Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 4

RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory?
Started by Jyoti (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC) -- WP:FURTHER says that the section is optional. The whole section can be removed; leave alone one book. Only if the book is used by the article as a reference; WP:FRINGE comes into play. Do why need a Rfc to determine this? I suggest immediate closure of the Rfc.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I opened an RfC because another editor insists on excluding this book from that section claiming 'fringe'. It is not used a as a reference in the article, I find it suitable to be added to the section. Redtigerxyz, I have reworded the RfC from "RfC: Is this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst fringe and should be excluded from further reading section of BJP article?" to "RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory?" . Only you, apart from me (RfC requester) had replied, I hope it should be okay. --Jyoti (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Alone the fact that L.K. Advani, who "had always been the most powerful leader in the BJP with the exception of Vajpayee (and more recently Modi)", said this about Elst in his autobiography: "Dr. Koenrad Elst, in his two-volume book titled The Saffron Swastika, marshals an incontrovertible array of facts to debunk slanderous attacks on the BJP by a section of the media" makes it notable enough to have one of his books mentioned. Elst is a controversial author and because of that I think he is treated less fair than other much less notable authors on wikipedia. Some of Elst's other books (Decolonizing the Hindu Mind) also discuss the BJP. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The book under discussion is also critical of the BJP. Elst says: "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”." Elst is a critic and his books "BJP vis a vis" and "Decolonizing the Hindu mind" are critical of the BJP and Hindutva. Besides, "Decolonizing the Hindu mind" is part of his PhD thesis.
 * Another scholarly book, Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India by Makarand_Paranjape, cites this book as "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...." --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Notable Author. Work relevant to the article. Work widely available. No citation saying this book represents any fringe theory. --Jyoti (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Eelst is notable, but only because he is considered a fringe extremist by most serious scholars. He is basically a hindutva activist scholar and his work cannot be used to provide any objective commentary. It could be used to provide a pro-hindutva view on certain topics, but it should be used with extreme care.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose No mainstream scholar of Indian History gives any weight to Elst; as Maunus says, he is notable precisely because his views are not taken seriously elsewhere. Therefore including him is thoroughly undue, and a violation of WP:ELPOV. Also, per WP:BURDEN, you need to show that he is worthy of inclusion, not the other way around. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable author. Also, all views should be presented. Unless there is a WP policy that precludes adding in this author's title, there's no reason to exclude it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst in further reading.
At the discussion at ELN, a neutral editor stated that WP:ELBURDEN does in fact apply to further reading sections as well. ,, are you still going to dispute this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are rehashing the discussion. It has already been discussed at:
 * 1. My talk page,
 * 2. RFC This talk page
 * 3. External_links/Noticeboard
 * Do you have any reference that says the book promotes fringe theory? If not, stop. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 15:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a look at ELBURDEN and cannot find any mention of further reading. While I value the opinion of WhatamIdoing, the statement that EL applies also to Further reading is not written in any wikipedia policy, not even in a wikipedia guideline or essay. If this would be the case, WP:EL would have to specify that Further reading also applies to that guideline. There is no policy for Further reading, but there is a guideline at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading. In any case, I see no consensus to exclude it, even if WP:EL would apply.
 * Would you agree if instead of the Further reading section, Elst is used as source in the article about the topic of Integral Humanism (from what I understood after reading the chapter in "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind", Elsts' analysis is the most detailed scholarly analysis in the secondary sources on the topic of Integral Humanism). --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I would not, and you certainly do not have consensus to use him as such. If you think ELBURDEN does not apply, what then is the policy governing further reading? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ELBURDEN is not a policy, it is a guideline. Please understand the difference. The guideline is WP:FURTHER, and there is an inactive guideline I linked to above. The reason that there is not more on wikipedia is that most editors agree on " reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." The book adds value to the section because the author is an expert and notable on the topic and the section should include all viewpoints, and a single mention does not violate NPOV, and frankly, I have seen authors, even controversial ones, who don't even a Ph.D. in further reading sections. For example, in the Yasser Arafat Featured Article that you linked above, there is a book by journalist Said Aburish, by author Janet Wallach (no wikipedia page), by editor Andrew_Gowers, by journalist Alan_Hart_(writer), by journalist Danny_Rubenstein and by Avraham_Sela - all who don't even have a Ph.D. (with the exception of Sela, who otherwise is still not very notable). Can you give a reason why not to use Elst as source for Integral Humanism. Are there better scholarly sources available that discuss the concept in detail? Which ones are these? Also, if scholars like Makarand_Paranjape quote the book under discussion, would you agree that the book is quoted instead in the same fashion?    --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: I did not start the RFC. The RFC expired with more keep than delete votes, which defaults to keep. There is no consensus version without the book. The book was added to the article, you tried to remove it, then somebody started an RFC which expired with more support votes. Frankly, I find your actions over a single line after there was a consensus to keep it, is becoming annoying. It is not the end of the world if you don't agree with every line in an wikipedia article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is not my disagreement, the problem is your misunderstanding of consensus. CON|consensus is not a vote; therefore, an expired RfC does NOT default to "keep." It defaults to what the article was prior to the RfC. In this case, Jyoti started the RfC shortly after inserting the book into the article; a violation of procedure in any case, but that certainly does not make the consensus version the one with the book. The consensus version is the version prior to the dispute, which does not contain the book. And your comment about a single line applies equally to your opinion in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The consensus was keep, while somebody more impartial than us should judge the arguments, there were more keep than delete votes, which means keep. How many support votes would it need in your opinion that it would mean keep. The majority should be enough. Where does it say that this was a violation of RFC procedure? Please provide the link. The consensus version is the version prior to the proposal(RFC). --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you not read WP:VOTE? Where on earth are you getting "consensus was keep" from? The consensus version is the one before the dispute; the dispute was ongoing when the RfC began, so how on earth can the consensus version be the one when the RfC was started? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Read My talk page, RFC This talk page, External_links/Noticeboard. It has been not disputed by anyone other than you recently. You are against the consensus. Period. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:VOTE is only an essay. (Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, they could only represent minority viewpoints.) The majority of the votes was keep, and the only impartial editor in this (SW3, who has no history to edit or discuss in those kind of articles) voted and argued for keep. How many keep votes would you need in order to accept it? Why is the majority of votes not enough? Of course there will always be someone opposing in an RFC, but if the majority of voters voted keep, it should be keep.
 * You have also not replied to all the arguments in favor of keep in the discussion. For example, in the Yasser Arafat Featured Article that you linked above, the Further reading section is not as strict as you seem to imply: there is a book by journalist Said Aburish, by author Janet Wallach (no wikipedia page), by editor Andrew_Gowers, by journalist Alan_Hart_(writer), by journalist Danny_Rubenstein and by Avraham_Sela - all who don't even have a Ph.D. (with the exception of Sela, who otherwise is still not very notable). Also, if scholars like Makarand Paranjape quote the book under discussion, would you agree that the book is quoted in the same fashion? --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed per RfC close, and that should be the end of this discussion as well, so closing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert
I just reverted a couple of edits by an IP address. The first of these changed the number of Lok Sabha seats from 279 (a sourced figure) to 282. Unless you have a newer source, please don't change this. The second change reinserted multiple deleted images, but in such a way that they had still been commented out. I am unsure what purpose this serves; regardless, please discuss here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * About the LS seats: New elections will be held for few seats (like example the Vadodara seat) Narendra Modi Resigns From Vadodara Seat, Will Retain Varanasi. Also, post Gopinath Munde's death election would be held there too. So the seats are bound to change. Given the lousy lazy journalism in India I doubt you would find a single reference giving a total seat count. We would have to search if the Lok Sabha's official website has something on it. Or we would have to synthesis the total figure and explain the count in footnote. Same situation would happen on numerous articles now. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. I'm not wedded to this figure; all I'm saying is that a change needs to have some basis, which the IP was not providing. The number was in fact 282 for some time just after the elections; it was changed when Modi resigned his second seat, Munde died, and something else happened to a third person (can't remember what). The Lok Sabha website ought to be accurate; so should the ECI, provided we use the most recent one. You're dead right about the journalism, I'm very wary of using a media source for this figure. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 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)
 * There have been no objections, or indeed no response, of any kind; therefore, I am boldly implementing this. I am not hellbent on keeping it in, but if you revert, at least do me the courtesy of discussing it here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The ideal format would be to use for books, because they may be referenced multiple times with different page numbers, and ordinary footnotes for news articles.  Looking at a footnote such as "The Hindu 2013" is so uninformative that it seems pointless.  My two cents.  Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we ideally don't want two formats running around, and ordinary footnotes for multiple sections of the same book gets rather messy. The footnote in this case also links to the full reference. That said, I don't think there is anything stopping you from expanding the footnote a little, by tweaking the parameter in the full reference, and replacing it above. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideological position
There are very, very few sources for centre-right, yet BJP trolls keep adding that in. "Right-wing" is extremely well sourced, as you can see. There are more sources for "far-right" than for "centre-right". BJP is not a liberal-conservative centre-right party, it is a Hindu nationalist party. If BJP is centre-right, then Front National and the Muslim Brotherhood must also be centre-right. BJP's platform is nationalist, populist and its advocacy of classical liberal-conservative reforms are extremely inconsistent (e.g. BJP's position on FDI in retail).

If any party in North America or Europe supported anti-conversion laws, it would be far-right. If any party in North America or Europe supported a ban on homosexuality (League of Polish Families) it would be far-right. If any party in North America or Europe had close affiliations with paramilitary groups (Jobbik), it would be far right. I understand Indian cultural norms are very different from those of the West, hence why I am not advocating the "far-right" label. However, "right-wing" is appropriate and this is reflected in English language media coverage which overwhelmingly applies that label.--86.149.182.212 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. But the info-box is not the place to fight these wars.  Why don't you add text to the article that firmly establishes that BJP is right wing, and then the info-box can reflect that.  At the moment, all those citations are off-putting and they violate the current citation style of the article. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel the same too. as major contributor, what do you feel? can you remedy this? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This particular parameter has always seemed a little strange to me, partly because it seeks to reduce a complex set of positions that are not always self-consistent to a single term, and partly because I am not a fan of the two-dimensional political spectrum. That said, I believe the infobox is a summary of the article, and as such does not need to quote from it. The body of the article contains content which shows that the BJP holds right-wing positions broadly speaking, and the sources used in the body (like DiSilvio) do in fact use the term "right-wing." IMO this is enough, and the DiSilvio source can be duplicated from the body as a source so the formatting is fixed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014

(UTC)
 * It would seem I misread the references a little. DiSilvio was not one of the source I added, but a later addition (confused him with Bobbio; Italian last names, both). I will look for a better source, which I am sure may be found among those that I used when I re-wrote this. Also, upon further thought, it seems appropriate to mention the political position in the lead as well, skeptical though I may be about the term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification; DiSilvio was published in an undergrad journal, ergo not reliable enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, yes, you better mention it both to the lead and infobox. While I posted here, someone did change it back to "centre-right" without saying why. Also, since some might try to fight over it without reading the main prose, I recommend you add citations to both those places and maybe even in-article comments. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call, will do as soon as I find the time. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hindu politics template
It seems to me that if the template belongs on any page at all, it belongs here. It is true that the BJP is not officially a "Hindu" party; but the overwhelming majority of RS show that it has, at times in the past, functioned as such. Moreover, there is no conceivable way that the topic of Hindu politics is complete without the BJP, even though the BJP itself has a lot to it besides Hindutva. Finally, it is an entry in the template. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose in general elections list
Thanks for the CE, my friend. As for the prose in that section; I added it following this discussion. It is repetition, and I would be happy to remove it, I only inserted it to make the section better compliant with WP:EMBED. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I remember that now. Hmm, I still think it's not needed but I may be interpreting EMBED wrong. Tell you what, this is something you can ask the future reviewer. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that works. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear policy
The quote from the source; "Yet the BJP chose to disregard the likely adverse consequences and departed from India's post- 1974 "nuclear option" policy, which had reserved for India the right to weaponize its nuclear capabilities but had not overtly declared its weapons capability. National governments of varying political persuasions had adhered to this strategy for more than two decades." Sumit Ganguly 1999. The source itself refers to it as a "policy;" nonetheless, I have reworded it to read "strategy," since it was obviously not a codified policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no such policy. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sikh Violence
The anti-Sikh violence is utterly irrelevant to this article. They were perpetrated by the Congress, and some Congress leaders were punished for it, as they should have been, and others were not, for various dodgy reasons; but all of that has nothing to do with the BJP. The source mentions the riots, and suggests a link to the BJP. The new source simply mentions the Congress role in the sikh riots; why are they relevant here? Mentioning them here is OR of the highest order. If you want context, find a source linking those riots to the Congress, or that shows the relevance of the sikh riots to this page. Since you seem so worried about them, I have tweaked it to read "hindu-muslim" violence, thus excluding the sikh riots. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement needs clarity. It implicates BJP for riots in early 1980s when we can clearly see Congress was in power and involved in riots. The first election that BJP fought was in 1984 where it won a meagre 2 seats. I have put back the clarification tag. You can propose how you want to make that clarification if you are not okay with the way I made it. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made a change, to address this issue. I don't see any further need for "clarification." The text now only mentions "Hindu-muslim" violence; there is no source showing INC involvement in those in that period. Moreoever, the source says "As it happened, the formation of the BJP heralded a wave of religious violence in northern and western India. There were major Hindu-Muslim riots in the Uttar Pradesh towns of Moradabad (August 1980) and Meerut (September–October 1982); in the Bihar town of Biharsharif in April–May 1981; in the Gujarat towns of Vadodara (September 1981), Godhra (October 1981) and Ahmedabad (January 1982); in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, in September 1983; and in the Maharashtra towns of Bhiwandi and Bombay in May–June 1984. In each case the riots ran on for days, with much loss of life and property, and were finally quelled only by armed force." Guha, 2007. It's pretty clear what he is saying. He says heralded, paraphrased here as "marked." What are you looking for? A statement saying "oh, but the Congress was also involved in riots?" that is irrelevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You may read these biggest Hindu-Muslim riots of early 1980s: 1980 Moradabad riots, Mandai massacre and Nellie massacre. BJP is still non-existent in Mandai and Nellie after 35 years much lesser in 1980s! Yes, Congress government was reigning when these three incidents happened. Summariy saying early 1980s and implicating BJP for rioting does encompass the incidents that I mention and is clearly misleading hence a clarification is much needed. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. Are you saying the source is incorrect, or are you suggesting mis-representation? The text DOES NOT say the BJP was responsible for any of these. It says the riots occurred soon after the formation of the BJP. It is necessary, because the next sentence goes on to say that the BJP actually moderated its agenda in those years. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying same thing as you, BJP was not responsible for it. But the context and the present form suggests otherwise. I have tweaked it to remove that ambiguity, if you simply keep reverting I will have no choice but to stick the clarify tag and wait for you to come up with a middle path, I am open to suggestions. --AmritasyaPutra T 08:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

BJP & RSS to be Given the title of terrorist by a american Court in April?
I see That the BJP is a branch of the RSS, would this latest news update on The NewYork Court order effect The BJP as The BJP is linked to the RSS & would this be a excuse For a future labeling of BJP members? If so would this Ref be needed Here Or just on the RSS wiki?

http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/02/04/usa-new-york-court-to-hear-sikhs-for-justice-lawsuit-against-rss-in-april/92.236.96.38 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock
 * The source provided is not a reliable one. Furthermore, the opinion of a court doesn't hold very much weight on Wikipedia; if a verdict is produced, and reliable secondary sources give it coverage, then we could consider mentioning it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2015
link Gujarat to wiki page Gujarat in the 2002 violence area..

Bhavesh.p.more (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done We don't usually do this if there is already another link in the article (see WP:OVERLINK). However, the links are far enough apart that I have made an exception in this case. If anyone disagrees, please let me know and I will revert. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarify tag
Since adds tags like this  and refuses to do his homework, here is the information. The paragraph summarises pages 301-312 of Jaffrelot, 1996. The fact that the communal violence rose "sharply" during the Janata Government and that the former Jana Sanghis were implicated in Aligarph and Jamshedpur riots in 1978-79 are both mentioned on page. 301. The Aligarh riot was investigated by the Minorities Commission and the Jamshedpur riot was investigated by a three-member commission headed by Justice Jitendra Narain. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also a direct quote from the Jitendra Narain report here: . Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Why sarcasm and arrogance? It is obligatory to address a clarification tag, deleting it without any discussion and accusing editor of misconduct in edit summary is not the way. --AmritasyaPutra T 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1984 and 1989
The article talks about the success or failure in elections purely by the number of seats won. By this measure, the 1984 performance seems to be a failure and 1989 a grand success. However, the votes received in 1984 were 7%, the same as what the Jana Sangh got in 1971. Similarly, the votes received in 1989 were 11%, only marginally better than 9.4% that Jana Sangh received in 1967. So, neither was 1984 a great failure nor was 1989 a great success. The reason for the large difference in seats is the strength of the competition. In 1984, the Congress was strong and, in 1989, it was weak. This has nothing much to do with the BJP's own performance. It doesn't seem like Malik & Singh understand these subtleties all that well. I am going to cut them out and use a more erudite source like Jaffrelot. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, I would not cut them out entirely. Jaffrelot takes a more sociological approach to this, while Malik and Singh are coming from a more political science oriented background, and as such they have different things to contribute. In a first-past-the-post system like India has, absolute percentages count for little, and concentration for much more. Sure, the Congress's strength made a big difference, but the Janata's popularity also seems to have inflated the BJP's vote tally in 1984 without getting it any seats because the votes were so diffuse; the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, on the other hand, concentrated that nine percent of votes in the Hindi heartland, and gave it a lot of seats. We can include Jaffrelot, by all means, but Malik's narrative (which Guha also seems to buy into) doesn't seem to be off the mark. The comparisons to the Jana Sangh, to my mind, don't mean too much, because the same variability of the Congress also affected it; 1971 was the election after the war, when Indira Gandhi had far more support than in 1967 when she was a relative unknown, and the Congress was at war with itself. All in all, might we discuss the changes here first? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Congress got 43% vote in 1971 and 49% in 1984, even though the Jana Sangh/BJP got the same votes in the two cases. That substantiates my assertion that the competition was stronger. (Can you see that the BJP's winning chances went down because the other parties lost votes?) I don't believe Malik and Singh understand numbers well enough to build valid theories. But, in any case, I will use Jaffrelot as the authoritative source, not myself :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (response both to this and to your tp) I'm not underestimating anything, my friend, and I am personally a fan of Jaffrelot as a source. It's just that given a topic so complex and so sensitive, and given further that most media coverage is not good enough for this article, we need to rigidly balance academic views. You may feel that Noorani and Malik are not quote there with respect to the BJP; a priori, though, they do need to be given weight. Malik may occasionally be superficial, but I would also question the wisdom of looking at nationwide vote tallies; they might give the broadest of brush strokes, but little beyond that. Add Jaffrelot, by all means. Or wait until I get back to my good university library; then I'll add him myself; but not to the exclusion of all others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the statement we have in the article saying that the Vajpayee strategy was "unsuccessful" because the BJP got only 2 Lok Sabha seats is quite naive. It is based on the assumption that seat-wins form the only measure of "success", which most people won't agree with. Political analysts at least look at the vote share in order to gauge success. By this measure, the BJP got over 7% vote, the second largest in that election, and similar to what the Jana Sangh got in a comparable election previously. So, our editorialising, if that is what it is, is misplaced.
 * Secondly, the Vajpayee strategy was highly unpopular inside the RSS as well as the RSS activists within the BJP. The RSS was also openly supporting Congress(I) throughout 1980-84 and the Congress(I) had turned Hindu traditionalist. Despite all the moderation, the BJP was still a "political untouchable" due to the dual membership controversy of the Janata times. So, the forces were arrayed against Vajpayee.
 * Thirdly, the Vajpayee strategy of moderation was crucial in the long term to make the BJP respectable to the centrist voters and as a potential ally to the centrist parties. We could say that Vajpayee laid a foundation for his future Premiership right there in his 1980-84strategy.
 * The phenomenal rise of the BJP since those times owes equally to both the Vajpayee moderation and the Advani hard line. Through this dual-pronged strategy, the BJP managed to have its cake and eat it too. We would be remiss not to recognize these facts. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you read far enough into the Malik & Singh article, you read "However, the party's leadership was not disheartened as it found that, compared with previous years, the BJP did not fare as poorly as the tally of seats indicated. It concluded that the Congress (I) had benefited from a massive sympathy vote following the murder of Indira Gandhi and that the BJP had lost roughly only one per-cent of votes." (p. 329) The table on p. 330 shows the 1980vote share as 8.6%. I don't know how they calculate it, as it was part of an "alliance." Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed
I have added a NPOV tag to the article. The discussion is in the GA review page. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde93 has removed the NPOV tag. This is against NPOV policy. Please wait until the issues are resolved. I have explained why the article is not neutral. This needs to be resolved before removing the NPOV tag. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it most certainly is not. I quote "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." You have only raised personal concerns on the talk page, and the only secondary sources you have provided are an out-dated Sangh Newspaper and Koenrad Elst, who is a fringe source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What has happened in the GA review was highly unfortunate. I didn't follow closely what were your concerns earlier but I do remember the RFC. Now I also see that you raised issues which either were addressed at that time and/or the reviewer answered them. If you have anything new (emphasis on that) to say, do it now or else drop the stick. How long can you expect everyone else to AGF? And please no walls of text, there's a limit to how much anyone can read. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I came over to find out why this GA nom failed, and notice that you are contesting its "neutrality." Note that neutrality on Wikipedia means fairly representing all the view points that exist among reliable third party sources. So, to argue the lack of neutrality, you need to specify what reliable third party sources have been omitted. You also need to show that the proportion of the viewpoints in the article differs from their relative prominence among the scholarly sources. So, can you tell us what sources you are claiming to be unrepresented? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From this bold edit that made, I picked up the following 4 sources, which he believes will make the article "neutral."
 * This is Advani speaking, not a third party source.
 * This is Advani speaking, not a third party source.


 * Elst, K. (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu mind: Ideological development of Hindu revivalism. New Delhi: Rupa & Co.
 * Elst is a strong supporter of the Hindutva movements and not exactly third party. But, still, if the information he wants to take from here is not contentious, it can be used.


 * Once again, Bangaru Laxman is not a third party source.
 * Once again, Bangaru Laxman is not a third party source.


 * Organiser is not a mainstream newspaper and, hence, not a reliable source. It is also part of the Sangh Parivar and so not third party.
 * Organiser is not a mainstream newspaper and, hence, not a reliable source. It is also part of the Sangh Parivar and so not third party.

On the whole, other than possibly Elst, none of the other sources can even be cited here as per Wikipedia policies. If wants to contest neutrality, he needs to bring much stronger sources, especially to contest Ramachandra Guha, a Padma Bhushan-winning academic. He also wants to paint Guha as a "critic" of the BJP. I have seen nothing to say that he was a critic. The book from which the material is taken is a standard book on the history of independent India that is top-class, having put Guha in the top-league of the world's historians. There is nothing to indicate that Guha is biased and needs to be countered by other sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is much the same thing I have been asking Calypso to do for a long while now. Accusations of lack of neutrality mean nothing as long as they are not backed up by sources. Yes, Calypso's changes were reverted; but that is because they did not back them with a single reliable source. With due lack of humility, I have read the majority of academic journal articles that discuss the BJP, and the policy section that I wrote reflects those. Moreover, these scholars are not "critics" of the BJP; they are third party observers. If I had included criticisms of the BJP made by its political opponents (which would be somewhat ridiculous) then it would be appropriate to present the BJP's view on every one of those issues; but that is not the case. Political issues become a terrible mess if described from the point of view of the participants, so we use neutral sources, and coverage in those determines coverage in the article. Even so, "critical" material has been attributed. Giving further space to BJP voices would be undue weight. TL;DR: If you want neutrality concerns taken seriously, provide serious sources backing them up, or prepare to be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an article on an existing political party, so the neutrality is all the more important, especially if it were a Good Article. Neutrality means including all signficant viewpoints, and the BJP and Hindu nationalist pov is obviously significant in an article on the BJP. I gave many examples of biased sections where the BJP pov is not represented. In addition to the fact that articles on existing political parties are contentious and thus difficult to achieve npov, it is also the case that the majority of academic sources do have an anti-BJP and anti-Hindu nationalist bias. Therefore, it would maybe help, to include more sources with only a moderate anti-Hindu nationalist bias (for example, Heuze is moderatly biased against the BJP.) The problem is that some statements and sections in the article are biased without additional opinions as I explained in the GA section.


 * The quote from Advani is not directly quoted from a publication by Advani, but from an article on Advani, so it could be ok. In the Times of India source I also added, the same is supported by Lala Ram Gupta. Regarding using Elst on Integral Humanism. His opinion on Integral Humanism (in a book based on his PhD thesis) is not contentious or controversial, and his treatment on this particular topic seems simply to be best scholarly treatment in secondary sources (he says in the book that he is the first scholar to examine it in this level of detail). If this happens to be the best source available for this particular topic, and his opinion on this is not controversial, I don't see a reason not to use it. As I said, I'm busy the next two weeks, so can work more on this afterwards.
 * All this shows is a spectacular misunderstanding of our policies on neutrality, and especially WP:DUE. Our coverage is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources; you have consistently failed to provide such. Policies aside, commonsense dictates that you would not write about a party using sources from within the party; every political party, from the most humane to the most brutal and bigoted, has justified its actions, would you include their justifications in every instance? Preposterous. Your allegation that academic sources are anti-BJP is quite ridiculous, especially as you fail to back it up; academics tend to be criticize of virtually every mainstream party. Quotes from advani are reliable sources for those quotes, and nothing else. Elst is a fringe source, a previous RfC with which you are well acquainted established that there is no consensus to include him here even in the Further Reading, let alone as a source. If you have a truly policy-bound argument of non-neutrality, I would like to hear it; as of now, you seem content to ignore the "in reliable sources" part of the NPOV policy, and so your argument carries no weight. Besides, you had six months before the GA review in which to raise these issues; the fact that you began editing again precisely during the review, and edited no other page, is interesting, to say the least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back. To make progress, you need to start policy-based discussions. For example, the wp:rs policy states that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It also states that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material. You are doing the precisely the opposite. You are asking us to value your opinions over and above those of the reliable sources of highest quality (Ramachandra Guha). That cannot be done.
 * I understand that Advani has stated that he didn't make any anti-Muslim speeches. I have no reason to doubt that. But that is just one point of evidence among a multitude of facts that the scholars consider before making up their minds. We have to report what they say, not our opinions. In this particular case, I think it would be ok to make the briefest possible mention of Advani's disclaimer, something along the lines of "although Advani himself has denied that he made any anti-Muslim speeches." (Note that this does not actually contradict the quote from Guha because he did not state that Advani made anti-Muslim speeches.)
 * Regarding Integral Humanism, I don't think any of us have any objections to including details about it. But nobody has been able to say anything substantive about it. The page on Integral humanism has been undeveloped for several years, with outstanding questions raised on the talk page for over 2 years. If you are able to, please work on that page and provide detail. Then we will be able to summarise it here. This can be done any time, and has nothing to do with the GA nomination.
 * Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Calypsomusic, it has been a week and a half, and you have not responded to the points here. Specifically, we require a reliable source contradicting the narratives in the article, which you have not yet provided. Can we take your silence to mean that you can live with this version? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I said two times that I'm too busy this month, and can work on it in March. What was not clear about it? The concerns have been written in the GA review section, you have not replied to most of them. Could you please reply to all of them? --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)