Talk:Sonia Gandhi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Forbes on lead

@Vanamonde93: the mention of Forbes listing on lead is WP:UNDUE. No other articles mention it, even those that are more accomplished when it comes to Forbes listing such as Ben Bernanke, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia mentions it. But it was recently inserted on the lead[1] without consensus, I had planned to revert it before but I just remembered it until recently. Capitals00 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not hung up on the Forbes listing. But it serves the function of highlighting the large influence Gandhi had despite not holding a prominent office (most party presidents in the years before her were non-entities). She had influence disproportionate to a party president, and that is what the lead needs to clarify. Bernanke's and Abdullah's influence is made clear by the offices they held. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Being president of the Indian National Congress is an influential position and made clear especially on the 3rd paragraph. And removal of Forbes listing has been discussed on this article[2] before as well, using same rational. And removed on 7th May, until someone reinserted it without providing edit summary. So I would say that we should keep it removed. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In place of finding the rationals for preserving the Forbes' list, we should better look into the consequences. Per WP:BRD, this had to be never restored when it was removed by a regular editor of the article. Narendra Modi's article is certainly more of a candidate for this listing, because he has ranked twice in top 10. But then it would lead others to insert the listing on other articles. Many of those who have made it to this list are not presidents or prime ministers but business people. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You're still missing the point: it isn't included because the honor itself is lead-worthy, but because it conveys the fact that she had influence disproportionate to being a party president. As such, it is currently of benefit to the article. If you have issues with the phrasing, why not craft a replacement? Vanamonde (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is covered on Sonia Gandhi#Honours and recognition like @B. Fairbairn: noted. There is no need of a replacement unless you can think of one. We can leave as it is for now I have tagged the sentence and moved the references because the section had only one archive link. Capitals00 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:@D4iNa4:@Capitals00:. The mention of political scandals isn't of much use either right? I mean when they're pure speculation? NumerounovedantTalk 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that her place of birth led to controversy must be mentioned in the lead, I think. For better or for worse it has had an enormous effect in shaping both perceptions of her and in shaping political decisions within the party (the formation of the NCP, her decision not to become Prime Minister, etc). Likewise, the influence she wielded as party president, (far greater than her predecessor Sitaram Kesri, for instance) also needs mention. The Quatrocchi case...not sure this is lead material, given that the scandal was mostly with Rajiv Gandhi, and the mention here is mostly a case of "guilt by association". Vedant, you've been working on this page for a while; why don't you propose a new last lead paragraph? Vanamonde (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• There are scandals that are notable enough to be included. Scandals like National Herald scam, 2013 Indian helicopter bribery scandal, 2G spectrum scam concerns Sonia Gandhi although they haven't been mentioned yet. Capitals00 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• The mention of Forbes listing on lead is not WP:UNDUE .And it should be there. Its shows the large influence Gandhi had despite not holding a prominent office (may be the first indian to be in the top 10) .There are lots of articles follow the same see Beyonce (which is a GA) , Taylor Swift and Adele . All these pages are covered the same on their #Honours and recognition too.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Yes, I've been looking to take this article further. I have been hesitant in reworking the paragraph because of the obvious concerns that have been raised. Also, I share similar views, foreign birth yes, The Quatrocchi case, not so much. Now that there's some clarity on what's important I'd give it try. Thank you for responding! I'll ping you once I rework the lead. NumerounovedantTalk 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Alright, I'll keep your concerns in mind. However, I shall not be giving weight to scandal that don't have formal charges pressed, not in the lead atleast. This isn't a place that should add fuel to speculations. Thanks for responding. NumerounovedantTalk 08:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Akhiljaxxn: Alright! we have a discussion at hand. NumerounovedantTalk 08:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vedant: Please do give it a try: I'll try and keep up to date with the efforts. I'm watching the page, so there's no need to ping me. Capitals00, I'm afraid your approach to those scandals is problematic for the same reasons your approach to the Modi article is problematic. In determining due weight, we need to assign the greatest weight to the most reliable sources, which are scholarly sources. Newspaper sources are typically reliable for describing individual events, but not usually for overall analysis of a person's career, because they suffer from a problem of recentism (and also from sensationalism). The scholarly literature on Sonia Gandhi gives prominent mention to her birth and the controversy that surrounds it, though the literature is by no means sympathetic to the "She's not Indian" argument. It gives prominent mention to her rise in influence post-1999. It gives minor mention to Quatrocchi, and basically no mention at all to the laundry list of scandals under the UPA II Indian government. This should form the basis for determining due weight in this article, as in any other. Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You have totally misconceived what I was saying. I only said that there are a number of scandals that concerns Gandhi, that means whatever the article shows has been strictly examined before adding. Capitals00 (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:LEAD is usually a summary of whole article. We usually avoid to add controversies in the lead rather we talk about his/her positions, achievements etc. It will be good if we avoid such things. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Störm: What is it, precisely, that you are opposing? The use of the Forbes factoid; the inclusion of controversy; or the inclusion of honors and controversies together? In any case, on what basis are you expressing this opposition? @Numerounovedant: Thanks for your modifications. I'm wondering if the analysis of her influence would fit better at the end of the lead, and also whether the controversy over her birth needs slightly more detail (we should probably go with a scholarly source for analysis of that). Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Scandals which User:Capitals00 wants to add in the lead. Störm (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the recent WP:PUFFERY added on lead because not only they removed the content that is being discussed here, but it also made a blanket generalization which is not in line with WP:NPOV. Any head of state can be called "most powerful politician" for their country "at the time", Sonia Gandhi is no exception. And since we are discussing here to describe what "scholarly sources", we need to maintain that. Also if recent objectionable edits are removed, they should not be reinserted until consensus is reached per WP:BRD. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• BRD requires you to provide reasons for your revert, which you did not do. The edits rephrased the content being discussed here, which was an outcome with some support. "Any head of state can be called "most powerful politician" for their country" Yes, but she was not head of state, which is why it is being mentioned. Scholarly sources are needed to determine due weight: I did not at any point suggest that only scholarly sources must be used to write the article. You are yet to provide a policy-based explanation for your reverts. Vanamonde (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matters if she wasn't an head of state, such label can be transferred to dozens of articles with news sources that have thrown such labels (most.., best...) and we know that it is very typical of news sources. We cannot summarize Forbes listing, since it doesn't deserves on lead at first. And Bofors scandal has played significant role in her political career. Reliable sources describing Bofors and Sonia Gandhi.[3][4][5] That has remained on lead for years and should continue. Article body has also described it. Capitals00 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that anything that has been on an article for a long time should be there forever is a very good argument. I still have finished working the lead, and am still looking at the prospects. That said, I still do not believe that Bofors was pivotal to her politicall career; still I'll add it in the lead but in lesser capacity if that does it for neutrality. It however, still doesn't make any sense to me. Just to put this to bed. As for the other concern see Angela Merkel's article, which is fairly well written IMO. NumerounovedantTalk 11:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It sure does require strong consensus and your edits are violating WP:NEUTRAL, I have reverted your edits further because you have credited Sonia Gandhi for Common Minimum Programme, Food security bill, and MNREGA, though none of their main articles credit her for that, nor does this article. Our major focus should be whether Forbes listing is any relevant or not, since it has been removed before and again, but added without consensus. Kindly don't summarize Forbes listing to make it look relevant when it is WP:UNDUE. Capitals00 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Have made a last edit with a well established source. I am open to discussion, feel free to come up with concerns. I am all for healthy atmosphere and am not the one reverting edits as simple as correcting spellings and sentence structure in haste. The first paragraph does not only stand for Forbes. it alread1has a Daily Beast source and Time reference later in the lead. Give it a minute , read what it says, then let me know what concerns you might have. Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 11:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, this is getting nonsensical. Consensus changes over time. It is not enough to scream "get consensus" without also providing policy-based reasons why you think the change is not an improvement. In this case, apart from the poor phrasing you are edit-warring to maintain in the article, there is only one substantive change: switching the Forbes listing for a more nuanced description of the wide influence Gandhi held at the peak of her career. Not only is this mentioned in the media sources Numerounovedant used, the listing itself is referenced as an indication of the power she had in this scholarly work, and the fact that she had more influence than the prime minister is also mentioned here. These are among the most reliable sources discussing her influence. What sources do you have suggesting these are incorrect? Vanamonde (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

One of these source says Sonia had more influence than Manmohan Singh, though it is also the opinion of her opposition and scholars who critically [6] examined. By mentioning WP:PUFFERY, I have told above that such claims can be used on many other articles but it is best to avoid it on Wikipedia article lead, since it is avoided and this article is no exception. Controversial edits require consensus first. Everyone edit warred but only Numerounovedant has violated WP:3RR. Now that welfare schemes (without scholarly sources) has been added and mention of Quattrocchi has been removed by vedanta on lead probably for balancing the lead, I am fine with the current version. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean it has been said more than once, by more than one sources. Apart from the ones that Vanamonde already mentioned there are those non-scholarly articles by Time, TOI, Rediff, India Today, Livemint among others, all reputed analysts/journalists I assume. I'd just like you to give the green bit in one of Vanamonde's comments a second look. It is a very unusual situation and commands some sort of attention. NumerounovedantTalk 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

D4iNa4: Most of your statements make very little sense. What do you mean when you say it is also the opinion of her opposition and scholars who critically examined? You seem to agree that many individuals support that analysis; in other words, you are saying it should be included in the lead. On what basis, then, are you saying it should not be in the lead of this article? Vedant's breach of 3RR is only technical; it occurred because he reinstated the grammatical corrections that were not being discussed here, but which Capitals00 was reverting anyway. No admin is likely to block him on those grounds. Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

She had more influence in politics than Manmohan Singh, but it doesn't justifies WP:PUFFERY on lead. If such standards are followed then Modi should be labelled as the "Most popular and most powerful" Indian politician, but such standards don't seem to be existing. The outdated sources talking about things that happened were relevant years ago are not relevant for the lead. If any source praised her then that would need to be added on sections along with the criticism to provide balance. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• It really reads a fan praise without strong sources or basis. Nearly a decade ago it may have been said by a couple of authors, but today she has been surpassed. During these years she has lost enough popularity, and now it is even less than her son Rahul,[7] so that means rehashing is nothing but WP:UNDUE. Anmolbhat (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you people getting the point? The fact that someone who has never held a public office being the most powerful politician is what draws attention, not that she is the most powerful itself, which i stand against stating! (Modi is already in the most powerful political position in the country, it is so obvious that I'm even surprised that you brought it up!) This isn't puffery, this is stating a very very very unusual fact that had been stated n number of times by analysts and historical erudition. The only time it has happened probably? Why doesn't that grab your attention? Don't come up with positives/negatives, but just a simple explanation. Do that. And what's with the she's being a thing of past argument? By that really skewed logic, no leader from the past need any acknowledgement? That's pure silly. NumerounovedantTalk 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A case has been made here for the inclusion of a certain statement. No policy-based reasons have been put forward against it: D4iNa4's objections are all hot air (it doesn't matter if the sources are old, because we are not talking of her current popularity; and Modi's article does not mention such a sentence because it is self-evident in that case, as he is the Prime Minister). So, unless more substantive reasons are forthcoming (particularly from Capitals00, who performed the last revert) I will restore the material shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:PUFFERY are noted as policy based arguments. It is not "self-evident", being prime minister doesn't means you become most powerful and popular politician of the country otherwise Manmohan Singh would be called such, but he hasn't been, despite ruling for 10 years. Present version is good enough. Capitals00 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy about undue weight and consensus are made clear by the fact that you have reverted Numerounovedant, but not VictoriaGrayson: how do you expect your demands for consensus to be taken seriously? Your argument is also specious. The fact that Modi is currently the most powerful politician in the country is obvious: he holds the most powerful post. It is only the single instance when that was not the case which is worthy of mention. Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can count that I am on 2 reverts. Although @VictoriaGrayson: can join the discussion. But how come Manmohan Singh was not the most powerful politician of India? Even though he was a Prime Minister. It means that it is not "obvious" that holding most powerful post would automatically make someone the most powerful politician of the country. Capitals00 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you are on three reverts: and you are also stone-walling, so I have made the revert myself (and yes, I'm at 3RR too, and will be making no further reverts). Singh was not the most powerful precisely because Gandhi was around. Which is exactly why it needs mention: it was exceptional. Vanamonde (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment problem with the disputed content is, that it is indeed undue for the lead and it is not reflecting the sources. For example, misrepresentation of sources is apparent on "Although she never held any public office in the government of India, Gandhi has been widely described.." provided references are totally unaware of the sentence. Combining two different sentences without the supporting references is WP:SYNTH. Also Forbes is not as important as Time, neither we should consider Sonia's case to be mind boggling since Forbes are not limited to Prime Ministers and Presidents, and her rank was not #1 anyway. Excelse (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1 2 3 from the beloved Time. NumerounovedantTalk 06:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Already read this from Sonia Gandhi#Honours and recognition. I have moved the disputed content there, it is more relevant for that section and modified it to provide correct representation. Excelse (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As there isn't going to be any editing for a while now, here are some pieces for sweet sweet reading.

• Mrs Gandhi held no official post, but many considered her the de facto head of the Congress government
• there was one power centre – and that power was not the PM ... someone not in government
• The most powerful individual in the country draws her power not from any formal office
• Sonia an extra-constitutional authority during the UPA regimes
• power resided at 10 Janpath while Manmohan Singh lived in the prime minister’s house

Enjoy reading, it's fairly balanced. NumerounovedantTalk 13:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Numerounovedant, I'm afraid we've got to the point where more sources aren't going to help: Capitals00 and company have decided that is only required for content that they dislike. There were already enough sources, but they chose to ignore them. But, somehow, consensus isn't required to add the 2G spectrum scam (despite four people on the talk page opposing its inclusion, citing a source that says nothing about Gandhi having to do anything to do with it, if I may add). An RfC, closed by an outside party, is probably our best bet at this point, unless the others are willing to quite stone-walling and actually have a discussion based on the source material (which I know from past experience they are not). Vanamonde (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde @Numerounovedant And the same people who have raised questions bout the influence of Gandhi and her name in forbes list ,called it pufferry added the same in pages like Narendra Modi and Public image of Narendra Modi.Hope u all remembers what happens to the wiki of Jawaharlal Nehru. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

To those of you arguing for the exclusion of the scholarly assessment of Gandhi's importance, and for the inclusion of the UPA government's scandals, your absence from the discussion during the page protection only shows that you are interested in stone-walling your preferred version, rather than in reaching a consensus here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There has been no exclusion. Like always, the article can continue surviving without POV pushing on lead. That is what nearly everyone has agreed on. Excelse (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry, four editors have expressed unhappiness with the additions you made, and three have stated that the addition of an analysis of Gandhi's influence as INC president is necessary. This argument has been supported by sources, including scholarly sources. You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support your claims, and the article you have used as a source does not link Gandhi to the 2G spectrum scam. Furthermore, the article you have used also supports Numerounovedant's change. Oh, and your addition was completely ungrammatical. Vanamonde (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat every time? Sonia's popularity is still decreasing and after seeing worst defeat of the party in 2014, there is no logic to add something that reads like a fan praise violating WP:NPOV. Anmolbhat (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeating yourself does no good: you have to find reliable sources supporting your argument, which you have not done. Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He had provided a reliable source above. Stop asking people to repeat their arguments and read WP:BLUD. If mentioning 2G scandal has no consensus then remove it once the page is unprotected. @VictoriaGrayson: can still comment and convince otherwise. Though the consensus is totally against making WP:UNDUE and WP:PUFFERY statements on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He provided a source discussing her current popularity: the entire discussion is about her influence (not popularity) during the UPA government, and in particular in 2007. The source Anmolbhat provided is utterly irrelevant to this discussion; and the fact that you are bringing it up too just shows that you've misunderstood the point here as well. Vanamonde (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so from what i gathered Anmolbhat argues that Gandhi doesn't command the same influence anymore, but to even be able to discuss that aren't we supposed to talk about the influence that she once had (which as ponited out by the not so exhaustive list of sources, is simply undeniable), which the user is against adding? Isn't this the silliest argument ever? I'll simply ask this user to come up with one more instance in the indian political history when a similar power equation existed and then they'll have the answer of how unique this is. Nothing undue or pufferish is being added because it isn't really a good thing to be overstepping the authority of the PMO, now is it? Let's not argue what's safe or what has been usually done here because then what's the point of having unique biographies here anyway? Look at how this is a block for not an individual's biography but the block for a unique and historic shared power eqaution in the history of Indian politics, which, as some users have repeated so many times, ihas drawn eqaul amount of intrigue and criticism. NumerounovedantTalk 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to understand what you are really saying. Information is always updated with the newer one, and in cases like this you have to give weight to newer information more. What will you call the mention of magazine rankings, in order to avoid criticism? Her political post has not changed even after her party's defeat in 2014 but her popularity has only decreased. If you want to think about doing something better, think about giving idea that what led to the defeat and unpopularity, in place of POV pushing with irrelevant rankings. Capitals00 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not Sonia Gandhi (until 2014), that's why you don't have to ignore her recognition since 2014. Anmolbhat is correct that after knowing that Congress had biggest defeat in its history (even your source mentions it) and Gandhi's popularity is even lower than that of Rahul, there are no chances of adding puffery on lead. Now before we get any more of these WP:IDHT issues, just drop the WP:STICK. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You both have it completely backwards. We do not write exclusively about the current image of a person: we write about the entirety of their career. Gandhi's historical influence does not disappear because her party was soundly defeated; just as Modi's past controversy does not disappear because he won the same election. Do we ignore the heights to which Hitler's power ascended just because he ended up killing himself in a basement? No, of course not. WP:RECENTISM is a guideline you ought to be looking at. Vanamonde (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm assuming that the contentious text is Although she never held any public office in the government of India, Gandhi has been widely described and the most powerful politician in the country, and variously listed among the most powerful people in the world. Looking at the discussion above, I think we need a middle road here. Clearly, love her or hate her, Sonia Gandhi has been an extremely powerful politician in India and has been, and perhaps still is, amongst the top few most powerful women in the world. If important sources have, at any time, listed her as the most powerful politician in India, then that's an important fact that should be conveyed in the lead and not relegated to a subsection. However, I don't think we can label her the most powerful politician in the country today (that would be - again love him or hate him - Modi). But, neither should the lead downplay her importance in modern India because that would be a disservice to the readers. Perhaps Although she never held any public office in the government of India, Gandhi has been widely seen as one of the most powerful politicians in the country, and is often listed among the most powerful people women in the world? --regentspark (comment) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not opposed to that. I don't think it's incorrect to say that at the height of her influence, she was among the most powerful people in the world; but on the other hand the statement about "powerful women" is likely still true. So I'm okay with either of those formulations, and even with adding a qualifier like "at the height of her career..." Vanamonde (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Regentspark suggestion and this should be placed on the last line of the third paragraph of the lead which already includes an Although she never held any... Capitals00 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I second Vanamonde. Thank you regentspark. NumerounovedantTalk 06:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Mildly surprised that this is all the argument was about! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Scams: Please add a "controversies/criticism" section

Such as National Herald scam and Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust scams already in the court against Rahul Gandhi and some are being investigated by the CBI. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverts with POV summaries

Let's get to this again. Anybody with a neutral point of view may take a look at the revisions here and tell me what's wrong with the, VedantTalk 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just compare the language used by you, it is garbled. "popularity increased greatly" is not supported by source, only "in the intervening years Sonia's popularity has soared" is and it is WP:UNDUE here. Excelse (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And what about the rest? Refs 34, 35 clearly substantiate the rest. VedantTalk 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018

I'd like to add this link: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CFi4-YOYs Ripeus (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see reliable sources and WP:ELNO. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Unclear connections

Currently, the lead paragraph reads

Sonia Gandhi (born Edvige Antonia Albina Maino; born 9 December 1946) is an Indian politician of Italian descent. A member of the Nehru–Gandhi family, she is a former president of the Indian National Congress. Having taken over as the party leader in 1998, seven years after her husband's assassination, she remained in office for a record nineteen years, a period that was characterised by the party's renewed adherence to the centre-left position on the Indian political spectrum.

This is the opening of the article. How can it not tell us who her husband is, or how an Italian came to be a member of an Indian political family? Unschool 01:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sonia-gandhi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Why no mention of her education life?

Hi there. This looks like a paid page with no mention of her education, which of-course is not a coveted one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.159.47 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Sonia Gandhi is an Indian politician of Italian descent 107.1.219.56 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

--> Sonia Maino Gandhi is an Indian politician of Italian descent and former member of the Indian National Congress and former philanthropist and Former Activist and Former Entrepreneur and Former Conductor and Former Legislative Chairman and former opposition leader and former chief minister of Bihar as well. Sonia maino Gnadhi was born in Lusiana veneto Italy as well. 107.1.219.57 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

107.1.219.57 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Empty request. Deli nk (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Languages

There is lots of commentary on Sonia Gandhi's Hindi and English, but I notice that the village in Italy in which she grew up is in an area in which Cimbrian, a Germanic language, not Italian, is the local language. I wonder if she speaks Cimbrian?Bill (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

The National Advisory Council listing on the infobox should not have "Position demolished" as the designation for when Gandhi's term ended. The standard designation is "Position abolished".

Additionally, Sonia Gandhi assumed the office of MP for Rae Bareli on "17 May 2004" - which is the date that all MPs were sworn in. The date of assumption for that office should be updated from the presently ambiguous date of simply "2004". 70.29.38.15 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done I fixed the first part of the request, but I don't feel comfortable enough making the second change without some kind of source. I'll leave it for someone else if they think it's suitably uncontroversial. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Did not come across any reliable sources vouching for the mentioned date, they merely mention the year. If you may wish for the information to be there please cite a source as per WP:RS. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

The edit by Om Namah Ramsut Sharma II has placed this page in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls due to the duplication of the term_end2, predecessor2, and successor2 parameters. further inspection of the infobox shows a deeper problem with uncorrected mangling in this edit, and the most serious mangling in this edit which failed to renumber all of the parameters resulting a numbering mismatch. at this point, the best action is probably to either (a) take the infobox from before the mangling and re-add the new office information, or (b) verify/correct all of the office/term_start/term_end blocks with the correct numbering and values. 198.102.155.120 (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

okay, rolled back. someone should feel free to try again only after using "show preview" to confirm there are no errors. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Name correction: Sonia Gandhi Antonia Maino 49.206.10.28 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This ref: {{cite book|author=Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shankar Raghuraman|title=Divided we stand: India in a time of coalitions |publisher=Los Angeles : SAGE Publications, 2007.|year=2007|page=148|isbn= 978-0-7619-3663-3}} backed it up on the article in 2016. Another source is this India Today story. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Has been included, with a source. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The citation is irrelevant as it is against wikipedia's policy of NPOV Saifullah.vguj (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Please change the full name of Sonia gandhi to her original name Antonio Maino 2406:B400:D1:21C7:2D93:AF10:B3D0:19CB (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi's original name is Edvige Antonia Albina Maino, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, see https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sonia-Gandhi so please add that to the beginning of the article on Sonia Gandhi.Venue9 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not accepting EB is a reliable source for this. Please see the section above called "Birth name controversy". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, EB has been used as a reliable source on many articles and so I believe her original name should be added to the lead of this article using EB as a source (or any other source). Please add her original name to this article.Venue9 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making this edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Wherever it says just Gandhi in the article, can we change it to Mrs.Gandhi? Venue9 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

​Wikipedia house style is to leave out honorific prefixes, see MOS:MRS. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is confusing to use Gandhi, so can we change it to her first name at least?Venue9 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing, but again it's just the particular style Wikipedia has adopted, MOS:MRS: "a person should generally be referred to by surname only". There are a few other articles we have where both husband and wife are notable, I've always found them to be confusing to read. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Illnesses

Can we have a section called "Illnesses" under "Personal Life"? Sachi Mohanty 07:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you see any other WP:BLP page that has such a section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've only seen it on pages where the subject is deceased where the sub-section is generally titled Illness and Death. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Net worth

What's the policy on including net worth on political BLPs? I don't think I've seen it a lot. VedantTalk 11:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Edvige Antonia Albina Maino. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Edvige Antonia Albina Maino until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please also read the discussion above linked hereVenue9 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)