference. The Congress page doesn't talk about the attacks on Bombay. The Republican Party page doesn't talk about KKK or                and The Democratic Party page doesn't say anything about their pro-slavery stance (in the past). So Why should an unsourced statement made by some Congress fanatic be part of the BJP Page unless someone can convince me otherwise.


 * If you are changing anything please state it here and say Why ?
 * Please Sign all your comments with ~ --Milki 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article specifically does not blame the BJP. That section details the achievements of the second Vajpayee government in some detail; it also includes what was definitely one of the most newsworthy events of that period, the Gujarat riots. Let's look tat the passage:


 * "The BJP was severely discredited by the 2002 Gujarat riots, where the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the BJP was accused of protecting Hindu mobs and obstructing the work of police to stop violence against the Muslim minority. Many BJP activists and party members were accused of orchestrating the violence. Over 2,000 innocent people, about eighty percent Muslims and the remainder Hindus were killed and tens of thousands displaced in the riots. Though the BJP attempted to defend and justify Modi's leadership, the moderate wing of the party was embarrassed and weakened by the effects of the fiasco on the party's image and its efforts to woo Muslim voters. International reprimands followed including the controversial revocation of Mr. Modi's US visa."


 * (a) can we disagree that the BJP was 'discredited'? I expect some qualifier of that is permissible; however, the BJP uptil that point had made much of the fact that communal riots had never taken place in a State where it was in power. The Gujarat riots caused that statement to rebound. The Prime Minister himself said that it embarassed him everywhere he went . Second, the fact that Modi was accused of protecting mobs and obstructing the police is on record. The allegations may have been baseless, and the only people still saying it may be the Left, but at the time, all news sources, even rediff.com, carried accusations of this. That BJP activists were similarly accused is also true. That the BJP attempted to justify Modi's leadership was also true - see Vajpayee's Goa speech. That he was embarrassed we already have seen. Can you suggest what in particular you would like changed? The passage cannot of course, go entirely. That it affected the BJP's standing and it's moral superiority over the post-1984 Congress is unquestionable, and also that it dominated the discourse within the country and within the NDA itself for some time. Hornplease 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Modi "protecting the mobs" and other BJP leaders being involved was "on record" but like you said, It happened when the Left was in Power (in Centre). Modi's leadership was justified however him protecting the mobs have never been proven and Vajpayee never praised or approved Modi here. These kinds of incidents happen all the time. What I don't understand is, Riots worse than these have happened under several leaderships in several countries. Why is Indian Leadership being picked on here ? What I want to see is either all Party pages being updated to reflect criticism or this being dropped in the BJP PageMilki 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. The Left was not in power at the Centre. The BJP was in power at both the centre and the state levels, and hence the party's reputation suffered. That Modi genuinely supported the mobs is not stated, merely that there were accusations - from many, including Chandrababu Naidu, who was an ally of the BJP's at the time. It is specified that VAjpayee {The "moderate leadership") was particularly embarassed. Note also that the Congress party page specifies that many human rights orgs believe the Congress was responsible for the 1984 riots. If you feel that other leaderships articles in other countries do not reflect accusations that they mismanaged riots under their administration, edit those articles, not this one. Hornplease 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean it like that (about Power). What I tried to say was When the accusations from the media started to surface (which was a year or two ago) the Congress led coalition of UPA was at Power. There are several 100s Party Articles. Editing each of them would be a herculean task, I just want to know Why the BJP (and Congress) was (were) targeted towards these kinds of things ? OfCourse Chandra Babu et all criticised him; That's what Politicians do, They gang up on people who seem to be involved in a controversy.Milki 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the accusations actually died down after the reports began to be made public and people concentrated on lapses at the local level. The anti-Modi sentiment was strongest early on, when the BJP was still in power at the centre. A look at rediff's articles on Gujarat confirms this. I dont think anyone is ganging up on the two major Indian parties; there have been no major riots elsewhere in the past twenty years that I can think of immediately, other than a few; the French riots in suburban Paris is one example, and they are mentioned prominently in the short article on the French ruling party, the Union for a Popular Movement. So I dont think that it is completely fair to say that the BJP and Congress have been singled out. Hornplease 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Absence of Criticism section!!!
Most of non-science related pages at wikipedia have criticism section why its not here, it should be added and filled with criticism BJP faces but in neutral langauge. My POV: BJP is a party with a Roadmap, 21'st Century road and 10'th Century map ;-) Vjdchauhan 11:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the criticism is there in the article. Read it closely. Bear in mind that criticism of the Indian National Congress has the same issue.Hkelkar 11:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism in a separate section is different from criticism in the story itself. The one in story can be laced with pre and post sentences to make in fully ineffective whereas that will not be the case if a separate Criticism section is added. I don't have any problem of having 'criticism' section in Indian National Congress or any other page, also I think such section will survive in 'INC' page. Be open to criticism. Regards, Vjdchauhan 06:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Actually, I can guarantee that it won't, the leftist wikipedians will call you names and mass-revert all your changes.What I suggest is that you select the sentences from the BJP article that are critical and post them here in the talk page, then perhaps we can build up a criticism section (including responses) and then put it in the article. Bear in mind that this will be a watering hole for POV-pushers and other extremist wikipedians so we all need to be careful.Hkelkar 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there is no criticism section on Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States),All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and many others. Isn;t that interesting?Hkelkar 07:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, separate 'Criticism' sections just lead to bad articles. A balanced discussion about a party should prevail throughout the article. --Soman 10:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please guys, view this merely as a Wikipedia article. Criticism is an integral part of any good article and it removes the feeling of non-neutrality that users get on reading articles. Swaroop (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And whoever says that criticism isn't there in pages of the Democrats, Republicans, AIADMK and whatever, please note that each article is independent of each other. Swaroop (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To Swaroop:

Thanks.Pectoretalk 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) - Criticism is not necessary for a good article.
 * 2) - It doesn't create neutrality, it compartmentalizes non-neutralities (in the plural)
 * 3) - I believe you are referring to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in which case I must direct you to Criticism sections. There is no way to make a neutral criticism section, though there are ways to make a page neutral. Refer to 2 in this case.


 * To Pectore:

Not necessarily, criticism(say of this BJP article) removes a feeling of bias. Of course there is nothing called as neutral criticism, which would be meaningless. And criticism is vital for a non-biased view. Swaroop (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why it should be interspersed throughout the article, not in a criticism section. Just because each article is independent of each other doesn't mean we can't apply the same standard to pages that are basically equivalents. Criticism of a political party makes absolutely no sense because it only comes from people with axes to grind, hence it does not help create NPOV in any way.Pectoretalk 15:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I end up agreeing with you :) Thanks. Swaroop (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Derecognition on charges of inciting hatred
I have added the section [] on recent unprecedented derecogntion issues faced by BJP in the wake of Election CD controversy. .See also [Special Report], [After CD row, BJP releases provocative advertisement] [Fight BJP politically: Derecognition will make it a martyr] Terminador 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Balancing other BJP pages on wiki
Dear friends,

It seems that the honorable Sri Narendra Modi, the best CM in India, has had his page Hijacked by some Bangladeshi and some American Congressman. I ask you to step up and bring balance to his article. Thank You - Jai Hind. Tri400 12:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not yet run for the United States House of Representatives. Hornplease 15:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

unexplained removals
Can anyone explain why all references to the UP election as well as the threat of derecognition have been removed? If not, I will restore it. Hornplease 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1984 Anti-Sikh riots are not covered in the Indian National Congress article, and the threat of derecognition had very little impact on the election. Baka man  18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are certain members removing edits without any explanation?
Why are certain members removing edits without any explanation? And they have removed it at least three times without any explanation. --TomCat111 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is an out-of-context quote that really adds nothing to the page. Baka man  03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Can you share with us why or how the addition of ‘Thackeray’s call to form suicide squads in India’ under the “controversy” section could be considered as ‘out of context’? 2.  More importantly, do you think if it's appropriate to leave some remarks/explanation as to why you are removing certain edits?  Please look at the history of this page, you will find yourself removing certain edits without any explanation at all. --TomCat111 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Riots ...?
Why is their no mention of the Gujarat Riots in this article? The article on Indian National Congress mentions the Anti-Sikh riots.  Amit @  Talk   09:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody??  Amit @  Talk   10:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no reason for the inclusion. Baka man  20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any other reason against including it? A notable event, one would have thought. Relata refero (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely, the event is notable by itself, the Anti-Sikh riots instance was just meant as an example. Also, just two headings above, Bakaman himself conveniently forgot WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Amit @  Talk   05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny. Well, go ahead and add it. Relata refero (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did it.  Amit @  Talk   07:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Congress and Left riots
Editors are requested not to add their POV about the comparision of riots under various dispensations, and to edit the articles of the respective parties for the same. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Political accusations
I think the 'Political accusations' chapter should be removed, my empirical understand is that such chapters just function as an open invitations of opponents of the party in question to post their own pov queries. Gujarat 2002 is a notable event, and should be mentioned in the history chapter with a link to main article, but should be kept brief as per WP:UNDUE. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I see your point, IMHO we should keep the section as it is fairly breif and hasn't been inordinately expanded so far. Also, this format is used in the Indian National Congress as well. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate
The less known reason seems to be the fact that BJP, considering the humiliating defeat and further annihilations suffered by medieval deccani dynasties like chalukyas etc at the hands of the powerful and imperialist ancient tamil royal races of cholas and pallavas,sees an oppurtunity now centuries after the demise of the above mentioned tamil royalties, to make up for those humiliations

Should this (and more) be there in the article? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Its rambling OR. I've reverted it before but the author is keen on its addition.KBN (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive anon
Can't we block the anon who keeps adding content llike "BJP's politics also give a probably correct impression that it has to be regarded as a contemporary legatee of many medieval deccan dynasties..." etc. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Opinions
Wow - this entire article reads like an opinion piece with almost NO sources for the contents. In serious need of re-write to remove the bulk of the statements. Triage (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User's Reasons
Hi this is User: Political Dweeb's explanation. The reason I took away the article on this talk page called the "BJP's position" is because no one seemed to want to talk to me about it so I put up the paragraphs under the title called Secret advertisement so anyone or the representatives of the Indian Peoples Party could clarify for me this position. Therefore does the Indian Peoples Party represent conservative ideologies on the right but support or oppose extreme forms of discrimination like anti-Semitism, Nazism, Holocaust denial and the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party which used the Indian Peoples Party banner on their links page?--Political Dweeb (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They're right-wing but not in the manner you seem to think they are. Please see Hindutva for details of their ideology. The link-banner was probably an error of some sort. -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User: Relato refero for that reply I will now give you one answer and two questions. Firstly from what I have learned from the Wikipedia page on Hindutva ideology it does seem to be a personal but constructive form of ideology on the right wing that accepts different traditions and religons of India even if they are not part of it.

However Relato refero my two questions are

(1)Is it possible so it can be clarified for safety's sake if you can communicate with a representative of the BJP to see if they oppose the LNSGP and the other extreme forms of discrimination that I previously been talking about?

(2)This second question is about why was the article called "Secret advertisement" that I made taken away from the Wikipedia page on the Indian Peoples Party? Because I learned recently as far as I know that underneath an editing box like this there’s a small rectangular box with the words Edit summary above it. So did I just need to write in it to explain why I changed the BJP article by adding extra text/paragraph’sPolitical Dweeb (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Political Dweeb, you can see the edit history of the page to see the reason why your edit was removed. Although you had correctly stated that the site http://www.nazi.org has a banner of BJP on their site, but this is in no way relevant to the current article. My guess is that BJP is unaware of this development. Also, we, Indians do not exactly fall under the races which are the support base (however small) of NAZIs. Hope this clears your doubt. Else, please feel free to write to me in my talk page. Shovon (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User: Shovon76 for your reply. I found on the history of the edits made to the page on the BJP that Relato refero said that the point I made about the link between BJP and LNSGP was unsourced. However I had shown the link called http://www.nazi.org where the BJP link banner was on so I do not understand what Relato means when he says I have not sourced it.Political Dweeb (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The banner ad is not considered a reliable source, per Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS), especially since there is no article along with the ad that serves as a reliable source. That is why it was claimed that the link was unsourced. -- Shruti14 t c s 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable recent edits
In the past few days there have been some questionable, unsourced edits to this article. At first I tried to remove them, but realized that I couldn't decifer between what was the recent POV edits and older material, as some was sourced. I would like to help with the editing of this article, but will wait for some more experieced editors to comment and/or edit first. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, you were right when you had reverted the edits of the other editor. But apologising does not soleve any purpose. This guy, according to his own admission, is a BJP suporter (BTW, I have never voted for another party than the BJP), and as such his edits are full of POV materials supporting BJP. You'll have to ignore his edits, if you are really going to restore the balance. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the edit history and agree with you. The past edits were referenced with BJP.org and had no reliable sources for the statements made. I will continue to watch the article for such unsourced POV. Thank you for your response. Ism schism (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Downsizing the article
Frnds, I intend to trim down the article a bit. I hope to begin with the criticism / controversies portion which is quite big, it seems, with allegations and refutations. I request your invaluable opinions, and suggestions. --Karimpuli (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Criticism. Restructuring of the section is a good idea; the material should be incorporated into the normal narrative of the BJP's history. The section on "responsibility" for Kargil is too long, for exmaple, and should contain a third-party RS indicating that criticism of the BJP on these grounds received political traction. (If none is to be found then it should not be in the article at all.) -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The BJP, along with the INC is a very controversial party. Eliminating redundancies is of course a great thing, but there has been so much criticism levied against it that we have to document at least the basics. That said, incorporating it into the article itself would make the content less unbalanced.Pectoretalk 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

POV issues
Tripping Nambiar, the issues are mainly related to ideology that is going beyond the boundary of NPOV. Additionally, the template used is only meant for sections. If you want to add a fresh NPOV, raise the number of issues here and add. --Googlean (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FACT tag
FACT tag needed only when there is be short of of RS. User:Tripping Nambiar has added it without properly reading the Hindu article & other incidents which is directly coming to the subject. However, I haven’t removed it from xenophobia as I could not find any direct sources accusing this term with the subject. My question to User:Karimpuli is that if the burden of proof lies with the one who put the fact tag (as you quoted at the edit summary), It would have been better, if the person who added the fact tag had responded i.e Tripping Nambiar? --Googlean (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you got confused; not without any reason though. What I meant was that, since it was you who had mentioned that BJP was anti-christian, the onus lay on you to provide sources of inference that are impartial in their judgement and at the same time irrefutable.--GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No confusion at all and do not depart yourself…note that it is impossible to provide accurate reference on each and every wording in WP. The reference is mainly lies on recap of the topic and that has to be linked with the topic. In this case, the criticism that BJP widely received as being fully inherently anti towards minorities was well-referenced and therefore no need of keeping those fact tags which I feel complete inappropriateness. --Googlean (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Friend, if "it is impossible to provide accurate reference on each and every wording", the tags shall remain. --GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Economy
So whats this parties econimic position?--J intela (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, it's fiscally conservative Ram Astra (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I thought the BJP was a fascist party that helped Gujarati rioters pour petrol down the throats of Muslim men and set it alight after raping their female family members in front of them. Couldn't this article have a bit more detail about this? It seems to be written by the wrong people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.125.189 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See 2002 Gujarat violence for the incidents in Gujarat. Do remember that you cannot clap using a single hand. Both parties were responsible for the carnage in Gujarat. Shovon (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shovon is right! Have a look at WP:NPOV before making any additions to the article- Ravichandar My coffee shop 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What crap, what do you mean "cannot clap using a single hand"? Do you blame the Muslims for being there to be butchered? Your insensitivity is sickening ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I believe you mean Hindus wrt to Godhra, and both Hindus and Muslims wrt the riots. Shovon was being metaphorical, and you are being disingenuous. It seems neither of you are removing yourselves to dispassionately view the incidents.Pectoretalk 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i like how 'citation needed' is on free market but not on all other issues
talk about bias. --94.71.97.213 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Now, in this case someone has fixed it by adding a citation. But any editor can do it, so if you know of a source for an unsourced claim go ahead and add it. This article is generally lacking in citations, not just the claims marked as needing citations. And yes, systemic bias is inherent in a project like this. WikiProject Countering systemic bias exists to try to counter such systemic bias, but bias cannot be magically eliminated from Wikipedia. It requires effort from its editors, not just accusations. Reach Out to the Truth 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ad page on BJP, This article does not include even singlereliable sourcing (reference) except BJP website, now protected from edit by biased administrators
Wiki reflects only administrator’s view (in this case mostly privilege Hindu upper cast Indian’s), they can allow content to be added without any reliable reference like in this article or delete content which is supported by reliable sources references but goes against their ideology. They are making wiki dirty place & biased. Such administrators shall be blocked.

Edit shall be reverted if it does not confirm to fundamental wikipedia policies, namely neutral POV, no original research, reliable sourcing, and also make inappropriate use of primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick1728 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mvz321, 10 April 2010
editsemiprotected Mvz321 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, when submitting edit requests you need to tell us clearly, exactly what edit you would like to make and where and not by copying the entire article body and including the changes you would like to make to the talk page as we'd have to search through both articles until we find the difference between the two and this could take some time to do. If you would like to submit another request for this edit please feel free to do so but tell us exactly what you would like edited. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
Should be relegated to major issues, not things that have only been in the news for a couple weeks. Issues about Gujarat (which continue to haunt the party) belong, random incidents don't, since every party has corrupt people.Pectoretalk 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Nirjharvarshney, 16 June 2010
BJP in various states == BJP is currently in power in five states (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh) where the party enjoys a majority of its own. In four other states — Punjab,  Nagaland, Uttrakhand and Bihar — it shares power with other alliance partners.

Nirjharvarshney (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This image needs to be updated. Kerala and West Bengal are NOT ruled by the communists. Also Tamil Nadu government has changed. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

Bias
I added a warning that this page might be biased because of this sentence:

"Nationalism (Patriotism) is always better than fake (Pseudo) secularism, corruption, appeasement (vote bank politics), tolerance to terrorism and family/dynasty politics with help of corporate media-made delusions and false propaganda." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.176.175 (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right wing
Someone recently removed the description Right Wing claiming that the source was an opinion piece. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed sourced describing BJP as a Right Wing, Hindu Nationalist party - I have inserted some of them. Many academic sources also state that it is predominantly supported from the upper castes, this might be included in the article as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another Attempt at Neutral Edit?
This page is very biased. It overwhelmingly only represents the official views of the highly controversial BJP Party. If there is a group of editors willing to try to craft an attempt at a more neutral page, please...let's talk. Otherwise this page is little more than propaganda.--Chip.berlet (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah ,it seems that the page has been attacked continously by anti-BJP elements. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 05:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chip Berlet was clearly stating the opposite, namely that it is highly biased in favor of the BJP. I agree with him - it is written as advertising.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)