Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 3

Pre-GA review suggestions
I been doing a quick check-up of this article and I must say, it made a pleasant read and is apparently well-cited, right now I'm half-way through. According to the Good article criteria (2b), all material controversial/likely to be challenged needs a supporting inline cite, even if the actual reference is given later in the para. I did some mass tagging accordingly, so these refs will have to be duplicated or moved there. Another important thing is Words to Watch, didn't do a thorough search but tagged a few weasels. I also see a lot of timed statements in the lead ("currently") which can be replaced with the template. Finally, the POV section tag must be addressed since maintenance tags can lead to a fail and the article needs to be stable with no content dispute per criteria 5--I think that's fine right now. If I find anything more in the rest of the article, I'll post here. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay done. I've tagged whatever needed supporting inline cites per GA criteria. All that needs to be done is to replace those with whichever refs support it within the rest of the article.
 * Regarding the POV-inline tag, I'm uneasy about using the term "Pakistani infiltrators" here. However, if there's a good reason, do remove those tags and any other which seem inappropriate. Make sure to address/remove all the maintenance tags before the review. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Ugog Nizdast. This was very helpful. One quick comment; the section tag was the product of the conversation above, where jyoti eventually agreed that there was no real issue; he insisted that the tag remain for a short while, and I agreed. His stipulated time has now passed, so I can remove it forthwith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugog Nizdast, I'll start working on the cites; but could you possibly explain the change in the section title that you made? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Rise of the Hindutva moment"->"Hindutva movement and Babri Masjid demolition": well, I noticed that it had a but it was not a summary section of the main page Hindutva but rather a brief explanation about it, then dwelling into the details about the Demolition. Per WP:SUMMARY style (also a GA criteria), I added the "  " links to both those main pages since it doesn't summarise either; then changed the section title accordingly to best reflect its contents. Besides this, I hope the wording isn't too awkward...if anybody has any better solutions, please reword it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that section is not a general summary of the Hindutva article, but a summary focused on its rise to prominence; so the Babri Masjid demolition is the most prominent event, but there are a couple of other things mentioned. Also, the main Hindutva article is not in terribly good shape, so summarizing it was not a great option anyhow. The issue I have with the current title is that it seems to delink Hindutva and the Babri masjid.....What if we used the old title, or a variant, and used Hindutva with a "see also" hatnote rather than "main article?" I could also go with "Babri Masjid demolition and the rise of the Hindutva movement" or something like that, but that is very very wordy. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For a second there, I got confused whether you were referring to the sections "Hindutva movement and Babri Masjid demolition" (1) or "Social policies Hindutva" (2). Regarding (1), your title "Babri Masjid demolition and the rise of the Hindutva movement" is the most accurate but too unwieldy--still use it if you must. Isn't more appropriate here than  (used for parallel topics not mentioned in the article)?  or  are used when its not exactly summarised but covering it to some extent. I got a radical suggestion: why not try to make a smaller subsection just for "Babri Masjid demolition" (using  ) under the bigger section "Rise of the Hindutva movement" (with  )? Regarding (2), you better removed the main link to Hindutva since it doesn't summarise it and is already linked above. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're completely right about the second link; that's what happens when you edit the same article after a long gap....removed it. Also, I'm not an expert on which template to use; "further" is fine by me. As to the first; I like the thrust of your suggestion, but that would create a level 4 heading, which I am rather not a fan of. Mhhhh. Unable to come up with something better at the moment. Will give it some thought. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've changed it to "Babri Masjid demolition and Hindutva movement" for now, which (I think) makes the connection clearer. If anybody has an improvement to suggest, they are most welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Jyoti.mickey

 * Vanamonde93, the last sentence of the lead "However, the NDA government did not pursue any of these controversial issues, and instead focused on a largely neoliberal economic policy centered on globalisation and economic growth above social welfare." I think you want to give it the context of 1998-2004 NDA government. Without the context it is mis-information. Could you point me to the corresponding reference in the body too? --Jyoti (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Qualified as you suggested. The sentence is a summary of the relevent history and policy sections.
 * Thank you. --Jyoti (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In Hindutva movement and Babri Masjid demolition section can you use demolition or destruction, one of the two words consistently? And the statement The agitation was on the basis of the belief that the site was the birthplace of Rama, and that a temple once stood there that was demolished by the Mughal emperor Babur when he constructed the Babri mosque. should be broken down into two statements. The archaeological team and Allahabad high court did confirm there was temple before, that is not subject to belief. --Jyoti (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In Social policies and Hindutva section, Section 377 is not party's social policy. It was a decision from independent judiciary. The government was of UPA. BJP party president had made comments on it. The provided reference does not support "Despite the national outcry" in fact it says exactly the opposite about the inclination of the public -- quoting from the reference: Given the opposition from not just Hindu clerics but those from Islam and Christianity, BJP sources said Sonia Gandhi and Rahul might have “erred” in feeling the “popular pulse” by openly speaking out against the Supreme Court judgment. --Jyoti (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In Further Reading section can you provide ISBN of each book, they exist, and make them consistent (all ISBN should be hyper-linked). --Jyoti (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On going through the earlier discussion on this talk page, I think BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence. 1997. ISBN 81-85990-47-6 does merit inclusion in Further Reading. Author is suitably qualified academician (It falls within his domain of work, he is notable, his work is cited by notable people). And the work does not qualify fringe. --Jyoti (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have provided four suggestions above, two of them mis-represent the reference. I have few more suggestions, can I edit this page myself instead of participating via pre-GA review suggestions? --Jyoti (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93, I see the usage of a single book by Guha(who is openly anti-bjp and pro-congress) at 20 places in the article, which is close to one quarter of the references used. It raises neutrality concerns. There is also a 15 year old Al Jazeera news article used at four places, when the concerned topic can be referenced from academic sources. This raises a doubt in my mind in the context of the discussion we had in the previous two sections. (Where you justified/emphasized replacing news sources with academic ones to avoid recent-ism and I had raised concern about the removal of cited material and the replaced content being more critical). --Jyoti (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To take your points in order; that statement is from the source; all the ASI report says is that a temple once stood there. Nothing about which deity's it was, and certainly nothing about the demolition. Moreover, the ASI report in and of itself is not RS, and most discussion of it only reports the conclusion, rather than supporting it. Given all that, I think the statement is fine.
 * The article does not say that section 377 is BJP policy. Support for its reinstatement is BJP policy. The sentence before that is necessary to establish context. Also, support from clerics of other religions does not negate the "popular outcry" statement. Regardless, you are correct that that phrase was not in the source; I have now added another.
 * I have no issues with providing ISBNs, but I did not add those books myself, and it is not high on my priority list.
 * Elst is very much a fringe source. This has been discussed to death and beyond, on several pages; I have not the patience nor the time to repeat this here. Please read WP:ELPOV, and if you still think he should be included, then start an RfC or take it to the appropriate noticeboard.
 * First, on what basis are you saying that Guha is "openly anti-BJP?" Second, even if he is, how does that change his academic credentials? He is easily the best known historian who writes about this period. Finally, that number does not actually represent the weight given to Guha; it is inflated by ref duplication, because every contentious sentence needs a cite. Al-Jazeera is used because it gives a concise summary of the event. It is not used for the analysis part of it; there, I have stuck to academic sources. The reason I avoid media sources is because due weight is difficult to establish, as I explained above; in this case, notability is established through other means, and the media source is supplementary, so it is fine. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not, of course, need my permission to edit the article, I do not own it; but I would suggest that you avoid dragging up old bogies, such as the inclusion of Elst. Also, is there a reason you do not indent your comments? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (discussion indented and split into subsection by Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC))
 * 1. temple stood there is not a 'belief', it is statement as you also note. 2. It is not a social policy of the party, that is the main contention. The usage of "popular outcry" is still dubious because the two references attribute it to opposite sides. 3. I will add the ISBN myself and tidy up that section in that case. 4. I am not discussing "Elst is fringe source", I said Author is suitably qualified academician (It falls within his domain of work, he is notable, his work is cited by notable people). If you want to consider this is a general discussion about Elst could you please refer me to a death and beyond discussion about him and his views on BJP (I would strictly limit to the context of this article/book). 5. On the basis of his books, and his articles in the election where he was consistently against BJP. 6. Where have I not indented my reply? --Jyoti (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have now indented your reply, for which I am grateful; you had not done so earlier. I am not understanding your issue with the social policy section. BJP support to article 377 is very much social policy, just as their opposition to article 370 is also social policy. Nowhere is is mentioned that "article 377 is BJP policy." so what is the issue? Per ELPOV, Elst should not be included because he is a fringe source. For discussion, see above, as well as the debate on his page. There are also deletion discussions for several of his books, which I am not too keen on hunting for. In sum; he is fringe, so has no place in the further reading. If you believe Guha's scholarship is affected by his beliefs, then find a source which says so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a court judgement, the reference documents the then BJP president's reaction. By that logic should opposing article 377 fall under 'social policy' section of Congress? Can you provide source that claims Elst's work (the concerned book) is fringe? His page also does not mention him as fringe and that is anyway not the generic discussion we are having here. --Jyoti (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not significantly edited the Congress page; I cannot comment on what is appropriate there. Support for this article was not the opinion of the BJP president, but a statement by the party; ergo, party policy. I am still having trouble understanding your objections
 * I do not need to prove that Elst is fringe; the sources on the relevant pages do that. You are the one seeking exclusion, so you need to establish that he is worthy of inclusion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither do I understand yours. It does not merit itself under 'social policy'. I will reword it. Your 'ergo, party policy' is sort of synthesis. I saw relevant pages and found no such content. I do not need to establish Elst's concerned work is not fringe, you have not provided any such reference. If you do I shall withdraw my argument. Kindly note that we are discussing in the context of this article and a particular book. Is that book fringe? You certainly don't mean to say everything and anything that concerns him is fringe? --Jyoti (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what policy are you saying that it does not merit inclusion? Also, as I said above, you are trying to include Elst; the burden of proof is on you. Yes, if an author is a fringe source, that tends to mean all their works are also fringe; if you think otherwise, start an rfc. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I quote from your newly added reference: In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision that re-criminalised homosexuality, the president of the Hindu nationalist BJP, Rajnath Singh, told Kolkata’s The Telegraph newspaper that it supported keeping Section 377. “We believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported,” he said. Asked whether this remained the BJP’s position, party spokesman Prakash Javadekar told The Independent on Sunday: “The courts are still considering this. Then we will look at it.” I do not see how this can be summarized in the article as Despite the national outcry, the BJP issued a statement supporting the verdict, stating that homosexuality was "unnatural" and therefore could not be condoned. in the section "social policy". There is no discussion that says 'Elst is fringe' either. There are certain theories of his that are considered fringe. That 'tends to' is a big speculation on your part. His concerned book in the context of the present article is not fringe. --Jyoti (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I have made edits myself. I do not see much merit continuing the discussion in this tone. If you have objections to the edit, you open discussion in talk page. The books is added, Establish in RfC that the book should not be included. There is no reference presented saying that the book is a fringe theory. --Jyoti (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And I have reverted a fair few of them. The Babri Masjid stuff remains broken up. As for the rest; for the umpteenth time, you wish to include Elst; the burden of proof is on you. The default is that the book is not included.
 * The "outcry," according to the source, was nationwide; changing it to "among the LGBT community" is misrepresentation. I have tweaked it to mention support from religious leaders. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with your edits. We communicate better on article space than talk page. There is no burden on me. That book is relevant. By what policy you want to exclude it? In your tone: for the umpteenth time, you give a reference that says this book represents fringe theory. --Jyoti (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Calypsomusic

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


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


 * Why is the style of the sections in this article so different than that of other major political parties, viz the REP, DEM, and Indian congress parties? In absence of a style policy, the Democratic party and Republican party articles should be considered as best practice for major parties articles. In these articles, the orders of the sections starts with economic policies, and then "social policies" (and not social policies and Hindutva). There is also not a link to the BJP site in the external links section as for other parties.


 * The article criticizes the BJP for the NCERT textbooks, but does only give the viewpoint of the BJP critics, without also mentioning the BJP viewpoint (for example, that there may have been bias in textbooks before or after the BJP).


 * Section on Bangladesh immigrants and refugees: I have looked up the source, and found this quote in the source: ultimately however it was an Indian government led by the Congress Party under the leadership of Narasimha Rao that after 1991 instated the harshest measures against undocumented immigrants. This means that the source accuses both the BJP and the Congress party, and the Congress party it says had the "harshest measures". So why is this only in the BJP article, and why does it not say that the Congress party is also accused of this. What is the point to have this section in the BJP article at all, if also the Congress party is accused of this, and Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, so what is the issue in saying that most refugees would be minorities (in this case, minorities are Hindu or Christian)?

--Calypsomusic (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The failure of the moderate strategy championed by Vajpayee led to a shift in the ideology of the party toward a policy of more hardline Hindutva and Hindu fundamentalism". I would like to see the quote that supports the statement about Hindu fundamentalism. I couldn't find it. It is also pov, such a statement should also be written neutrally. You have to say, "according to ..."
 * Finally, some books were removed from the further reading section, even though they are on topic:
 * Ramesh N. Rao: Coalition conundrum: the BJP's trials, tribulations, and triumphs, Har Anand Publications, 2001
 * Gurdas M. Ahuja. BJP and the Indian Politics: Policies & Programmes of the Bharatiya Janata Party (1994)
 * Gurdas M. Ahuja. Bharatiya Janata Party and Resurgent India (2004) ISBN 900534-4-2

Discussion

 * How does your argument guide exclusion of book from the list? Besides, you are claiming the author is 'fringe extremist'. Any reference to the effect? --Jyoti (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, Also, the Elst article does not say he is notable because he is considered fringe extremeist by most serious scholars (as per your claim). Your claim is not only vague and unreferenced but clearly disagrees with the consensus on the article. --Jyoti (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Maunus: Elst is not Hindutva, let alone an "extremist": He wrote for example: "Anyone who has read my book BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence (1997) will be surprised to see me described as an “advocate of the Sangh Parivar”. " "I am neither a Hindu nor a nationalist. And I don’t need to belong to those or to any specific ideological categories in order to use my eyes and ears. "

Moreover, this RfC is meaningless, as it was opened just after the content was inserted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither you nor Maunus is willing to provide any reference? Calypsomusic gave a reference above to show the relevance. He is a notable academician and this work fall under his main domain of work. You can read the author's article page to validate his notability and his domain of work. Can you provide a reference saying this book is fringe theory? --Jyoti (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are two current academic books from Oxford University Press that cite Koenraad's work: 1.  2.  I can provide reference to at least 12 more such academic books from most reputable publishers/authors that refer to his work. And no, I do not find any reference that claims his book under discussion is fringe theory. --Jyoti (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Advani's praise carries no weight whatsoever; if anything, unqualified praise from a politician makes a source more suspect. In your first reference, Elst is merely used as a secondary report of the HRW report; his analysis is not used, and so this is utterly trivial. In your second, the author mentions Elst's theories, and then very carefully qualifies his statement by saying that "I wish to stress that this exercise becomes relevent to the field not as a presentation of theories claiming India to be the actual Indo-European homeland. which makes clear, along with the subsequent paragraph, that he is treating the theory as essentially fringe. Finally, per WP:BURDEN, I have no need to prove anything, nor does Maunus. You have to prove he is not fringe. I have repeated this several times now, but you seem reluctant to understand the point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to keep your inferences! The reference supports what I said before. Do you have any reference to back your claims? Do you understand yet that we are discussing Koenraad's "BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence" here? You have made grand claims and made it sound like it's abundantly understood, why can't you provide at least one reference that the books is 'fringe theory'? In your tone: You have to prove it is fringe. I have repeated this several times now, but you seem reluctant to understand the point. --Jyoti (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to read WP:BURDEN? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read and understood. It is undisputed (by you too) that the work is about the article topic. That the work falls under author's area of expertise. That the author is notable (albeit you claim his notability is for all the wrong reasons) and cited. Like I said before You have made grand claims and made it sound like it's abundantly understood, why can't you provide at least one reference that the books is 'fringe theory'? --Jyoti (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN discusses reliability, not notability; Elst is the latter, but not the former, because he is fringe. How then do you claim to have understood the policy? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read my response again. Like I said, You have made grand claims and made it sound like it's abundantly understood, why can't you provide at least one reference that the books is 'fringe theory'/unreliable?' --Jyoti (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It cannot be violation of ELPOV since it is not an EL. His views on Aryan Invasion Theory are irrelevant to this topic and discussion.
 * The reference to LK Adavni shows that the book cannot be fringe to the topic of BJP, because his opinions are refereed to by the top leader of the BJP (and despite that his views are also critical of the BJP). The book under discussion is referred to by Makarand_Paranjape, and his other works on BJP and Hindutva (such as Decolonizing the Hindu Mind and Saffron Swastika) are referred to by Edwin Bryant among many others. The book under discussion was also referred to by R.K. Mishra and Mr. Balbir Poonj and K.R. Malkani and Mr. Devendra Swarup (see the book introduction).  --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Elst's opinions on the BJP cannot be called fringe when the top senior leader of the BJP (LK Advani) has been repeatedly referring to Elsts views and books in important forums.
 * Elst is a controversial author, but wikipedia should not be censored and include all viewpoints. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Calypsomusic, what then is the relevant policy describing what can and what cannot be used as further reading? Are you claiming that Wikipedia has only a single paragraph of policy about this?
 * Also, Advani is not a scholar; he does not make a source reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not that many policies outside of BLP, most are just guidelines and essays, so not all questions can be solved by policy but by common sense and balance. And a single book by a well known author on Indian politics should not be a problem of NPOV. Elst's major books like Decolonizing the Hindu mind (based on his ph d thesis) qualify as scholarly works by a scientifically trained scholar. His inclusion would add value because of a different viewpoint than in those presently in the section. IMO, Further reading sections should include books with different viewpoints, and Elst qualifies as a notable author on Indian politics and the BJP. Advani's references to Elst's views on the BJP further indicate his notability, and note that Elst in the book "BJP vis a vis" and "Decolonizing" is also a critic of BJP.I have quoted as another example also Makarand_Paranjape, who wrote in his book: "the BJP is commonly referred to as the Hindu nationalist party, but as Koenraad Elst (1997) in the second chapter of BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence points out...." (Elsts books are also in the further reading sections of for example: Paul Jackson, Cyprian Blamires (2006). World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia. and in Wheeler, Albert J. (2005). Racism: A Selected Bibliography.) Would you agree that Elst's book "Decolonizing" is used as a source for "Integral Humanism"? Because from what I understood, Elst's analysis of this topic seems to be the most detailed scholarly analysis available in print, and his views on the topic of Integral humanism are hardly controversial. --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Advani is not just a politican, he is (with Vayapee) the top senior leader of the BJP. If, as an illustrative example, the BJP were a person, and that person were making these comments about Elst's books (quoting his views on him at length in his autobiography and in important and official political statements), then that would also further indicate notability. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument is not about notability, it is about reliability. Elst is notable; he is not reliable. Reliability is established by scholars, and Advani is not a scholar. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Elst has the required academic training and his major works are written in academic style. Inclusion for Further reading section are not that strict as you seem to imply. There are many authors in Further reading sections that don't even have a Ph.D. I also gave an example where the book under discussion is used in other academic work to support an argument. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Requested quote
I have posted the quote from Malik here, as it is a little lengthy to insert in the article, and multiple sentences are used;

"In other words, in order to forge a strong sense of Indian national identity, "it must be culturally rooted in Hinduism and Hindu civilization." According to this view, minorities must reconcile themselves to the political dominance of Hindus and the centrality of Hinduism in the national identity. It should be noted, however, that in contrast to nine- teenth century Hindu nationalism, which was reform oriented and non-ritualistic, contemporary Hindu nationalism is much more fundamentalist and ritualistic, and the BJP leadership has not hesitated to use the religious symbols to mobilize Hindu votes"

"He agreed with K. R. Malkani, a fellow Sindhi editor and party intellectual, when he declared that "we do not want a Hindu rashtra or theocratic state. But we revel in the essence of Hinduism that keeps us anchored to our roots as we modernize so we don't lose ourselves in the tidal wave of westernization.""

Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Malik has been used as reference at 5 places. The reference is repeated (without any change). On all 5 occasions entire 18 page article is referenced and no specific page is given. It is extremely difficult to verify. Could you not provide a page number to each of the 5 occurrence? The above quote you give... is for which of the five occurrence, could you add the specific page number to it? --Jyoti (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can give specific pages in some cases; not in some others, because those sentences are summaries of much longer sections. In any case, 18 pages is short enough to read through if you actually posses the article; if you don't have access, what use is a page number anyhow? I'm rather reluctant to give page numbers in any case, because a single page can then be taken out of context. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Typically we do provide page number. The question of not possessing the article is not meaningful. The question is if I have it then how do I verify it easily? You should not paraphrase something that is spread across more than two entire pages into one statement in the article anyways. You need not worry about another editor taking one page out of context, if your content is referenced then it just is referenced! 18 pages is not less. Particular both you and I have the article, you most definitely can provide page number and I can go over them once, no? --Jyoti (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 18 pages is an utterly trivial length; if it had been a book extract, it would hardly have been shorter. This is a stupid argument, though, and I will add numbers where specific pages are used; in general, however, there is no rule against summarizing lengthy sections, so long as the meaning is not distorted; several featured articles do so. Witness India, where 5 and 8 page segments are used for single sentences. Therefore, do not expect me to do the same for every single reference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not think so and neither does the community. your example of India is another bad precedent. I will tag them appropriately if needed. I have placed my reply immediately below the statement I am responding to. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 10:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I plan to shift the article references to an sfn system soon; I will make the changes then, because I'd rather not do book-keeping work twice over, and I have already given you the specific quote you asked for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AmritasyaPutra ✍ you can reply where you please, I plan to add comments in sequence. Are you then saying that India does not deserve to be an FA? what about all the other FAs where full articles are used as references, such as Parkinson's disease? Are you saying those became FAs against community consensus? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And how about Yasser Arafat, another FA where 30 page book segments are used as single references? If it is good enough for multiple featured articles, it is good enough for me. Produce a policy which says pages are required for journal articles, and only then will I spend time and effort inserting such. If you place unreasonable tags, I will remove them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want further proof, read WP:CITEHOW. The page numbers of an article within a journal are required; page numbers within an article, are not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant your nit picked examples do not justify following the same practice. There can be exception, they are not the norm. And 5 and 8 are less than half of 18. Do you need 18 pages to refer for one statement? And how does one verify it? You are caustic in your reply without exception. I will forget that I tried to discuss anything with you, we work pretty well on article page directly. I haven't placed any unreasonable tags, exercise restrain in your words. WP:CITEHOW does not say that, you are making wrong inference to suit yourself. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 11:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also gave you an example with a 33 page reference. I am not particularly bothered if the examples are atypical; they are FAs, and therefore following their practice is more than reasonable. I also linked the relevant policy, which supported my statement. I did not say you had placed unreasonable tags; I said that if you did, I would remove them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

GA nom
. Is the article really ready for GA review? Sections "In general elections", "BJP in various states" and "List of presidents of the party" are missing inline references. Also, "In general elections" and "List of presidents of the party" are simple tables and should included some intro prose. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are easily addressed, because this is purely factual information; I have done it for the results section, will work on the presidents section shortly. I am unsure of the need for prose in those sections; everything that could be said is covered in more detail in the history section. What sort of information would you wish to see that isn't covered above? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot about WP:EMBED being part of the criteria earlier but is intro prose really needed or recommended in the guideline? The titles are fairly self-explanatory on their own. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some call it lame style of writing while some others are of the opinion that even though its WP:OBVIOUS, it should be still written in sentences. Make up something and thats done. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added something to the "In General Elections" section. Not remotely married to the language, feel free to tweak. I am inclined to leave the "Party Presidents" without prose, unless there is a specific guideline I am not seeing.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also added a single ref for the Chief ministers section. Not entirely sure where duplication is necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better reference for this.
The article has "Specifically, it supports the abolition of laws that preserve the cultural heritage of minority groups (such as Muslims)...". The referenced source has "While it acknowledges the importance of religious tolerance, it rejects special protection for minority religions...". Unless there is some other place in that article that the editor is referring to (the reference does not give specific page number). Its tiresome to look up such reference in the entire article. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 11:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) I reverted your edit, because you lifted the entire sentence from the source; without quotes, this is a copyvio, and even with quotes, hardly good style. In addition;
 * 2) Although Seshia does not actually contradict the text here, this was a mistake I made when duplicating Refs; the original ref was Malik, which I had previously used for both that sentence and the next. What Malik says is this; "Thus, Advani's so-called positive secularism, evidently re- fuses to recognize that the Muslim minority needs special laws or civil procedures in order to preserve its distinct cultural identity," which does indeed support the text as written. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . I copied half a sentence, is it copyvio? Let me understand you clearly, do you want to summarize "Thus, Advani's so-called positive secularism, evidently refuses to recognize that the Muslim minority needs special laws or civil procedures in order to preserve its distinct cultural identity," as Specifically, it supports the abolition of laws that preserve the cultural heritage of minority groups (such as Muslims)? I would request you to reconsider this please. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous; that is not what I said. The part of the sentence not supported by the other source was the "cultural heritage" part; this is discussed by Malik, and I provided the quote for that reason. The part about the uniform civil code is higher up on the page, if you have the article; but that part is a no-brainer, so I didn't paste that quote here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then I understood it wrong. Just tell me clearly where do I verify it? I think I asked my question clearly, see this section title and what I have been requesting? -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, I am getting a feel that Vanamonde93 has no patience with me. If you guys think that I am being unreasonable then I will disappear from this article till s/he is done with it (probably a few weeks). Aside, is copyvio so strict that we may not copy half a sentence (15 words in this case) from an article? -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pages 324 and 325, the paragraph beginning "Advani and his Hindu Nationalist associates..." which you would have found, if you had simply searched the article for "code," or "civil," or anything like that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I getting impatient? Yes, I rather think I am; because you have asked me to handhold you through the verification process to a degree that I do not believe I am required to. Although I admit I made a mistake with the duplication. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pray, how would I know I have to search with the word "code", "civil"? These are not in the article's statement which I want to verify. If you admit you made a mistake in giving reference then how, at the same time, are you claiming you have to handhold? I did look-up the incorrect reference that was provided. I do not have a searchable digital copy to search quickly, is it so excruciatingly painful for you to give a page number which was requested all along? I read through page 324-325 and I do not see that it supports the statement. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 13:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You should know, because the statement we are discussing refers to the idea of a uniform civil code. And not finding it is absolute nonsense; here is the rest of the quote, for anybody else who is interested; "Such concepts are hard to define, but in a practical sense it means to deny the minorities, and particularly the Muslims, any concessions on the basis of their religious or cultural needs. Advani's concept of positive secularism stresses that there ought to be a uniform civil code applicable to all citizens of the country irrespective of their religious affiliations. It would also abolish Article 370 of the Consti- tution, which gives the Muslim majority states of Jammu and Kashmir special status within the Indian union. Similarly, it would refuse to recognize Urdu as one of the official languages in such states as Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) or Bihar." Which is as explicit as it gets. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You summarize the above into "Specifically, it supports the abolition of laws that preserve the cultural heritage of minority groups (such as Muslims)..."? The only thing that is said directly about BJP's stand is Advani's concept of positive secularism stresses that there ought to be a uniform civil code applicable to all citizens of the country irrespective of their religious affiliations. The party talks of uniform civil code and that is what the reference says. Party has never talked of abolishing laws that preserve the cultural heritage of minority groups, nor does the reference says so. The central point is "uniform civil code" here. The reference also revolves around that. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 17:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC) You also specifically said to look-up 'code' and 'civil' and said it is about uniform civil code. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 06:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, the dispute is about the statements "While it acknowledges the importance of religious tolerance, it rejects special protection...across all religions." -> "Specifically, it supports the abolition of laws that preserve the cultural heritage...all religions." right? There should be a compromise between these two since because I personally feel they both shift the favour towards one of the sides.
 * The parts special protection for minority religions and laws that preserve the cultural heritage of minority groups are the ones which I have a problem with. Both these a POVs represented by either side (it's the BJP who feels that its "special protection" versus the orthodox muslims who feel it "preserves their heritage"), so we better word them so. Can we somehow frame it like It favours a uniform civil code because it considers the personal laws (particularly those of Muslims) as "special protection" while... Help me out here, can't think of anything better. Also if Malik is the source why don't you add it there along with Seshia to support this statement? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first is statement from study paper. Second is the inferred statement added to wp article. IMHO the aim is to find accurate summary from the reference. I am open to attribution. The article subject, BJP, talks of uniform civil code. Whether it is against special privilege to Muslims or not is the authors' study work. I have changed it to It supports the enactment of uniform civil code which attempts to replace the personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in the country, with a common set governing every citizen. However, in a practical sense it may mean to deny the minorities(such as Muslims), any concessions on the basis of their religious or cultural affiliation. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 05:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugog Nizdast, AmritasyaPutra, apologies for the delay, been busy. Ugog, first off, I think the dispute is more about my summary of Mailk than anything else, and in general, about specific language than about framing the issue. I did in fact add Malik as soon as I spotted my mistake. Anyhow, I am fine with separating uncontested fact and Malik's statement; I have done so, and attributed the latter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanamonde93. No issues as long as we work together and are able to arrive at quick consensus. If you don't mind I would take this opportunity to make a gentle reminder how having specific reference helped us quickly arrive at consensus. Regards. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh ok and yes, you change addressed the issue. Good day to both of you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)