Talk:Disqualification of Rahul Gandhi

Effective 23 May
The notification came on 24th stating he's disqualified effective 23rd. This should also go into the article — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ >>> Extorc . talk  07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Legalese Undue?
@Tayi Arajakate I do find your edit here constructive but I still believe mentioning that the laws being used to disqualify Rahul Gandhi, against which they are fiercely protesting... was safeguarded by him in 2013. I'd say its WP:DUE >>> Extorc . talk  06:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In a comprehensive expanded section perhaps, it's still fairly tangential bordering on trivia about the law being used. Regardless, it shouldn't be present in a section which doesn't even contain most of the facts related to the case itself other than the absolute basics. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For now, would you consider a note reasonable? >>> Extorc . talk  18:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "from 23 March, the date of his conviction, under the Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)."
 * >>> Extorc . talk  18:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am ambivalent to this. Ideally it should contain their reasoning for the attempted dilution and RG's opposition to it, accompanied by media commentary on how it is ironic that something he had advocated for has bit back at him as well as how the use isn't consistent with the spirit of its retention meant for severe crimes. There are a lots of other moving parts here as well such as the sentence being the precise maximum for defamation (2 years) which overlaps with the minimum term someone has to be convicted for, for disqualification and the contention that it isn't applied with immediate haste in practice (e.g Naranbhai Kachhadia) unlike in RG's case. All of it has been covered by RS in some depth but a note can't contain it all, being excessive and it is quite tangential at this stage for the body so I'd suggest waiting for an article expansion. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Surname, but who's?
@TheWikiholic, you reverted these edits today. I believe this requires some discussion. One source (Guardian) states that the cases are of defamation of people with surname "Modi" while the other (BBC) says "Prime Minister Narendra Modi's surname". I'd say we should keep it to people withh "Modi" Surname as that is the argument put forward legally. >>> Extorc . talk  12:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The revert was fine, you could do a survey of all high quality reliable source and you'd see that everyone of them contextualises it as being directly related to Narendra Modi. For instance The Guardian itself says "A court in India has found the opposition leader Rahul Gandhi guilty of defamation for a remark implying the country’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, was a criminal." We shouldn't be replicating purely legal justifications and processes; our job is to describe them but not to consider them as the only facts by their own virtue, it should be framed in terms of summarisation of secondary RS. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree when you say "We shouldn't be replicating purely legal justifications and processes" and that Narendra Modi is directly related, but here in the lead it goes "sentenced him for two-year imprisonment on charges of criminal defamation for comments he made about...", So we are compelled to mention what is the lawsuit about. The lawsuit is most definitely not about Narendra Modi's surname but about the defamation of the community with the surname "Modi". It is indeed inportant that we mention that how this is connected to Narendra Modi. I'd suggest that we work with something like This keeps in mind that Rahul Gandhi isnt booked for defaming Modi, but at the same time, notes that this is more or less about PM Modi. >>> Extorc . talk  18:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be an appropriate change. It pretty much directly states in wiki-voice that the comments were about "people with the surname Modi" in isolation and makes it the primary focus, and adds its relation to NaMo as a sidenote whereas for RS, the latter is the central point.
 * The current sentence is the following:
 * It does a very good job of both highlighting that it is directly related to NaMo and that the legal justification of the defamation is about the surname while also keeping it clear and concise, so I don't see any reason to change it. Any specifics and details can be kept in the body of the article. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, allow me to put it in a different way. Is Rahul Gandhi being tried for defaming Narendra Modi? Because that is what we imply when we say "Prime Minister Narendra Modi's surname". This would mean that negative comments about PM Modi are prosecuted which is definitely not the case here. This should be exactly what he is being tried for. We can mention in the directly next statement that this is directly tied to implicating PM Modi. "It pretty much directly states in wiki-voice that the comments were about "people with the surname Modi" in isolation and makes it the primary focus" The comments are clearly about Narendra Modi and what I'm suggesting wont alienate that interpretation. I am trying to stress on the fact that the defamation case is not about Narendra Modi. >>> Extorc . talk  11:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence says he was convicted for comments on "Narendra Modi's surname" which is both accurate from the technical legal standpoint as well as is reflective of the sources.
 * I don't think you can say that negative comments on PM Modi being prosecuted is "definitely not the case here" or that the defamation case isn't about Narendra Modi, without going contrary to the sources themselves because that is practically exactly what they are saying. The exact legal argument that was presented and convicted on the basis of is one thing but they are not depictions of reality nor are they the full facts. One can be prosecuted for something while the legal justification may only be tangential to that something.
 * Policy is pretty clear that all material should be based on secondary reliable sources that contextualise and analyse primary information, (which in this case are the specific judicial items such as the conviction verdict). To deviate from that and decide on our own standard of framing, determining that the sentence "should be exactly what he is being tried for" is more or less original research. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These are the secondary sources that we are working with in this page, which use the version I'm putting forward.
 * allegedly defamed the Modi surname
 * ‘Modi surname’ remark
 * over his "Modi surname" comment
 * remark about the surname Modi
 * 2019 "Modi surname" remark
 * over his “Modi surname” remark
 * over his remarks about the “Modi” surname
 * defaming people with ‘Modi’ surname as thieves
 * remarks about people with the surname Modi
 * Many sources interestingly do not fall into either of the two categories. These simply use the remark in quotes like :-
 * why “all thieves have Modi as their common surname”.
 * “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”
 * “how all these thieves bear the same surname ‘Modi’”
 * “why all of these thieves have Modi surname”
 * “why all thieves have Modi surname”
 * The only sources which directly link the comments with Narendra Modi, calling it remarks over Narendra Modi are :-
 * comments about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's surname
 * in which he likened Mr. Modi to a pair of prominent “thieves” (This is debatable because here, again, they are talking more about the quote and not about Narendra Modi, but.... whatever)
 * Rest of the sources either don't at all talk about the defamation case, or don't mention that it was because of a remark. "you could do a survey of all high quality reliable source" I have clearly demonstrated that majority sources here don't align with the interpretation of BBC and NYT.
 * @Tayi Arajakate >>> Extorc . talk  04:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Listing all sources used in an article at a given time is not a survey of all high quality reliable sources available for the topic. Wikipedia articles are all work in progress and they may not contain appropriate sources. Nor will a source which maybe sufficiently reliable for a specific aspect (say for example, reporting an attributed reaction) be necessarily among the best sources or even be reliable enough for the main thrust of the topic and other aspects of it.
 * Therefore, there are multiple problems with the rendition; many of the sources used aren't generally reliable, even in normal circumstances, let alone being high quality sources (e.g, The Times of India or Hindustan Times), then most of these aren't reports on the conviction or disqualification but cover it briefly as context to specific judicial processes such as hearings, are reactions of individuals and entities or are about other related tangential material (some of these are also different reports from the same news publisher) and lastly some of the quotes aren't accurate representations of the reports they're being quoted from.
 * With regards to the last point, the most important would be The Guardian article, incorrectly listed as as the first example of those that don't fall in either category when it clearly makes the direct link. It states that Rahul Gandhi was found "guilty of defamation for a remark implying the country’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, was a criminal", adds the quote as an item related to the legal case, and further states that "Gandhi’s comments were seen as a slur against the prime minister, who went on to win the election in a landslide."
 * In fact, in the list itself, out of the 4 reports which are about the disqualification or conviction and come from generally reliable sources, 3 of them (BBC, The New York Times and The Guardian) do make the direct link while one does not (The Indian Express). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 02:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, in the list itself, out of the 4 reports which are about the disqualification or conviction and come from generally reliable sources, 3 of them (BBC, The New York Times and The Guardian) do make the direct link while one does not (The Indian Express). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 02:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Now, there is one crucial consideration for this the topic, which is that it directly relates to Narendra Modi and that under the Modi administration, India is undergoing autocratisation and experiencing a significant loss of press freedom, with the administration being particularly touchy about the image of the Prime Minister. In these circumstances, even the most reliable and independent among Indian news publishers, having too much at stake, may act restrained, not feeling secure enough to exercise full editorial freedom and put these events in terms which sources such as say the NYT and BBC have been able to.

With that out of the way, if we were to now survey the range of authoritative high quality sources that have reported on this topic and aren't themselves threatened by the state of affairs, we will see that the direct link between the cause of the conviction to comments on Narendra Modi is made near unanimously. Sample below:

Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A note: Part of above discussion has been taken note of @ a WT:MOS/LEGAL with a special subsection to study the same. As and when above discussion gets archived you may help in providing updated link. This is a note just for information. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be restored because the added sources and information are relevant to the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)