Talk:Varun Gandhi

Maneka vs Indira fued details
Hi Hemanshu, I think the account of the maneka-indira fued is too detailed for the page on varun. it belongs in the maneka gandhi page. let me know what you think. --vvarkey (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Varun has little to do with the sas-bahu feud. It is interesting but does not belong in his biography.--ISKapoor (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the following:


 * "It is not known whether the accusations of torture were true but it is widely accepted that Indira expelled Maneka as she was politically ambitious."

Truth is that it is hard to identify who is guilty when a sas-bahu fight. Varun says his mother was not expelled by Indira Gandhi. Khushwant Singh, a family friend claims
 * "Maneka decided that this time she would determine the terms and time of her departure. She told me several weeks ahead of the exact day on which she would be "thrown out".

At other times Khushwant Singh remembers things differently.

Thus it is hard to say what really happended.--ISKapoor (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The SOAS Alumni Relations Officer, has confirmed that Feroze Varun Gandhi never graduated in Sociology from SOAS (as claimed by him/media) as he withdrew from his MSc programme before completing it. Feroze Varun Gandhi's connection to the LSE was only through the "University of London External System", which is a distance-learning provision administered by the LSE. He was never been admitted into the LSE's own undergraduate student body and was never a member of LSE's campus.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.109.176 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

His University of London degree
The reports make it clear that he did receive a degree from the University of London. It is a 'distance' degree, but a genuine degree. The University of London diastance degrees are administered by (i.e. curriculm is set and testing is done by them) colleges that are part of University of London. In case of his degree, it was indeed administered by London School of Economincs. However he did not finish his master's degree program.--ISKapoor (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he may have actually finished his masters program using the distance program. I will check. --ISKapoor (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There more than just a 'technical difference'between the external programme and actually studying at LSE. Firstly, in the past, whilst all UofL constituent universities all said the degree was awarded by the University of London, it further says taught at LSE/UCL/KCL/SOAS/QMUL/etc., whereas external degrees specifically say External Programme in lieu of any of the aforementioned colleges. Second, Law graduates from Oxbridge or any Uni.of London can sit the bar exams in the state of Mass., USA with the exception of external programme grads. Finally, there are differing standards of admission. LSE is one of the most selective unis in the world, Look up LSE's wiki page to confirm. The admission rate is between 5-7% of 19,000 undergrads. Ext. Pro. takes any one with mediocre grades and money. More than a technical difference, wouldn't one think? --[] (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is going to need to be evaluated by a Wiki administrator. ISKapoor is obviously motivated by right-wing Hindu issues -- his edit history speaks for itself. ISKapoor, it is correct that the degree curriculum and testing was done by the LSE. But the LSE has issued an official statement, which can be checked at the LSE Press and Information Office, that it cannot be called in any way a degree "from" LSE. The claim in his writ petition does not concern who it was "administered" by. Also there is no need to delete associated information from India Today and other legitimate references. Your agenda to vindicate the subject is transparent -- User:Sarakki —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Although his intellect and politics are definitely questionable, the quality of his degree is something which is not to be discounted. The fact that six Nobel Laureates have had their start in their education at the University of London External program, including figures like Nelson Mandela and prominent economist Ronald H. Coase, points to the quality of the program. The fact that he did not know about this or chose not to publicize this fact but latch on to the "glory" of an LSE degree(which by the way used to offer only University of London degrees and started offering its own degrees only from June 2008) smacks of desperation and ignorance. It goes on to show that education and enlightenment are two distinct concepts and often exist independently.

--Kisha joshi77 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

''"He also completed his Master of Science in Public Policy from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, in 2004 also through correspondence."

The above text has no Verifiable citations infact there are citation available against the aforementioned statement which go to say that he did enroll but DID NOT complete the degree from SOAS ...

i believe the quoted text should be removed though being a completely new editor i am unsure i will be correct in doing so ..I have instead added a "citations needed" template

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/soas-lse-condemn-varun-gandhi/72970 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Varun+gets+a+rap+from+UK+college+over+hate+speech/1/39736.html

Cliffatsea (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

YouTube link
I have removed the YouTube link for two reasons:

1.Varun Gandhi was being attacked in the comments section of that page (being called monkey, joker etc.). This link should not be included just as we won't link to a blog containing attacks on the subject of the article.

2.YouTube is not a reliable source in the first place (unless its some official channel of a reliable source, like BBC's YouTube channel) as it is a user-generated site.



—SV 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there StaticVision. I'm not sure I entirely agree with your reasoning for 2 reasons:
 * 1. The video is not being used as a source, it is being used as an external link. The rules for reliable sources do not apply to external links. For example, you can external link to Varun Gandhi's fan site even though it would not be considered a reliable source.


 * 2. Many news sites allow comments on their artiles. Just because there may be unfair or POV comments does not mean that these articles cannot

be used as reliable sources by Wikipedia.


 * However, to address your concerns, I've replaced the video with the one from CNN-IBN - --vvarkey (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. I agree the video wasn't being used as a source but still there are some guidelines we ought to follow (External_links), also to make sure the content in the site linked is actually true (the simplest way of doing this is to just use reliable sources, even in the external links section). News channels often moderate the comments area of their site and I think POV comments are fine on external sites but this particular YouTube page contained attacks like calling him names-joker, monkey etc. so there's a difference b/w POV statements and outright attacks. Coupled with the unreliability of user-generated sites, I think YouTube is not a good choice to illustrate events, particularly controversial ones, on Wikipedia. Thanks for your work arranging the alternate video! —SV 19:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The citations of the so called hate speech which is yet to be proven in the court may affect the communal as well as political scenario of the country. So i have removed the portions from the article 117.197.242.167 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

66.129.224.36 (talk) (19,884 bytes) (Vvarkey you can't always believe in the biased media..)
Hi 66.129.224.36, looks like we're getting stuck reverting each other's edits.

Let me make a couple of points:

1. I see you feel the media is biased. while there might be some truth to that, wikipedia has to reflect what the media is saying. those are the rules.

2. Please feel free to edit the section we're warring over (with ref to the 3 rapes). But please don't remove my well-referenced text. and please find a better source than Youtube (which is not considered a reliable source).

Cheers, hopefully we can stop wasting each others time!

- --vvarkey (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Shaken Pilibhit - 28 Mar 2009
Please discuss how/if these images should be in the article.

In my view, there should be only 1 image of what happened when Varun was arrested. Varun's arrest is not significant enough to have 6 more images showing it. --vvarkey (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube
66.129.224.36:

Youtube & other user-generated content is not considered a reliable source. If you have other links to the video, please add those, and then we can discuss the text. But as it stands, please don't just blindly put back what i've just removed.

Also, regarding the text you've been adding at the top of the Election Controversy para: It does not make sense to put in detailed text trying to disprove the allegations even before the allegations have been stated. If you want you can put a brief statement there on the lines of "Varun denies making these statements" or something.

Have you considered creating an account on Wikipedia, rather than editing using an IP address? You edits will generally be taken more seriously if you do. (Just my opinion)

Cheers

- --vvarkey (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube channels from timesnowonline & starnewstv are valid
Hi Vvarkey, It is wrong to assume that youtube isn't a reliable source. These are not private videos, but videos which "went on air" and are put by bonafide media channels with names: 'timesnowonline' and 'starnewstv' in youtube. I couldn't locate these videos on the websites of these news channels. And as you might agree almost whole of the media is biased in reporting and Varun's defense is buried. And these pointers to youtube are only showing what Varun had gone on air.

You need to be neutral in reporting events. You cannot just put one side of the story, while ignoring the rest. That is what democracy is. You are making your own rules here. Where does Wikipedia say that videos which went on air and posted on youtube cannot be referenced?

Also, viewers need to be made aware of the controversy of a news report before delving into the details. It is common sense that movie ratings (& other warnings) are given before starting the movie, not at the end.

So, I stand by my decision to put the tribuneIndia news article that doubts the veracity of the claims before the reader goes through the alleged communal remarks.

Hope we don't waste each other's time.

Thanks!


 * Hi there. I see now that this video is from the channel of timesnowonline. I'm fine with it then. Sorry about the confusion.
 * I am editing the text, so please review it. some of it is in the 3 rapes para, the rest in the 'denial' para directly above that.


 * regarding the other text, you're welcome to add a brief line, saying something on the lines of "Varun denies making these statements" at the top. it HAS to be brief, like movie ratings are. If you want to go into details about sikhs & muslims who allegedly attended the speech, etc., you can only add those later in the text, after all the allegations are stated. this is just the normal way to do prose. also, i am highly dubious of this one article. i have'nt seen this info on times, cnn-ibn etc. so it is being given undue importance.


 * also please note that I have changed your OR on the 3 rapes. the reference clearly says (verbatim): "his allegation of communal motivation in recent rape cases is similarly fabricated.", so the text reflects that.


 * If you're going to be working on this article extensively, please create a login. it just makes things more efficient etc.


 * - --vvarkey (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First Name - Varun or Feroze?
The lead appears to call him - Feroze Varun Gandhi. Wasn't Feroze his grandfather. AFAIK his name is simply Varun Gandhi (or Varun Sanjay Gandhi - to use his middlename). This is supported by his website. Does anyone think otherwise? I will wait for any response before I change the lead --MK 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

His full name is Feroze Varun Gandhi. His first name is Feroze, but he is more popularly known as Varun. It says Feroze Varun Gandhi on his website. Read the "About Varun" section. Kindly research these things before you make unnecessary changes to an article. Thanks. Prashina (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

COI (Conflict of Interest)
I just noticed that one of the editors of this article User:Gemmifer13 seems to be uploading and using images from the subject's official website in this article. An example would be File:Varungandhi1.png (source: and used in ). Also, the user's contributions almost exclusively focus on this article. Which is why I have added a COI tag to the article. See WP:COI --MK 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please do NOT accuse me of COI. How is adding pictures from the subject's website COI? That's just misleading the others. I chose to work on this article because I felt a lot needed to be added to it, and it was very empty. I'm new on wiki, and haven't had the time to work on more, but I definitely will. Also, none of my encyclopedic contributions to the article are "biased" or taken from his website. They are all FACTS that have been taken from various news reports. I have added what I feel is right and the truth. I realise I had put a lot of pictures on the page, I was told that was wrong by wiki, and they have been removed. But PLEASE don't say that putting pictures from the subject's website is COI. If it is, I would like to hear you explain it. Gemmifer13 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can only add images to Wikipedia that you have taken or that are work-for-hire for you. Other images you can only add if you have written permission of the copyright holder. Hekerui (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, hekerui :) Yes, I wasn't aware of that earlier, but have now got written permission of the copyright holder, and that will be sent to wiki by the copyright holder tomorrow. However, my point is, the fact that these pictures are on the subjects website should NOT be an issue. Gemmifer13 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making sure. All I need is to say there's none :) Keep up the good work --MK 19:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MK :) Gemmifer13 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is nothing more than a marketing campaign for Gandhi, while trying to be not completely blatant so as to fit in wiki's rules.
74.248.242.38 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) So true. It feels like, I ve just read an election campaign script for Varun Gandhi. Not at all neutral and very sectarian in all aspects of this article. Please validate this entry again. This is not completely reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.106.59 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dalchand Criticism section seems more like a defence section
If you read this section, there's a good chance it was written by a BJP/ Varun sympathiser. For example, can you really say sentences like: "The Varun Gandhi controversy was said to be the biggest media scam of the decade." are neutral? In fact, read the section, and all of the section is presented from V. Gandhi's POV, and NOTHING that the media has actually said is presented. In fact, the only mention of the media is in criticism of their coverage (which is not invalid in itself), but there is no criticism of him. For example, no politicians' comments against him are included, or any analysis of his speech in a negative way is included. This spells like BJP propaganda, and it's not surprising, because if you look at the BJP wikipedia page, the BJP supporters remove any criticism of their party, claiming it's a reaction against so called communist forces. We need to stop this irrational responses, otherwise all these articles on Indian politics will remain biased and a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.48.97 (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this article seems like it has a pretty bad pro Varun slant. I mean look at this "Unlike other young people of his generation, he had always had a deep interest in politics believing that one must participate in the system in order to change it.“ That prety clearly breaks the guidlines. However, since I don't know that much about indian politics, I'm going to put it a POV check.Afuhz (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

POV issue.
The article is horribly written, and it has a huge POV bias towards Varun and BJP. Especially the criticism for the Pilibhit rally. And if anyone will notice, the whole article is made up of Varun Gandhi's statements and speeches. Totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. It looks more like a news article. I would appreciate it if someone comes forward to rewrite the article. MikeLynch (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Blatant abuse of NPOV

 * Most of the article seems to be an election campaign speech by Varun. The citations given do not reflect the words written in the article. And also, just citing a newspaper article does not make the content encyclopedic. I have removed the conflicting sections after scrutiny. If anyone has objections, please reply here than just reverting the changes. MikeLynch (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

- Depends on the news paper which houses the articles! and how are encyclopedias written? as long as wikipedia can't hire qualified historians to cater to every article, I'm sorry, but in my opinion we can't be nosy about news paper articles!!! and please don't just delete things form pages! Comment them!!!! Some admin should warn users who just delete things from pages just because he does not like it!!!!

Regards,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not doubting the correctness of the newspaper articles. What I am saying is that the article should be in reported speech for most part. Otherwise it would just look like a big long speech by Mr. Gandhi. And I verified the things written in the article and the things given in the respective cited newspaper articles. They simply did not match. And thank you for your unsolicited advice. I have been editing since 4 years and I know that any edit can be undone and that it is perfectly OK to delete sections since they can be undone. All I want is a proper article adhering to Wikipedia guidelines of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. MikeLynch (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

- Yes I agree with that Mike... Gimme some time... I'm working on it... This article is poorly written indeed and is very biased.... Gimme about a week to completely change it

Respectfully,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Amartya. MikeLynch (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Poorly written
I found this article VERY poorly written and fragmented! I'm not sure if the subject deserves to be on wikipedia, but as long the article exists it becomes our responsibility to maintain a basic level of English (to say the least), which it lacks!

I'm working to improve it at the moment!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've commented the unrequited parts and merged certain stanzas to create a neutral biography... Please talk to me about it :)

Regards,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work Amartya, and Thank you. MikeLynch (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protected
This article deserves to be simiprotected!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please make page protection requests at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Varun Gandhi. 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/20120918030139/http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data%2Fopinion%2F2009%2FMay%2Fopinion_May95.xml&section=opinion&col= to http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data%2Fopinion%2F2009%2FMay%2Fopinion_May95.xml&section=opinion&col=

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) 15:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Smt. Maneka Gandhi and Shri Varun Gandhi called on the Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee in New Delhi on February 16, 2004.jpg