This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The system is reporting that there are too many templates on this page for proper processing. There also appears to be a malformed reference in the page text that is creating problems. One way to fix this is to break up the page into several other pages, but how is something that should be discussed. The first step in any such technical change is to preserve the current text, but attempt to lessen the template load on the servers.-- Chip.berlet ( talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we move this discussion to here Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party - Wiki to avoid confusion?-- Chip.berlet ( talk) 13:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added Controversy section Black Money use in Election by Gopinath munde , senior leader of BJP and added Sources that explicitly say munde dared Election commission to take any action against him. RouLong ( talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation about copyrighted party logos. Note that File:Bharatiya Janata Party.svg is copyrighted. Please join the discussion to save the Indian Political Party symbols from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.165.143 ( talk) 07:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please join the discussion : Non-free content review at | this entry . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.3.241 ( talk) 03:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I just deleted the section "Major Announcements" from the article. The reason for this is not that those announcements are unimportant, but that they should be incorporated into the text on the history of the party. This is something I will work on doing. After all, there are no references to show that these announcements are more significant than all the previous ones made by the BJP, nor any reason why these "announcements" deserve a separate section. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 10:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
After having worked on this article a little, I strongly feel that the use of block quotes from the party constitution are not suitable for the discussion of its ideology. The constitution of any parties is unlikely to give a straightforward description of its ideology, so we should rely on external (preferably academic) analysis instead, and use quotes only sparingly. Does anybody have any quarrel with this? Shukriya, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This rehashed nonsense from the [sensationalistic] media is clearly wrong. We have first seen government in Punjab, which means Sikhs in the BJP (Sidhu), then we have Naqvi and all the Muslim MLA candidates in Kashmir and UP. Then we have seen BJP In power in Nagaland...you aint winning anything there without Baptist votes (and even more seats when the BJP Nagaland chief was alive). Further, after Goa there are now 5 of 21 MLAs who are Catholics, including the one who won with the biggest margin of victory. How then is it "Hindu nationalist"? Are the aforemention slef-loathing? Conversely, its known as the party of development. (Gujarat, Bihar, Punjab, Nagaland, Karnataka (never mind the infighting)( Lihaas ( talk) 06:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).
[ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-bjps-own-goal/article2790918.ece >> The BJP's own goal]( Lihaas ( talk) 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)).
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)
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)
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:
So is it right to include their official social accounts in the external links section. Work2win ( talk) 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'm a newcomer to wikipedia. I read in the newspaper today (23/3/2014) that the well known Muslim journalist, M J Akbar joined the BJP. I request someone to insert that news in this article with the appropriate citation. I'm scared to do it myself, because I have been reported to the Arbitration Coomiittee for Enforcement already. Thanks!— Khabboos ( talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In this context, the secularist and critic of the BJP Sanjay Subrahmanyam could be mentioned because of his nomination by the BJP to the Oxford-based chair of Indian Studies which the BJP created. -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 08:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This article will need new sources and updates based on the Election results, it appears the party has won a majority, of course final results are not in yet however I think people willing to help out should be notified by this to search for reputable sources with wikipedia guidelines and add a section pertaining to today's election result and following days which will no doubt yield information from party officials as to their reaction and plans 70.69.172.92 ( talk) 08:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
True, was unaware of how exactly Indian elections work, seems like it will take a while for all of the 'hype' around it cools down, in the mean time I will keep my eyes open if anything reliably citable does pop up 70.69.172.92 ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to soften the pov in the sentence
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)
I am now tagging the article with NPOV, because the issues have not been solved at all, only my tags were removed.
"The BJP has a stated policy of opposing "illegal" migration into Indian territory from Bangladesh. The party states that this opposition is because such migration, mostly in the states of Assam and West Bengal, threatens the security, economy, and stability of the country. Several academics have pointed out that the BJP refers to Hindu migrants from Bangladesh as refugees, and reserves the term "illegal" for Muslim migrants. Michael Gillan writes that this is an attempt to use an emotive issue to mobilize Hindu sentiment in a region where the party has not been historically successful."
I have looked up the source, and found this quote in the source: ultimately however it was an Indian government led by the Congress Party under the leadership of Narasimha Rao that after 1991 instated the harshest measures against undocumented immigrants.
This means that the source accuses both the BJP and the Congress party, and the Congress party it says had the "harshest measures". So why is this only in the BJP article, and why does it not say that the Congress party is also accused of this?
I would also like to see the quote on which the 3rd sentence ("Several academics...") is based, as I have not found them. What is the point to have this section in the BJP article at all, if also the Congress party is accused of this, and Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, so what is the issue in saying that most refugees would be minorities (in this case, minorities are Hindu or Christian)?
I would like to see the quote that supports the statement about Hindu fundamentalism. I couldn't find it.
As I said already before, such a statement should also be written neutrally. You have to say, "according to ..."
I tagged this in the article, but the tag was removed by Vanamonde93. The source is Al Jazeera and says it is about Gujarat. But the official figures for Gujarat riots are much less than that. Why are not the official numbers used, but older/disputed numbers? -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
event was, however, more deadly still. The main leaders of the BJP, such as L. K. Advani, were taken into protective custody, yet riots broke out in town after town, in an orgy of violence that lasted two months and claimed more than 2,000 lives."
The policies of the BJP is fundamentally based on Hindu nationalism. As is stated on its official website "Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism presents the BJP's conception of Indian nationhood". If an American party was founded on the concept of White Nationalism it would quite rightly be called a White Supremacist or even a Nazi party. Why is the BJP not described as a far right party? Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, greetings to all. To be very fair, article missed list of controversies when NDA was in power and hardly maintains neutrality. It only mentions Gujarat Violence. I think article should also cover 2001 Indian Parliament attack, Demolition of the Babri Masjid, Barak Missile scandal, Operation West End, Indian Airlines hijack, etc. controversies which were occurred during Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. Thank you. -- 103.17.131.201 ( talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Having commented more on KE talkpages, I'm now more convinced that Elst is notable enough to be in the further reading section. Alone the fact that L.K. Advani, who "had always been the most powerful leader in the BJP with the exception of Vajpayee (and more recently Modi)", said this about Elst in his autobio: "Dr. Koenrad Elst, in his two-volume book titled The Saffron Swastika, marshals an incontrovertible array of facts to debunk slanderous attacks on the BJP by a section of the media" makes it notable enough to have one of his books mentioned. (The link you gave on Further reading above is an essay, and that each book must be neutral is not a requirement, otherwise many notable works could be removed from such sections.) -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is the style of the sections in this article so different than that of other major political parties, viz the REP, DEM, and Indian congress parties? In absence of a style policy, the DEM and REP articles should be considered as best practice for major parties articles.
In these articles, the orders of the sections starts with economic policies, and then "social policies" (and not social policies and Hindutva). -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 11:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added npov, because the article does not discuss at all the official doctrine of BJP,which is Integral Humanism, and the short paragraph on it was recently removed, the article gives more weight to Hindutva, which is not the official doctrine and not part of the party's constitution, and not a doctrine officially supported by party leaders as is Integral Humanism. Many academic sources do focus more on the Hindutva aspect, but the Integral Humanism is the official doctrine and should be covered in the section.
The Integral Humanism aspcect is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
NPOVD tag added. This is the relevant discussion section. --05:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, in these edits although the edit summary is "Adding/improving reference(s)" I see you have changed the content significantly and all earlier references were replaced. Could you go over the diff once again? For example this favorable (to bjp) statement was removed: " the decisive response and success of military operations bolstered its popularity and image of toughness on national security" and this unfavorable (to bjp) statement added: "They were seen as an attempt to display India's military prowess to the world, as well as a reflection of anti-Pakistan sentiment within the BJP". I neither express disagreement with any policy nor claim synthesis by you. The edit summary do not reflect the actual edit done, you may want to improve it going forward. I took one example above, both content are referenced, why do you selectively inject un-favorable and eliminate favorable? Newspaper is also reliable and academic sources do not contradict them here, there is no need to purge such content.-- Jyoti ( talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Amit Shah has been appointed as BJP party president. Please modify. Thanks. -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The system is reporting that there are too many templates on this page for proper processing. There also appears to be a malformed reference in the page text that is creating problems. One way to fix this is to break up the page into several other pages, but how is something that should be discussed. The first step in any such technical change is to preserve the current text, but attempt to lessen the template load on the servers.-- Chip.berlet ( talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we move this discussion to here Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party - Wiki to avoid confusion?-- Chip.berlet ( talk) 13:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added Controversy section Black Money use in Election by Gopinath munde , senior leader of BJP and added Sources that explicitly say munde dared Election commission to take any action against him. RouLong ( talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation about copyrighted party logos. Note that File:Bharatiya Janata Party.svg is copyrighted. Please join the discussion to save the Indian Political Party symbols from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.165.143 ( talk) 07:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please join the discussion : Non-free content review at | this entry . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.3.241 ( talk) 03:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I just deleted the section "Major Announcements" from the article. The reason for this is not that those announcements are unimportant, but that they should be incorporated into the text on the history of the party. This is something I will work on doing. After all, there are no references to show that these announcements are more significant than all the previous ones made by the BJP, nor any reason why these "announcements" deserve a separate section. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 10:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
After having worked on this article a little, I strongly feel that the use of block quotes from the party constitution are not suitable for the discussion of its ideology. The constitution of any parties is unlikely to give a straightforward description of its ideology, so we should rely on external (preferably academic) analysis instead, and use quotes only sparingly. Does anybody have any quarrel with this? Shukriya, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This rehashed nonsense from the [sensationalistic] media is clearly wrong. We have first seen government in Punjab, which means Sikhs in the BJP (Sidhu), then we have Naqvi and all the Muslim MLA candidates in Kashmir and UP. Then we have seen BJP In power in Nagaland...you aint winning anything there without Baptist votes (and even more seats when the BJP Nagaland chief was alive). Further, after Goa there are now 5 of 21 MLAs who are Catholics, including the one who won with the biggest margin of victory. How then is it "Hindu nationalist"? Are the aforemention slef-loathing? Conversely, its known as the party of development. (Gujarat, Bihar, Punjab, Nagaland, Karnataka (never mind the infighting)( Lihaas ( talk) 06:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).
[ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-bjps-own-goal/article2790918.ece >> The BJP's own goal]( Lihaas ( talk) 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)).
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)
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)
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:
So is it right to include their official social accounts in the external links section. Work2win ( talk) 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'm a newcomer to wikipedia. I read in the newspaper today (23/3/2014) that the well known Muslim journalist, M J Akbar joined the BJP. I request someone to insert that news in this article with the appropriate citation. I'm scared to do it myself, because I have been reported to the Arbitration Coomiittee for Enforcement already. Thanks!— Khabboos ( talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In this context, the secularist and critic of the BJP Sanjay Subrahmanyam could be mentioned because of his nomination by the BJP to the Oxford-based chair of Indian Studies which the BJP created. -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 08:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This article will need new sources and updates based on the Election results, it appears the party has won a majority, of course final results are not in yet however I think people willing to help out should be notified by this to search for reputable sources with wikipedia guidelines and add a section pertaining to today's election result and following days which will no doubt yield information from party officials as to their reaction and plans 70.69.172.92 ( talk) 08:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
True, was unaware of how exactly Indian elections work, seems like it will take a while for all of the 'hype' around it cools down, in the mean time I will keep my eyes open if anything reliably citable does pop up 70.69.172.92 ( talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to soften the pov in the sentence
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)
I am now tagging the article with NPOV, because the issues have not been solved at all, only my tags were removed.
"The BJP has a stated policy of opposing "illegal" migration into Indian territory from Bangladesh. The party states that this opposition is because such migration, mostly in the states of Assam and West Bengal, threatens the security, economy, and stability of the country. Several academics have pointed out that the BJP refers to Hindu migrants from Bangladesh as refugees, and reserves the term "illegal" for Muslim migrants. Michael Gillan writes that this is an attempt to use an emotive issue to mobilize Hindu sentiment in a region where the party has not been historically successful."
I have looked up the source, and found this quote in the source: ultimately however it was an Indian government led by the Congress Party under the leadership of Narasimha Rao that after 1991 instated the harshest measures against undocumented immigrants.
This means that the source accuses both the BJP and the Congress party, and the Congress party it says had the "harshest measures". So why is this only in the BJP article, and why does it not say that the Congress party is also accused of this?
I would also like to see the quote on which the 3rd sentence ("Several academics...") is based, as I have not found them. What is the point to have this section in the BJP article at all, if also the Congress party is accused of this, and Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, so what is the issue in saying that most refugees would be minorities (in this case, minorities are Hindu or Christian)?
I would like to see the quote that supports the statement about Hindu fundamentalism. I couldn't find it.
As I said already before, such a statement should also be written neutrally. You have to say, "according to ..."
I tagged this in the article, but the tag was removed by Vanamonde93. The source is Al Jazeera and says it is about Gujarat. But the official figures for Gujarat riots are much less than that. Why are not the official numbers used, but older/disputed numbers? -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
event was, however, more deadly still. The main leaders of the BJP, such as L. K. Advani, were taken into protective custody, yet riots broke out in town after town, in an orgy of violence that lasted two months and claimed more than 2,000 lives."
The policies of the BJP is fundamentally based on Hindu nationalism. As is stated on its official website "Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism presents the BJP's conception of Indian nationhood". If an American party was founded on the concept of White Nationalism it would quite rightly be called a White Supremacist or even a Nazi party. Why is the BJP not described as a far right party? Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, greetings to all. To be very fair, article missed list of controversies when NDA was in power and hardly maintains neutrality. It only mentions Gujarat Violence. I think article should also cover 2001 Indian Parliament attack, Demolition of the Babri Masjid, Barak Missile scandal, Operation West End, Indian Airlines hijack, etc. controversies which were occurred during Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. Thank you. -- 103.17.131.201 ( talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Having commented more on KE talkpages, I'm now more convinced that Elst is notable enough to be in the further reading section. Alone the fact that L.K. Advani, who "had always been the most powerful leader in the BJP with the exception of Vajpayee (and more recently Modi)", said this about Elst in his autobio: "Dr. Koenrad Elst, in his two-volume book titled The Saffron Swastika, marshals an incontrovertible array of facts to debunk slanderous attacks on the BJP by a section of the media" makes it notable enough to have one of his books mentioned. (The link you gave on Further reading above is an essay, and that each book must be neutral is not a requirement, otherwise many notable works could be removed from such sections.) -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is the style of the sections in this article so different than that of other major political parties, viz the REP, DEM, and Indian congress parties? In absence of a style policy, the DEM and REP articles should be considered as best practice for major parties articles.
In these articles, the orders of the sections starts with economic policies, and then "social policies" (and not social policies and Hindutva). -- Calypsomusic ( talk) 11:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added npov, because the article does not discuss at all the official doctrine of BJP,which is Integral Humanism, and the short paragraph on it was recently removed, the article gives more weight to Hindutva, which is not the official doctrine and not part of the party's constitution, and not a doctrine officially supported by party leaders as is Integral Humanism. Many academic sources do focus more on the Hindutva aspect, but the Integral Humanism is the official doctrine and should be covered in the section.
The Integral Humanism aspcect is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
NPOVD tag added. This is the relevant discussion section. --05:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, in these edits although the edit summary is "Adding/improving reference(s)" I see you have changed the content significantly and all earlier references were replaced. Could you go over the diff once again? For example this favorable (to bjp) statement was removed: " the decisive response and success of military operations bolstered its popularity and image of toughness on national security" and this unfavorable (to bjp) statement added: "They were seen as an attempt to display India's military prowess to the world, as well as a reflection of anti-Pakistan sentiment within the BJP". I neither express disagreement with any policy nor claim synthesis by you. The edit summary do not reflect the actual edit done, you may want to improve it going forward. I took one example above, both content are referenced, why do you selectively inject un-favorable and eliminate favorable? Newspaper is also reliable and academic sources do not contradict them here, there is no need to purge such content.-- Jyoti ( talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Amit Shah has been appointed as BJP party president. Please modify. Thanks. -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)