Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 5

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)

Request: Colors
Please change colors of some areas in the picture. A coalition can be in power but a coalition be cannot be in opposition. Further in Telangana Jana reddy of the congress is the leader of oppostion in assembly, then how can nda be the main opposition. [Comment by User:205.167.78.7]. Moved from text of article by Donner60. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that picture is a bit of an issue, and my artistic abilities have never been the best. I'll see what I can do. However, it's certainly possible for an alliance to be in the opposition; the NDA remained an alliance through ten years of being in the opposition in Parliament. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what the IP says is right? Telangana is in the wrong colour in present version of File:Indian states 2015 NDA.png? If work needs to be done, the file history there shows that one editor has been regularly updating it and could be contacted for this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Relative weight
AP and Calypso have been raising concerns over the relative weight given to the different history sections. These concerns are a little misplaced. Here's why; any analysis of the BJP's history has to include the Jana Sangh, because they were distinct bodies only in a superficial way, and much of the later ideology was shaped by the earlier organization. So, looking at the history section as a whole, it contains 2306 words, excluding titles and such. Of these, 187, or 8%, are related to the riots; hardly undue weight, considering how much coverage is given to the party's role therein. Of the rest, 651 words, or 28%, cover the entire Babri Masjid agitation. This is a 16-year period, and the rise of the BJP from a relatively minor party to that of a national party was very closely related to this movement; the coverage, if anything, is a little low. Calculating a combined weight for the riots and the Masjid makes very little sense, because they are not directly related. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think AP's point is that the Babri demolition and the Gujarat 2002 (not riots in general) are given undue weightage. But I think these were important elements of the BJP's rise to power, and the weight given is commensurate with their importance. However, I would feel more comfortable if the article comments on the role of these campaigns on BJP's rise, backed by sources. But I don't see this as an urgent issue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These two events are more than 50% of the 35 years of history of the BJP in the article presently. Did BJP do the Godhra train burning and subsequent riots? Of course mention them, but explaining exclusively these and convey... here you have the history of BJP... is odd. --AmritasyaPutra T 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I not just demonstrate that it is not actually 50%? If you are going to be legalistic and interpret BJP history as beginning in 1980, then chew on this; the Babri Masjid section describes 16 years, or 46% of this period; so once again, the relative weight is entirely appropriate. Nobody says that the "BJP did Godhra;" but Godhra and the BJP are inseparable in much of the coverage that the BJP has received since, and per WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE, we have to cover it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you did not. If you want to hammer your opinion only and remain absolutely closed to any suggestions then chew on this: I will drop any discussion and goto article edit links directly. --AmritasyaPutra T 00:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two can play at that game. If you want your suggestions to be taken seriously, I suggest you back them up with evidence. Particularly, explain why you think they are undue weight (as I did), rather than simply insisting that it is undue weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You show intention of fighting and not collaboration. I have explained my concern and it can be discussed and a middle way found. It is a pity that you believe that Godhra and Babri are all there is to 35 years of history of this party. Your tone reeks of a fighting attitude and you show zero intention of any discussion, rather, it is quite clear you created this section to declare your preconceive decision. By all means, continue, I will not waste my time with you here. --AmritasyaPutra T 11:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think too that the article gives too much weight on Godhra/Babri/Gujarat riots (which are all related). Indeed, in the period 1980 to 1998 (18 years), about 90% of the article is on this issue. Did nothing else happen in these 18 years for the BJP?. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes very little sense. The demolition happened in 1992; the movement lasted many years before that, and its impact was crucial to the rise of the BJP. Every source discussing the BJP's history agrees on that. There was plenty of other stuff as well; the article covers every election in that period, and the government collapse. The Gujarat riots happened in 2002; what on earth do you mean by saying that it dominates the period before 1998? And why on earth are you clubbing two phenomena that occurred several years apart, and calling them one issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please fellas, calm down. If any of you want my two annas on this, I say this: one side says there is too much weight given to at least two areas; would adding content to the remaining areas solve this issue? Just like how these two areas are covered by the present sources, shouldn't the sources detail those areas of lesser coverage too? If the current sources don't, I don't see any major weight issue. The next distant possibility is maybe there could be equally reliable sources to compare with, but that depends on whether anybody can bring them here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Can't agree more. Yes, those events need not go, other events need to come in. And we need to find a middle way. As far as I know newspaper is wp:secondary and unless they are contradicted by another source they can be used too. --AmritasyaPutra T 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no bar against newspaper reports per se, but when we are discussing such historical happenings over a long period of time, newspapers won't make good sources. We would end up cherry picking stuff which may have no scholarly standing. Doesn't the Malik & Singh article have enough material? Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, see WP:HISTRS; so emphasis on "equally reliable sources to compare with". Yes, newspapers are secondary sources but so is all what is considered as RSes. In general, RSes are third-party secondary sources. Remember that what is a RS also depends on what subject we are using it for. An history article, will use journals by historians (preferably well-cited among their peers); similarly, scientific peer-reviewed journals for a biology article. Newspaper sources are used in day-to-day topics and in scholarly topics such as these, they can only be used to supplement or add basic information. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When I rewrote this article approximately a year ago, I very deliberately did not use newspaper sources. Newspapers give in-the-moment coverage, and their reports are often inadequate with the benefit of hindsight. This is true for incidents, but is even more true for analysis of any kind. A slight exception could be made for articles that look back at older events; even there, though, they tend to be questionable. A second problem, in some ways more serious, is that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of newspaper articles about the BJP. It is absolutely impossible to figure out due weight. HISTRS is already limiting their use, but what I'm trying to say is that even in the absence of HISTRS, newspaper sources in this article (and any article with such huge coverage) is a bad idea. I thoroughly support the use of journal articles; I would just add the qualifier that they should be articles that cover some aspect of the BJP in some detail (of which there are quite a few, but not an overwhelming number) rather than having tangential coverage (of which there are exponentially more). Ugog, I appreciate your input, as always; in this instance, though, it might be a good idea for you to take a gander at the distribution of sources yourself. A huge amount of the academic coverage of the BJP is devoted to the two things at issue here; I had to dig far deeper to cover the rest of the article. If we were to simply go by coverage, the riots section would be three times the size. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be because many political commentators focus on the controversies, but this article is supposed to be on the political party, not just the controversies. Do the books which are only about the BJP, like those of Ahuja Gurdas, and not just on Hindutva in general, also focus that much on riots?
 * In any case, there is also a lot of pertinent information completely missing in this article, like a section on the names and symbols of the BJP (the BJP flag), the environmental and energy policies of the BJP, etc. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources, Calypso, sources. Find RS covering these topics in detail, and I will add them myself. I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "political commentaries," but journal articles in the history, sociology and political science areas most certainly tend to focus on the riots, and before that, on the Babri Masjid movement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, "the riots section would be three times the size" huh? Kudos to you for, in spite of that and all what's happened, expanding this and trying to cover the rest of the areas. This article has come a long way... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We all are RSS only
''“RSS is not an external force. I am from the RSS. The Prime Minister himself is a RSS volunteer. We are (RSS members) from childhood and will remain till we are alive,” [Rajnath] Singh said at the HT Leadership summit.'' What our Physicist Home Minister is saying is that the RSS is not an "external" body to be influencing the government. RSS is running the Government. BJP is just a brand name being used by the RSS. This is the point that our article misses. So does all of Wikipedia as well as the national and international press. How do we fix it? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like original research or a conspiracy theory. He does not say anything even remotely close to BJP being a brand name of the RSS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All right. So what exactly is he saying in your opinion? Why is RSS not an external force? Kautilya3 (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3's statement "..This is the point that our article misses. So does all of Wikipedia as well as the national and international press." sums it up. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your time is better spent analysing Rajnath Singh's statements than analysing my statements. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you asking others to do "original analysis"? SMirC-what.svg Are you asking us to ignore your statements? SMirC-grin.svg --AmritasyaPutra T 08:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The two-time President of the BJP is publicly contradicting the implicit assumption of our article that the BJP is an independent organisation. The BJP is not sometimes regarded as the political wing of the RSS. It is the political wing of the RSS. If you want to contradict it, please find a reliable source. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, in principle, I could agree with you; in practice, I find it far more productive to examine policy and activity than to look at precisely how closely related the two organizations are. Anybody who doesn't believe they are closely related is either extremely naive or has failed to read the sources; but the foreign policy of the BJP can be analysed as such without mentioning at every step that the RSS has a hand in forming it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, according to your logic the Republican party in America is merely the political wing of Protestantism since George W Bush and others say they are ardent Evangelicals.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Protestantism is a belief system; the RSS is an organization. The analogy is incorrect. This entire discussion, though, is not content related; keeping NOTFORUM in mind, I'd be glad if an uninvolved editor hats this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. This is of course content-related, not content that exists at the moment, but the content that should be there. Both of you have an interesting perspective on the issue.
 * Victoria seems to think RSS is like a religion, which agrees with the Jaffrelot's characterisation of it as a "Hindu nationalistic sect." But Jaffrelot isn't saying that RSS is purely a religion, because it is a nationalistic sect. It wants to impose its religion on the nation. In fact, Jaffrelot characterizes the RSS as the "Raj Guru" of the BJP, a decidedly political role.
 * You are saying that we (you) don't care where the BJP people come from, we just go by what they do. That is not a politically tenable position, but I won't go into that. But the fact that the BJP acts under the influence of a Raj Guru, an extra-constitutional authority that isn't subject scrutiny or constitutional checks and balances, is a piece of information that should be there in the article. Without it, it is incomplete.

Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, calm down. I did not say that I personally do not care; in fact I was careful to make that distinction. I have read a huge number of BJP related sources; and there are a few sources which say that they have occasionally gone against the RSS (particularly with respect to globalization). There are plenty more that treat it as a separate organization. And however much the pair of us might respect Jaffrelot as a source, we have no choice but to give those other views weight. I didn't say its antecedants didn't matter; I said that useful policy descriptions may be produced without digging into the antecedants. We are still arguing over precisely how close the RSS and the BJP are; given how murky these waters are, and how many people have written subtly different things about them, there is not going to be immediate agreement here. Which is why I find it unproductive. What is it you would have us do? Replace all analytical sources with Jaffrelot? Say in the first line that the BJP and the RSS are identical? You know as well as I that that will not fly. If you want to add Jaffrelot to the organizational structure section, do so by all means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Calypso's objections

 * we asked you to bring forward your objections so that they could be addressed and the GA process could move forward. You've begun the RfC, but you haven't brought forth any other objections. Can we assume that this is your only issue? If not, you should raise them now, rather than sequentially. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted the comments again on the talkpage below. If you could add your opinion on the points raised. Thanks. Will try to do some edits in the article later. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have mentioned this before, but I am going to ask you one last time, before you really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Simply restating supposed neutrality issues is not getting you anywhere. The US party articles are irrelevant; see WP:OTHER. What you need to do is to provide reliable, third party, sources that contradict what mas been said in this article. Until you do that, there really isn't much substance down below for me to respond to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Calypsomusic, You have raised objections in about 13 different sections here. Every one of them has been addressed, and most of them do not have active discussions; there are a number of sections where you have not responded for quite a while. Therefore, I am going to assume discussions where you have not responded for more than 10 days have been resolved, and hat them, as they are thoroughly distracting, and make the live ones difficult to follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Calypsomusic, there are sections that you have begun, where your objections have been answered, and you have not responded to these answers for quite a while. As before, I'm going to assume that any discussion that has been dormant for more than ten days (a period when all the involved editors have been active) has been resolved, and close it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Godhra train burning
The section on the Godhra train burning in the BJP article is using weasel words to avoid stating by whom the train was burned, even though the article BJP contains paragraph upon paragraph on the related Gujarat incidents. It's like saying that Muath al-Kasasbeh was burned alive, but avoiding to state that he was burned by ISIS militants.

The Godhra train burning happened when a Muslim mob set fire with highly inflammable liquids on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims and hindered the fire fighting systems. A court convicted 31 Muslims for the incident and the conspiracy for the crime.

The section should clearly state that the train was set on fire by a mob and that people have been convicted for it. (as the wikipedia articles already state).

Secondly, the paragraph should also state the official numbers of the victims in the riots that followed (800 Muslims, 250 Hindus), and not only estimates which could be inflated and/or ignore Hindu victims.

I propose to change the statement:


 * On 27 February 2002, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burned outside the town of Godhra, killing 59 people. The incident was seen as an attack upon Hindus, and sparked off massive anti-Muslim violence across the state of Gujarat that lasted several weeks. The death toll estimated was as high as 2000, while 150,000 were displaced.

to:


 * On 27 February 2002, a Muslim mob set on fire a train wagon carrying passengers returning from Ayodhya, killing 59 people, including twenty-seven women and ten children, who were burned alive. This incident sparked off a cycle of communal violence across the state of Gujarat that lasted several weeks. The riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus, and many more were forced to seek shelter in refugee camps. Some observers have estimated the death toll to be as high as 2000, while 150,000 were displaced.

Also AP has shown that the article gives too much weight on Godhra/Babri/Gujarat riots (which are all related). Indeed, in the period 1980 to 1998 (18 years), about 95% of the article is on this issue. Did nothing else happen in these 18 years for the BJP?.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There is no scholarly consensus on how the fire started. The various viewpoints can be covered, and are being covered, on the Godhra train burning page. It is undue to get into those issues on this page. There is widespread consensus, however, that the ensuing communal violence has consolidated the Hindu vote and helped the BJP and Modi get re-elected. I think the current paragraph is at the right level of detail. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did BJP do Godhra? What were the ~30 odd Muslims convicted in Godhra burning case for? Ridiculous. Anyways, my important concern is more than 50% of 35 years of history of BJP is Babri and Godhra together. Isn't it unbalanced? --AmritasyaPutra T 17:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you are arguing for fewer words, whereas Calypsomusic is wanting more words? Please feel free to raise other issues separately, without interfering with the RFC. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded to your bias and also raised concern of balance. --AmritasyaPutra T 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that if the article goes into that much detail as it does, then it should also detail that the fire was started by a mob, with 30+ convictions in court, and the official numbers of the victims, which also show that there were Hindu victims as well.


 * Oppose - Going by the presented sources alone, which are self-published and unreliable. The first site has an author with questionable credentials. The other two are just blogs. C'mon...if you want the wording to be changed, we are going to need proper reliable sources. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These are secondary sources: NDTV, theguardian. What is your take on more than 50% of 35 years of BJP devoted to Godhra and Babri, is it not unbalanced? --AmritasyaPutra T 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do these sources support the wording of the RFC? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not what the OP for this has asked for, regarding that we could start a separate topic. The weight given to the sections "2002 Gujarat violence" and "Babri Masjid demolition and the Hindutva movement" among the main "BJP (1980–present)" header seems fine to me since I assume that's how the current reliable sources highlight it.
 * The OP has tagged NPOV to one of those sections and started this. I assume the NPOV concern is only what's asked here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I imply that these sources should be used in the article. The statements can already be found in the Godhra/Gujarat articles. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't want them used, why bring them up? If they are not of sufficient reliability to use in the article, they are of no use on the talk page either. The articles don't say that the train was burnt by a mob; the articles describe the controversy, as they should. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You also seem to be one of the main contributors on the Godhra train burning article (not implying that it is a problem, but should be stated).


 * Oppose As the others have already said, there is no scholarly consensus on how the fire began, and the majority of them tend to actually oppose the conspiracy theory. None of the sources provided by Calypso are reliable. Furthermore, court rulings have little weight here, and actually the conviction is not very relevant here. Similarly, the academic source is the more appropriate one for the death toll. I will address the concern about too much weight below. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the fire was started by the Hindus themselves, that they burned themselves alive? As I said above, nowhere did I imply that these sources should be used in the article. The statements can already be found in the Godhra/Gujarat articles. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the article gives weight to one view (the claim that 2000 or as some say even 3000 Muslims died), while it doesn't mention other at least as notable views (the view that 800 Muslims and 250 Hindus died). To be neutral, the official numbers, or at least both numbers should be mentioned. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they should not, because "official" statistics have much less weight on Wikipedia than scholarly ones. You said you feel like the section has too much weight; now you want to expand it by adding more statistics? Moreover, the train burning is not the important part of the section; the riots are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I have notified the largest contributors to the riots page, the train burning page, and this page to vote here, with the exception of those who are inactive or blocked (of which there are a surprising number). Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Banerjee committe which clearly says that it was an accident happened as a consequence of those Rishis igniting the stove to cook their own food inside the train. Banerjee committe report clearly says this with evidences of fuel not being poured from outside. This was submitted in the parliament and passed. But was made to rejected by the court. It seems to be a question of fact rather than the question of law. There have been a lot of conspiracies which were not brought out to the world by the law and law makers. Wasif (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you believe it was the Hindu's fault and they burned themselves alive while cooking food. But why didn't the 60 Hindus then move out of the train compartment or out of the train when the fire started? --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there may be a way to introduce the fact that the attack is widely believed to have been by Muslims, but the proposed "Muslim mob" wording is not the right way to do it. Perhaps something along the lines that the attack was attributed to local Muslims, and generated strong anti-Muslim sentiment (and BJP fanned the flames). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is ridiculous I do not support at all. Framing BJP as culprit is utter bullshit and nonsense. Thanks-- ♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 12:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to know what this RfC is about? It's topic doesn't seem directly related to your argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Neither wordings are correct. నిజానికి (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Incomplete rfc and text indicates hardly any improvement. Fundarise (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is the RFC incomplete? Please elaborate. Comments on this RFC should not be focused on the exact wording, which can be changed, but on the changes to the text that are required. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Elsewhere in the article, Vanamonde93 is relying on goverment reports (the Liberhan commission), where it suits him, but here he says that the government and courts carry very little weight. But the official numbers of the victims were provided by Congress, not by BJP:
 * As per figures given by the then Union Minister of State for Home Shriprakash Jaiswal, who belongs to the Congress Party, in Parliament on 11 May 2005, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the riots, 2548 people were injured and 223 people were missing. This was in a WRITTEN REPLY to a question asked by a Congress member on the religion wise casualties in Gujarat after Godhra. The report placed the number of riot-affected widows at 919 and the number of children orphaned at 606. The UPA government gives these figures, and hence they themselves may be inflated." --Calypsomusic (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not use the Liberhan commission as my source. I used secondary sources that covered the Liberhan commission report. There is a massive difference between the two. Furthermore, most scholarly sources believe Liberhan's interpretations; in the Godhra case, scholars disagree with the NS commission. Finally, the Liberhan report is far more directly relevant to this page than the NS report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the article is mostly using AlJazeera as a source for the Liberhan report. The offical numbers of the riot victims were also covered in secondary sources, and that 30+ people were convicted in court for setting the train on fire was also covered in secondary sources. Both facts are also mentioned in the respective wiki articles.
 * Wasn't the Liberhan report on the Babri mosque rather then on Godhra train burning? The NS report was also criticized by political opponents - the INC, Communist parties or politicized academics - but (since you wrote most of the article) - did they actually claim that the 30+ Muslims convicted of arson & murder were convicted for nothing? --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in political partys' views on the reports. Scholarly sources support the Liberhan report; they are strong critics of the NS commission. Therefore, citing the Liberhan report makes sense; citing the NS commission does not, unless you wish to bloat that section to three times its size (weren't you complaining about it getting too much weight already? Or was that AP?) The conviction of the Muslims should not be mentioned, because the section deals with the riots, not with the train burning. If we were to mention the conviction, then we would have to also mention the fact that most academics buy the accident theory, or in any case do not believe the conspiracy theory in its entirety. That would be undue weight. Really, GOdhra is only mentioned because you cannot explain the riots without it; it is not directly relevant, and I am rather tired of hearing the same arguments about it. Similarly, the official estimate carries little weight because scholars don't buy it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Godhra Massacre has been proven beyond reasonable doubt but article,& title, is biased against massacre fact. As per Wikipedia NPOV policy, Article, & title, should be changed to reflect established fact. I suggest the title be changed from 'Godhra Train Burning' to 'Godhra Train Massacre' or 'Godhra Train Attack'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And what is your opinion on the proposal? --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that the summary in the Modi article is better:
 * On 27 February 2002 a train with several hundred passengers, including a large number of Hindu pilgrims, was burned nearGodhra; about 60 people were killed.[a] In the wake of rumours that the fire was set by Muslim arsonists, anti-Muslim violencespread through Gujarat.[63] Estimates of that death toll ranged from 900 to over 2,000, with several thousand injured
 * The Modi version gives both estimates, and also better explains why the fire happened. Is there any reason not to change it to the same?--Calypsomusic (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not how the RfC process works. You asked for opinions on one change; a different proposal should be a different discussion. Moreover, you need reason to change, not to not change. Why should we change it? If you really wish to get into this, start another thread, although having already started an RfC and failed to reach consensus, that is likely to be seen as disruptive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Advani and fundamentalism
We say that Advani moved the party to more hardline Hindu fundamentalism. I don't see the justification for calling it "fundamentalism." I would prefer "nationalism." Malik & Singh's book, pp. 40-43, has a pretty balanced discussion of Advani. Some of this should go into our article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Change made. I don't have access to that book at the moment, but please add anything from that book that seems relevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Gujarati script and GA template
Will somebody please remove the GA template that's been added to a non-GA? I've reverted Ankush less than 24 hours ago. , this article has been placed under 1 revert per 24 hour restrictions, so it would be best if you discussed your additions here instead. As to the Gujarati script, if we add that one, what is to stop us from adding any number of others? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Journal reference for most recent election.
Eswaran Sridharan. "Behind Modi’s Victory." Journal of Democracy 25.4 (2014): 20-33. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)