Talk:Pratibha Patil/Archive 1

Shorten campaign section?
I saw this article for the first time after hearing about Patil's election. It seems that there is a huge amount of information about campaign controversies, most of which are no longer relevant. While the conduct of the campaign is historically interesting and should remain in some form, the many long sections seem no longer important to the reader who wants to learn more about the President-elect. Can anyone compress the information into one or two paragraphs? Sxp151 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

it is true and sources were sited, it will be added back soon.

Woman President vs Female President
I do not know the wiki standard on referring gender but i guess Woman President is a more appropriate word, at least from the Indian journalistic standards 59.93.115.163


 * what is that suppose to mean. Saying women is fine, quit wining.


 * This is a rather rude response to a valid remark. Gender refers to a psychological construct, whereas sex is biological. Gautam Discuss 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
President Pratibha Patil's foreign trips cost record Rs 205 cr

President Pratibha Patil's wanderlust has cost the public exchequer a whopping Rs 205 crore on her foreign visits, surpassing the record of all her predecessors.

Since assuming office as the country's first woman President in July 2007, Patil has undertaken 12 foreign trips covering 22 countries across four continents. A series of RTI applications has revealed that Air India incurred over Rs 169 crore on use of chartered aircraft, always a Boeing 747-400, on the foreign visits by Patil, mostly accompanied by her family members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeraparikh (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is not a guideline. Furthermore nearly all the remotely good articles (Rajiv Gandhi, Narendra Modi, etc) have controversy sections. Our Indian politicians seem to get a lot of flak from people, so the controversy section is a good place to keep it from poisoning the rest of the article. Baka man  17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias
As of July 11th 2007, the section on 'Controveries' tries to actively promote the 'knowpratibhapatil' web site and Arun Shouri's article, both of which have been written to favor the views of the opposition political party. Clarifications on these allegations, that have appeared in many indian national dailies, need to be incorporated into the article to present a balanced view of this political drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.137.129 (talk • contribs)

The controversies sections is thoroughly biased. It is hardly balanced to hold the president to a standard established by his/her predecessor and then criticise in a wiki article based on such standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.108.80 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rs 1 cr 'seized' from President Pratibha Patil's son

President Pratibha Patil's son and Congress MLA Raosaheb Shekhawat caught with Rs.1 Crore of unaccounted cash that was being transported in the city from Nagpur in a car and arrested two persons in this connection. Link:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rs-1-cr-seized-from-president-pratibha-patils-son/912391/ (Meeraparikh (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

Office of profit
Pratibha Patil was member of Lok Sabha between 1991 to 1996 and she was chairperson and director of the sugar factory. Is it not holding Office of profit while being a MP which is forbidden by law. Does any editor have more information or comment to make on this aspect. Shyamsunder08:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Under 'legal sections' there is a mention of a PIL on this issue. 59.92.123.12 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold text== The role of the BJP in the Controversies == India is a big name in Asia. Asian history is entirely corrupt covered up by vested interests. If Russians can behave like banana state why not India or Pakistan and Somalia or Sudan? Asian states can change only if political leadership uses laptops in day to day affairs. Reality here is very bitter waiting to be revealed by future generations or may be truth will never see light and criminals will walk away with corrupt media grace.

There seems to be some doubt about the role of the BJP in generating the controversies. Some editors are of the opinion that the controversies are self-generated - i.e. the media has investigated Ms. Pratibha Patil's past activities and painted her as a controversial figure while the BJP has only been commenting on this after the media reported it. The role of the media in publicising the issue is a fact (the reference section of the article is proof of this).

My research however has led me to the conclusion that the BJP has been the starting point of actively highlighting these issues to the public through various press conferences and official statements. The media then picked on these issues and did further investigations. And now the BJP is trying to show it as if the media exposed these allegations (their website 'Know Pratibha Patil' is a collection of articles from the media). All this is NOT some 'original research' on my part.

Here are the facts (with references) that point to the BJP's role in highlighting the issues in the media:

1. They have publicly admitted that their strategy for presidential campaign is to 'build a strong public opinion against her' through the media: "Our media strategists are on the job. The BJP has launched a vigorous campaign against Patil, but the fact is that this is not a direct election in which people participate. Whether this media campaign will be able to win support from parties that do not want to associate themselves in any way with us is yet unclear," a senior BJP leader said.

Indian Express reported on July 11, 2007 that the BJP 'owned' up to its campaign against Ms. Pratibha Patil, after assessing it to be a hit in its constituency. The report further stated: The first press conference on Patil on June 22, where a woman accused her of protecting murderers, was organised stealthily by people associated with the party, which officially feigned ignorance. A fortnight later, it was a different tune. "There is no dilemma within BJP about this responsible campaign. It is also morally correct, and what is moral has to be also politically correct," said Jaitley, asked if this was a party campaign. "I am here with the full backing and approval of the party president," he said.

The media too have commented on the role of the BJP in generating media attention on Ms. Patil.

NDTV: ... But how did this five-year-old bank scandal, like the many others linked to the Patil family, overnight transform into national headlines? The ghosts from Pratibha Patil's past now splashed in the national media day after day. ... For the BJP the credit goes to Eknath Khadse, the BJP's point man for North Maharashtra, who they say played a key role in ensuring that the local scandals became national headlines.

Headlines India: ... the real motive could well be to keep the "anti Pratibha" campaign alive in media and to stage some kind of last minute swing in favour of Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.

2. Another not so unimportant fact - The BJP are very media savvy. This newspaper article mentions how the BJP workers have been honing their skills to campaign their views more effectively on the media. The report explains how senior journalists explained what the media expected through statements and press releases. A BJP spokesperson said: ... agitations, demonstrations and dharnas are alright, but then workers from all parties do it. It is more essential to learn how to write press releases, letters to the editor and open lines of communication with the media ...

3. The BJP has held press conferences and released press statements on these allegations (media reports on these can be found in the references of the main article).

Please note that I am not saying that the BJP has just made up these allegations. Only that they have compiled a list of allegations against her based on material available in the public domain (court cases, RBI report, local news articles) and disseminated these allegations to the media through press releases, conferences or official statements as the first stage of their political campaign. They have now compiled a list of media articles and are trying to present the whole thing as an 'expose' by the media through their Know Pratibha Patil campaign.

In summary, to provide a more balanced POV we need to consider:
 * The BJP has been very active in highlighting certain allegations in the media against Ms. Pratibha Patil as part of their political campaign for the presidential election.
 * The opposition is actually the NDA. It is only the BJP who have been active in this campaign, so don't refer to them as the 'opposition' or the NDA.
 * The allegation compiled by the BJP are based on records available in the public domain.

Update:
(Further references that points to the BJP's hand in trying to generate the controversy).

Arun Shourie, a member of the BJP, has written a 3 series article on Pratibha Patil. These articles have been highly publicised in the media. In an interview with the BJP President Rajnath Singh, Karan Thapar (the interviewer) mentions that the articles are highly misleading:

... You have officially released articles by Arun Shourie claiming that Pratibha Patil was the founder-chairperson of the Pratibha Mahila Shahakari Bank (in Jalgaon, Maharashtra) and that she continued as its founder-chairperson till the demise of the bank. That is wrong — the founder-chairperson is in fact Mrs Sonalkar and she held that post for 11 years. Pratibha Patil was the fourth chairperson and she only held the job for one month and eight days ... these allegations are made in a booklet published by the BJP ...

... Arun Shourie was questioned about these allegations and he said that it is on her bio-data in the Lok Sabha that she was a member of that body and it was in on her bio-data as the Governor of Rajasthan. I have checked both bio-datas, neither claims that she was ever founder-chairperson of the bank ... Your book is not just fraudulent, it is deliberately wrong. In it you have said that three women, who you allege are sisters-in-law and nieces of Pratibha Patil, were given interest waivers amounting to almost Rs 33 lakh. That is not true. First, all the women are not connected to Pratibha Patil. Secondly, they were not given interest waivers. Thirdly, they repaid the interest in full at 13.5 percent, which is the RBI guideline for that category of loan. Finally, they repaid the principal as well ...

... Another deliberate falsehood (in the book) — this time very cunningly and very cleverly put across. You say in your book that loans totalling Rs 2.25 crore were distributed to Pratibha Patil’s family members and they were then defaulted upon. Then you cite the names of the family members, and you suggest that these names have been released by the RBI. The truth is that the names have not been released by the RBI — the names have come from employees of the bank employees union, which is affiliated to the BJP and it's authenticity and credibility is highly questionable ...

... What you call allegations are in fact your own clever concoction of lies, half-truths and deliberate misinterpretations. Worst of all you have deliberately and manipulatively confused between RBI documents and employee union complaints. You are misleading people. Indusv 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First Woman President
BBC News reported this major event. --Florentino floro 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC). Although Madame Pratibha Patil is the First Woman President of India, she however was NOT the first ever and only Woman Governor in India; Long before, Sarojini Naidu, Kumudben Joshi, Ram Dulari Sinha and Fathima Beevi had also served as Governors of UP, AP, Kerala and Tamil Nadu States respectively. Hence, a suitable correction / amendment is needed. After Sarojini Naidu, her own daughter Padmaja Naidu, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Jyothi Venkatachalam and Sarla Grewal had also served as women Governors of West Bengal, Maharastra, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh States respectively, very much earlier than Madame Pratibha Patil, the first woman governor of Rajasthan.68.193.2.168 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rajni or Rajani or both?
In the 'shielding' accusation paragraph, there seems to be a professor by the name of Rajani Patil. The first name of the widow of V.G.Patil is not mentioned here, but in the article on the murder case, she is named Rajni. Are all occurrences of Rajni/Rajani correct? Must they all be named Patil, by the way? LarRan 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Both are variant transliterations. "Rajni" seems to be more widely used. utcursch | talk 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maharashtrian President
Since Pratibha Patil is the first Maharashtrian President of India, it is quite appropriate to mention this fact in the article. It will not be proper for anyone to remove it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

lmao she is the 12 not 13 prez
get your facts straight. got the official website of the prez of india.she is the 12 not 13 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs).


 * According to List of Presidents of India, she is the 13th elected president - but the 12th to hold the office. Rajendra Prasad is counted twice, since he was elected in 1950 and re-elected in 1957. Acting presidents are not counted. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If executives serve consecutive terms, they are counted as one. If they serve non-consecutive terms, such as Grover Cleveland served in the United States, then they attain two slots. That's what I know, IMHO. Gautam Discuss 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

father and birth year
In a year book from 1975 Patil's birth year is given as 1937 and her father's name as Nanasahib Patil. Can someone verify this information. The article doesn't explain how she got her last name Patil --Dunnob 07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Smt"
What word is "Smt" short for, and what does it mean? 202.89.152.202 09:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Smt. is short for Shrimati. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I find that the page is being vandalized regularly. It should be stopped, and editors interested in the page should keep a watch over the contents being added / removed. --Bhadani (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The current picture heading shows two very nasty words in hindi. They demean the person, as well as the standards of Wikipedia. I suggest the same be corrected immediately. Amitabha.samajpati (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Amitabha

I have added the page to my watch-list but I am far from a regular contributor. I have deleted a few lines added by an Anonymous user whose only contributions have been 3 edits on this page. All of which are regarding the same topic, with neither any citations nor any non-wikipedia related result on google. The offensive edit has been mentioned below.

Patil was a close aide and confidante of the Hippie guru Allen Ginsberg. Alongside Pupul Jayakar, she used her influence to help Ginsberg avert jail during his visit to India in 1962. Patil was President of the League for Spiritual Enlightenment from 1967–69 and it is believed that she consumed LSD and other psychedelics with Neem Karoli Baba and Ram Dass

*_* (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "pil" :
 * Another PIL
 * Election Commission quote
 * Another PIL filed against Pratibha The Hindu - 13th, July 2007
 * "karanthapar" :
 * CNN - IBN Interview CNN - IBN - July 01, 2007
 * BMSunion
 * "rediffpil" :
 * Judgement quote
 * Supreme Court dismisses PIL against Pratibha Patil
 * "bnkdefence" :
 * Congress rebuts BJP charges on Pratibha Patil DailyIndia - June 29, 2007
 * RBI report

Political office or Government office?
President of India comes under Political office or Government office? I feel it comes under Government office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puthussery (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page should be protected, as it contains a description of the person who occupies the highest order in the Republic of India.

Frequent edits have been made to the name( in a manner to besmirch her reputation)which also contains the picture of the President.

Wikipedia can lock the page so that frequent changes can't be made and thus the integrity of the article remains.85.132.26.26 (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please protect this page. See the president of USA Barack Obama page has protected. But, India's President's page has not yet protected. Please move it to protect mode. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In the event that vandalism etc occurs to a considerable extent, protection of one form or another will be applied. There are numerous people watching this page, including independent ones such as myself. Just being a national leader etc does not grant protection "as of right", nor does it prevent genuine controversy from being aired if it is notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not censored. Finally, I would advice you personally that perhaps you should check out conflict of interest before editing the page. I have the feeling that the "S.A." at the end of your name may indicate some political role & if you are affiliated to an Indian political party then you really should not be touching this page at all. Same goes for everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have since been assured that there is no political angle with the "SA" abbreviation. My apologies for this, which is as much a cultural issue as anything else. The point nonetheless remains valid to contributors here generally. If you are a serving party political figure/activist etc then you need to be careful here. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Error in section Positions held
Under the positions held section, the positions are just unnecessarily repeated word by word character by characeter. There is no reason to have these positions repeated even for contextual purposes and it is deceiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmkumar (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about it being deceiving but it is certainly awkward to read. I'll be tidying it up. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Early life
I have just removed "Pratibha Patil was born in Nadgaon village of Jalgaon District, Maharashtra. She was educated at RR Vidyalaya, Jalgaon and later obtained her master’s degree in political science and economics from the Mooljee Jetha College, Jalgaon Mooljee Jaitha College in Jalgaon, which was then affiliated with the University of Pune. She pursued her studies as a law student while holding her position as an MLA. Later, she obtained a law degree from the Government Law College, Mumbai Government Law College."

from the article. Please can someone find some cites for this info. Three months is a long time for uncited stuff to exist in a BLP, especially when someone else has just come along with a bunch of equally uncited but very different information (see recent article history for that & my revert). - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RTI events, April 2012
Various people have been trying to add statements regarding the recent allegations following from a RTI disclosure. Several other people, including myself, have reverted them, as for example in this edit.This article is a biography of a living person and, per our policy for such situations, BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Negative information, in particular, should be presented very carefully and only if sources are of the highest quality. The sources have been variable in quality but the major concern is that as of today these are merely allegations, and allegations against Indian political figures are ten a penny. We are neither a rolling-news website nor a gossip website: there is no justification for speculation here, nor for covering the minutiae of a developing situation. When the issue crystallises into something more encyclopedic, then it might be worthy of inclusion. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversies
Anyone following national news in India will know that Mrs. Patil's presidential stint had its share of controversies. Its kind of surprising that arguably one of the most controversial president's article is not having a controversies section. I'm adding one now with elaboration of just one major controversy, because an admin ( User:Qwyrxian )thinks my original post was against the spirit of WP:BLP.

Oh, wait. That also is removed. I'm not sure why people are so interested cover-up on Wikipedia!

My original post looked like this:

Pratibha Patil's term as the President of India was marred by various controversies:
 * April 2007: Rs.36 lakhs from Patil's 1996 MPLADS fund was alloted to build a sports complex in 25000 sqaure feet of land leased to her husband by the Congress-led Maharashtra government.
 * June 2007: It was reveled that a cooperrative bank setup by Patil in 1973 had to be closed down in 2003 due to loan waivers sanctioned to her relatives.
 * February 2012: A 532 square meter plot with NCC was acquired by Rajendra Shekhawat, Patil's son for a charitable body chaired by him, using his status as the President's son.
 * March 2012: An RTI petition revealed that since she sworn in as the President she has made 12 foreign trips to 22 countries spending an amount of Rs. 205 crores.
 * April 2012: An organization of ex-servicemen alleged that Patil has been alloted over 5 acres of army land in Pune for her retirement residence. Such a land allotment is unprecedented.


 * See both my note and that of Qwyrxian's on your talk page, and also my note in the thread immediately above this one, dated 13 April. What is it that you do not understand? - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in your talk page, what I don't understand is where in WP:BLP is it mentioned that only court proven allegations can be included? In that case the title of the section will be convictions not controversies. There are not fill-in breaking news items, the controversy you removed is being extensively covered by national media. If only court proven allegations are allowed by WP:BLP, then how come Rajiv Gandhi is having a big controversy section? Anyway, I'm happy that you at least let the section stay.--Anoopkn (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said that it's only proven convictions. The key is that it needs to be more than passing news--an allegation that pops up in one news cycle but is never followed up on. Wikipedia has to beware of WP:RECENTISM; our coverage should never be as extensive as the news, and we do not want to try to get every single thing covered in the news into Wikipedia. What we would need is some sort of evidence that any given controversy is a lasting part of Patil's biography. That would be shown by extensive coverage over a long period of time, particularly coverage beyond regular newspapers (i.e., coverage in history books, academic journals, etc.). The April 2012 story is a perfect example of what does not belong in a WP article--the fact that one person made one allegation is newsworthy but not encyclopedic.
 * However, the exact line between what is acceptable and what is not is one of editorial consensus--my view is often more strict than others, so we can certainly discuss issues here. Looking at your specific examples above:
 * April & June 2007: THis is a long time ago, so if there was something notable about the charges, we should expect to see continued coverage, an ongoing court case, or something. Was there anything beyond the original accusation?
 * February 2012: Absolutely cannot go into the article: people should not be tarred with allegations against their family members. That would only belong if she was accused of having direct involvement.
 * March 2012: Is this some unusual amount? Is it different than what other leaders use? Or is this just one political party complaning about another one?
 * April 2012: As above--we need more than just the reported allegation of one person.
 * I hope this helps explain my concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Qwyrxian for your time for this. I hope we have come to agree that a controversy section is needed in her article. Now, have a look at this: Rajiv_Gandhi. Its a B-class article. See how many allegations are listed, also note the nature of the controversies. Many of the controversies are not born out of crimes to be proven in court. In Mrs.Patil's case, spending Rs.200c+ on foreign travels or getting Army land allotted for her retirement residence are not crimes, but this kind of stuff are unheard for a president and that is exactly why these were front page news in national media for days. I would like to point out that the President is no ordinary politician. I agree every allegation should not make it into the article. But I think at least some controversies around her should make it given the unprecedented negative media attention her presidential stint has got. I hope Sitush will too look into this. My idea was to keep the article from looking like a promotional piece with weird stuff like "Divine indication" (Really? Come on!). I have no other agenda.--Anoopkn (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Gandhi article, have you ever seen WP:OSE? It is worth a read. Furthermore, can you explain why it is that you think an article concerning a dead person - Gandhi - would need to follow WP:BLP? You are comparing apples and oranges.I am also still waiting for you to provide good verification for your use of terms such as "unprecedented", which would need more than a throwaway remark by a journalist.Issues of weight are particularly awkward in the case of BLPs and a lot of our "normal" policies simply do not trump that one. This can go as far as removing information by request of the article subject, despite us not being censored etc and it has recently been tested in an article concerning a radio presenter in the UK. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you check the article of APJ Abdul Kalam, there is a seperate section for criticism and controversies, I can list out many such articles, Pratibha Patil is the president of a Country and matters like those mentioned above are very important. It is wrong that only court proven cases needs to be mentioned in the article. Check out the article of Narendra Modi for such things (again its just an example there are many other examples) --sarvajna (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I confused you earlier, but I am not saying they have to be court proven. But if it's so unproven that there aren't even charges...if it's just one random accuser...if it was 5 years ago and there was never any follow up....there has to be more than random newspaper coverage. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys, let's focus here and see if we can list down our points of contention. Engaging in long talks here apparently is not working.
 * 1.Has the controversies section found its permanent place in the article?
 * 2.If continued coverage of any accusation/controversy is proved by relevant references, can that point be included in the article?
 * Now, these are very straight forward questions and I hope to see Sitush's and Qwyrxian's replies. Aside, I find it weird that a news like the Prez splurging on Rs.205c (~USD 40M) of public money on foreign travels is not worthy enough to find a place in the article. That's the kind of stuff people call "unprecedented", if you know what I mean ;) --Anoopkn (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot really simplify matters like this. However, I am content with the single sentence, referenced as it is. For the reasons that have been explained to you, there should be nothing more at present. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be OK not to include any Criticisms or controversies but that would set a precedent, for example if you look at Abdul_Kalam there is a seperate section and it involves matter that were in news long time back and it was not followed up later. This is what happens with most of the news. So I guess if its not mentioned here then we should clean up a lot of articles. --sarvajna (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned WP:OSE. While you may be correct, it is not particularly important in relation to this article. The significant criteria here is WP:BLP, not an article about another person. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are RS sources, then it can be included and Qwyrxian's arguement "Absolutely cannot go into the article: people should not be tarred with allegations against their family members." is hogwash. As long as the information is cited properly its fair game on WP. Only question would be to word it differently not CENSOR(Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)).

Hello this is User:intwizs here. I would like to kindly request editors and admins alike to keep politicism off of wiki and to keep the facts straight. You are not whitewashing history, you're not doing your country any good either by trying to distort/cover up cold-hard facts. They are called 'controversies' for a reason. As much as any taxpaying citizen would like to see corrupt people convicted, we have to remind ourselves that this is India and cases against high profile people with cash overflowing their coffers, has not and will not stand in court. Please do not distort history for them as well. —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can see my comment on your user talk page. Answer the concerns here or do not add it.
 * And while I'm at it, Lihaas, you are 100% wrong. This is the article about Patil. You may not use this page to talk about problems her family members are in. That's WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. If the family member is notable enough for an article, put it there. Otherwise, it's trying to shame the article subject by association, which is absolutely forbidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading the long talks that have been taking place on here. Controversial news that hasn't been followed up on shouldn't be added? We're not allowed to add information about the presidents' spending on foreign travels because she used to be president? Excuse me, but I believe these are particularly biased with intent that nothing should make it on to this page without 'certain' groups' consent? Last time I checked, Wikipedia used to was the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, what's really going on here? Why is it taking dozens upon dozens of edits to bring in the consensus? Intwizs (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the length of time is because many new users come to Wikipedia after reading a newspaper article about something sensational and try to add it to the article, not knowing that our policies don't allow the insertion of any random fact just because a newspaper reported on it, especially when the subject is a living person. As to your first question, no, controversial news that hasn't been followed up on shouldn't be added--it's not of due weight. We shouldn't add info on the spending unless you can provide a very good source (here, a news report simply is not enough) that actually says this is a big deal. For example, to me, it seems obvious and a good thing for the president of a country which is just now becoming a world power to be doing more foreign travel--that's what you do if you want to be a world leader. But the phrasing, and putting it under controversies, makes it sound like there's something bad. And unless you can get that source that says it's bad and of real importance, it shouldn't be there. This has nothing to do with "certain groups" consenting--it has to do with following policy. That being said, if after discussion here, you don't feel that your concerns are being heard, Wikipedia has a set of processes called dispute resolution which we can use to get the input of uninvolved editors. I'd be glad to start such processes or tell you how to do so; in this case, our first stop would be the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard. But before that, it's better if we try discussing here a little more, and that if we go, we pick just one or two things to ask (the noticeboard isn't really good at dealing with a bunch of different things at once). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you manage to word your statements such that you make the other person (in this case,me) out to be some sort of bad guy? Is it an innate skill? I suggest you go through the references before commenting on the users' intentions. Please do. Intwizs (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably an innate skill. But my apologies--I didn't mean you specifically, but I meant the fact that quite a large number of new editors have appeared on this page specifically to add these and similar controversies. The mere fact that many people have tried to add them and talk about it does not, by itself, mean that they should be added. Content must follow policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another storm in a teacup
I have just been reverted here. I removed what seemed to me to be yet another Indian political storm in a teacup. It will be old news in a week and, despite the reverter's claim, it is not a good example of how she uses her discretionary powers. After all, the claim from her office seems to imply that she pretty much acted on advice given by the ministry responsible for the matter. Yes, it is remotely possible that the advice was to keep these people banged up but without verification of that this is merely a part of the usual workings of government. Basically, the entire paragraph is an exercise in weaseling until more detail is known. I do no think it sits well with the intent of WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking it to the talk page Sitush. Almost every controversy about every person is kind of a storm that dies. I am not trying to say that the president tried to act in a wrong way. I just feel that its a good encyclopedic detail about the president's term.--sarvajna (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go further: I think that this article has suffered for a long time from attempts by BJP supporters to slant the content. I have no idea if this particular example emanates from BJP supporters but it certainly would not surprise me. It certainly shows a lack of judgment: we are, for example, neither a newspaper nor a soapbox. It is a poor article, yes, but that does not mean we should involve ourselves in political point-scoring or machinations. If a news story at some point coalesces and becomes a part of the political firmament then it may have a place but until then it is just the to-and-fro of normal life in the political bubble. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, I am no fan of the Indian Express as a source but it is the first one that has come to hand - see this article. Sure, it is possible that Patil is now on the back foot and spinning her way out of a problem ... but that is not our call to make and it appears from the story that she was indeed acting on advice. I would imagine that only the President has the power to invoke clemency, so the buck inevitably stops with her. The content should be removed unless and until, for example, she at least faces some sort of no confidence motion or a legal challenge. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how does the political affiliation of an editor matters to you, if you are not happy with the source there are many other sources like this. I would not like to comment much on whatever you said about BPJ supporters thing, lets get opinion of others as well so as to avoid edit warring or repeated discussions on the talk page --sarvajna (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove protection
Why is such an important page protected and also short in length? There is a lot that can be added to this article. May I ask how long has this page been protected for? Here is a reference (that needs to be included to this page) to Pratibha's having spent 205 crore Rupees (39 million dollars) in her 12 trips abroad (totalling 79 days), setting a new record beating all her predecessors. --174.2.8.221 (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article will be protected until August 5 due to persistent violations of the biography of living persons policy. That reference you provided is a valid source, but I'm not quite sure how to add the info to the article. I mean, isn't it logical that over time, the amount of money spent on anything by a head of state will go up? Especially for a country like India, transitioning into being a major world power? If others think it's worth including, I wouldn't fight it, but I'm worried it's not of due weight. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that this page is faaaaaaaar too short for the PRESIDENT OF INDIA? And yet you do not want to allow any new information to be added? And no, it is NOT logical what you are saying. Why? There are many news articles about her lavishness. If so many people from the media and the Wikipedia think it is an important issue, why do you or Sitush have a "logical" problem with it? Sitush's problem is clear to me because he devotes significant energy to defend Pratibha Patil from all unflattering information about her and calls people who disagree with him as hijackers of a certain political party. I don't know if you are very familiar with the Indian political climate but I would like to remind you that Pratibha Patil is not seen in good light by most people who read the news. (emphasis added)--174.2.8.221 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not due weight. It is one of many headlines. For example, can anyone provide information regarding the spend of her predecessors and the number of days they spent on such trips? That would give us an average for comparison & would involve only basic math, although even then the points raised by Qwyrxian would apply. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the source refers to some predecessors but does not state how much was spent on their behalf. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging by User:Sitush's comments on this page, it is quite clear that he has a clear bias to protect Pratibha Patil's page from having any unflattering information. There are allegations of corruption against this woman. Nobody but Sitush seems to revere her. Sitush has gone to the extent of making the ridiculous claim of this page having been hijacked by BJP supporters. User Sitush's biased opinion on this matter is unhealthy for this Wikpedia article's development.--174.2.8.221 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop insulting other contributors. I'm willing to help, but if you don't stop, you'll get no sympathy or assistance from me. The problem with your posting here is that you're asserting things without evidence. You say that "most people who read the news" do not "see her in a good light". Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever? And is that evidence itself from neutral, reliable sources, or just from partisan opponents? That being said, I am not entirely opposed to adding information about her trips, so long as the information is neutral, well-supported, and WP:DUE. To do that, I think we first need to expand the Presidency section, to cover her major policies and initiatives. This provides the proper context for this information. For example, I can imagine some people saying "She's spent more than anyone else on foreign trips--what a scandal that she wastes so much money!" And, alternatively, I can imagine some people saying, "She's spent more than anyone else on foreign trips--what a great leader! She's finally putting India on an international stage and promoting our interests abroad!"  But without some idea of what her foreign policy is, it's very hard to interpret that information. So, I agree with your bigger point that the article should be much longer. Could you help us develop a section that covers her presidency? Not just cherry picking a few random points, but a full explanation of her policies (domestic and foreign), what types of laws she has supported, what types of appointments she has made, the budgets she has supported or passed, etc.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, the article is not full protected, it is semi protected, autoconfirmed users can edit the article, see WP:SEMI -- Tito Dutta  ✉  03:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, I have done much to improve this article but am still reading up about the presidential election issues. My plan is to move on to the next section once the election stuff is sorted. You are correct that the article was a mess but it takes time to sort such a distorted/poorly sourced etc situation. Slapping criticisms in here without context will not be a useful development: politicians get criticised on a daily basis, often merely as part of the "game", and we cannot possibly list them all. Nor should the article merely contain criticisms: it is inevitable that some people favour things that Patil has done. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For editors who aren't from India, you have to understand that India= third-world(poor) country.. so lavish spending= No-No. I hope I've put that in simple terms for you. Spending by state goes up for the people not the peoples' representatives. It's like Silvio Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties. They deserved critical acclaim, so why are you so against factual information being included? I will be citing books from verifiable sources for all of the controversies that have been listed against her. I don't want pro-congress or pro-BJP supporters vandalizing the page and telling me that my edit was against policy. Intwizs (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of PP shielding her brother
We mention the Vishram Patil murder case because of the allegation by Ranji Patil (widow, not related to Pratibha) that Pratibha was among those using her influence to ensure that some people (including PP's own brother) were not charged in connection with the murder. That hoo-hah happened in June 2007 when Ranji held a press conference because she feared that Pratibha might soon obtain presidential immunity. According to our sources, the BJP officially steered clear of the allegations (although some individuals appear to have become involved later). Although Ranji's allegation were widely reported at the time, they seem to have come to nothing. My GSearches show no mention of the allegations after 2009, only a couple in that year and only a couple in 2008. Indeed, the entire murder case seems to have very little coverage in the major Indian news sources - The Hindu, The Times of India etc.Without intending any disrespect to Ranji Patil, this could all just be the conspiracy theories of a grieving widow and yet another of the many storms in teacups. With the poor coverage generally, the BJP officially distancing themselves and Pratibha/INC denying involvement, I am beginning to wonder whether including it in this article is a responsible thing to do. It could always be reinstated should the situation re-emerge in some relevant form from the notoriously slow Indian justice system. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, our content notability criteria require significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources. Short term controversies that erupt around elections need not be notable enough.  S Pat   talk 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular issue unlike her foreign trips is very much associated with her presidential elections; this was not covered by national media before because she was not very well known nationally. Rajni Patil brought this up because she feared that PP might obtain immunity if PP was not nominated for the post of president than I highly doubt that Rajni would have held any press conference.-sarvajna (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise that ... but it is also not covered much afterwards. The appetite of national media was sated in 24 hours. The key point in your comment is that RP, for want of a better phrase, took advantage of a situation. It clearly had minimal impact then - a day or two of news - and appears to have had zero long-term impact. We are not a news service. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not say that RP took advantage, her husband was killed and she did not wanted PP to take advantage by becoming a president, I can agree with your point that the case was not covered much but take for an example the case of Rizwanur Rahman this guy was killed (possibly) and these days we don't hear much about the case that does not mean that we should delete that article. Wikipedia would become news service if every unimportant and non significant detail is covered. RP's allegations are significant enough given the fact that PP was(and will be for few more days) the president. This is not a news service and hence we should keep these details intact so that people can know the correct details of PP. If we remove these details how different will this wikipedia page be in comparison with the news papers or other media? This is an encyclopedic page and it should contain the historic details as well.Also if you want to remove this content should we also delete the page Vishram Patil murder case as it is not covered these days? -sarvajna (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an unsubstantiated allegation, made 5 years ago, lacking in support even from the BJP at the time, and without any obvious notable subsequent developments. It is probably a violation of WP:BLP. I have no opinion on the other article to which you refer except in the general sense: Indian articles are far too often created because of some temporary media hoo-hah that soon dies away and leaves our coverage in an untidy and incomplete state - many of them should indeed be deleted. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether BJP supported the claim or not, that cannot be the factor for addition/deletion of content.I am not sure that how this can be a violation of WP:BLP we just cannot sing peans of a person on his/her article.Thanks -sarvajna (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens here over the weekend. I am away for a couple of days but we can always refer this to WP:BLPN if necessary. I do agree that we need to be careful to balance things and that the article should not become some sort of hagiography. However, before my numerous recent edits it was the exact opposite of that, being mostly a character assassination. You will probably have noticed that I have included some stuff that works in both directions! - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First female governor
Sarojini Naidu, Kumudben Joshi, Ram Dulari Sinha and Fatima Beevi had also served as Women Governors before, much earlier than Pratibha Patil. Hence, Pratibha Patil was not the first and only woman governor in India.


 * That is very interesting, given what the current sources say. Can you provide sources for the info? - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I don't know how I missed this point, Sarojini Naidu was the first woman governor of a State but PP was the first woman gov of Rajasthan --sarvajna (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC). Yes; subsequently, Prabha Rau also served as (woman) Gov. of Rajasthan and recently (in April 2012) Margaret Alva has been appointed as Rajasthan Governor. (Mrs. Alva had earlier served as Governor of Uttarakhand).68.193.2.168 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above mentioned four women were respectively the Governors of UP, AP, Kerala and Tamil Nadu States at different periods of time. Their biographies / particulars are available in Wikipedia itself. ( Madame Pratibha Patil, was, no doubt, the first woman Governor in (for) Rajasthan State). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.2.168 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharda Mukherjee (wife of Late Air Chief Marshall Subroto Mukherjee) had also served as a (woman) Governor of Andhra Pradesh State, during 1977-78. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.2.168 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)   Mrs. Sharda Mukherjee had also served later on as Gov.of Gujarat. There were yet other women Governors in India after Sarojini Naidu. Her own daughter Padmaja Naidu (W. Bengal), Vijayalakshmi Pandit (Maharastra), Jyothi Venkatachalam (Kerala) and Serla Grewal (Madhya Pradesh).These four women had served very much earlier than Madame Pratibha Patil, the first woman Gov. of Rajasthan.68.193.2.168 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So it looks like the article as written is now formatted correctly, right? It no longer says she was the first female governor in India, just the first female governor of Rajasthan. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Clemency
I've been having a conversation on my talk page (see User Talk:Qwyrxian) about additions to the controversies section. Yes, we've discussed this before. And I still hold that almost all of these alleged controversies need to stay out, usually because there isn't even verification that they are actually a controversy, much less that they are of lasting encyclopedic importance.

However, one that might possibly be worth considering are her grants of clemency. She has, apparently, granted clemency more often and at a much higher rate than prior Presidents. She also granted clemency to a dead person, thus implying a possible lack of oversight. Two relevant news sources are and  (and I'm sure there's more that could be searched up). So, do we think this info should be added to the article? If so, where, and how much? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A part of one of those sources makes little sense to me: "The large scale of presidential pardons is seen as surprising. That is because India has not yet abolished the death penalty." The oddity is that if India did not have the death penalty then obviously she would not be able to commute it. But perhaps I am misreading something. In any event, it would be handy to know why she has done this so often; for example, she might be acting to protect India's image abroad vis-a-vis major trading partners such as Europe. I'd be surprised if she pardoned people without giving some sort of reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)