Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sitush (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 6 August 2013 (→Biased Edits of Sitush in violation of wikipedia rules: you need to stop the attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

India: Politics C‑class Low‑importance

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digvijaya Singh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Edits reverted: Digvijay Singh

The page on indian politician Digvijay Singh has a section titled "Controversies" where a paragraph was clearly POV pushing on a recent controversy. The original paragraph was as follows: In December 2010, Digvijay Singh facing a low ebb in his political carrer, made several comments in the Media claiming that Mumbai ATS Chief Mr.Hemanth Karkare called him hours before he was killed, talking to him about threats to his life. During the same time US Wikileaks cables disclosed the views of US Ambassador about Congress party "playing religious politics" and "crass political opportunism” in plating doubts regarding Mr.Karkare's murder by Pakistani terrorits. He is also called "Diggi Raja".

He is a future prime minister of India, If he carry on the this type politics. He is king maker. He always praise Rahul Vinchi and Sonia. He is thinking that using such type of politics, it's easy to be PM. Even i m thinking that he is more capable then Rahul And Sonia. Even he has discharges the duty as CM Of MP. So i suggest to him project himself as futuristic PM not Rahul. This clearly gives the POV of one side, and that is that of the BJP, the principal opposition party. I had edited it to a more neutral language, while still retaining the original references in full and adding new references. The aim is to give both sides of the story and not to push one POV.

New entry made by me: In December 2010, Digvijay Singh gave several interviews in the Media claiming that Mumbai ATS Chief Mr.Hemanth Karkare called him hours before he was killed, talking to him about threats to his (Karkare's) life from Hindu extremist groups. Hemant Karkare in his role as chief of the Mumbai ATS had found incriminating evidence implicating several individuals with known RSS links and was facing a barrage of attacks including from right-wing politicians like Lal Krishna Advani who publicly called Karkare a "desh-drohi" (traitor). During the same time US Wikileaks cables quoted cables sent by the US Ambassador about Congress party "playing religious politics" and "crass political opportunism” in plating doubts regarding Mr.Karkare's murder by Pakistani terrorits. . Coming on the eve of the WikiLeaks cables, this caused a lot of heat in the media. Digvijay repeated the allegations in his address to the Congress plenary session saying that the right-wing extremism of the kind perpetrated by the RSS and SIMI represented a grave threat to national unity. Equating the RSS to the Nazi's he accused the RSS of being involved in a number of terrorist strikes across the country. Further in the same speech, he demanded a CBI enquiry into the mysterious murder of Sunil Joshi, an RSS activist accused of being involved in the Ajmer dargah blasts, alleging that Joshi was murdered because "he knew too much".

Please revert the changes as I believe these may have been deleted in error.

Sign to allow for archiving. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

A couple of users seems to be intent on vandalising this page. Phrases like "DIggi Raja" were changed to "Doggy Raja" etc. Also a number of sentences on his alleged conversion to Islam which were completely unbacked by references.

One of the Users in question is "Amit Singh".

I have edited out these vandals, however I think we need to keep this page under strict watch to prevent a recurrence of this.

--Ashlonerider (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

baba ramdev ke guru kahan hain? baba ne uttrakhan ke mantri par 2crore mangne ka arop lagaya ,mantri kaun tha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.84.166 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It has bee found that some of the contributors are adding or deleting the contents to suite to their personal opinion. As per wikipedia, contents should not be biased or should not be in favor of any person, on wake of coming election, Digvijay Singh is using Misplaced Pages's credibility for his image building. he is using a bunch of editors to keep watch on page content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.117.154 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of excessive data on 'stands'

This is a biographical page but excessively data has been put which is related to the stands taken by him on different people. I hope the same should be shortened substantially--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

Make an paragraph on what he thinks of BJP. We cannot afford a separate paragraph for each BJP leader. I agree with Mohit Singh. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved to a new name

I have moved <Digvijay Singh (politician)> to <Digvijaya Singh (politician)>. Official records use his name with an extra 'a'. Check here. Additional references:

1. NDTV
2. Economic Times
3. Times of India
4. Official Personal Twitter Account.

Removed an opinion of Govindacharya

Under the section "Corruption allegations and counter-allegations" this point has been removed: In April 2013, former BJP ideologue K N Govindacharya claimed that the present BJP government of Madhya Pradesh was more corrupt than the previous Congress government (which had been headed by Digvijay Singh). Reason: Not of relevance for a wiki BLP. It does not serve any purpose for a biography. This line implies that Singh's government was corrupt but not as much as the the present government. So how does it serve the purpose for a BLP? This was a statement not for Digvijay Singh but for the present government. However if we agree to this point that it is an allegation against Digvijaya Singh, then it is a very remote and not direct allegation. For example the recent statement by the leader of opposition in Loksabha against the present UPA Government cannot be used to put a remark in the BP pages of all other Prime Ministers of India.--Intcapitol (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Corruption allegation is a serious allegation. The addition of Govindacharya's views is in keeping with WP:BLP rules because it adds balance to the article and it incorporates a view which tends to balance the corruption allegations against Digvijay and make the tone of the article more neutral in accordance with WP:BLP rules. Request you to revert the edit yourself.Soham321 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your point does not justify the reasons notified by me. There is no direct allegation against Mr. Singh here. Your point regarding maintaining the neutrality is without any merit. How does it add to the neutrality if he says that his Government was corrupt but lesser than the corrupt Government. I fail to understand the logic. - Intcapitol (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

there are definite allegations of corruption against digvijay. This is evident from the tag itself. Balance and neutrality is added to the article when we include the view of the former BJP ideologue Govindacharya because otherwise the content seems one sided. One gets the impression that there are allegations of corruption against Digvijay but not against his BJP political opponents. Soham321 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This argument does not make any sense. WP:BLP policy - Neutrality - does not mean that you compare a person with someone else and make him better. What you are suggesting is this that since his Government is lesser corrupt so he is a better person. This may rather make this view non-neutral for the latter Government if you may try to understand. This is biography of Digvijaya Singh and not of his opponents. No man of prudence will get an impression that corruption allegations are only against him and not against his opponents by reading his biography. I hope you understand. -Intcapitol (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversial contents

There are controversial contents under "Debates, disputes, and controversies "

1. Views on RSS : 2. Stand on Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal 3. Stand on Narendra Modi 4. Thackeray family controversy

Views expressed by person are his political opinion and defamatory to the targeted person/ organization. the contents and references mentioned in the section are just political allegation, not based on facts and meant to tarnish others image. this falls under WP:SELFPUB, WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:DISPUTED. on other hand this does not put the person in right light and put a tagging as disputed personality.

I'm not editing the content to stay away from allegation implied by some of the editors, involved in "edit warring". even after several warnings they are involved in counter attack.

Udbhav2504 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have edited a lot of data from this section and in a section above I had also recommended that the data be shortened and had placed a tag which still lies. I do not think that the view of a person on different persons should be placed on a biography page. Digvijaya Singh is known as a person who comments on everything. If we startd including every remark he passes it would become very difficult to keep this page as a BLP. - Mohit Singh (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree Mohit Singh, data which offends other person or organisation is just an allegation, without any concrete support or judicial verdict. this loose talk should not be the part of the page as WP:BLP, doesn't meet WP:NPOV, on other way round it puts the person in bad light. to maintain neutrality of the contents, said part should be stripped off the pages.

Udbhav2504 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate reformatting of contents by Mohit Singh. still content does not fall under WP, the controversial contents (1. Views on RSS, 2. Stand on Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal, 3. Stand on Narendra Modi, 4. Thackeray family controversy) should be removed from the page in order to maintain WP:SELFPUB, WP:CONTROVERSY policy. I suggest admin or editors should take charge. and make this page free from any controversy. if controversy is inevitable then, with due credits to Digvijay singh we have a long list of reference to add. list of controversies, list of scams and timeline of his 10 year destructive tenure as MP chief minister. which should not be part of wikipedia BLP. so before I take action and get blocked with false allegation by some of the senior editors. I prefer concerns admin or editors should do it.

Udbhav2504 (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted this at WP:BLPN, but want to post it here as well:

WP:CONTROVERSY is an essay, basically saying "be careful what is put into a Misplaced Pages article". WP:DISPUTED is a step-by-step process to deal with disputed content. WP:SELFPUB says that certain sources are of very limited (or no) use as references/citations because they are self-published (best to not use at all). None of these require WP:BLP intervention, in my opinion.

I also note that the article seems very properly sourced (with the exception of posting excerpts from the article subject's blog, then citing the blog as a source; since the editor is selecting what he/she thinks is important and what is not, this seems "original research" to me). I also note that WP:SELFPUB absolutely does not apply to statements made by the subject to, and reported by, a newspaper or other news source, provided that it's clear in the Misplaced Pages article that the statements are not of fact but of opinion.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that Misplaced Pages articles should not cover controversy; that isn't true. Nor is it true that Misplaced Pages articles should not include views (statements) that some editors feel are defamatory. What is true is that controversial information, and views that attack others, must come from a reliable source - a newspaper or magazine, for example. And, to repeat, a blog is generally not a reliable source, and it's unacceptable for Misplaced Pages editors to decide what to include from a blog and what to exclude. If you can't find a newspaper or other reliable source that has information about a particular topic, then - by definition - it's not newsworthy, and deciding to add it to a Misplaced Pages article is a violation of WP:NOR. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Battleground

This page seems to be edit battle ground, where edit war is involving 3 groups- (1) Neutral Wikipedian, (2) Digvijay Singh Supporters, and (3)Digvijay Singh Haters.

Supporters trying to put subject in only good light and remove any reference or content that may affect his next election. I assume some of the senior editors providing unofficial paid to the target and violate WP, at the same time they attack on the neutral editors. a pointer to the admins to keep watch on activities of Soham321 and Abhishek191288, as edit history suggests these editors involved in manipulating contents and reverting referenced material.

Udbhav2504 (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say around 80% of this article is undue weight and attempts at soapboxing. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we also condense his stands on three leaders of BJP and merge them into one as I and Solomon7968 had earlier pointed out here. - Mohit Singh (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that stuff even merits a mention. Politician takes pot-shot at opponent: nobody died. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Section on Praise

User:Darkness Shines and earlier User:Sitush have deleted the section on praise without good reason in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just adding the tag to above mentioned users User:Darkness Shines and User:Sitush for their information.--Mohit Singh (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is pure puffery. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the point raised, I believe that the comment made by Shivraj Singh Chouahn was made in a courtesy which generally a successor gives to his predecessor. It is similar to the praise given by Raman Singh to Ajit Jogi in 2003-2004, that given by Pranab Mukherjee to the previous BJP Finance Ministers for their policies in the subsequent budget and so on. Little data was once added and then obviously removed by by User:Soham321 which described a subsequent spat sort of, when Chouhan was talking about his policies and then Digvijaya Singh claimed that Chouhan was giving false statements and then later on Digvijaya Singh changed his position by talking all the praise for the development stating that it was the result of his policies. News report here. This makes it apparent that there are all political stands and nothing more. --Mohit Singh (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I will just say that Chouhan had said what he did praising Digvijay Singh in the year 2010 when he had already been Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh for several years. So it is not similar to the courtesy which a successor gives to his predecessor in the way Raman Singh had praised Jogi when he assumed power. Soham321 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw no substance in it at all and, in any event, I'm not too happy about having sections in BLPs that are dedicated to either praise or criticism. It doesn't seem to be good writing style. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When there is so much criticism of the man, why the allergy to praise given by his political opponent? Soham321 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In this discussion it is very relevant to note the occasion on which Shivraj Singh Chouhan praised Digvijaya Singh. The references given by Soham321 here and here, tell that it was a All India Kshatriya Samaj Federation Convention. It must be noted that both Chouhan and Singh belong to this caste. Chouhan along with praising Singh, also said: Kshatriya Samaj has always played an important role in the country and effort to uplift the Samaj in all fields should be continued. It is very obvious that when a person goes to such a meet, he shall not speak against someone who is present there (strong presumption) and is a part of that meet. Moreover as he already praised the Kshtriya caste, considering both the chief ministers belong to Kshtriya caste, he would have made of fool of himself if she criticised Digvjaya Singh after saying Kshatriya Samaj has always played an important role in the country. On a lighter note, User:Darkness Shines and User:Sitush, you guys have allergy? --Mohit Singh (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I am allergic to POV pushers Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The forum in which the praise was bestowed on Digvijay by his political opponent who is now the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh is irrelevant. If you insist that this particular edit should not be included in the WP:BLP of Digvijay Singh it would be a fit case for taking it up for Dispute Resolution. Soham321 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The forum is irrelevant? If you entirely mean this then please tell that if I am called let say to someone's birthday, am I supposed to criticise him? I am not saying that the praise is not relevant. I and other two users are just saying that such a praise is not relevant for a BLP. If that meet was there to discuss about the goodness of a community, was Chouhan supposed to criticise Digvijaya considering that there are no other famous that community member in that state. -Mohit Singh (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Chouhan's praise was based on facts. For instance, Chouhan's claim that Digvijay had arranged for an aeroplane to fly him to Mumbai for treatment because he was injured and unable to travel by train. Chouhan's statement that Digvijay maintains good relations with members of all political parties is borne out by the fact that at the funeral of Digvijay's wife, members of various political parties including BJP president Rajnath Singh, SP president Mulayam Singh Yadav travelled to Digvijay's ancestral house to pay their respects and condole the demise. Yes, the forum is irrelevant. If you are the Chief Minister of a state and go to your political opponent's birthday party and then praise your political opponent publicly to the media (and not privately to a few people at the party) then you are allowing your praise to be recorded for posterity. This seems to be a fit case to me for Dispute Resolution. Soham321 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on facts? He may be a great man but please bring some other reference for this news item like someone else praising him for this. Please do not bring Govindacharya's speech. And you had put this funeral information earlier also which was subsequently removed by someone probably me. This is not relevant at all. It was a courtesy visit. Politicians and specially the office holders almost always go to such functions. I can give as many examples as you want like , etc.

Speaking again, we do not deny he has been praised and it is relevant. But it is not relevant enough for a BLP. If you want to go for dispute resolution we cannot stop you. However I strongly suggest you not to take every small issue to Dispute Resolution. Last time you tool a small line to DR in relation to the Ashok Malik page. What I am suggesting is that lets all agree over this and not waste more time of each one of us by going to DR, however you are welcome to DR but you are suggested to go though this Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. - Mohit Singh (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the references you give, someone in a crowd shouted slogans in favor of Modi in one reference, and the other reference showed Modi attending the function of someone who had strengthened his own party. You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing this with Shivraj Singh Chouhan's praise for Modi. The praise by his main political opponent in Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan must be included in the WP:BLP of Digvijay because it would balance the criticism against him that is also present in his WP:BLP. Since we are not going anywhere with this, i am opting for Dispute Resolution to allow an Editor to voice his view on this issue. Soham321 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit under discussion: In 2010, Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan praised Digvijay Singh stating that during his tenure as Chief Minister, he had launched many schemes for the uplift of Dalits, poor and economically backward class in the state and maintained personal relations with people cutting across party lines. He said that Singh's helping nature and kind heartedness make him an evergreen leader even today. Chouhan also recalled how Singh had offered him a government plane to go to Mumbai for medical treatment after Chouhan had been in an accident and was unable to travel by train.

And these are the references: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1347681/report-shivraj-chouhan-sings-praises-of-rival-digvijay-singh and http://zeenews.india.com/news/states/shivraj-singh-chouhan-heaps-praise-on-digvijay_604066.html

An administrator and several others had pointed out to Soham321 at Talk:Narendra Modiand I remind him again to be careful about the indention. I could not get from your previous edit here that who wrote the last point. It was also not signed at the end. I have indented it. Coming to the issue, I gave you those articles to tell you he attended Governor's daughter's wedding with whom he has very bad equations and a marriage party of a Congress's leader's daughter. I did not mean you to reproduce here what happened. I cannot help if at a Congress leader's marriage, people shout and support Narendra Modi. Balancing a criticism does not mean that we put every random article. This event was not that worth noting so as to be included in a WP:BLP. I stick to my previous arguments. - Mohit Singh (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion I'm a Neutral editor here via request at WP:DRN. First of all, there should be NO section in a WP:BLP called "praise"; in fact, the very word "praise" should be used as little as possible. The word only appears once in the B-class article of Nelson Mandela and not at all in the 14th Dalai Lama - this is not an accident. Encyclopedia articles of living subjects are the facts, the meat, and the overall perspective of the subjects as decided by the notable, reliable sources available. Because a BLP is a moving target, editors need to always err on the side of caution - when two reliable (not blogs) sources say "wow, this is a MAJOR occurrence in this person's legacy" go ahead and add it in. I understand the enthusiasm, from a supporter's perspective, about an opponent praising the subject. I do. But this article is bloated left and right with undue weight. A casual reader doesn't get a good, balanced, clean read on who the subject is and what the subject's impact has been on his corner of the world because the edit war has clouded the view. For now, cut the section. Then, if this event proves notable according to an RS, one line should do it. EBY (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

stance of bjp leaders

His stance on random BJP leaders is hardly germane to his notability, and uses Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to air his views. Pectore 01:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

These are not just random BJP leaders, these are top BJP leaders. BJP is the principal opposition party in India. Digvijay's views on the top BJP leaders is relevant considering that he is a senior Congress leader and considering this is his biographical article. Soham321 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume that what Pectore meant was not that they are random leaders of BJP but that they are random leaders generally from a WP:BLP point. I have already pointed it out several times before that these views should be merged in one sub-section. He rightly pointed that BLP is not a forum to air one's views on several leaders. So we should stick to what he says. I support him anyone taking the initiative to shorten and merge all those three stands- Mohit Singh (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a leaders statements against opposition as quote or verbatim or from his blog is surely soapbox material. I did remove it saying it needed summary and then noted there is a discussion here- hence have reverted my removal(which i am going to remove it again - because of the forthcoming reason - don't revert it back until we reach a consensus here). This surely needs some sort of summarisation as this looks like a Agenda page quoting the leader - we cannot have a section for each and every leader he talks or writes about... When content is put from the leaders point of view it is like supporting his point of view and not neutral. Editors should not cite his blog and put that material in here. That is surely soap boxing. Please reach a consensus here - until then I am removing the content.Amit (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Random doesn't necessarily leave out the possibility of them being top leaders. Mohit and Amit seem to have easily grasped the sentiment in my trite post. I didnt even see that they were sourced from blogs. In that case, I will summarily revert them if I see that on the page again.Pectore 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This person is passing his views here and there on every person, what can make him in the news. Such scenario makes Misplaced Pages as his mouthpiece. Misplaced Pages itself is a strong resource and reference, we are supposed to note this credibility and dignity. I'm supporting the views expressed by Pectore, Mohit Singh, Amit. Bheemsinh (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kavita Karkare

Kavita Karkare did question Digvijay's claim about his telephonic conversation with Hemant Karkare. But after Digvijay produced evidence corroborating what he said, she never disputed his claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soham321 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Views on Religion and Religious Extremism

I am putting back the section on 'Religion and Religious Extremism'. The reason for this is that i am witnessing repeated attempts to portray Digvijay as a Christian. Repeatedly his religion is being given as Christianity on this WP:BLP. It gets deleted and then again it gets put back. This has happened so many times now that the section on 'Religion and Religious Extremism' which was earlier present on this WP:BLP needs to be put back because the misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of Digvijay's personal religion will not take place once his views on Religion and Religous Extremism are known to all. I consider this section so important now, in view of the repeated attempts to portray him as a Christian, then i am prepared to take this for Dispute Resolution in the event that anyone deletes this section again. Soham321 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is an internet article which, relying on Digvijay's wikipedia article, claims that Digvijay is a Christian, possibly a converted christian: http://vicharak1.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/digvijay-singh-the-ignoble-rajput/ So the vandalism we are witnessing is not just random; there is a method in the madness. Soham321 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What other people do with our articles, off-wiki, is not our concern. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted it. All we needed from that was his self-identification as a Hindu, which we now have. Using Misplaced Pages to promote your side is no better than allowing others allegedly to promote their side. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts

This revert is pointless. The information has been superseded and was not sourced anyway. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This revert was pointless because (a) the claim made in the edit summary is not what the statements say and (b) it has gone nowhere. It is just another load of mud-slinging by corrupt politicians. If it goes to court then, sure, mention it; until then, don't. We are not here to display political infighting or promote one side or another. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, this revert refers to an event of 11/12 years ago that never gained traction. Again, your edit summary gives lie to your reasons for wanting the information in this BLP but the fact remains that we do not exist to rebut or substantiate political soapboxing etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, your rationales seem to be that we should include stuff with rebuttals because his opponents are using such things against him off-wiki. As I said a few minutes ago above, what people say off-wiki is their business and Misplaced Pages does not exist as a mechanism for political rebuttals or accusations - if you want to fight those allegedly spurious off-wiki claims then please feel free to do so ... off-wiki. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare Edit wrongly deleted by User:Sitush

Edit on Political Career of Digvijay wrongly deleted by User:Sitush

Corruption Allegation Edit wrongly deleted by User:Sitush

Views on Religion and Religious Extremism wrongly deleted by User:Sitush

Discussion on Removal of Edits by User:Sitush

• The edits recently removed whole scale (with no effort whatsoever to make any modifications to them), some of which had been in place in different variations for a few years to the best of my knowledge, have now been taken to Dispute Resolution. User:Sitush claims in the Dispute Resolution that his removal of edits has not been discussed in detail so i added another section. In my opinion whole scale deletion of various edits which have been painstakingly added by various users cannot be deleted by one user based on his whims. What User:Sitush did really borders on vandalism in my opinion. I have given my reasons for why the edits should not have been deleted by User:Sitush earlier in this talk page and in more detail in the Dispute Resolution page.
• I give now a modified version of what i wrote on the Dispute Resolution page: Please consider the four sections "Hemant Karkare Edit wrongly deleted by User:Sitush", "Edit on Political Career of Digvijay wrongly deleted by User:Sitush", "Corruption Allegation Edit wrongly deleted by User:Sitush", "Views on Religion and Religious Extremism wrongly deleted by User:Sitush". The first three sections deal with edits variation of which had been in place on the WP:BLP of Digvijaya Singh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Digvijaya_Singh ) for a long time spanning as much as a few years as per my knowledge. The reasons User:Sitush keeps giving for deleting all the edits seem spurious to me. For instance, the "Hemant Karkare" edit dominated Indian political news at one time. Just because it is an unimportant topic today does not mean it has lost its relevance. The reason for its importance is that it concerns terrorism which is a subject of national security. Digvijay claimed that before he got killed by Muslim Pakistani terrorists, Karkare--a senior police officer--had called him and complained about the threats he was facing from hindu extremists. This claim of Digvijay was disputed by some people and an effort was made to discredit him. The second section deals with a corruption allegation against Digvijay which involved correspondence between Singh when he was Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the BJP Prime Minister Vajpayee in which he eventually came out clean. In view of other corruption allegations against him, it is important to keep this edit in place lest people pre-judge the existing corruption allegations against Digvijay. Regarding the Political career edit, there is one reference (User:Sitush has been claiming there are no references) and certainly more references can be given for this important edit which gives useful information about Digvijay's political career.
• With respect to the Fourth secton ("Views on Religion and Religious Extremism") i give a slightly edited version of what i had written earlier: There is a legitimate question with respect to the fact that these edits could be considered as soapboxing. I think the first point, where Digvijay defends himself on the charge of being anti-hindu and clarifies that he is a practicing hindu needs to be put in his WP:BLP so as to avoid the persistent confusion, real or contrived, that we are witnessing wherein repeatedly his religion is being identified as Christianity on his wikipedia page. With respect to the second point, i propose that the edit should be modified to be the following: "Responding to Madhya Pradesh Home Minister Uma Shankar Gupta's (http://en.wikipedia.org/Umashankar_Gupta) allegation that Singh had patronized SIMI ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Students_Islamic_Movement_of_India ), Singh claimed that as Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh he was the first person to seek a ban on the now banned SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) and also the Bajrang Dal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Bajrang_Dal ). Singh also claimed that Hindu and Muslim Extremism feed each other." I think this second point is also important because Singh is now responding to and defending himself against the charge of being communal. The third point is relatively unimportant, in my opinion. I don't care one way or the other if it is put (so long as it is put accurately) or not.Soham321 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush has been claiming there are no references You are not dealing with an idiot here, so I suggest that you take another look at what I did and said, which retained the Economic Times source. You have reverted that, reinstating outdated unsourced material. That is symptomatic of the problem: you are reacting in a kneejerk manner without fully appreciating what has gone on or why. Given that I have been accused of anti-BJP bias at Narendra Modi, I am amused that I am being accused of pro-BJP bias here. I guess it proves that I am neutral. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, I've tried to explain this concept in my earlier responses but I think that a read of WP:RGW might be helpful to you. I have no problem with summarising controversies in BLPs provided that they are weighted correctly, are not storms-in-teacups, are neutral and are followed through (ie: they do not suffer from the common ailment of being headline-driven and then withering as news is relegated from media front pages ec). In some situations, WP:BLPCRIME also applies, in spirit even if not always in letter. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush has so far responded to why he removed one edit. I suggest he also comment on why he removed the other three edits. Personally, i consider the removal of the Hemant Karkare edit and also the edit on Corruption which had been in place for a long time to be borderline vandalism. Further, User:Sitush has not commented on my suggestions on the modification of the edit on Digvijay's views on Religion and Religious Extremism. It seems to me that User:Sitush is not interested in any discussion but rather would like to claim ownership of the WP:BLP on Digvijay in violation of WP rules. Regarding bias, User:Sitush has displayed his anti-Digvijay bias on several occasions in the past. He is happy to add material which show Digvijay in a poor light and to remove material which show Digvijay in a more positive light. Soham321 (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have commented generally about the various edits to which you refer. Please provide some diffs to support your ill-informed allegation that I am claiming ownership and tthat I have deliberately added content that shows the guy in a poor light and removed content that shows him in a good light. You may want to read WP:AGF first, and perhaps also WP:NPA - unless you can support the allegation of intentional bias, you'll likely find yourself heading towards a block. Please also read WP:ARBIPA. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will surely provide the evidence you want but first i want you to justify in more detail why you removed the Hemant Karkare edit and also the Corruption edit--variations of which had been in place for a long time, certainly more than an year. The reasons you have given so far have been singularly unsatisfactory. It seems you removed those edits for flimsy and whimsical reasons. Secondly you have not commented on the modifications i have suggested for the 'Views on Religion' edit which you are also deleted in toto. The reason for this seems to be that you are more interested in claiming ownership of the WP:BLP article and not interested in discussion and deliberation on edits which you yourself have deleted because of which you are obliged to participate in such discussions and deliberations.Soham321 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You can wish for whatever you like but until you assume good faith, you are unlikely to get it. You are still seemingly in kneejerk mode - see Talk:Digvijaya_Singh#Views_on_Religion_and_Religious_Extremism for an explanation that you continue to claim has not been given. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your explanation concerns your removal of the original edit. You have made no attempt to respond to my subsequent suggested modification of the edit. Does this not indicate that you wish to claim ownership of this WP:BLP page? As for assuming good faith, it is a case of pot calling the kettle black. You were the one who started off claiming i am biased as can be seen in the comment section of the history page of this talk page.Soham321 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To address your revised the religious bit (Views on Religion and Religious Extremism"), please see my response in the section above. He has self-identified as a Hindu and we have sourced that. Nothing else need be said. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, your primary rationale is to address vandalism on-wiki and accusations off it. The former is now addressed by the source that you found; the latter is not our concern. If anyone should reinstate the "Christian" stuff again, without a reliable source showing that he self-identifies as such, then it will be removed per WP:BLP; if they persist in doing so then they will be sanctioned. Whether it is worth mentioning his comment that Hkndu/Muslim extremism feed each other is moot. I'd need to know more about the context. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You have still not addressed my suggestion with respect to putting a modified version of the original 'Views on Religion and Religious Extremism' edit. This has to do with allegations by no less than the Home Minister of Madhya Pradesh that Digvijay had encouraged and promoted the now banned organization SIMI, thereby promoting religious communalism, and Digvijay's defense that he was the first person to have banned this organizaition, and that he is against both hindu and muslim communalism. You are beating around the bush and not addressing my suggestion regarding putting a revised version of the original edit. Soham321 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have. I've pointed out that it seems to have been a political spat. If we noted every spat that every Indian politician got involved in, we'd probably double the size of Misplaced Pages's byte count. Now, if you can verify - without using Singh or his PR machinery as a source - that he was the first politician to seek a ban of SIMI then that might be noteworthy, assuming that SIMI is a particularly noteworthy body in its own right (I, for one, have never heard of it). - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an important spat because first it involves Singh and no less than the home minister of madhya pradesh of the BJP and secondly because it involves an ideological question pertaining to communalism. The fact that you have never heard of SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), despite SIMI having a comprehensive wikipedia page dedicated to it, indicates that you are ill equipped to be making or deleting edits pertaining to it. My contention also is that a spat between two important politicians, if they contain ideological disagreement, deserve to be a the WP:BLP. That is why i have taken this for Dispute Resolution since there is a fundamental disagreement on this question between the two of us. Soham321 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN threw out your report, as I expected would happen. As for SIMI, there are literally thousands of banned groups and I wouldn't trust a Misplaced Pages article on such a subject, just like I don't trust this article: too many pov-pushers frequent these things, often with little understanding or care for our policies, our guidelines or plain common sense. On the other hand, I don't need to know anything about a subject to contribute to this article or indeed any other.

We can't take Singh's word for his claim of being the first to do or say anything that affects anyone other than himself because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I really don't care who the politicians are because a spat is a spat, whether it involves claims about communalism or about anything else. It is the usual rough-and-tumble of politics, no charges have been filed, no-one has died, no-one has been subjected to an official investigation etc, It is a dispute about facts, not ideology. You've been told about issues of weight, relevance and POV by various people at various times on various articles recently, including elsewhere on this very talk page. However, I've offered to reconsider if you can find evidence that Singh's claim about being first is valid, so I'd suggest that you spend some time sorting that out if you want this to progress. I'm also still waiting for the diffs relating to my alleged bias etc - you should spend some time on that also because I am not going away and you may need the ammunition. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN did not "throw out" the report; they said the report can be refiled once further discussion has taken place. I believe the 'Relgion' edit was justified and i have given my reasons; you believe it is not and have also given your reasons. Now let's come back to the Hemant Karkare edit. Variations of this edit had been in place for more than an year on this WP:BLP before you deleted it in toto. Explain why you did this. Soham321 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You still can't indent, can you? I'm not discussing this further until you either retract or substantiate your allegations regarding my motives here. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will reiterate that it was you who first started accusing me of bias.Further, right now we are discussing whether your removal of the Hemant Karkare edit, which had been in place in different forms for well over an year, was appropriate or not. Since this matter is again going to Dispute Resolution, i urge you to explain yourself. My contention is that you wish to claim ownership of this WP:BLP article as is evident by your summary removal of edits--like the Hemant Karkare edit-- which had been in place in different forms for over an year. Soham321 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Unsuitable edit of User:Sitush which i deleted

In 2012, Singh said that there was a need for younger people to be involved in state assemblies and that he had no further interest in contesting state elections. He hoped that his son would be allowed to contest the Raghogarh assembly constituency that had been held by members of his family at various times since his father's 1952 victory. He expressed a willingness to contest the 2014 Lok Sabha elections if Congress wanted him to do so. My objection is that this extract from one interview out of the numerous interviews of Digvijay is relatively unimportant to be included in a WP:BLP. Digvijay's claim that he has no interest in contesting state elections and that he hoped to contest lok sabha election in future is relatively unimportant. After all, he might change his mind in future. His remark about his son is also unsuitable for inclusion in this WP:BLP. For instance, we do not know if his son is interested in fighting elections. You are potentially embarrassing his son by including this edit in the WP:BLP of Singh.Soham321 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed your comment - this was not being dealt with anywhere else on this talk page:

• There are two sources, one of which you found, so wholesale removal of the entire paragraph is misguided
• WP:BLP allows the use of interviews with the article subject - they, after all, should know best what they think. The issue is whether the interviewer mis-states what was said. Can you find a retraction by Singh or the newspapers?
• Why is it "relatively unimportant" to inform the reader that he does not intend to contest at state level again but may contest at national level. It is a progression, and he is arguably best-known at present for his state level politics due to twice being Chief Minister
• If he changes his mind in future then we can change the article. We would end up with something like "In 2012, Singh said that he had no interest in contesting state elections in future; however, in 2017 he determined to fight the elections in Madhya Pradesh, where he won from the Raghogarh constituency. He described his change of mind as being because ..."
• I agree that whether his son has an interest or not in politics is an unknown. However, the constituency is practically a family seat, though not quite a rotten borough and the family (father, two sons, cousin) has a history. No-one is saying that his son will do it, only that the father hopes he will. Are you aware of any retractions for this? Have father and son fallen out? How old is the son now, and what is his name? - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for answers to my queries above. If none are forthcoming then the info is valid. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush and the Batla House Encounter Edit

I believe the section on Batla House Encounter needs to be removed from Singh's WP:BLP because first the case does not involve him--he only gave his view on the case--and secondly, Singh has given his views on various other cases. Should we include all of them in his WP:BLP. User:Sitush is now claiming that it involves an inter-party feud and so it should be included but earlier in this talk page he was claiming that bickering of politicians has no role in a WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When one political party takes a pop at another, that is often inane bickering. When one's own party distances itself from a subsequently-proven silly comment made by a senior member, that is relevant. I'm not going to speculate on why Singh felt the need to get involved in this case or any other but he put himself right in the firing line. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been instances of senior BJP leaders criticizing comments made by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. I can give many such instances. But they do not find mention in the WP:BLP of Narendra Modi. The fact remains that Singh was not involved personally in the Batla House Encounter and secondly this is one of the many cases in which he has expressed his opinion. This edit needs to go in its entirety in my opinion. We cannot have one set of rules for the WP:BLP of Narendra Modi and another for the WP:BLP of Digvijaya Singh. Soham321 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For instance, when Narendra Modi attacked Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh and claimed Lyngdoh was biased and prejudiced because he was a christian, claimed that Lyngdoh meets Sonia Gandhi in church, etc. he was publicly rebuked and criticized by Prime Minister Vajpayee, Union Minister Murali Manohar Joshi, and others. Lyngdoh himself had hit back at Modi for questioning his religion. Modi is also an accused in the Irfan Jaffery case in which the former member of parliament Irfan Jaffery and several other muslims were killed in what are widely held to be state sponsored riots. No mention of this in Narendra Modi's WP:BLP. There has to be a parity in these matters. We cannot have one set of rules for Modi and another for Digvijaya because there are more Modi supporters on the internet. Soham321 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You can take stuff about Modi to the Modi talk page, although your history there may count against you. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the swarm of Modi supporters it is impossible to post anything critical of Modi. I say this from personal experience. I took up one edit which was critical of Modi (where Modi had accused Chief Election Commisioner Lyngdoh of bias and made unsavory statements against him which were criticised by his own party). The edit was cleared in Dispute Resolution but when i posted it back it was again removed by the Modi fans and not allowed to stay even in modifed form. I did not care to do a back and forth on this point with the Dispute Resolution team. At any rate, my point remains that there has to be a parity in a WP:BLP and you have not addressed the reasons i have given for why this edit should not be in this WP:BLP. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to take this for Dispute Resolution and honor the judgement of the WP admin. Soham321 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you will find the atmosphere at the Modi article is not as extreme as once it was and some criticism is now being allowed, even if grudgingly. In any event, my point was that your rationale was a strawman: what goes on there is for that talk page, not this one. It is not just me who has indicated that the information should be included in this article. I've given reasons and the problem seems to be, like last time, that you don't like it. Rushing to DRN without giving this discussion a few days to run is just going to make matters worse, not better. It might be best if you step away from it for a few hours and calm down. I'm going to be away over the weekend in any case, so nothing is going to happen until, say, sometime on Monday. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have slightly and arbitrarily renamed this section to avoid confusion with a similarly-named section below. The change is the addition of the word "the". Quite why it is necessary to mention my name in the heading is beyond me - WP:TALKNEW. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Controversies

Seeing no dearth of controversial statements made by the leader, I have added an other controversy section to add more details on what all controversial views the leader has presented with enough valid references. I don't see why 3 controversial views should be given so much details either... a list with a one or two liner would be enough... Also don't try to edit war on my contents without a valid reason and talk page discussion which I am open to.  A m i t  웃   20:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Soham321 seems to be keen on reverting edits without discussion. inviting him here to discuss further edits.  A m i t  웃   23:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Remember each of those sentences have 3-4 references from notable news sources such as The Hindu, Time of india, India express etc... Removing this content is POV push to potray a false image of the leader disregarding what the sources say and not neutral at all.  A m i t  웃   23:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

An explanation for the benefit of regentspark and others

This edit explains why i would remove an edit in the main article with an edit summary that reads like this: These need to be discussed in the talk page before they can be put up here. They are tendentious and violate the WP:BLP NPOV rule. regentspark has now twice warned me that i am not permitted to do something like this and so i need a clarification from him and/or others on policy. I would request regentspark and/or others to explain to me what i should do if similar scenarios arise in future. Let me try and explain why i would remove an edit in its entirety. First i give the complete text of an edit which i removed in its entirety.:

===Other Controversies===

• In June 2010, Singh controversially commented about his own party in the center falling under US pressure in regards to the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict
• Congress quickly distanced itself from the leader when he commented on the need for burial of Osama Bin Laden in May 2011. Though there was no reprimand on this comment from the party it was not supported either.
• In June 2011, Singh also gave his opinion that Suresh Kalmadi and Ashok Chavan were innocent .
• In July 2013, activists demanded action against Digvijaya Singh for making a sexist comment by calling his colleague Meenakshi Natarajan a tunch maal (a sexy woman).

Now, let's consider the very last edit in the text above (which is about Meenakshi Natarajan). First, i give the complete text of my version of the edit which i put up (i.e. replaced the original edit with):

• In July 2013, activists demanded action against Digvijaya Singh for making what they claimed was a sexist comment against his colleague Meenakshi Natarajan. Singh had stated: “Gandhivadi hain, saral hain, imandar hain. Sabke paas jaati hain, gaon gaon jaati hain. Rajneetigyon ko thodi si baat me pata chal jaata hai ki kaun farzi hai, kaun sahi hai. Main purana jauhri hoon, ye 100% tunch maal hai." The translation would be: “She believes in Gandhian philosophy, is simple, honest. She meets everybody and visits villages. Politicians have the ability to know who is fake and who is genuine after brief interactions. I am an old jeweller, she is 100% pure item.” Natarajan reacted to the controversy claiming that that there was nothing objectionable in Singh's statement and only those with a negative mindset are seeing wrong in what Singh had said. She said that Singh's statement needs to be understood in the correct context

The problem is that the accusation of Digvijaya being sexist is based on the term "tunch maal" which is a term in the hindi language having two meanings. It can mean either "sexy woman" or "pure item". Reading the entire text of the statement makes it clear that Digvijaya meant "pure item" by his words because just before using the words "tunch maal" he compared himself to a jeweller. The best reference in the references given is the Hindustan Times reference which does not just refer to Singh's words "tunch maal" but gives a few sentences he had used just before his usage of the term which help us understand the context in which he used the term through which we can understand which of the two meanings of the term had in mind. The Hindustan Times article rightly translates the words "tunch maal" as "pure item" and not as "sexy woman". Furthermore, my edit also includes the reaction of Natarajan on the controversy. So, assuming good faith on the part of the person who wrote the edit, one can only say that his edit is tendentious since it is incomplete and inaccurate. I was hoping to have a discussion with the contributor of the original edit in which i would have explained these things to him if he agreed to temporarily not put up his edit in the main article which is why i deleted the edit. But the contributor of the original edit refused to do this and insisted on retaining his incomplete and inaccurate edit in the main article while we discussed it in the talk page. This being the case i modified the original edit and made it more complete and more accurate and i leave it to the contributor of the original edit to take the initiative of discussing the edit with me on the talk page. I hope i have now explained why i considered the original edit to be tendentious.

Now, consider the first edit i removed (about Bhopal gas tragedy). The original edit is given above and the modified edit is:

• In June 2010, Singh speculated that the Bhopal gas tragedy handling could have been affected by US pressure but clarified that he did not know all the details.

Notice the difference in the original edit and the new edit. For instance, the original edit uses the word "controversially" which is not present in any of the references/sources and immediately makes the edit tendentious. It also does not include Singh's disclaimer that he did know all the details and also the fact that he was only speculating.

Now consider the second edit which i removed (about Osama). The original edit is given above and the modified edit is:

• In May 2011, Singh stated that Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist who deserved to be eliminated, but that he could have been buried in accordance with his religion..

The original edit does not mention Singh's stand that Osama was a terrorist and should have been eliminated. It only states that according to Singh Osama should have been buried. It gives the impression that Singh was a sympathizer of Osama. This makes the original edit tendentious and misleading. Soham321 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the third edit i removed, i replaced the word "opinion" in the edit with "personal opinion" which is what the references/sources state and which indicate that Singh is stating this on his own behalf and not on behalf of his party. Soham321 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As i explained "tunch maal" can mean sexy woman. Alternatively, it can also mean "pure item" which is how the Hindustan Times article translates the word. Now "item" can have a negative/sexist connotation in english. But the second meaning of the term in my opinion does not have a sexist connotation. The more precise meaning in my opinion would be "pure (or genuine) stuff". Once he had compared himself to a jeweller, Singh could have used the term "tunch maal" for either a female junior or a male junior in his party.Soham321 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is another reference which translates the controversial words as "totally pure" (and not "sexy woman"). This reference also contains Singh's views on the controversy: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1866170/report-media-running-amok-in-the-race-for-trp-digvijay-singh Soham321 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Soham, You are free to add more clarification or details on this section, but as i mentioned earlier too, i don't feel one these controversies should be given more than 2 lines of text. So would you mind if you please keep the content to each controversy within 2 sentences? I also would want the other three subsection be reduced to 2 sentences/lines per controversy instead of such a big essay out there. Also please don't use the same references that don't make the point that you add. for example even for all the clarification text you added not all 4 references claim that. So it would be best to use only those references in your clarification which have that content. Hope that makes sense, if you cant then i can separate the references in that section to make sure the references match the content and are not commonly used. I am not against you improving the content. Happy editing.  A m i t  웃   23:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I made an effort to make your edits more complete and accurate since you insisted on putting them up without any discussion. Now that we are having this discussion, this is what i think of your edits: all of them need to be removed completely. The reason is as follows: Misplaced Pages is not a forum to put each and every news related to a person. Please refer to this: Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and WP:UNDUE. Based on these WP rules, your edits need to be removed in their entirety because they do not have any biographical value.Soham321 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, I agree with your addition to details on my edits, but let me try to explain you that when you show policies you should also understand it in its entirity. In a BLP, supressing negative content by reverting or completely removing them (especially which has huge references and has reached enough notable coverage in media) is against WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Also as I mentioned earlier you need to re-order the references in all the sentences in that sub section as not all references make the same point, I am leaving it for a few hours to allow you to correct it, if not I will do it for you and will add citation tags depending on what content is missing them.  A m i t  웃   02:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To Elaborate why I claim the policies mentioned by you as irrelevant or lack of understanding (because i just read in your talk page that you are relatively new here and thought you might want some more explanation) is because neither the content is new nor research nor my own journalistic piece, there is no shortage of news sources for that content and I stopped at 3-4 to just keep it reasonable so claiming WP:UNDUE is wrong and actually reverting/removing the content violated WP:UNDUE because if you read the policy for WP:UNDUE Jimbo's excerpt is provided as If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; and thats how that content was substantiated with 3-4 references each. Also essays are not policies and even that essay is not a valid point to mention here due to the same points mentioned above. I have reformatted some references now. Hope you have a better time editing in WP.  A m i t  웃   03:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Two things to note: you have not countered my point that wikipedia is not a forum to put each and every news related to a person. The reference is Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. No effort has been put by you to counter this particular WP rule which i have invoked. For instance, the controversy with Rakhi Sawant and also the controversy over Natarajan does not belong in a WP:BLP because these incidents have no biographical value and wikipedia is not a newspaper as per wikipedia rules. Second, with respect to WP:UNDUE, it clearly points out If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. What you are suggesting to put on the BLP are isolated events that do not have substantial value that they may be put on a BLP. They do not have any biographical value. For instance, Singh's opinion that Kalmadi and Chavan are innocent do not serve the purpose of a BLP. However if this incident turns into a very major event--for instance if Chavan and Kalmadi are convicted of corruption and Singh continues to defend them--than the incident has some biographical value, and you are most welcome to put it in Singh's WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, I already mentioned essays are not policies. Read the top of the pages of what you read before you start using essays in arguments. Also an action attracting so much news is major enough to gain a line. I will not tolerate your effort to use bully tactics like you are trying below. I will not take such illogical arguments as your lack of knowledge any more.  A m i t  웃   05:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:A.amitkumar

• User:A.amitkumar is persisting in giving inaccurate edits. I have now explained that the words 'tanch maal' have two meanings. It can mean 'sexy lady' but it can also mean 'pure item' (hindustan times translation) or 'totally pure' (translation of DNA). Digvijaya has clarified himself that by sau tanch he meant 100 percent pure and has accused certain sections of the media of sensationalizing the news unnecessarily for TRP ratings. In other words Digvijaya has clarified that by "tanch maal" he was referring the second meaning i.e. "totally pure" and not the first meaning ("sexy woman"). Despite detailed explanation in this respect, User:A.amitkumar continues giving the incorrect edit based on the other meaning of the term incorrectly given in some publications. User:A.amitkumar also fails to give Singh's clarification on this controversy despite my bringing this to his attention in this talk page. Soham321 (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• In the Meenakshi Natarajan edit, User:A.amitkumar has picked the hindi quote from Hindustan Times (none of the other references he gives has this complete hindi quote) and then he conveniently altered the translation given in Hindustan times. "pure item" in Hindustan Times became "sexy woman". Soham321 (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have changed User:A.amitkumar's "sexy woman" back to "pure item". This is the meaning given in the Hindustan Times reference and the meaning is "totally pure" in the DNA reference. Soham321 (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there is ambiguity in translation and since there are plenty of other examples of Singh's ability to put is foot in his mouth, we can probably dispense with this particular item altogether. It looks like he has a lot of problems when he opens his mouth but there is no need for us to have problems with it. I would, however, add that you are de facto wrong, Soham: if there is ambiguity then we do not necessarily default to a less damaging version just because this is a BLP. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, have either of you ever read WP:CITEKILL? This article has gone a bit crazy over the weekend. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a season for reading essays in WP. The reason for the multiple citations in that section is because of WP:REDFLAG, especially the last two points, and still I see this section created... What do you propose? At least from what I am reading I see more than 15-20 controversies around his public statements and tweets, but I just kept the major ones. I am OK with citing only one each statement too but would opponents to this section agree? Altering the section to mention the leaders rebuttals are fine and necessary(if properly sourced) -thats why I haven't touched any of the rebuttals added by Soham (should I even state that he is wrongly claiming that I am pushing or continuing to push for anything when i haven't touched his edits except for moving around the references in the sentence? Does he know that edit history is available for all to see and these things can be seen pretty clearly there and that misrepresenting other editors in a talk page is a serious behavior issue and is is totally unacceptable as per talk page guidelines). Also as every one seems very fond of essays this week, here is one for every one to read WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT which I read today, might be a good read for you guys too.  A m i t  웃   14:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already proposed: bin the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is for the benefit of User:A.amitkumar and User:Sitush. The reason why we have to take the meaning of "tanch maal" as "totally pure" or "pure item" , and not sexy woman is the following. First, Singh himself clarified that by this term he meant "100% pure". In other words, according to Singh the meaning of the term he used should not be understood as "sexy woman". Second, the Hindustan Times which was the only reference in the edit having the full text of the statements of Singh just preceding his use of the phrase (which helps us understand the context in which Singh used this term) gave the sentences in hindi and also a translation of the original hindi sentences and they translated the term as "pure item". User:A.amitkumar gave the full text in hindi (of the sentences in Singh's speech just before his use of "tanch maal") from the Hindustan Times article (which is the only reference which had these sentences) and also the translation from the Hindustan Times article. But he conveniently changed "pure item" to "sexy woman". The original edit which he changed was in fact having the correct meaning ("pure item") before amitkumar made the change. I have no issues if you want to use the term "sexy woman" also in the edit, but removing the other meaning "pure item" or "totally pure" is something i find objectionable. Soham321 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  As I mentioned earlier, if my edits were incomplete in a sense and you mean to add clarifications, feel free to do it. I don't mean to prevent adding the leaders clarifications now or in future.  A m i t  웃   18:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit

• User:Sitush has again changed the Batla House Encounter edit and made the edit inaccurate. The new edit looks like this:

Singh suggested in 2011 that the Batla House encounter case, which led to the death of two terrorists and one police officer, was fake. This led to disagreements with his own party, with Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram both dismissed Singh's claim and his demand for a further judicial investigation into it. Congress distanced itself and rejected his views that the encounter was stage-managed, stating that the encounter should not be politicized or raked up for political gains. Singh's stand on the Batla House encounter led to criticism from the opposition BJP. In 2013, a Delhi court ruled that the Batla House encounter was genuine but Singh continued to maintain that his opinion and demands were correct. The Times of India noted that "The judgement has once again exposed the habit of Congress general secretary to give controversial and irresponsible statement. However, Singh refused to take back his words even after the court judgement."

• The earlier edit (which User:Sitush has changed) was:

Singh had reportedly suggested in 2011 that the Batla House encounter case, which led to the death of two terrorists and one police officer, was fake.This led to reported disagreements with his own party, with Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram reportedly dismissing Singh's claim and his demand for a further judicial investigation into it. The Congress party officially stated that the encounter should not be politicized or raked up for political gains. Singh's stand on the Batla House encounter led to criticism from the opposition BJP. In 2013, a Delhi court ruled that the Batla House encounter was genuine, but Singh continued to maintain his position on the case. Singh has reiterated his demand for a judicial probe into the incident and has denied reports of his calling the encounter 'fake'. Singh has said that he cannot verify the authenticity of the incident himself and so he cannot comment on this aspect of the case.

• The use of the word "reportedly' was because on the one hand we have reports of Singh stating that the encounter was fake and on the other hand we also have reports of Singh having denied reports of his calling the encounter "fake" on the ground that he cannot verify the authenticity of the incident. WP:NPOV being disregarded completed by User:Sitush. Singh's full clarification on this issue (that he had not called the encounter 'fake' but had only asked for a judicial probe) was also removed by User:Sitush for his own reasons.Soham321 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Additionally, the words of the journalist from the TOI article need to be removed because it violates the 'Impartial Tone' clause in WP:NPOV. Soham321 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I find it amazing how many times Singh has allegedly been misquoted by mainstream media ... according to him and his supporter. Are we to assume that the entirety of Indian mainstream newspaper are in a cabal against him? Has he said something like this? - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

if you do not allow the edit to include Singh's claim that he never called the encounter 'fake' and only wanted a judicial probe into the incident, i am taking this to Dispute Resolution. Also, the statement of the TOI journalist needs to be removed because it violates the 'Impartial Tone' clause in WP:NPOV. Soham321 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Soham, it seems that every time you do not get your own way then you threaten a trip to DRN. It is becoming boring, irritating and pointless. Give people time to respond, please. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is simply not true to say that every time i do not get my way i go for DRN. But my contention is that your biased, and one sided edit needs to corrected because it is not complying to wikipedia rules and guidelines as i have explained earlier in this section. In the event that you do not address the concerns i have elucidated in this section about your edit and proceed your usual practice of dilly dallying and not even allowing his clarification on this issue to be present in the edit than i am taking this for DRN. Soham321 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 and, of course, this section. That is four, and you have also raised it elsewhere. There are other people watching and contributing on this talk page, some of whom have noted an apparent POV and "bullying" tactics on your part. I suggest that you try another approach because right now the hole seems to be getting deeper. Please, I ask you again, give people some time.: it seems obvious that Singh is backtracking when he claims that he has been misquoted so often. There is also plenty more that can be added to this article but - aside from me - no-one has tried to improve it in any way other than by concentrating on these ridiculous praise/controversy sections. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As per wikipedia rules, if there is a fundamental disagreement on an edit it has to be taken for DRN. I will point out that according to Digvijaya Singh himself paid professionals hired by Narendra Modi have been assigned the task of blackballing him ( http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1861820/report-digvijay-singh-accuses-narendra-modi-rss-of-painting-him-as-anti-hindu ). This does not mean any way that i am accusing you of being a paid professional hired by Modi. But i am simply pointing out a possible reason as to why this particular page is being targeted with nonsensical edits. For instance, the repeated claim on this page that he is a muslim or he is a christian or that he is being employed by Pakistanis, etc. Secondly, there have been several instances wherein although i have disagreed with someone's edits i have allowed them to stay since the edits were not blatantly wrong in my estimate. The present edit where you do not allow Digvijaya's clarification to appear and give the tendentious quote of a TOI journalist is blatantly wrong for reasons i have explained earlier in this section. If your present trend of giving incorrect and inaccurate edits on this page and then quarreling incessantly about extraneous things without really meaning to have a conclusive discussion on the edit being discussed continues, it will only reveal your inherent bias against Digvijaya. Soham321 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If a public personality is accused of rape or murder, User:Sitush would prefer the accusation to appear on the wikipedia page of that person along with a tendentious quotation of some journalist slamming the person. Further, any clarification of the accused would not be permitted to appear on the wikipedia page of the accused person if we go along with the logic being used by User:Sitush in the edit under consideration .Soham321 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Earlier i had written: "As per wikipedia rules, if there is a fundamental disagreement on an edit it has to be taken for DRN." That was a wrong choice of words on my part. What i meant to say was: "As per wikipedia rules, if there is a fundamental disagreement on an edit it may be taken for DRN."Soham321 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the Dispute Resolution board, two wikipedia admins have recused themselves from getting involved in the dispute over this edit on the ground that they have interacted with sitush and/or me in the past. But they also go on to say that in their opinion sufficient discussion on this edit has not taken place. With the greatest respect to these two editors, i beg to differ. I have pointed out why i think Sitush's edit is in violation of wikipedia rules/guidelines, and Sitush by talking about extraneous things (like how many times i have gone for Dispute Resolution or how many times--as per his own claim--Digvijaya has claimed to be misquoted in the media) has indicated that he is not really interested in discussing the edit itself. From what i can fathom, Sitush thinks his edit is in perfect consonance with wikipedia rules and guidelines. This being the case, what is there to discuss now? I request the admin--whoever ultimately ends up taking a decision on this edit-- to take a decision one way or the other. I will respect whatever decision is taken, and i believe so will Sitush. Soham321 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please excuse the lengthy response. Soham, I agree completely that there is a potential violation of WP:BLP here because it is a "they say, I say" situation with the sources and, ultimately, even though we know that people such as Singh are arch-manipulators of the media, a subliminal preference in support of the view of the living person exists in our policies. My view has been pretty much consistent that these controversy/praise sections should not exist in this article, in part because they have the potential to be extremely lengthy/convoluted and also because it is apparent that (rightly or wrongly) every time Singh is quoted as saying something that seems to backfire on him, he claims that he has been misquoted. We are not in a position to determine the extent to which people are promoting or denigrating the man and while I remain astonished that so many mainstream sources could get it wrong (according to Singh), the most obvious course is to omit completely until scholarly sources become available.

  You have accused me of a bias against Singh and yet I have also been accused of a bias against Narendra Modi, an article at which you quite clearly showed a similarly pro-INC position as here and unfortunately got into some trouble because of it. If I were you, I would be wary of accusing people of bias just because they appear not to agree with you: I am regularly accused of showing bias by protagonists of both persuasions in many articles, be it Hindu/Muslim stuff, political things or one caste versus another. I seem often to be in a position of not pleasing anyone in these divisive issues, which at least verifies my neutrality! Misplaced Pages is not a news website and is not intended to promote or even protect one opinion over another. You might want to think about that.

  I am the sole contributor of note to the entirety of this article preceding the controversy section. I am the one that developed that which currently exists and I know for sure that there is more to be said. If we could stop wasting time on the stupid pro- and con- stuff - much of which is geared towards the forthcoming elections - then we could stick to developing the history etc in a useful, informative manner. I have not participated in your latest DRN request because, as I have tried to explain previously, I feel that it is premature and that you need to understand when it is appropriate to use a hammer to crack a nut. You cannot ask uninvolved people to take a look at things every time you do not get your own way. - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Let me first respond to what i believe to be red herrings i.e. extraneous things having no bearing on this discussion. The first red herring is bringing up Narendra Modi in this discussion. Sitush claims he cannot be considered biased against Singh because he has also been accused of being biased against Modi. The point is that one does not preclude the other. He could be biased against both. There are political parties (and leaders) in India which are both anti-BJP and anti-Congress. For instance, Jantal Dal (Secular) of HD Kumaraswami and HD Deve Gowda. I must clarify that i have not seen where (and in what context, and by whom) Sitush was accused of bias against Modi. At any rate, this is a non-issue so far as this edit is concerned. With respect to Sitush's claim that i also have been accused of bias against Modi, i will point out that my disputed edit on Modi which i had taken for DR was in fact approved in DR. The wiki admin regentspark (who was *not* the admin who had approved of this edit for posting on the Modi page) had written on the talk page that my edit should be present on the page in a shortened/modified form. But the whole edit in its entirety was taken off by Modi supporters and not even a single word of it was allowed to remain. I could have gone for DR again, but did not think it worthwhile doing so. The second red herring of Sitush is his claim that he is the sole contributor of note to the article preceding the controversy section. This means nothing so far as this disputed edit is concerned. The material preceding the controversy section was already present and it was expanded by Sitush. He is free to crown himself as 'the sole contributor of note' of this section but this means nothing with respect to the present discussion. If Sitush continues talking about these extraneous things (views on Narendra Modi, claim that he is the sole contributor of note in a particular section in the article) it would continue to show Sitush in a poor light in my opinion.
• I now respond to (what i believe to be) the actual matter under discussion. The Controversy sections can legitimately exist in a WP:BLP providing they are properly sourced and providing the views of all concerned parties are given (see Balance in WP:NPOV) . Further, any content that is not adopting an Impartial tone is not permitted in a WP:BLP (see Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). You are violating the wikipedia guideline of Balance when you do not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit. You are violating the wikipedia guidelines of Impartial Tone when you insert a sentence in the edit which is clearly violating the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV. Your claim that the Controversies section should not be included at all in this article would be violative of wikipedia rules and guidelines. You are free to create a Situshpedia site where you can put in place the rules and guidelines you would like editors to follow.
• As an example of how mainstream media can get it wrong with respect to Singh's statements i refer to the recent controversy where his words 'tanch maal' or 'tunch maal' were translated as 'pure item' by 'Hindustan Times' and 'totally pure' by 'Economic Times' and 'Daily News and Analysis', while they were translated as 'sexy woman' by some other publications. Singh himself claimed that he meant '100% pure' by his words. We have to accept Singh's version. Further, the Hindustan Times article gives the preceding sentences in Singh's hindi speech (just before his usage of 'tanch maal') which help us understand the context in which the term was used by Singh. This helps us understand which of the two meanings Singh had in mind when he used the words 'tanch maal'. Soham321 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Instead of giving Singh and his supporters a platform to rebut accusations that have been widely made, we could simply not mention the accusations and thus achieve balance at the expense of judicious omission. In the scale of things (policies, role in the party etc) these back-and-forth political spats are ephemeral, they are difficult for us to control (especial in election seasons) and they add little of encyclopaedic value. I really couldn't care less what Singh meant, for example, with his pure/sexy comment: politicians use the ambiguity of language day in, day out and they are free to play such amusing (to them) games anywhere but here. Please, please can we get back to building an authoritative article that doesn't revolve around here today, gone tomorrow trivia. If and when scholars report on the matter, these controversies can be re-assessed. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• As long as this is a wikipedia article, we have to follow wikipedia rules. If you want your own rules for editors to follow, please create Situshpedia. Further, i note with amusement your penchant for not replying to the main point i had made and instead respond only to the peripheral point i made. So i repeat the main point once again: I now respond to (what i believe to be) the actual matter under discussion. The Controversy sections can legitimately exist in a WP:BLP providing they are properly sourced and providing the views of all concerned parties are given (see Balance in WP:NPOV) . Further, any content that is not adopting an Impartial tone is not permitted in a WP:BLP (see Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). You are violating the wikipedia guideline of Balance when you do not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit. You are violating the wikipedia guidelines of Impartial Tone when you insert a sentence in the edit which is clearly violating the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV. Your claim that the Controversies section should not be included at all in this article would be violative of wikipedia rules and guidelines. You are free to create a Situshpedia site where you can put in place the rules and guidelines you would like editors to follow.Soham321 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Soham, not everything is as simple as you think. There is, for example, no policy that says we must include everything and while it is generally no bad thing to include items that have been widely discussed, issues of weight, long-term relevance versus storm-in-a-teacup news, and avoidance of disruption come into play also. We are not a news website, we are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we do tend to prefer scholarly sources over breathless reportage.

  Alas, swallowing a rule-book is no substitute for experience. It is not uncommon for things to be omitted, especially in BLPs. Why is it so important to keep this stuff, which seems mostly to boil down to journalists alleging that Singh is prone to proclaiming silly things about just about anything that is in the news and Singh denying that this is the case? That question is the one we need to address before we worry about the phrasing. If, for example, it is a campaign of misinformation against him that involves rival political parties and the media (as you have claimed) then find a political scientist or similar who says so. Without that, the most prudent course in a BLP is for us to say nothing when allegations of misinformation are flying around.- Sitush (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Shifting of the goal post detected. Whether the edit should be done away with in its entirety, whether other edits in the article should be done away with in their entirety or not, is a separate question. Sitush's false claims about Digvijaya (insinuating that the entire media is against Singh when clearly that is not the case) is also a separate question not relevant to the issue under discussion. What this is about is simply that Sitush converted an accurate edit into an inaccurate/biased/prejudiced edit which is violating wikipedia guidelines by removing Singh's clarification on the issue (see Balance in WP:NPOV) and inserting a quote of a journalist which violates the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). Soham321 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Soham, you are straying into increasingly dangerous territory. You revision was simply dreadfully phrased with massive repeated use of "reported"s etc and, at the time, it was not really explained. Since I have been arguing that we should simply omit the information, there is no shifting of goalposts: the question is firstly whether the content should exist and then, if the outcome favours it, we can waste yet more time discussing what it should say. Now, please address that blindingly obvious point. In fact, since you are concerned with BLP as much as I am, the best solution, even if only in the short term, is indeed to remove the entire controversy section. It may surprise you to know, but is nonetheless true, that you are not dealing with an inexperienced idiot here. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• My response to Sitush follows below:

• The Controversy section should not be removed in its entirety because of two reasons. First, it contains important biographical information about Singh and second it involves issues of national interest. I refer in particular to the two edits on Singh's views on RSS and also the edit on the Thackeray family controversy.
• The Batla House Encounter edit should also remain in this WP:BLP because it remains a talking point in the Indian media with some continuing to claim that despite the verdict of a sessions court (meaning a court belonging to the subordinate judiciary-- implying that the verdict can be appealed in a higher court) the whole case of the prosecution remains dubious and 'full of holes'. For more on this, See for instance http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ . On the other hand, there are others who claim the encounter was genuine. For more on this, see http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/. So, since this remains a talking point in the Indian media, Singh's view on this encounter can legitimately be put on his WP:BLP
• I had used the word 'reportedly' with due care. I used it because there was a reference cited (i think by User:Sitush)which was the only reference claiming that Singh had declared the encounter to be fake. This is a reference to a Pioneer article. On the other hand, there are other references which i had given in which Singh demanded a judicial investigation into the case (instead of a police investigation) and had denied reports claiming he had deemed the encounter was fake. Incidentally, i now notice that the only reference which was given supporting the claim that Singh had declared the Batla House encounter to be 'fake' is a reference to an article in the Pioneer; and the link to this supposed article does not point to any news article in the Pioneer. Assuming no foul play on the part of Sitush or some other editor, my suggestion is that Singh may have contacted the Pioneer and had denied whatever was present in the article and requested them to yank the article from their server and they had obliged.
• All this does not excuse Sitush injecting his personal bias/prejudice into the Batla House Encounter edit. Sitush has violated wikipedia guidelines by removing Singh's clarification on the issue (see Balance in WP:NPOV) and inserting a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). I am disappointed that instead of accepting his mistake Sitush continues to remain defiant and insinuating that he has done no wrong.
• I will point out also that the entire text of the 'Batla House Encounter' edit is at present somehow copied (duplicated) within the 'Chattisgarh Separation' edit. I did not alter it because of the present discussion. Soham321 (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• I just went back to the edit history of the main article to check who has duplicated the text of the 'Batla House Encounter' edit within the 'Chattisgarh Separation' edit. From what i can tell, this has been done (inadvertently, of course) by Sitush. Soham321 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all but the Chhatisgarh bit for now. We are not agreeing, this is a BLP and we thus need to err on the side of caution. I'd prefer it if you could stop your incessant personalisation of what has gone on but perhaps that is asking too much. Now, to address your relevant point: what Singh thinks about the Batla House encounter is a matter for him; what the courts and the media think is a matter for them. From a Misplaced Pages perspective, it would seem to be more likely a matter for the article concerning the encounter than this article - it is, after all, an unproven accusation and the "talking point" is the encounter, not Singh. He is just sticking his oar in, as politicians do, and we are not obliged to report every opinion that the man utters. If you can find something more substantive than reports in newspapers - some sort of academic look at Singh's role - then I would be persuaded that this has some real significance. Alternatively, if Singh was actually involved in the encounter in some way, for example by authorising it, then it would be worth a mention. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this is still pending in Dispute Resolution, i view Sitush's unilateral removal of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section as vandalism. Sitush's irresponsible and anarchic behavior and lack of respect for other editors and repeated gross violations of wikipedia rules and guidelines whether it is WP:NPOV or WP:Consensus means that some sort of punishment needs to be imposed on him now by a wikipedia admin. Soham321 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham, we are both in agreement that the content I removed was unsuitable, albeit for different reasons. You'd also been debating this with Amit in threads further up this page. Since this is a BLP and since the material was unsuitable, the most prudent course of action is to remove it until some form of compromise or whatever is reached. Throwing yet more bluelinks at me is not going to change anything; in fact, it is becoming boring and repetitive. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush not just prevaricating this time, but telling outright Lies. It is true that i was opposed to Amit's edits (in 'Other Controversies' section) because in my opinion they did not have biographical value, but Amit and i reached WP:Consensus because he allowed me to modify his edits. Sitush had earlier asked me whether i was in favor of removing the *entire Controversies* section and this is what i had said:The Controversy section should not be removed in its entirety because of two reasons. First, it contains important biographical information about Singh and second it involves issues of national interest. I refer in particular to the two edits on Singh's views on RSS and also the edit on the Thackeray family controversy.The Batla House Encounter edit should also remain in this WP:BLP because it remains a talking point in the Indian media with some continuing to claim that despite the verdict of a sessions court (meaning a court belonging to the subordinate judiciary-- implying that the verdict can be appealed in a higher court) the whole case of the prosecution remains dubious and 'full of holes'. For more on this, See for instance http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ . On the other hand, there are others who claim the encounter was genuine. For more on this, see http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/. So, since this remains a talking point in the Indian media, Singh's view on this encounter can legitimately be put on his WP:BLP Soham321 (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Please can you do me a favour and assume that if you have said something here then I read it the first time. All this repetition is crazy: if in doubt then a diff will do, thanks. So, what do you propose that the article should say? Sitush (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that you have shown no respect for wikipedia rules and guidelines, no respect for the Dispute Resolution procedure, and considering that you lie and misrepresent other people, you really think i am now interested in interacting with you on the content of the edit? I am asking for the Dispute Resolution wikipedia admin to impose suitable punishment on you for your anarchic and unethical ways which may help you mend your ways. As of now you have no credibility as a wikipedia editor because you have no respect for wikipedia rules, and because you tell lies. Soham321 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a POV tag to the main article now. This was after Sitush did the following:

• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding the following on the basis of hearsay and speculation in one solitary article: "Singh was directed by Sonia Gandhi to ensure the selection of Ajit Jogi as the Chief Minister for the new state and this Singh did, although Jogi had been critical of his style of politics and Singh had personally preferred not to see him installed to that office. While Singh managed to convince the majority of Congress Legislator Party members to back Ajit Jogi, the absence of Vidya Charan Shukla and his supporters at the meeting raised questions about the exercise of seeking consensus as Shukla was the other main contender for the post."
• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding a POV comment of the political commentator Aditi Phadnis. This comment has no place in a WP:BLP.
• Violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by giving freely speculative reasons for Digvijaya's defeat in the Madhya Pradesh elections in 2003 based on a solitary source.
• Sitush's edit in the main article that Singh sought to write off electricity bills of 1.2 million people over a period of 3 years and was thwarted in doing so by the Election Commission is a serious charge and the one reference he gives for his edit is a reference to a book. This is not sufficient evidence for this charge. If this would really have happened, Singh's political rivals would have cried themselves hoarse and it would have been all over the newspapers.

Ordinarily i would have written this in a separate section, but i included it here to highlight Sitush's quixotic quest of blackballing Digvijaya by blatantly flouting the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP--which i have also pointed out earlier in this section-- and thereby compromising the integrity of this WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't stop making silly accusations then I predict that you will have but a short lifespan on Misplaced Pages. For example, regarding the electricity issue, see this. I've not actually begun trawling newspapers for info yet because I much prefer to use academic etc discourse, however it took me about 90 seconds to find this story using Google. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your claim about my having a short lifespan on wikipedia sounds silly considering you are a habitual violator of wikipedia rules and guidelines yourself as has been pointed out in this section of the talk page. The newspaper reference you have given above does not in any way serve as a reference for your following edit: "One of Singh's last proposals while in office was to write-off the electricity bills of 1.2 million people over the preceding three years; in this he was thwarted by the Election Commission of India, which believed the move to be a breach of election rules". You have now added a fresh reference to this edit in the main article which is: http://www.hindu.com/2003/11/15/stories/2003111507230500.htm . This new reference states that Digvijaya was in favor of waiving off electricity charges to farmers due to three successive drought. In keeping with your tactic of flouting the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV you do not mention anything about farmers suffering due to drought. Further the article only attributes to Digvijaya the statement that he is in favor of waiving off electricity charge to farmers suffering due to drought for three years and that this endeavor of Digvijaya is being sought to be thwarted by the BJP who have rushed to the Election Commission to prevent Digvijaya from doing this. The article does not say that Digvijaya is in favor of waiving off electricity charges of farmers for three years, and it does not say whether the BJP had succeeded in its effort. In my opinion, if the integrity of this article is to be preserved the wikipedia admin who will be adjudicating the pending Dispute Resolution must seriously consider whether to ban you from the WP:BLP of Digvijaya permanently.Soham321 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have modified your earlier edit (which made no mention of drought) and have in fact now added the detail about farmers suffering from drought as the basis for Singh's decision. Soham321 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham, if you keep up this stupidity - and in particular the constant attacks - then I'm going end up swearing at you. You might like that because it will likely get me a block but, believe me, I'm in the right here and doing my best. So, please, assume some fucking good faith. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to abuse me, i have no problem with that. I only have a problem with your persistent flouting of wikipedia rules and guidelines, specifically the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and also WP:Consensus. I have given many examples in this very section of the talk page where you have done this. My contention is that you seek WP:Ownership of the article, are not interested in WP:Consensus, continue recklessly with violating the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and hence deserve to be recused from editing this article henceforth. Soham321 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reckless? Moi? I don't think so but if you do then take me my behaviour to WP:ANI (dammit, I'm falling into your habit of bluelinking the obvious). I really do suggest that instead of linking all these various things, you spend some time reading them. In particular, the one commonly referred to as AGF. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already taken you to Dispute Resolution and i have given my reasons in this section of the talk page as to why you are in repeated violations of wikipedia rules and guidelines and why you deserve to be recused from editing the main article of this page.WP:Ownership, which you clearly do not believe in, explicitly states: "All Misplaced Pages content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." Soham321 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

bin Laden

I removed a statement concerning Singh's opinion of Osama bin Laden - see here. I am sure that every national politician worldwide, and a goodly proportion of the general population, have opinions concerning that guy. Why is mentioning Singh's tuppence-ha'penny so important to this article? - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Kalmad and Chavan

I removed this seemingly-random example from among the many of Singh's opinions on, well, just about everything. Why was it significant to mention it?

Pure/sexy

I removed this example of a political storm-in-a-teacup. We are not a news website, nor a facility for Singh's detractors and supporters to get involved in a real-world bunfight. Given the ambiguity, given the recentism, given the almost-certain ephemeral nature, why do we bother with this type of "he said, she said" thing? If at some point in the future it turns out that Singh's career is affected by it then that would be the time to mention it. For example, if the party decide that he should not stand for election in 2014 because of his history of gaffes. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thackeray

I removed this "controversy" concerning the Thakeray family. Why does it matter what Singh thinks of that family, or what they think of him? I can see that there might be an argument for including material of this type in the various Thackeray family articles but I really do not see the significance here. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Biased Edits of Sitush in violation of wikipedia rules

I wish to record here my deep concern for the blatant violation of WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus by Sitush who has now taken over control of the main article in violation of wikipedia rules. In the ANI dispute, Sitush has conceded that the main article now consists almost entirely of words written by him and in my opinion this is unacceptable and in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines. My allegation against Sitush was supported by User:A.amitkumar with me in ANI that Sitush has indeed taken ownership of this article. I wish to record a few other things:

• In the edits which he claims he has removed, there is no mention by Sitush of his removal of Singh's views and criticism of RSS which has endorsed Narendra Modi and is the ideological fountainhead of Modi's party and which gets to choose the Prime Ministerial candidate and party president of Modi's party.
• Digvijaya Singh's claim that paid professionals hired by his political rival Narendra Modi have been assigned the task of blackballing him ( http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1861820/report-digvijay-singh-accuses-narendra-modi-rss-of-painting-him-as-anti-hindu ).
• The fact that Sitush, based on his posting history, apparently spends all his working time in making wikipedia edits and interacting with other wikipedia editors. Soham321 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The hatted ANI discussion is here. There was next to no support among experienced contributors for your claims of bias etc and several commented favourably regarding the content removal; even A.amitkumar, while unhappy with it, did not want to push it further. Since you have said both there and on this talk page that you do not want to deal with me, I'm not sure how this can be progressed. What I do know is that you need to stop attacking me and you need to stop nopw. Not because I am bothered personally - I soak up much worse than this, regularly - but because if some passing admin see it then they may decide that enough is enough, per WP:NPA. And, believe me, now that your ANI report has drawn some attention from other admins, the chances are reasonable that some are keeping an eye on things. You might also want to read about tendentious editing and the sanctions that can be imposed in this topic area. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

3. Cong plenary to seek probe into right-wing terror http://www.zeenews.com/news675416.html
4. Anti-Muslim RSS is like Nazis: Digvijay Singh http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/anti-muslim-rss-is-like-nazis-digvijay-singh_100476225.html
5. "Shivraj Chouhan sings praises of rival Digvijay Singh". DNA. February 14, 2010.
6. "Shivraj Singh Chouhan heaps praise on Digvijay". DNA. February 14, 2010.
7. Lakshman, Narayan (2010-12-11). "Digvijay, Antulay statements showed "crass political opportunism": U.S." The Hindu. Chennai, India.
8. Karkare remarks land Digvijay Singh in trouble; case filed in Madhya Pradesh
9. Did Karkare call Digvijay? Maha govt says no records Indian Express – 16 December 2010
10. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-31/lucknow/28355495_1_kavita-karkare-irresponsible-remarks-hemant-karkare
11. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/kavita-karkare-rubbishes-digvijays-claim/723388/
12. "Digvijay Gives Proof of Conversation With Karkare". news.outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2013-03-20.
13. Posted by: Anita (2011-01-04). "Digvijay comes clean;shows proof on Karkare calls - Oneindia News". News.oneindia.in. Retrieved 2013-03-20.
14. "Digvijaya Singh shows records of call to 26/11 martyr Karkare". NDTV. Jan 4, 2011.
15. "Digvijay Singh may contest 2014 Lok Sabha polls if 'party allows'". Economic Times. 4 November 2012. Retrieved 21 May 2013.
16. "Liquorgate?". Retrieved 2009-03-19.
17. "Digvijay hits back at Center". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 2001-08-30. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
18. "Digvijay fizzles in liquor scam". 20 October 2011. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
19. Sudhir Singh, TNN Aug 28, 2001, 06.54pm IST (2001-08-28). "Digvijay clarifies stand in bribery case - Times Of India". Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2013-03-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
20. 'Ramdev treatment' for Anna if he fasts: Digvijay - Rediff.com India News
21. Digvijaya Singh. "Hindutva by Digvijaya Singh's Blog : Digvijaya Singh's blog-The Times Of India". Blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2013-03-20.
22. "Digvijay, MP Home Minister trade charges over banned SIMI". Economic Times. December 21, 2012.
23. Congress wary of Digvijay's Osama statement Rediff – 3 May 2011
24. Cite error: The named reference bs20120617 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
25. "Digvijay Singh may contest 2014 Lok Sabha polls if 'party allows'". Economic Times. 4 November 2012. Retrieved 21 May 2013.
26. Bhopal fallout: Digvijaya and Singhvi controversies for Congress | NDTV.com
27. US pressure dictated Bhopal tragedy handling: Digvijay Singh - Hindustan Times
28. Digvijay again: US pressure freed Anderson - Express India
29. The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Digvijay Osama ache for Congress
30. Cong distances itself from Digvijay Singh's remark on Osama's burial - Economic Times
31. Trouble over Digvijaya remarks on Osama funeral | NDTV.com
32. Congress distances from Digvijay's Osama remarks - The New Indian Express
33. Kalmadi, Chavan innocent: Digvijay - The Hindu
34. Suresh Kalmadi, Ashok Chavan are innocent: Digvijay Singh - India - DNA
35. Digvijaya Singh: The controversy king - Rediff.com News
36. Digvijaya backs Chavan and Kalmadi - Hindustan Times
37. Activists demand action against Digvijaya Singh for 'sexist' comments - The Times of India
38. Digvijaya calls Cong woman MP ‘tunch maal’, sparks controversy - Hindustan Times
39. Digvijaya digs a sexy grave, calls Rahul aide Meenakshi 100% tunch maal : North, News - India Today
40. Digvijay Singh makes sexist remarks against Congress MP Meenakshi Natrajan, calls her 'tunch maal' - India - DNA
41. Activists demand action against Digvijaya Singh for 'sexist' comments - The Times of India
42. Digvijaya calls Cong woman MP ‘tunch maal’, sparks controversy - Hindustan Times
43. Digvijaya digs a sexy grave, calls Rahul aide Meenakshi 100% tunch maal : North, News - India Today
44. Digvijay Singh makes sexist remarks against Congress MP Meenakshi Natrajan, calls her 'tunch maal' - India - DNA
45. Bhopal fallout: Digvijaya and Singhvi controversies for Congress | NDTV.com
46. US pressure dictated Bhopal tragedy handling: Digvijay Singh - Hindustan Times
47. Digvijay again: US pressure freed Anderson - Express India
48. The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Digvijay Osama ache for Congress
49. Cong distances itself from Digvijay Singh's remark on Osama's burial - Economic Times
50. Trouble over Digvijaya remarks on Osama funeral | NDTV.com
51. Trouble over Digvijaya remarks on Osama funeral | NDTV.com
52. Congress distances from Digvijay's Osama remarks - The New Indian Express
53. Pioneer – 3 June 2011
54. Batla House case: Digvijay tweets defiance - Indian Express
55. After government, Congress too ticks off Digvijaya Singh on Batla House encounter Times of India - Jan 14, 2012
56. Jha, TNN, Bagish K (25 July 2013). "Batla encounter: Digvijaya Singh reiterates his stand". Times of India. Retrieved 25 July 2013.
57. "Batla House case: Digvijay tweets defiance". Indian Express. July 25 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
58. "Digvijay denies calling Batla House encounter fake". Times of India. Feb 4 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Indian politics articles
• High-importance Indian politics articles
• C-Class Indian politics articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles