Talk:L. K. Advani/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unreferenced and POV content

Lot many sections have POV content without any references. Please not that adding content without any references on this page amounts to BLP attack. Please give references to the content added, failing which the content will be deleted immediately.nihar (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing "amounts to" a BLP attack, as you say. Make an effort to edit content, find sources and rectify before indiscriminately tagging left right and center. It's very rude and shows no respect for the work done before you got here. Try to find sources you think are needed; if not found, edit the article to show the material in true perspective. If nothing comes of your edits and people keep reverting and shit, only then should you tag an article. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your directions, but you would like to read the Wiki policies on blp once (WP:BLP). I am sure you would appreciate why I put the tag there. Nowhere does it say I first need to edit and put sources before challenging the content.

I have put the tags there so that editors who have put the unreferenced content have a chance to fix them. And what problems do you have if I put unreferenced section tag to unreferenced content? Very few lines in this page have references. You would even see very wild and defamatory allegations being made.

I appreciate your "respect for the work done" before I got here. There is no question of my not respecting it. You could better the content and save it from deletion by adding the references, I can help you do that. Else you could put it in your blog, no wiki rules no objections. I am placing the tags again, please let me know if you have any concerns nihar (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Save us the drama. Place individual fact tags. You can do that? There are already 13 references present. Including the autobiography. What I am objecting to is a person showing up one fine day and commenting "sad that a article of such high importance is written so badly" without having made a single edit prior to that. I am removing the tags, once again. POV and deletion-threats are placed after a disagreement or considerable debate - you have not even mentioned whose POV this article is pushing, what the bias is or exactly what part of the article is disagreeable. Please put in individual tags where you think references are needed and I will do the needful; help you save your time and energy :) Nshuks7 (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Seekers2008, you deleted my discussion here. You have enough space down here below this, where you can put your comments. And do not forget to sign it. And by the way, I am yet to delete any content on this page. :-). nihar (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The critical thing here is to realise nobody should try to make this a BJP site! LK Advani is a grown-up man who is a lifelong politician who wants to become Indian PM. He does not need to be protected by a group of self-appointed nannies. References can be positive or negative or neutral -- grown-ups understand that. If everything that is not positive gets cut out by the nannies, then this site becomes effectively corrupted and becomes a BJP site with zero credibility.--Seekers2008 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2 2009: Some juvenile BJP supporter(s) is (are) basically hacking this site and removing anything which differs from the politically correct line. This link is a neutral non-political assessment of Vajpayee-Advan: http://independentindian.com/2005/11/14/assessing-vajpayee-hindutva-true-and-false/. It appeared in an Indian newspaper editorial page three years ago. Wikipedia readers should not be prevented from reading it.Seekers2008 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The intention behind removal of the link was not to be pro-Advani in anyway. The article aims at presenting the facts as given by credible, unbiased sources. This does not include blogs. If Advani has misdeeds to his credit, please do write them into the article, giving the proper reference and using neutral language. No one will refute your work. If you, however, place random lines at random places in the article, they will removed. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Except result is pro-BJP! What Nshuks has said is simple nonsense. Link seems to be to a blog but original article seems to be in a leading newspaper! See www.thestatesman.net Nov 13-14 2005. Nshuks, be honest, admit you are pro-BJP and can't bear to see anything critical of BJP here!Seekers2008 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me what I am. I will seek your help whenever I am in search of myself. Now back to editing :) Nshuks7 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nshuks, You're welcome. Glad you admit your biases. Why not just let the world be free and not pretend you can edit other people? Try it, it's not hard. You should yourself restore what you have cut during your hacking.Seekers2008 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is lost on some. Get some valid references before you edit. If there's a POV, edit the article instead of shooting your mouth off here. We'll see what you have to contribute. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space. Please do the same and refrain from non-productive dialog here. Nshuks7 (talk)

06:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is allowed in biographies of living persons says criticism is allowed someone should added this

advani quick to smelt under hijacking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.254 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 January 2010

Criticism sections

copy/paste of the criticism in the article

Babri Masjid issue See also: Ayodhya debate In 1989, the BJP launched a movement led by Advani on the issue of the Ram Janmabhoomi (the birth place of Rama). The BJP demanded that a temple dedicated to deity Rama be created at the site of the Babri mosque where, according to Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), a temple stood till Babur's invasion of India in 1528. Sunni Central Wakf Board rejected this claim as 'saffron' and vague claiming the remains of the temple had been found at a depth of 50 metres, while no digging up to such depths had actually taken place. However, rather than a settling on a political solution to the dispute, the disputed structure was destroyed by a Hindu mob, sparking massive Hindu-Muslim riots. In his autobiography, he refers to the day the Babri Masjid was demolished as the saddest of his life. Jain-Hawala scandal Main article: Hawala scandal L.K. Advani was charged in the Hawala scandal where he allegedly received payments through hawala brokers. He and others were later discharged by the Supreme Court of India, because there was no additional evidence which could be used to charge them. According to the judicial inquiry by CBI they could not find any substantive evidences; the Supreme Court ruling stated that no statement even mentioned Advani's name and that evidence against him was limited to the mention of his name on a few loose sheets of paper. However, the failure of this prosecution by the CBI was widely criticized. While some believe the CBI probe catapulted his rise through the BJP on his newfound "moral authority", others have claimed the inquiry was a political stunt. Gauri Advani's allegations '''''User with IP address 138.47.74.244 that belongs to Louisiana Tech University had been removing this section. This section has been backed up with proper references. This is not good.''''' Gauri Advani daughter in law of L. K. Advani filed an affidavit before Liberhan Commission of Inquiry that outlines the following: He conspired with Vinay Katyar to demolish the Babri Mosque He is a Sikh; he does not believe in Hinduism He got idols of Hindu gods and goddesses melted and used to make his household cutlery He said that without playing, the religious card BJP cannot come to power. He faked a false gotra before embarking on his rath yatra that left behind a trail of blood and destruction.

Discussing the removals

Someone removed the "Jain-Hawala scandal" section, with a link to "Demolition by design". The section looks like well sourced, and the Hawala scandal article looks correct. Please, someone with experience in this topic explain what is the problem here, or fix the section. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was most likely accidental. It is well sourced and significant with relation to his notability, but the section should be fleshed out more certainly. I'll look into the controversy a bit.Pectore^talk 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone is removing "Gauri Advani's allegations" section on regular basis. The section is covered with valid references, and clearly mentions that she withdrew the affidavit. Can someone help me understand why is someone trying to remove this section? Thanks. [ M 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msirsiwal (talk • contribs)

An affidavit is withdrawn when the affiant learns that something he/she swore is not actually true. Since the affidavit swore by the said person was withdrawn by her, the affidavit ceases to exist. Agree that there are references to support the allegations. But, these references state the content of the affidavit itself and later since the affidavit has been withdrawn, the references cannot be considered. This section should be reviewed clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekramachandra (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the affidavit was withdrawn and that is what the section says. I don't believe the section section says otherwise. My apologies if I am missing something. The section says Ms. Gauri Advani made such and such allegations in an affidavit and then withdrawn after few days. And that is what is in the reference. If that is the fact and everyone agrees with that, why should it be removed? Am I missing something? I am sorry, if I am misunderstanding. The fact she withdrawn her affidavit is not necessarily an evidence that she sworn in something untrue, though that can be true or untrue, however as far as it is quoted, that she withdrew her affidavit, it should be perfect candidate to remain on Wikipedia. M 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)M

I request you to read WP:UNDUE. There are always allegations against politicians. That is nothing new. Please note that Wikipedia wants reliability, not necessarily truth. Having said that, the sources are probably reliable here. If at all the material should be retained, it should not be given undue coverage. Also, have a look at WP:CSECTION, where criticism sections are discussed. Also have a look at Yeddyurappa and Jawaharlal Nehru, two articles wherein I have integrated criticism into the article. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding all offices in Info-Box

I have added all offices he that held thus far until this date in the Info-box as per dates. The information is as per based on biographical page as per provided by the Indian Parliament. You may check his profile and the offices he has held thus far in the Lok or Rajya Sabha biography pages.

As the article itself do not do justice to the person on whom the article is written as the article do not mention all or mostly any of the offices he has all held, I have mentioned it all in the infobox on the right as per dates so people wont be mentioning it again or part by part in article. This is a convenience as he/she who wants to read on him or have interest can just look on the right instead of reading the whole article and browsing through websites or googling it.

Infoboxes should be holding all offices he has held and not be holding some to have a bias of other offices or belittling on other offices one has held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfinger123 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but I have read the Manual of Style guidelines for infoboxes and I don't think including all major offices a politician has held in any way contravenes the guideline. I would suggest that it would be appropriate to include all senior positions held, as long as they are accurate and can be verified. I think the neatest way to demonstrate verification might be to make sure that the main article mentions the office and provides a good reference. See John McCain for an example of a politician with quite a comprehensive infobox. Note that McCain's infobox is limited to senior or significant roles. It doesn't include junior roles such as committee memberships, but it does include senior roles such as committee chairs, for example. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)