Talk:Sonia Gandhi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:45, 18 January 2008 editInder315 (talk \| contribs)169 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:40, 18 January 2008 edit undoReluctantPhilosopher (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,201 edits →Taking entire discussion for a third party opinion Next edit →
Line 123:		Line 123:
	Still you removed it.		Still you removed it.
	So let's not		So let's not
			:No surprises you have conveniently skirted the issues of your block due to sockpuppeteering and forum-shopping. It's you who needs to learn, not me. ] (]) 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:40, 18 January 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sonia Gandhi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sonia Gandhi at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

India: Politics B‑class High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.
	This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.

Slander

Inder, I'm puzzled you are asking me not to warn people who are clearly violating the rules. In case you didin't notice, the part that I criticized was removed as per WP:BLP. Amit@Talk 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take further discussion of user behavior to the user talk pages, which are the correct location for such discussion. Thanks! Relata refero 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised why the comments regarding the protests of NRIs over Sonia's address were removed? You may be a big fan of her, but that does not mean this article should be advocating Sonia. Please do not remove this article. (I am using style of ReluctantPhilosopher here) :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkulkarn (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not funny. And stop using a sockpuppet Amit@Talk 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Amit, please go to Sonia and grab a Congress ticket if not already. You have done enough praise for her in wikipedia for justifying a ticket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimic2 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandaling edits?

Somebody reverted back the POVs which I had deleted saying "to do away vandal Mimic2's damaging edits". If you think Sonia Gandhi is a sanyasi that does not mean the entire world should know that. (by that way, if she is sanyasi, she should not be MP) Please stop this. Start a blog somewhere to praise Sonia Gandhi(say her Sanyasi or Queen or Superwomen anything). Misplaced Pages is for NPOVs. I myself had added some POVs which were deleted. But I am fine with that when I realized they were my POVs and may not be the facts. Mimic2 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hindi transcription required?

From User talk:Tuncrypt#Sonia_Gandhi

Why is this unnecessary? Nishkid64 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not explain the necessity of there being a Hindi transcription first? I'll gladly rebut it. Tuncrypt (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into arguments. I'm simply asking for your reasoning. You left an ambiguous edit summary. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. My reasoning: She lacks any strong enough connection to the Hindi language to warrant a transcription of her name into it. First of all, she is of Italian origin and in that sense not foundationally connected to Hindi-speaking Uttar Pradesh, unlike her relatives Jawaharlal, Indira, Rajiv, etc. who are of Kashmiri Brahmin stock which migrated to UP some 300 years ago. Second, we can simply notice that her first name Sonia is of Italian source, and that having said that, her last name by marriage is but of Gujarati source in addition. This contrasts with her children Rahul and Priyanka, whose first names are conventionally north Indian and would warrant a Hindi transcription. Tuncrypt (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left the IPA, I think that should stay for the benefit of English-speaking readers. The Hindi, I'm ambivalent about - on the one hand I see your point, on the other hand it could be considered to be sending the same message BJP etc try to send out, that she isn't Indian enough :) Your thoughts welcomed. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken this to the article talk page because I think it warrants more discussion. She might not have connections to the Hindi language, but she is a major figure in India and I think that's enough to warrant adding the Hindi translation. I think it's useful to other Hindi speakers reading this article who might want to know the proper spelling in that language. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi contests elections in Uttar Pradesh, a state where people speak Hindi and Urdu, and other dialects such as Hindustani. She is a citizen of the Republic of India and it is not her ethnic origins that will define the use of scripts on this page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do strongly support' Hindi transcription on pages about her in all language wikipedias including here.

Mahitgar (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility

May I know who is ReluctantPhilosopher to decide which is notable and which is not? He removed some comments saying "Removed as per Notability. Please don't reinsert it again and again as its not notable)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimic2 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he is removing every comment which sounds against Sonia Gandhi. He has removed the sections like Critism, her poor performance in all elections except 2004, notice by EC. All the sections were unbiased and contained both sides (her critics and party workers as well). He is giving funny reasons like "poorly structured" which is not a valid reason to remove a section. If it is "poorly structured" as he claims, why don't he structure it? Removing the section is not the solution. Nkulkarn (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Political commentary

The section "Questions are being asked now .... all wins are due to sonia agandhi and all losses due to party memebers" and several sententces in the section "Notice by the election commision of India" read like a political commentary and have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP. I'm going to fix it; if anyone can provide any good reason why I shouldn't, do it now. Amit@Talk 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, These sections are strongly required. If this is a "political commentary" and needs to be removed as per you, then we need to remove almost 80% of the article including sections like Congress President Leader of the Opposition 2004 elections and aftermath UPA Chairperson and "her sacrifice of Prime Minister's post". She is a political leader and if her party is winning or loosing any elections, this strongly needs to be a part of article on her. "Notice by Election Commission of India" is also a significant milestone in her political career, as this is the first time an action has been taken by one of the highest constitutional party on her. This also had created differences in the party. "All wins are due to sonia agandhi and all losses due to party memebers" is not some layman's statement, but statement from party spokesperson and also was conclusion of the meeting of CWC (Congress Working Committee) which happened after Gujarat Election defeat. I hope the above explanation is enough for your question "why I shouldn't, do it now?". About your favourite statement "and have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP", I think enough discussion has been done on the wikipedia main page that no individual can decide whether something has place in wikipedia or if something violates wiki norms. NOt even admins. So definitely, you can not decide that. I respect you as one of the valuable contributors in wikipedia, and hence expect the continued co operation from you henceforth also. I hope I have clarified all the queries. Inder315 (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying is incorrect. The only problem is with the parts I mentioned in my comment above. The rest of the article is neutral and encyclopaedic. Amit@Talk 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I really do not want to continue saying same thing which I have told 1000 times. It is you who thinks "The rest of the article is neutral and encyclopaedic" and the section added by someone else is a political commentry. Fine. Thanks for the information. But your thoughts does not give you any right to delete the document. This is my last comment on this topic. Inder315 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Per WP:RFCU, Inder315 (talk · contribs) = Aslam1234 (talk · contribs) = Mimic2 (talk · contribs) = Nkulkarn (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice by Election Commission

I have removed "Notice by election commission" of India and other political commentary added by the sockpuppeteer Inder315. If absolutely necessary, a reference to it may be added in the "Criticism" section. Amit@Talk 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking entire discussion for a third party opinion

My apologies, I could not revert back the vandaling edits by some scholars. I am taking the entire matter for a third opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise, we know you were blocked for sockpuppetry, as recorded two headings above. And discuss first, THEN revert. Also, it's unfortunate you have still not desisted after being warned for forumshopping (case summary at the top of the section) before at this place at the WP:WQA board. And your block has barely expired yet. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. ReluctantPhilosopher, I am not surprised to see your response. First of all, my apology is not to you. It is for all readers to wikipedia who deserve to read neutral and unbiased information about Sonia Gandhi, one of the most powerful leaders in India. And about discussing first and then revert, it is strange who is talking about it. You had been reverting all sections earlier without any discussion. You started doing it for namesake when you were warned by some senior editors. Then, you raised a query above "I'm going to fix it; if anyone can provide any good reason why I shouldn't, do it now." I answered it in a most elaborate way. Still you removed it. And looks like in your dictionary "fixing" = "deleting". Looks like, you do not know the concepts of correcting it gramatically and all. I had to answer you personally, because you are raising personal comments against me now. I really wish to stop it. That is the reason I have taken it to a forum requesting third party opinion. If you still want to continue this, all the best. Inder315 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Still you removed it. So let's not

No surprises you have conveniently skirted the issues of your block due to sockpuppeteering and forum-shopping. It's you who needs to learn, not me. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: