Revision as of 13:12, 6 February 2015 editCalypsomusic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,100 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:08, 12 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 11) (bot |
(997 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{GA|08:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=3|oldid=669453192}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Indian English|date=June 2015}} |
|
{{GA nominee|08:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=2|subtopic=Politics and government|status=onhold|note=}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|class=B|importance=top|politics=yes|politics-importance=top|assess-date=December 2014}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top|politics=yes|politics-importance=top|history=yes|history-importance=High|assess-date=December 2014}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=top|political-parties=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|political-parties=yes|political-parties-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=15:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 2 2024}} |
|
{{Conservatism SP}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ipa|style=long}} |
|
{{Template:WikiProject Political Parties Collaboration|Month and Year=June 2010}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{dyktalk|23 July|2015|entry= ... that the ''']''' won a majority in the ], the first time any political party had done so since 1984?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Bharatiya Janata Party}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Archives |auto=short |search=yes |bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30 |units=days}} |
|
{{Archives |auto=short |search=yes |bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30 |units=days}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
Line 22: |
Line 28: |
|
|archive = Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
⚫ |
{{GOCE|date=15:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Political Position of the BJP == |
⚫ |
== Ideological position == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently it is "Right-Wing". But it should probably be "Right-Wing to Far-Right" in my opinion. Finding scholarly sources for it will certainly be a task, but I can clearly see a case for this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speeches like this by the Prime Minister who also happens to be the face of this party should render its position "Far-Right" or at the very least "Right-Wing to Far-Right" |
|
There are very, very few sources for centre-right, yet BJP trolls keep adding that in. "Right-wing" is extremely well sourced, as you can see. There are more sources for "far-right" than for "centre-right". BJP is not a liberal-conservative centre-right party, it is a Hindu nationalist party. If BJP is centre-right, then Front National and the Muslim Brotherhood must also be centre-right. BJP's platform is nationalist, populist and its advocacy of classical liberal-conservative reforms are extremely inconsistent (e.g. BJP's position on FDI in retail). |
|
|
|
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/choose-between-vote-jihad-and-ram-rajya-pm-modi-at-election-rally-5613571 ] (]) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have any reliable sources describing it as "right-wing to far-right"? ] (]) 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The BJP's paramilitary wing, the ], is already classified as far-right on its wiki page. It makes logical sense that the political party itself, if not using solely "far-right" to be classified as "right-wing to far-right". ] (]) 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::There isn't one, there is a lot. ] (]) 02:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I looked at two of the sources that Hidolo cited, both described it as "populist radical right".<sup></sup> They do not say "far right". We need to stick to what sources say. We cannot say that the source says "X", that must mean "Y". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::I know that it is sometimes said that the "radical right" are part of the far right,<sup></sup> but the people who say this may have an agenda of their own. In any case, Misplaced Pages policy ] does not allow us to combine multiple sources to support a statement that none of the sources explicitly support. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 08:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
If any party in North America or Europe supported anti-conversion laws, it would be far-right. If any party in North America or Europe supported a ban on homosexuality (]) it would be far-right. If any party in North America or Europe had close affiliations with paramilitary groups (]), it would be far right. I understand Indian cultural norms are very different from those of the West, hence why I am not advocating the "far-right" label. However, "right-wing" is appropriate and this is reflected in English language media coverage which overwhelmingly applies that label.--] (]) 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::how ever, there are a lot more. And you haven't even seen the other ones. In most far-right parties on English Misplaced Pages, they mention that it is a subset and they equate it. Please. ] (]) 12:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You gave a list of seven citations, and I checked two, which did NOT support "far right" (they supported "populist radical right"). If you have citations that explicitly support "far right", then cite just them and quote what they say.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::First, Misplaced Pages itself equates the extreme right with the radical right. See ], ], etc. Everyone accredits what I mean. What you say goes against Misplaced Pages itself. Second, here are all the quotes. |
|
|
::::::3rd one: the Indian far right, as represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) , p103. |
|
|
::::::4th one: including the ruling, far-right nativist and authoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, see Mudde, 2019) , unknown page. |
|
|
::::::5th one: The indu far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) , p158. |
|
|
::::::6th onw: upper and middle castes joined forces in the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). p107. |
|
|
::::::And the last one is a new, you can check for your own. |
|
|
::::::I can show you so much more sources if you want. ] (]) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::If you want this to proceed, you need to write a paragraph for the article on the BJP's political position. This needs to cite the kinds of sources you mention and to explain what they say. Please use ]. For your "3rd one" than because it helps the user find the right bit. |
|
|
:::::::If all you want to do is to change the infobox... that is not going to happen until there is a paragraph in the text about this. The infobox is meant to be a summary, not a replacement for the article.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 16:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I would put . And thats it. But I can't modify the article because of the blocking, if you can add it would be corteus, and I would thank you a lot. ] (]) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Hi, you forgot to put it on the infobox "right-wing to far-right". ] (]) 22:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 23:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Shouldn't it be "Right-Wing ''to'' Far-Right" instead of "Right-Wing or Far-Right" ? ] (]) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No. Some sources say "Right-Wing", whilst other says "Far-Right". It seems to be a matter of opinion which it is.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Yeah we should be weary of such changes, because in pop culture the use of word "Fascism" has already degraded to mean nothing. At least on[REDACTED] the usage should be more descriptive. ] (]) 16:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Right wing is more appropriate please don't talk about your own personal perception. ] (]) 06:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
;copied from ] |
|
: I agree with you. But the info-box is not the place to fight these wars. Why don't you add text to the article that firmly establishes that BJP is right wing, and then the info-box can reflect that. At the moment, all those citations are off-putting and they violate the current citation style of the article. ] (]) 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I want to add the following text in the "ideology and political positions" section. Obviously then in the template: |
|
|
:"The party along the history has been widely described as a ],{{sfnm|1a1=Malik|1a2=Singh|1y=1992|1pp=318–336|BBC|2012|2a1=Banerjee|2y=2005|2p=3118}}<ref>{{bulleted list|{{Cite web |last=Mogul |first=Rhea |date=2024-04-15 |title=Narendra Modi: India’s popular but controversial leader seeking a transformative third term |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/india/modi-profile-india-election-intl-hnk-dst/index.html |access-date=2024-05-19 |website=CNN |language=en}}|{{Cite news |last=Mehrotra |first=Karishma |last2=Shih |first2=Gerry |date=2024-04-20 |title=As India votes, women and the young could put Modi and BJP over the top |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/18/india-election-modi-women-youth/ |access-date=2024-05-19 |work=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}|{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2023-10-30 |title=Modi's Hindu Nationalist Agenda Is Corroding India's Democracy |url=https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/will-modi-hindu-nationalism-damage-us-india-relations/ |url-status=live |access-date=2024-05-19 |website=World Politics Review |language=en-US}}|{{Cite news |last=John |first=Satish |last2=Sood |first2=Varun |date=2014-06-18 |title=IT firms like SAP, Oracle helped Bharatiya Janata Party mount successful election campaign |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/it-firms-like-sap-oracle-helped-bharatiya-janata-party-mount-successful-election-campaign/articleshow/36728175.cms?from=mdr |access-date=2024-05-19 |work=The Economic Times |issn=0013-0389}}|{{Cite web |date=2022-02-16 |title=Hindu nationalism is a threat to Muslims and India’s status as the world's largest democracy |url=https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-02-16/india-religious-persecution |access-date=2024-05-19 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}}}</ref> but has recently been described as ], specifically is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that does not oppose democracy.<ref>{{bulleted list|{{Cite book |last=Davies |first=Peter |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Routledge_Companion_to_Fascism_and_t.html?hl=es&id=1-iXGKN1AK4C#v=onepage&q=%22Bharatiya%20Janata%20Party%22%22far-right%22&f=false |title=The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right |last2=Lynch |first2=Derek |date=2005-08-16 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-60952-9 |pages=103 |language=en}}|{{Cite book |last=Forchtner |first=Bernhard |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Visualising_far_right_environments.html?hl=es&id=ZV_dEAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Bharatiya%20Janata%20Party%22%22far-right%22&f=false |title=Visualising far-right environments: Communication and the politics of nature |date=2023-10-17 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-1-5261-6537-4 |pages=undocumented |language=en}}|{{Cite book |last=Gill |first=Martin |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Handbook_of_Security.html?hl=es&id=ZtJ2EAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Bharatiya%20Janata%20Party%22%22far-right%22&f=false |title=The Handbook of Security |date=2022-06-22 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-91735-7 |pages=158 |language=en}}|{{Cite book |last=Kullrich |first=Nina |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Skin_Colour_Politics.html?hl=es&id=chVfEAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Bharatiya%20Janata%20Party%22%22far-right%22&f=false |title=Skin Colour Politics: Whiteness and Beauty in India |date=2022-02-14 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-662-64922-0 |pages=107 |language=en}}|{{Cite journal |last=Leidig |first=Eviane |last2=Mudde |first2=Cas |date=2023-05-09 |title=Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP): The overlooked populist radical right party |url=https://benjamins.com/catalog/jlp.22134.lei |journal=Journal of Language and Politics |language=en |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=360–377 |doi=10.1075/jlp.22134.lei |issn=1569-2159}}|{{Cite journal |last=Ammassari |first=Sofia |last2=Fossati |first2=Diego |last3=McDonnell |first3=Duncan |title=Supporters of India's BJP: Distinctly Populist and Nativist |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/abs/supporters-of-indias-bjp-distinctly-populist-and-nativist/3D2C84D6F81E1F9CCDD89654B40AB6E8 |journal=Government and Opposition |language=en |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=807–823 |doi=10.1017/gov.2022.18 |issn=0017-257X}}|{{Cite web |title=Why the Far Right Rules Modi’s India |url=https://jacobin.com/2024/03/bjp-far-right-modi-india |access-date=2024-05-19 |website=jacobin.com |language=en-US}}}}</ref>" ] (]) 22:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{talk-ref}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
''moved from ]''<br> |
|
::I feel the same too. {{ping|Vanamonde93}} as major contributor, what do you feel? can you remedy this? -] (]) 15:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"The party along the history has been widely described as a right-wing party, but has recently been described as far-right, specifically it is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that does not oppose democracy." |
|
:::This particular parameter has always seemed a little strange to me, partly because it seeks to reduce a complex set of positions that are not always self-consistent to a single term, and partly because I am not a fan of the two-dimensional political spectrum. That said, I believe the infobox is a summary of the article, and as such does not need to quote from it. The body of the article contains content which shows that the BJP holds right-wing positions broadly speaking, and the sources used in the body (like DiSilvio) ''do'' in fact use the term "right-wing." IMO this is enough, and the DiSilvio source can be duplicated from the body as a source so the formatting is fixed. ] (]) 15:49, 16 October 2014 |
|
|
(UTC) |
|
|
:::It would seem I misread the references a little. DiSilvio was not one of the source I added, but a later addition (confused him with Bobbio; Italian last names, both). I will look for a better source, which I am sure may be found among those that I used when I re-wrote this. Also, upon further thought, it seems appropriate to mention the political position in the lead as well, skeptical though I may be about the term. ] (]) 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Clarification; DiSilvio was published in an undergrad journal, ergo not reliable enough. ] (]) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Interesting, yes, you better mention it both to the lead and infobox. While I posted here, someone did change it back to "centre-right" without saying why. Also, since some might try to fight over it without reading the main prose, I recommend you add citations to both those places and maybe even in-article comments. -] (]) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Good call, will do as soon as I find the time. Cheers, ] (]) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You used 14 sources for what the most generous English teacher wouldn't count as 1 full paragraph. Come on, at best it's ] and worst it's ]. Citing the Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#The Political Position of the BJP, doesn't help, reading that back and forth, it screams of pushing a specific narrative ]. |
|
== Hindu politics template == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear, I don't disagree with the general findings but just pick one or two sources, preferably academic (PhD political scientist is best) in nature so they stand up longer over time. Also, please lose the loaded phrase "radical right" unless you wanna put an Efn on it. |
|
It seems to me that if the template belongs on any page at all, it belongs here. It is true that the BJP is not officially a "Hindu" party; but the overwhelming majority of RS show that it has, at times in the past, functioned as such. Moreover, there is no conceivable way that the topic of Hindu politics is complete without the BJP, even though the BJP itself has a lot to it besides Hindutva. Finally, it is an entry in the template. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 05:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Prose in general elections list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Political position == |
|
{{ping|Ugog Nizdast}} Thanks for the CE, my friend. As for the prose in that section; I added it following . It ''is'' repetition, and I would be happy to remove it, I only inserted it to make the section better compliant with WP:EMBED. Thoughts? ] (]) 17:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it matters how the parties' positions compare to parties outside of the country, given the precedent set in ], the party's position as viewed from the perspective of people in the country is what matters more than how it sits on the international stage. Hence why the Democratic Party are listed as center-left while being to the right of most other centre-left parties in the world and particularly in Europe. Same goes for CHP in Turkey being to the right of parties like, say, ], but is still listed with the same position. ] (]) 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Oh yes, I remember that now. Hmm, I still think it's not needed but I may be interpreting EMBED wrong. Tell you what, this is something you can ask the future reviewer. -] (]) 17:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Okay, that works. ] (]) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 == |
⚫ |
{{Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/GA2}} |
|
{{edit extended-protected|Bharatiya Janata Party|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Instead of directly stating that India is being backsliding since 2014 under bjp government,it should be clearly mentioned to the readers that "according to V-dem democratic indices India is backsliding under bjp government since 2014" or else it is better to delete that line to avoid multiple baseless controversies ] (]) 05:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> — ] (]·]·]·]) 08:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sikh Violence == |
|
== GA Status == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello top contributors. The current status of this article does not meet GA status, also has got a maintenance tag. If you look at the version when it was promoted, , it was in a much better form. Please consider improving it. Let me know if any help is required. Thanks in advance.-] <sup>]</sup> 12:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
The anti-Sikh violence is utterly irrelevant to this article. They were perpetrated by the Congress, and some Congress leaders were punished for it, as they should have been, and others were not, for various dodgy reasons; but all of that has nothing to do with the BJP. The source mentions the riots, and suggests a link to the BJP. The new source simply mentions the Congress role in the sikh riots; why are they relevant here? Mentioning them here is OR of the highest order. If you want context, find a source linking those riots to the Congress, or that shows the relevance of the sikh riots to this page. Since you seem so worried about them, I have tweaked it to read "hindu-muslim" violence, thus excluding the sikh riots. ] (]) 06:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: The statement needs clarity. It implicates BJP for riots in early 1980s when we can clearly see Congress was in power and involved in riots. The first election that BJP fought was in 1984 where it won a meagre 2 seats. I have put back the clarification tag. You can propose how you want to make that clarification if you are not okay with the way I made it. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I ''have'' made a change, to address this issue. I don't see any further need for "clarification." The text now only mentions "Hindu-muslim" violence; there is no source showing INC involvement in those in that period. Moreoever, the source says "As it happened, the formation of the BJP heralded a wave of religious violence in northern and western India. There were major Hindu-Muslim riots in the Uttar Pradesh towns of Moradabad (August 1980) and Meerut (September–October 1982); in the Bihar town of Biharsharif in April–May 1981; in the Gujarat towns of Vadodara (September 1981), Godhra (October 1981) and Ahmedabad (January 1982); in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, in September 1983; and in the Maharashtra towns of Bhiwandi and Bombay in May–June 1984. In each case the riots ran on for days, with much loss of life and property, and were finally quelled only by armed force." Guha, 2007. It's pretty clear what he is saying. He says heralded, paraphrased here as "marked." What are you looking for? A statement saying "oh, but the Congress was also involved in riots?" that is irrelevant. ] (]) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You may read these biggest Hindu-Muslim riots of early 1980s: ], ] and ]. BJP is still non-existent in Mandai and Nellie after 35 years much lesser in 1980s! Yes, Congress government was reigning when these three incidents happened. Summariy saying early 1980s and implicating BJP for rioting does encompass the incidents that I mention and is clearly misleading hence a clarification is much needed. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Let me get this straight. Are you saying the source is incorrect, or are you suggesting mis-representation? The text DOES NOT say the BJP was responsible for any of these. It says the riots occurred soon after the formation of the BJP. It is necessary, because the next sentence goes on to say that the BJP actually moderated its agenda in those years. ] (]) 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Yes, I am saying same thing as you, BJP was not ''responsible'' for it. But the context and the present form suggests otherwise. I have tweaked it to remove that ambiguity, if you simply keep reverting I will have no choice but to stick the clarify tag and wait for you to come up with a middle path, I am open to suggestions. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2024 == |
|
==Nuclear policy== |
|
|
The quote from the source; "Yet the BJP chose to disregard the likely adverse consequences and departed from India's post- 1974 "nuclear option" policy, which had reserved for India the right to |
|
|
weaponize its nuclear capabilities but had not overtly declared its weapons capability. National governments of varying political persuasions had adhered to this strategy for more than two decades." Sumit Ganguly 1999. The source itself refers to it as a "policy;" nonetheless, I have reworded it to read "strategy," since it was obviously not a codified policy. ] (]) 06:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Yes, there is no such policy. Thank you. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{Edit extended-protected|Bharatiya Janata Party|answered=yes}} |
|
==Neutrality of this article is disputed== |
|
|
|
Add Anti-Communism as it's ideology ] (]) 09:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)add anti Communism as it's Ideology |
|
I have added a NPOV tag to the article. The discussion is in the GA review page. --] (]) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 11:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
Currently it is "Right-Wing". But it should probably be "Right-Wing to Far-Right" in my opinion. Finding scholarly sources for it will certainly be a task, but I can clearly see a case for this.
You used 14 sources for what the most generous English teacher wouldn't count as 1 full paragraph. Come on, at best it's WP:OVERKILL and worst it's WP:CHERRYPICKING. Citing the Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#The Political Position of the BJP, doesn't help, reading that back and forth, it screams of pushing a specific narrative WP:NPOVD.
To be clear, I don't disagree with the general findings but just pick one or two sources, preferably academic (PhD political scientist is best) in nature so they stand up longer over time. Also, please lose the loaded phrase "radical right" unless you wanna put an Efn on it.
I don't think it matters how the parties' positions compare to parties outside of the country, given the precedent set in Talk:Democratic Party (United States), the party's position as viewed from the perspective of people in the country is what matters more than how it sits on the international stage. Hence why the Democratic Party are listed as center-left while being to the right of most other centre-left parties in the world and particularly in Europe. Same goes for CHP in Turkey being to the right of parties like, say, Place Publique, but is still listed with the same position. TheTajik (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Instead of directly stating that India is being backsliding since 2014 under bjp government,it should be clearly mentioned to the readers that "according to V-dem democratic indices India is backsliding under bjp government since 2014" or else it is better to delete that line to avoid multiple baseless controversies 103.151.209.76 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello top contributors. The current status of this article does not meet GA status, also has got a maintenance tag. If you look at the version when it was promoted, here, it was in a much better form. Please consider improving it. Let me know if any help is required. Thanks in advance.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 12:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)