Talk:Sonia Gandhi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Slander

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the two lines on dismissal of corruption cases against Ms Gandhi. The line 17 years of Janata Dal, Third Front and BJP rule is factually incorrect as together, these formations ruled the country only 9 years, of these, 2 with Congress support. The supposed link given in support was of a Tribune View point which solely dealt with the issue of Indian Black Money in Swiss Banks. The other contention about Vajpayee Government not finding any proof is all the more laughable. Reference is set by a Swiss Banking Association report of 2006. Vajpayee was voted out of power in 2004! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.169.238 (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

it seems Reluctant Philosopher and others (Nishkid64) are set out to remove any critisms of Sonia. This article in it's current state is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.184.55 (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandaling edits?

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

Hindi transcription required?

From User talk:Tuncrypt#Sonia_Gandhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually yes, origins, ethnic or otherwise, are what would define the use of script on this page. Does Manmohan Singh's being a member of the Rajya Sabha from Assam require his name to be written in Assamese? No, of course not. If it is simply a matter or someone being curious as to how her name is rendered in Hindi, then the Hindi version of this page, accessible as a link on the left, is entirely at their disposal. Tuncrypt (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility

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

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

Political commentary

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

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

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

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

Socks

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

Notice by Election Commission

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

Taking entire discussion for a third party opinion

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

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

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

Still you removed it. So let's not

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

No comments, I really do not want to discuss admant and spolied person like you. Grow up dude. Inder315 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are resorting to personal attacks against me and refusing discussion. You should know this is against wikipedia guidelines. Also you are in violation of WP:3RR ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, you know policies of wikipedia. But do you know that you are violating a policy of wikipedia which says "Don't simply delete something just because you do not agree with him, especially when references are given". I hope you know that, you are exactly doing the same. I would like to reiterate that "You had been reverting all sections earlier without any discussion. You started doing it for namesake when you were warned by some senior editors. And that too for namesake". I am not sure what is your connection with Sonia Gandhi, but keep that to yourself. Inder315 (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Inder315 (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had enough of your personal attacks. Stop accusing me of "connections" with Sonia Gandhi. In fact I demand an apology for all your personal insinuations against me. As for discussions, you are the one who refuses to discuss the content you add. For your kind information, here are, once again, the reasons why your "content" isn't appropriate:

1. It is against WP:BLP You state that here "vote catching abilities" are in serious doubt. This is political/editorial commentary, even if it were lifted from a newspaper, it doesn't qualify as sourced material

2. "Her supporters claim all wins are due to Sonia and all losses are due to local factors". Where did you get that nonsense from? Do you have the slightest idea what encyclopeadic standards demand?

3. "This was a big blow on her considering her family's dignity" The "big blow" is pure nonsensical POV interpretation of the turn of events and I won't even go into the "family's dignity" part - don't tell me THAT too is sourced.

You are making a mess of reasonable good article that still needs considerable improvement. And you are indulging in personal attacks even after serving a ban for sockpuppeteering. What will it take for you to change your ways? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you believe in discussions also? Good to know that. Can you please refer to section "Political commentary". You had asked for "reasons" for "not deleting" certain section. I believe, I tried to explain you in detail with a calm mind. Without any second thought, you gave a judgement (as per your habit) that rest all is neutral and what i am saying is incorrect. I may be wrong, but I don't want to hear it from a highly adamant fellow like you. And about apology, in fact I demand for an apology for starting "personal attack" on 11:21, 17 January 2008 in the same section. I was doing apology to the wikipedia users. There was no need for you to put your nose in. Inder315 (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my concerns. You are continuing to use uncivil language. And would you please care to properly indent your comments? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stay calm. I am not making personal attacks, you started it. I did not accuse you for any "connections". I was saying I am not sure what is your connection with Sonia Gandhi. Below is the explanation of how your concerns are not valid, according to me. (I don't want to pass judgements, like you) 1. If this is the case, what is the source for following statements? a. "Following the unexpected defeat of the NDA, she was widely expected to be the next Prime Minister of India" b. "A few days after the election, Gandhi declined the leadership of the Congress Parliamentary Party in the Lok Sabha, and by doing so, rejected the post as prime minister".

 Who knows, some people say, it was APJ Abdul Kalam who refused to accept her claim to become PM and hence she "had to" decline the post.

c. " Her action was hailed by some as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation". Who said so?

2. "Her supporters claim all wins are due to Sonia and all losses are due to local factors". Where did you get that nonsense from? Do you have the slightest idea what encyclopeadic standards demand?

Now see who said I am uncivilised. If you think it is nonsense. Fine. If that is nonsense, point 1a, 1b and 1c are also nonsense.

3. "This was a big blow on her considering her family's dignity" The "big blow" is pure nonsensical POV interpretation of the turn of events and I won't even go into the "family's dignity" part - don't tell me THAT too is sourced. Same as point 1.

According to me it is you who is making a mess of good neutral article by adding highly one sided information which is mainly praising Sonia Gandhi. You are deleting any information which you think is against her and thus doing a heavy damage to the article. What you will take to become a bit professional? Inder315 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT one-sided and it definitely doesn't "praise Sonia". It has a criticism section. If you have problems with other parts of the article we can discuss those, but they don't provide you the excuse to insert your OPINION in the article. Do you understand? This is a biographical article. It should only have information pertaining to her birth, life, and important milestones of her political career. You can't add opinions about her "vote catching abilities" and her "family's dignity". Your gibberish hardly amounts to a response. Your statement "Who knows ..." betrays your tendency to speculate and addd WP:FRINGE theories And I see you still haven't taken the trouble of indenting your comments. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if that is the case what the following sentences are doing in this article? They are also a "political commentry" as per your theory. And according to you, your "opinion" is the "fact" 1. When the BJP-led NDA formed a government under Atal Behari Vajpayee, she took on the office of the Leader of Opposition. As Leader of Opposition she called a no-confidence motion against the NDA government led by Vajpayee in 2003.

2. A few days after the election, Gandhi declined the leadership of the Congress Parliamentary Party in the Lok Sabha, and by doing so, rejected the post as prime minister. Her action was hailed by some as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation,

3. On May 18, she recommended noted economist Dr. Manmohan Singh for the Prime Minister's post.

Inder315 (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All those incidents were "televised"! They are not anybody's opinion or analysis, they are factual incidents that happened and which everyone witnessed. I'm really not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Btw, you can indent your paragraps by prefixing them with one or more colon(:) marks ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to know when the following incidence was televised. "Her action was hailed by some as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation". Other things might be televised but till it is "political commentary".

fyi, ""Her supporters claim all wins are due to Sonia and all losses are due to local factors" is not my statement. It is statement of Abhishek Singhvi (Congress spokeperson) after the meeting of CWC following defeat in Gujarat election. In that meeting, the Pradesh Congress committee was held responsible, whereas Sonia had campaigned heavily in that election. At the same time, she was awarded the credit of the partial win of Congress in 2004. And last but not the least, "Notice by election commission of India" is definitely not my "opinion" If you watch TV and can understand what these guys say, this was a "breaking news" on almost all the channels on that day. You are just finding execuses to delete the portion which you don't like. That's it. Inder315 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, first, "Her supporters claim ..." is your original research which has no place in wikipedia. If you want to publish your findings, go start your own blog, but don't put those in Wikipedia. Secondly, WP:Notability explicitly states that "breaking news of the day" doesn't go down as encyclopaedic material automatically. This is a BIOGRAPHICAL article and should contain only biographical information. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good one. You have easily avoided all of my questions. I am putting them once again. Please read my comments before reacting in a hasty manner.

1. I want to know when the following incidence was televised.

  "Her action was hailed by some as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation"

2. As told already (I don't even know whether you read my comments properly before reacting), ""Her supporters claim all wins are due to Sonia and all losses are due to local factors" is not my statement.

It is statement of Abhishek Singhvi (Congress spokeperson) after the meeting of CWC following defeat in Gujarat election.

3. About breaking news, do not take it in literal sense. Take it in absolute sense. It was a breaking news without doubt and it also had a long term impact on Indian masses, including the defeat of Congress in Gujarat. So it is an important milestone in Sonia's political career and even in Indian politics for that matter. It is definitely notable.

4. As told earlier, if the article should contain only biographical information, then we need to remove almost 80% of the article including sections like Congress President, Leader of the Opposition, 2004 elections and aftermath etc.

Stop MISLEADING people !!! I went your source and nowhere do they attribute the sentence "all wins are due to sonia and all losses due to local factors" to Abhishek Singhvi, that is the article writers own statement. As for the renunciation statement, we could discuss the sources for that if needed, but that doesn't give you the excuse to insert FALSE information in the article. For God's sake is there nobody else who is watching this article and can intervene? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume that what you are saying about this particular statement is correct, what about other questions? 1,2 and 4? Also, even I am desparately looking for someone who can intervene your dominance. And as told time and again, for god's sake "Do not think that your opinion is fact, and sourced information by others is a "political commentry". As you would have noticed, I have reverted all deletes by you as they are pending for third opinion. Agreeing to you to a certain extent (rather than being adamant like you), I have corrected point no. 2 (Abhishek Singhvi part). Hope this solves your problem. Unless you have any valid reason (than just don't like it), please do not remove it. You need to learn to respect others opinions and stop damaging a reasonably good article on most powerful and famous Indian politician. Inder315 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that you have once again deleted all above sections without any "discussion" which you always want others to do. Are you owner of the article. Needless to mentioned, I have reverted your damaging edits. Even if you remove it again, I will still revert it unless a third party intervenes (not your sockpuppet). Inder315 (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's astounding to see you accuse me of sockpuppetry while you are the one who has already been PROVEN to operate sockpuppets. If you have any evidence for my sockpuppetry you're welcome to report at WP:SSP I believe you should have been banned permanently like your other puppet accounts so you could stop being a nuisance to others. Coming to the content, the "vote catching abilities" cannot but be a matter of opinion, and as such have no place in a wikipedia article. Stop adding cruft to the content. I have respectfully reverted it again. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool down, you are addressing just one line of the whole content. Even if we assume that this lines needs to be removed, what about other content? And I have told you upteen times, I am NOT going to remove the content just because you think it has "as such have no place in a wikipedia article". And I am reverting it again. And I am still waiting for your comments for point 1, 3 and 4. I am sure you don't have any answers to it and hence accusing me for same stuff again and again. And about banning me, in fact I demand that you should be banned (including your sockpuppets) permannently for dominating an article and doing damage to it. You are not allowing anyine else to contribute in a fair way and working like a watch dog on this. This is clear as you are reverting any single comment within 24 Hrs. Sticking to my earlier comment, Even if you remove it again, I will still revert it unless a third party intervenes (not your sockpuppet).

Who exactly are you accusing me of using as a sockpuppet? There's no third party making coments here !!! Anyway, more to the point, here are your answers:

1. You may remove the renunciation statement if you please, someone can reinsert it when the reference is available.

2. You have accepted that you misused reference on this one.

3. The notice is not significant enough to warrant it's own "Section"!

4. The other parts describe "events", not analyses of "vote catching abilities"

I have created and RfC. Your 3rd opinion doesn't seem to have drawn any response. I'm not reverting for now. Let's see how the RfC goes. And for god's stake stop asking me to "cool down" and "stop using sockpuppets" ... it makes you look ridiculous and draws attention to the fact that you're the one who was blocked for sockpuppetry, and are showing no remorse for it. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading the entire discussion and article edits, I shall say 'ReluctantPhilosopher' is devotionally praising a leader with seems to be intellectual language. Follow the wikipedia's neutral language and please do not jump into the discussion unnecessarily proving your misconducts as 'according to the wikipedia's policy'. Only for ReluctantPhilosopher: Neutral and unbiased sense of language with reliable references is the primary policy of wikipedia and then comes the writing errors; and if you find mistakes in sentence construction, you are welcome to correct it and not to delete it.

Regards

Sushil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil10s (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Should analysis of Sonia Gandhi's "vote catching abilities", and election commission notice, be present in the article?

RfC removed as matter is settled

Should the article have a discussion of Sonia Gandhi's "vote catching abilities" (the entire second half of "Critcism" section starting "questions are being asked now") and other such analyses, and a whole section devoted to "Notice by Election Commission of India"?

Please refer to the discussion above for both sides of the argument. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher's position
The material added by Inder315, namely the second half of "Criticism" section starting "Questions are being asked now", and the entire "Notice by Election Commission of India" section should be removed as it is in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, besides WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY. I welcome neutral editors to read the sections in question and decide on the validity of my objections. I would also like to point out that User:Inder315 was recently blocked by User:Blnguyen for operating three other puppet accounts[2] to inappropriately argue for a consensus on this talk page.ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Inder315's position I thought I should reply the allegations on me so that this self proclaimed owner of article Sonia Gandhi scholar does not get benefit of my silence. I don;t know which FALSE REFERENCES he is talking about. If you check the history, you will easily find who started personal attack. He terms "political commentary " to each and everything (including properly sourced material) which he does not agree with or does not like, to be precise. He is also known to find various excuses for deleting a section of part of section which he does not like. Examples of execuses

1. Unsourced or poorly sourced (all the sections which he talks about are properly sourced).

2. Grammatically incorrect (could be, but is deleting a section is definitely NOT a solution to it. Why he does not correct it?)

3. Political commentry (now it is his opinion. What gives him a right to delete a section without a second thought?)

4. Not notable (Who is he to decide it alone?)

5. This does not have a place in wikipedia (Again the same. Is he owner of wikipedia?)

He demands "discuss first, THEN revert" but if one checks his editing history, he had been reverting all sections earlier without any discussion. He started doing it for namesake when he was warned by some senior editors in the very same forum. It is important to note that, he has been cleverly hiding this fact from the wikipedia users.

One day, he raised a query about a section, "I'm going to fix it; if anyone can provide any good reason why I shouldn't, do it now." I answered it in a most elaborate way. Still he removed it without any second though. And looks like in his dictionary fixing means deleting. deletes referenced material.

He is also terming me all the possible terms like ridiculous. He always give reference of events which are telvised but refuse to accept the biggest news of the day as a source. He thinks that a milestone in Sonia Gandhi's political career, is a trivial event.

I personally do not hold any grudge against Sonia Gandhi or anyone. My simple idea behind putting the material in this article is to give a fair and neutral sourced information to all genuine wikipedia users. Seems like this guy has been dominating the article for a while to make the article look like a fan site and a campaigning site. And about the critism section which he always talk about, please check the edit history and you will find that it is me who introduced the section and the above scholar had removed it twice. So Mr. Scholar, do not advocate using that name. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but the problem arises when you try to impose that opinion on others. And exactly same is happening here.

My aplologies for being so elaborate, but it was important to bring to everyones notice how some people are acting as if they are owner of an article and have started policing, resulting is denial of fair and neutral information to all wikipedia users, for whom wikipedia is just next to bible. Inder315 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: The above mentioned portions and some other objectionable parts were removed by User:Relata refero. User:Inder315 is advised to heed the community's opinion and not insert them again. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so finally managed to delete it. Congrats. Ok, I would love to respect the community's opinion (community of 2 scholars or may be sockpuppets), but only when I get satisfactory answers to my following queries. 1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004. This is a fact. Why it is removed? 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed? If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements? You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. I would like to hear an explanation. Otherwise, I would revert back to original version. I hope senior editors will help me and stop this.

The reasons for deletion were adequately summarised in the edit-summary. You may read WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:BLP to better understand why those parts were problematic. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My first question. Why are you answering the questions if you are not asked? I am expecting an answer from User:Relata refero. In fact, you are the one who is telling that he has removed the sections. Too much of a coincidence. That supports my claim that ReluctantPhilosopher and User:Relata refero. Secondly, as per your claim, I checked the comments. They are "rv POV essay, recentism, allegations over-dependent on single 1999 op-ed". You had been saying it for ages. What about my questions. Given below for your reference once again.

1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004. This is a fact. Why it is removed? 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed? If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements? You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct.

I am reverting back to the original and unbiased version. Please stop this.

And I read the policies WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:BLP. Nowhere it talks about not entering facts in a biography. The problem is that you don't like facts and so the user User:Relata refero (may be your sockpuppet), the way you answer on his behalf. Inder315 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the RfC. The questions above are irrelevant, and are clearly intended as political statements. The statements are removed as Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. These "questions" are not covered in a sufficient number of mainstream sources to be placed in the article per WP:UNDUE. Relata refero (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that these are political statements. Following your footprints, I have removed/mofied certain other statements from the article which look like political commentry and also a POV. I have removed the statements like her act was looked as sacrifice, there is a media speculation on Priyanka's enrty into politics, 'she' appointed Manmohan Singh (I think the party appoints someone, not an individual) etc. These statements look like to be a part of either soniagandhi.com website or a fan site. They have no place in wikipedia as such. Please do not revert the delete/modification now. Inder315 (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop making disruptive edits to the article. You have already been warned about it. You may be blocked if you don't refrain. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is disruptive about it? I have already given valid reasons for the same. And in fact, according to you, Political commentry and POVs do not have any place in wikipedia. So why are you worried? And about blocking, stop threatning me, otherwise I would have to raise a complaint. You are definitely not the person who can block anyone. So stop making noise.

And your problem is not anything else, but someone is opposing you with facts.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983.

Removed: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference)

Modified: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'.

If you know the civics, you should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends.

Removed: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress.

If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry.

Removed: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation.

What the hell is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. No place in wikipedia. Inder315 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual, the philosopher has removed the part without any explanation to above queries. Also, looking at the dates, looks like he is doing is almost daily. I wonder whether he has started assuming as if it is his personal website (Sonia fan site). Inder315 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Name in Italian

We should have her name written in Italian language (her mother tongue). Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the social background of Mrs Gandhi ?

This Wikipedia biography claims that Mrs Gandhi comes "from a poor family"... If it's an exact information, that's good, but did her father run or not a building contractor business ? I am French and in my country, an entrepreneur like a building contractor is labeled as "bourgeois" (upper middle or middle class)!! But maybe Mr Maino (father of First Lady Gandhi) went bankrupt and loose his status (LOL) ?!!! Is there anyone who could clarify this ? Thanks :D

Dominance of 'Philosophers' in the article

There is a philosopher who seems to be owning this article and observes all edits daily. If one makes an edit which praises Sonia Gandhi, it is allowed to be kept (no matter whether it is based on facts or not. But dare you make any factual and sourced edit which is against her image, it is removed immediately. You will also be threatened that your account would be disabled. (Everyone knows he has not right to do so.)

1. If you add she was instrumental in making Congress 'win' in 2004 elections, the edit is welcome.

  But if you say she was responsible for party defeats in various states since 2004, it is a political commentry.

2. If you add a comment which praises her and say it is a general opinion, that is good.

  But if you say that she was critized for going to Italy during 1971 war and also accepting the citizenship after 16 years, it becomes an unsourced and poorly documented material.

3. If you add the statistics of Congress winning only 7 seats more than BJP in 2004 elections, it is removed saying "irrelevant".

But formation of UPA is relevant.

4. Highly unsourced and fake information like "working in restaurant being from poor family" is present in article.

5. Accepting the president post of congress suddenly and critism due to that is removed for no reason.

6. Her so called sacrifice is highlighted but the fact tha APJ Abdul Kalam refused to invite her to form a government is kept hidden.

7. It is expected that others should discuss the things before modifying, but philosphers can delete anything anytime without giving any reason or by giving generic execuses.

Can someone please help?

Reinsert it with citations. Trips (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check the editing history of user:ReluctantPhilosopher and you will come to know. From his edits in pages BJP and Indian National Congress, it is evident that he is a true Congress supporter. While I respect his beliefs, that does not mean he is free to remove anything.

Request

Hi folks. I'm trying to remove links to the Punjab disambig page. There's a link to Punjab in the text of this article that should be altered to Punjab (India). Could an established user edit the page accordingly, please? Thanks 163.1.181.208 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth

I have corrected the place of birth and have given the valid reference also. Please do not modify it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This...

is not a reliable source, please do not re-add material cited to it. " A calcified, out-of-touch, visionless and nepotistic dynasty is poised once again to lead and the dynasty rule continues in the world's largest democracy, albeit with fresh and young Indo-Italian genes having Brahmin-Christian-Muslim-Parsi blood with charming faces and charisma which no other Indian can claim." Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. http://www.vepachedu.org/foundation.html --Thirusivaperur (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The website claims http://www.swordoftruth.com/ as the source for the claim that Rajiv converted to christianity. go figure... --Soman (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the website doesn't get regularly updated, so another source would be really helpful. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is ridiculous ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Page seems much more neutral than most other pages here ( eg; the Page on Orissa Violence). Why should its neutrality be disputed any longer? Jobxavier (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rajiv the younger son?

Rajiv is the elder son of Indira Gandhi, so far as I know. He is referred to in the last para of the Article as her younger son. Editors may consider.202.83.40.149 (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

                             RESERVATION FOR WHOM & WHY ?
                     WHY 109 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT -2009 FURTHER ?

It was the red letter day in the wake of freedom of Indians that the constitutional maker made the special provision in the constitution for safeguarding of Social & Educational development of Backwards Class known as Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes according to the Art-338 of the constitution the post of Commissioner for caste & Tribes was created and the office started functioning from the 18th Nov-1950. In accordance with the provision of Article references as mention in 341(1), (2) & 342(1),(2) are construed as includes and excludes from the list any groups, community or part there of as the president may on receipt of the report of Commission appointed under clause (i) of Art-340 by order specify.

As regard Backward Class peoples of present Jharkhand State, Norther Orissa, West-Bengal area etc who were included in the list even after their demand of separate state like other Indians state on the basis of socio-cultural and linguistically similarity a state sovereignty in the name of Jharkhand comprising within (Chhatnagpur & Santal pargans Commissionery) also when the demand of Jharkhand state was not included in the debate held in the British House of Commons first time on 10th Jan 1925 in spite of it developed Santali literature and invention of distinct script “OLCHIKI PARSI”. The present designed Backwards Class peoples ie Kol, Santhal, Ho, Munda, Bhumij , Mahali etc were forced to formed The Jharkhand Mahasobha than a Jharkhand political platform in the year 1935 and started the agitation for creation of separate Jharkhand State. But it is sorry to mention here that the so called secularist political leader of the country designated this demand as “Algao-Bad” and peoples as “Algao-Badi” than started displacement in the name of developments. Taking the advantage of Economical poor the English Missionary were started conversion under the guise of Education like the Muslim ruler during Sultanate period it is best known to all the modern Indians.

This country was divided but the Jharkhand state was not created in spite of so many commission appointed by present ruling Party for state reorganization commission. Such as “Dhar Commission” in the year 1948 of govt. “J.V.P. Commission” J=Jabaharlal Nehru, V= V.V.Patel & P= Pitabhi Sitaramaiya again the “Linguitic Commission” in 23 rd December 1953, but all these commission denied the creation of Jharkhand state. On the other hand it is most unfortunate that in the report of linguyitics Commission submitted in the 1955 it has been argued that “The peoples of these areas (Jharkhand) did not have any specific languages or Socio-Culture similarity” rather some portion of the area were again included with West-Bengal.It was also strongly objected by the Jharkhand political leaders under Late Jaipal Sing Munda in the floor of the House. This has been recorded in the constitutional history of Parliaments and the reason of inclusion best known to all the “Jhar-Khand” peoples. But the question arose how long these peoples will be deprives from their fundamental right and privileges as envisages in the modern constitutions. Why the entire intellectuals of the country remain mum to day ? From the very beginning of Independence era these (Jharkhondi) peoples were fighting for the sovereignty and integrity of the Modern Bharat and regional identity like Punjab State.

On ther 14th day of Sept.1949 when the constitutional assembly debated over the issue of modern Indians languages under the president ship of Pondit Jabaharlal Nehru and preside over by the Chairmen Constitutional drafting committee Dr. B.R.Ambedkar and presently we are observing that day as “Rastro Bhasa Divas”. On the day 15 languages were included in the scheduled VIII of the constitution out of which 13 languages become the state language in newly created state. Is not it the inclusion of Santali language was ignored on the day inspite of distinct script “ Olchiki Parsi” and on political side the creation of Jharkhand state was ignored taking the plea as Algao-Bad. On the other hand santal,Ho,Munda,Orang,Mahali etc socio, Culture, History become object of research including the modern developed script “OLCHIKI” a santali script. There after all these groups of peoples have been defined as “Backwards Class” (Social & Educational) under Art-15(4), 16(4) & 46 further reference to Art-341(1),(2) & 342(1),(2). On political side Art-334(1) has been kept for proper representation of these communities in State Assembly and Parliament and will be seized after every ten years from the commencement of the constitution. But the same “seized words” how long continued and for whom and why? By NDA govt. it was extended under 79 th Co institutional amendment Act-99 up to 2010 its some how seems to be the positive steps to complete the remaining works by Central governments within the preview of the constitution as they have full fill the demand of “State & Language” issue an long pending demands over the region.

The act of divide and rule policy started by the British govt. over the population of these region i.e. Chhatnagpur –Santhal Pargana Commissionary and carry forward by modern thinker and political leader of this country even after the creation of Jharkhand State and inclusion of Santali language in ther VIII scheduled of the constitution is strongly objected by the “Bharatiya Santali Philosopher, Womens & Boy’s Federation” of Jharkhand, West-Bengal & Odisha. It is the duty of Central govt. to appoint the Santali Language Commission, to gives the identity of the peoples and state language under Art-345,346 &347 in the sate of Jharkhand Backwards Class Commission, Sarna Religious Commission” to servey the SARNA Religious community in the State of Jharkhand, West-Bengal & Odisha instead of bring the 109 Constitutional Amendment in the Parliament. Now the question arose “Are these Jharkhandi peoples not entitled to lives like others modern Indians ? like Oriya, Bengali, Assamiya, etc if these peoples identity were not given can they claims their present identity what they possessing  ? Is not it all these act of Central govt. seems to be deliberate suppression. It is only some modern cultural and national thinker of the country who were deeply studied the literature and culture of the Jaher-Khond peoples. Hence they make out the Jharkhand State followed by the inclusion of Santali language in the VIII scheduled of the constitution. All though they were also not so much aware about the thought of Pondit Raghunath Murmu who has developed the modern script “Olchiki Parsi” for the development of modern Santali language and literature of Jharkhandi. Now the 109 constitutional Amendment-2009 seems to be befooling the linguitics mass residing in the state of Jharkhand, West-Bengal and Orissa by infringing the constitutional norms with a view to keep them in more edge. This may played a vital role in the coming future for weakening the National integrity and sovereignty as well as encouraging the corruption culture over the region and country. The obsessive search of Bananchal & Banabasi is nothing but a brain child of “Hindutaw ideology” to making the Jaher-Khond peoples a “Hindu” duplicity.

How long nation prepare the mind of man to developed in to human individuals, who would imbibes certain basic value and lead their life a higher place of perception understanding and ability to distinguish between good and evils. It is the awareness wisdom and idea evolves si nce long in their thinking. So it is unwise to say that they are lacking the higher place of perception ability to distinguish between good and bad. Only one thing lacking is Education by mother tongue and their present knowledge become imbecile due to deliberate suppression. It is the awareness one should learn from them, it is the idea one should transplanted and borrowed for others. We are engaged since freedom in denouncing each other culture, custom and tradition and creating hindrances for national integration yeh the National joy is yet to celebrate.

The last five decade of Indians Independence Santali Linguistic peoples are spending a confusion life both central and state, due to the different attitude of central and state governments in regards to modern identity of Language and literature. We the Bharatiya Santali Philosopher, Womens and Boy’s Federation strongly objects the 109 Constitutional Amendments -09, which has objected in the floor of the House by Hon’ble MP Arjun Munda of BJP as well the lakadisical attitude of concerning state govt towards the recognition santali as one of the language. In this effect a memorandum of demands has already been placed before the Central and state government for immediate action within the perview of the constitution of India including the “Creation of Jhar-khand Regiment” in the Indians Military. Also all the literate mass attention are invited herewith for Coming, Walking and Working together for the couse of literature and Culture, Health and Hygene sovereighnty of Modern Bharat.

So according to our view right to happiness of every human being should be given to all the idea of true secularism is yet to transplanted in the minds of others we should forget the skilled what we had displayed in the 20th century, In this begninng era of 21st century we should rethink about the reservation for Whom & Why ? Who are Adibasi, Banabasi, Girijon, Horijon, Bideshi & Pardeshi ? we all are Modern Indians known as Bharatiya and should think about alround development of Bharat Varsh. Than only we can achieved the thought of our great thinker of ancient age like Arya Bhatt, Pannini and so others about the future of this country in this New Millenium(122.50.137.61 (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Written By:Thakur Lachhaman Murmu Founder of Bharatiya Santali, Philosopher, Womens & Boy’s Federation, as well as Composure of “Jug-Sombot-5000” in Santali calculated as per Sun year. Email: addisirjon@yahoo.co.in (122.50.137.61 (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Edited By: Bhuglu Marndi & Chunuram Murmu General Secretary, Odisha, Jharkhand & West-Bengal Email: bhuglu_gsbsbf@yahoo.com 59.93.144.16 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.144.16 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Error in Rajiv Gandhi's birthdate on hyperlinks on the right hand side of the page: '1969' should read '1944'. Rajiv was two years older than his wife, not twenty three years younger! IHM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.214.157 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Amarnath.amarnath, 9 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Citations must be given for her swiss bank related allegations.How can such allegations can be made without valid references????

Amarnath.amarnath (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I count eight cited sources in that section. Is there something wrong with any of them? Algebraist 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation is wrong. Please check the original article here: http://www.schweizer-illustrierte.ch/zeitschrift/500-millionen-der-schweiz-imeldas-faule-tricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.21.254.30 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Anitar82, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please change: "As the present Government of India does to believe Indian nationality law to permit dual citizenship" to "At present the Government of India does not allow dual citizenship." because Dual citizenship is illegal in India. OCI status is not dual citizenship, as the referenced link itself clearly states. It is only a lifelong visa and specifically prohibits holding political office. Anitar82 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request of sentence that Sonia DID NOT prove that she DID NOT re-register!

I am puzzled and take issue with the following sentence, the second to last sentence in the Foreign Birth section:

" No comment or evidence has been put forward by Sonia Gandhi to confirm that she did not re-register post 1992, presenting implications to her position as an elected member of Parliament. "

Why and how would someone show evidence that they DID NOT do something?

Can you imagine if a police officer stopped you on the street and asked you to prove to them that you did NOT commit a crime?

If there is proof that she DID re-register, then show it. But without proof, the assumption has to be made of innocence and that she did not. I strongly urge this sentence be removed or revised. --Mezaco (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.245.24.76, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} She wants Rahul as PM but YS Jagan as a party worker who is a youth icon in AP.

121.245.24.76 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Pierce (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Charitable Giving

Buffett has it, Gates has it, Gandhi's have it. Buffett and Gates are giving away their billions. Can someone please fill in on the charitable givings of Billionaire Smt. Sonia Gandhi-ji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.162.219 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Indianism

This article is thronged with Indian English specially in terms of punctuations! I can't be "racist" about it because I'm an Indian myself! Trying to reduce the overuse of commas etc...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian English is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Having said that, improper punctuation should of course, be avoided. MikeLynch (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do You Know Your Sonia ? by Dr. Subramanian Swamy (National President, Janatha Party)

Admin, please add this information to this biography page. Every bit of info is backed up by a annexure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.47.250 (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add this site to the main page. In a democracy like India, people should this information about Sonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.128.73 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that cannot be incorporated into the main article for various reasons. Please read the guidelines on WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:OR. Good day. MikeLynch (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

should be included for complete image of Sonia Gandhi. If you read carefully the guidelines on verifiability, biographies of living persons and original research, the aforementioned link deserves to be included. If you still want to push your personal opinion on readers of Wikipedia then please include it in "Criticism" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parabrahman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC) 

Please read the guidelines properly and state the points which allow such an addition to be made. WP:BLP needs to be followed very strictly. If you believe I am pushing my personal opinion, then please ask an admin to mediate. If you believe the link you posted contains content which is backed by proper references to third party sources, then feel free to add that particular material into the article. MikeLynch (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a reply to a previous comment, India is a democracy, but Wikipedia is not. WP:NOT. MikeLynch (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Advani dn't apologized but he regrets ..Fact need to be checked and Updated

{{edit semi-protected}} As Wikipedia page INCORRECTLY says "Mr. Advani apologized for the report" and ref. to Times of India (Pro. Congress News Paper) News paper artcile

I request you guys to edit the word apologized to regrets as that what he actually said.

Here is more balanced artcile about same : http://www.deccanherald.com/content/138809/advani-regrets-illegal-assets-slur.html

As much i know Wikipedia don't own by Congress :)or Indian DALALMEDIA !

Info2012 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The source currently in the article explicitly uses the word "apologized." In any event, "to express regret" means "to apologize". Per Wiktionary, apologize means "to offer an apology"; and apology means, "An expression of remorse or regret..." So I don't actually see a relevant difference between the two words. As for your last sentence, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a not for profit organization based in the United States. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Times of India is a reliable source. See WP:RS. That is enough for Wikipedia. That TOI is pro-Congress is just your opinion. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Update :

Its sounds like this page is own by congress Shills .. TOI is not a Pro-Congress is your own opinion too. @ MikeLynch.

Whats the problem if you use Un-Biased report instead of TOI. Even TOI article used Advani irrelevant image to this event. Please don't forget two different words with same meaning in English can cause lot of issues.And in politics apologized and regrets are two different meaning.

That TOI is a reliable source is not my opinion. It is the Wikipedia community's opinion. I don't really get what you mean by 'Advani irrelevant image'. And if the source mentions the particular word 'apologise', then there should be no problem in mentioning the same in the article. Kindly keep a neutral stance when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Statements like Its sounds like this page is own by congress Shills, isn't likely to up your image as a neutral contributor. State specific concerns only. Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Now here we Go :- Source TIMES OF INDIA !

BJP says no 'clean chit' to Sonia Gandhi on black money issue

"It is not a clean chit. Investigations into black money parked abroad are still on and one should wait for the process to end," BJP deputy leader in Lok Sabha Gopinath Munde told reporters here.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/BJP-says-no-clean-chit-to-Sonia-Gandhi-on-black-money-issue/articleshow/7542169.cms

Now please add the above latest development as most RELIABLE times of India reported it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2012 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir, the article page is not a place to report every news event. The article currently mentions about Advani's apologies. If we start writing about the BJP's stance on every Sonia Gandhi related thing, the article will lose its purpose. Lets await comments from other editors, and if needed, we will make changes. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Mike : As you have said in your OWN WORDS I Quote "The article page is not a place to report every news event" if that the case then remove "Mr. Advani apologized to Sonia Gandhi for the report" too. Or add the latest update which is in context to "Mr. Advani apologized to Sonia Gandhi".. that will make this page more unbiased and up-to-date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2012 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't take back my words. This is not a place to report every news. We can't add the BJP's comments on every Sonia Gandhi issue, just as we don't add Congress views to a BJP article. Mr Advani's comments are notable, as in a sense, he is the one who started the controversy. If the Wikipedia community decides that the statements find no place in the article, then let it be removed. Invite other editors who are in good standing to comment here. Then we can reach consensus. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 10:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You guys have ganged up here ...and i think i need to complaint about it .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2012 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Help desk is not the place to raise your complaint, and certainly not the place into which cut&paste this discussion. If you think other editors are "ganging up" on you, one of the Administrator's Noticeboards listed here are the place to go. Astronaut (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: Maybe there is room for the BJP's latest view on this affair, just not in the lengthy way Parthpms (talk · contribs) has done so. How about:

"...Sonia Gandhi wrote a letter to the leader of BJP Mr. L. K. Advani denying the allegation. Mr. Advani apologized for the report, though his party's deputy leader refused to give her a 'clean chit' over the allegation."

... and that's all. This uses 2 references, both from the Times of India and it says what is needed concisely enough such that undue weight isn't given to the allegations. Astronaut (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That should be an acceptable revision. Also, If you feel there is some 'ganging up' being done, please, by all means, feel free to consult an admin over it. Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 10:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks Astronaut. --rgpk (comment) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In a quandary

Moved discussion from my talk page. Astronaut (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! I am stuck in a discussion (which has taken place primarily in edit summaries) with editor RobertRosen on Sonia Gandhi regarding the image File:Gandhisonia05052007.jpg, which is found at Commons. The other editor is removing this image, saying that there is no proper licensing information for the file available (on the link provided by the source). Can you check out the file, and say whether it indeed is a file without proper licensing? Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my lis with this specific image is that the source link does not work and the image was not previously verified for copyright and cannot also be verified now. Had it been verified earlier the case would have been different. It is also not clear if the image has been removed from the original (Brazilian) source for copyvio or similar reasons. RobertRosen (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the link is broken now, but it obviously used to work. The site claims Creative Commons 2.5 licensing which if I understand correctly cannot later be revoked. However, whether the site really did have the image in question I cannot find out, and I doubt we ever will. On balance, and since the image was uploaded 4 years ago, I think it should be OK, but I will ask at the appropriate admin noticeboard (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 2#File:Gandhisonia05052007.jpg). One final point, can we find another free portrait to use in its place in the infobox - perhaps File:Sonia Gandhi - India Economic Summit 2006-cropped.jpg or crop one of the other images at commons:Category:Sonia Gandhi? Astronaut (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Asked for guidance at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing#What to do if the source is now a dead link? Astronaut (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it here. Now, people at Commons have replied, and they say that its OK. Will put back image. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 14:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't give up so easily (I hold 2 degrees in law) :-). See my riposte to this on the Commons link. RobertRosen (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well. :P I don't mind any picture really, any other image which is a close up should be fine. However, let this remain until the matter is closed, after which we can change the pic accordingly. Have a good day. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 16:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Forbes List

I have finally got around to reading the talk page. Though I believe the inclusion of a Forbes reference in the heading of a wiki page detracts from the credibility of wiki due to the subjective nature of the source I will relent in my pursuit of improving wiki content by moving or removing Forbes material for Dilma Rousseff and Sonia Gandhi.

It is interesting to note that the most powerful man in the USA (Obama) does not have a Forbes ranking on his page. Neither does Dmitry Medvedev, Shimon Peres, David Cameron, Stephen Harper, Julia Gillard, Bronisław Komorowski, Jalal Talabani or dozens of other world leaders. How about some consistency... B. Fairbairn (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The FA Elvis Presley, Manmohan Singh, and the FL List of United States graduate business school rankings does. Yes Michael? •^Talk 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Swiss Accounts

I think that I am correct in assuming that only those paras or text can be entered which have a legitimate reference available on the Internet. The reference on the Internet has to be clear and relevant to the matter.

In the case of Reference no. 34 of the Article referring to Swiss Bank Accounts there are the following contradictions and gratuitous presumptions:

a. The reference quoted is Zee News. The text of the reference refers to an article in the Swiss Magazine “Schweizer Illustriete” dated 11.11.1991. This is not a direct reference since it is a reference to Dr. Subramaniam Swamy who has referred to this article. In other words there is reference to a reference to a reference.

b. The actual article in the Swiss Magazine is devoted to the illegal wealth of the Marcos family specifically Imelda Marcos. There is no reference to Smt. Sonia Gandhi in the entire article.

c. One box attached to the article speaks of the millions stashed away in the Swiss Banks. It says that the US Consultancy firm McKinsey has calculated that 250 to 300 Billion Francs from the developing world are stashed in Swiss Banks by the Dictators of the world. There are 14 pictures of the Dictators of the world with some text below each speculating on the amount under each name and photograph. It is only the total speculated amount of 250 to 300 billion which is attributed to McKinsey and not any individual speculative amount.

d. For no valid reason there is a picture of late Rajiv Gandhi with a text saying, “total 2.5 Billion Swiss Francs in Indian secret accounts in Switzerland”. Rajiv Gandhi was a duly elected leader of the largest democracy in the world and he could under no circumstances be classified as a Dictator. In any case the magazine, though it has published a picture of Rajiv Gandhii above the speculated amount, has taken care not to attribute this money to him and has merely said “in Indian secret accounts in Switzerland” without naming any beneficiary. In any case nothing has ever been shown to link him to any Swiss account. Once again, there is no mention of Smt. Sonia Gandhi even in this box.

In the absence of any reference to Smt. Sonia Gandhi in the relevant article there is absolutely no linkage to this particular reference and the reference would need to be removed on this ground alone.

The Article would need to be amended accordingly.

For reference to the original article in the Swiss magazine please see  http://www.schweizer-illustrierte.ch/zeitschrift/500-millionen-der-schweiz-imeldas-faule-tricks 

(Vishvjit (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. Will look into it. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the section since this is a blp. I think Vishvjit's contentions are reasonably accurate and that the material is suspect but, clearly, the controversy does exist and needs to be mentioned in a reasonable way, i.e, as a controversy rather than as a given. Perhaps using the last two references to indicate that there is a controversy. --rgpk (comment) 15:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote it - hopefully better. If someone can add a citation that confirms that this is an ongoing controversy, that would be great. --rgpk (comment) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not an ongoing controversy really. The ongoing controversy relates to the Government, and not Sonia Gandhi. Thanks for rewriting it! Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in Schweizer Illustriete clearly talks about Rajiv Gandhi's swiss bank accounts and should not be trivialized as idle gossip. Further contentions to the same effect have also been made by Ram Jethmalani an emminent lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP, amongst others. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-02-21/news/28617959_1_swiss-banks-black-money-sonia-gandhi

Nevertheless it is a controversial topic and hence it is included in Sonia Gandhi's controversies page and not in her life story page, albeit with adequate references.

The job of Wikipedia is to present truth as it is without any fear from the high and the mighty. Lets stick to our mission at wikipedia.

I strongly make a case for including articles on Sonia's swiss bank accounts. At the same time to be fair to her let's include her denial as well. I believe that is a fair move within the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthpms (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi section on Swiss Bank accounts

The link itself says that BJP has not given clean chit. Why does the content make it look appear so? Advani only has said that he is sorry because it came up but if she had denied it already when the issue came in public domain then that would not have happened.

Moreover the article is locked till July. Why is such a long period for locking for anyone? How does it help Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.236 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the party's and Advani's stances have been made clear (ref above discussion). Regarding the semi protection, the article is a biography of a living person, and also has a history of vandalism by anonymous IPs. Hence the semi-protection. Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The text of the article is this "Mr. Advani and the BJP accepted her denial but ..". The links alongwith say that (1)"Advani expressed regret of her name and that of her late husband being mentioned in the task force report.." and (2) the other link says that "the Congress president or her late husband Rajiv Gandhi had not been given a "clean chit" on the issue of black money.." and "..when she refuted the charge, Advani accepted it" which means at the most Mr. Advani accepted that her name should not be in the list as a principled stand("Advani took a principled stand. It was not an apology," - the last line in http://expressbuzz.com/cities/hyderabad/black-white/254078.html) but not BJP. That is what I understand. 180.188.234.147 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See this section. A similar opinion was voiced, and the discussion ended in consensus. Yes Michael? •^Talk 09:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Permission to Prosecute Mrs Gandhi by Subramanian Swamy

President of Janata Party Dr. Subramanian Swamy has filed a petition before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for permission to prosecute Mrs Sonia Gandhi on various charges. It is a 206 page petition giving detail of charges. The whole petition is available on Janata Party website.

I have included this news in the controversy section, and I have tried to put it in most neutral way. I think it is OK to put it there as it is an important development. Please give your comments. Raju Das 11:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A separate section on one politician seeking permission to prosecute another is way over the top. I've added it to the swiss bank account section but does this really need inclusion? --rgpk (comment) 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think not. My only concern is that the article should not become a base for political warring; I do not think it is very notable. It has not been discussed much in the mainstream media. If we get a few newspaper sources, then I could probably have a relook at my comment. Yes Michael? •^Talk 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people would want to prosecute Sonia for n number of reasons. Swamy is a "stunt man" and he has done lot of such things before. it is WP:Undue until it moves beyond his request to Manmohan. --CarTick (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to calling Dr Swammy as "stunt man", it is wikipedia, not some personal blog, so such personal opinion can't influence what goes in a wiki article. He is an activist.

Anyway, I have added one sentence mentioning the specific petition filed by Dr Swamy on 15th April 2011 to the Swiss Bank controversy section above. When it gets enough media coverage or further action is taken, a new section will be created. No one should take sides here. On a wiki article about a personality, every major incident about that person should be included, including controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajuonline (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, taking Cartick's statements in the right spirit, Yes, I think its WP:UNDUE. I think the material should be removed altogether. rgpk, your comments? Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well. Including it is undue. --rgpk (comment) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

no Raju, we dont write in wikipedia everything what media chooses to cover. we all know media covers a lot of the news just for pure sensationalism. what we include in articles of living persons especially controversies has to pass two tough quality control tests, WP:Undue and WP:BLP. --CarTick (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CarTick on this. I also agree with the comment on the edit summary you left out. Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting the entire section. I looked at it again and we still don't have reliable references that support the existence of the controversy. All we have are references about the 'clean chit' and including that is not in the spirit of WP:BLP.--rgpk (comment) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If everybody have the same opinion, I will not disagree. Lets wait till what action is taken by PM and/or court, as Swamy has said that if PM does not take action, he will move court. But I still insist that calling an elected MP as "Stunt Man" is not in right spirit of wikipedia, even if you hate him. Raju Das (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

i do not hate him and i do think he has done a lot of good things for India. as an activist, i think he is very courageous and has shown his willingness to take on pretty much every powerful person in India from all political parties. i also think he does a lot of things just to stay in the spotlight. but again, it is not about him. --CarTick (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rajuonline, yes. Let us wait till this issue goes till PM, or any higher authority. Simply speaking, anyone can make an allegation; this page should not become a collection of allegations. And what CarTick has said is his opinion. We are not mentioning "Stunt man" or any such adjective in the article itself; I think we should respect CarTick's opinion and let it be. Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that calling Swamy a stunt man is not kosher. You should strike that CarTick. But, the material itself does not have adequate referencing and should go. --rgpk (comment) 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of removal of the material as well, but then, isn't it better if any controversies, if notable and sufficiently referenced are included? For example, it is true that Sonia has sparked a lot of drama and controversy due to her being foreign born; wouldn't the article be incomplete without mention of such controversies? I am citing the essay WP:CSECTION here, which relates to criticism sections. It favours the integration of criticism into the body of the article. Wouldn't it be appropriate if that is done here also? Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I meant only the swiss bank controversy section. The foreign birth section is well referenced and should stay. The problem with the swiss bank section is that it is poorly referenced and relies only on a couple of articles that make tertiary references to these bank accounts. As in so and so person says they exist. That is insufficient for inclusion of negative material in a blp.--rgpk (comment) 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article in Schweizer Illustriete clearly talks about Rajiv Gandhi's swiss bank accounts and should not be trivialized as idle gossip. Further contentions to the same effect have also been made by Ram Jethmalani an emminent lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP, amongst others. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-02-21/news/28617959_1_swiss-banks-black-money-sonia-gandhi Nevertheless it is a controversial topic and hence it is included in Sonia Gandhi's controversies page and not in her life story page, albeit with adequate references. The job of Wikipedia is to present truth as it is without any fear from the high and the mighty. Lets stick to our mission at wikipedia. I strongly make a case for including articles on Sonia's swiss bank accounts. At the same time to be fair to her let's include her denial as well. I believe that is a fair move within the guidelines. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthpms (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly second the previous suggestion, both sides of the issue can be given equal space in content and references. Since the event is still unfolding, it can be included in the controversies section and a final call can be taken at a later date. Manohar1010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

As I point out to MikeLynch above, the referencing is poor. If you can get better references that indicate that this is a major controversy in India, that would help. The Schweizer article needs to be supported by strong secondary sources. --rgpk (comment) 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Sorry I misunderstood you there rgpk Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The very same sources and persons are quoted in the Rajiv Gandhi page under the controversies section, it does represent a sizeable opinion. Atleast for consistency, two lines have to be written in a factual manner. This is no ordinary allegation and has received significant coverage. Manohar1010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for that note. The referencing in the Rajiv Gandhi article is equally bad. The schweizer article apparently only has a photograph of Rajiv Gandhi with the amount in a bank. I can't read german, but it doesn't look like there is a mention of Gandhi in the article itself. Also, it is not clear if these figures are speculative or how the writer got hold of them (because I can't read German) so reliability is a big issue. Finally, using a political party website as a reference hardly counts as a reliable source! Of course, all that is moot because those references are about Rajiv Gandhi not Sonia Gandhi and because this article is a blp and that one is not. --rgpk (comment) 16:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since BLP cannot be applied to Rajiv, there will be a different case there. And as noted, the Swiss article makes only a small note of Rajiv, and I do not understand how a whole section can be made out of it. Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also posted a link above of India's eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani's take on this issue. There are other eminent people who have written about this including AG Noorani and S. Gurumurthy. This matter has also been sought to be raised in the parliament of India. This matter has also been discussed in the erstwhile KGB archives brought to light by Yevgenia Albats. Suppressing this issue will only make us look horribly biased towards Sonia Gandhi. We should put this on record on the wikipedia at the same time we ought to ensure that her side of the story is given adequate space. (Parthpms (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

The problem is that these allegations don't rise to the level that is required of a blp. As I point out above, the 'swiss' magazine article has a photograph of Rajiv Gandhi, not Sonia Gandhi. You'll need to get some better references for the existence of these accounts. It is not a question of 'sides of a story' but rather of what can or cannot be included in a blp. I'm not averse to adding something on this controversy but, before we can do that, we need a reliable source that supports the statement that this is an ongoing controversy - not just allegations from people in opposing parties. Also, it would be better to hash out the text here on the talk page (after a reliable source is found) rather than edit warring on the article. A blp is meant to be conservatively written. --rgpk (comment) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cleo-paskal/worlds-9-most-powerful-pe_b_853132.html There are numerous articles wherein Sonia gandhi has been directly named most importantly the KGB archives declassified by Yegnevia Albats. Have a look at this article in the huffington post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cleo-paskal/worlds-9-most-powerful-pe_b_853132.html Wikipedia has built its reputation on telling the truth no matter how powerful the person is, and that is an amazing legacy that you and I must strive to save. The best way forward is to publish both sides of the story and leave it for the readers to decide. Let us settle this matter quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthpms (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this opinion of including the material. There seems to be a subtle but constant shifting of goal post to avoid this piece of information from the article. First, the controversy wasn't big enough, then the sources weren't good enough. The controversy has resonated and stayed relevant from what Nalpat wrote to what the Huffington post wrote. Manohar1010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Controversy (moved from User talk:RegentsPark)

RegentsPark we need to talk on your censoring of the sonia gandhi page as it is seriously impairing the image of wikipedia. Kindly have a look at this article in huffington post, the latest in a series of many such articles. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cleo-paskal/worlds-9-most-powerful-pe_b_853132.html (Parthpms (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Parthpms, like I say on the article talk page, I'm not against including material on these controversies. However, in a blp we need to be conservative with what we write and sources must be impeccable. I'm sure good sources can be found (the Huffington Post one is a blog but I think parts of it may be acceptable, we should discuss this on the talk page) and the swiss bank/bofors parts written in an acceptable way. Let's discuss all this on the talk page of the article. --rgpk (comment) 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I request Parthpms to read the policy on Biographies of living people once again, to get a clearer idea. Yes Michael? •^Talk 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia needs verifiability, not truth. Though that page's title is a bit harsh IMO, it is a good essay. I am not averse to inclusion of Swiss Bank/Bofors controversies, provided a solid source is provided. Also, IMO, it is probably not needed for the Sonia Gandhi page, as those controversies originated/were most discussed in reference to Rajiv Gandhi. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

huffington post is a left-wing blog and they write a lot just for sensationalism. look at one of their stories today, Gwyneth Paltrow: 'My Grandmother Was A Real C**t'. what worries me is that if a previous version of this wikipedia page was the thrust behind this story in Huffpost. --CarTick (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. We should be wary of that. Yes Michael? •^Talk 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)