Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bharatiya Janata Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force.

	This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2010!
	Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

After having spent a substantial amount of time editing this article, it seems to me that we should follow WP:CSECTION and merge the criticisms section into the main text. The distinction between "policies" and "criticisms" is not clear as it would seem, and they are magnets for vandals and disgruntled IPs. They are also not near comprehensive enough, which is much easier to fix if they are integrated into the article, as redundant text can then be avoided. Thoughts/comments? UN, DS, Sitush, and any others who have been involved here? Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India-related articles seem to have an unhealthy fascination with dedicated "Controversy" sections. Almost without exception, they can be dispensed with and should be. The fightback can start here. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sit is right, and integrating the content seems like a good idea to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've seen even the most unnecessary/short articles over here have a controversy section with some rubbish or the other, doing this (and maybe Congress next?) would be a major improvement. Republican Party, Democratic Party and Labour Party all don't have any such sections nor any unnecessary focus on various events. If we want this to be cleaned up like them, concise and not ever-swelling with redundant content, mostly everything in the crit-section can be merged with the "History" section, and the other such content can be detailed in sub-articles dealing with "Election of x year", "BJP government during the y year" or "Z event". Good luck, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the map of the states that are under BJP rule shows the BJP as the principle opposition party in Bihar. While this might be true in a strictly numerical interpretation, it is not the case otherwise. Without getting into a debate about the precise nature of the Bihar polity, it is fair to say the BJP is not the principle opposition. How do we change the image? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering just your query about changing the image, File:Indian states by bjp.png was originally from User:Vibhijain and modified by User:Wantsallanger...if they're still active they can help here. You can also do this completely on your own by modifying it yourself using any simple image editing program, uploading it and then replacing it.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I have searched the internet and have found official facebook and twitter accounts of the Bharatiya Janata Party. I have seen that Indian National Congress too have their official facebook and twitter accounts in the external links section. The official accounts are as given below:

• https://www.facebook.com/BJP4India
• https://twitter.com/BJP4India

So is it right to include their official social accounts in the external links section. Work2win (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, because that would be effectively doing their publicity work for them. If they are on the Congress page, they should be removed. Official website is quite enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vanamonde93 thanks for the information. I have a little doubt regarding politics section, if twitter and facebook accounts should not be allowed for political parties since it does publicity, then i have seen Indian politician's pages having twitter and facebook accounts too added in the external links section. Should that also be removed.

I have one more doubt, if a person is not a politician(film actors, social activists,etc.) then is it admissible to add twitter and facebook in their external links section. Work2win (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W2W, I'm happy to try to clear things up. In my opinion, including a politician's facebook or twitter would be a violation of notability and npov guidelines. Of course, this is my personal interpretation, which I believe is correct, but others might disagree. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under our official guidelines for external links, an article should have one and only one link to a site controlled by the subject of the article; in these cases, the subject's official website. So any articles which also have blogs, MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Twitter, etc. links should be cleaned up; see WP:LINKFARM. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced an OR tag in the defence policy section, for the following reasons. The section contains unsourced statements about "strong national defence" and "decisive response (to the kargil attack)." These are POV terms, and they are unsourced. More importantly, this being an encyclopedia article and not an editorial, these terms are useless. We need a detailed description of the kargil war response, and of the POTA, not an evaluation of the same. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) is deleting the book from the Further reading section, claiming that they are fringe and not notable.

I do not think those 2 books are fringe on the BJP article (they would maybe be on the Indian National Congress page) and even if the autobio is not more notable than the other books, it is still notable.

You said previously Of all the hundreds of books you could have put in, you choose the two most likely to support a BJP POV? Now there are no books with a pro BJP pov left - as those left are critical. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past twenty years or so, there have been a lot of books written that are vaguely related to the BJP, including histories, biographies, and autobiographies. We cannot include every one of them in this list. Therefore, ones we should include are books from neutral authors, ie academics. Which is what the other three books are. Koenrad Elst is very much a fringe figure, and not worthy of mention. I did not say Advani is not notable; but why is he more notable that any other BJP leader? And why is an autobiography a good "extra reading" to have? It would be, only on Advani's page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are not that many books that have BJP in the title. LK Advani is not just any BJP leader, he is one of the most prominent ones. But on second thought, I agree that an autobio should not be in this article. On Elst, I don't think 6 words in a 6,000 words article is undue weight. He is also not fringe in the context of Hindu nationalism or BJP. Yes, he is not the most neutral source, but the other sources are hardly neutral either. He is also quoted by the most prominent BJP leaders like LK Advani, even though he is not affiliated with the BJP. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's not 6 words out of 6000, it is one book out of 10 or so, which is definitely undue weight. There are relatively neutral academics around, he is unnecessary. Also, the fact that BJP leaders quote him is an argument against him; by that logic, all of SP Mookerjee's writings should be here too, which is absurd. So, please remove him. I haven't examined your other additions, but they seem fine at the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elst is not a mainstream scholar and his views do not merit much weight relative to more mainstream scholarship.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at it in the context of the whole article, you can always say that any author has to much weight in single paragraph or even in a single sentence. If half of the books were by Elst or similar authors, or if he would be cited for every fifth argument, I would agree there is a problem, but complaining about a single line, not even a citation, in a 6,000 words article is just nitpicking or censorship. I agree he is not the most mainstream scholar, but in a neutral article, every viewpoint should be represented, and he is currently not overrepresented. SP Mookerjee is affiliated with the BJP, while Elst is not and self-identifies himself as a critic of the BJP in the book. The BJP leader quoted Elst as an unaffiliated author. From the intro of the book, it appears also that other prominent BJP politicians gave information for this particular book, "but of course they bear no responsibility whatsoever for its contents", those with wiki articles are: K.R. Malkani, R.K. Mishra Mr. Balbir Poonj, Kanchan Gupta --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to soften the pov in the sentence

The failure of the moderate strategy championed by Vajpayee led to a shift in the ideology of the party toward a policy of more hardline Hindutva and Hindu fundamentalism

but was reverted by Vanamonde93.

Such a pov statment cannot be said in wikipedia's name, to be neutral you have at least to add "according to XX".

I checked the Republican party article (another article from a country with two large political parties), and even though some of its members are accused of christian fundamentalism or white supremacism, the Republican party article never uses pov-language like fundamentalism.

Another of the the POV problems is in the Hindutva section. The article criticizes the BJP for the NCERT textbooks, but does only give the viewpoint of the BJP critics, without also mentioning the BJP viewpoint (for example, that there may have been bias in textbooks before or after the BJP).

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]