Talk:Arvind Kejriwal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criticisms by politicians

most of the criticisms made on kejriwal are by rival politician. i dont think it would be fair to add those as it is just natural that they will criticize him unnecessarily.

Aditya Roongta 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaroongta40 (talk • contribs)

Currently this section need not be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.185.237 (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Allegations against Kejriwal

Allegations against Kejriwal that have recently come to light should be added in interest of fairness Arvind Kejrival's real name is Amogh Thombare . Also facts like Kejriwal's and his wife having never severed outside should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajuwala (talk • contribs) 11:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Arvind Kejriwal never worked as Income Tax Commissioner, says IRS association

Where did you get that bit about his real name? I can't find anything about that being true.Fantumphool (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Awards - Arvind received "Politician of the year award" from CNN IBN recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.28.171 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kejriwal-never-worked-as-i-t-commissioner-irs-association/1/326176.html

Our article doesn't say that he did, nor does the link you provide say that he claimed thus. What we say is that he was a Joint Commissioner (whatever that may be) and what the source says is that he made some comment about how much he would earn if he had been a commissioner ... and the IRSA say that he "technically" never was. I would imagine that "technically" is a reference to him having some sort of acting role as a full commissioner but, regardless, it seems to be irrelevant - words appear to be being twisted for whatever the reason may be. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Books by Kejriwal

Swaraj

Books by Kejriwal

Swaraj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.91.35 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

Under the section "Career" please note the line below and reference to him being a nude dancer. Please remove such reference as it is not only untrue but very distatsteful joke.

Kejriwal joined the Indian Revenue Service in 1992 after qualifying through the Civil Services Examination.[16] In February 2006, he voluntarily resigned from the IRS as Joint Commissioner in the Income Tax Department and became a nude dancer.[17] Echadhmi (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - Thank you. Begoon ^talk 18:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Name

His name had double quotes, removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy13991 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Linkspam

A persistent multi-IP editor has been repeatedly adding a useless link to http://arvindkejriwal.in in the article. If you see that the link has been added again, please remove it on sight, as it currently links to a page advertising the domain name for sale. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Arvind kejriwal Movement

Include Delhi milk and Electricity movement by arvind kejriwal. please sir all india sir

Clarifying place of birth

It is correct that Kejriwal was born in Hisar district because in 1968 his birthplace of Siwani formed a part of that district. Siwani was redesignated as a part of Bhiwani district in 1974. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits without reading them.

Please go through my added sources ! I have removed rotten links and more info news !! Please go through them! don't discard them without reading them.

I have already explained on your talk page. Your have now exceeded three reverts and you should undo your last change. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I humbly request you to go through the sources added by me. They are more in details about the Delhi Jal board privitization and other issues such as Youth of the year award 2006 and RTI activism since 2004 by Arvind kejriwal, than the sources already cited on the article. Its an improvement. Don't discard by edits , just to feel untidiness in the page. This article is already low on citation as compared to others WP articles. 59.177.9.105 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is as may be but since the details are not in the article, the sources are irrelevant. Citations are not a reading list - they exist to verify the statement made, nothing more. Now, if you want to take a read of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and then decide that you can usefully expand the existing statements by using the new sources that you have introduced without breaching the policies then by all means do so. You'll most likely be able to delete the current sources then because I doubt very much that the statements will be controversial. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Did you go through the sources i added ? Please go through them. #1. Source #Ashoka award : Broken link & I have updated it (improvement).#2. Delhi water Privatization source : (improvement). #3. Youth of the year 2006: rot link , I updated with more reliable news source(improvement). Please go through them once more. Don't discard them on your guts feeling that thy are promotional. 59.177.9.105 (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, if any of the links are broken then please do correct them. That does not mean that you add more, which is mostly what you did. If necessary, you can delete a broken citation and replace it with another that also supports the statement (although you might want to check out the Wayback Machine). - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 59.177.9.105 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you are now going to self-revert your last change and repair the broken cites? - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

done! Good night :) 59.177.9.105 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

MLA from NewDelhi costituency. Pirahana (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As the template indicates, please state your request in a specific actionable manner.

• Please remove "Yadda yadda yadda" because ....
• Please change "X" to "Y" because ...
• Please add "ZZZZ" after _____ because... and here is the source URL.

As it stands it is completely unclear what you want to have happen in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

/*Controversy */

The Biography would be neutral only with the controversy around his resignation. I tried to be neutral with his version also included. I dont know why it is trivial unless you want to project only one side of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHaroonAshraf (talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that this issue has been discussed before but if it has then clearly it was not on this talk page. Firstly, we try to avoid "Controversy" sections & their associated drama. If included at all, the material should be integrated into the text concerning his time in the Revenue service. The issue is trivial because it is resolved and because what matters is that he worked for the service and then didn't - he wasn't sacked for fraud in a public office or anything like that, so the reasons for the to-ing and fro-ing are largely irrelevant. All sorts of admin cock-ups go on and they generally have no bearing on a person's career. I also thought that there were various tales doing the rounds regarding what actually happened - The Times of India, for example, is nowadays a pretty poor gossip-rag of a newspaper. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Arvind

Shouldnt the article start like this Arvind Kejriwal (born 16 August 1968) is a former Indian Revenue Service officer instead of Arvind Kejriwal (born 16 August 1968) is an Indian politician . This is because in almost all newspapers articles and his biography on AAP he is mentioned as a former IRS officer. The point that he is a politician is understood by his chief ministerial designateship . Uncletomwood (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But he is notable for being politician and now more notable for being CM of Delhi. Our leads and wordings always keep changing per the outer world. Tomorrow if he becomes first man to go to Jupiter, we will write that as the first sentence. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

This content can be added. He said he will keep the home ministry, finance, planning, vigilance, power ministries and services departments to himself. 120.56.185.237 (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Source? - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

14.98.165.218 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC) arvind

Pleasse read the instructions in the information box. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

arvind kejriwal isa marwadi.

27.62.101.83 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete intro

The introduction to this article doesn't seem to adequately explain when he became Chief Minister—it just says he is "currently" CM, which of course isn't very informative, because it doesn't say anything about how long he's been in office: "Arvind Kejriwal is the 7th and current Chief Minister of Delhi." I tried to change it to the following:

"Arvind Kejriwal is an Indian politician who has been the 7th Chief Minister of Delhi since 28 December 2013."

That seemed like a standard introductory sentence that provides the most important facts, but it was reverted because it was "wordy for the sake of being wordy". Huh? Well, then I tried a shorter, less "wordy" version:

"Arvind Kejriwal is the 7th Chief Minister of Delhi, in office since 2013."

But that was reverted too: "it says he is "current" & the infobox + body explains the detail". Well, yes, but then you are requiring the reader to go hunting for basic information that should be front and center (and as I explained above, "currently" isn't very informative). Besides, infoboxes are supposed to summarize; they certainly aren't supposed to replace intro text, which remains the most important part of the article. And if having such basic information in the body of the article was sufficient, why even bother having an introduction? Everyking (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes and lead sections are both supposed to summarise the body and at present they do, right at the top where they are supposed to be. Although the lead does contain some excess, outdated garbage. I've never seen anything that says an infobox is supposed to summarise the lead section but you'll be aware that the very existence of the things is a controversial issue.

The pertinent point for the lead is that he is currently the Chief Minister, which is accurate, informative and by no means a vague statement. I doubt very much that many people who read only the lead are too bothered about when he became CM if he is incumbent. The K.I.S.S. principle applies as much to Wikipedia as to real life. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't think the lead should mention whether he has been CM for a week, or for 10 years? Everyking (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Although this encyclopedia is editable almost every time, i don't think there is need of abusing that power. For January you might think the 28 Dec date looks good. But in May 2014, that date is not gonna make sense. All things are better if present in a low-maintenance way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that the duration matters while he is in office. Barring upsets, they are fixed-term elections. "Current" is, to use Dharmadhyaksha's phrase, the "low-maintenance" route. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not against mentioning the date of taking office, but the lead sentence should be clear and easy to read. The phrasing to include the date created a very inelegant sentence while not really adding any useful content presented in an NPOV manner. Other rephrasings may be able to both include more information and retain an ease of reading level and present the content in an appropriate WP:NPOV manner. I am open to suggestions of other wordings. But if you look at other heads of government like Barack Obama or David Cameron the lead sentence does not include the date of assumption of office.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I find the statements by the two users above too strange and illogical to claim that I really understand what they are saying. "No, I don't think that the duration matters while he is in office." In office for the last two days—or the last seventy-something years, like Louis XIV? It's all the same, if I am understanding this logic correctly. But apparently it is very important indeed to tell the reader that this man is the seventh CM of Delhi. That is crucial.

Needless to say, an introduction for a political office-holder needs to state when that person took office in order to establish chronological context from the outset. It isn't necessary to state a precise date, but we must at least give the year. Everyking (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead does.

The lead sentence need not; and as pointed out, the Featured Article Barack Obama does not, nor do most other articles about heads of government. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If they don't, they should; fixing people and events into their place in history is a very basic thing, something that is necessary to obtain any reasonable understanding of the subject. But anyway, forget the lead sentence: where in the lead, as a whole, is it explained when the current and seventh CM of Delhi took office? All I see is a line at the end that tells us he defeated Sheila Dikshit in her constituency in the 2013 assembly election ("by a margin of 25,864 votes"—the precise number of votes is needed, but the date I've been trying to add isn't?). That isn't the same as saying that he took office as CM of Delhi in 2013, which is what I was trying to do. Everyking (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not use the specific language that you are calling for but it is covered by " In 2012, he launched the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and defeated Sheila Dixit in the 2013 Delhi Legislative Assembly election by a margin of 25,864 votes.[1]" If you think more specific language is required, it can certainly be entered there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you ignore what I wrote? Surely you can see that defeating Dikshit in her constituency is absolutely not the same as taking office as CM of Delhi. The office is not a prize awarded to whoever wins a certain constituency, and even if it was, that would need to be explained. Everyking (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The number of votes isn't needed in the lead & I did remove it once, IIRC. That he is seventh also is not needed, at least from my UK perspective, but it seems to be "real life" common in the US and in India to refer to the ordinal for presidents, governors etc even though it is rare for UK prime ministers. There is quite a lot that isn't needed in the article as a whole but if you'd been around Indian articles for a while then you'll know this: they tend to fill up with cruft as and when someone is in the news, for example. You'd also know that, in this sphere, as soon as you start putting dates in lead sections, they get fiddled with: we have a lot of contributors from India etc who simply do not care about WP:RS and, deliberately or otherwise, tinker with dates. More commonly, birthdates but anything goes ...

Kejriwal is a controversial guy and this article has been subject to a lot of puffery and a fair amount of backlash: the simpler we can keep it, the easier it will be to maintain. Please bear in mind that we're chronically short of experienced people willing to engage in this subject area and those that are willing are spread thinly. There are more important things to worry about than gnoming about numbers in lead sections. Nothing wrong with gnomes, of course, but in the scale of things ... - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You didn't address anything I said. Please address the point I raised in my two preceding comments. Everyking (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

)

I'm not sure who it is you mean when you say "you" above but consider the KISS principle, which is what I was trying to explain. You are, I think, an admin, Everyking. You should know better than to keep inserting stuff without consensus. My point may seem minor to you but it really, really is not. That I had not come across you before this last week strongly suggests that you have little experience of articles related to India and of the often unusual problems that face them. They have been the graveyard of many a contributor and of many a well-intentioned admin. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have edited India-related articles for many years. Please address the point I raised above. Everyking (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed it. now stop being a dick and follow our standard procedures. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you address it? I must have missed it. Everyking (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns regarding ordinals, number of votes etc and pointed out the maintenance issue that really is significant to such articles. I addressed the currency being of more import than a specific date. I addressed various other things. Have you seen how many times this page has had to be semi-protected of late? You may want to read from the top. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the information isn't mentioned anywhere in the intro, and I've been reverted every time I've tried to add it.Everyking (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So lets just remove all fullstops and add semicolons so everything is in intro. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a serious proposal on how to incorporate this information into the intro? Everyking (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not getting us. We wont have any serious proposal to incorporate "this" (i.e. date) info as we don't think its best over there. Also, you have not convinced us yet on why the oath-taking-date is really important for first line. Its mentioned in the infobox, which technically is part of lead and is also there in the section below. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to be in the first line. I think the first line would be best, but it's fine with me as long as it's mentioned somewhere in the intro. Could you accept adding a line to the end of the intro, after the part where it says he defeated Dikshit in her constituency: "he took office as CM on 28 December 2013"? Everyking (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well? It's been several days. Does anyone have anything to say about my proposal? Everyking (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that no one has anything else to say. However, whenever I attempt to edit the article, I am reverted by User:Sitush. I ask that Sitush at least engage in discussion if he is going to revert. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like discussion is over. I don't see where you have a consensus for your changes (BTW, it also overlinked)--that no one else says anything more probably means there is nothing more to say. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No one has even responded to my last proposal. If nobody is going to even address it, then I don't see why I shouldn't just go ahead and make the change. If someone then disagrees, then they can revert and maybe we can get a discussion going. Everyking (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sitush and Dharmadhakshya that we don't need this extra detail in the intro. I'd also suggest that it's not worth worrying too much about and I trust we can all find better uses for our energies. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like something worth worrying about. I reviewed the articles for most of the other chief ministers of Indian states, as well as the President of India and the Prime Minister, and in every single case the introductions mention the year the person took office. This is also the case with virtually any reasonably well constructed article on other national or subnational leaders. Why in the world should this article be the exception? Everyking (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the sentence, since no one else seems interested in talking about it. Hopefully this will pass without further disagreement and we can move on. Everyking (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Everyking seems to be fighting a lone battle here, I'd just like to say I support their latest addition. Adding the date that he took office seems entirely appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Non controversies section for such a controversial person

It is surprising that none of the controversies he has been involved in, are mentioned, nor are they allowed if people tried (apparently)?

If Ford Foundation a matching donor to Wikipedia also just like Kejriwal's Kabeer? In that case, we understand a la NPOV wikipedia style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.56.67.178 (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Anarchism

Anarchism is a political ideology and he himself said he is an anarchist. Discuss in talk before reverting.--atnair (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. Arvind Kejriwal does not advocate the ideology of Anarchism. --Rahul (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• kejrival himself described as an anarchist. Discuss before reverting any edits. atnair (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Did you read WP:BLP and WP:BRD. Your bold edits have been reverted, discuss. What you are adding is a contentious information about a living person. You need to establish consensus. --Rahul (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

We need to highlight the number of times he has promised something or taken a stand and a few days later, done exactly the opposite - what we call as U-turns in desi language. More information on - http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/know-arvind-kejriwal-s-six-u-turns-32451.html

There needs to be a new section describing the above.

Wikiscriptwriter (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah! You start making a table of it and then we will take it to featured lists section on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to be a PR whitewash for the subject. There are numerous news reports about controversies involving him, most recent about his support for khap panchayats. I son't want to create a new subsection for this without consensus, I know I'm gonna be reverted immediately. Till then, I'm adding an NPOV tag to this page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should tag the article just because you anticipate a dispute. --Rahul (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's potentially a fair allegation. The thing is, you should try to find some sources soon. Even if you don't have time to make the edits yourself, you should find some leads that other editors can then use. If you just leave it at this, it will get removed pretty soon, as a case of drive by tagging. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I put the tag rather than inserting a source myself. I know it'll get reverted. This is a hot topic currently and there are people who are watching it for the most minor of changes. Here are a few leads you can start with: One More importantly, two Also, Rahul Jain, I do not anticipate a dispute. I've put this here because the article seems lopsided in it's existing form. --05:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how is the article not neutral as of current? Do you think that information about his tweet and his support for khap panchayats would make it neutral? --Rahul (talk)

The current write up looks like an essay written as an answer to 'Explain Arvind Kejriwal's achievements in a Wiki article.'. As said earlier, PR whitewashing has been done here. The article does not conform well to WP:BLP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Either come up with something constructive or remove the tag, please. "I know it'll get reverted" is not a justification for tagging. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I said, I would like consensus before adding. Isn't that how Wikipedia works? Or is it, put it up, and if someone doesn't like it, revert? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but you need to explain what you want consensus for. "A few leads you can start with" doesn't cut the mustard: it isyou who needs to propose, not others. Yes, this article has suffered dreadfully from POV in the past but it is actually fairly neutral at the moment (as in, far less glorifying than once it was). If you want to muckrake - and I'm pretty sure that muck is out there - then feel free to propose something. But I'll pre-empt by asking that we do not have a Controversy section, please: they are deprecated, they attract pov-pushers and vandals, and they tend to cause quite serious weighting issues. Whatever is said needs to be said within the general flow of the article, not as a coatrack section. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And, yes, you got reverted by me. I've no idea how best to treat the khap thing but, as I said above, a Cobntroversy section is not the way to do it. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The solution in this case would see to be simply to remove the "Controversy" heading and let it form a part of the "Chief Minister" section, which will grow in time anyway. In addition, we need to explain why his opinion has upset some people, ie: they thought he had a social equality agenda and that the agenda included dealing with issues relating to women. How does that sound (I've self-reverted for now). - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

More: the source doesn't even say that it has caused controversy - it says that it is "likely" to do so. Nor does it explain how KPs fall foul of corruption (AK's actual agenda). - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Kejriwal's stand on khap panchayat and the workings of Delhi government really relevant to this article? As far as I am concerned, the working's of Delhi government (which project do they take and which they abandon) is completely irrelevant. We can, however, add the information about his indication of support for khap panchayat under the "Political career", if that somehow makes this article neutral. --Rahul (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, his support for khap panchayat seem irrelevant too. --Rahul (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how is it a controversy. I see WP:SYNTH here. {{npov}} tag should immediately be removed. I guess, better if we do !vote. AnupMehra ^✈ 09:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the {{npov}} tag. There is no point on having a discussion whether a tag is needed or not. Efforts should be in the direction of improving the article. Till now, Rsrikanth05 has not even explained how the article is not neutral. He has merely asserted that it is POV-biased. --Rahul (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And I give up. Every effort to both discuss or improve this thing is going to waste because there are POV pushers around here. I'm going to refrain from editing this article, unless there is blatant vandalism [thru Stiki/Huggle] and will refrain fro editing pages which are being editing by the same POV pushers. Have a good day. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the plagiarism accusation re: Swaraj? I see no reason why we cannot have a sentence about that. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like many supporters watching this page! There should be a "Controversy" section citing Delhi Dharna for stupid reasons, his silly comment on constitution for the same, and other controversies. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ansuman: Really? Stupid reasons? Source please! And WP:NOR as well. AnupMehra ^✈ 18:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

no, we should not have a "controversy section " WP:CRITS as they are almost guaranteed to violate WP:NPOV in WP:UNDUE and/or WP:STRUCTURE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of the "I am anarchist" remark by Kejriwal which created big controversy and prominently covered by media. Also criticism of his dharna against police personals, protecting his controversial minister Somnath Bharti, resorting to unconstitutional ways to pass Janlokpal and resigning on the pretext of not able to pass it, just to prepare for Loksabha elections(as alleged by rival political parties and media) are not at all mentioned in this article!! Is this an article published by PR agencies of Kejriwal?? 210.212.144.133 (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Classic, Source please! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Resignation

There are all sorts of stories going round the media at the moment regarding his "resignation". Some are saying that he has resigned, some are saying that he has said he will resign, some are saying other things. I think that we need to hold off for a few hours: we're not a news website and the detail appears to be in flux. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources available now. Following availability of reliable sources, a little expansion has been made in the chief minister sub-section.

Declaration: One thing unrelated to the article, I wrote an edit summary, I'm boldly adding one more line and three reliable sources. I'm not sure how this changed to I'm reliable sources. I apologize for this unexpected error. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• He resigning ≠ Governor accepting his resignation. Let the governor accept the resignation and he be officially revealed of his duties. Till then, he is the CM of Delhi. He might still be in office until the next CM comes up. (I actually won't be aghast if he himself comes back to his seat after some melodrama.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. He won't be in the office till the next CM is elected. It'd be the Governor rule in the state till then. And the source says, Arvind Kejriwal quits as Delhi CM. He is no more a chief minister. Not saying he was a chief minister would be an OR. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

On 3rd April, ShrikantV has reverted the edit done in the section Resignation without giving appropriate reasons. Whether the content about standoff between Lt Governor and Arvind was questionable due to any reason? It was authentic and neutral in my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntrikha (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2014

on 14 February 2014 when the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Parties blocked anti corruption legislation he had proposed because the way he was trying to table the legislation was unconstitutional. Rajiv ncstian (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Source please. And please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Political Party

Post the IAC movement, Arvind formed the Aam Aadmi Party in November 2012. He was joined by Manish Sisodia, Prashant Bhushan, Gopal Rai, Kumar Viswas & Shazia ilmi, his colleagues from IAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.163.106 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Name of children

My edits while adding name of his children are being reverted. Being a very notable politician in India, though the children are not notable by themselves they should definitely be mentioned in the biography. User TheRedPenOfDoom commented "non notable children, no need for personal information" hence i would like a general consensus on the matter.dhiv talk 13:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and minors do not loose their right to privacy because their father is famous

There is no need nor encyclopedic value in divulging personal information about Kejriwal's non notable minor children. We can and should acknowledge Kejriwal's being a father, but we can and should do so in a way that respects the privacy of his non notable children who do not give up their rights because their father happens to be famous. WP:BLP . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with WP:NOTINHERITED but in this case, one is not trying establish notability of Kejriwal's children. One is not writing an article about his children. Hence Notinherited voids here. Coming to the point, the point is the inclusion of his children name into father's article. In regarding to this, I'd say I've encountered with several other articles where children find their mention into their father/mother's article. And I'm eager to see a valid reason against inclusion of children name into Kejriwal article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anupmehra. I was close to losing my temper due to the disruptive edits and reverts of TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom.dhiv talk 16:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Diwan07: No matter whatever happens, you are requested to assume good faith and practice civility. If you have a problem with any editor, forward your concerns at WP:ANI. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason is BLP: they are non notable minors, the inclusion of their personal information adds nothing about the subject of the article. the reason given for including them was " the children of prominent politician are worthy of mention" an position based on the criteria people related to famous people should be treated differently WP:NOTINHERITED clearly says: No, we dont treat relatives of famous people differently just because their relative is famous. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't do it, it is as simple as that. Unless perhaps they are indeed notable in their own right (eg: a child actor). Just because some articles do ignore the policy is not an excuse for us to do so here. To be honest, naming them is breathless, gossip-rag trivia anyway. - Sitush (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED implies that we cannot create a seperate article on Kejriwal's children as they do not inherit notability of their parents. However, i only added their names which is WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PERSONAL LIFE of a very notable subject.
@Sitush: by your argument is any personal information about a notable subject is 'breathless, gossip-rag trivia'?? Should we go ahead and remove the personal information section from all articles?
@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: The reference to minors in WP:NOTINHERITED refers to CREATING ARTICLES ABOUT MINORS based on the criterion that they meet notability standards because of press coverage. Your argument is invalid as i am only including the names of the children and their age. This information does not make this article worse in anyway, therefore before reverting my edit please get a consensus before engaging in a revert war.
dhiv talk 07:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• You may mention the subject has 3 sons and 4 daughters or whatever. If any of those are notable enough to have their own article, then you may mention their names. In other cases where the child is not really notable of having their own article, but is still discussed with name in multiple sources, you may mention name. (Like maybe the child is also entering college politics or is active in youth morchas or has crashed his car while being doped and drunk or has acted in a way thats anti-parent's-propaganda, etc etc... I guess you got it.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:BLPNAME - "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.""(emphasis added).

The fact that Kejriwal has children is relevant to a complete encyclopedia article on him. The children's names are not relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject, and should be omitted. Euryalus (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Euryalus I beg to differ. Please consider that Kejriwal is making waves in India for his anti-corruption activism. Half of the population is praising him as a revolutionary, while the rest call his actions a publicity stunt. Nonetheless everyone wants to know what he has to say and wikipedia is the first source they turn to. I feel that from the reader's point of view, the name and age of Kejriwal's children are quite relevant to the reader's understanding of the subject. A biography serves to provide facts about the subject the reader would like to know and I'm sure you'll agree that the issue at hand falls into the aforementioned category.
dhiv talk 11:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the courteous reply but no, alas, I don't agree. The name and age of Kejriwal's children has no impact on his anti-corruption activities or the public view of them. Would his activities be any different if his children had slightly different names or ages? BLPNAME exists to protect the privacy of non-public figures whose only brush with fame is to be related to or closely associated with public figures. These are also minors, for whom there is understandably an even greater degree of privacy concern. There remains no good editorial reason to include their names in this article, and good reasons per the BLP policy and their age, to exclude this detail. Euryalus (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Diwan07, it is Kejriwal who is "making waves" etc, not his young children. We should not highlight them when their situation is nothing more than a biological connection. That they are related to him is not something that is in their control and we do not visit the sins (or whatever) of the father on the children. Would you like it if, say, you were a young child, your father was accused of some heinous crime and your name was mentioned even though you had no involvement?

I think that if you wish to pursue this further then you should take it up at WP:BLPN, although I don't think you will get much satisfaction from it. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time, I'm new to wikipedia and I just got frustrated when TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom kept reverting my edits without bringing it up in the talk page. I'll try floating the issue at WP:BLPN, I was under the impression that WP:NOTINHERITED did not apply to siblings/family of politicians as they were displayed in all featured articles of politicians even though they were not notable enough to have a page for themselves. Nonetheless, thanks again :)
dhiv talk 12:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP

WP:BLP applies to all living people in all articles. You cannot name people listed on the "most corrupt list" in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting edits on whole, improving my edits is much appreciated. REVERTING the whole edit is not! The material i added was properly sourced and had a neutral point of view. It was a fact that kejriwal accused other politicians and formed a list, what's your problem??
dhiv talk 12:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

my "problem" is your edits are listing the names of living people and calling them "most corrupt" in complete violation of our policy about content regarding living people. In addition, their names are completely irrelevant to the subject of this article and so the content is merely part of a crusade. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the entire subsection again. It is just part of the back-and-forth banter of Indian politics and I see no reason to highlight Kejriwal's opinion - he's not independent and he is making scurrilous charges that may indeed libel someone. While the Indian media may feel on safe ground mentioning this stuff, I see no reason why we should follow them into the gutter. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If the Chief Minister accusing the top politicians of the Indian government is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, I don't know what is. dhiv talk 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If the ex-Chief Minister has evidence to support such accusations then he should take the matter up with the law enforcement authorities. Then we might have something of note here. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I also believe "wait and see" is a good practice. It just seems like political grandstanding at this point. I would also consider inclusion in a generic sense without names if the party does in fact field candidates in those elections and after election day the political analysts comment on how effective (or not) the "list" was in getting those candidates elected (or in shaming those on the list from running - hahahahaha!)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Net worth

Why does Kejriwal's declared net worth matter? I removed it here. I understand that this information has to be filed by election candidates but (a) we know that there are often allegations of misdeclaration and (b) there is no context regarding the significance of the information here. Do the figures makes him exceptional in some way, for example? - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would you revert an edit without a reason? Please explain how the facts that i added and cited made the article worse. You have no right to revert edits without proper reasons just because you feel it shouldn't be included in an article. Upon proper justification of your revert, I'll remove the content myself, thank you. dhiv talk 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My rationale is there, right above your reply. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

KEEP - The data i added was under personal. "Do the figures makes him exceptional in some way"? I'm afraid that I don't get your point of view. Did the information added by me make the article worse in any way? It's a fact and it is cited. It gives the reader a better understanding of the subject. Nobody questioned Kejriwal's net worth and proved it otherwise so for all intents and purposes it's true. dhiv talk 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't usually include trivia in articles. I'm not sure if you are aware of the nature of balance sheets but that is effectively what these statements of assets amount to. They are a snapshot of finances as they were on one particular day and they are very easily manipulated because of that. I'm not saying that Kejriwal has manipulated anything but I'm sure you are aware that it is not uncommon for it to be done. Can you provide any examples of articles relating to other major politicians for whom we have provided similar information? - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

List of heads of state and government by net worth, Barak Obama whose article is a featured article. So I assume it's safe to add this information now?. Trivial it might seem to you, I'm sure the reader of this biography would be interested in knowing how much Kejriwal's net worth is. Just because this information was not featured in the pages of other Indian politicians doesnt make it unworthy of inclusion. dhiv talk 03:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

ps- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwan07 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi as well, I'll go ahead with my edit then. dhiv talk 17:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some examples. That should help people in deciding the consensus here. Until that consensus is clear, I'm reverting you per WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to mention his Net Worth and all that,Why we should mention his wife assets here? She is his wife but she is a different entity and what she owns,earns has nothing to do with this Bio,that's just an election commission procedure and that's why he mentioned it.I don't think there is any reason to mention that he owns a plot in Indirapuram,it isn't Buckingham Palace that it should be included here it's just a sub-locality,Bank Balance changes every day and there will be no track record of it,there is a huge difference between Barack Obama's Net Worth mentioned in his bio and this bio,in his case his Net Worth is being tracked regularly whereas in this case we will have to rely on a election commission record that will be outdated and it will not improve the quality of article in the long term as we will have no record for it. Janmejai (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We would have to say something along the lines of "Kejriwal declared on dd/mm/yyyy that he had assets of x rupees". His wife's declaration is indeed irrelevant to us, although I would imagine that the ECI demand it because pooling would eliminate manipulation of worth by asset transfers between spouses (it wouldn't stop them transferring to anyone else, though, and of course there have been past scandals involving such situations). - Sitush (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I find introduction of net worth to this article (in personal life section), irrelevant. It could be added in the infobox, if necessary. But I would like to know the way it makes the present article better. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer the articles i mentioned above. The net worth is usually mentioned in the personal section. It makes the present article better because any reader esp. from India would be interested to know how much assets Kejriwal declared. dhiv talk 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The other articles are useful as an indicator of what goes on elsewhere but the choices made there are not binding here. There are, of course, many more articles about politicians that do not show this information. If any reader would be interested in the figure given on a specific day then I would expect to see it widely and frequently mentioned in news sources, which to the best of my knowledge is not the case. Has there been any debate or challenge to the figures provided by Kejriwal? Does his financial status have any bearing on election funding? - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the figures provided by Kejriwal have not been contested in a large scale. This cannot be said for all politicians however, so as of now Kejriwal's net worth is considered to be accurate. I'm not sure how his financial status is relevant to the election funding but adding the net worth filed by the politicians would throw some light when the reader is searching for the integrity of the subject perhaps. - dhiv talk 08:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Net worth declared once in every five years does have nothing to do with integrity of the article. And when you point some one to tons of related articles consisting a little partially similar contents as a reason to include the same in some other article, then I wonder if you would like to visit, WP:OSE. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep - readers would be interested in knowing how much Kejriwal's net worth is?-- . Shlok _{talk .} 06:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel, it'll be outdated data soon and that would be for ever once included. Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This article casts doubts on the declared asset values by Kejriwal: http://www.niticentral.com/2014/03/20/case-of-perjury-and-fraud-against-arvind-kejriwal-201561.html --RaviC (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the titles of the blue links leading to other articles scattered throughout the article I'm not sure this can be considered a WP:RS for a WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't seem like a real RS (so I haven't added it into the article). But it does cast doubt on what is declared by Kejriwal. I'm sure more media outlets will write about this. --RaviC (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dates of civil services

His bbc profile (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-19796991) says that he entered the Indian civil services as a revenue officer in 1992, but the article that is currently cited says he joined the IRS in 1995. Are these the same? Is one of these dates incorrect?Fantumphool (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times of India also says 1995 - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/All-you-want-to-know-about-Arvind-Kejriwal/articleshow/27835465.cmsFantumphool (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Run-Up to 2014 Election

Kejriwal's political career is currently in a state of flux. I don't think there's something wrong with including what is known about his career at this point in the article. So, I undid the deletion of this section.Fantumphool (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC) He has very fluctuating history regarding consistency. Before 1014 lok sabha election he had said that he will not fight the election

References

Kejriwal's resignation

The broad analyst consensus is that Kejriwal resigned to focus on the Lok Sabha campaign. You can find this in any major newspaper. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Will-AAPs-Delhi-gamble-pay-off-in-Lok-Sabha-polls/articleshow/30422948.cms and is borne out by subsequent facts. Sticking to the party line on this resignation is not neutral, nor the general analyst opinion. Puck42 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This portrays speculation and opinion as fact. See WP:SYNTH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism from sources is part of an encyclopedia article. The reasons that Kejriwal gave for his resignation are also just claims he has made and should be represented as such. Puck42 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism in BLPs is something that has to be treated with great care. I've left you a note on your talk page and I think you'd benefit from considering my suggestions therein. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What about this? "He resigned 49 days later, on 14 February 2014, stating he did so because of his government's inability to pass his proposed anti-corruption legislation due to a lack of support from other political parties." Is that what sources say? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, too. From the outset, this article has had to be monitored closely due to substantial pov-pushing from the messianic pro-AAP factions and the devilish pro-BJP one. Oddly, I've not seen much that is obviously from Congress supporters, even during the 2013 election, but I'm sure they'll turn up sometime. (I'm in the UK & am Anglo-Saxon: it matters not a jot to me). - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's really funny for someone who claims to be neutral to use epithets like "devilish" for particular groups, isn't it? It appears to matter a lot to you for some reason, given how much time you spend on the India articles. How many analyst citations from top news commentators in India do we need to show that Kejirwal's claims about his reasons resignation were not taken very seriously and that he resigned to focus on the Lok Sabha elections, which he is now contesting? This article is completely one-sided and POV in favor of Kejriwal and it would be good to have some balance, but I have no time for gang-up edit wars. The word "claim" is much more representative of the analyst view of Kejriwal's stated reasons for resignation. Puck42 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I recall the sources, that proposal works for me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NeilN. Reads good. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done by NeilN and then re-done by me after someone effectively reverted it. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ntrikha, can you please explain why you think so much detail [1] about the resignation should be in a general biography? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking claims as facts

After Kejriwal categorically stated he would not contest Lok Sabha elections, he decided to do exactly the opposite, claiming that party members persuaded him. Politicians say all kind of things to justify backtracking. However the article depicts Kejriwal's claims as fact, even when these are not verified by independent sources. The cited sources simply relay what Kejriwal claimed, not what actually happened. There is no encyclopedic justification for "Later in that month, party members persuaded him to change his mind", at best "Kejriwal later changed his mind claiming that he was persuaded by party members" Puck42 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn about how we do things here, Puck. Have you actually gone through the reading list that I gave you? Is there any reason to disbelieve what Kejriwal said, which basically reflects his own opinions anyway? No-one but Kejriwal can say how Kejriwal made a decision. I think you're clutching at straws here in your haste to denigrate anyone who is not Modi, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm completely agree with Sitush. I'm not sure what list he suggested you to look at. However I'm pretty sure, that included Neutral point of view and No original research. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

books on arivind kejriwal also written like Arvind Kejriwal : Dare to Fight by N.k bansal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.115.97.160 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014

Need to make a small edit 58.146.99.27 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read the instructions above. "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 national elections

Are we really going to count number of times a politician and election candidate is ink-colored or eggs thrown on his car during an election campaign? I'm just wondering the way these things are considered encyclopedic. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've boldly deleted the line read as, "Barely minutes after eggs were thrown at his vehicle, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal on Tuesday faced ink attack during his roadshow in Varanasi." (diff. link). In case, one is not agree, discuss it here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed some other similar content [2]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the major problems with India-related articles that deal with current events is that too many people do not understand WP:NOTNEWS and things become a parody of breathless tabloid journalism etc very quickly. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Criminal cases

Have a look at this website. There are 5 criminal cases registered against him with charge sheet in one case. He himself has mentioned in his affidavit along with the FIR nos which is available online and I believe it can be used as a first hand reference. I strongly believe that the fact that he has 5 pending cases should be added to this article. If the political activism is important enough to be mentioned, then surely the points related to criminal cases when he was in political activism should be added.

Also I strongly believe that the article will not be neutral without discussing the controversies like asking bungalows, not paying rents, etc. The article written, only depicts his good deeds but omits the controversial acts like sitting on dharna which literally caused a chaos. The Lt. Governor himself has mentioned that the introduction of the lokpal was unconstitutional, now there is no mentioning of it. However I have not added them because I want to discuss this matter before going ahead. If 2002 riots are relevant enough to be added in the Narendra Modi article, these things are also relevant, besides he himself has done it. Shriram^Talk 10:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Observation. You can go ahead with Adding a section on these controversial acts. Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of creating a controversy out of this, I am going to wait for more opinions and perhaps a discussion. Shriram^Talk 11:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Beware WP:BLP. If nothing is proven and there haven't been any substantive legal proceedings, it is probably best not to include. It is incredibly easy to file a FIR and it really amounts to no more than moaning to the police. The Modi situation is different: there were numerous high-profile, widely-discussed official investigations. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine. The BLP applies. How about bungalows, not paying rents, dharna etc? Shriram^Talk 12:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Kejriwal said that he can't leave his bungalow due to her daughter's exams, but her daughter was present in his Varanasi rally. I can prepare a draft section on this and other things about him if there is no controversy. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So let's see where this discussion goes. Shriram^Talk 12:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Who brought these charges and what is their status? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone care less where AK's daughter is or was? So she is doing exams and attended a rally - meh: it is a long-established principle that the private lives of minors associated with public figures have no place here. The problem here isn't AK, it's attempts to scrape the barrel of malignment in the cause of an election campaign. And for that people should been banned from the topic area. While it is true that I'm trying to extricate myself from Wikipedia, don't think that I won't propose such a measure if this sort of nonsense continues. You'd find yourself topic banned from all Indian politics articles, not just this one. My antennae for POV in Indian articles are pretty good and I suggest that you go fight your election campaign somewhere away from Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is why I don't waste my time on political articles till there is no consensus. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respects this was not soapboxing and I have never done that, you can check my whole edit history. Seriously, this is soapboxing. Shriram^Talk 17:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Merged entry on a specific news incident

Punya Prasun Bajpai incident, is comment of BJP required on this?

I intend to keep this incident description to the point and relevant to the biography of the person. Is there a need to keep another political party's comment on the incident involving Arvind ji about AAP? There is a separate page for AAP -- and the official response of his party AAP is already noted in the article. --Jyoti (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you keep referring to the guy as "Arvind Ji" then you are not going to get any sympathy from me because it demonstrates that you are not approaching this neutrally. The sequence is:

1. Someone leaked a tape of something that happened outside a TV interview
2. We have no idea who that was
3. The effect was to cause media comment etc regarding the relationship between Kejriwal, the person who conducted the interview and the broadcaster
4. Among those comments was one from the BJP.

Usually, I'd argue that such stuff is just the back-and-forth of political banter etc and that it has no significant encyclopedic value. However, since the BJP has alleged that its representatives are treated differently from Kejriwal - indeed, in their opinion, completely differently - it is a valid contextual point relating to the public perception of Kejriwal in relation to those who disagree with him. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will henceforth use Kejriwal. My point of view is: We can keep the allegations out of the article in wikipedia. The incident is mentioned without any bias and then the view of Kejriwal/AAP is presented so that it stays neutral. Your argument that "BJP has alleged that its representatives are treated differently from Kejriwal" should not come into picture here because that has not been mentioned in the article.

--Jyoti (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh? It is in the article, unless you've removed it again. Things may be getting slightly lost in translation but there is a subtlety about this and the reader can draw their own conclusions. The subtlety is where the leak came from and who is berating whom. For example, given the BJP claims of hostile interviewers, this entire farrago may have been engineered by them. We can't say it because there is no source but we can show the allegations contrasting the treatment of Kejriwal and BJP in interviews. Well, I think so, anyway, and right now no-one else seems to have a problem with it. If Kejriwal is receiving favourable treatment then that has to be favourable compared to X, Y or Z because the very word is a comparative. Time will tell. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't removed it. The entire allegation and counter balance is in one sentence: "The BJP reaction, expressed by Arun Jaitley, was to criticise what it called "collusive" interviews; a BJP associate, Parivar Arms, has itself been criticised for allegedly threatening hostile journalists." I am saying why to document a rival political party's allegation -- they make hundreds!

There is no mention of BJP claims of hostile interviews in this article. So there is no need to counter balance "what does not exist" (in this article).

Without the particular sentence which in my opinion does not merit inclusion in this episode the article reads like:

A video clip of off-the-record comments in which Kejriwal asks Punya Prasun Bajpai, an Aaj Tak television journalist, to "play up" sections of an interview to resonate with the population and asks him not to discuss his views on corporate business, went viral on the internet. Kejriwal expressed concern that certain lines of questioning might alienate support from middle-class voters. India Today Group, which owns Aaj Tak, said of the clip that the "entire" interview was broadcast live, without edits, and that the clip was "part of a motivated campaign to malign Aaj Tak’s reputation as an independent channel, which fearlessly broadcasts the truth”. Neither the broadcaster nor the AAP challenged the authenticity of the clip, with AAP spokesman Sanjay Singh saying "There is nothing wrong in the video. We are just trying to stress our point." --Jyoti (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh? The sources clearly says "Arun Jaitley, the leader of the BJP whose associate parivar arms have been accused of threatening “hostile” journalists, seized upon the “curious” video featuring Kejriwal." That is a mention of the "hostile" bit and it is reflected in our article. Like I said, I agree that this article is not about the BJP but we should contextualise "favourable treatment" otherwise the term (and synonyms) is meaningless. That's basic good writing style. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that citation has the sentence you quote. I was mentioning this article. The incident is presented fairly. We are depending so much on this one sentence in one news article to add another rival party's allegation. You are saying the second part of the statement is countering the favourable treatment. I am saying that one sentence itself has this allegation -- if that sentence is edited out then there is no allegation to counter in the first place! And strictly it is not an allegation of favourable treatment (from whom towards whom?), I would stick to the work that is used -- "collusive". That sentence also brings into picture a new term 'parivar arms' I do not think that is a notable term. I could find no reference to it in Google search. And the sentence under consideration qualifies it with "a BJP associate"! In summary in my opinion it would be reasonable to not include running allegation/counter-allegation of unnoticeable worth in wikipedia. --Jyoti (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The website of Telegraph India, used as a source, refers to the Sangh Parivar as 'Parivar Arms'. Its a big mistake on the part of that website, using such derogatory malicious language. And till date, they haven't rectified it.

Edit request on 2014 April 4

It's mentioned "nor the AAP challenged the authenticity of the clip". But both Mr. Kejriwal and AAP have challenged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgKd74npR-k&feature=share&t=39m3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLfeakSlEyI (though I don't know whether this is official but its points are valid)

Also it's mentioned '"play up" sections of an interview to resonate with the population'. Mr. Kejriwal requested to play up after Mr. Bajpai praised the last section. This is important. Mr. Bajpai praised the last section and then in the natural flow of conversation Mr. Kejriwal requested "ok then play it more". Also, Mr. Kejriwal didn't say "to resonate with the population".

I don't find anything controversial in that video so I suggest that its mention should be removed from the article. Mr. Kejriwal has given lot of interviews; his opinions expressed in those interviews can be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.196.219 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

NEWS

Do we really need this as per WP:NOTNEWS , really vaguely return

A video clip of off-the-record comments in which Kejriwal asks Punya Prasun Bajpai, an Aaj Tak television journalist, to "play up" sections of an interview to resonate with the population and asks him not to discuss his views on corporate business, went viral on the internet. Kejriwal expressed concern that certain lines of questioning might alienate support from middle-class voters. India Today Group, which owns Aaj Tak, said of the clip that the "entire" interview was broadcast live, without edits, and that the clip was "part of a motivated campaign to malign Aaj Tak’s reputation as an independent channel, which fearlessly broadcasts the truth”. Neither the broadcaster nor the AAP challenged the authenticity of the clip, with AAP spokesman Sanjay Singh saying "There is nothing wrong in the video. We are just trying to stress our point." The BJP reaction, expressed by Arun Jaitley, was to criticise what it called "collusive" interviews; a BJP associate, Parivar Arms, has itself been criticised for allegedly threatening hostile journalis

Shrikanthv (talk)

I disagree that it is vaguely written. If deemed necessary please edit it into a better shape. Jyoti (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

i agree that "vagueness" is not the issue- quite the contrary, it is the excessive detail and WP:UNDUE weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted TRPoD's changes for now. Perhaps it can be reduced but the changes seem to be wrong to me. It was not just The Telegraph that reported the story, nor was it that paper that used the term "collusive" (as I read it, that was a quote from the BJP). I'm really not sure how to resolve this but misrepresenting what was said is not the answer, as discussed in a thread above. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the entire paragraph removed. These claims of media bias happen in every election, and not just in India. For example, the British Labour Party claims that the BBC are biassed against them but the British Conservative Party also make that claim: basically, which ever one is not in government claims that the organisation is biassed against them. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the entire para of the incident. It is laughable that so many editors are overseeing the article and doing nothing about it. It's a total transgression of WP:BALASPS.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

7 lines about such an incident! Thats totally undue weightage I recommend that no edit of such an insignificant event that shadows over other content of the bio, be added again. Harsh (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made and explained by User:Harsh 2580. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think we must add that he got some jokes because of his "extra honesty" Yoptgyo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014

Kejriwal had spent 2 nights in Tihar Jail for defamation case of BJP President Nitin Gadkari on 21st and 22nd of May 2014. Ashish2470 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Baniya

Kejriwal ji has stated on multiple occasions that he is Baniya

• March [3]
• Dec [4]

Please add this to article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.119.114 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Those two sources seem to be referring to the same thing but have different interpretations. The problem is that baniya is commonly used as a generic word for trader etc, not just in the sense of a specific caste. Our own article - Bania (caste) - highlights some of the issues with it. We could say that he claims to come from a trading commnity (although neither he nor his father are traders) but I think the overtones of saying "Baniya caste" are potentially worrying. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not suggest to use this word for identifying with a certain caste, until unless he personally claims that he is from such and such a caste Shrikanthv (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

He is one person who has done good for everyone else and even if he did deviate from the path for his good, we all should be judgemental enough to decide he did first for others.

People usually say he took support from the congress, I say other parties who were having more seats did not even formed government. They backed out first and not AAP . He made the government with congress so that he could give you all benefits( which he gave) else those 49 days would also have been a disaster.

Secondly, people say they left government after 49 days and you all percieved as he is a BHAGODA. But his reasons were different as he told he was not able to do his work efficiently. But the media and the opposite parties has done their work and brain washed many people by making everyone say he ran away but he did not.

Thirdly, he realized his mistake and apologized for doing it as he was absolutely new to politics and so he is and has never played the games as other parties have done. Tell me which CM does that!! . Has any CM of Delhi done it before.

Next point , everyone say Kejriwal talks about how good he is as per his thoughts like not using Govt. vehicles etc. and everyone said look at the CM of Goa. Even he is the same. Please anyone tell BJP that this is Delhi and not Goa. Everything is different about Delhi and Goa.

Now, even while campaigning for lok sabha elections he was slapped in Varanasi. Now, suppose if the same would have happened to Modi, what would have been the condition of the person who slapped( He would have been murdered and thrown in a jungle). Who still do you think is better.

Also, Nitin gadhkari said that E_RICKSHAWS dont need license to be driven on roads even after knowing that it is not a safe vehicle just to win votes.You all who are reading this tell me Does BJP government has the value for someones life?? Think twice before you answer to your self.

Now, in 2014 elections they fielded Mr. Harshvardhan as their CM candidate. Even after winning with maximum seats he was fielded for Lok Sabha elections which he ultimately won to become the MP. It means BJP doesnt have faith in his own candidate that he can win for them again and everyone feared Mr. Kejriwal.

Now, we always have said we want a CM who is well qualified and people will only elect who is educated. But other parties members you know how they are. Hence, BJP has chosen a candidate that can give comparison to this issue.

HE IS ONE MAN WHO HAS TAKEN EVERYONE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NO ONE HAS DARED THE WAY HE HAS. BEATINGS, INK ETC. HE HAS TAKEN IT ALL. BUT HE IS THE MAN FOR DELHI.

Hb08121992 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015 a

The AAP won the elections overwhelmingly by capturing seats in 67 constituencies out of 70 with the runner up being the BJP who have the remaining 3 seats.This marked a historical event in the elections that thrashed the congress party who had been ruling Delhi for the past 15 years and also reduced their vote share prominently.The aap will be forming a government on 14 of the February. Rvharan (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You will first need to provide a reliably published source that supports any content claims, and then clearly make a request of "Please add X to the first paragraph in section Z" or "Please change X to Y". Also note that we are writing an encyclopedia and the content needs to be presented in an appropriately neutral tone not one full of hyperbole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015 b

official page of arvind kejriwal is given as arvindkejriwal.co.in, but in reality it isnt his official page. so please remove that. source: contact us section of that website 1.186.1.182 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I took action based upon being cautious under BLP and have also requested a review of my action at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Verification_of_website_at_Arvind_Kejriwal. If anyone is able to verify the authenticity of this site or another site, please feel free to add. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The website under question is surely unofficial, BUT the content is reliable. -- Anand2202 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015

The current article lede states "He garnered a thumping majority in the Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015 and is poised to become the Chief Minister of Delhi for a second term." This is rather unencyclopaedic language (and overly vague to boot.) I suggest something instead such as "As his Aam Aadmi Party won 67 out of 70 seats in the Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015, Kejriwal is expected to be sworn in again as Delhi Chief Minister on February 14." 66.180.183.101 (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

Removed "He showed great interest in acting and participated in some events in his college time. In fact, he was inspired from Aamir Khan and loved comedy movies." Reference was www.trendingonindia.com, not reliable reference for making this huge claim. I could not understand that how/where he was inspired by Aamir Khan too. Fundarise (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal life to be shifted up.Mayank.94 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain the reason for this. Personal life para is at the end, by convention on every BLP. Harsh (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

the current article says "He was reinstated as the Chief Minister for the second term...." as he was dismissed and reinstated when he resigned and won the re-election, so it should be "He sworn-in as the chief minister for the second term after ......." 202.94.70.56 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done -Thank you for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC

Horse trading Accusations

hi why not include a topic on horse trading ? I have seen controversy section on various politicians and the references were all media links . why there is no controversy section on arvind kejriwal even if he had indulged in several controversy know and accused by his founding party members ?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Horse-trading-allegations-AAP-says-nothing-illegal-in-contacting-Cong-MLAs/articleshow/46531869.cms

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/political-realignment-not-horse-trading-says-stung-aap-745966

this page looks like the only honest page in wikipedia .ha ha common editors why you guys are bringing your aaptard ideology in editing wiki ?

why no section is mentioned on controversies ? there are like thousands of them now . looks like aap is paying you guys money . if this thing continues i will probably write to higher authorities . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.38.200.66 (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

removal of sourced information

Please discuss here before removing sourced content here, was really AK not a joint commissioner ? , then why did previous sources claim so ? Shrikanthv (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently he was:

• delhi.gov.in, About Our Honorable Chief Minister: "A social activist, political reformer and a former Joint Commissioner in the Income Tax department, Mr Kejriwal is known for his commitment towards the Right to Information and struggle for the anti-corruption Lokpal."
• Arvind Mohan Dwivedi, Rajneesh Roshan (2014), Magnetic Personality : Arvind Kejriwal, Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Early life - reason for opting to study engineering

The second paragraph of the 'Early Life' section begins with - "Kejriwal's grandfather was pleased when he considered training for a medical career but Kejriwal eventually opted to study engineering because there were far more student places available." This claim is not supported by the reference that follows. In any case, I don't even see the need of including this line at all in the article. This is a bit more detail than warranted here. -Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Queries

1. Where is the section about criticism I saw last time? Deleting such a section, is that act even neutral?
2. Why is this talk page not using any archive bot? See the huge length of ancient comments! -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not encouraged. See WP:CSECTION. If Kejriwal has been criticized about his role in IAC, the relevant content should be included in the section on IAC. If Kejriwal has been criticized as a CM, it should be included in the section on his CM tenure, and so on. utcursch | talk 23:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the JNU row, do we note how sedition charges are rolling up to politicians, including Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

should personal and intimate details like "Kejriwal is a diabetic" be included in wikipedia. (42.106.30.58 (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018

A better picture of Arvind Kejriwal should be displayed. This is a deliberate caricature Mayur72 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - I don't see anything wrong with the picture, and you have not provided a COPYRIGHT FREE alternative image - NOT one you have copied from a website or publication - Arjayay (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done, Image now replaced with picture with better expressions. Mayur72, thanks for sharing your concerns on the talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Parts of the article look like it was written by a BJP activist.

In the second term 1/3 of the content is about a tweet and a statement about Uri attack and no other work of the delhi government or Kejriwal is mentioned.

No Mohalla Clinics. Nothing else. I am not saying article has to filled with adulation but there is no mention of any of things in the section devoted to second term.

Dalai Lama and Kejriwal launched happiness programs in schools which were praised internationally.

There have been a lot of notable, third-party coverage of Mohalla Clinincs as well.

"Mohhala Clincs" = Locality Clinics a program that has been centerpiece of Kejriwal's second term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.76.110 (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have added Mohalla Clinics into the article. you can post here on this talk page the content that you want to add into the article with edit request template as shown above. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

103.209.143.254 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Aravind Kejriwal to take oath as the chief Minister for the 3rd time.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)