Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 10

Deletion of a Congress landslide victory in 1984 due to a sympathy wave
The following has been edited in the article. I have marked the deleted part in strikethrough:
 * Although initially unsuccessful—winning only two seats in the 1984 general election, as Congress got a landslide victory due to sympathy wave because of recent assassination of prime minster Indira Gandhi —it grew in strength on the back of the movement around Ram Janmabhoomi in Uttar Pradesh.

The citation for this was the 2007 edition of Ramachandra Guha's India After Gandhi, The History of the World's Largest Democracy. What is visible on Google Books is limited, and different editions have differences that affect pagination slightly. The 2007 edition does not have preview, but the 2008 does and p634 says: "In 1984 the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), successor to the old Jana Sangh, won a mere two seats in the eighth general election. Five years later its tally was eighty-six.  A major reason for this rise was the involvement in the Ayodhya campaign." There is nothing to support the statement about a Congress landslide victory due to a sympathy wave on that page. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * the wikipedia page 1984 Indian general election says exactly the same reason for Congress victory 2402:E280:3E25:955:3D07:95B:CBD2:4C1B (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What, all four sentences of it? It's a threadbare page. But anyway, no, it doesn't. It states the proximity of the election to the assassination without drawing any causal inferences. The word sympathy specifically is nowhere to be found. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a little more complicated. That the assassination created a sympathy wave for the Congress isn't in debate; many sources attest to it. However, in a multi-party democracy the overperformance of one party isn't equivalent to the underperformance of another; the BJP's performance isn't attributed to the assassination by any source I know, and so it's undue weight for this page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Modi has also pushed for the indigenization and privatization of the defence production sector
It is not clear to me that the following sentence is really supported by the citations given for it. I think they say something different.
 * Modi has also pushed for the indigenization and privatization of the defence production sector, as well as promoting the export of Indian-made arms to smaller countries.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Times of India source says: The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses source says: -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Smaller countries are also now looking up to India to meet their needs in defence". That is not the same as "promoting the export of Indian-made arms to smaller countries"
 * The PM Modi was "calling for greater private sector participation in the the defence production sector". That is not the same as privatization of the defence production sector.  (Normally privatisation means transferring state-owned industries to the private sector.)
 * "The PM said the government, the public and private sectors have to work in accordance with a “timebound action plan and roadmap” to ensure India builds a robust defence-industrial base and emerges as a major arms exporter." Yes, he was saying that he wants India to be major arms exporter, and the state should help make it happen.
 * About "corporatisation of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB)" Though it is unclear "whether the OFB's 41 units will be converted into one mega-corporation or reconstituted into several clusters." That does not necessarily mean that the Ordnance Factory Board would be privatised.  But life has moved on since the source was written - see Hindustan Times, 15 October 2021 OFB dissolved: The 7 new companies inaugurated by PM Modi on Dussehra
 * About "raising of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) cap through the automatic route from 49 per cent to 74 per cent." i.e. The Indian government demands Indian companies manufacture some of what it buys. Modi is going to change the rule on whether a company counts as Indian from it needing 51% Indian ownership to it needing 26 Indian ownership. This is intended to encourage foreign investment.  Elsewhere in the source it explains that Modi is also going to continuously update the list of weapons/platforms that must be made in India by what are defined as Indian companies.

I have deleted the unsupported statement from the article together with the sources that do not support it. If we want a statement on BJP's defence industrial strategy, it needs to written based on sources, rather than someone writing what they think and Googling for sources that seem vaguely relevant. It needs to be a paragraph, and explain the different elements of the strategy: -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Corporatisation of the Ordnance Factory Board into seven companies.
 * Encouraging foreign investment in Indian companies in defence.
 * Getting the private sector more involved in defence.
 * Ensuring that India buys more of its defence goods made in India by Indian companies.
 * India should build a robust defence-industrial base and be a major arms exporter.


 * Generally agree, and thanks for the removal. I'd say we should try as far as possible not to rely on news articles covering the announcement of a policy, but on sources covering them in retrospect. Due weight is very difficult to maintain when every announcement receives coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2023
Membership of party is not mentioned Current members of bjp are 180 million please add this other politocal parties have this too 202.173.127.234 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

[Infobox] Conservatism → Conservatism (India)
I think it should be written like this in the infobox. Indian conservatism is a unique tradition of India. It should not be written simply as conservatism. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If we accepted that, would it not be best to wikilink to Conservatism in India rather than Conservatism? -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd question what is the point of inclusion of 'Conservatism' in the infobox at all. By some standards BJP can be considered as conservative, but it is hardly a defining trait. BJP's ideological moorings lie in Hindu nationalism, albeit this is toned down over time in some contexts. The Conservatism in India article is in a horrible state, a fully WP:OR construct. --Soman (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if several editors expanded the article Conservatism in India. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agrarianism
I think agrarianism should be added as an ideology into the Infobox. 2A02:3030:81D:F93D:1:0:91A6:6C0A (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A central right to far right party
The BJP is a nationalistic party and claims to work to preserve the cultural and civilizational identity of India. The political position of BJP varies from far right in northern and western India to central right in Northeast India. Change political position of BJP from Right-wing to Central-right to far-right Indo British Wikipedian (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. It does not matter what you and I think. You need to provide references to sources that support what you are saying. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got some sources, I will edit it RAMSES$44932 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that infobox changes require WP:CONSENSUS. Any edits without CONSENSUS will get reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023
The passage:

"Narendra Modi, then the chief minister of Gujarat, led the party to a landslide victory in the 2014 general election. Modi has since led the NDA government as Indian prime minister, including being re-elected in the 2019 general election"

Should be changed to:

Narendra Modi, then the chief minister of Gujarat, led the party to a landslide victory in the 2014 general election. Modi has since led the NDA government as Indian prime minister, including being re-elected in the 2019 general election with an even larger landslide.

Added: "with an even larger landslide"

Thank you. 209.159.196.217 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Any valid reason for this change?  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  08:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: feel free to reopen when you're ready to answer the question. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Important Missing Information on party size

 * Since this is a page concerning the BJP party, it is important to note the widely reported party size (170 million members) making it one of the largest political parties in the world. It has been reported by Reliable sources in both national & international news reports. We can mention it as claimed members by the BJP to make it clear.
 * RogerYg (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As there was a suggestion not to have it in the lead, it has been mentioned in Organization & Structure, which is logically in the correct place for party size and claimed membership RogerYg (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RogerYg (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As there was a suggestion not to have it in the lead, it has been mentioned in Organization & Structure, which is logically in the correct place for party size and claimed membership RogerYg (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV on democratic backsliding
The Congress Rule had no democratic backsliding? What is wrong with you? Wikipedia has become so Muslim and so Liberal that they have become literal Congress lovers. I knew HATE existed, but don't make it so obvious. Please remove this comment. I've got sources from OpIndia, a reliable source to support my claims, if you want. Science nerd11112007 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please keep your comments decent, and find better sources than OpIndia. I think we can mention about Emergency 1975-1977 to make it more neutral RogerYg (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It's been mentioned briefly in the body, not in the lead as per suggestion by User:Vanamonde93 to have nuanced mention in body RogerYg (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023
with tremendous amount of support for Muslims via various schemes, it has become centrist now Da hood folk (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fascism / Tropical Fascism
alot of articles seem to support calling it a fascist party including from jstor 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Just because it is labelled fascist doesn't mean it is "tropical fascist". As a hindutva party, it would be much more appropriate to say that they are clerical fascists! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @82.14.227.184 I have problem with National herald reference because it is owned by opposition party's(Congress) leaders. Can you please remove it? Boyinaroom (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these sources except the journal article pass muster; and the relationship between Hindutva and fascism is better handled at the article on Hindutva. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Membership count
Please add a membership count of all members in our wiki detail section. 42.106.32.144 (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2024 Indian general election" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party_campaign_for_the_2024_Indian_general_election&redirect=no Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2024 Indian general election] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I am opening this section in response to the demands of "discuss first" by Mr. Shaan Sengupta (User:Shaan Sengupta). My edits contain two component.
 * Continued from User talk:MrMkG

1. Fixing a glitch that was caused by duplicate parameters of "position=" and "political position=" by combining them such that the term "far right" is no longer hidden.

2. Improving the sources for the position of "far right" such that they become equivalent to those present for the position of "right wing". The sources are of a very high calibre, academic and not news.

Mr. Shaan Sengupta has not provided a reason for objection to this but has repeatedly reverted them. He has furthermore removed the pre-existing text "far right" itself. It seems changes do not need discussion first when Mr. Shaan Sengupta makes them.

It is time that Mr. Shaan Sengupta finally comes forward with a content related "policies and guidelines" based reason for their reverts such that the sought after discussion can occur. I hope he does not fail to do so and I hope he stops reverting repeatedly if he does fail. MrMkG (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok now I see that the user has spammed this everwhere possible be his talk page my talk page and this. Anways I shall repeat myself from his talk page. @MrMkG first of all you didn't need to come to my talk page at all when the discussion is already going here. And you have served me with multiple spam notices. Now answering you point wise.
 * Content supported with reliable sources are allowed but when you are making large scale changes to a page that comes under contentious topics, you are required to bring it to talk page, discuss it first and gain a consensus. Then make changes according to it. There is absolutely no doubt that Oxford is a good source.
 * Edit warring is not only when you revert only one person's edit. I can clearly see that you have reverted other editor who reverted you here.
 * 1st revert of yours-Revision as of 01:41, 27 September 2023
 * 2nd revert of yours Revision as of 02:24, 28 September 2023
 * Now this is not within 24 hours but just after 24 hours that also counts as a violation. Your mistake is that you should have initiated a discussion only after you were revrted first if not then definitely after second. But you choose to revert my edit and term it as dubious. So you are at fault here. You have already judged that no exemptions are applicable. Let me tell you which one is applicable. Because you are the one constantly re-reverting your version without addressing other editors concern will count as you spamming. This is the 24-hour revert exemption. Every notice doesn't say to discuss. Because the contentious topics are always discussed as per rules.

I would also request everyone to see User talk:Shaan Sengupta. @MrMkG has already decided that I have violated Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya Janata Party. Further, he has also decided that I have violated 3RRNO because according to him none of the exemptions are suitable for my revert within 24 hours. Although I have clarified it here in my previous reply. And I am not restoring my prefered version. I just maintained what was there before. I didn't make any new changes. He also accuses me of WP:NPA under "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". I can't see where have I accused him of personal behaviour. I just served him with "Template:uw-disruptive2". Now I asked for a discussion because the user with sources wants to add far-right in BJP's political position. As I can see in archives and here too that these changes are only made after discussion, then how am I violating.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would just like to add something for reference. As I said that these changes needs to be discussed, I am not the only one who says this. Seniors like has also said same thing that changes made in Infobox requires consensus otherwise it is to be reverted. For reference please see Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 10.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 04:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have made unreasonable accusations that I am spamming on my user talk and you yourself made two reverts within 24 hours violating page notice unlike me. I will however not drag this argument to this page as it is distracting from content discussion. For the full response see my user talk (User talk:MrMkG). Please keep your response there and discuss the content here.
 * If what you say is correct about "discussion first" (which I doubt since I do not see it written down anywhere) then Mr. Shaan Sengupta, it is high time for you to start discussing and explain with reference to content based "policies and guidelines", why you oppose my addition of better sources and why you removed "far right". I am willing to discuss but you need to start responding to the content for that to happen, instead of expounding on the apparent need for discussion.
 * You yourself admit the sources are good so what is the problem with adding them? "Far right" was a pre-existing text which you removed afterwards without seeing the need for "discussion first" anymore. I merely added better sources for it. MrMkG (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will keep this short. I find myself repeating. Please see my reply 2nd consecutive reply.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 10:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into this debate, but I would advise all editors to thoroughly understand WP:BRD. When an edit is reverted, you need to discuss it. This needs to happen especially for changes to the lead and the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Thank god you are here. Please specify @MrMkG that consensus is needed when there are changes made in an infobox of a contentious topics article.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 12:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The page called WP:BRD contains this box which is of utmost relevance here.


 * I will ask for the last time, since you say that you are not objecting to what I added then can you confirm that you will not revert if I restore it? You can not revert and then wait for someone else to come object. MrMkG (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Any move that is according to the consensus wont be reverted. The points put there are by new and inexperienced users. The discussion only has two comments one by and one by me. Proposers don't count as a vote. Plus the discussion going down is clearly in its initial stage. Hence it cannot be termed as consensus. If it is claimed that it is according to consensus then it will be reverted. I repeat gain a consensus. That's the only way out.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 12:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is two people who agree with the edit, me and Mr. George Simon Ohm. User Kautilya3 does not wish to debate. You do not wish to make a content based objection to the edit. No one else has come forth. Therefore there is nobody objecting to the edit but you indicate that you will still revert if I restore it.
 * You have left me no choice but to file a complaint against you. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023
Following the structure of the Wikipedia article of Communist Party of China (CCP), where it is stated that CCP is the second-largest political party in the world in the first paragraph itself, it would make sense to adapt a similar description here. It should be mentioned that BJP is the largest political party in the world with more than 180 million members.

Additionally, please include the following citation to support this statement:

Sonicehere (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Two problems:
 * I do not see anywhere in the source that says what the BJP is the largest political party
 * The figures in the article are unaudited. i.e the article is reporting what the BJP says.
 * If you do not understand the significance of the second point, think of Wikipedia. It would be possible to say how many accounts have been created on English-language Wikipedia, and compare that with the number of accounts on say, German-language Wikipedia. But I doubt if it would be possible to say how many people have accounts. Some people break the rules and have lots of accounts. And some people have two accounts legitimately. There are also dormant accounts - maybe the user still reads and edits Wikipedia but does not bother to log in. But at least some of the dormant accounts are dormant because their creator died. Some accounts were created as a favour to a friend - the creator did the edits their friend asked for, and then stopped using the account - but if the friend asks again, they will edit again on that account (if they can remember the password) or on a new account (if not). -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party
According to many political scientist BJP a Hindu nationalist party having its roots with Hindu Mahasabha and the political unit of RSS is a right-wing to far-right party. RSS is considered as far-right. So, BJP is also right-wing to far-right. BJP spread islamophobia. It's responsible for the demolition of Babri Mosque. Several BJP politicians including CM of UP Yogi Adityanath and Former MP CM Uma Bharti are considered as ultra right and the most rightist politician of India. George Simon Ohm (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike


 * Yes agreed. That is roughly correct. Most importantly there are many solid academic sources which have called the BJP, a far right party. I linked some of them in my edit. Therefore, the article should say "right wing to far right", with references for both and the former version should be restored.
 * Mr. Shaan Sengupta appears to be not interested in objecting based on his latest reply on my user talk but merely to have a talk here. Could Mr. Shaan Sengupta give clarification that they will not revert now if it is restored? MrMkG (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @George Simon Ohm and @MrMkG If something is sourced properly then my single objection won't make a change. My objection was never about what you added but how you added. Since @George Simon Ohm has started this discussion I shall let you know that just two people agreeing and me agreeing or disagreeing won't be a consensus. Consensus will only be when there is a detailed discussion about this. So wait for some time let people put forward their point. Let us agree on something after listening to everyone. Then some admin will decide what's right.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 10:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr. Shaan Sengupta please answer simply yes or no. Will you revert if it is restored now? Yes or No?
 * I have done a reading of Consensus. It does not say what you claim it does. On its basis we already have consensus and always did. Let us assess the simple facts.
 * 1. The policy says "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections." The ideal condition exists.
 * 2. The policy says "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed." While you have reverted it, you have not disputed it.
 * Hence there is consensus, unless someone makes a content related "policies and guidelines" based objection to it. MrMkG (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @MrMkG This isn't a consensus a according to what I know. can this small disscussion be termed as consensus as claimed? I am requesting some users to please clarify whether this is a consensus as claimed by @MrMkG. @Toddy1 @Materialscientist @Lourdes @Courcelles can this short discussion which started barely 3-4 hours ago be termed as consensus?  Shaan Sengupta Talk 12:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't start 3-4 hours ago. I started discussion section ~17 hours ago and you made the first revert ~50 hours ago. MrMkG (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And the policy (Consensus) that you yourself brought forward doesn't confirm what you say. I am merely basing my stance upon what it says after reading it. MrMkG (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

These terms are largely meaningless in isolation, and generally not very constructive for Wikipedia. Left-right distinctions are not universal, and there are no global standards for what constitutes a certain position on this scale. In the case of BJP, I'd say that 'right-wing' is a fairly safe label, 'far-right' much less so. But in the end it is better to emphasize the Hindu nationalist outlook in the lede, rather than a left-right label. --Soman (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mr. Soman. Welcome to the discussion. This perspective is understandable but it overlooks the comparative property that the left-right spectrum possesses at a universal scale even if ostensibly imperfect which is missing in a simple description like hindu nationalism. Political scientists and sociologists still use the left-right spectrum in such a manner in their papers, articles and books so the wikipedia page should follow their understanding till the time that understanding changes.
 * Nevertheless, the question is not about emphasis which I agree should be given to their specific ideologies but rather what should be in the "political position=" parameter which contains the left-right spectrum. Since there are solid academic sources for both "right wing" and "far right", both of them should be written down as is the norm for political party pages.
 * Could you clarify whether you object to this suggestion? MrMkG (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a long-standing proposition to remove "political position=" parameter from infoboxes for political parties on wikipedia altogether. I think we encounter again and again, across hundreds of different articles, discussions on how to classify parties on left-right axis. Again and again wikipedia editors face the dilema that some sources call a party "centre-left" or "centre-right", some other sources call it "left" or "right", and yet more call it "far left" or "far right". The different sources talk about the same party, but the different authors see it from widely different POVs. The worst compromise solution is to label a party "left-wing to far left"/"right-wing to far right", which is essentially an implicit acknowledgement of the uselessness of these labels. --Soman (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Political left-right axis is like porn. Most people can instictively distinguish between what they perceive as art and what they perceive as pornography. But there are two problems. First of all, different people will draw the boundaries differently. And thus, secondly, any attempt to try to draw the categorize in scientific terms fails. I can understand that BJP is further to the right on the left-right axis than CPI(M), but I cannot justify this opinion without resorting to circular reasoning. --Soman (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * BJP at the initial under the leadership of Vajpayee was considered more liberal and secular. But Modi himself a Islamophobia spreader is responsible for 2002 Gujarat riot. So, under his leadership it become more radical right and Hindu extremist party. George Simon Ohm (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike
 * Moreover I am not anti-BJP. I somehow liked Vajpayee but I dislike the Hindu extremist politicians like Modi, Amit Shah, Yogi, Uma, Sindhe George Simon Ohm (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike
 * Your argument above is basically opinions. Now one can find different references, stating different things, but I don't think there is any overwhelming universal definition encountered across references. --Soman (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of why extremely detailed infoboxes are a bad idea. The BJP uses descriptors for its ideology that others don't use. Commentators use a variety of labels for the party, ranging from centre-right to far-right (though right-wing is certainly the most common). And there are nuances that don't fit into the left-right spectrum, such as the neo-liberal vs protectionist debate within the Sangh Parivar. These are nuances that can be covered in the body of the article, but not the infobox. "right wing" in the infobox seems okay; I don't really see how there's enough support for other labels, though in recent times "far right" has become more common in the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like Swatantra Party page add a note that it's sometimes also refereed as centre-right or right-wing to far-right. George Simon Ohm (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Sock strike
 * No, again that's precisely what should be avoided. The better way forward if in doubt is to either remove the "political position" or settle for the least contenious label (in this case, 'right-wing' should be ok). The note on Swatantra Party infobox doesn't make much sense. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Soman I completely agree with you that right-wing should only be kept. Removing political position will invite a larger debate which is not possible here. We will need to take it to somewhere more suitable where it can catch more attention. Maybe WikiProject Indian Politics.  Shaan Sengupta <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 16:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello User @User:Vanamonde93. Following the pattern of political party articles, it must be the most suitable alternative to say "Right-wing to far-right". It is to be found that "center-right" is not used in academia. It is rarely used in perhaps some opinion editorials in Indian news sources which are not of good quality and have no standing against academia. Its presence is negligible in other sources. That is untrue for "far-right". It is used especially in recent scholarship in comparable frequency to "right-wing". Recent scholarship are the highest quality sources, therefore I believe it is warranted. MrMkG (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023
Add this line - BJP currently has the largest number of memberships in the world Guypes26 (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ for now - Please provide reliable source to support this.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 14:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * here are some sources
 * Top 15 Biggest Political Parties In The World In 2023 - Best Diplomats https://bestdiplomats.org/largest-political-party-in-the-world/
 * Membership drive: BJP eyes 55 million new enrolments https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/membership-drive-bjp-eyes-55-million-new-enrolments/story-Qo5iadVRisD53wnHMVGPcI_amp.html
 * BJP becomes largest political party in the world - The Times of India https://m.timesofindia.com/india/bjp-becomes-largest-political-party-in-the-world/articleshow/46739025.cms Guypes26 (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Guypes26 Thanks for this. I would want to hear from some more people before adding this. Readers, please feel free to express. Additionally, I myself would like to add some sources which can help to support this.
 * Not sure if Best Diplomats is a reliable source.
 * Hindustan Times is a reliable source but its says BJP eyes 55 million enrollments. And says BJP claims it is the largest party. We can't use claims. Independent sources need to verify it.
 * The Times of India is generally reliable. This can be taken as a reference to support this claim.
 * The Sydney Morning Herald - BJP v CCP: The rise of the world's biggest political party
 * The Times of India - How BJP became world's largest political party in 4 decades
 * National Review - His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, or “Indian People’s Party”) is on the right of the Indian political spectrum. It is the largest political party in the world, with more members than the Chinese Communist Party, and supports Hindu nationalist ideology and economic development.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 11:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please update total seats in legislative assembly
Please someone change the total seats in legislative assembly. The total seats will be 1,821 as per election commission of india. I have not much admin power to change this page. Vikepro (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023
Rajasthan Ministry link need to be updated. Saurabh ongc (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2023 (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.  Delta  space <sup style="color:#013220">42 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I got what you meant to say. I have fixed it. Thank you.  ShaanSengupta  <i style="color:#FF7518;">Talk</i> 08:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2024
Please allow me to edit this page.Thanks Nafisfzan2004ow (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what changes you want to make. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to add religion of this party. Nafisfzan2004ow (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Legislative presence/incumbent chief ministers
There is some redundancy between these tables, and they are covering conceptually similar material; would someone be willing to combine them? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Vanamonde93 Concerns arise as BJP-related articles are heavily edited by a few users who may not appreciate my edits, as they prefer including only positive points. Therefore, I would choose to avoid it. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  🍁 06:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024
Request to remove the below lines as I couldn't find the cited resources and this is an allegation not a actual fact. 'India has experienced nationwide democratic backsliding under the BJP's rule since 2014.[45][46]" or add the reliable resource to verify the authenticity of the statement. 188.147.73.23 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have put citation [52] into a citation template and added page numbers. That should solve your problem. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

misguiding infromation about ideology
this page is misnformed, someone add the islamophobia as bjp's ideology it is ultra fake, because In bjp Constitution says "sarva dharma sama bhavana " all relgions are equal. so pls remove this misguiding information. Gourindian (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth There are many citations provided to support the statement that the Bharatiya Janata Party's ideology is Islamophobic.
 * We could delete the statements saying that Bharatiya Janata Party's ideology is Islamophobic, if you could show that the citations did not say that.
 * We could could add equivocating statements, if you could provide citations that support your claim that it is not Islamophobic. Your interpretation of the BJP's constitution does not count.  You need reliable secondary sources.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, all of the cited sources are either opinion pieces, or are stating Islamic stories such as Prophet Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 6 and completed the marriage by having sex with her when Aisha was 9 years old. It's available in Wikipedia itself. That does not come in Islamophobia.
 * Here is a Muslim leader of BJP talking about secularism and it's importance for BJP: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/secularism-constitutional-moral-commitment-for-bjp-mukhtar-abbas-naqvi/articleshow/87238320.cms 49.35.211.237 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've reviewed all the citations - all of which - a couple WP:NEWSOPED - don't support the "ideology of the BJP" — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

allegations over attempted control over independent democratic institutions
Over the course of their two consecutive terms, there have been many allegations over alleged attempts over control over ED, SC,electoral commission, in a wider list, even media can be included. Harveyspecter210 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)