Talk:Digvijaya Singh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

bin Laden

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

Pure/sexy

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

Thackeray

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

Biased Edits of Sitush in violation of wikipedia rules

• Stop with the personal attacks Soham321 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)}}

The basic question really is whether Sitush has taken over ownership of this article in violation of WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus. I am invoking wikipedia rules and guidelines when i make this accusation. Furthermore, i would like you to identify yourself as to whether you are a wikipedia admin in view of the kind of warning you have left on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The 'experienced editors' who were showing up in ANI had never contributed to the article under discussion. (Another 'experienced editor' was seen advising you on your talk page on how to handle me.) User:A.amitkumar had specifically said that he believes you have taken ownership of the main article in accordance with WP:Ownership; so in this he is in agreement with my position. I agree that the admins will be keeping a watchful eye on me henceforth; what you forget is that they will also be keeping a watchful eye over you. Soham321 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Soham, what do you want to happen? What is the purpose of this section? You clearly do not understand policy, nor do you understand the role of DRN or ANI, but posting a message here to "record my deep concern" etc is not improving the article. Seriously, I am at a loss regarding how to respond, other than to invoke WP:DENY and that really would be a last resort because I do think the difficulty here is entirely one of confusion, not ill-will/vandalism. So, what do you want me (or anyone else) to do next? - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to continue speaking out against what i perceive to be violations of wikipedia rules and guidelines. WP:Ownership clearly states: "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." My contention is that you have taken ownership of the main article. As evidence to support my claim I refer to your own admission in ANI that as of now the entire article consists of words written almost entirely by you. Also, User:A.amitkumar agrees with my view that you have taken ownership of the article. Soham321 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that you take a look at another guideline - WP:TPG - and consider not speaking out further in the same vein here. As you were told at ANI, you have misunderstood the ownership issue. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:TPG which prevents me from voicing my concern over someone taking over ownership of an article in violation of WP:Ownership. With respect to the ANI, you fail to mention that the only other editor who has both participated in writing the main article under consideration and also participated in the ANI discussion had agreed with my position that you are in violation of WP:Ownership. Soham321 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The fact that the community is so tolerant of misguided editors often confuses them into thinking that they can continue indefinitely. That is not correct, and this talk page is available only for the discussion of actionable proposals regarding article content, based on policy. If there is some text you think should be added, explain what it is and why it is warranted. If there is some text you think should be removed, explain what it is and why. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If any admin is reading this, he should note that this editor has not been involved at all in making edits on the main article. Quite possibly he is unaware of the rules regarding WP:Meat puppetry. Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that meatpuppetry is going on then you need to go back to ANI. Making that accusation here is just going to land you in a whole heap of trouble. If I were you, I would back off with such accusations but if you must pursue them then I suggest that you get your ammunition laid out in the form of diffs etc before you make the report. And this is me done here: as far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am only sharing my concerns; i am not making any direct accusation. Soham321 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suggest then that you keep those concerns inside your head because you are going to be sanctioned if you keep this up. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing so. You are entitled to express any concerns you may have, and likewise for me. Soham321 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Edit of User:Sitush

• Here is another example of an inaccurate edit of User:Sitush. In the main article, Sitush writes:"Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South."
• Of the four South Indian states, the two largest in terms of population and land area are Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. In Andhra Pradesh, the son of former Chief Minister Y.S. Rajashekhar Reddy now has his own party which is favored to do very well in the upcoming elections according to the latest opinion polls. Further, in Tamil Nadu, the two largest parties are DMK and AIADMK. The children of former chief minister and DMK leader M. Karunanidhi (particularly his son Stalin) have assumed control over the party. In another South Indian state Karnataka, the son of former Chief Minister and Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda has himself been a Chief Minister. His name is HD Kumaraswami and he has his own party (Janta Dal Secular) which is the second largest party in the Karnataka assembly. The son of former Karnataka BJP chief minister BS Yeddyurappa is also in politics and is a member of parliament. Soham321 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the source. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should i read your biased/prejudiced source when i have already explained why your edit is wrong. Soham321 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, then read WP:V and WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Soham321 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham, these are core policies of Wikipedia. The edit complies with WP:V, while your analysis is WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not doing any original research since the information i gave is widely available. Your edit is wrong because your source is wrong. Further, for any disputed edit, you must use at least two reliable sources to even be allowed to insert the edit in a wiki page according to wikipedia rules and guidelines. This was pointed out during a DRN by the wikipedia admin TransportMan. Soham321 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not dispute your information but you have not provided a source that says it is no less common in the north compared to the south. That is the key point because it offsets what might otherwise seem to be a particularly unusual situation where a family pretty much has an expectation of "rights" over a constituency. By adding that info, we slightly reduce the impression that this is somehow a "corrupt" process (bad choice of word but you'll know what I mean). Of course. the politics of India are notoriously corrupt anyway - something like two-thirds of members in the 14th Lok Sabha had either been found guilty or were facing charges for one thing or another, according to a BBC report of a few years ago - but at least here we can show that, at worst, the practice adopted by the Singh family is common to the region and not some sort of oddball roguery etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire, the key point is that in your edit you say that 'dynastic succession' is 'rare' in the South. I gave multiple examples (and can give even more examples) demonstrating that this is false. Soham321 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I am happy to look around for another source but it does not alter the fact that you are drawing your own conclusions from your own research and that is not permitted in the article itself. I do not say that it is less common in the south than in the north: the source says that and it is arguably the most reliable of all newspapers in India. I've said previously that I prefer academic sources to news media but this development is far too recent for peer-reviewed academic sourcing and yet it is a fact that the process of anointment has begun. I recall that only recently you asked for a similar comment about Singh's son to be excluded on the basis that it was a violation of his privacy because whatever his father might wish has no bearing on what the son might wish. Clearly, that argument is now blown out of the water. I really, really do not understand what you want to see in this article: aside from using it to rebut anything said about Singh, you seem not to desire anything. Least of all, constructive development of it in the manner that I have doing. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

bla bla bla but no counter to the widely known examples i gave, which required no original research, and which proved your edit to be erroneous. Soham321 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate phrase used by User:Sitush

• In the main page, Sitush writes: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession.[28]".
• My problem with this is that first the phrase 'dynastic succession' is not present in the reference source which Sitush gives. In other words, Sitush himself came up with this phrase. Second, it is very common for children of Indian politician to enter politics. The way Sitush has framed his sentence seems to show as if something aberrant is taking place. Soham321 (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just stop it, Soham. I've had enough of this - go read some policies properly. I am bending over backwards to accommodate your bizarre requests and have a good mind to reinstate that which I've just removed because, as my edit summary says, I'm not actually happy with it. Our role is to paraphrase, not to copy a source word-for-word. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The words "Dynastic Succession" have a negative connotation. The original article did not use this phrase; you did. And by using this phrase you violated the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV. Soham321 (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As of now this is the sentence having the objectionable phrase in User:Sitush's edit: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession.[28]". Two things to note. First, the phrase 'dynastic succession' which has negative connotations is not present in the reference article given by Sitush. The phrase has been used by Sitush of his own accord. Second, Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA is not Jaivardhana's father. In other words, even if we assume that Jaivardhana becomes the next elected MLA, it is not a case of dynastic succession because Mool Singh is not Jaivardhana's father. So, in my opinion, Sitush is obliged to remove the the phrase he coined on his own ('dynastic succession') from his edit.Soham321 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, the reference article does not state that Mool Singh is related to Jaivardhana in any way. This is additional evidence as to why this phrase which has been coined by Sitush is not suitable for this edit. Soham321 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's do the easy bit first: the Oxford English Dictionary defines "dynasty" as "a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field" (subscription required), while "succession" itself is "a number of people or things of a similar kind following one after the other". You will be aware that, for example, the US Kennedy family is often referred to as a dynasty and you should be aware that dynasties include indirect lines of succession (eg: appointment of a regent or some other figure not directly in the primogenitural family line). Are you happy with this bit now? If so, I'll turn to your other specious points. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention in the reference you have given that Mool Singh--the incumbent MLA-- is related to Jaivardhana in any way. If it is your original research that the two are related then your edit is not permissible because it violates the rules and guidelines mentioned in WP:OR. Soham321 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is a cousin is sourced. Now, I repeat, do you accept the defintion of a dynasty? - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but the reference article does not identify Mool Singh-the incumbent MLA--as either a cousin of Digvijaya or a cousin of Jaivardhana. If this is original research on your part, then your edit is not permissible for reasons mentioned earlier. Soham321 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. There has been no by-election since Mool took on the seat - that is a matter of official record - and Digvijay said they were cousins last year. If you know differently then please do tell but otherwise try reducing the degree of pedantry by a tad or two. Or would you be insisting on a DNA test? I'm still awaiting your opinion regarding the definition. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh from me as well. Why didn't you give this new reference in the main article? The only reference you gave did not identify Mool Singh as a cousin of Digvijaya. My objection to the phrase 'Dynastic Succession' is twofold. First, it is not present in any of your reference sources. Second, it has a negative connotation and violates the Impartial Tone clause in an WP:NPOV which is essential in any WP:BLP. Soham321 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That reference is already in the article, currently as citation #10, and I'd previously told you this in my message above stamped at 14:53 today. I cannot be held responsible for your own carelessness. You still have not answered whether or not you accept the definition of dynastic succession. Let's get that out of the way and then I suggest that before you pursue the two points that you have just raised (lack of presence in the source and POV), you re-read the source itself and also WP:NPOV because you clearly are failing to understand. So, do you accept the definition? - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the disputed sentence: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession.[28]". This sentence only cites reference 28 which does not identify Mool Singh as a cousin of Digvijaya. So it your carelessness that you did not give reference 10 for the disputed sentence. Furthermore, as i stated earlier: My objection to the phrase 'Dynastic Succession' is twofold. First, it is not present in any of your reference sources. Second, it has a negative connotation and violates the Impartial Tone clause in an WP:NPOV which is essential in any WP:BLP. The fact that it does have a negative connotation is accepted by you yourself when in the edit history in the main article you wrote: "I do think this makes the article reflect nastily on Singh". This was when you truncated your earlier erroneous sentence after i pointed out your error and ended up with another problematic sentence. Soham321 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIR and stop citing policies etc that you do not understand. I may well soon be adopting WP:DFTT here because it is becoming a time-sink. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider this a signal that you have conceded the argument. You did not reference your edit properly and instead of being man enough and accepting your mistake you turn around and start making accusations at me. Further, you come up with your own concocted phrase 'Dynastic Succession' which has negative connotations and is not present in any of your reference sources and use it in your edit. You yourself admit that this 'reflects nastily on Singh'. Instead of continuing to violate WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus, may i suggest that you remove the disputed phrase? Soham321 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, since it seems that I have to live with this incompetence still further, here are some snippets from the "dynastic succession" source:

• Jaivardhan, the son of ... Digvijay Singh, on Saturday formally joined the Congress party in his father’s pocket borough Raghogarh. [He had] had been waiting in the wings to reign in Raghogarh — a former princely state ruled by his family.
• It was nothing less than a coronation for the young Congressman
• A number of them [sons of present MP Congress bigwigs], such as Jaivardhan and Vikram, are from families of former royals — a valued qualification in the State.
• the phenomenon of inheriting seats is deeply ingrained in the political psyche of North India
• Unlike South India, where royal families of large States like Travancore and Mysore do not wield political clout, “here, people believe that god resides within the king even if he’s technically not a king"
• Requesting anonymity, a senior IAS officer said: “Even though you may write that India is changing and there’s a development mantra and whatnot, I can tell you, family lineage works here

Now, unlike you, I tend to do some reading before I type. Thus, I can assure you that there are plenty of other sources that refer to the dynastic successions. I don't mind ameliorating the "north/south" bit - perhaps to "that is more common in the North than the South" or "that is a feature of politics in the North" but it is absolutely vital that we make the point that in adopting this course Singh is not somehow exceptionally "corrupt" compared to his peers. That is a BLP issue but we do need to explain the dynasty thing because a lot of potential readers of this article will know little or nothing of how politics works in the feudal, backward North Indian regions. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with changing "... that is common in North India but rare in the South" to "... that is a feature of politics in North India." ? I think it better represents the source yet maintains the most important element, ie: that the reader should not infer from the situation that Singh's and his family are somehow exceptional in their repeated involvement with the Raghogarh constituency. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the POV tag

Just wanted to reiterate some of the reasons why i have placed a POV tag in the main article. Sitush, now the sole author of the main article (in the face of WP:Ownership ) , has done the following:

• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding a POV comment (a direct quote) of the political commentator Aditi Phadnis. This comment has no place in a WP:BLP.
• Violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by giving freely speculative reasons for Digvijaya's defeat in the Madhya Pradesh elections in 2003 based on a solitary source.

Further, In an earlier DRN involving me it was pointed out by the wiki admin TransporterMan that for any disputed edit, at least two reliable sources must be given. Sitush must give at least two reliable sources for any edit of his which is disputed otherwise he would not be complying with wikipedia rules and guidelines. Soham321 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Time for bed. I might not bother waking up. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fact that you need to give two reliable sources for any disputed edit? I am only asking you to comply with wikipedia rules and guidelines. Soham321 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham, you keep saying that TransporterMan said this thing about two cites but I have yet to see you provide a diff for it and that would be useful. I mean, there is an art even to defining when something is genuinely disputed and when it is just the work of idiot pov-pushers or similar (who are common on caste articles, for example). Bad cases might cause someone to invoke the notion that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, whilst another person might say > 1 source does the job, another would argue that the existing source is simply adequate and a fourth might say just ignore the person who is disputing. Context is important and I'd be interested to see the context of TransporterMan's comment. TM is, of course, just one more contributor to Wikipedia and they do not have any overarching authority. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

He had said this during a DRN and that DRN discussion is not available for view now. As long as we are writing on wikipedia we have to follow wikipedia rules and guidelines. If there is any doubt in your mind about what i am saying he is personally available and you can ask him to confirm what i am saying. Soham321 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The DRN will be in the archives. You must remember what the subject matter was, surely? From that you could locate it in the archives and sort out a diff or even a plain link to that particular discussion. In any event, if you cannot prove it then do not say it, please. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what TransporterMan had written: "Whereas WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE provide minimum standards for inclusion, the "belongs in the article" language of WP:WELLKNOWN (and it's repeated in the second example of that section, not reproduced here), seems to say that material reported in multiple reliable sources should be included, and would appear to have been adopted as a bright-line test to resolve disputes just such as this one. It would take some digging to find it, but long ago I went to some effort to find out what "multiple sources" means in Wikipedia policy (though more in the context of the various notability standards, rather than this particular policy) and found a very clear answer that it merely means "more than one," and does not mean "many." This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71 Soham321 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you provide a link to the actual discussion or, at least, give me the title of it. The discussions on that page are collapsed and make it difficult to find one contribution. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The title is 'Narendra Modi'. Soham321 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Found it, thanks. I note that TransporterMan qualifies that quote in their next paragraph, but I can live with that. Since it is self-defeating to source to anyone else a quotation made by one person in a book, and since it has already been verified that Singh was giving away electricity ("milch cow"), I presume that your contention must relate to the situation described by Phadnis - a seemingly respected political commentator - as existing in 1985 or to the statements that there were significant problems with electricity supply in the post-Chhattisgarh period around 2003. To resolve that you will need to provide an alternate source and then we can either show both opinions or none. Alternatively, you could take the Phadnis source to WP:RSN and ask whether or not it is reliable for the statements made ... but I can tell you already what the outcome of that will be because, sorry, it is something that you learn with experience. Basically, Phadnis is a reliable source for their own opinion.

Regarding your second point, I am aware that there have also been comments about the state of the roads causing significant unrest - he didn't invest in them and they deteriorated - but I've not yet read enough about this to be happy with paraphrasing. The opinions given to explain the defeat are given but you are welcome to suggest any others that might be out there, including any extra info that you might have regarding the roads issue, which is currently only vaguely covered. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The freely speculative reasons you are giving for the defeat of the Congress in the 2003 MP elections based on one solitary source is simply unacceptable and violative of WP:WELLKNOWN. The direct quote of Phadnis is unacceptable in a WP:BLP because it is a POV quote. The phrase 'milch cow' has derogatory and negative connotations and implications and violates the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV. Soham321 (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Soham321: The above is an improvement, thanks—you didn't put the name of a user in the heading, and the heading is neutral and on-topic, good! After that, I'm afraid it went down hill. Please understand that there are literally hundreds of editors posting indignant rants on talk pages at this very moment—experienced editors see them all the time, and such comments are filtered out. By contrast, a post which does not talk about another editor, and does not rant, and which focuses on the text in question gets careful attention. No editors here are working with the devil—just slowly explain an actual problem and the matter will be addressed. You may have to wait a day or two, but again, that is standard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Why there is no controversy section for this politician who is the other name for controversy? This is simply not mentioning all aspects of that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please could you read the contents of this talk page - there have been various discussions about this recently. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking on that topic, two-way discussions between two opposed editors means no consensus exists. Digvijay's current notability literally stems from his controversy. Per WP:LEAD an article should among other things "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Digvijay is notable for being a maker of controversy, as the multiple reliable sources I cited in the lead indicate. The main controversy is cited in the article. Any reverts of the cited statement in the beginning should be considered simple vandalismPectore^talk 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Edits

There is nothing here that is not already been discussed elsewhere and opening yet another section to discuss the same alleged pov etc regarding dynastic successions and electricity is just muddying the waters. If you really believe that there is a behavioural issue here then take it to WP:ANI.

I disagree. There is definitely new content in this section and it has to do with your going back and forth in your edits in a way that makes WP:Consensus impossible to achieve. Soham321 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush has renewed edit warring in the main article and continues to make edits in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines. He had earlier made this edit: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South.[29]" After i gave numerous examples of dynastic succession in south india, Sitush had truncated his edit to "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession". When i further objected that the phrase 'dynastic succession' is not present in the reference cited and has negative connotations thus violating the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV and so he should not use this phrase which he himself has concocted, he argued with for some time and then allowed me to have the last word. So i changed the edit to " "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected". User:Sitush got so upset with this that he changed his edit back to his original edit i.e. "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South.[29]" Furthermore, i removed the freely speculative reasons given by Aditi Phadnis for the Congress defeat in MP elections together with a direct POV quote by Phadnis. Sitush re-added the disputed material which is based on a solitary source and violative of WP:WELLKNOWN. Soham321 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is all still been discussed above. Yet again, you have started a new section for stuff that is still proceeding elsewhere. I was half-minded to collapse this thread. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is new stuff here. For instance your trick of reverting back to an edit which you yourself had corrected after the evidence i produced and which you had accepted (due to which you had corrected your edit). Soham321 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It was not a trick - the edit summary and some earlier comments made by me here make that abundantly clear. Now, please retract your disgusting claim that I have somehow acted in an underhand manner. We both know that there is nothing wrong with your command of the English language, so there was no call for this. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate that it was a trick. You had an inaccurate edit (edit 1). When i convinced you that your edit is inaccurate, you modified it (so it became edit 2). But even edit 2 had problems. We discussed this at length in the talk page and you let me have the last word. So i modified edit 2 to remove the inaccuracy (and made it edit 3). You became so angry and agitated at this that you played the trick of reverting edit 3 back to edit 1. Soham321 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) What this kind of behavior does also is that it makes WP:Consensus impossible to achieve. Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

BRD of "controversial" in the lead

I have absolutely no problem with noting that a politician is controversial if they are so to a degree that exceeds what might be considered normal. After all, almost all politicians are highly opinionated people and if you hold trenchant opinions then you will attract opposition (although not a politician, you can see that happening to me all the time here on this project). I did nonetheless just revert here. The lead section is intended to be a summary of an article and not a dumping ground for random citations of random sources. If the point is worth making then make it in the body of the article. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are in fact edit warring and have at this point violated WP:3RR ([1],[2],[3]). Most of what needs to be said was said in my edit to the talk page in between my first and second revert ([4]). You made three reverts before discussing, and I made one before going to talk. Therefore, you really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to lecturing others about WP:BRD (by the way its BRD, not BRRRD as you seem to think it is). Moving away from your violations of Wikipolicy to article content. You kept the sentence with "controversial" in the article. I cited that, as to do not do so, would literally violate WP:BLP since that would be rubber-stamping "contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". Not only that, but it was backed up by the "controversy section" of sorts in the article, so even under your argument it reflects material in the body. Conclusion? Your edits certainly violate WP:3RR and WP:BLP and WP:V (by adding unsourced material), and also do not uphold the policy of WP:LEAD. Pectore^talk 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. I may be mistaken but I can usually count ok. You were bold in reinstating material that had been removed some time ago and had been mentioned in a prior ANI report, where it generally got approval. You should also read WP:LEAD because you clearly do not understand why it is unnecessary to cite in the lead when, for example, the "controversy" (if it is such) is mentioned in the body with regard to the RSS and encounter incidents. Whether they are worth mentioning is moot but I'm prepared to let them stand and merely improved them pending comment from others. That is, I have compromised for now. Perhaps I am wrong on policy regarding this general issue but, well, it is a rare event if so and I will apologise if appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pectore: This page is to discuss the article. It would be much better if there were to be a serious discussion about the issues rather than an attempt to see how many links can be inserted in a comment. We appear to be discussing this edit which added references to a statement in the lead, namely "Comments made by him have sometimes attracted controversy both inside his party and more widely." The three refs were:

1. Digvijaya singh and foot-in-mouth syndrome Rediff - July 20, 2011
2. Quote, Unquote Digvijaya Singh: 10 most controversial statements Hindustan Times - July 26, 2013
3. Digvijay Singh wonders why his comments trigger controversies Financial Express- November 6, 2011

The primary point concerning this edit is that it comes at the wrong time. What should happen is that the article is written to a satisfactory standard, including anything encyclopedic that can be said about controversies. When all that is done, and the two tags removed from the article, then the lead can be written. In accordance with WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of significant features from the article, and the lead should not be written first. In particular, the BLP of a politician does not feature "foot-in-mouth" type commentary in the lead—that kind of thing goes in blogs or news-of-the-day opinion pieces. Anyone can see that the three links above do nothing more than add in-your-face political commentary, and that is not appropriate here. Readers will have to work out how to vote based on other reports, not this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am perfectly aware of what an article talk page is for. This dispute is as also over user conduct and disputes over various policies- which directly stem from the content of the article. When a user has violated 3RR (and yes Sitush, I can count, and you clearly made three reverts in under 24 hours) that is germane to note on the talk page. Your refusal to look at editing behavior in this context is myopic, and your comment extremely patronizing. You implicitly endorse edit-warring above (you honestly can't read through 4 links?), so it is really unsurprising that you have presented some flawed argumentation on the material in question. You say the edit comes at the wrong time. Have you read BLP? I cited a contentious statement that was unsourced. Next, there is no set policy on what order to edit sections of a page, so don't be intellectually dishonest and pretend there is. Anyone can edit the lead whenever they want, tags or no tags. Furthermore, there is material in the article that already shows the media storm from a sample of his more notable controversial statements. On the topic of WP:LEAD, you did not address my earlier point (link 4/4 cited above). He is notable currently for consistently being in random controversies ([5],[6],[7] - all within the last month). Your veiled accusations that I have a political axe to grind and am trying to influence votes is laughable. Anyone searching Digvijay on google will find out he is a controversial politician. They don't need Wikipedia to see that; yet also, we need to accurately take into account the factors that make him notable. As I have demonstrated(without violating WP:3rr or justifying edit-warring), there are ample reliable sources and a broad journalistic consensus to back up my assertions.Pectore^talk 03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are concerned about BLP issues, just remove the statement with an edit summary indicating that it should later be incorporated into the article, with suitable encylopedic context. How about focusing any future discussions on what should happen to the article? I don't think anyone here is objecting to suitable text concerning "controversy" in the article, and when that happens the lead will naturally follow. However, experience shows that every politician (particularly those facing election) gets excited commentary based on news-of-the-day reports added to their articles, so there is a need to write the article carefully because any "list of bad things this person has done" section will be removed eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Why remove it? If a statement has the potential to be well-sourced, notable, and verifiable there is no reason to remove it, only to improve it, which is exactly what I did. What I think should be present in the article is exactly what I placed in the article, before Sitush violated 3RR. Next, spurious "experience" is hardly a logical appeal. If multiple well-regarded news organizations throughout India dedicate articles to displaying how "controversial" Singh is, then Wikipedia has to reflect that (a la Narendra Modi - who is also called controversial in the lead and who newspapers call "controversial" to the degree that Singh is).Pectore^talk 04:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The example of Modi is poor. There are academic sources that call him controversial and the nature of the claim extends well beyond India, including past boycotts by the EU, by the UK as a standalone entity and by the US (which even withdrew his visa rights). Perhaps similar international reprobation and academic discourse has happened with regard to Singh but, if so, I've not seen it yet aside from perhaps the Israel issue, which appears to have been a storm in a teacup. Not surprisingly, Israel has a long history of being prickly when people compare pretty much anything with the Nazis.

This article already notes some aspects of controversy but does so in a balanced manner; for example, it mentions the divided opinion among academics regarding the results of his decentralisation policies and the fallout from the Jogi/Chhattisgarh situation. There is more to be said but it should be integrated, proportionate and - most importantly - not used in a manner that turns the article into a platform for people who are campaigning for or against Singh in the real world. Soham, for example, has been keen to stress that there is a mass campaign against Singh orchestrated by the Indian media. I've no idea if this is true: it seems improbable on the scale that they were implying, but it is not impossible and so care is required when using such sources.

Much of politics, and in particular the reporting of it in news media, is a series of here-today, gone-tomorrow events that involve the participants taking pot-shots at each other and defending themselves from the shots fired by others. Very little of such stuff is lasting, encyclopaedic information. This article is presently under the spotlight at ANI and has been recently there and at DRN on past recent occasions but, so far, the consensus appears to be that I am operating within policy and, in particular, with regard to BLP standards. Those, of course, can be an exemption to 3RR and given the manner in which you boldly reinstated content that was generally considered to be unacceptable, my reverts of you do not count as such. I can only imagine that you were at that point unaware of the discussions here and elsewhere. Now you are not. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Digvijaya is not as notable as Modi, and hence does not pique the interest of as many academics. A large body of reliable sources still treats Digvijaya as controversial, and his current notability is undeniably tied to that. Obvious facts supported by multiple reliable sources easily constitute encyclopedic information, especially as these sources talk of him regarding the general subject of controversy itself, and not random specific incidents. Therefore they deserves mention in the article. Furthermore at the end of the day, you and your friend above cannot reasonably argue that less reliable sources on a page are good. Not to mention the other issues of violating WP:V and WP:BLP.

Now, onto the massive walls of text between you and Soham. This talk page is a giant argument between you and Soham, with 2-5 other people leaving minor comments here and there. More importantly, there is no "consensus" of any sort that you claim for your edits in this instance. I There are a number of policies which I have in massive good faith, illustrated quite logically to you how you have broke. Cut the idiotic justifications of your revert warring. This was a pure and simple content dispute, and given that my edits literally solved a BLP problem and added verifiable reliable sources, you had absolutely no justification to revert three times in one day. Just because you didn't wantonly violate Wikipolicies before and some people allegedly lauded you for it, does not mean you are correct in this instance. You have no real consensus for your edits, you have quite obviously violated 3RR, you have revert-warred to institute a BLP violation, and you have vandalized a lead section that was well sourced.Pectore^talk 00:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This page has enough evidence-free accusations. If anyone believes a particular editor has broken a bunch of rules, please report the matter at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. I do not know what areas those commenting have worked in, but it is standard operating procedure throughout Wikipedia to remove drive-by text of the form "politician X is controversial because of Y silly event". Articles are not based on cherry-picked factoids—instead, stick to facts with long-term significance. If a politician says something outrageous and there are reliable sources which subsequently write that something important followed from the outrageous comment, then the article should discuss the topic (was an election lost? did the politician resign?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You have not, in any of your posts, mentioned anything about the subject in question, instead attacking my talk page posts with inane generalities (by the way the evidence is above - and if you call my statements, cited by multiple reliable sources, "evidence-free" - you either a) cannot count or read or b) are editing in bad faith). Furthermore, I hate editors that go and whine on noticeboards and drop stupid templates on user talk pages so that's why I didn't report (plus strictly 3 edits may/may not be a blockable offense). You have demonstrated that you did not even read the sources cited, which spoke to the "long-term significance" of Digvijaya being a "controversial" figure because he spews statements that rile up people across the political spectrum often. This dispute is over the removal of sources. The statement that the sources backed up is notable (and a large part of his notability), it is unsourced, and it is related to material in the article. I added multiple reliable sources, which means my edits here followed the policies of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and the guideline of WP:LEAD.Pectore^talk 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to remove the stuff again as unnecessary. Leads summarise articles and should not need citations. Go learn how to write properly and stop following me around. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No mentioning of his controversial statements on important issues

There is no mention of his controversial statements regarding his views and actions as per following: 1) Regarding getting call from Hemant Karkare before his death. 2) Views on Indian Mujahiddin that "I doubt whether such an organisation exist". 3) His beating of BJYM activists and running after them with a rod in his hand during protest by the activists in Ujjain. 4) His reference to Osama Bin Laden and Hafeez Sayeed as respectable words like Laden 'ji' and Hafeez Sayeed 'sahib'. 5) His alleged link with the land scam relating to a mall "Treasure Island" in Indore. 6) Accused CAG, Comptroller and Auditor General of India to be acting for BJP.

This and many more. This should be part of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To start with, you must provide reliable sources that report on this. Then we can decide what can be added to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

* 1) . His most controversial comments.

. More proof about his controversial tag.

. Creating controversy by saying a co-incidence between BJP rally and Patna blasts, and BJP to be biggest beneficiary.

. Sexist remark against a Congress leader.

, . He's an accused in mall scam in Indore.

. His own party Congress distancing itself from his controversial statements.

. Digvijay Singh referring to Osama bin Laden respectfully as "Osama ji".

, , referring to terrorist Hafeez Sayeed respectfull as "Sahib".

I suppose this much proof is enough to add contents into this article. His own party disown many of his controversial statements. Many news reports have termed him controversial. Without these contents the article is incomplete. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to take you seriously when you have been pushing for removal of such things from Narendra Modi. The contradiction shows a clear political POV and as such you do your case no great good: if you want to soapbox then please do it somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. It would inspire some confidence if you were to register an account and use it in future - that is not a requirement for contributing to Wikipedia but it does much to allay the concerns of people who spend many hours trying to keep these articles in order, faced as they are with partisan people who are determined to undermine our procedures. Most of the points you raise above look to have been discussed previously here in recent months and rejected per WP:CONSENSUS. Nonetheless, I'll make an effort to review them again. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me which of the 10 points raised by the Hindustan Times (your point #1) should be included in the article? Please bear in mind that we don't usually mention politicians taking verbal pot-shots at each other: all politicians do that and it is almost always "of the moment" (which is why such things were not accepted in the Modi article). - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please also note that the "controversial" nature of Modi resulted from lengthy discussions that demonstrated the man was considered controversial by academics and major news sources outside India - it wasn't run-of-the-mill local press with a sensationalist command of language. So, if you seek parity between that article and this one, I guess you'll need to find some sources like that. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect question about the political POV. I suppose that following the Wikipedia policies, either you include criticism/ allegations for all, or for none. This is somehow is missing when one come through the article of Narendra Modi and Digvijay Singh (or any other alleged controversial politician). When it has been already done by users, its termed CONSENSUS , but when I wanted to bring parity, it is called pushing POV. Nothing can be more hypocritic.

• About the article in Hindustan Times, it is only for reference about whether Digvijay Singh is controversial or not. Infact each and every sentence spoken by him becomes a controversy, and thats why he is called controversial. Politicians are asked about their views and its what they speak is termed their views (remember the puppy remark so mentioned in Modi's article).
• Major or minor news articles outside India about a person depends upon the popularity/ significance of a person. If international media mention something, it does not become gospel truth and same holds for the reverse of also. Even academic sources are based on media reports. Digvijay Singh on the other hand is not such significant figure internationally, so not mentioned. The sources mentioned above are not from run of the mill local press but from the national media. Now do not term whole of India as the mill. The point is such things have actually occured/ spoken by the person concerned and created controversies. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are generally treated in the abstract - see, for example, WP:OSE. There is no particular reason why parity should be a dominant feature. Look, it is quite obvious that your purpose here is to promote Modi and denigrate Singh - it is not really a position from which you are going to be able to argue in good faith because you have allowed your politics to get in the way of neutrality. I can envisage a single sentence along the lines of Singh being known for putting his foot in his mouth but, really, you've already demonstrated that the two men are not comparable. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading this report and the links therein to discussions elsewhere (eg: at WP:DRN). You'll note that the Batla House and RSS stuff is still in the article - I was trying to be fair then and I'm trying to be fair now. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Do I have to repeat all the allegations again? Views on RSS and Batla House are only tip of the iceberg. Kindly refer to the sources as mentioned by me above along with some more as below;

1 , , " Digvijay Singh has raised question about the existence of terror outfit Indian Mujahideen...."I don’t know Indian Mujahideen exists or not": Digvijay Singh".

2 , , " Congress leader Digvijay Singh on Friday targeted Comptroller and Auditor General Vinod Rai suggesting he has a political agenda....."

3 , "Digvijay Singh, who created a flutter by stating that slain Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare was under threat from right-wing groups, .....he has spoken to the police officer a few hours before the 26/11 attacks."

4 , , " ......slapped some activists of the Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing" , " .... the Sessions Court here had issued non- bailable warrants against Singh and Guddu ....".

You can repeat yourself as often as you wish but it probably will not make any difference, given the links I've provided to prior discussions. See WP:TE. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Caste claims etc

We've got a bit of a problem with caste claims for this person. It is easy to verify that he comes from a former ruling family but, for example, his own biography (which I have just removed) describes him as a Raja, which is complete nonsense because such titles were abolished many decades ago. We thus cannot rely on the man's statements because they are puffed-up. His precise caste is in any event, and as with most people, not really important. Best to omit it. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Sahab" ControversyP

I don't feel that this belongs to his biography. No point in adding multiple refs to it, one is enough for verifiability/RS sake. Most Indian politicians/media people are always reported in such a way in the news and it happens frequently. In the same manner, we could add so much more to their articles and make literally a list of controversies. A person of Singh's caliber, no doubt would have the biggest such list. :) See WP:NOTNEWS or less relevant WP:RECENT; "Controversy" sections are a bad practice in general. If Singh does indeed make a controversy that affects his whole life and would be relevant to his biography, then such events would be covered by the news even after a few days or maybe even have international coverage. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Don't revert the highly sourced material without making consensus in talk. Your sentence "A person of Singh's caliber, no doubt would have the biggest such list" shows your personal POV. kindly read my discussion with admin Malik Shabazz on my talk page, If source mentions it is a controversy then there was no problem in adding this to article. I'm reverting your edit in good faith and please make consensus here before editing. --Human3015 09:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"A person of Singh's caliber" was a joke. Getting your consensus? see WP:STATUSQUO and I don't see any admin supporting it's inclusion, but I'm fine with your way. What I mean is, see WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, just because there are sources documenting something doesn't mean it's relevant. The ONUS is on you to prove that it's relevant. Right, @Sitush:? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Who will decide that what is relevant and what is not relevant? If you think that news mentioned in national media is not relevant then many things on wikipedia will get reverted?? Kindly don't make it a issue of prestige. Its a sourced material. --Human3015 10:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Like how I mentioned above in the starting. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Digvijaya is among foremost politicians of main opposition party of India that is Indian National Congress, his remarks do matters. If you think that calling anyone "Sahab" is not-relevant, then read reaction of Indian government when United Nations called Hafiz Saeed as "Sahab". Indian government protested against it. read here, India furious as UN calls Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Saeed 'Sahib' and this also India furious as UN calls Hafiz Saeed 'Sahib' .

Now don't say that when UN calls "sahab" is relevant but when Digvijay calls "sahab" is not relevant because Digvijaya also got same media coverage and criticism. Thank you. --Human3015 12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not yet up to speed regarding the recent back-and-forth relating to this issue. However, Human3015, you boldly added the material and were reverted, so you should have come here to seek consensus for your changes, not continued to edit war. Per WP:BRD, basically.

This article is a BLP and its subject has been quite a controversial character at times, so we need to tread carefully. If consensus for inclusion/exclusion cannot be resolved here then the next stage would be as outlined at dispute resolution. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: as directed by you on my talk page I made required changes in sources and wrote a neutral sub section. And I already explained how much it is relevant, but some people here do have their own POV, they are calling it "bold" and "not-relevant" and involved in edit warring. Without making consensus here. Specially they are tagging each other for help and making it a issue of prestige otherwise it is a very small issue. --Human3015 12:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Be careful what you say, Human3015. I have no horse in this race and I've already explained that I'm not familiar with the specific incident (yet). I'm merely following policy, which you were not. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This might end up in RfC or any other similar process. For now I hope that this edit war is stale. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush, OccultZone, and Ugog Nizdast:, I'm no more in this debate, my apology for my reverts, if you people think that my edit is relevant edit then add it or let it go. Because if Digvijaya's remark on other issues which are already mentioned in this article are relevant then I think my edit is also relevant and I attached plenty of sources to it from national media. But anyway I don't insist that my edit should feature in article or I will not participate on any dispute board. Because I think that this is not so big issue. Thank you. --Human3015 13:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about inclusion then you should stick to your guns, although simultaneously sticking within the limits of our policy. I'll say it again: I haven't familiarised myself with the detail of the particular event and so right now I have no opinion for or against inclusion. I am open to being persuaded either way and will try to read the sources later. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, Ok, you can read sources and decide what you want to do. It is sourced from reliable sources. You can read my earlier comments to know why it is relevant. And I think that it has NPOV and it is not a Synthesis or Vandalism. Thank you. --Human3015 13:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(indented by me -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

I've not had much time on this matter either, I'll comment more on this tomorrow...even I admit I could be wrong. Human note that no one called your edit vandalism. Also, see our talk page guidelines and in future, indent your posts while replying like how I just did. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've checked again and still feel the same. There doesn't seem to be any longlasting notabilty of this (i.e there aren't any reports even after just one day of the incident, hence NOTNEWS), just like numerous other things we don't mention about him. I'm strict about this mainly because of WP:BLP. As to why other controversies are mentioned in the article, I see only three. The Batla one was discussed before here. His views on right-wing groups is a recurring feature and that maybe deserves another section. The corruption one isn't a controversy because it says later about the court ruling in his favour. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't have dedicated "Controversy" sections anyway. That type of thing should be worked into the flow of the article. I've not revisited the corruption one and will not be around for a couple of days but the most recent issue, which Human3015 was involved in for a while, does indeed seem to be minor and a candidate for NOTNEWS. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digvijaya Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130703153629/http://aicc.org.in:80/index.php/officebearers to http://www.aicc.org.in/index.php/officebearers#.UeSDOc6YNBk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Digvijaya Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100704202817/http://cg.gov.in:80/profile/corigin.htm to http://cg.gov.in/profile/corigin.htm#prathak
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101220093325/http://www.zeenews.com:80/news675416.html to http://www.zeenews.com/news675416.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)