Talk:Sonia Gandhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...

Archive

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Socks

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Education

Can someone write on her educational qualifications, such as 10th grade pass 11th grade pass or which ever applies to her? We need to know the educational backround of our honourable leader.

128.233.111.111 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)