Talk:Arvind Kejriwal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

AkleshJatavNSUI (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal is a political leader.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request to add section- Backlash after Televising an Official Meeting on COVID 2nd Wave

When India was reeling with the onset of the second wave, The PM Narendra Modi chaired an emergency meeting with all CMs of the states in the Republic of India. Kejriwal decided to televise his speech live against the established norms of private official meetings. After being sternly admonished for the breach of protocol by the PM "this article"., He profusely apologized midway through his speech and later his office expressed regret for televising the speech."this article". He also displayed an acute disconnect from the steps being taken to resolve the O2 supply issues plaguing the country and referred to an already activated plan of Oxygen Express of using Indian Railways leading the PM to interject and remind him that it is not an idea But an actual step which has already been activated.

Please read WP:NOTNEWS ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

If possible can you please add this information :- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/singapore-miffed-kejriwal-claim-covid-variant-mea-clarifies-1804280-2021-05-19 2405:201:25:6015:650D:16A8:FEB9:F25 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Request removal of section Attack by BJP workers

I undid this revision [1] but it was reinstated. This revision goes against WP:NOTNEWS. It is not a notable event in the career of the peroson to get a mention on wikipedia. It is clearly NOT an assassination attempt and has not been characterized as such in any WP:RS . Request cleanup by uninvolved editors. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty rare incident and the major headline everywhere. It is still evolving. I strongly believe it deserves a mention. Venkat TL (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

every new incident WILL be covered by the media and will make headlines everywhere, simply because it is new. Coverage itself does not warrant inclusion on wiki. quoting from Wikipedia:NOTNEWS

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything in your last reply. This event qualifies to have a mention. An attack on CM with damage to CCTV and all is very very rare. Cant think of such an incident in past. There are reports that MP was leading the attack. Venkat TL (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Arvind Kejriwal 2019 Press Conference.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

IB report

Kejadiwal says AAP sweeping Gujrat elections as per report of the Intelligence Buraue of India. Add this info 103.51.139.115 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/arvind-kejriwal-gujarat-elections-ib-report-bjp-congress-8185608/ 103.51.139.115 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Career section is like some agenda advertisement

Less words for career and more press is on absence and leave and scandals. It should be edited properly. RashmikantT (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Current Event

I've added current event templates at appropriate places in this article; as mentioned in the edit request above, Kejriwal has been accused of misusing public funds for a renovation of his personal residence. Updates to this event should be sourced to reliable sources and reported with WP:NPOV in mind. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Problam

Hi sir mea punjab se hu mea canada mea hu mea yaha bhut muskil mea hu mere family bhi mere saath hai mujhe ghar wapis Jana hai mea India se 35 lakh ka lon lea kar ayeya hu mujhe India wapis Jana hai plz mere madad kejeye nahi to mea yaha pr mar jayuga mera no +1514-458-7045 hai plz mere madad kejeye 67.216.50.1 (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

Add this section

Critism and controversies

Conflict with Anna Hazare: In 2012, Kejriwal and Anna Hazare, who were associated with the India Against Corruption movement, had a fallout over political ambitions and differences in approach towards the movement. https://bharat.republicworld.com/india-news/politics/anna-hazare-slammed-arvind-kejriwal-over-cbi-summon https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/anna-hazare-arvind-kejriwal-letter-8120577/ https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/national/youre-intoxicated-with-power-anna-hazare-slams-arvind-kejriwal-over-excise-policy-1140664.html https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/anna-hazare-issues-statement-on-cbi-summons-to-kejriwal-punishment-must-if-found-guilty/videoshow/99533477.cms

Resignation as Delhi Chief Minister: In 2014, Kejriwal resigned as the Chief Minister of Delhi after being in power for only 49 days, citing the inability to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill. https://www.reuters.com/article/arvind-kejriwal-resign-delhi-idINDEEA1D0CT20140214 https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/arvind-kejriwal-quits-over-jan-lokpal/article5688528.ece/amp/ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/arvind-kejriwal-resigns-over-jan-lokpal-bill-181089-2014-02-14 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/arvind-kejriwal-quits-as-delhi-cm-after-jan-lokpal-fiasco/articleshow/30409661.cms https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/delhi-assembly-live-aap-jan-lokpal-bill-arvind-kejriwal-resignation/lite/ https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/kejriwal-quits-as-delhi-cm-after-jan-lokpal-bill-fiasco/article20727794.ece1/amp/

Allegations of bribery: In 2014, Kejriwal accused several politicians, including BJP's Nitin Gadkari and Congress' Salman Khurshid, of being involved in corruption and taking bribes. https://www.abplive.com/viral-sach/arvind-kejriwal-photo-apologizing-to-nitin-gadkari-goes-viral-know-the-truth-of-viral-claim-fact-check-2370914/amp https://www.moneylife.in/article/arvind-kejriwal-detained-in-nitin-gadkari-defamation-case/37478.html https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/arvind-kejriwal-expresses-regret-to-nitin-gadkari/article23292396.ece

Defamation cases: Kejriwal has been sued for defamation by several politicians and individuals, including Arun Jaitley, Kapil Sibal, and Amit Sibal. https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/defamation-case-arvind-kejriwal-aap-leaders-apologise-to-jaitley/story-CEAztTuqfKKdKks0gR5LrO_amp.html https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/now-arvind-kejriwal-apologises-to-arun-jaitley-over-ddca-defamation-case-5120390/lite/ https://news.abplive.com/news/india/kejriwals-apology-accepted-by-jaitley-joint-plea-moved-for-settlement-of-case-677699/amp https://wap.business-standard.com/article-amp/politics/arvind-kejriwal-apologises-to-nitin-gadkari-kapil-sibal-mijithia-jaitley-next-top-10-development-118031900518_1.html

Allegations of corruption against Cabinet Ministers: In 2017, Kejriwal's Cabinet Ministers Satyendar Jain and Kapil Mishra were accused of corruption, which led to a major controversy. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/delhi/i-saw-arvind-kejriwal-accepting-rs-2cr-from-satyendar-jain-sacked-aap-minister-kapil-mishra/amp_articleshow/58567087.cms https://www.indiatoday.in/india/delhi/story/kapil-mishra-arvind-kejriwal-satyendra-jain-aam-aadmi-party-975683-2017-05-07 https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/aap-crisis-live-kapil-mishra-promises-another-big-expose-satyendar-jain-files-defamation/story-eiAAL09gafWI110bOlIfwJ_amp.html

Delhi Chief Secretary assault case: In 2018, Kejriwal's Chief Secretary alleged that he was assaulted by AAP MLAs at the Chief Minister's residence, which led to a major controversy. https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delhi-cm-kejriwal-his-deputy-sisodia-and-11-mlas-granted-bail-in-chief-secretary-assault-case/amp_articleshow/66357993.cms https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-chief-secretary-anshu-prakash-assault-aap-mlas-arvind-kejriwal-bjp-congress-anil-baijwal-rajnath-singh-ias-body-5071594/lite/ https://m.timesofindia.com/city/delhi/delhi-chief-secretary-alleges-assault-by-aap-mlas-party-refutes-charges/amp_articleshow/62994642.cms https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-chief-secretary-anshu-prakash-alleges-assault-at-arvind-kejriwals-home-by-2-mlas-1814773/amp/1 https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/aap-mlas-assaulted-me-delhi-chief-secretary/article61480787.ece/amp/

Kejriwal oxygen controversy https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/kejriwal-govt-inflated-oxygen-demand-4-times-during-peak-supreme-court-panel-273919 https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-did-aap-inflate-delhis-oxygen-needs-amid-covid-19-second-wave-heres-all-we-know/386149/amp https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/delhi-oxygen-need-supreme-court-panel-report-covid-second-wave-bjp-aap-kejriwal-sisodia-714538 https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delhi-bjp-accuses-arvind-kejriwal-of-criminal-negligence-over-inflated-oxygen-requirement/amp_articleshow/83835051.cms

A controversy has erupted after Arvind Kejriwal was accused by the BJP of spending around Rs 45 crore(USD 5.5 mn the "beautification" of his official residence https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kejriwal-official-residence-irregularities-delhi-l-g-controversy-2366218-2023-04-29 https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2023/05/01/renovation-controversy-bjp-dharna-in-front-of-kejriwals-house.html https://theprint.in/politics/as-congress-slams-kejriwals-rs-45-cr-home-renovation-partys-delhi-unit-in-dharam-sankat/1542102/ https://www.wionews.com/india-news/kejriwal-spent-rs-45-crore-on-renovating-his-residence-report-says-586365 https://www.timesnownews.com/india/trouble-mounts-for-arvind-kejriwal-delhi-l-g-seeks-factual-report-over-bungalow-renovation-row-article-99864468 https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/bjps-rs-45-crore-arvind-kejriwal-home-renovation-charge-aaps-rebuttal-3980254 116.73.198.213 (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: The sources of the first one link to at least three different events at different times, so I'm unsure how that should be implemented.

His resignation is already mentioned in the article at a more appropriate point. The same goes for the allegations of bribery and some of the defamation lawsuits.

The alleged assault case is also mentioned already.

The oxygen controversy has been added. Same goes for the residence "beautification". However, the allegations against cabinet ministers were against Satyendar Jain and Arvind Kejriwal, and brought forward by Kapil Mishra. What do you suggest be done with that? Actualcpscm (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@116.73.198.213 Regarding the addition of this "Controversy section" as suggested by you, the discussion is currently going on. Kindly participate and put forward your reasoning as why you want the inclusion of this section when it is generally missing from other Indian political leaders' wikipages. Also, a request kindly use your official ID for this discussion rather than an anonymous one. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion related to Criticism/Controversy section

controversies section should remain or not??? DSP2092 (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@DSP2092 If you are following a general format, then definitely NOT. I removed both the sections after going through multiple significant Indian leaders' pages including - Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee etc. Either their pages should also have these same sections (it's not like their respective terms are free from controversies/lawsuits) or the section should not be there until and unless there is some major controversy or court judgement related to a particular leader which hampers or completely shuts their political career. Selective addition of section itself violates neutrality of the wikipedia page. So that's my opinion. Better to keep the uniformity regrading different leaders' sections. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@KridhaThere are criticisms of people in general format which you mentioned is wrong. See Examples of politicians ,Public image of Narendra Modi, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Corruption and conviction, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies.

In controversies section

From removed controversies section

In May 2021, Kejriwal called for the India central government to immediately stop air travel between India and Singapore, and develop "vaccine alternatives for children", due to "a new variant of coronavirus found in Singapore" which "is being said to be very dangerous for children". However, there is no known Singaporean variant of COVID-19; a recent report discussing the threat of COVID-19 to Singaporean children was discussing a variant of COVID-19 first detected in India: B.1.617. Many of the recent COVID-19 cases in Singapore were of B.1.617. The foreign minister of India, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and the foreign minister of Singapore, Vivian Balakrishnan, criticized Kejriwal's comment as "irresponsible" and counter-factual respectively.

In 2022, the Kejriwal government was accused of inflating the reported oxygen need of Delhi during the second wave of COVID-19 infections.

According to me, above controversy is international where different country foreign minister also commented and have various different sources.

In my opinion, Whole section shouldn't be removed.controversy with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Feel free to give your opinion.

DSP2092 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

DRN regarding criticism section removal

Please add the criticism section back.undo user:kridha two previous edits.see the DRN and edit request on 10 May 2023 above discussion.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. AnnaMankad (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Already done.he isn't replying Who removed the section.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout above discussion and DRN request. Nyovuu (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

removed controversies section

Add this section which was removed without Valid reason. Nyovuu (talk)  19:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

In May 2021, Kejriwal called for the India central government to immediately stop air travel between India and Singapore, and develop "vaccine alternatives for children", due to "a new variant of coronavirus found in Singapore" which "is being said to be very dangerous for children". However, there is no known Singaporean variant of COVID-19; a recent report discussing the threat of COVID-19 to Singaporean children was discussing a variant of COVID-19 first detected in India: B.1.617. Many of the recent COVID-19 cases in Singapore were of B.1.617. The foreign minister of India, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and the foreign minister of Singapore, Vivian Balakrishnan, criticized Kejriwal's comment as "irresponsible" and counter-factual respectively.

In 2022, the Kejriwal government was accused of inflating the reported oxygen need of Delhi during the second wave of COVID-19 infections.

In late April 2023, allegations surfaced that Kejriwal had misappropriated public funds for renovations of his residence in Delhi. An investigation was announced on 29 April 2023.

Lawsuits

Several defamation cases were filed against Arvind Kejriwal by his political opponents. In January 2014, Kejriwal released a list of most corrupt politicians that included several leaders across the political spectrum. Of the several on the list, Nitin Gadkari immediately filed a defamation suit against Kejriwal. Subsequently, Kejriwal apologised to union minister Nitin Gadkari for his unverified allegations and also sought apology from former minister Kapil Sibal.

In 2016, Kejriwal made allegations against Bikram Majithia, then revenue minister of Punjab of involvement in drug trade for which Majithia filed a defamation case against him and two others from Aam Aadmi party. Kejriwal apologised to Majithia a couple of years later in March 2018.

Kejriwal made allegations against finance minister Arun Jaitley for irregularities in DDCA. Arun Jaitley filed a 10 crore defamation suit against Kejriwal. On 2 March 2016, Delhi High Court asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and suspended BJP MP Kirti Azad to file their written statements in a civil defamation suit of Rs 5 crores filed by DDCA for their alleged remarks against the cricket body regarding its functioning and finances. Following this in April 2018 Arvind Kejriwal and three others from his party including Sanjay Singh, Raghav Chaddha and Ashutosh apologized Arun Jaitley in a joint letter.

In his affidavit to Election Directorate before the second term elections in 2015 Kejriwal had declared that he has 10 criminal charges and 47 total charges against him.

In 2021, a Delhi court dismissed an assault case filed by a Delhi bureaucrat against Kejriwal and ten AAP MLAs and discharged them of all charges. The court noted that "no prima facie case" was made against them.

: Not done: A consensus discussion amongst editors must happen before this content can be re-added using the edit request process as there is an established editor objecting to inclusion. I do not see any policy or guideline violation in the removal of the section that warrants automatic revival. —Sirdog (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@User:Sirdog, What they're discussing in above is not giving any constructive opinion and they only gave their subjective view and i don't see anything good by removing the section which undermines WP:NPOV and shows biased view. 150.129.164.105 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@User:150.129.164.105 In my humble opinion it's you under your hidden "anonymous ID" who is trying to violate the WP:NPOV guidelines. I clearly stated that the section is missing from the general format of all the significant political leaders, but you insisted on addition of this section without even participating in the discussion. Also, I have observed that your only contribution on Wikipedia is on the Arvind Kejriwal (especially just for "Criticism" section) that itself makes your edit suspicious. Also, a request, next time come from original ID, rather than making multiple anonymous account to push your POV. That way it's easy to hold a proper discussion. Inclusion of this section and its content requires a thorough discussion and review of the credibility and nature of sources attached before going back to the main page.Thanks. Kridha (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kridha, You seems suspicious to me because your edits on this page only try to defend or remove negative coverage using WP:BADREVERT and seems involved in WP:COIEDIT which undermines WP:MASSR, WP:TE, WP:NPOV. 150.129.164.105 (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:150.129.164.105 Not a single pervious edit by me was in the violation of WP:NPOV. And also the guidelines you pointed out, not a single one is being violated. But before anything, it's a request to use your original ID. Then only it's possible for me to have a constructive discussion with you regarding this section. Thanks.

Kridha (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kridha, So why are you removing negative view.

edit 1 - in which you removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022

• edit 2 - in which you removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which you removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which you removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which you remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this you remove
• edit 7 in which you remove

150.129.164.105 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't use {{help me}} to get around consensus. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 14:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Request

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

• WP:NPOVHOW:

  .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

• edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
• edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this he remove
• edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure this is an appropriate use of the RfC process. A brief, neutral statement of the issue is the best way to start.

Nevertheless I took a look at the edits you have highlighted and in particular I found edit 4 problematic. The edit summary was Rmv the entire section. Firstly, there is no reliable independent source attached. Secondly, the section is lacking in all other significant leaders' pages. Better to maintain uniformity and WP:NPOV.

The two given reasons are flawed::

1. The section did in fact cite several reliable sources, including one that is green at WP:RSP.

2. If a section header doesn’t appear in other similar articles, that’s not a sound reason to delete the whole section. Options include renaming it, moving the content into another section, or accepting that this article can have an uncommon section heading. This issue also applies to edit 5.

Therefore it seems to me that the removal of the content has not been properly justified, and it should be restored.

I want to emphasise that I haven’t evaluated the content for due weight, or attempted verification of statements, so the content may still end up being deleted for some other reason. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be added into existing section or can be added under creating "public image of arvind kejriwal" & about reliable sources, there are source like ndtv, economics times, Indian express, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Reuters are used in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arvind_Kejriwal?markasread=281433591&markasreadwiki=enwiki#removed_controversies_section

Nyovuu (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the RfC tag, as this is an inappropriate one. The statement introducing an RfC must neutrally state what the matter for which comment is sought is, and this introduction is entirely non-neutral. Please feel free to start an RfC with a neutral statement of what comment is sought on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• FYI, this is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Requesting a comment on Arvind Kejriwal NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

"Books section" & "Biography section" should be added into "In media section". 103.251.217.237 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 13:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 edits

@User:Nyovuu, please use this section to build a consensus for your changes. Woodroar (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar : I saw the ANI report, and while I think Nyovuu may have issues with competence and edit warring, could you explain the wholesale removal of the Criticism section? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar,I have read the guidelines you pointed for removal, i have also read the similar political pages & criticism section but you're only removing my edits. I have previously also tried to get consensus many times as you can see but nobody participated therefore i boldly edited & you again saying about consensus & removed even though most of sources are reliable. Nyovuu (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp and @Nyovuu: I've been removing it because we should avoid "controversies" or "criticism" sections, particularly on a BLP (see WP:CSECTION) and we should also avoid reporting allegations without convictions (see WP:BLPCRIME). WP:BLP policy is clear that we need to get the content right or it should be removed. I'm also concerned that the section provided a one-sided POV of these "controversies" that may be WP:UNDUE. Nyovuu, as I told you on your Talk page, how reliable the sources are is secondary to how you're trying to use them in the article.

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to adding some of the content into the article, but not paragraphs of allegations without convictions and not in a section named "Controversies". We need to do that based on consensus, which includes respecting our policies and guidelines. It will probably have to happen gradually as well, looking at each issue and the available sources, not in one edit with thousands of characters. Woodroar (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar I'm afraid that is an incorrect reading of WP:CSECTION and WP:BLPCRIME.

The part you are referring to for WP:BLPCRIME is for people who arent public figures, which Kejriwal obviously is. The criticisms were well sourced and widely reported. And allegations, if notable, are included; Only the correct attribution to them must be maintained. As for WP:CSECTION, it does not advise us to delete the sections (as you have done); It instead, advises an alternate title (in place of "criticism") if possible (and if not, those are acceptable and exist).

In the interest of not edit warring on this, could you please point out the specific issues you have with the content? And suggest an alternate title if you have one. Ive pasted the material (slightly modified to address your concerns) here for your convenience and mine.

In May 2021, Kejriwal called for the India central government to immediately stop air travel between India and Singapore, and develop "vaccine alternatives for children", due to "a new variant of coronavirus found in Singapore" which "is being said to be very dangerous for children". However, the Singapore Health Ministry stated that there was no known Singaporean variant of COVID-19; a recent report discussing the threat of COVID-19 to Singaporean children was discussing a variant of COVID-19 first detected in India: B.1.617. Many of the recent COVID-19 cases in Singapore were of B.1.617. Further, it said “There is no truth whatsoever in the assertions found within the reports”. The foreign minister of India, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and the foreign minister of Singapore, Vivian Balakrishnan, criticized Kejriwal's comment as "irresponsible" and counter-factual respectively.

In 2022, the Kejriwal government was accused of inflating the reported oxygen need of Delhi during the second wave of COVID-19 infections.

In late April 2023, allegations surfaced that Kejriwal had misappropriated public funds for renovations of his residence in Delhi. An investigation was announced on 29 April 2023.

and

Several defamation cases were filed against Arvind Kejriwal by his political opponents. In January 2014, Kejriwal released a list of most corrupt politicians that included several leaders across the political spectrum. Of the several on the list, Nitin Gadkari immediately filed a defamation suit against Kejriwal. Subsequently, Kejriwal apologised to union minister Nitin Gadkari for his unverified allegations and also sought apology from former minister Kapil Sibal.

In 2016, Kejriwal made allegations against Bikram Majithia, then revenue minister of Punjab of involvement in drug trade for which Majithia filed a defamation case against him and two others from Aam Aadmi party. Kejriwal apologised to Majithia a couple of years later in March 2018.

Kejriwal made allegations against finance minister Arun Jaitley for irregularities in DDCA. Arun Jaitley filed a 10 crore defamation suit against Kejriwal. On 2 March 2016, Delhi High Court asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and suspended BJP MP Kirti Azad to file their written statements in a civil defamation suit of Rs 5 crores filed by DDCA for their alleged remarks against the cricket body regarding its functioning and finances. Following this, in April 2018 Arvind Kejriwal and three others from his party including Sanjay Singh, Raghav Chaddha and Ashutosh apologized to Arun Jaitley in a joint letter.

In his affidavit to Election Directorate before the second term elections in 2015 Kejriwal had declared that he has 10 criminal charges and 47 total charges against him.

In 2021, a Delhi court dismissed an assault case filed by a Delhi bureaucrat against Kejriwal and ten AAP MLAs and discharged them of all charges. The court noted that "no prima facie case" was made against them.

Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Part of WP:BLPCRIME is about non-public figures, yes, but the first sentence about innocence and accusations apply to everyone. That there are mentions of allegations, criminal charges, and apologies, but nothing about convictions, is likely harmful to Kejriwal (and the others mentioned). I'm concerned, based on comments from Kridha above, that these sources present an UNDUE POV because other reliable sources are being excluded. Changing a few words here and there won't help if all of the claims are weighted on a select handful of sources.

It's BLP policy itself (WP:BLPRESTORE) that says to delete the sections: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. That's why I've been stressing the need for consensus.

I suspect that Kridha knows a lot more about this situation than I do, but maybe they're wrong. If digging into the sources determines that they do represent a weighted balance of reliable sources, great! We can tinker with the wording. If there were convictions or court orders or something similar that weren't reported, also great. We can mention that. However, there's such a variety of issues here that I'd probably still argue we should incorporate the content throughout the article, or perhaps use several headings/titles. I don't have any specific suggestions until the source analysis is done. Woodroar (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I adressed that; see allegations, if notable, are included; Only the correct attribution to them must be maintained. Kejriwal wasnt convicted, but he did apologise repeatedly for claims that he made (including admitting negligence) after he was sued. No reason to keep that out.
Again, could you specify what portions you take issue with instead of quoting guidelines? You cant just claim "No consensus" without actually disagreeing with the material; And even in disagreements, consensus is not unanimity.
And Kridha's edits and comments have not only been problematic in my opinion, but have also been pointed out by others. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about allegations, in isolation at least, but NPOV issues can cause BLP issues. No matter what we name them, these "controversies" strike me as one-sided political point-scoring—the goal is to damage reputations. I fully believe that Kridha removed them in good faith and I hope they'll return soon and detail their NPOV issues, and then we can move forward. (To be clear, I also think that Nyovuu is acting in good faith.) If you look through the article and Talk page histories, you'll see that this has been going on for years. Someone adds a criticism section and someone else removes it weeks or months later. Nyovuu and Kridha are only the latest. It seems to me that the general (but by no means universal) opinion on the Talk page is that a criticism section should be removed until there's consensus for inclusion.

Ultimately, I have no opinion on Kejriwal or anyone else listed here. I didn't know who they were until I saw the NPOV discussion. I'm mostly pro-procedure, trying to get the editors to the table to discuss—as several other editors have done—and pointing out issues where I see them. I haven't seen much that's problematic about Kridha's editing, but maybe I haven't looked at the right diffs. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means representing sources fairly; And removing well sourced, widely reported criticisms would be in violation of that policy.

Im pinging @Kridha to share their objections to the material as written above, if any. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References

It is said that "Arvind Kejriwal is the most followed Chief Minister on Twitter" - it rather should be Arvind Kejriwal is the most followed Chief Minister on X (formerly known as Twitter". There is a need to update (Themisislegal (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC))

Kejriwal arrested

Kejariwal arrested today by ED, plz add । 45.124.142.140 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not cited reliable sources, without which no article should be changed. - Arjayay (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I am searching the source 45.124.142.140 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the source

He is arrested today evening

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/arvind-kejriwal-arrested-by-enforcement-directorate-in-liquor-policy-case-5284679?_gl=1*1gfabjs*_ga*Mm9HdzBGbW1KZGxuemxISmhRcUNhUGpKaHRwcjZtblBubm9FT1p3NjNicEtkb3ZhTjVpUnJxZGYzOUtGYXoxUA

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/ed-arrests-delhi-chief-minister-arvind-kejriwal-in-liquor-policy-case-253073 45.124.142.140 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Controversies

In Indian politics, controversies emerge regularly. It's unnecessary to list every daily controversy. To avoid negativity the controversies section has been removed. Not to be added or reverted before we discuss it here. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 21:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the "Lawsuits" section, each part of the section eventually states that Kejriwal apologized. I'm not sure what purpose this section serves in the BLP. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

please go through WP:CENSOR. You cannot delete a well sourced section, just because you feel "I'm not sure what purpose this section serves in the BLP." Aren't lawsuits part and parcel of every politician? Please start a WP:RFC. This section was sourced by WP:RS and criticism is a part of WP:BLP, if required we can always move it a new article instead of deleting it and retain a summary in the section. Please establish a consensus via WP:RFC before deleting it. I will be restoring it. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC isn't called before a discussion. I agree that there should be no separate "controversies" section, anything noteworthy should be integrated in proper sections and negative or positive things shouldn't be inflated. The controversies section is inflated negative aspects some of which are simply trivial. Not everything is included in articles. I don't see a similar controversies section on most major politician articles. MrMkG (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

BLPN referral

Greetings. I'm following up on a post at WP:BLPN regarding a recent edit. The source offered to support the content in this edit does not appear to be particularly reliable as to BLP content, nor is the content apparently worth any WP:WEIGHT in this subject's biography. It's just someone's opinion of him. So I removed it. See also WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS for more detail on third-party claims and reliable sources.

That said, the BLPN OP was unwilling to discuss the problematic edit here with its proponent. That's also unacceptable. Talk page it, please. Then follow up again at BLPN if there's a genuine failure to reach a consensus. If your consensus is hung up on reliability of a source, see WP:RSN. And WP:ANI is where abusive editing is remedied. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a single book cannot be used for conspiracy theory, and this has to be backed up by third party reliable sources. ---TheMandarin (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is being slowly controlled by the leftists

This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a forum for polemics. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I urge the administrators to keep a close eye on this article as well as the Aam Admi party's article. There are many sympathisers of these leftist parties on Wikipedia. They really like censoring anything they know would harm their parties' image. Thanks in advance. 2409:40E1:29:4983:6485:60FF:FEA4:F17B (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.220.45 (talk) Clarification: My original comment didn't violate anything. I posted this comment in ORDER to change the tone of the article. Editors are not assuming good faith. I am new at this. Instead of discussing with me on how to improve the article. Some people keep deleting my comment. Why? 103.52.220.45 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) @103.52.220.45, Your comment doesn't identify any specific changes; instead, it merely suggests that the article is being influenced by the left. If you aim to enhance the article, please articulate precisely what changes you propose and the reasons behind them. Grabup (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) I would like to draw your attention to the fact that a parallel discussion about this is being held in my talk. Thank you. 103.52.220.45 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Court upholding arrest

TheMandarin, I seem to be running into trouble with my edits, so I am asking you for help. Can I add this:

The High Court of Delhi has ruled that Arvind Kejriwal's arrest in the liquor case is valid and rejected the CM's plea against his arrest.

to this article? If so, where?-Haani40 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Being backed by multiple RS, this is a valid addition. Also, the lead is already bloated, so this can be to the relevant section or the main article related to arrest. --TheMandarin (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's already present and with better wording. This wording can make it sound like a conviction instead of a denial of dismissal of a case. MrMkG (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Request to remove or shorten the recent arrest paragraph in main article.

The contents regarding arrest are less inside the 'CM' section and more on the front page. This seems to be a bad edit. Regarding arrest, either increase the content in sub sections or decrease the size of main section. 122.187.117.179 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)