Talk:Rahul Gandhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Removal

Much of this talk page has been [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Hornplease 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up/Weasels

I have added the two tags- in particular, the article really needs a fairly extensive rewrite in order to improve the English and get the meaning across more appropriately. There are some instances of weasels in there also- particularly edits like 'For reasons that are open to speculation, there have never been an effort to refute this from the Congress Party or from his family.'; speculation by whom? What kind of speculation? I don't know nearly enough about the subject to resolve these issues. Badgerpatrol 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Part of this talkpage has been removed per WP:BLP; see diff [1]. Hornplease 04:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really give much credit to the allegations, but now that Rahul Gandhi has responded with a libel case and HU forums has been shut down, this whole affair deserves some mention. --SohanDsouza 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the part on WP:BLP at the top of the page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."--SohanDsouza 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Hopefully someone with more time/energy will mention, accurately and in the spirit of WP:BLP, recent controversies surrounding the subject of this article that refer to what some others have mentioned above. [[2]], [[3]] Rubber soul 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

I think that while there has been much notable criticism of this particular individual and his prominence in Indian politics, the particular insertion of a single isolated quote from a non-notable individual is clear POV-pushing, in an attempt to link the subject of this article with the linkfarm that is the Anti-Hindu article. If other individuals can be found repeating the allegation - which is really has no informative content, and is merely an expression of contempt - I will of course revise my suspicions. Till then, it seems undue weight given to a minortity opinion. Hornplease 04:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He is quite a notable figure, selective BLP "policing" is irrelevant here. The quote in fact did not link to the article. You lie once, then you lie more to cover up the lies you already lied about. The opinion by Malhotra, former head of the Janata Party, BJP Parlimentary spokesman, Deputy leader in Lok Sabha, chief whip etc. One doesnt need to be a Singh, Advani, Jaitley, or Modi to be notable. There are plenty of notable figures.Bakaman 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read BLP. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this allegation is notable - in that it caused a furore, was widely reported, was hotly denied, had any impact at all; that it is well-documented in multiple published sources, and that it does not represent the views of a tiny minority. You have not demonstrated any of that, unlike I tend to do if I wish to add unpleasant material. Hornplease 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, please indicate what you mean by 'selective'? Are there any articles you wish to direct my attention to?Hornplease 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's merely a sampling, taken from a 5 second google search that you were obviously too scared to execute sify, the tribune, dna India. It is well documented in multiple reliable sources and henceforth and attempts to whitewash this legitimate criticism will be counted as vandalism, a fairly charitable description of your edits vis a vis Hinduism related pages.Bakaman 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And how have you demonstrated it does not represent the views of a tiny minority, viz. this Malhotra person? You must admit, it is a little insane. Hornplease 08:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and do be silent about 'vandalism'. Until you discover what a reliable source is, presumably when sitting under an apple tree and being hit on the head by the Encylopaedia Britannica, you had best not accuse people policing the degeneration of this resource of vandalism. Hornplease 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have provided multiple mainstream links (its on every major newspaper in India). Your analogy is impotent and ridiculous, and I note that I dont need TerryJ-Ho's acolyte to lecture me about anything.Bakaman 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Multiple accusations, not multiple repetitions of the same accusation. Do try to keep up, my dear chap, you slow us all down so much.
Who the hell is Terry-j-ho?
Do you even know what acolyte means? Hornplease 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you are unable to read
“ The Bharatiya Janata Party on Tuesday expressed outrage over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's remarks ”

[4]. Since english is my first language I am aware that an acolyte is a devoted follower, and you are a devoted follower of terryjho, BhaiSaab and company. Bakaman 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite able to read that. The reference is to what that particular leader said, again, as a simple perusal of the article - an approach I have been recommending to you for months! - would indicate. BLP requires multiple accusations from notable figures to be reported in order to qualify for an article of someone who receives this much press - a figure this public.
I am pleased to discover that English is your first language. However, the lack of willingness to read and hastiness with citations are far greater impediments than any language barrier.
I am not sure why I am detailed as a detailed follower of a bunch of banned, disruptive users. Unlike you, I satisfy none of the requirements for tendentiousness. Also, I have no sympathy for their POV, or POV-pushers in general. At least you have that in common with them, as well as with Kelkar, whom I notice I am not a follower of. Hornplease 09:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It has been covered in multiple news sources. Anything related to babri in dozens of mainstream newspapers is notable. Vijay Kumar Malhotra is notable, being in rank similar to a Union_Minister. The criticism is notable, and it was documented in a dispassionate, verbatim manner.Bakaman 01:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No. It is a single statement made by a party functionary. We have a threshold for inclusion in articles, and every negative statement made about a major public figure simply does not cut it. As I said, multiple accusations from notable figures to be reported in order to qualify for an article of someone who receives this much press - a figure this public. Please stop re-adding this material. you have been reprimanded for edit warring just recently. Hornplease 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The Samajwadi parties and the Left Front also used the same moniker. People have called him anti-Muslim as well (same TOI link). Gandhi seems to be a magnet for controversy. It really isnt my fault your views on Gandhi do not resonate with a large section of the major political figures in India.Bakaman 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinions on the man, merely asked for an additional reference. If you wish to add the TOI article, do so, with the entire quote. Hornplease 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo anyone?

Can someone upload the photo from the CiC-Indian Government website? Its in the public domain according to Indian copyright law. Tri400 03:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it qualifies for PD everywhere, though. Shall check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 04:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rahul is a Christian

COngress Zindabad. Our beloved leader and future Prime Minister of India Rahul Gandhi is a Christian. What's wrong in it. Should we not express if he belongs to a minority religion. The act of reverting is communal, anti-secular and anti-congress. Jai COngress, Jai sonia....I ask explanation from you why you have reverted my edits.79.143.129.9 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted again because it was unsourced which is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Also Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda site or forum. Please refrain from posting messages such as above. Please refer to policy on conflict of interest in order to avoid biased and opinionated editing. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)