The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on 15:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC).Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
A fact from Bharatiya Janata Party appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
What's written: (In History-> Ram Janmabhoomi movement-> last paragraph) :
Following the 2019 Supreme Court verdict, the Government of India announced a trust to construct the Mandir. On 22 January 2024, the Ram Mandir was officially opened.[63] Prime Minister Narendra Modi led its consecration, claiming it to be the start of a new era.[63] The temple is expected to be fully completed by December 2024.[89]
Changes: The line at the end "The temple is expected to be fully completed by December 2024.[89]" is totally wrong. The temple has already been built and is working. cc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mandir
Precisely. We cannot refer to the BJP as neofascist unless high-quality sources are shown to commonly be doing the same, and I see no evidence of this at the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had found it while browsing "World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 Volumes]". I've also been hearing about it for a while and its links to the neofascist RSS are quite clear. I'm not necessarily saying we should explicitly label the party itself as fascist, but when referenced sources in the article include "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" and "Sliding from majoritarianism toward fascism: Educating India under the Modi regime", we might want to at least acknowledge the accusation that the BJP is "sliding toward fascism" somewhere in the body of the article. 1101 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should at least do more to acknowledge the well-documented phenomenon of them being called fascist, proto-fascist, neo-fascist, having "fascist tendencies", etc. [1]1101 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it consistently makes headlines that they're called neofascist by their opponents, or at least, in that last case, accused of having neofascist characteristics. World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia is also a good source, not a political opponent. I'll have to find it at the library again to see what wording it used. 1101 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, should well-sourced criticism be under some criticism section? As I pointed out earlier, the sources already being used in the article use the term fascism, but not the article itself. I'm not saying the article should outright call the BJP fascist, but rather state that it's accused of protofascist or neofascist tendencies by some. 1101 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's a right wing party doesn't make it fascist one. You suddenly came here and saw, oh god it's not fascist how why? MrLogikal (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it definitely has some fascist tendencies. no one is saying it is completely a fascist far right party, but it does have some characteristics of fascism YeezusBark (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is my point. I feel as if some people think I am being too partisan and so they are defensive. But, given the RSS element of the BJP, and the violent[2] far-right tendencies of the RSS and other Hindu Nationalist groups, I think the connections are clear. I'm starting a discussion on the talk page so we can discuss how best to address this developing situation. Would my critics really prefer if I went ahead and edited the article without a heads-up? I think that, instead of simply telling me we cannot add this characterization because it's made by political opponents, what is more appropriate is to suggest adding it to a criticism or reactions by political opponents section, so that such accusations are properly contextualized for the reader. Another way of addressing this issue if it is contentious is to make a draft of the changes in the talk page or someone's user sandbox so they can be discussed before they are made. And, finally, users could request sources for specific words or allegations. 1101 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia and came here. I notice the sources from reliable publishers such as Routledge and International Sociology cited in the article use the word fascist, neofascist, or protofascist at times, as do other sources. These are widespread enough points of view that they need to be included in the article. I don't understand why you're so motivated to mischaracterize my request and call-to-action, which is not to simply state that the party is fascist, but rather to include in the criticisms or reactions noted in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, the allegations of protofascism & neofascism. Is that really too much to ask, MrLogikal? You'd prefer to leave this point of view unaddressed in an encyclopedia that's beholden to maintain a neutral point of view? I'm surprised at how hostile the response from you and Vanamonde93 is, saying I've "suddenly came here" when I'm a long&sky;time editor, or that my sources aren't reliable when some of them are literally already cited by the article as it currently exists. 1101 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Talib1101 Many surprise things happens when you come to Wikipedia and it breaks personal point of view. It's not neofascist or protofascist. Yeah, it's been said as a right wing with Hindutva ideology. But not in terms of fascism. For example RSS in Wikipedia is projected as a paramilitary organisation even though it doesn't do military exercises and not having arms and RSS itself declared as a volunteer. MrLogikal (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding me again. I am not asking the article to classify the BJP as fascist, just to report the significant connection to fascism made by scholars as a reaction or criticism of the party. And I'm not surprised by Wikipedia's policies; as I've stated before, I've been an editor for many years. Wikipedia is based on its sources. Obviously the RSS is a paramilitary organization even if it declares itself volunteer. How does declaring itself volunteer contradict its widely-reported status as a paramilitary organization? 1101 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hindutva is a fascist ideology though. What you are basically saying is that "the BJP is not fascist, they are a different kind of fascist" EarthDude (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I speak of the word appearing in the article, I don't mean to advocate outright labelling it as fascist, but to follow Reuters and the BBC in noting that fascist is a label that sees significant use by critics of the BJP, something that is of great relevance to the article and of interest to readers. Not only did the BJP appear in an encyclopedia of world fascism, which is what brought me here, but it is also noted as facing criticism of fascist tendencies from its domestic political opposition. When I not that I found the word in the sources, but not anywhere in the article, what I never asked for was to label it as fascist in the introduction. What is happening is the opposite of undue emphasis. The article emphasizes everything but the criticism of the BJP as fascist, something noted in the source material cited in the article itself, as well as many other sources beside. What surprised me is that this criticism, despite being widespread in both foreign and domestic media, somehow is overlooked in the Wikipedia article.
The reason I cite Reuters and the BBC here is because I believe that they are arguably among the most factual and least biased sources. I never asked we have a point of view. I'm aware of NPOV. But we must also neutrally note the most significant arguments and positions of of both supporters and dissenters, at least briefly. It just seems to me, and to Reuters and the BBC, that this particular adjective is significant in this context. 1101 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is that, by missing a highly contentious criticism of the party widespread in reliable sources, including those already used (see the References section of the article), we both do a disservice to our readers by omission and give the impression of bias by minimizing one of the most significant criticisms of this dominant political party. The point of having a neutral point of view isn't to ommit criticism found in reliable sources. I brought it to the talk page instead of going ahead and editing yet I've been met with unmistakable hostility despite not having touched the article. That makes me wonder if perhaps there is a bias issue at play here. 1101 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BJP is absolutely a fascistic party. Be it the glorification of a mythical past, the fear and hate regarding minorites, the selective populism, the militarism, the cult of personality around Modi, etc. But Wikipedia says what reliable sources say. The issue here is to do with sourcing. EarthDude (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, all right wing party are fascists. All those who advocates Christian nationalism, Zionism, or Islamism are fascist. The BJP is widely accepted and is ruling since 11 years. I don't think, your POV matters.I saw your edit history, have certain agenda here. Hindu nationalism is not fascism for ur knowledge. MrLogikal (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How widely it's accepted or how long it's ruling has nothing to do with its proper classification. It's not about point of view, it's about the sources, which I've shown to you repeatedly. 1101 (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then all right wing party are fascists. All those who advocates Christian nationalism, Zionism, or Islamism are fascist if BJP is. Don't come here with your mindset. Hindutva and fascism relation is disputed, it's just few have compared with agenda. MrLogikal (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What mindset? I know that it's disputed. That's the exact point I've been making this entire time. But when there is a dispute, you don't ignore it in the article and then attack the integrity of editors who think that the dispute is notable enough to make it into the article. I'm also not buying your slippery slope argument/whatabaoutism concerning other political ideologies. I think that you need to stop saying horrible things like "don't come here with your mindset" or stop using Wikipedia. You've provided no sources and done nothing but spout logical fallacies and personal attacks and I'm very disappointed in your behavior. Meanwhile, you've seemingly ignored my sources and are refusing to engage with them, instead accusing me of coming here with an agenda. Well, it's abundantly clear to me now which one of us has an agenda. 1101 (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, there is are articles on Zionist fascism.
But those political parties who adheres zionism hasn't been called facist, that's the main point. BJP adheres Hindutva openly. And at Hindutva page, fascism claim is mentioned. So it doesn't mean fascist needs to be mentioned at BJP page, Talib. MrLogikal (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is rapidly approaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. I would remind everyone that this page is to discuss specific ideas on how to improve this article, and nothing else. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concrete proposal is to continue the discussion concerning my specific recommendation that a "Reactions" section be added, which may including domestic reactions (by both supporters and critics), foreign (e.g., American & European) reactions, media/journalistic reactions, and academic/scholarly reactions. 1101 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The core disagreement is not whether the BJP has faced such accusations, but how to represent those accusations within the article while maintaining neutrality. Even those who seem to oppose my suggestion say, "We need to use descriptions from reliable sources, not the party's political opponents." Well, that's a false dichotomy; reliable sources do quote the party's political opponents (as well as its supporters), as they should. A neutral point of view means addressing both sides, not ignoring one of them. Currently, such accusations as "fascism", "neofascism", and "protofascism" are simply not addressed at all, which doesn't strike me as particularly neutral or encyclopedic given the gravity of such accusations and their presence in multiple reliable sources for at least a decade. 1101 (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The gravity of such accusations" matters not a whit if they come from political opponents of the BJP. Political parties call each other all sorts of names: we do not give them much weight. If you wish to include any such label, in any form, you need to provide evidence that reliable sources are applying that label to the BJP. You have yet to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are my sources reliable or not? I don't understand. Other far-right political parties have such accusations noted.
And, as previously states, I'm not asking Wikipedia to call them that. I emphasize again, I'm not asking that the article label the BJP, but that it note the criticism of it, as it already does on some subjects, such as, "In April 2024, the US State Department criticised the BJP for promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories involving George Soros." It is entirely appropriate to add notable responses and criticisms to a Wikipedia article. I believe I already supplied you with at least eight sources so far and, as previously stated, the connection is explored in some of the sources this article references, but not the article itself, suggesting that the link is overlooked. 1101 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You really read two entire posts and cut one little piece out of context? I've rarely been met with such willful misinterpretation on a talk page before. 1101 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: The temple is not yet fully complete. I've updated the estimated finish time to September 2025 per this source. Aydoh8[contribs] 13:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)