Talk:Mayawati/Archive 1

Unsourced and POV check
This article is completely unsourced and requires a thorough POV check. It needs clean up as well. -- Andy123  (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Mr Andy which one be specific.Holywarrior 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a couple of references.--Keynes.john.maynard 00:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cousin of Narendra Modi
I find the statement that Mayawati is a cousin of Narendra Modi hard to believe. I have found no references that validates this. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.241.179 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Deleted. Please feel bold in editing the article yourself next time. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 06:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming (2007) Assembly election in UP
POV: Too much criminalization is there in U.P under Mulayam Singh Yadav govt whereas it was much under control during Mayawati's tenure. Vjdchauhan 13:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Template
The template looks terrible. Someone needs to introduce a linebreak between 32nd and Chief. I can't seem to manage it. Hornplease 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing name back to "Mayawati"
Mayawati's adopting the single name is a deliberate form of protest against caste labels. Assigning a surname to her as "Kumari" is not supported in the references.

Mayawati never uses the name "Mayawati Kumari". She sometimes uses "Kumari Mayawati" - but here the Kumari is the same as "Ms." in English. Google with "Mayawati Kumari" gets some 1580 entries, many of them foreign media like BBC who are uncomfortable with single names, and wikipedia derived sites.

Google results:
 * "mayawati kumari" - 1580
 * "kumari mayawati" - 22K
 * "mayawati bsp" - 110K
 * "mayawati naina kumari" - 68 pages

Not all Mayawati references have "bsp" in it, so the latter is certainly an underestimate. So clearly, everyone is referring to her as just "Mayawati", or occasionally, "Kumari Mayawati" ,Behanji. Almost never "Mayawati Kumari". mukerjee

The name in the lead "Mayawati Naina Kumari" - appears to be a complete fabrication... mukerjee (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
A criticism section has been added to the article. Most politician's articles on wikipedia have a critism sections even Tony Blair.--Jiff5 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Only referenced sources to be used
On this article only statements that are referenced and cited from e.g. news sources should be used to prevent the article from becoming Pov. If there is no citation then it can be removed. If cited then it obeys Wikipedia policies and is OK.--Jiff5 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Check
Although I'm willing to accept the idea that Maywati is a dalit Boss Tweed, this article is heavily slanted towards allegations of corruption and lacks any degree of objectivity. It also fails to contextualize Maywati's role in Indian relations, and seems to have an ant-dalit bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.158.232 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree to this. The entire article is in desperate need of an expert who knows this topic. Wish more friends from Uttar Pradesh would contribute to articles like this. She is a very important figure on the political landscape of India. Colipon+(T) 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to revert edits which confirms NPOV
AS per NPOV policy Editors must write articles representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

Following edit (8 Feb 15:20) satisfies NPOV policy then why it is reverted? It should not be reverted.

[She justify that the expenditure is required because the past governments had not cared to show any respect towards different Dalit icons in whose memory nothing was ever built. .]
 * Can you give the difference (link) of the edit reverted ? NotedGrant   Talk  13:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ added claim NotedGrant   Talk  13:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

She is against right to compulsory education and she is ready to build statues for every Dalit Icon, but why is she not in a mood to shower benifits to the suppressed classes? Is it because she will be the looser if they are enlightened?

Honey bee like cases are common for some people, nothing special, it is media which made it public and so important? But garland case is so important.
1. The section 'Honey Bee Incident' is a trivial incident and is an example of recentism due to a news spike. It was a minor sub-incident that received nationwide attention due to media coverage of her party's maha rally and the 'currency garland' felicitation that she received. Maha rally, currency garland incident = 15 march, 2010.  Honey Bee incident = 16 march, 2010. 

2. This also fails the ten-year test in wp:recentism. "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?". IMHO, No.

3. At best, it could be a line under the 'currency garland' section. On its own, it is non-notable.-Mgtm7m (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

--117.192.175.111 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@Mgtm7m ,you are right, honey bee like incidents are common for some people, nothing special! it is media which made it public and so important? garland case is important because lady involved, was not supposed to do such things, it is copyright  protected by Indian elite class (mostly upper caste)?

The day people will take such incident seriously not seems to come soon in India, unless these bee like incident victims aquire power to resist and defeat. --117.192.175.111 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Recentism Articles and POV
A lot of this article is heavily biased against Mayawati who is from the Dalit or "lower" caste. Posters who have contributed to the negative articles also seem to be contributing to Hinduism or "upper" caste personalities. This seems to imply that most of the posters of negative or controversial text about Mayawati belong to the "Upper Castes" and this seems like CASTE BIAS or CASTE HATRED to me.

The articles on the Garland, Bees and Amitabh are irrelevant and were not in the news for more than a couple of days. More so, they violate the Recentism and NOV policies of Wikipedia.

`===================

Unsourced contentious material will be removed
Articles about living persons must have good citations for the facts presented. Several "citation needed" tags have been added to the article. If sources are not added for the material thus marked in the next few days, it will have to be removed per WP:BLP policies. Diannaa TALK 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommend removing them right away and follow the opposite strategy. her article is often the target of demographically biased internet users. -- Car Tick  12:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Cartick, I think you are right. It is a BLP and best be cautious with people's reputations. If someone has sources, they can add the remarks back in.  Diannaa  TALK

Kudos section removed
I removed the new section "kudos" as it consisted of a large chunk of copyright material lifted directly from the source. I shortened and re-worded the addition and placed it with the other information about her birthdays. Diannaa TALK 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As this article contains a section for Criticism so there should also be a section "Kudos" BLP. This is not the end of this section, some more important events will be updated further. Here this Statements made by Kanshi Ram has directly stated in Kudos section to maintain Neutral_point_of_view, if not then it has to be added in Birthday gifts as well as Disproportionate Assets. Then it would be real chunk. Here all the four points are important as they are made by Kanshi Ram at a massive gathering, it will give a clear intentions of Mayawati, which is not an original researchWP:OR by the source itself(source is a reliable internet [|source]). As I can understand there are no copyright issues.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure you are wrong about the copyright issue as this has been lifted directly from the source without editing. The web page it was copied from is clearly marked as copyright (Copyright © 2005 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.). I have created a useable rewrite as recommended in WP:copyright violations. I am removing the copyright material but I have put my rewrite in the "kudos " section instead of with the other birthday things. -- Diannaa  TALK 01:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hi Diannaa, I appreciate you for emphasising on wikipedia copyrights and point out the copyrights of the article. Here I want to clear that source is an Internet based news article and qualifies as reliable sources, I have used some/brief text/quotations keeping in view of WP:Quotations#How_to_use_quotations. But I think as The exact statement are dialogue/speech words in a gathering, which will give perfect explanation itself to this section. I hope you will revert the change/deletion. Regards Ranjithsutari (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)"--(Text copied from User_talk:Ranjithsutari). I was waiting for a reply, but I did not received yet. I hope you will understand the importance of the statement made by Kanshiram in a public gathering. Moreover, the copyrights of this statements might belongs to Kanshiram, but not to any News agencies which report the news. Rediff.com has never claimed any copyrights to the statements made by Kanshiram, but if you want to speak in general it might not be any issue here.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to respond to your remarks. I have been away for five days and did not have access to the Internet.  I think you are confusing reliable sources and copyright violations.  It is illegal to copy that much text from a copyrighted text.  It does not matter if it is a direct quote from his speech.  The source you lifted it from is coprighted and Wikipedia could be sued for taking it.  I see someone else removed the quote while I was away. -- Diannaa  TALK 02:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dianna, Wikipedia considers all works as copyrighted even it is not mentioned anywhere, unless either they falls under public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. I hope you can understand WP:Quotations and Non-free content. I don't think that your user name is being used by others, as I cannot see any other users reverting my kudos section edits. As the quote itself convey a meaningful statement to this section, I hope you will not disagree to restore to the last revert of kudos section.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this section as unencyclopedic, why don't you nominate it for speedy deletion? Please don't revert by saying as there is no consensusWP:DRNC.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope, you can understand the policies mentioned above, How 'Kudos' can be unencyclopedic?. Please take care of other edits before reverting Don't_throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ranjith, please read the section below titled Maywati's Standing. Notice that Sayed, Dianna, Dr. K and I all agree that Kudos is an un-encyclopedic section name. Thus, by continually re-adding it, you are going against established consensus. Vedant (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ranjithsutari: There is no precedence in adding a POV section like Kudos in any Wikipedia article. Everyone but you agrees that the section must be removed. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT and WP:3RR and stop edit-warring against everybody here otherwise you will be reported. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Revert war has started as User:Vedant has yesterday deleted this section without any approach to the previous consensus made in this section, even after the discussion is going on. In the below section consensus is made to add negative('-'ve) POV statements to LEDE as it contains something positive('+'ve) POV statements to make it balanced. This article contains a section "Critisims", why it should not contains a section "Kudos"? Why some editiors want this article to be unbalanced?. BLP This act of deleting this section WP:UNFAMILIAR shows the POV of the editors. Please remember Don't_throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water, if you have any problem with the word "Kudos" then please propose any alternate name before manking any change directly.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. First WP:UNFAMILIAR is an essay not a policy or guideline. It is therefore essentially useless as an argument. Second, how about we merge both "Kudos" and "Criticism" and rename the section "Reaction" or "Political reaction" How about that? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your proposal to meld both the section. But it needs rather to be placed as a separate section than as a sub-section. Let us hope it works fine!!.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to making it a separate section and I am glad you like the idea. I will request that the Political reaction section be upgraded to a higher level subsection. As I explained to Vedant on my talk page I am not a fan of criticism sections. There is actually a criticism tag that says that criticism sections should be removed and absorbed into the main text because their presence is indicative of POV. So maybe we have to convert all the other politicians' articles and remove their criticism sections instead of the other way around. Personally I am very happy with having a "Political reaction" section instead of an ugly and against policy "Criticism" section (remember the criticism tag, if it was not needed we wouldn't have one) because it is much more NPOV and much less POV, even the title sounds less POV and makes the article a better place. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  09:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, it's my firm belief that most politicians in India are corrupt (Dalit, Brahmin, Hindu, Muslim etc.). I don't hope for them all to be corrupt nor is it my mission to dig up dirt on them. However, when allegations are serious enough, they should be mentioned. I would like to urge Ranjith to read the following section that was taken from Wikipedia's BLP policy. Please note that the section states the following : '''If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.''' Since the allegations pertaining to her disproportionate assets are widely reported by numerous national and international media outlets, they should be mentioned. I will say it again, either you should remove the comments about oppression of Dalits (which I completely agree occurs in India but this is not the proper article for it) or we should present both depictions of this particular individual. As Dianna and Dr. K have both pointed out to you, the Barack Obama article does not talk about the oppression and discrimination African Americans have faced in the United States even though the struggle for equality was a pivotal movement in the 20th century. With regards to the Kudos section, please note that I cannot find one Wikipedia article where Kudos has been considered an acceptable section name. I do however see many Wikipedia articles with a Criticism or Controversy section. In addition, numerous other users don't agree with the inclusion of Kudos but you seem intent on reverting their edits, violating consensus, pushing your own point of view, and accusing me of bias in the matter. Vedant (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Ranjith, I would like to direct you to the following articles on numerous Indian political leaders : Pratibha Patil, Lalu Prasad Yadav, K. Natwar Singh J. Jayalalithaa M. Karunanidhi, P. Chidambaram and Jaswant Singh. If you take the time to view these articles, you'll notice that not one of them has a Kudos section but all of them seem to feature a section that deals with controversial actions and statements made by those individuals. Thus, I find your accusation that I am biased to be ludicrous, baseless and insulting because I am not the one violating consensus or edit-warring on this article and I am certainly not the reason this page was protected. Vedant (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Vedant, Let me clarify you that I have never claimed that mayawati is(OR)should-be free from allegations. Here you have made two question : one for Kudos&Criticism and antoher for Lede sections.
 * My reply for the first question is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions-but do not assert the opinions themselves". the saperate section for criticism or kudos makes this article unbalanced, it is a good idea to meld both. it solves the problem of new sections which are in demand.
 * For your second question: I've replied it on 18 June 2010. To add some more, the statement by BBC "she became a symbol of dignity and political aspiration after centuries of oppression by the Hindu upper castes" is a fact about opinion. but not the opinion itself. the problem can be solved by removing the word 'hindu' coz oppressed community is not just exploited by hindu, but also all other upper cast in different religions too.
 * Here you are confused with The articles' 'Lede' and "crticism Or Kudos" sections. Still the Lede has room to accommodate a separate paragraph consisting of negative views (which is not there in Barak Obama articles' lede) which should be described later in the article. Please take care of your presentation and remember the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines but not any other article which is not alike this one. don't use "At the same time" as it is WP:POVPUSH.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection
I noticed this article for the first time when I saw the request for page protection yesterday citing vandalism. I will quote my reply from WP:RFPP: "I do not see this as vandalism. It is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:LEDE, WP:SYNTH as well as WP:BLP. These allegations are just rumour. I removed them and I also removed a verbatim copyvio from the BBC news service. I suggest the page remain unprotected as there is no vandalism."

I would add to that WP:UNDUE. Therefore I don't think that references to unproven allegations, even if cited, should be included in the article and that I agree with the IPs that they were properly removed. I request article unprotection because I do not believe that any edit wars will erupt while discussion takes place in the article's talkpage. Also I hope I will not be accused of POV because as you may have guessed my background is such that I had no idea about Mayawati until yesterday :) So please let's start the discussion. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Negative reviews on Mayawati
Every politician in India is corrupt and most of them are many more times corrupt than Ms Mayawati. However, it seems that posters from the 'general' caste are only posting articles on Ms Mayawati only. Is it because she is the only "Dalit" politican and all the other corrupt politicians from the general caste. Bal537 (talk)bal537 —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Your Aligations are absurd and pessimistic. I want you to understand that What_Wikipedia_is_not, more over Wikipedia is free for all to edit and read Free_encyclopedia. I agree with you that this article is showing partial views and it is not balanced. I hope this article will be present to meet Notability guidelines of Biographies_of_living_persons.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can assure you all that I do not belong in any caste, general or otherwise. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mayawati would come out as most honest politician if evaluated by unbiased people who are able to see facts, beyond what biased Indian English media offers to show them. A women from depressed class reaches to such prestigious position is not easy in a country where people even educated believes and practice casteism, directly or indirectly .She is great.--117.192.171.244 (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why word ‘Unmarried Mayawati’ irritate some biased wiki editors?
It is necessary to mention if a politician is not married .It is a fact and wiki reader should know about it. Some editors repeatedly deleting this information.Why it should not be mentioned in this page?Wiki editors should not be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.172.25 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are some biased editors working on this article. What I could not understand is that why "Unmarried" word should not be included, moreover how it could be Original research or Vandalism.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ranjithsutari, since you seem to be a good-faith editor I will try to explain to you why "unmarried" is not supposed to be in the lede. Please read WP:LEDE and you will see that the lede includes only the most relevant and important details of the article. Clearly the marital status of a politician is not so important that we must include it in the lead. For example we do not say "The married Barack Obama", just "Barack Obama", or the "divorced Fidel Castro" or the "married Vladimir Putin" or the "married Medvedev" etc. etc. Second if you have reliable sources that mention that Mayawati being unmarried is such a big deal then you must provide the citation that mentions that and then perhaps we can include it in the article. If you can find reliable sources that say something along the lines: "Politician X being a woman and unmarried in country Y is considered very unusual or unbelievable, or big, etc, etc."; then we can possibly mention it in the article. But even then we cannot put it in the lede because although it may be big news in country X, it is still not related to the fact that she became the youngest minister in Uttar Pradesh. The way you want to add it now fails WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE and it is a weasel way (WP:SYNTH) of implying that something is wrong because Mayawati is unmarried and it unduly puts emphasis on her marital status, which has nothing to do with her career. In addition the phrase "At the age of 39 the unmarried Mayawati was" is a copyvio from BBC which I corrected. Just Google the phrase and you'll see. Also please do not call other editors biased without giving specific examples and, of course, reasons. It is clearly a good idea to comment on edits and avoid commenting on editors. The latter can be considered an ad-hominem argument which is covered under our WP:NPA policy on personal attacks. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How could be Mayawatis' marital status is irrelevant and unimportant?. I appreciate you global thinking, but this issue should be considered in relation to the prejudices/traditions in India, which does not exists with Barack Obama or Fidel Castro or Vladimir Putin, I hope you can understand the importance of marital statue in Indian culture. According to Mayawati, she has dedicate her life for a cause, for which she have sacrificed her life and decided to remain as bachelor 'OR' Unmarried(Hindi "kumari"). Does not it sounds derogatory to find "some thing bigggggggg" on her marital status WP:BB?. If you think that Unmarried status of Mayawati has nothing in relation of Mayawati being Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh as the source stated, then you might have to cite some reliable source in support of your POV. Let me recall you that, still you have not explained how it could be copyvio or Vandalism!!. I suggest you to change your attitude as it seems to be discouraging to novice WikipediansWP:NEWBIES. Instead "just reverting" try to engage in Consensus building WP:CONS believe me it works.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think you understood my points. I just gave you some examples where I used some adjectives. You took issue with the adjective "big" and your finger got stuck on the keyboard at the letter "g" and you produced visual pollution (You wrote: some thing bigggggggg) So calm down and instead address the points I raised. I grant you that it may be important in India that Mayawati is unmarried. It may be obvious to you but it is not obvious to everyone else who does not share your background. So you must supply a citation to verify that Mayawati being unmarried is such a great event. You still have not supplied the citation. You also did not explain why we have to stick the word "unmarried" in front of Mayawati's name at the lede per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH.


 * You also said:"If you think that Unmarried status of Mayawati has nothing in relation of Mayawati being Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh as the source stated, then you might have to cite some reliable source in support of your POV." I suggest you got it completely wrong. The onus is upon you to produce a citation that backs up your extraordinary claims per WP:ONUS. This is a biography of a living person and per WP:BLP everything in the article must be properly referenced and free of synthesis and weasel wording. So again, I invite you to cite that the marital status of Mayawati is so important that from now on we have to stick the word "unmarried" in front of her name and prove that being unmarried helped her become Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Don't forget that Wikipedia has to cite everything and this claim you are making is extraordinary. We cannot simply take your word for it because it is original research without a citation. Also you still do not understand my point about copyvio from the BBC. Please refer to WP:COPYVIO for further advice. As far as being welcoming to newcomers I suppose you refer to the IP user who started the thread. I gave them a proper warning at first that he was edit-warring and then he came to my talk page and personally attacked me through one of his sockpuppets. So please do not presume to lecture me about being welcoming to them under these circumstances and make personal comments for reasons I explained in my previous post.


 * So again I ask you to supply Wikipedia with a citation to prove your claims about the importance and significance of Mayawati's marital status in India per WP:BURDEN. If you do not supply the citation needed this fact cannot enter the article and I am afraid that I will not be able to discuss this matter with you due to fundamental differences. In this case we have to put the matter to an WP:RFC to engage the wider community to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Dr.K. Please don’t be afraid of anything, it is not fundamental difference but I guess ideological which is forcing you to put such improper comments. You need not stick the word "unmarried" in before her name everywhere but don’t forget to mention at least once so that wiki reader know it.

This article is not only about a chief minister or political career. Here we r not discussing what helped her to become a chief minister.we are just putting some information of some aspect of her life mostly political career so that Wikipedia can provide some information about her to wiki readers.

Plz note marital status is  required so that Wiki reader should not consider her as married and it will happen  because normally most politicians  enjoy married life which you can say is common or default.

What is important and what is not also depends on perception and ideology etc .So it varies from one person to other. Some people may say that this article is not required .If you ask importance of same to priest in any temple in remote village in Tamilnadu India they will say whole Wikipedia been desecrated plz remove this article. Response of same will be different if you ask from a person belonging to depressed class. For them she is real goddess .she helped them to enjoy freedom in free India by devoting life for their good.

For some people marital status fact is very difficult to acknowledge as this weakens their dirty baseless fundamentals, thinking and ability to propagate false information about her like they do to other Dalit leaders. --117.192.161.21 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let's mention it in the main article citing BBC, but not in the lede in front of her name because this is still synthesis and weasel wording. Something along the lines: "Mayawati is unmarried". If you want more details about the high status of unmarried people in India then you can supply more citations. But please avoid any more personal attacks in your replies. How about that? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Dr.K. your remarks are derogatory and biased. There is nothing tricky in that word. But your intentions of gaming the system is clear.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont find Dr.K's remarks biased, rather quite balanced. the lede doesnt have to mention her marital status but the body of the article can. -- Car Tick  19:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much CarTick for your opinion. These editors specialise unfortunately in personal attacks instead of debating the merits of their opinion. I think I am done. I have nothing else to offer these editors to make them understand Wikipedia policies. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @-Ranjithsutari: Please cease your baseless accusations and ridiculous assertions. Your ad-hominem methods are verging on a personal attack. If you think this is the way you are going to reach consensus you are mistaken. I find your baseless assertions that I try to game the system as an indication that you have no clue what you are talking about. I sympathise but I can't help you here. By the way this is my final offer. I have nothing else to add here. If you try to add this in the lede you will be reverted. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @-Dr.K., Let me recall you, still you could not explain how it could be Original research or Vandalism. I did not claim any thing personal, and do not want to do so. But you have misinterpreted the statement(blockquoted) pointed out above as my personal statement, even after I have clearly stated that "as sources stated". If you are really asking for more citation of source, you can put a tag of citation, instead you have started gaming the system. Let me clear you this debate is put forward by someone else but not by you, whereas you was interested in only reverts. Let me clear WP:Reverts are inflammatory and its nothing but gaming the system.


 * You clearly suffer from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I will not repeat this again. You propose to effectively rename Mayawati by adding the adjective "unmarried" in front of Mayawati's name and in the lede, effectively using Wikipedia as an advertising political leaflet to advertise the fact that she is unmarried, for political reasons, and in doing so you are being disruptive WP:DISRUPTIVE. I have no dog in this fight to game any system as you suggest because I did not even know that Mayawati existed until recently and my only interest is that Wikipedia shines as an encyclopedia free from political innuendo. But you do. You are obviously a supporter who for political reasons wants to effectively change Mayawati's name to "unmarried Mayawati". and being disruptive in doing so. I suggest you change your behaviour and stop being WP:TEDIOUS. It is simply ridiculous to want to add the marital status of a person as an adjective in front of their name without any good reason for doing so and without any proof coming from a reliable source just because you say so. You either come up with a really good citation explaining clearly why it is necessary to stick this adjective to Mayawati's name or if you are unwilling or unable to provide it stop your clueless attacks about gaming the system as part of your clumsy campaign to discredit my actions to clean up this article and stop wasting our time and listen to what I and the other users are telling you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

unindent, I have been watching recent activities over this article. Usually the game ends in few days but this time it has takem new hieght as it got article locked. I agree with User:Ranjithsutari about importance of marriage in Indian culture & society (especially if a lady remains unmarried) but this does not mean that this piece of info is somuch important that it should be placed in lead, e.g. Atal Bihari Vajpayee the 11th, Prime Minister of India is also a bachelor, this info is not included in the article's lead but suitably placed in section Education and personal life, it states, " He is a bachelor, ... only, bachelor Prime Minister of India." Back to Kumari mayawati article has this info mentioned in Info Box i.e. Spouse(s) Unmarried -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider for your considered comments. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider you mean info box information is sufficient then you will also suggest to delete other information from Sections  which is already there in infobox?

Atal Bihari Vajpayee article contain lines "He is a bachelor, ........ He is the first and thus far, only, bachelor Prime Minister of India."

For above lines in Atal Bihari Vajpayee article not even single question raised over references, citations by Dr.K. instead he/she is thanking you. What i see these lines are their without any reliable refs, sources.

For you above lines on Atal Bihari Vajpayee are ok then in same way you can also add lines in Mayawati article "She is unmarried. She is the first and thus far, only, unmarried Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh." But i think this time your rules will be different, you will have more problem in adding these lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.160.168 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot do that per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that other articles do no have citations does not mean we have to lower our standards here. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear unknown user, you can add "She is unmarried. She is the first and thus far, only, unmarried Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh." in sub-section for her personal life but mentioning this in lead is too much and is not required in my view. And a suggestion to you, please refrain from personal attacks and typo words in your comment; I don't use them and I'm not used to of them. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree as long as they provide a citation that analyses this fact. Thank you Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider for helping out. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus I want to ask another fundamental question. If as these editors assert it is such a great event for Mayawati to be unmarried why is there not a single reference provided which claims that this is such a great event? If it were such great news I cannot fathom why not a single Indian newspaper even among these published in Uttar Pradesh does not mention the significance of Mayawati being unmarried. This is mighty strange. And don't forget I am the editor who took out of the lede criticism about Mayawati's wealth because of WP:UNDUE and because they were rumours, so, if you had any doubts, I am not biased against Mayawati at all. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is my edit where I removed the criticism of Mayawati's wealth from the lede. If I am so biased, as these editors claim, how come I did this? And I did more edits like these. I can show you the diffs if you ask me. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Marital status doesnt seem to play a big role in Indian politics. Ironically, people dont care about this as much in India as they do in USA for example. J. Jayalalitha has been unmarried and Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu twice. M. Karunanidhi has multiple wives and still Chief minister several times. Rahul Gandhi is a bachelor and that doesnt seem to have hindered his political ascendancy in recent times. Mamata Banerjee, Indian railway minister is unmarried. Narendra Modi, Gujarat Chief Minister and Naveen Patnaik, Orissa Chief Minister are unmarried. -- Car Tick  17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much CarTick for your expert analysis. As you may realise by now I have no clue about Indian politics; I only came to this discussion because I hate WP:SYNTH. But your expert points make sense to me. I was suspecting that much given that no citation has been supplied so far regarding the elevated status of being unmarried. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * CarTick did a great analysis but missed an even greater point i.e. diversity of India. India is so much diverse that you can't even compare countries of European continent to that of States of India and that holds true for everything from language, dress, food, ethnicity, religion, culture, practices, society to politics. One thing common in South India may be unthinkable in North India & vice-versa. I'm native of Uttar Pradesh (North-Central India) & I have lived in Delhi(North India) & currently living in Bangalore(South Central India) and know how society & its view changes even in state forget about across states. So you can't give example of Tamil Nadu (South India), West Bengal (East India), Gujarat (West India), Orissa (South East India) and set example for Uttar Pradesh (North Central India). Apart from this in general Indians keep their personal life and political life seperate. You will rarely see non-political relatives (wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, etc) in any political event with a politician. Also remaining unmarried for a cause is seen as great thing e.g. Atal Bihari Vajpayee. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Fiazhaider, I'm afraid to say that "Unmarried" word in infobox does not exists any more, the sad part is that some editors who claim to protect this page from vandalism, have failed to revert. I think other than lede, there are many other section on this page, which need more concentration.
 * To Dr.K., your claim on me that "'You propose to effectively rename Mayawati by adding the adjective 'unmarried' in front of Mayawati's name and in the lede, effectively using Wikipedia as an advertising political leaflet to advertise the fact that she is unmarried, for political reasons, and in doing so you are being disruptive'". Let me clear you this talk is started by someone, but not either by me nor you. I've made my comments in support of someones argument. Then after you have demanded for "some thing big", for which I said "it sounds derogatory". Then you have misinterpreted my statements, called it as "weasel wording", for which I said "there nothing tricky in that word". Now you claim something more, for which I don't want to respond any more because I consider them as derogatory, baseless, ridiculous, biased. As I have said earlier this issue cannot be considered globally, but to understand the importance of marital status in India, that too for a lady from down trodden community.
 * As I think a sacrifice cannot be treated as unimportant or irrelevant or weasel or advertisement. Mayawati decision to remain unmarried is a sacrifice but not an advertisement check the official bio-data[| link 1],[| link 2]. Wikipedia have not prohibited any where from adding the word/adjective "unmarried" in lede. As the sources have stated as "At the age of 39, the unmarried Mayawati was also the youngest politician to assume the chief minister's office in Uttar Pradesh." makes a lot of sense when viewed in the context of the prejudices prevailed in India. WP:lede is limited and short, that why it is suggest to add content which is important, relevant and things which makes it more interesting to read this article. I think this "Sacrifice" is very much important, relevant and Makes this article more interesting to read.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. If you supply any source talking about the sacrifice there is no reason why we cannot include it. But without a citation we cannot mention the sacrifices she made. Also see above how I tried to clean up the article of POV against Mayawati. Here is another example: I added that Mayawati considers the CBI investigation to be illegal so to balance the accusations against her. I even searched through Google to find the CBI citation so as to improve the POV against Mayawati. Would a biased editor do that? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr K, You do not need to give this lot of explanations regarding your edits. I myself have been watching edits on this article and every thing is saved in logs. I am personally thankful for your efforts on this article. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind comments Sayed. It is my turn to also thank you for your very helpful and positive contributions here. Your idea of adding the "Marital status" field at the infobox was excellent and solved the problem in an elegant way. I am very pleased to have met an excellent editor such as yourself. Take care and see you around :) Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ranjithsutari, I reverted removal "Unmarried" word from infobox but it was undid by Profitoftruth85 with comment it doesn't say whether or not she's married it says spouse, if there is no spouse it is irrelevant, which I think is sort of valid. But info-box has got another provision of blank & data and I have used that to update Marital Status Unmarried, in the info-box. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I have tried to fix lead, info-box & Personal info as per Official profile of Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. I have explained the edits in edit summary. Hope everybody is OK with the edits. If any body has any issue then we have the discussion open. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work Sayed. No problem. Thank you for helping out. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 12:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification. The above comments were a reference to your work with the infobox. I had not seen the addition from Mayawati's website. Please see the section below for my comments regarding using her website as reference. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 15:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Effort of putting unmarried word on Wikipedia for a  Dalit leader is similar to effort/struggle of dalits who try to enter in a temple or drink water to a common water source or wedding with music, band which passes through   privilege class areas etc etc.. in remote towns and villages.

The only difference I see in villages most of them are not educated /not highly educated like in cities, but reaction to above from most of them remains same. Education cannot change mentality,habits of all people in few years what they practiced for centuries.It seems  violent struggle in some part of India is result of these similar incidents, practices, reactions. Nothing can be oppressed forever. People will have to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.166.115 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that I was not trying to suppress any news about her being unmarried so that she could dedicate her life to her political career. The problem is no one could find any WP:RELIABLE sources to verify these facts WP:V. So I did a little bit of searching on my own and I found a proper source. That is all I wanted so that we could satisfy Wikipedia's rules. Now that we have a reliable source I added it in the article. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fiazhaider, I appreciate you work, which is within guidelines of Wikipedia, but it could not last as some editors suspects it as advertisement. Even there was no original research or narrative in this work except using small text quoted from Primary sources which is a genuine WP:quote, but it could not last as some editors suspects it as WP:SYN.


 * To Dr.K, I appreciate some of your effort to produce this article in a balanced way. But here I submit that you are far away from the reality, specially from the prejudices prevailed in India. BBC could have stated as "Mayawati, is the youngest chief minister in U.P." but it has intentionally mentioned "the age" and "marital statues" as "At the age of 39, the unmarried Mayawati was also the youngest politician to become the chief minister in Uttar Pradesh." there are many other site who have used this word "unmarried" and by Mayawati herself see. Now the thing is to use the word "unmarried" in lede, as per WP:LEDE should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. I think including this word will make this article more interesting but not teasing(if only when you consider it as sacrifice).--Ranjithsutari (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a single interview and a mention-in-passing by BBC does not prove that the status of being unmarried is so great that it has to appear at the lede at the present moment. I think this point has been debated to death and I don't think we have to keep going on and on about the lede. I am currently satisfied with the way things are. The marital status has been explained and linked to her political career properly. At the present moment I think everyone but you agrees that this information should not be in the lede. I will leave it at that and I just will agree to disagree with you on this one but the consensus is clear and it is that we are not to include the adjective "unmarried" on the lede. I think I am done here. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cash garland
I see editor User:Kasbee has re-added the cash garland incident to the article. This event has been included and removed from the article several times in the past. Does anyone wish to comment on or discuss its addition? Diannaa TALK 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included, but it doesn't deserve it's own section. That is a problem with this article, it seems every incident has its own subsection.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed it per wp:weasel words, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and last but not least WP:BLP. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all it's pretty ridiculous that you remove it without talking first and more so without including proper reasoning but citing a bunch of policies. You cited "recentism" and "Not news", "blp" and "weasel", how do EACH apply here? Are you aware that this incident is captured on tape, was covered in World media and Mayawati herself defended it?

Kasbee (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This section as Diannaa mentioned above was removed several times in the past so I would think it would be ridiculous to reinstate it without first gaining consensus here. You not only reinstated it but you also used weasel words WP:WEASEL like "outrage" and "flaunted" which are not supported by the citation so it fails WP:VERIFIABILITY one of our core policies. The garland news article was published in March 2010, a clear case of recentism WP:RECENT. And yes we do delete sections that use weasel WP:WEASEL words so as to protect the subject of the article per WP:BLP or did you not read the edit notice at the article edit mode and at the article talkpage which specifically states that "contentious material about a living person must be removed"?. Also calm down and do not use words like "ridiculous" when addressing other editors here because it goes against the assumption of good faith WP:AGF, insults and antagonises other editors and does not help improve the article. We are not here to add the latest news on the campaign trail in the article per WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopaedic article we are trying to build here, not a newspaper article. We must take a longterm perspective when we add information here. What would the impact of the garland episode be in ten years from now? Who knows? Let's wait for expert analysis to tell us, not rush all over the article using weasel words to try to make it appear like the greatest and latest big news. Yes, all the policies I quoted do apply to the removed section. And who cares if the episode is captured on tape or not? Tapes are a dime a dozen these days. Everything is taped and uploaded all over the internet. I'm sure by now it may well be on Youtube. But being on tape does not bestow this event respectability and encyclopedic value. Also quoting a "bunch of policies" as you mentioned is the only way things are done here in Wikipedia when editors present their rationales. If you know of an alternative method please do let us know.   Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  14:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, let's see what all we have left out of the article: (1) cash garland, (2) scams under scanners (3) shoe shining (4) religious persuasion. Will we need to debate each of these individually? Why this strange protectionism? A fact is a fact, right? Nshuks7 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The cash garland episode has been removed several times in the past so we will need to re-open discussion about it. Religious persuasion - we have no sources that say atheist or Hindu. What we have is sources that say she is planning on converting to Buddhism once her party has a majority at centre. We have no sources for her current religion; it's not lack of importance but lack of sources that's keeping it out. A discussion of the shoe-shine incident has been started below. I am not familiar with the "scams under scanners" so if you could please start a thread at the bottom of the page and provide some information and some sources and we will discuss it. I will open a thread about the cash garland. -- Diannaa (Talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mayawati's standing
I have no objection to introducing the material into the lede that Maywati is an icon for India's dalits and in many ways symbolizes the dalit movement. I feel however that if this material is to be included, the other depiction of her should also be given so that the reader can come to his/her own conclusion on the matter. To do otherwise seems indicative to me of POV-pushing. I have echoed this sentiment on User:Faizhaider's talk page. Vedant (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This material has been added and removed from the lede at least six times since I started watching the article at the end of April. The present version is factual and does not present a particular point of view.  Have a look at Barack Obama where it is stated in the lede that he is the first Black person to be President of the United States, without going on about the hundreds of years of oppression of black people in America.  It is a WP:Featured article, the very highest class of article that Wikipedia has to offer. Vedant has placed the material lower in the article; I support that change.  Diannaa  TALK 21:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Diannaa. Talking about oppression in the lede is an overkill, and the Obama article example is a good one to follow. I support Vedant's removal of the "oppression" related sentence from the lede. It makes the article far more encyclopaedic. Also the removal of the "Kudos" section and its absorption into the main text is an excellent idea. There is currently no other article on Wikipedia that I know of that has a "Kudos" section; although many have criticism sections, none has a "Kudos" section. This simply is not encyclopaedic. Since edit-warring in this article is unfortunately a regular occurrence I will ask for article protection if any edit-warring starts while consensus is being arrived at on this talkpage. I hope I will not need to do this and that we can reach consensus with no edit wars. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've previously answered for the kudos section at Talk:Mayawati/Archive 1, even after will answer there only for kudos section.Ranjithsutari (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate, the editors global thinking, but as I have earlier stated, this article has to viewed in context to the prejudice prevailed in India. The Black and White oppression and struggle is quite different from that of Dalits oppression and struggle. Even the lead of Barack Obama does not contain anything negative statements. Here This statement in lede is reliable and verifiable, moreover it makes more interesting to read this article.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I support stance of balanced article. But I'll prefer that aspiration/inspiration & opression section remians in lede, reasons are:
 * Its properly sourced with a reliable reference(it is a BBC reference),
 * Dalit oppression in the statement is actually an under-statement it should read Thousands of years in place of Hundred of years, as Caste system in India is atleast a two-thousand year old institution (as per Hindu religious book Vedas( oldest one i.e. Rigveda being around 4000 years old) and Manu Smriti (which is over 2000 year old) it is m uch older than that infact right from the point of creation of Human being); it is no where comparable to black-white divide. But as reference used in lede uses hundreds of years term I'll not propose to alter it,
 * Socio-politics in North-India is much more different & complex than rest of India & may be other parts of the world and Caste system has got a great role in it and this statement clearly depicts it,
 * Social divide in India is much greater & on different lines than anywhere in world, Reservations(& movement associated to it) to SCs, STs & OBCs are great example of this. This statement explains & depicts that ground reality,
 * And infact Mayawati is till now the only Dalit politician who has reached such position (without assistance of any other political group).
 * I am not against inclusion of the other depiction of her if it is properly sourced with a reliable reference matching to that of aspiration/inspiration & opression section.
 * Regarding Kudos, I don't have any reservation for it's merger with any other section, infact I'm not comfortable with the word Kudos myslef.
 * As of now I think I'll prefer the article to be in previous state as per last cnsensus over talk-page of Mayawati's article as mentioned on Vedant's Talk page.
 * -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 07:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is about moving aspiration/inspiration & opression section in lede to main article's appropriate sub-section and removal of Kudos section & its merger with appropriate sub-section and not the vice-versa. So, untill anything is decided article should remain in original state on which we are discussing and not moved to the (future) state. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your proposal. I will return a bit later to see the other editors' ideas. Thank you Sayed. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dr.K. -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As mentioned before, I have no objection to either mentioning both depictions of her in the lede or just keeping the lede brief (i.e. with both depictions talked about in their respective sections). I think that presenting a one-sided portrayal is a disservice to the project and not only that, it's misleading. When I tried to do this, Ranjith Sutari, removed the critical information once followed by two anonymous IPs and then followed by Dr. K (who stated that that the allegations were unsubstantiated although they were cited). I don't feel we're going to make much headway here unless we semi-protect the page with either level-1 or level-2 protection after which we can discuss the article and implement the changes in question. Vedant (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Vedant, my edit summary may have been unclear regarding the allegations about how she obtained her wealth. By "unsubstantiated" I meant that her critics have not proved that she did anything untoward in Mayawati becoming rich. Until the critics take her to court and prove by presenting evidence that Mayawati did something untoward to become rich then all what the opposition critics do is peddle in rumours and innuendo and "unsubstantiated" allegations. As in they have not provided any solid proof about any wrongdoing by Mayawati. So the opposition's allegations may be cited but they are not proven. That's what my use of the adjective "unsubstantiated" means and that is why I don't want to put these rumours at the lede at present. I mean did you read what these cited allegations say? One of them, I think from the BBC, states: "Mayawati has done well for herself considering her humble origins". I cringe at weasel wording like this. It proves nothing. It may be cited but it just spreads rumour and innuendo. That's what opposition critics do anywhere, in any country. That does not mean that we have to pick their cited but unsubstantiated allegations and enshrine them in Wikipedia. Let the opposition come up with the beef, i.e. the proof to their allegations and then we can put them in the lede. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * However I still want the political hagiography and the history lesson about oppression to be removed from the lede. I have advised admin user TFOWR to hold off on protection for a little while to see if we can make any progress here, otherwise I will renew my full protection request. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 15:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you (I wasn't accusing you by the way, I was just pointing out how controversial the topic was). I agree that there is a lack of hard evidence indicating that she is guilty and I'm guessing she's not stupid enough to keep notes like "this month, I stole 5 million rupees". However, it is pretty notable that there was a CBI investigation into her assets and that she's among the largest taxpayers in her state. Thus, I feel the allegations should still be mentioned but they should be done in a way such that they present the point in question without violating BLP. Vedant (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Thanks for the clarification, but no offence was taken by your fair comment above about the substance of the allegations. I hope I did not come too strong in explaining my point but I considered your arguments above fair and balanced. Thank you Vedant. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full protection
As I mentioned above I have now asked for full protection of the article due to edit-warring. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Mayawati#Political reaction

Please add the following segment at the bottom of the Political reaction section and in a new paragraph:"Mayawati's public meetings are attended by large audiences, using slogans such as 'kanshi Ram ka mission Adhoor; karegi Behen Mayawati poora' (Kanshi Ram's unfulfilled mission would be completed by Mayawati), 'Behenji tum sangharsh karo; hum tumhare saath hain' (Sister you go ahead with your struggle; we are with you)." It is a non-controversial edit from the old "Kudos" section which has been merged into the "Political reaction section" and I missed copying it when I created the new section just before the article got protected. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Denied for the moment, see section below.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request #2
Mayawati#Political reaction

Please upgrade the "Political reaction" section heading from level 3 to level 2. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 09:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is best the leave the article alone while a dispute is in progress, so I have denied the edit requests.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These were non-controversial edits. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Taj Corridor
I have inserted 2 lines, with citations, on the Taj Corridor scam and how it led to discovery of disproportionate assets. As this seems to be a volatile article, I am adding this section for discussions on merit of these edits. Nshuks7 (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me assuming the website is a reliable one. It seems to check out ok. I found another source to back it up that looks top-notch. --
 * I propose removal of recentism tag: the Corridor case is more than 7 years old and is still a significant ongoing investigation. Likewise, most of the section. Actually, we can divvy it up into separate sub sections for some semblance of order. Yay/nay? Nshuks7 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it up until we settle the shoe-shine discussion which has been started below. -- Diannaa (Talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete the shoe cleaning controversy?
Why did Bal537 deleted the shoe cleaning controversy created by Ashutosh Narayan Singh. that incident created a storm in India. it should ofcourse be included in wiki. He/she says that it was edited because it happened only yesturday, so does one have to wait ten days before adding infos. And besides that section should be called controvesy and not political reaction. Possibly edited by her party supporters on wiki.

I have added that news and more on Wiki but for some reason the wiki page tags and says "Tag : possible BLP issue or vandalism " What does it mean my edit is not vandalism in anyway?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.176.177 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The material is not about Mayawati, the subject of the article. The purpose of the article is to provide material on Mayawati, not her ministers and colleagues. I have removed the new material on this basis. I have removed the story about the large birthday cake as it was not paid for using government funds as you claim, but was paid for by her political party and campaign workers. Your edit was not vandalism per se, but vandalism is not the only reason for which material can be removed. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way your edit was tagged by a bot, not a person, as a WP:BLP violation, not as vandalism. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some one keeps on deleting the shoe shine controversy.
Some member or mod in wiki keeps on deleting the shoe shine contoversy. Seems to be a BSP party member or a mayawati supporter. PATHETIC.

Madame "Diannaa"

The shoe shine controvery is about Mayawati and it should not be deleted.

As for the 52 kg birthday cake, unless you belong to the BSP (mayawati's political party) how do you know that it was not paid for using government funds, but was paid by her political party and campaign workers. Could you show me a reliable source. All the sources says that she is misusing government money.

Besides when the farmers of her state are starving and she cuts a 52 kg cake because of her Birthday is contovery and should be added.

Aren't we forgetting that she spend crores of goverment money to build her park and forgot all about the hunger in her state.

The Garland of money she received (ofcourse all those are from her super rich campaign workers)

You are pathetic. You are surely a BSP worker.

Aren't you ashamed to support this woman who is only known for cutting a 52 kg cake, garland of money, building a 500 crore park with her statues, shoe shining, So many rapes and corruption in her rule. The people of her state are starving and she does all that. Even in the richest country of the world such thing will be look down. What has she done to humanity?

YOU ARE PATHETIC. SHAME ON YOU.

Why do you keep on changing it to political reaction?

Go ahead re edit to yours it and call Mayawati a pure Goddess a Mahatma, Mother Theresa ect ect. HEARTLESS PEOPLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knewace (talk • contribs) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am from Alberta, a province in Canada. I am not a supporter of Mayawati or a member of her political party. As a Wikipedia administrator I am monitoring this article for violations of our policy regarding biographies of living persons. Please confine your comments to discussions about the content of the articles, and do not make personal attacks. The shoe-shining incident has now been removed by three different editors so I think it is safe to say that although it has not been discussed on the talk page, that there is no consensus for its inclusion in the article. But if you wish to start a discussion please go ahead and do so. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If you are a Canadian, then how do you know that the 52 kg cake was paid by her campaign workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knewace (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to get personal. It's not like any of us Indians know Mayawati personally either. Also, please check out Barack Obama. There are no such incidents reported for him despite his stature. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you stop this personal line of questioning because it is considered a personal attack and it is covered under our WP:NPA policy. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 14:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The source for saying that the cake was not paid for with government funds was http://www.merinews.com/article/mayawatis-birthday-celebrations-fingers-are-pointed-again/129393.shtml which is the same source that the IP used when he added the information to the article on Feb 10; see this diff. There is no way I can prove that I am Canadian, but you are free to check over my user page, talk page, and contributions and determine for yourself whether or not I am biased. -- Diannaa  (Talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Shoe shine controversy
I propose we add content related to shoe shine controversy. It is a significant image attribute for a policeman to be shining a politician's shoes, in public. There was a controversy around a cartoon showing Obama shining Palin's shoes. This can be taken in a similar vein. Those against this, please opine, along with reasons. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The shoe-shine incident was in the papers the day after it happened and has not had any follow-up news reports. This is plainly not a major incident or there would still be stories in the papers. I? do not favour its inclusion. -- Diannaa (Talk) 15:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have again removed the shoe-snining incident as it was in the papers for a day or two and that's it. The incident is of no long term lasting significance. -- Diannaa (Talk) 14:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should include the show shine controversy. There are other events that were in the paper, such as she made the politicians hold their ears and sit and stand and sit and stand. A section such as this would show how she treated government workers. I think this is a major incident as ill treatment of public servent should be a major incident regardless of how many times they were reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodspeed (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What sources would you propose that the article include?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Political Reaction
This is to discuss the heading "Political reaction". How is this heading relevant here? Mayawati is a person, not an event. If "Controversy" is an unacceptable term for editors here, please suggest something appropriate. Nshuks7 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sectio used to be called "Criticisms" back in June 2010, but someone objected to that. I think "Controversies" would be acceptable as it is clear she is a controversial figure. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The section title "Political reaction" obviously refers to Mayawati. It doesn't have to be explicitly titled: "Political reaction to Mayawati's policies" for it to be understood to apply to Mayawati. The reason this section has this title is that per CRITICISM, or simply WP:CRITS, the criticism should not appear in a distinct section but it should rather be spread across the article. The criticism section only gets more and more bloated in time and is sometimes target for vandalism. The section "Political reaction" is better because at least it includes both positive and negative reactions to her rule and it is more NPOV. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. That all makes good sense. -- Diannaa (Talk) 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Diannaa for your nice feedback. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so CRITICISM says In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. I believe the criticisms here cannot be directly linked to the remaining body of the article, which alternates between mostly neutral to laudatory at places. Anyway, in view of Dr. K's comment, I suggest we change the title to "Political reaction to Mayawati's rule", since that's what is intended. Lastly, yes, I believe it is bad English to have a "reaction" section to a preson. It's like saying, what was your reaction to Mike instead of saying what is your reaction to Mike's antics at the party? Nshuks7 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without making too fine a point out of this, the title "Political reaction" does not have to refer to Mayawati personally but rather to her actions. It is all in the context of the article. So no need for pedantry and loud bolding. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And the insistence to keep an obvious grammatical error comes from? Hard to find a similarly titled section in the rest of Wikipedia. But okay, fine, if that's the way the incumbent editors here feel there's not much I can do. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not a grammatical error. If it helps, you can see this "Political reaction" in the context of a "Reaction to her political actions". It would be rather redundant to name the section "Political reaction to her political actions". Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 14:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cash garland 2
There has been some talk of reintroducing the cash garland episode into the article. Let's open discussion about it here. -- Diannaa (Talk) 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources:
 * Mayawati faces criticism regarding the garland and an extravagant anniversary celebration (March 16, 2010) http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/03/16/idINIndia-46965220100316


 * Income tax probe to discuss the source of the cash used to make the garland (March 16, 2010) http://www.timesnow.tv/Mayawati-summons-partymen-after-I-T-probe-on-garland/articleshow/4340757.cms


 * govt refuses to open probe into cash garland episode (March 22, 2010) http://www.sify.com/news/pil-on-maywati-s-cash-garland-dismissed-news-national-kdwodPbdifj.html
 * This comes around every year. We could also include the case of one Gupta, a businessman who refused to donate cash and was killed by a party member. Now where'd I put that citation.. ? :) Nshuks7 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Found itWill Gupta murder end Maya's 'party' politics?. Not a businessman but a municipal engineer. Although the earlier references link Shekhar Tiwari, a politician, with the murder, later ones cite a policeman who is on the run. Either way, the murder is linked to his refusal to cough up money for her birthday. Her claim, which should be included here, is that the money goes to the party and to upliftment work, and not her personal accounts. Nshuks7 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There will have to be a lot more sources other than this if you wish to include anything about this mureder in the article. A piece that says "rivals claim it is true" is not enough to put his into the article. This thread was intended for discussion of the cash garland issue. Are you inclined to include it, or not? -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see on re-reading that you are implying you favour its inclusion. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of section 3.5 looks gratuitous, and the first can be moved to section 3.2. What say, fellow deetors? Nshuks7 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Spending $1bn (£0.6bn) on monuments of herself and other low-caste leaders.
"An Indian politician is calling for a police force to be created to protect statues she has erected of herself and her mentors."
 * India minister Mayawati seeks police squad for statues, bbc.co.uk, 28. Jannuary 2010.--Nemissimo (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks allegations and "Personal Vanity"
I have renamed the "Personal Vanity" section which contained the allegation made available via the Wikileaks website to "Allegations made via Wikileaks". What was described in the US diplomatic cables made available via. Wikileaks could be described as paranoia (fearing assassination, using food tasters), megalomania (obsession with becoming Prime Minister), and misuse of a private jet. These things cannot collectively be called 'personal vanity' as that implies an excessive belief in one's beauty, value as an individual, or abilities. It's possible Mayawati may be guilty of this, but the cables released through Wikileaks did not make this allegation. The corresponding section of the Wikipedia article should reflect only the allegations made in the cables and not draw implications from them, hence "Personal Vanity" is not a suitable section heading. Chrisbwah (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I find these allegations not fit to be in a biography article. They are presented as if they were true. The allegations are made by unnamed US diplomats. So what? How do we know they are true? They are just that: Allegations based on data we don't know about made by anonymous people who nobody knows what knowledge they have or standing they possess in the diplomatic corps. Since when allegations of such unnamed people have become reliable sources to be included in a WP:BLP article? This is simply ridiculous and goes against any known precept of Wikipedia. I am going to take this to WP:BLPN as a matter of principle if we don't agree to remove it. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 19:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which begs the question: Why is this being done to this woman? Why for instance the Dmitry Medvedev article does not mention that according to Wikileaks: WikiLeaks cables: Dmitry Medvedev plays Robin to Putin's Batman? Is it because his article is respected more than this unfortunate female's? This is a disgrace. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All Wikileaks cables are not of the same merit as there are hundreds of thousands of pages; this information about Mayawati was notable enough for reporting in many major international newspapers and the information presented therein about Mayawati is part of a global discourse now. The source is not just an unknown diplomat, but Julian Assange and the organization Wikileaks.  Please do not include emotion into this.  If your argument is that the Wikileaks source does not meet WP:OR then I dispute that. You may be right about this information needing to be removed but I feel that you have not made a valid argument and would like to hear more from you.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First I would really appreciate if you did not make personal comments like Please do not include emotion into this. I hope you are experienced enough as an editor to understand that such personal comments are inappropriate and if something is galling enough to be included in this BLP I reserve the right to call it so, using strong terms, without fearing of becoming a target for personal comments. So I would request that you retract that statement before we proceed with this discussion any further. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  04:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant what I said. I am sorry that I offended you and if you can help me choose wording that is more appropriate, then I will retract my statement and replace it with another one with an equivalent meaning.  But I know of no other way to say "Please do not include emotion in this" than to be direct in saying so.  Please see WP:CALM and WP:FORUM; I am willing to discuss the content of the edits but it would be against Wikipedia policy for me to discuss how the content of newspapers makes you feel. Please advise me how to reconcile those Wikipedia guidelines with your need to discuss your personal reaction to newspaper content.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let me explain it then to you. When you talk about "emotion" you are making a personal statement not a statement directed at my contributions. I don't know how you turned into an analyst of my emotions based on the adjectives that I typed which were perfectly justified under the circumstances, given the gravity of these anonymous insults against Mayawati. When you invoke WP:CALM the hidden subtext is that my reaction is not calm. These are personal statements. I don't know where you got that information but surely I know that when I typed these words I was perfectly calm. But calling Mayawati "egomaniac" and analysing her shoe habits and other insults based on anonymous sources is outrageous, insulting, degrading and a disgrace. Are you telling me that I cannot use these adjectives for fear you are going to call for WP:CALM? So please retract these labels and we will be fine. They are just uncalled-for characterisations of myself. To tell you the truth when you left a nice message on my talk I thought you had understood this point. I saw this posting after I had replied to you on my talk. I hope that you realise that I don't want to continue on this line of conversation for long, for, hopefully, obvious reasons. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I just point out that this discussion is in danger of becoming a little irrelevant to the topic of the Wikipedia allegations, it does appear to be tending towards an argument between two users which may not serve the wider objective of improving the article. I suspect that everyone wants the same thing - a good article on Mayawati that is a credit to Wikipedia and the people who contribute to it. That the article is neutral and balanced is important for it to be credible, however both neutrality and balance are by their very nature subjective judgements, and this needs to be acknowledged by all - one user's balance is another user's bias. I agree completely that the allegations are just that, and that the identity of the diplomat who made them is unknown, hence my use of the word "allegations" to qualify that what is being said has not been proven. I do not however accept that the fact the diplomat is unidentified means that the allegations should not be documented here. The allegations were publicised in the press and that is sufficient for them to have contributed in a very small way to the history of Mayawati, and thus worthy of inclusion here.Chrisbwah (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chrisbwah. I will work out this out on Dr. K's talkpage here.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is a BLP. It is not a dirt magnet or a dustbuster. It is not supposed to gather every small piece of dirt directed against Mayawati even if cited by an RS, which in this case is doubtful, for the reasons I explained above. Just try to add Wikileaks dirt to the Medvedev article, that "he plays Robin to Putin's Batman", as I mentioned above and tell me if you will not be reverted immediately. As far as straying from the mission to improve the article, this unfortunately is caused by the turbulence created by personal comments. I did not initiate them, but once someone directs them toward me I can't be blamed for responding. I will make a final comment. I may have used strong terms to indicate that the inclusion in the article of this dirt against Mayawati is wrong, but the right reply could have been that they are not based on policy and that would have been the end of it. Ascribing personal traits to these terms is absolutely wrong and the wrong way to go in a civilised conversation. Given that they have not been retracted as I requested I withdraw from this conversation. I may participate at BLPN but the atmosphere on this page is not conducive to my further participation. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have reverted the edits, yet i don't see that any general consensus was reached. If it was reached at WP:BLPN, could you please provide the link? Also, you do not elaborate on how expanding on these allegations violate Wikipedia policy. It certainly does not violate WP:UNDUE to my knowledge.  Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  14:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the posting at BLPN. User Off2riorob came from BLPN and did this consensus edit. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr. K. reverted the edits back to the past consensus. The incident is notable, but your changes make it the largest section in this article and this event is not the most important event in the life of Mayawati.  I am also reverting it because I do think it violates WP:UNDUE.  As best I can tell, all the sources discussing this event happened within about a three-day period and were not discussed beyond that.  That probably makes it the most trivial information in the article.  If you absolutely feel that this information ought to be on Wikipedia, then I encourage you to make a separate article for the incident.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent points Bluerasberry. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Blue Raspberry: So by your logic, i ought to create a separate article every time i feel that some relevant info about a notable incident pertaining to a particular subject should be mentioned? Also i sense a logical contradiction in that while you assert that the incident is in itself notable, you reason that the details are probably trivial because the same sources which cover the incident happened over a three day period and was not discussed beyond that. If it is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in her bio, then how can its details be trivial? I haven't bothered to read the WP:BLPN consensus however, because i concede that you have made one fine point, and that in itself is sufficient to make me relent. The info if added would violate WP:UNDUE, as it would make the section the largest in the article and consequently make it appear to be more important to Mayawati's life than it actually was. In other words, those of us who would wish that the section elaborate on the incident with greater detail will actually have to wait for somebody else to significantly expand the rest of the article. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  06:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Joyson Noel, there will never be a time when this much information is appropriate for this article. As/if the article gets longer more aspects of Mayawati's life will be relegated to their own articles. Wikipedia has guidelines for maximum Article size. It is not the right attitude for you to have that you need to wait for anyone to do anything. If you want other parts of the article expanded, then WP:Be bold and expand it. And yes, you are entirely welcome to create a separate article every time you feel that some relevant info about a notable incident pertaining to a particular subject should be mentioned, and the entirety of what you write can have a link directing readers to it from the main page. I am asserting that this is the preferred usage of Wikipedia. Please write me or post here if you have questions.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias against Mayawati
This article is clearly biased against Mayawati. Though the controversy surrounding her is astonishing, this article gives undue weight to it. For example, the wealth case is discussed twice in one section. The birthday/statue subsections could be grouped together. And about the world bank criticism, we should have some evidence that tells us whether she really held responsibility. Also, what were the ambiguous changes that put the project behind schedule? Furthermore, the Wikileaks section should have remained a subsection of "criticism," as I don't believe the news to be substantial enough.

Also, as many of the cited articles reference a "Dalit agenda," I'm willing to say that many of them are not neutral and are thus WP:NOTRELIABLE. What a MESS! This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia! --96.2.88.22 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The world media is biased against Mayawati. Since Wikipedia summarizes what is in reliable sources, and since reliable sources spend a lot of time criticizing Mayawati, the article contains a lot of criticism.  WP:NPOV does not mean "no bias"; it means matching the bias of reliable sources.
 * The Wikileaks information was notable enough to be included in the reports of many international newspapers outside India. Inclusion in international news over a period of time generally indicates notability.
 * There are a lot of sources here. Can you state which ones you think are not reliable?
 * If you can find reliable sources which praise Mayawati and her work then the article would be less biased against her. What sources exist for saying nice things about Mayawati?   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is mosed biased literature against Mayawati. It seems that author deliberatiley hide te actual fact about Mayawati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.125.54 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of "good faith" edits
I hate revert wars. But I am constrained to address issues created in this Mayawati article by repeated reverts of "good faith" edits by [[user:Dr. K.].

Sometimes on wikipedia, one comes across people who feel they "own" some particular article. Let us not act as revert tsars, but let us try to improve the quality of the article.

A day before the present Wikileaks paragraph was started, I had written the following at the bottom of the Personal Life section. It had three citations, and I dare say the text is more readable than the present edit:
 * In Sept 2011, a US intelligence dispatch on Wikileaks called her "a first rate egomaniac” who runs the state “like a fiefdom”, and a "virtual paranoid dictator" . It also mentions how when she wanted a particular sandal from Mumbai, the state jet was sent to Mumbai to buy the shoe. The shoe cost Rs 1,000 and the flight costs were Rs 1 million. .  The US Embassy cable goes on to say: "India has seen such political personalities before, and never failed to deal with them eventually at the ballot box."

In his revert, Dr.K asks "why not move this derogatory discussion to talk?". But clearly the material, though derogatory, was well-cited, and to me, it seems quite NPOV given that all this material is now in the public discourse. This also makes it is encyclopedic, and it needs to be there for readers wanting an encyclopedic summary. Some of the details I cited, such as the cost of the sandal and flight, are the kind of details that enliven such encyclopedia articles. Of course, you may not agree, and surely my text could have been improved. All I am saying is that merely by reverting, a possibly improved version of the article was prevented.

I also noted that Dr. K had reverted three other good faith edits before mine, all on the same day. For such NPOV well-cited text, the correct thing would have been to keep the text IN the article, and start the talk page discussion on whether Wikileaks matter should be removed, rather than such a "shoot-first, ask questions later" policy.

Re: the reverting of so many editors, I also draw attention to the WP:Reverting policy:
 * reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess...

But I really don't like flame wars, and like to stick to content.

Let's all work together to improve the article. Getting to that:

1. I think the article is lacking in many ways. The lead paragraph with its short staccato sentences seems to be from the Simple English Wikipedia and not a regular encyclopedia. The opening sentence, which is used by many services as a one-line summary, does not even say that she is the CM of UP.

2. This talk page also is too bloated and should be archived.

I am doing my bit now on the lead paragraph. Perhaps someone can work on other bits and on this talk page. mukerjee (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all please do not keep referring to my username in every other line. Do not make this personal. Second you have not replied to any of my points which I made above. So please go to the section above and try to reply to the points I made. I will wait until you do so. And remember: Refer to my edits not to my username. I have not used your username once. Take my example. And I remind you that there is a big note at the top of this page which says:"This article and talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard." and WP:3RR exempts WP:BLP issues. So do not re-add this stuff into the article until there is consensus. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 13:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

India has 26 Chief Ministers, almost all of them corrupt, many of them are involved in criminal cases and some like Narender Modi are accused of genocide. Yet, only Mayawati is singled out. This most likely because she belongs to the lowest caste and her power is something that the Indian media & middle/upper class that is composed almost 100% of upper castes, can't digest. This situation similar to some white americans who hate their president Obama because he is black.

bal537bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Report filed at BLP Noticeboard
Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I thank user: Off2riorob, a WP:BLPN expert, who kindly undertook a cleanup of the Wikileaks section. He is a user I much respect and I accept his decision. I consider this case closed. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.68.112.164, 8 September 2011
This is a teeny tiny error. In the last paragraph of the introduction to this page, the second sentence is "She is now India's richest Chief MInister." The "i" in "Minister" is capitalized when it should not be.

173.68.112.164 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

reverts
i'm observing a classic complex of "article-ownership" by user:Bluerasberry, evidently biased in favor of Mayawati. Please observe his/her last reverting over retaining lost text on the section "Wikipedia allegations". Reverts obviously aiming to neutralize the substance of the case anyway, which is the gross allegations AND Mayawati's gross counter-response as well. Please mediate and observe further reverts/edits by user:Bluerasberry since i'm not here regularly. Maysara (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. I have also been accused of being biased against Mayawati, so I do not know what to think.  Here is the latest edit in question.  I think this needs to be reverted because it removes two references without explanation, despite my asking for an explanation.  User:Meeso and the above user seem to be saying that I am removing information.  With two people saying I am biased here, I think it would be best for me to leave this issue alone.  Thanks guys - I hope you can both just take this as a misunderstanding.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realized that Meeso and Maysara are the same user. In any case, what I said still goes.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all no sloppy personal attacks on Blue Rasberry. Blue Rasberry has no ownership issues whatsoever. And no, it doesn't work like that. We went to WP:BLPN for that. Just read the announcement above. What Blue Rasberry did was restore the neutral version which was carved out after consensus was reached at WP:BLPN. If anyone has any problems with this go back to WP:BLPN to explain to them what you want to do with the article. Meanwhile, I advise everyone to stay WP:COOL and not revert because they will be blocked. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Dr.K. i'm afraid the link you provided, simply WP:BLPN, does not only lead no where, but it is also irrelevant !! There is no defemation here, there is only the stating of FACTS(.) These quotes come from diplomatic cables and there is no point of mentioning the whole story without showing them. I was the first person to expand the section on wikileaks and i did so immediately as i read about Mayawati's response to them in the news. That's the substance of the story, and any attempt of, just, deleting them, is POV and serves no purpose other than, of course, "reducing" the matter to nothing. If you think you can bully other editors by threats of blocks then you are deluded. This is a free wiki that has no place for anything but rationality, humbleness, and reciprocity. Maysara (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please again stop your personal attacks. By just mentioning that anyone who edit wars will be blocked is just stating facts. If you do not plan to edit-war you have nothing to worry about. But you started threatening Blue Rasberry, both in your edit summary and on their tak, with reporting them to the administrators, so I thought I would remind you it goes both ways. That's all. Don't take it personally and don't make false accusations against me. User Offtoriorob came from BLPN and did this consensus edit. Here is the posting at BLPN about two weeks ago . If you want to change consensus go back to BLPN and explain to the experts there. I am not discussing this further because the consensus of the experts at BLPN is clear. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * i'm sorry but i think BLPN is irrelevant here. there very fact that many comments from different editors came regarding that issue, exactly deleting quotations from the cables, means that there is a problem here. as I said, there is no point of deleting these quotations apart from reducing the intensity of the allegations. And of course, there is no point of deleting Mayawati's response to them apart from just hiding them from the readers and the public. it's very obvious and common sense should rule. i welcome any further contribution but also check this talk page itself and you'll find many other editors who tackled the same issue. there is no violation of living person's biographies here. text is well verified from diplomatic cables. BLPN is irrelevant and i found no entry whatsoever for the Mayawati article there. Good to see you becoming civil again and not threatening and all that :) Maysara (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyways, the edits have changed even from what you call consensus edits. Maysara (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again stop referring to me. I am not interested in your opinion. And I am always civil; I don't need you to tell me. Let's see when you are going to become civil by stopping your personal comments about me. And don't forget what I told you above: You started threatening Blue Rasberry and edit-warring against him. It is nice to see you stopped your threats for now. Follow this link which I posted just above: BLPN about two weeks ago. Since you keep missing the BLPN link, I took the liberty to emphasise it for you. I am also sorry that you do not understand the importance of BLPN and consensus but I don't have the time to become your tutor. So the consensus version will remain here until you go back to BLPN and change it. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
Sorry it took so long for me to add the corresponding talk page section for the POV check. Anyway, this article is a mess, and obviously there are a lot of passionate people on both sides making edits that are not constructive, as evidenced by the last quarter of the talk page. Let's cut out the politics and make this a neutral article. She may be a controversial figure, but given that she is still alive we must adhere to WP:BLP. -- Sweet Nightmares  (awaken)  17:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you detect politics on "both sides" and "people on both sides making edits which are not constructive". Could you please clarify? Especially the "non-constructive part" and the "politics" of the side you think I am attached to. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 19:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to open this page for editing
Editprotected This is a request to the owner or administrator of this page to allow editing of this article. We feel that neutrality of the article is disputed and would like to tag the page with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsantoshh (talk • contribs) September 30, 2011 20:48
 * Nobody owns or administers any Wikipedia page; please see Own. Nobody likes page protection but it is necessary sometimes to prevent vandalism.  Please see WP:SILVERLOCK for a description of this.
 * This page already has a neutrality notice at the top of it. What else did you have in mind to do?   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As there is no request for a specific change, I'm marking this as done as it's only semi-protected. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Request To add the fallowing Info
Editprotected Fallowing changes should be included in in defense of Taj Corridor case and Disproportionate assets case.

Please let me know we can have a discussion on the same. In 2007 The UP Governor T.V. Rajeswar prevented mayawati from being prosecuted,Governor Rajeswar in his 23-page order has said that there isn't enough evidence against UP Chief Minister Mayawati for her prosecution in the Taj Corridor case. Governor Rajeswar said: 'The fact that she (Mayawati) wrote to Union Minister T.R. Baalu for sanction of the project, the fact that the Mission Management Board, consisting of officers of both the State and the Central Government, regularly met and discussed the project and the fact that even a sum of Rs. 17 crore was spent through the Central Government public sector undertaking, NPCC, all go to show that the serious offences with which Mayawati and the Minister were charged do not stand scrutiny.' please find the reference below http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/07/stories/2007060700541300.htm http://citynewslive.com/fullstory0207-insight-Corridor+Case-status-21-newsID-96376.html

Advocates challenged the Governor's decision in court, but failed as the Supreme Court rejected plea seeking directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and by refusing to direct state Governor T V Rajeshwar for granting sanction to prosecute her, and effectively ending the Taj corridor case before going to trail. http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/taj-case-mayawati-gets-reprieve/17992 http://www.hindustantimes.com/Maya-gets-reprieve-in-Taj-corridor-case/Article1-251919.aspx http://ibnlive.in.com/news/monumental-relief-for-maya--wah-taj/42282-4.html

Disproportionate assets case====== On August 3, 2011 Delhi High court has dismissed center’s appeal against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati stating that "she(Mayawati) has fully discharged her obligations by disclosing the identities of all of her donors, the gifts had been donated by her supporters”. http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2319223.ece The central government decided not to file an appeal in Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) favoring Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, in Disproportionate assets case. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/centre-wont-appeal-against-hc-order-on-maya/846972/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.124 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request To add the fallowing Info
Editprotected The above mentioned changes should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsantoshh (talk • contribs) 07:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to open this page for editing
This is a request to the owner or administrator of this page to allow editing of this article. Above mentioned changes should be included in in defense of Taj Corridor case and Disproportionate assets case. as these have been on for a long time sine 2007, and 2010, Please let me know we can have a discussion on the same.

This page is written both with glorification of Mayavati and with condemnation on the other side. May be we can include a category called Critics & Followers view on Mayavati. There is little meaning using it as a pretext to air subjective opinion on a person. I agree with the person above to also include controversies regarding mayavati like disproportionate case or Taj corridor case (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Please click here. The issues you are talking about are already covered in the article. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology
Dr K, I apologize for not substantiating my statements with enough reference sources. I am in the process of doing so in each of the cases. Whatever I have said might look controversial to you but they are based on enough references from well-respected places, which I shall be doing now. A2ztruthgod (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)a2ztruthgod

Reservation bill
Just today 12/17/12, due to Mayawati's tremendous efforts, the parliament passed the reservations in government promotion bill. This will have a very significant impact to Indian society. I will add this section in the next coupl of days if there is no feedback.

Also, the wiki leaks section is not news worthy and has had no political impact.it should be removed.

bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Properly sourced additions are welcome. Please provide more information as to why you state the wikileaks matter has no political impact? What is your source for that? -- Dianna (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Political and legal issues section
Many of the political and legal issues seem to settled or do not seem to be that relevent at all. Can they be removedbal537 15:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)


 * In my opinion it will always be relevant, giving historical context. Plus the article passed through to Good Article status in more or less its current state in September, so if you would like to see material removed, I would appreciate your being more specific. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are the Wikileaks allegations still relevant? They have not been proven and no-one seems to be remember them at all. Same with the World Bank Criticism section. TimesGerman (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about the World Bank criticism any more because the story is ten years old, but I think it's of historical importance and should be left in. Perhaps the Wikileaks paragraph should be removed though. -- Dianna (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO, we should keep the 'Wikileaks paragraph', atleast the substance regarding 'decission making' as it is related to her working & admin style, although 'food tasters' & 'sandals' sentences may be removed and yes we should keep the sentence regarding her denial of allegations.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it all should be kept. The content put into Wikipedia is not news reporting, but the writing of a history. One should not expect that all information put into a Wikipedia article will be perpetually in the news. What is proposed for removal is not much content so it does not unduly weigh the article. The World Bank issue was so important that someone wrote a book about it featuring Mayawati prominently. The Wikileaks information made international news and it was important enough for Mayawati herself to issue a response through international media. This is appropriate, cited content.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   11:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material
I have removed material added in as it seems to me to be off-topic and a way to introduce negative information about Narendra Modi to this article while ostensibly being about Mayawati. Please see WP:Coatrack. I am pretty sure this material does not belong in this article, and am opening a discussion here for further comments. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support removal. It's a minor incident which as part of political campaigning happens all the time. We cannot use Mayawati's bio as a list of her endorsements or defence of other candidates. I was also considering its removal but thank you for doing it first Dianna. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  20:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Surname
I thought her surname is "Kumari" based on this source. At the recent edit warring notice board discussion, a user points out that "Kumari" is just an honorific (it means "Miss", i.e., an unmarried woman) and is not her surname. This BBC article shows "Kumari Mayawati", that is, "Miss Mayawati". Looking at the source information for her parentage, it shows here that her father's name is Mr. Prabhu Das. Should we show a surname of Das? Or just omit it altogether? -- Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:COMMONNAME, her surname "Das" has been never used in media, she is most commonly called as just "Mayawati" or "Kumari Mayawati" or "Bahan Mayawati (Sister Mayawati)", but never as "Mayawati Das". I don't think that it should be added in infobox, but let see what other editors have say on this. As of now "Mayawati" is ok. We have to also change her name in lead first line. -- Human 3015  knock knock  • 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:infobox officeholder has a field for birth_name; we could put it there. I've changed the error in the first line of the lead. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed lead to include father's name too, and yes we can use field in infobox to write her full name, but can we also use field "Also known as " or "commonly known as" in infobox and can we write there "Kumari Mayawati"? As I see in many articles that common name is also written infobox in respective section. Also in lead we can write commonly known as Kumari Mayawati. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * this template Template:Infobox officeholder also has place for Honorific suffix and prefix, as "Kumari" is very widely used so we can add it there, BBC and Guardian also use Kumari, various Indian newspapers also use "Kumari", also their official website of political party also use "Kumari", so we can add it in infobox at suitable place. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 22:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since no objections have been raised, I have gone ahead and added "Kumari" as honourific prefix and "Mayawati Prabhu Das" as birth name to the info box. Also added "commonly known as Kumari Mayawati" to the opening of the lead. I'm not seeing a known_as field in infobox officeholder, or in infobox person. But I think it turned out okay -- Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal life
Mayawati is widely regarded as a self-made woman politician that began a political career at the cost of her own struggle, hard work and capabilities unlike many women politicians in India like Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi that rose to the top due to nepotism and dynastic politics. Mayawati chose to remain unmarried so as to serve people from the weaker sections of society and to ensure that her political opponents would not accuse her of nepotism.

Kanshi Ram praised Mayawati at her 47th birthday celebrations for her fundraising activities on behalf of the party. He stated that the party's eventual goal is to gain power at the national level, and that Mayawati's efforts had helped in that quest. Her birthdays have since become major media events at which she has appeared laden with diamonds. Her supporters have declared her birthday as Jan Kalyankari Diwas (People's Welfare Day). In 2009, the day was marked by the announcement of welfare schemes targeted towards poor and downtrodden people of the state and, in 2010, by the launch of social programmes with a value of over ₹ 7,312 crore.

In 2007-08, Mayawati paid inr 262600000.00000003 as income tax. She was at number 20 in I-T department's compilation of the top 200 taxpayers' list with names like Shah Rukh Khan and Sachin Tendulkar as they top the list in their respective fields. Most of her income comes as "gifts" from her faithfull supporters of Bahujan Movement started by Kanshi Ram. She paid inr 150000000 in advance tax in April–December, 2007. When BSP workers garlanded Mayawati with currency notes on the occasion of the party's silver jubilee celebrations coinciding with BSP founder Kanshi Ram’s birth anniversary on March 15, 2010, Indian news channels and newspapers purported to expose the event as a ‘scandal’ '''on the presumption that the Chief Minister had publicly committed an act of corruption that was being flaunted openly and declaring that the garland of currency notes was made from money through corrupt means and not from donations of Bahujan Samaj Party supporters as Mayawati, her Ministers and supporters claimed. Media outlets kept daring her to disclose the source of the money but gave her hardly any time to do so propagating their own belief of "ill-gotten money". Each reporter or channel was having its own estimate of the amount of cash woven into the garland in the ranged from inr 20000000 to inr 510000000 even when Mayawati’s supporters kept claiming that it was worth inr 2100000. None of the channels accepted that, making it clear that they were not interested in the issue but only in Mayawati baiting. This all went on viral till next day, when Mayawati came out and wore another garland made from currency notes offered by her supporters and this acted as a 'shock treatment' and, thus, this issue began to be ending. Media channels never lost an opportunity to bash Mayawati as it was titillating for a large section of the Indian middle and upper classes.'''

At Kanshi Ram's funeral ceremonies in 2006, Mayawati stated that both Kanshi Ram and herself had been, and she would continue to be, observant of Buddhist traditions and customs. She has stated her intention to formally convert to Buddhism when the political conditions enable her to become Prime Minister of India. Her act of performing the last rites (traditionally done by a male heir) was an expression of their views against gender discrimination. When she was Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, she publicly called Bhikkhus to prayer.
 * Issues: Two bold marked texts are not neutral in view. 1. Accuse other of nepotism is not needed here. She is self made is enough here. 2. Note garland issue text contains point of view. Words like shock treatment, Mayavati baiting, titillating for a large section of the Indian middle and upper classes are clearly not neutral. The whole section should be rewritten for neutral point of view.--Nizil (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Improved text
Mayawati is widely regarded as a self-made woman politician. Mayawati said that she chose to remain unmarried to serve people from the weaker sections of society and to ensure that her political opponents would not accuse her of nepotism.

Kanshi Ram praised Mayawati at her 47th birthday celebrations for her fundraising activities on behalf of the party. Her birthdays have since become major media events at which she has appears wearing jewellery. Her supporters have declared her birthday as Jan Kalyankari Diwas (People's Welfare Day). In 2009, the day was marked by the announcement of welfare schemes targeted towards poor and underprivileged people of the state and, in 2010, by the launch of social programmes with a value of over ₹ 7,312 crore.

In 2007-08, Mayawati paid inr 262600000.00000003 as income tax. She was at 20th in Income tax department's compilation of the top 200 taxpayers' list. Most of her income comes as "gifts" from her supporters. She paid inr 150000000 in advance tax in April–December 2007. When BSP workers garlanded Mayawati with currency notes on the occasion of the party's silver jubilee celebrations coinciding with Kanshi Ram’s birth anniversary on March 15, 2010, it resulted in controversy. Various news channel estimated amount of cash woven into the garland in the ranged from inr 20000000 to inr 510000000 but Mayawati’s supporters claimed that it was worth inr 2100000. Mayavati ignored the media report and wore another garland made from currency notes the next day.

At Kanshi Ram's funeral ceremonies in 2006, Mayawati stated that both Kanshi Ram and herself had been, and she would continue to be, observant of Buddhist traditions and customs. She has stated her intention to formally convert to Buddhism when the political conditions enable her to become Prime Minister of India. Her act of performing the last rites (traditionally done by a male heir) was an expression of their views against gender discrimination. When she was Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, she publicly called Bhikkhus to prayer.


 * I removed POV texts and propose above text. Feel free to improve it further. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mayawati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183934/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/statisticalreports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718183558/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/VOL_I_91.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/VOL_I_91.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/12/04/statutes-and-statues-mayawati-gets-supreme-court-nod-for-sprawling-memorial-park/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/pn18012012.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/lucknow/mayawati-s-statue-damaged-in-lucknow-3-held/story-KeGCTsYm1jMRHbLvV25EVK.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-27/lucknow/32888171_1_new-statue-dalit-icons-bsp-founder-kanshiram
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://post.jagran.com/Maya-statue-vandalisation-case-Prime-accused-Amit-Jani-arrested-1343462432
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://post.jagran.com/UP-city-administration-replaces-Mayawati-statues-overnight-in-Lucknow-1343382213
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://post.jagran.com/Unrest-in-Uttar-Pradesh-over-vandalisation-of-Mayawati-Ambedkar-statues-1344241759

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks allegations
The section about the Wikileaks allegations disappeared somewhere in May-June 2017. This is something notable that is well-known about Mayawati, and was widely reported in the news. Hence I think that it should be retained in the article. In the last discussion on this topic that I could find, the consensus seemed to be to keep it. The Discoverer (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that this is misuse of the Wikileaks concept. Wikileaks is best applied when the government of a given country does something inappropriate and leaked documents from that country support the malfeasance. Therefore, if Wikileaks leaked documents from Mayawati's government supporting the allegations about the food tasters and the sandals etc., then that would obviously be worthy of inclusion. But this is not the case here. These Wikileaks are leaked opinions of US civil servants. We don't know how these civil servants got that info. Was it just gossip? Was it from the CIA? There is no information at all. Therefore, up to this stage this can all be considered idle gossip which should not be included in this BLP. Dr.   K.  20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted new edits
I have reverted the edits of Deepcruze, who removed criticism and added much more content that violates WP:NPOV. One example is, "Mayawati is widely regarded as a self-made woman politician that began a political career at the cost of her own struggle, hard work and capabilities unlike many women politicians in India like Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi that rose to the top due to nepotism and dynastic politics." What kind of language is this? Source doesn't mention any "hard work", "nepotism", but has also highlighted criticism that hasn't been detailed. If this continues, then this article is probably going to fail criteria of a GA. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Show me discussion that was made before the baloney I objected above? D4iNa4 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * First, keep WP:CIVIL and drop terms like "baloney" from this discussion. Second, see WP:BRD and don't pull the edit-warring trigger so fast. Your edit was extremely large and removed valid citations from Forbes and references to her nickname as Iron Lady. Please go slower and propose addition or removal of topics one by one before reverting anything. Third, no pinging. I have the article watchlisted. Dr.   K.  05:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The new content is further copyvio. directly copying from these links. Capitals00 (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't observed copyrights. Thanks for pointing out looks like Dr.K. is removing them as well now. I was going to restore Iron lady nickname though I got reverted quickly but now I have restored it to an appropriate section. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem probably started with the edits of Deepcruze. Here where he added 35,000 bytes. I still find a few copyright violations. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No. This version from 31 October has exactly the same copyvios. Dr.   K.  06:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The link I provided is from 2016. Sentences like "essential services like water, electricity and roads in a Dalit-dominated villages", are directly taken from the source and still found on main article. Capitals00 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mayawati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181535/http://164.100.24.167:8080/members/website/Biodata.asp?no=1511 to http://164.100.24.167:8080/members/website/Biodata.asp?no=1511

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mayawati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617160409/http://www.orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=19170 to http://www.orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=19170
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225141821/http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?filename=Ne100508a_miracle.asp to http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?filename=Ne100508a_miracle.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

GAR?
I'm concerned that this article no longer meets the GA criteria. It has changed considerably from the version which passed a GA review in 2012. Numerous grammatical errors have crept in, and the "4th term" section has a lot of puffery. In contrast, her image as a Dalit icon now receives minimal coverage, and the controversy section has also gotten rather bloated with material that isn't terribly relevant, such as accusations from other parties, and the statue vandalism. These issues aren't unfixable, so I'd like to avoid GAR if possible, but would likely take more time than I have at the moment. You nominated this for GAN back in the day: would you able to take a look at this? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I recall, from what she once told me, Diannaa has disengaged from this article due in part to the never-ending POV edits by IPs and new accounts. However, since I was involved in the initial GAR and have edited this article several times since, I would be interested in helping out with a future cleanup, since I agree that the entropy of this GA article has substantially increased over the years. Dr.   K.  20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite understandable. I'd be willing to lend a hand where I can, but I don't think I can do any heavy lifting here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. I don't have much time either, but I'll have a look in the coming days and see if I can clean up some things and see what happens. Dr.   K.  21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had to stop maintaining the article since I don't have time to keep an eye on it any more. The time commitment is too great. So I won't be able to help. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Content quality
The content of this page seems to include personal views and should be reviewed. 68.234.209.32 (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

District created out Banda
The district Banda is mentioned as divided into Banda and Amethi, citing India Today. I believe it should be Chitrakoot district and nor Amethi, as Amethi was carved out of Sultanpur. Anubhavklal (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)