Talk:Yogi Adityanath/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Is recently organized jail-cell concert really pertinent to subject? I will delete shortly unless the importance of this event is explained fully. -Vritti 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While the incarceration of a holy-man is perhaps note worthy, the subject was released from jail after one week. In the context of an article here, I think the current final paragraph of this article should be deleted since it is of little significance to the life or history of the subject. -Vritti 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the final paragraph of the article related to the Jan. 2007 violence in Gorakhpur and the inprisonment of the subject in jail for one week for breaking curfew. In my opinion, the episode is trivial in regards to the overall biographical picture. Certainly the subject is controversial due to his views which are seen by many to be devisive to "muslim-hindu" harmony. If you must revert, kindly explain why the episode is so important. Thanks. -Vritti 07:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find reliable information on the Hindu Yuva Vahini, I think this would be a fine addition to Wikipedia and help fill out the aims and means of this subject. I hope to fix the wikilink for Gorakhnath Mutt, but the article Gorakhnath Temple now includes the one in Nepal. I'll try. -Vritti 07:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Relations with the BJP

I've added a citation tag on this section. Adityanath is a member of the BJP, so his political power struggles within this party are likely to be ongoing as he jockeys for power. The same can be said for any member of the BJP. I don't really think this section is notable in a biography of the subject. It is a passing situation as the BJP still feels that they need Adityanath, or they wouldn't have fielded his canidates. Frankly, I don't think this is suitable for inclusion here. Do you intend to include in a biography, every political move the subject makes? Nothing really happened. Please discuss why this non event is so important. Thanks. -Vritti 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

He is the 21st Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh 182.77.1.18 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Yogi Aditya Nath declared as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh on 18th March 2017. Anurag Pandey 12:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

User: Mkvats copy pasting entire article with proposed additions — IVORK Discuss 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yogi Adityanath/Archive 1 21st Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Incumbent Assumed office 19 March 2017 Governor Ram Naik Preceded by Akhilesh Yadav Member of the India Parliament for Gorakhpur Incumbent Assumed office 1998 Preceded by Mahant Avaidyanath Personal details Born (1972-06-05) 5 June 1972 Panchur(near Kotdwara), Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand Political party Bharatiya Janata Party As of 26 May, 2014 Source: [1] Mahanth Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Rawat; 5 June 1972) is Chief Minister designate of Uttar Pradesh 5th time Member of Parliament from Gorakhpur Constituency, Uttar Pradesh. He is a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament who has represented Gorakhpur in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian Parliament) since 1998. Adityanath is the Mahant or head priest of the Gorakhnath Mutt, a Hindu temple in Gorakhpur, following the death of his spiritual "father," Mahant Avaidyanath in September 2014. He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a social, cultural and nationalist group of youth who seek to provide rightist Hindu platform. External links Official website {{DEFAULTSORT:Adityanath}} [[Category:Uttar Pradesh politicians]] [[Category:1972 births]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:Bharatiya Janata Party politicians from Uttar Pradesh]] [[Category:People from Gorakhpur]] [[Category:12th Lok Sabha members]] [[Category:20th-century Indian politicians]] [[Category:13th Lok Sabha members]] [[Category:21st-century Indian politicians]] [[Category:14th Lok Sabha members]] [[Category:Indian Hindus]] [[Category:15th Lok Sabha members]] [[Category:Lok Sabha members from Uttar Pradesh]] [[Category:Far-right politicians in India]]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yogi Adityanath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tube.majestyc.net/?v=8P0dPWx-VvE
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121007233934/http://india.gov.in/govt/loksabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=7 to http://india.gov.in/govt/loksabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

on which year he passed B.Sc. Is it full time degree? Any class mates who knows him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.242.225.174 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Please change the personality status from Chief Minister designate of the state of Uttar Pradesh to Chief Minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Info.wpd (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. He becomes a Chief Minister when he is sworn in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Yogi Adityanath has been appointed as Cheif Minister of Anarayan (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. As above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

The name of Adityanath instead of Ajay Singh Negi should be changed to Ajay Singh Bisht.

links for reference : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/yogi-adityanath-is-new-chief-minister-of-uttar-pradesh/articleshow/57704401.cms https://www.thequint.com/uttar-pradesh-elections-2017/2017/03/18/bjp-declares-yogi-adityanath-as-uttar-pradesh-chief-minister Aniketaman (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree :Adityanath's original name was Ajay Singh Bisht. He has done BSc in Maths from HNB Garhwal University. Economic times 182.65.169.12 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. People can change names for whatever reason. We go by what the reliable sources use. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Somthing change. Jorjman (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article is set in a tone of cynical/condascending statements, not with a neutral p.o.v

A Wikipedia administrator should look into the matter as now the class of importance of this page is high. Back to the subject, we can notice the usage of 'militant' as in for an organization has been used without citing in the proper sources. The style of writing utilized is clearly from a group of editors following an 'opposing/different' ideology, and hence it can be safely said the articles is now nowhere close to WIKIPEDIA standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianwebwiki (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Please change the word Militant Hindu Youth Wing from his political career section. Militants word is a generic word used for defining terrorists. 171.61.63.221 (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Militancy is not synonymous with terrorism. El_C 09:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

7 reasons why Adityanath as Uttar Pradesh CM is a BJP masterstroke Jorjman (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. What are you trying to say? And how does it pertain to improving the article? El_C 09:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Yogi Adityanath was nominated at the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh on 18th March, 2017. 116.14.74.38 (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Already noted as current CM. (This is an encyclopedia article not a newspaper—specific date is not that key.) El_C 09:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Add information regarding his father and family to counter the propaganda that his family doesn't exist.

RonitRex (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Feel free to suggest what to add, specifically. El_C 09:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Change "He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a militant youth organisation that has been involved in communal violence" to "He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini"

Neither Yogi Adityanath nor anyone from his youth organization have been convicted of communal violence. As of today Yogi Adityanath heads the biggest state in India, and attributing violence to Chief Minister of a state on just a news article should not be accepted on Wikipedia, that too from an indirect source. Also, by using the word "militant", we are accusing a five time elected representative and now the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, as head of a violent organization, all on indirect news reports. Vivek Bhat 01:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Vivek BhatVivek Bhat

 Not done. Again, Militant does not mean military or violent. (...it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political.) El_C 09:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

The reference link to IndiaTimes article is incorrect. "' Yogi Adityanath's Men Telling Hindus To Rape Dead Muslim Women Is Beyond Shocking'". Indiatimes. 3 March 2015. Retrieved 11 March 2015.

The correct link URL is below.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/yogi-adityanaths-men-telling-hindus-to-rape-dead-muslim-women-is-beyond-shocking-230679.html bostonbrahmin (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. No longer appears to be in the article. El_C 09:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Support Ddharma (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

He has great support from BJP Collegues. Venkaiah Naidu, minister for federal information and broadcasting, called it a "watershed moment in the history of the BJP". "The mandate is for development, good governance and against caste politics." But Manish Tewari, a senior Congress party leader, tweeted that the BJP's decision to appoint Mr Adityanath was a "harbinger to greater polarisation".

|website = [2]

 Not done. Precise placement of passage not specified. El_C 09:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated info / dead reference

The article currently states the following: In 2005, Adityanath allegedly led a purification drive which involved the conversion of Christians to Hinduism. In one such instance, 1,800 Christians were reportedly converted to Hinduism in the town of Etah in Uttar Pradesh.[15]

The citation, is dead. A search for the text reveals the same sentence on a lot of websites -- frankly, it looks like people just saw it on wikipedia and copied it. I have not been able to find a single actual news story on this. (Beyond things like "a magazine says"...)

kuzutsu (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have found an archive of the url. But, in general, if the links go dead, that doesn't invalidate the content or make it "unsubstantiated". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As citation as per age in infobox [ http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Members/MemberBioprofile.aspx?mpsno=7 Indian Parliament]

 Not done. Unclear request. El_C 09:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Several dubious information are added with a single source "Tehelka". Whether Tehelka is a reliable source? Because, that website/magazine itself has dubious ways of reporting news!! We need to come to a concensus whether to accept Tehelaka as a reliable source. 07:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Rayabhari

We have a full article on Tehelka and nothing there indicates anything "dubious" about it. What are your concerns? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia log as source?

Kautilya3 please explain this edit of yours. Since when did Wikipedia log became WP:RS? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Riots and Arrest In January 2007, an altercation occurred amidst a Hindu group and Muslims during a Muharram procession in Gorakhpur which led to the hospitalisation of a young Hindu, Raj Kumar Agrahari. The District Magistrate made it clear that Adityanath should not visit the site as it may inflame tensions. He initially agreed but after Agrahari died, he disobeyed the magistrate and travelled to the site with a group of his followers. Adityanath started a non-violent dharna on the site. However inflammatory speeches were made and some of his followers set fire to a nearby mazar (Muslim mausoleum).[8][9] A curfew was implemented by the local police, but Adityanath broke it and was subsequently jailed under Section 151A, Sections 146, 147, 279, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested and remanded for a fortnight, on charges of disturbing peace.[10][11] His arrest led to further unrest and several coaches of the Mumbai bound Mumbai-Gorakhpur Godan Express were burnt, allegedly by protesting Hindu Yuva Vahini activists.[12] The day after the arrest, the District Magistrate along with the local police chief, were transferred and replaced. This was "widely perceived" as a result of "Adityanath's clout" with the Uttar Pradesh government of Mulayam Singh Yadav.[8][11][13] The tensions soon escalated to riots across Gorakhpur leading to the burning of mosques, homes, buses and trains.[7] [8] After his release, Adityanath protested his jailing in the Parliament.[14] 2605:A601:A79:8700:3D34:F223:2856:23CC (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not clear what change is being requested. Please state in the form "change X to Y". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yogi Adityanath → Adityanath – Titles are not encouraged to be added with name, see Yogi also see WP:TITLESINTITLES Pragmocialist (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Support as stated.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of third-party sources use the title. The official Lok Sabha website also lists him as "Adityanath, Shri Yogi". Bharatiya29 13:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Bharatiya29. I have always seen his name written with the "Yogi" prefix. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Even "Adityanath" is technically a Title. As a Sanyasi, the entire name Yogi Adityanath is a given name and how he is referred to. Puck42 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted above, all news and official website use "Yogi". (2600:1001:B008:8476:FD25:662A:C13D:6869 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

Comment Just to draw the attention of closing administrator/editor, it should be properly and carefully noticed that all the votes Support/Oppose should not be cast while remaining influenced from a school of thought supporting or opposing to that of the subject. Also, Wikipedia guidelines have its own integrity and sanctity thus terminates the question of voting in Support/Oppose while being influenced from any third party source publications. If this is done as according to User:Bharatiya29 here, then why should not we consider to confer titles on Ramdev, Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) and further who are far more notable than the subject in consideration. Subject is no equivalent to Swami Vivekananda or Mahatma Gandhi and vice-versa. Again see:WP:TITLESINTITLES, [WP:NCIN] and Yogi. Generously, if he/she has his/her mind swung towards any third option then why should not we concur upon moving it to his original name i.e. Ajay Singh Negi (Adityanath). Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does takes third-party sources into consideration. Exceptions are made if the title is used along with the name almost everywhere. Bharatiya29 13:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Majority of the links in Google refer to him as Yogi Adityanath in Title tags. UGC, blogs and MSM articles also refer to him as Yogi Adityanath. Almost all videos on Youtube which feature him or his speeches have tagged him as Yogi Adityanath. Wikipedia should reflect facts and not wishes. Agraable1 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I am confused also after going through media news pages on him like [this one]. 117.228.101.57 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• 'Oppose His name is Yogi Adityanath as per Indian Parliament website.182.65.169.12 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose He is very popularly known by the present title name. — Vamsee614 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the same logic applies here as in the case of Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. WP:TITLESINTITLES also clearly states this """unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known""". All publications, Parliament Website and people know him by this name which satisfies the above mentioned condition. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Many famous people have titles in their name used by media and accepted by wikipedia; for example Aslam Pahlwan, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, Yogiji Maharaj.B.Jani (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose He is well know as Yogi Adityanath for last 2 decades. ~ -Rayabhari

103.199.144.22 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)He sworn in as adityanath yogi as chief minister of uttar pradesh on 19 march 2017.

• Oppose per Adamgerber80. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Name used in wp:RS Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of third-party sources use the title. "Adityanath, Shri Yogi". Moreover Wikipedia always go with popular name most of the time when original name is different. So the present name holds good.Vijeth N Bharadwaj 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Nearly all mentions of this individual use the name, 'Yogi Adityanath.' This is his de-facto identity. Additionally, he continues to use this entire name as the new Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended content

Early life and education Yogi Adityanath comes from a Rajput family. He completed his Bachelor’s Degree in Science from H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar (Garhwal), Uttarakhand. Political career Adityanath was the youngest member of the 12th Lok Sabha at 26. He has been elected as an MP from Gorakhpur to the Lok Sabha in the 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014 elections. He is the successor to former Hindu Mahasabha president Mahant Avaidyanath at the Gorakhnath temple. He holds a B. Sc. from the H.N.B. Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand. Mahanth of Gorakhnath Temple Currently he is Mahant of Guru Gorakhnath Temple, following the death of Mahanth Aavaidyanath on 12th Sept 2014. Yogi Adityanath was made Peethadheshwar of Gorakhnath Temple amid traditional rituals of the Nath sect on 14th Sept 2014. Political controversies Conversion In 2005, Adityanath allegedly led a purification drive which involved the conversion of Christians to Hinduism. In one such instance, 1,800 Christians were reportedly converted to Hinduism in the town of Etah in Uttar Pradesh. Riots and Arrest In January 2007, an altercation occurred amidst a Hindu group and Muslims during a Muharram procession in Gorakhpur which led to the hospitalisation of a young Hindu, Raj Kumar Agrahari. The District Magistrate made it clear that Adityanath should not visit the site as it may inflame tensions. He initially agreed but after Agrahari died, he disobeyed the magistrate and travelled to the site with a group of his followers. Adityanath started a non-violent dharna on the site. However inflammatory speeches were made and some of his followers set fire to a nearby mazar (Muslim mausoleum). A curfew was implemented by the local police, but Adityanath broke it and was subsequently jailed under Section 151A, Sections 146, 147, 279, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested and remanded for a fortnight, on charges of disturbing peace. His arrest led to further unrest and several coaches of the Mumbai bound Mumbai-Gorakhpur Godan Express were burnt, allegedly by protesting Hindu Yuva Vahini activists. The day after the arrest, the District Magistrate along with the local police chief, were transferred and replaced. This was "widely perceived" as a result of "Adityanath's clout" with the Uttar Pradesh government of Mulayam Singh Yadav. The tensions soon escalated to riots across Gorakhpur leading to the burning of mosques, homes, buses and trains. After his release, Adityanath protested his jailing in the Parliament. Documentary In March 2011, the documentary film Saffron War - Radicalization of Hinduism accused Adityanath of promoting communal disharmony through a Virat Hindustan rally in rural Uttar Pradesh. Adityanath shared the stage during a hate speech in which an unidentified speaker urged the Hindu audience to dig up the graves of Muslim women and rape the corpses. Recording of this event went viral on social media in March 2015. In August 2014, aspiring Congress Party "spokesman" Shehzaad Poonawala wrote to the National Commission for Minorities demanding that a police First Information Report be filed against Yogi Adityanath. Yoga In June 9, 2015, Yogi Adityanath declared that those who oppose SuryaNamaskar, part of Yog, can leave India. He stated - My humble request to those who see communalism in even Sun God would be to drown themselves in the sea or live in a dark room for the rest of their lives. Shah Rukh Khan During the intolerance debate in the media, Adityanath compared Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan to Pakistani terrorist Hafiz Saeed. He said, “Shah Rukh Khan should remember that majority population of the Country made him the Star, and if they boycot his films, he will also have to wander on streets. It is unfortunate SRK is speaking the same language that of Hafiz Saeed." Pakistan On 3 January 2016, one day after an assault on an Indian air force base in Pathankot, Adityanath blamed the assault on Pakistan, claiming “The Pathankot attack has once again proved that Satan could change for the better but Pakistan cannot”. Relations with the BJP Adityanath has had a strained relation with the BJP for more than a decade. With the emergence of a separate powerbase in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, he has been seeking greater power, causing further conflicts. On 22–24 December 2006, Adityanath organised a three-day Virat Hindu Mahasammelan at Gorakhpur, during the same period when the BJP was holding its National Executive Meet in Lucknow in the same state. The Uttar Pradesh Elections, 2007 saw a conflict between Adityanath and the BJP leadership - he wanted more than hundred seats in this region to go to candidates selected by him, but the party leadership would not agree. Subsequently, a compromise agreement was reached, possibly with inputs from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and eight of his candidates were fielded. In March 2010, Adityanath was one of several BJP MPs who stated defiance to the party whip on the Women's Reservation Bill. References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

"Change He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a militant youth organisation that has been involved in communal violence.

to

He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a youth organization" because there is no evidence that organization is a Militant Youth Organisation"

"change the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Uttarakhand” to "the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar, Uttarakhand” see the reference source from Government of India " Aurobindo Ogra (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As to the first request, there is plenty of evidence of Hindu Yuva Vahini's of communal rioting. It has been called "youth militia" in the Online Encyclopedia (reference 16). Plenty more references are available, e.g., see.

As to the second request, please provide evidence that he studied at Srinagar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

he is not a firebrand and his organisations were not involved in communal violence. Total misreporting of information. Request to update according to genuine facts and not misguiding people in large. 43.224.129.99 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources supporting the changes you wish to be made. If the facts are "genuine", it should not be difficult to verify them. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Please remove word like "militant" , which is not justified for more "http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/yogis-hindu-yuva-vahini-is-ready-to-hit-national-highway/articleshow/57723447.cms" Akhilesh 06:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As noted multiple times above: Militant does not mean military or violent. (...it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political.) — IVORK _Discuss 07:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

I've gotten tired of saying this over the years, but the fact that the newspapers often user bad grammar is not a reason for Wikipedia to use bad grammar. @Vamsee614: this edit of yours reintroduces the phrase "with a "firebrand" Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) image." This sentence might be common, but it is grammatically very poor. Hindutva is an ideology. One can propagate Hindutva, be associated with Hindutva, believe in Hindutva, etc. But an individual cannot have a "Hindutva image". It is as grammatically incorrect as saying "he has an economics image." This needs to be fixed. The previous version, which read "with an image as a Hindu nationalist firebrand" addresses this issue; or you could find another way to fix it: but the fact remains that you are introducing a grammatical error, which needs to be addressed. Furthermore, "firebrand" is a noun. I cannot have a "firebrand image", only an image as a firebrand. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I didn't know you were concerned about it. I changed it now. Cheers! — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: remove the word "militant"

1. The lead section of the article calls Hindu Yuva Vahini a "militant youth organisation". I propose the removal of the word "militant" per WP:BLP and WP:NEUTRAL.

2. The same sentence also goes on to say that the organisation "has been involved in communal violence". Again we need to choose words carefully here - "has been" implies that the organisation is doing so presently and on a regular basis. I propose rephrasing that part as "was charged with involvement in communal violence".

42.109.167.101 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The word "militant" has been discussed several times already. Please refer to the previous discussion.

"has been" does not mean they are currently engaged in communal violence. It can be changed to "was", provided there is evidence that they have changed their ideology or mode of operation. Do you have any such evidence? Otherwise, we report what the reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Evidence? How can I give evidence for something that isn't there? The WP:BURDEN is on you (or whoever added the "has been involved" part) to provide "evidence" that they are still engaged in communal violence. This article reads like a biased opinion piece that is selectively using the so-called reliable sources and ignoring the wider view on the subject. Oh well, what else can I expect on Wikipedia? 42.109.142.194 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think, "has a history of communal violence" is a balanced wording, as written in this source. Just my opinion. — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

In introduction section, alleged cases against chief minister by opposition parties presented as facts. His organisation is not a militant but cultural organisation. There is no proven allegation against him or Hindu Yuva Vahini.

These words must be removed to provide factual information on wikipedia. TheAnaam (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia provides verifiable information, and reliable sources have been provide to support the statements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

In the politics section, the second last sentence of the first paragraph is "Yogi Adiyanath was appointed Avaidyanath's successor as the Mahant of Gorakhnath Math in 1994.". The spelling of "Yogi Adityanath" is misspelled as "Yogi Adiyanath". Please correct. Animesh0721 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

kindly remove' hinditva firebrand'. You can simply put it as hindu nationalist." is an Indian priest and politician with an image as a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) "firebrand" 43.241.64.82 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We present what reliable sources say, per WP:DUE. What you or I think to be an accurate description does not matter at all. Vanamonde (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt

A major life incident of assassination attempt on Yogi Adityanath on 07-Sep-2008 by Islamic extremists is missing, and the article is thus incomplete. Will add if I find spare time, or can be added by any other editor isoham (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Please remove the word 'firebrand', it sound dubious and adds condescending image to the current CM. 144.48.171.247 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 21:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Firebrand" is a word used by newspapers while describing the above person. But, it is not suitable for wikipedia, and the word is not at all suitable in the lead. It can be removed from lead. Rayabhari (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Needs rewriting

I have put following messages, as the article about Chief Minister of an important state of India needs re-writing in a neutral point of view, in wikipedia style. Other editors kindly participate in discussion and are at liberty to remove the tages, after the purpose is served. Please dont feel otherwise.

Rayabhari (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done All content in the article is well sourced and especially every sentence in the lead is supported with multiple reliable sources. Please mention the specific content in the lead or any other section in the article which you think, needs modification, and gain consensus here on the talk page before inserting the template or modifying the content. — Vamsee614 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rayabhari:, Vamsee614 is quite correct. It is not enough to say "A chief minister should not be described like this". Your argument needs to be supported by policy. WP:NPOV does not say that no critical material should be present: it says that Wikipedia should present material from reliable sources, duly weighted. Please present such sources to support whatever changes you want made. Vanamonde (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Broken reference about Women Reservation Bill

The reference about opposition of Adityanath of Women reservation bill is broken; please update it with the archive.org link, see https://web.archive.org/web/20120312084826/http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3698770. (Can't edit the article myself) -- Hargup (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --- Vamsee614 (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Firebrand Hindutva image

@Rayabhari: you have removed this descriptor from the lead claiming that it was a BLP violation. Can you explain what part of the BLP policy you are referring to? And, have you checked what the reliable sources say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have also reviewed your other deletions, most of which are of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nature, despite being well-supported by reliable sources. I am going to reinstate all the content that you have deleted. Please discuss any concerns here and achieve consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel there should be consensus before adding words like "fire brand" etc., in wikipedia, as here the style used is not like "investigative journalism" and predominent style of wikipedia is encyclopedic. "undated video", "alledged act" etc. cannot be used as a source for an encyclopedia like wikipedia. However, I respect your efforts in developing the article, but my concern is, can we have a consensus before adding "spicy" like information, undated youtube video as source etc. in this encyclopedia? Rayabhari (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Eventhough reliable sources/newspapers/websites mention word "firebrand", I feel the same word cannot be used in wikipedia. I invite other editors to comment on this. Rayabhari (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please state your arguments in terms of Wikipedia policies, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV, not based on your personal feelings. What you call "spicy" information has been here for years, and it has been widely reported in the Indian newspapers yesterday.

The description of "firebrand" has been used in every second news source I have seen. It was used by BBC News yesterday, and New York Times today [3]. It is safe to say that there is consensus among reliable sources regarding the description. Your personal feelings cannot count for more than reliable sources.

Regarding your other objections, an "undated video" does not become any less of a video and the statements made there do not become any less of statements. Once again, reliable sources have used the information.

Alleged acts are reported all over the Wikipedia as well as respectable sources. There is nothing non-encyclopedic about them. I will in due course find better scholarly sources and add their content. Please be assured that they will be a lot more damning than the news reports that have been used so far. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your interest in finding sources that are more "damning" doesn't lend itself to neutrality. Yogi is not a "priest." He doesn't preside over religious rituals. "firebrand" is a subjective appellation and does not belong in the summary of his position as a chief minister. There are plenty of references where he is shown as compassionate and an environmentalist as well. e.g. http://www.hindustantimes.com/assembly-elections/up-chief-minister-aditya-nath-a-hindutva-leader-green-saint-and-animal-lover/story-Mu2hd6JZZerxAeHTxNdCMP.html Puck42 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "undated video" and "reportedly during a public speech at Azamgarh", they were taken directly from reliable sources, and were written as per those sources. Moreover the video present over there, clearly serves as an evidence to the statements made. I'm not sure on what basis that content was deleted problematically, along with other well-sourced and relevant material, simply in the name of BLP. — Vamsee614 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove the opinionated words "firebrand", "extremist", "militant" and "communal violence".

Self manufactured and opinionated words like "Hindutva firebrand" cannot be used in wikipedia. It should be a neutral encyclopedia. They are used only by prejudiced people who want to defame the democratically elected CM. Also remove the bigoted adjectives for hindu yuva vahini. It is not a militant organisation. As if it is killing people like ISIS. Please dont write like NDTV editors. This is most trusted wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.45.225 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

For one last time, militant does not mean terrorist. The word "militant" in the article is linked to a page for clarity, where the first line in the lead itself says, "The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and is usually used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'." And this is today's news — [4] [5] [6]

As for "Hindutva firebrand", it is observed by a large number of reliable sources, for which I can add at least a 5 more in citations. Apparently, he has a very popular image, as the same. Moreover there is already a citation overkill for it, and you're calling that a "self-manufactured POV"! Hmm. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues

"He is also the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a militant youth organisation that has been involved in communal violence." - words like "militant" and "communal violence" should be avoided. That sentence makes it sound like he is a terrorist head. 42.109.171.198 (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If his position is considered militant by reliable sources, then no. Again, militancy is not synonymous with terrorism. El_C 11:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

One or two incidents do not make an organization "militant". Whatever the meaning of "militancy" is, the "militant organization" tag is used for groups that are mainly in the news for militant activities (such as Boko Haram). Calling Hindu Yuva Vahini militant is outright defamatory. 42.109.167.101 (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Boko Haram is primarily known for terrorism rather than militancy. El_C 06:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you check Mass media usage of militant word, it says:

The mass media sometimes uses the term "militant" in the context of terrorism. Journalists sometimes apply the term militant to movements using terrorism as a tactic. The mass media also has used the term militant groups or radical militants for terrorist organizations. --Swami16 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hinduvtava firebrand

What is there to write off Yogi as an Hindutava firebrand, that too in the introductary line itself? Why this pseudo-secularist bias? Look at Asauddin Owaisi's page. His speeches are ten times more inflammatory. Why the hell isn't he mentioned as an Islamic firebrand? Oooooobygod (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place of "Original Research", which is to say it demands 'reliable' textual references for a point to be made, which for such a point shall be media outlets, and media has long been infiltrated by autocrats such that most 'reliable' media outlets tend to be either anti-factual pro-emotional, or outright pro-islamic extremism parlours. isoham (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I support this statement of yours. Just because he is a Hindu monk, biased media frames him as "firebrand"? He has worked for everyone in his constituency irrespective of their religion. This is so shameful! Shame on the hindus who find no fault in Owaisi but supports Yogi as "firebrand". IndianFeminist (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Check the counter view, I have added in the end. It is well cited. May be that can be used to balance this article. --Swami16 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

This article has a lot of subject's comments during various occasions. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of any person, it is an encyclopedia. No. of quotes and comments of subject of the article need to be significantly reduced from the article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pankaj is right, and this issue has been hashed out on the talk pages of many political biographies. Unless a particular soundbyte is shown to have received substantial and lasting press coverage, it is out of place. What we need is analysis, secondary sources talking about what he has said. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the content of debate has not been specific, I assume that we are talking about the 'Controversies' section. The quotes in that section are obviously not present as a mouthpiece of the person, as it was pointed out. The section lists out the person's multiple statements that were controversial, as observed so by reliable sources. And in that case, it is better to quote his exact statements instead of writing in editor's own words, to avoid confusion and prevent non-neutral POVs. The person was not such a highly significant personality before he became the Chief Minister of UP. So its unusual to expect "substantial and lasting" press coverage to any of his statements in the past, and secondary sources analyzing about them. May be we can find some related news channel debates, other politicians criticizing his statements and quite a few op-eds on them. I don't think its wise to insert any of such things. However, much of the extensive coverage about his past started after he became the Chief Minister. And his controversial statements were inserted in the article only when several reliable sources stated them as controversial, also during the time when those statements were made. The references are present in the citations. Anyway if some specific content is pointed out as inappropriate by any editor, with reason, that would be helpful for us to work upon. — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Politicians often make statements, and media usually reports what they said. That doesn't make it notable. It tends to be WP:TRIVIA. However, if a source talks about something more than just what politician said, it might be considered for inclusion. If we start including each and every comment of a politician, then, articles like Narendra Modi will be nothing but statements and speeches. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Modi has not been Yogi in the level of controversy in statements. No notable source has yet said that Modi has an image as any "firebrand", there is reason why numerous sources say Yogi has such an image. In any case, I repeat, please point out the specific statements in the section, which are usual sound-bites of a politician, and did not attract much controversy acc to sources, so that we can remove them. I did not object to it. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, you can start with reverting this. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why? I have added it, as I felt it deserves a place in the article, since it is observed by several reliable sources as one of his top controversial and inciteful statements against Muslims. Here, the Huffington Post cites this particular comment in an article that explicitly deals with his statements made against Muslims, when Amnesty International India asked him to retract his communal remarks. - [7] — Tyler Durden (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Durden: You are misunderstanding the argument, or at any rate, misunderstanding what I am saying. Adityanath has received criticism for many of his positions; and this criticism needs to be covered. What it does not need is an extensive quote. A summary from a secondary source is enough: and occasionally, a brief quote, if it is absolutely necessary to get the point across. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Chill mate, feel free to brief any long quotes that are too large to get the point across. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, all Indian politican pages suffer from this problem, and this is no exception. At least here, we have some decent content before the Controversies section. If somebody has the energy and enthusiasm, they can tie all these controversies into a narrative. Barring that, I don't see what we can do about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Counterpoint

1. His muslim followers has said that Yogi does not oppose Muslims but Wahhabi Islam, which is believed to be ideology of IS and other terror groups.
2. The guru bhai of yogi was a born muslim.
3. He conducts a two hour biweekly Jan Darbaar where member of every community including muslims pay visit to him seeking help.
4. Zakir Ali, a muslim, has been handling office work along with most important papers like land documents safe and secure since 2004. Young Mohd Moan is one of the caretakers at the cow shelter inside the compound. Mohd Yaseen, who is in his 70s, is in charge of all the construction work at the mutt and at its properties outside.
5. Yogi Adiyanath is known as green saint and animal lover by his supporters.

The best thing for you to do would be to come up with a couple of well-sourced sentences (keeping WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in mind), and invite comments on those sentences. Please don't go off into media bias and stuff like that. Make it factual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good? I have made the edits. Check above. --Swami16 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, what you have above is propaganda. That is not we put into an encyclopedia. It needs to be factual, and cut out argumentation and commentary. And, I said a couple of sentences. Anything more than that would be undue. What is "ground reporting"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ground reporting means going to the place and interviewing in the locality to know the picture.

I am trying to soften his image and request moderator to include following points wherever they seem fit. I have backed my points from reputed sources. --Swami16 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

BLP

Is the "controversies" section in compliance with BLP? Shouldn't the content be moved to relavant sections dissolving the section titled "controversies"? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Such sections exist when the article relies more on newsbytes and jots down random incidences just because they happened. WP:FART needs to be kept in mind and eventually only encyclopedic points should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.141.248 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

In the lead section change

Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and politician with an image as a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) "firebrand" to Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and politician who is a supporter of the Hindutva ideology and has a firebrand Hindu nationalist image. Rewording the paragraph for better understanding. South Indian Geek (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed above. "Firebrand" is a noun, not an adjective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ok, sure, but the placing of the words doesn't seem right. It is a bit confusing as Hindutva is an ideology. Can the lead section be rewritten properly without changing the intended meaning of the content ? For example - A continuation sentence beginning with A firebrand of the Hindutva ideology, he has acquired an image of a Hindu nationalist. Something based on that line, maybe ? South Indian Geek (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am referring this to Vanamonde93. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and South Indian Geek: Sorry, the proposed change does not seem grammatical to me. While it is true that "Hindutva" is an ideology, it is also a word that has been coopted from a language other than English: and is therefore not treated the same way as the word "Marxism" (for instance) by authors. There is one point here which might need further discussion, though. The "Firebrand" is part of his image, while the "Hindutva ideology" seems to me to be more than his image: in the sense that that isn't even a contested label...but separating these is tricky. Vanamonde (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Question: Why is "firebrand" being used in lead without justifying it down in the whole article. Encyclopedia shouldn't simply use negolisms that media uses just because plenty references are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.141.248 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Firebrand" is not a "negolism" (whatever that might be) and it is not a neologism either. It's a common term in English, and it is overwhelmingly supported by the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Hey I have a suggestion. Maybe write it like this -"Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and politician with an image as a Hindutva firebrand. He is a Hindu nationalist who is the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh." Is this sentence grammatically current? All I did was removed that bracket present in the current version and added a new sentence, so grammar should be right. "Hindutva (Hindu nationalist)" present in the current version is just incorrect as Hindutva and Hindu nationalist are two separate things. Thanks 86.97.130.50 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, though I'm inclined to swap the order a little bit there: "Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian priest and Hindu nationalist politician who is the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He has an image as a Hindutva firebrand." If nobody raises objections, I will implement this shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

^ I approve. — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hey Guys the image in the Infobox does not show who is Yogi Adityanath in detail and a person can get confused who is who. Suggest finding a new image from Flickr or some where else. 2.51.18.126 (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reordering

Hello friends, I have reordering his lead section (only cut and paste) because the recent Hindutva sentence addition after Chief Minister of UP cuts of the details of his appointed date in March 2017 which was orginally in a flow. Request experienced users to check if this is ok. Thapa 75 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted you for now, simply because the previous version seemed to have consensus, as well as because it is good form to go from the general to the specific. The "Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister" is applicable to the last few months of his biography: the description of this image, to his whole career. Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thapa 75: I have fixed the issue of 'flow' now, which you've pointed out. It was my mistake in an earlier edit. Thanks for noticing it. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Some issues

In some sections there are about 7 references regarding his Hindu nationalist thinking. Why so many of them ? Just take the most reliable sources and cite them, as 1-3 reliable sources are better than 7-8 sources that may be trusted. Also, an MP in India is given the title Honble as states on the page The Honourable with refs. Here Yogi Adityanath is an MP of Gorakhpur so think of adding that in the start ?2.51.18.126 (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The large number of citations are probably because these issues are often contested. Once the subject settles down, somebody will clean them up. As for "The Honourable" see WP:HONORIFICS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Real name

His real name is contested- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/world/asia/firebrand-hindu-cleric-yogi-adityanath-picked-as-uttar-pradesh-minister.html?_r=0 , http://www.tehelka.com/2014/09/yogi-adityanath-bjp-hindutva-uttar-pradesh-elections-by-poll/ , http://www.thenational.ae/world/south-asia/anti-muslim-leaders-appointment-as-new-uttar-pradesh-chief-raises-questions , http://www.rajnikantvscidjokes.in/8-facts-didnt-know-priest-politician-yogi-adityanath/, https://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-miracle/20170331/281951722658638 , http://www.hindustantimes.com/assembly-elections/who-is-yogi-adityanath-mp-head-of-gorakhnath-temple-and-a-political-rabble-rouser/story-tTAP7eBbg5nrTU93NLLZbO.htmletc links say that his birth name is Ajay Mohan Bisht. Many other refs are also there. I suggest it may be removed from the lead Infobox until there is confirmstion on which is the real name. @Kautilya3: Your opinion ? 2.51.18.126 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I made a correction, sinch "Singh" is a generic surname that somebody could have made up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to go into detail about Hindu Yuva Vahini

There is too much detail regarding Hindu Yuva Vahini. It should only be noted that Yogi Aditya Nath is the founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini. The details indirectly attribute to Yogi Aditya Nath whereas Yogi Adityanath does not head or run the group. If the readers wish to learn about Hindu Yuva Vahini they can click on the link. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yogi does not support violence and have strictly asked people to adhere to maintaining law and order. Recently, six member of Hindu Yuva Vahini were arrested under his rule for taking law in their hands. --Swami16 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk) Exactly, those are RS and show Yogi Adityanath's approach of law> anyone. This article needs to be changed to reflect those views and the details of Hindu Yuva Vaihini need to stick to the relevant page and not on th epage of Yogi Adityanath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushagr.sharma1 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The script

I just got confused. Script added to Yoigs page was removed per Indic script but script removed from Modi's page was added stating his mother tongue is Gujarati. Someone please explain. 31.215.192.108 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Indic scripts in the lead are prohibited, as per WP:INDICSCRIPTS. The WP:WikiProject India recently decided that they should also be prohibited in infoboxes. All of them will be eventually removed. Please feel free to remove them wherever you find them, citing this community consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Change link

Why link communal violence to communalism when there is an article on it?31.215.192.108 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Because we are talking about communalism in the South Asian context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yogi in popular media

1. There is a flood of songs on Yogi Adiyanaath in Bhojpuri and Hindi language.
2. Famous mango grower Padamshri Kaleem Ullah Khan has developed a "Yogi mango" named after Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

someone please insert these points in main article. --Swami16 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

In the "Controversies" section, please remove the sentence "In March 2011, the documentary film Saffron War - Radicalization of Hinduism[60] accused Adityanath of promoting communal disharmony through a Virat Hindustan rally in rural Uttar Pradesh."[61]. Firstly, it is sourced to a primary source i.e the video. The credibility of this documentary is not established. A certain "Satyen K. Bordoloi" doesn't seem to be notable enough for, lets say, not having an article on Wikipedia itself. His notability needs to be established. The second source of thewire.in is dated 21 March 2017 which in ditto copies this sentence that has been on wiki before 21 March. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing. — Tyler Durden (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is definitely not WP:RS and should be removed. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I found reliable sources and added them. I think its fine now. — Tyler Durden (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You found YouTube as WP:RS? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• No, you did not see the citations I added. I took Ram Puniyani's column in The Milli Gazette as WP:RS.

• Milli Gazette describes itself as Indian Muslims' leading English newspaper. There goes neutrality out of the window 106.209.248.97 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not specify how the content lacked WP:NPOV. Anyway I don't think Ram Puniyani is a biased sourced. Also see WP:BIASED. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• Burden is on you to prove that a self proclaimed pro-Muslim website is neutral enough for anti-Hindu articles. Also, the question of notability of the documentary still stays. Coverage in a pro-Muslim website doesn't help much to better its situation. Puniyani is self-proclaimed social worker. By acad he is a biomed engineer. Though unsourced, our article on him says that he ia anti-Hindu. Also, "the documentary accused him" is highly unencylopedic as anyone can accuse anyone. 223.180.28.0 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving this debate. Let any other interested editors decide if Ram Puniyani's observations published in The Milli Gazette can be documented. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 01:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Does Saffron War documentary use the same "hate speech" which has been sent to forensic examination to find if it has been tampered with? We should be careful in trustworthiness of "Saffron War – Radicalization of Hinduism" documentary because none of the mainstream India source has reviewed or acknowledged it. I do find defence.pk, a Pakistani website, highlighting it in world affairs forum. --Swami16 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

to upload photo Ividyasagar (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK _Discuss 04:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Good points to be added about Yogi

1. His Muslim followers has said that Yogi does not oppose Muslims but Wahhabi Islam, which is believed to be ideology of IS and other terrorist groups.
2. The Guru Bhai of Yogi was a born Muslim.
3. He conducts a two hour biweekly Jan Darbaar where the members of every community including Muslims pay visit to him seeking help.
4. Zakir Ali, a Muslim, has been handling office work along with most important papers like land documents safe and secure since 2004. Young Mohd Moan is one of the caretakers at the cow shelter inside the compound. Mohd Yaseen, who is in his 70s, is in charge of all the construction work at the mutt and at its properties outside.
5. Yogi Adiyanath is known as green saint and animal lover by his supporters.
6. Yogi Adiyanath has an impressive attendance of 77 percent as a Lok Sabha MP.
7. Yogi has spoken against caste discrimination and led the movement to remove untouchability from India.

References

'references provided for every points, after study it looks like points are not biased and there is some reality in it. There is no objection from my side. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 05:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kswarrior: I don't think all of these should be added as they are not encyclopedic points in my opinion. The first point may be included, but needed to be modified as believed to is not to be used in an Encyclopedia. The Second point can be included in an already existing sentence, stating his Guru (Avaidyanath right?) is a Muslim. Fourthe point may be included in the Gorakhnath Math page, if notable. @Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93: your opinions ?2.51.19.151 (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I presented these points to challenge the impression of negative image (anti-muslim, communal) one gets after reading this wiki article. I request moderators to try to balance this article to maintain encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. --Swami16 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Swami16 It is essential that the guidelines of Wikipedia are respected. This article desperatly begs neturality as it is too focused on the narrative of the left. For example there is no mention of any of the services he has provided to the public and the development that has happened. Also missing is the Law and order situation in UP which attributed the rise of the Hindu Milita and Firebrand politics. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You guys don't get it. Wikipedia only adds notable stuff, not trivia. This is clearly trivia.31.215.112.31 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

31.215.112.31 It is not wise either to just stick to left leaning narratives to write an encyclopedic article. The both side must be given equal treatment. --Swami16 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear, (talk), My friend by your logic most of the material in the article should be taken out. For example it said that Yogi is responsible for 36 ministeries (not true) and goes on to name each and every single ministry. If that is not trivia, then what is? As User:Swami said, both sides must be given equal treatement. Wikipedia is a place of neturality my friend. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone please add the new point I added above to the main article, wherever it suits best. thanks. --Swami16 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

CM Yogi as a writer.

1. Yogi has contributed to the making of the feature film 'Jaag Machander Gorakh Aya'.
2. Yogi has written a number of books primarily related to spiritualism and discipline titled 'Hath yog swarup avam sadhana', 'Raj yog swarup avam sadhana', 'Yug Purush Mahant Digvijay Nath', 'Yogi Satkarm', 'Hath yog privitika' and 'Mahayogi Gorakhnath'.

source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/a-peep-into-yogi-adityanath-the-writer/inspiration-behind-the-movie/slideshow/59514016.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami16 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding content in the controversies section

Hi Von oberstein and Raymond3023, I see there is some issue regarding a line in the controversy section. I looked at the source closely. It firstly claims that it were his men saying so and shows a video clip. It does not specify if he was on stage or not and also do not mention if this it went viral or not. I would like to point out that this ia a WP:BLP and thus we have to add information with care. The content seems to me as WP:OR and plus the source itself might not qualify WP:RS for this. I would urge the both of you to discuss this further here if you disagree with my analysis or have some other opinion. Please refrain from edit warring. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rayabhari[8] had also removed a lot of those BLP contradictions, and even archives show that mostly one person[9] who was later blocked for socking, "trolling and deception"[10] wanted to retain such a problematic version. I think that we need to rename a few sections and discuss or at least note here before removing anything more. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a BBC article which clearly states that Yogi was present on the stage when the statement against Muslim women was made. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39403778.

Either way, it was a controversial event which Yogi had clear involvement in and should be mentioned as it was highly publicized in Indian media circles after his appointment as Chief Minister. I was also unaware that you could remove legitimate cited content if it was added by sockpuppets and trolls. Von oberstein (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Von oberstein If you read the BBC source you have provided it actually basis it on a ScoopWhoop article which is considered a WP:PUS since it is more of a tabloid. If this indeed was true then it would have been reported in other Indian media outlets which is currently not the case. So as I say your statement that it was an event which Yogi had clear involvement needs a WP:RS and validation per WP:BLP. I have copy-edited some of the content in the controversies section since it was based on a SWAC post which is not considered WP:RS. These edits were removed since it was not legitimate or correctly cited. But one can also revert edits from Socks per WP:DENY. I have left a note on your Talk page and reiterate it here, please discuss it on the article talk page or spend some time in understanding the content/sources before you revert edits or add new contentious content on any article. Also, you cannot make your inferences but merely add what is stated in the source per WP:OR Thanks. 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You might consider Scoopwhoop a tabloid, but the fact checkers at BBC definitely aren't working for a tabloid when they decided the incident was good enough to publish. Not that they'd need to rely on the Scoopwhoop article when the entire incident was taken from a filmed documentary mentioned in https://thewire.in/117655/yogi-adityanath-uttar-pradesh-bjp/. Now, you might not see this documentary as evidence, but others did, and it is disingenuous to suggest that the incident has not been brought up by the media. https://thewire.in/117326/adityanath-uttar-pradesh-bjp-chief-minister-hindutva/ https://qz.com/936492/yogi-adityanath-as-uttar-pradesh-up-cm-bharatiya-janata-party-bjp-is-finally-confident-enough-to-reveal-its-most-venomous-religious-agenda-to-india/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/03/24/meet-the-militant-monk-spreading-islamophobia-in-india/?utm_term=.8ef949444b1f Von oberstein (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In case of the BBC source you would relying on the editor of the article to do his due dilgence and check the ScoopWhoop article which is not always the case and we have to be extra careful in case of BLP articles. But we do have other sourced which you have provided meet WP:RS and the content can be added. The original wording was ""He shared the stage during a hate speech in which an unidentified speaker urged the Hindu audience to dig up the graves of Muslim women and rape the corpses. Recording of this event went viral on social media in March 2015."" The three sources you have provided, state this (1)Washinton Post:""His supporters have called for digging up Muslim women from their graves and raping them""(2)Quartz:""In another undated video, in Adityanath’s presence, his supporters are seen asking Hindu men to pull out the corpses of Muslim women from their graves and rape them""(3) Wire: ""Sometime in the year 2015, a video surfaced on social media where the Hindutva hardliner and BJP leader Adityanath – who is also the caretaker of the famous Gorakhnath Mutt in Gorakhpur – sat silently on stage as a supporter gave a call to dig up the graves of Muslim women and rape them""

The common subset information I derive this: ""In a video, in his presence, his supporters are seen asking Hindu men to dig up graves of Muslim women and rape them"". I omit two things. First, that the video went viral since there is no such claim and pure WP:OR. Second, it was in Adityanath's presence since two sources claim it but only one mentions him being on stage. IMO this content can be added back. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still WP:UNDUE and violation of BLP because it would do nothing but make it look like they were not the comments of an unknown person but they were are said by Adityanath. There are a lot of incidents where the subject is not involved but a supporter, for example 'Akhilesh Yadav Supporter' Issuing Death Threats To Me: Amar Singh. But we cannot smear Akhilesh Yadav for that. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In Yogi's case, the controversy associated this incident was not that it was his supporters made the statements. Hindu Yuva Vahini members have been implicated in a number of cases which have generally been omitted in news pieces about Yogi and this article. The significance of this incident stems from Yogi allegedly being in the presence of the supporter as he spoke, which was why it was reported by news agencies. Von oberstein (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure if this is WP:UNDUE. Pinging Kautilya3 who has more experience in this and might provide a better insight than me. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

The line "Adityanath has been speculated on as a future Prime Minister of India." in the introduction is not objective, lacks citations and is blatant propaganda. Namahtuog (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed that such WP:CRYSTALs don't belong in the lead. I moved it to the body, with attribution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yogiji Pranam

Hi Yogiji,

Please sabhi state me hindutva ke liye unity banana jaruri he. Uss par kaam kare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

Suggested Edit: In the lede, to pipe link the spiritual "father" to Guru–shishya tradition, please undertake the following:

Take this action: (a) replace the following in the lede: spiritual "father"

(b) with the following pipe linking: spiritual "father"

Thank you. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The requested target of that link does not appear in this article or in Mahant Avaidyanath. This linking would also violate the principle of least astonishment / WP:EASTEREGG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

hindu yuva vahini was not involved in any violence and there is no proof was found regarding that case. Djdhruvjangid (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2019

On the wikipedia page of Yogi Adityanath: Please change [Singh] to [Singh (RSS)] Coolud91 (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Views section

1st claim that Adityanath called pakistan "satan" is wrong as he is hindu (Not familiar with christian mythology/theology), He would have called pakistan "Raakshash" which roughly translates to Demon in hindu mythology. The article which has been provided in reference for claim is Classic example of tabloid journalism by Pakistani media because It doesn't even quote ofleader in Question.Read article there is no "Satan" quote in it. Note- You cannot trust Russian media for writing wikipage of American leader as relation between nation is not good, both of them are indulged in propaganda war to pander their local audience, this is same case with Indian-Pakistani media but its worse. . 2nd claim He praised donald trump for stopping visa for muslims is wrong. Please at least open and read article. There is no such quote written in it. Video also doesn't have the Quote in which he is praising trump.Its classic example of tabloid journalism. Thank you I hope you reply to my message.KRISABHI89 (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

I have removed the below text from the controversies section because there's no concrete evidence for it and in my opinion it violates BLP norms.

"In 2005, according to a media report, Adityanath was involved in a 'purification drive' that involved the conversion of about 1,800 Christians to Hinduism in the town of Etah in UP. He said that he wouldn't stop until he turns Uttar Pradesh and India into a Hindu state." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazingcaptain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Change "Hindu nationalist to Indian politician. Curb you propagandist views. 49.35.2.178 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Militant" in lead

Ping Oz Hass, starting discussion on your edit to the lead, adding "militant", which has been reverted twice.

You cited an opinion column to support your edit. Per WP:LABEL, a description like that needs to be widely used in reliable sources. An opinion column, even in The Washington Post, is merely an opinion and is not reliable for anything except the opinion of the author. Do you have other sources that describe the subject as a militant? Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that even that opinion column does not refer to the subject as a militant, but only says "his militant rhetoric". (We ignore headlines.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Yogi Adityanath is described first and foremost an "Indian Hindu monk". This definition is incorrect. By definition, a monk may be a person who decides to dedicate his life to serving all other living beings, or to be an ascetic who voluntarily chooses to leave mainstream society and live his or her life in prayer and contemplation. (reference https://wikibio.in/yogi-adityanath/ and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Monk)

Monks do not have jobs in the world. Monks do not enter politics. They are fully occupied with their spiritual practices in the monastery and are supported by donations from a global family of devotees.

Change first sentence from "Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Mohan Bisht;[1][2][a] 5 June 1972[4]) is an Indian Hindu monk and Indian politician serving as the 22nd and current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.." to "Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Mohan Bisht;[1][2][a] 5 June 1972[4]) is an Indian politician serving as the 22nd and current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh..." PGauthron (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. In addition, please note that open wikis (including Wikipedia itself) are not considered reliable sources to support changes to Wikipedia articles, see WP:SPS. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

While it is inaccurate to translate Yogi as monk, especially in this particular case, it would also be dismissive to remove any reference to his officiated role as the member of a religious order. In lieu of "monk", a change made to say "Hindu cleric", "head priest" or "mahant", possibly with reference to the religious order he is leading, the Gorakhnath Math, should solve both problems. DhruvPanday (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments for Addition of this section

The following sections shall be added as it is covered by many WP:RS. A study by Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness an affiliate network of Harvard Business School says that the Yogi government handled the migrant crisis most adroitly against the unforeseen challenges posed by the pandemic. The government successfully formulated a plan to ensure the safe return of migrants and created employment opportunities in the state.

1. WP:RS at sr. no.1 says that Harvard University praises Adityanath for good management of crisis. 2. However Fact finding site Alt News referenced at sr. no. 2 above says that the study is not conducted by Harvard but by an associate of Harvad, Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness 3. The same has been corrected and put up with proper referencing however the same is reverted by user {u|Tayi Arajakate}. The same shall be added again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWood11 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The line "[a] study by Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness an affiliate network of Harvard Business SchoolHarvard Business School says that the Yogi government handled the migrant crisis most adroitly against the unforeseen challenges posed by the pandemic" is not verifiable by the citations you have provided, not to mention its just plain puffery. There were reports on similar lines from several news organisations which was fact checked by Alt News, following which a number of them corrected their articles. Hindustan Times was one of the papers which did correct it and it no longer contains anything which would verify the line. The other source which is the Alt News article explicitly rejects this claim, quoting from the article:

“It is not accurate to refer to a study by a MOC affiliate as a Harvard study,” he wrote, adding, “Contrary to media reports our study doesn’t conclude UP government handled the migrant crisis more effectively than other states. The document is not a comparative statement on the handling of the crisis by different states. It is documentation pertaining to the effort of the Uttar Pradesh government and extracting insights from the same.” ... On page 70 of the report, the conclusion states, “Although the Uttar Pradesh government has taken steps to build economic opportunities for them closer to home using existing schemes as well as by signing new MoUs, it is important to develop a long-term employment generation plan.”

Regarding the next line, the updated Hindustan Times article states that "[t]he state government formulated a plan to ensure the safe return of migrants and create employment opportunities" which you copy pasted and added the word "successfully" to it, which impressively makes it both a copyright violation and editorialisation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11 and Tayi Arajakate: Please note that the article is subjected to discretionary sanctions and one must not make more than one revert per 24 hours. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, the talk page notices don't seem to have anything which refers to a WP:1RR remedy being applied here? I did make 2 reverts, if 1RR does apply here I'd self revert. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: OK, the section shall be re-written as per HT report and as per noting by @Fylindfotberserk: do not revert without discussionDavidWood11 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, the only thing the updated Hindustan Times article reports is that a study was conducted on his administration's management during the pandemic, which per se is not something noteworthy. Research groups conduct studies of various administration and the occurence of the study itself doesn't merit mention, the studies themselves might be used as sources for the administration.

On another note, this isn't a place to promote or advertise someone. Adding internet surveys on "best chief minister" and editorialised phrases such as "handled the migrant crisis most adroitly against the unforeseen challenges" are both examples of such. What do you want to know about why that survey doesn't belong in the lead? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You have mentioned which per se is not something noteworthy. This is your opinion, and opinions of individual didnt matter on wikipedia. Yours is a case of synthesis which is not allowed on wiki. Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness are established institutions and an affiliate of Harvard. There study covered by reliable sources shall be of good value to this article. DavidWood11 (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are trying to refer to the policy on original research, it only applies to mainspace content. I haven't added anything to the article for it to be synthesis? The policy does not apply to talk page discussions on whether something should be added or not. More than anything, you should probably read what Wikipedia is not, among others it's not a indiscriminate collection of information. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes its your opinion that a study conducted by Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness an affiliate of Harvard, shall not be included in this article.Despite the fact that it is covered by WPRS. it must be included in this article. DavidWood11 (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11, since you did not bother to read what Wikipedia is not or the policy on onus which was repeatedly linked to you, let me quote from them. WP:NOT states the following.

Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

WP:ONUS states the following.

While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I have already explained why the occurrence of the study itself is not a note-worthy fact, I would also add that it is not a general practise in biographies of office holders. Understand that if you continue to repeat the same thing without actually attempting to address the argument, it'd likely be considered stonewalling. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have read what Wikipedia is not well and good and that is why i have started request for comment section, and keep waiting for a general consensus to build up. but you keep changing the goal post again and again and threatening me with a block and stonewalling(mention of stonewalling is absolutely not warranted here as the consensus is still not arrived and no other user has been commented) without logically explaining that why a study conducted by Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness an affiliate of Harvard, shall not be included in this article. DavidWood11 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your repeated assertion that "since it is covered by RS, it must be included" shows otherwise. Since you are asking what my reasoning is for not including it, I'll quote what what I had said earlier, "the only thing the updated Hindustan Times article reports is that a study was conducted on his administration's management during the pandemic, which per se is not something noteworthy. Research groups conduct studies of various administration and the occurence of the study itself doesn't merit mention, the studies themselves might be used as sources for the administration."

I hope you can actually respond to the argument instead of wasting time. Not to mention you still have not provided a reason for adding that inane promotional survey into the lead of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you came from changing goal post tactics to looping tactics. You have started the things in loop. Just read my comment for the above mentioned commets that you have posted twice. Now i reask the same "its your opinion that a study conducted by Institute For Competitiveness (IFC) and Microeconomics of Competitiveness an affiliate of Harvard, shall not be included in this article" DavidWood11 (talk)

@RandomCanadian, Amazingcaptain, DhruvPanday, BRUNOSINGH, and Himanshu.722:Requesting other users to comment and put there view to arrive on the consensus. The sentence may be modified to suit the citation DavidWood11 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

DavidWood11 What? That's not a question, neither is that an argument for inclusion. You continued to ask for an explanation even when I gave you one so I quoted myself. In case, you have issues with communicating in English then perhaps you should consider contributing in the Wikipedia of a language (i.e there is Hindi Wikipedia) you are better acquainted with. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"the only thing the updated Hindustan Times article reports is that a study was conducted on his administration's management during the pandemic, which per se is not something noteworthy. Research groups conduct studies of various administration and the occurence of the study itself doesn't merit mention, the studies themselves might be used as sources for the administration." This is not an explanation which per se is not something noteworthy. this is your opinion. DavidWood11 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The following line is the explanation to why it isn't noteworthy. I also added in a successive comment that it is not a general practice to include sentences on the lines of "study was conducted on his work" in articles of office holders. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Commenting as a third party: WP:DUE and WP:NOTPROMOTION are policy, not a personal opinion, and the proposed text was obvious promotion, as well as suggesting a conclusion that is not supported by reliable sources. This has come to my attention via WP:ANI. —PaleoNeonate – 16:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Page not found" citation link

Under the "statements" section, there's a statement on the lines of.. "if given a chance" :

1. It has a citation of "economic times" which is directing me to a page not found page. Please remove the citation or fix it to a working page.

2. It has another citation by "deccan chronicle" which takes me to a working page. That citation has this reference statement before Yogi's said controversial statement. Please add the same in the article as well. It should ideally read: "while referring to the Gyan-vapi mosque which was built by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb after he demolished the original Kashi Vishwanath temple, said, "if given a chance... " TruthBeforePolity (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Another page not found citation

There's citation #14 in the intro section, which is a link of Al Jazeera which was meant to qualify the claim that Yogi makes a lot of controversial statements.

However that Al Jazeera link is a "page not found". Please fix the citation. TruthBeforePolity (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

First line of third paragraph in the section Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh writes: 8.7 lakh (8,700,000) However, this is incorrect. It should be 8.7 lakh (8,70,000) or 8.7 lakh (870,000) Pjforr (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per source, 8,700,000 is correct. Updated to read 87 lakh instead.

Retswerb (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is wrong to label him as a " Monk " because Sanatana Dharma ( Hinduism) existed way before the Christian religion.

I believe the correct term would a " Sanyasi " leaving out "hindu monk" but someone more learned can verify this. 165.255.59.12 (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How about a Yogi of Nath panth/tradition?Jonathansammy (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Monk is an English word, and not specific to Christianity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Biological father and Spiritual father

While quoting yogiji's Spiritual father, are quotations necessary (such as this one :spiritual"father")! 2409:4072:E85:6AAA:0:0:3D8A:5F06 (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over content

Souryadeep630 recently re-added content that I had removed from the article in November 2021. This content pertains to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and the resulting migration crisis. This was then reverted multiple times by Vanamonde93, who asked that the dispute be taken to the talk page. I'd like to expand upon my reasoning here, as I may not have made it clear enough in my original edit summary.

Firstly, talking about Craig Kelly's praise constitutes WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as Kelly is one Australian MP who also happens to be a right-wing conspiracy theorist. The claim about the second wave was sourced to an article about a phone hotline, and didn't represent the majority of sources anyways. Finally, talking about WHO's praise is legitimate, but constitutes WP:UNDUEWEIGHT by itself, so I removed it as well.

I hope we can find a compromise, as Adityanath's COVID response is certainly something we should cover, and in more detail, especially with the UP election going on. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@YttriumShrew We have seen the deletion of an entire topic of the covid 19 pandemic and its handling by @Vanamonde93. This doesn't seem to have any reason from the editor's side removing it. The same topic has been the top-most written and discussed topic in any politician's article, across the world. This has to be seen and restored, for the betterment of any article. Cheers Souryadeep630 (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Discussing Adityanath's handling of the pandemic is important, but it needs to be done by summarizing the best, most up-to-date sources; not by cherry-picking a handful of quotes from poor sources from 2020, when the pandemic was less than a year old, and we knew very little about its impacts. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Undo User:Ipdesign1's edit. Savedalr (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've restored two paragraphs. The one on the documentary seems to be not very relevant (or at least quite undeveloped), so I didn't add it. Hemantha (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Selective data case

The page of Yogi Adityanath in "Law and Order" says that crime has "significantly" gone down in certain categories. Though, the data is correct, I think it is somewhat misleading due to: 1. The data is from 2021, so crimes in those category reduced compared to 2020 only. 2. Under his first ministry, overall crime rates have gone up till 2020. I think we should add about overall crime rate in 5 years. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC))

He's not a member of the RSS

YA has never been, and is not a member of the RSS. Regardless of what the NYTimes's and Washingtonposts of the world say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.152.213 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yogi Adityanath is blood relative of Mahant Avaidyanath

A little known fact is that Yogi and Mahant Avaidyanath are blood relatives. The mahant is the son of Yogi’s grandfather’s sister. Yogi Adityanath got his place as Mahant of Gorakhnath Math because of परिवारवाद

Source : https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/yogi-adityanath-mahant-avaidyanath.html Gagandeep.2020 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Mafia

How to clear mafia on my head. 27.61.205.8 (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

NCRB data

The NCRB data in the last paragraph of the Law and Order subsection compares crime data of only two years, 2019 and 2021. Since he has been chief minister since 2017, data should be compared from 2017 to 2021 (latest edition of NCRB report) to show the the overall trend. Susmitauri (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed

"He identifies himself as a staunch Hindu Yogi and Anti-Muslim"

Is there a citation for this? He does use the term Yogi, but I do not see any references where Yogi has "identified himself as Anti-Muslim". 103.70.82.9 (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it. The "personal views" section is odd in general. I'm certain there are sources that describe him that way as I doubt he specifically says he is. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

The mention of him being a part of the extreme right wing clan , like the ones who destroyed the babri masjid is highly offesnive and should be removed. Jackofall55 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as this request is too general and the statements about political ideology seem appropriately referenced in the article. If there are specific points that you feel are not appropriately referenced please flag them here for review. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

It is mentioned he is "Indian hindu monk" Word "monk" is not used for hindu he claims that he is "sanyasi".... Using word monk is against the belive of hindu community Akshit Gupta01 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ek ladke ne mera Paisa(30000) liya hai stump p signature v h aur wo Dene ko nhi kah rha h aur dhamki de rha hai marne ki police m complaint ki to wo kisi neta ka source lagake chut gya ...kya aapki sarkar me yahi sab hoga seedhe gumda gardi kr rha hai wo Maine socha aapki sarkar Mai nyay hoga par baki sabki tarah bhi aapki sarkar me galat kaam ho rahe hai ..agar aap tak hamara yah message pahuche to please ispe karywahi kijiye aapki bahot meharbani hogi. ..Ashish verma nautanwa maharajganj mo.no.8353999100 111.223.27.164 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

UP CM Yogi, GST collection

UP CM Yogi, GST collection 2402:8100:258C:D828:8A86:3D05:2166:F0BA (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

1) Change the page's name from "Yogi Adityanath" to "Ajay Bisht".

2) Change the introductory sentence as follows:

   from

"Yogi Adityanath (born Ajay Mohan Singh Bisht; 5 June 1972) is an Indian Hindu monk and politician from the Bharatiya Janata Party who is serving as the 21st and current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh since 19 March 2017."

   to

"Ajay Mohan Singh Bisht (popularly Yogi Adityanath; 5 June 1972) is a self-proclaimed Indian Hindu monk and politician from the Bharatiya Janata Party who has been serving as the 21st and current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh since 19 March 2017." 103.230.23.83 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

The sentence "In March 2010, Adityanath was one of several BJP MPs who defied the party whip on the Women's Reservation Bill in the Parliament." under "Relations with the BJP links to the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 rather than the Women's Reservation Bill, 2010. The correct page to link to is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Women%27s_Reservation_Bill,_2010 2600:1700:E680:F00:C97:B9BE:21A1:EDBC (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section

I've reverted edits by @Genuinewikiuser as they're WP:BLP contentious material. I removed the remainder of the material under the section and Personal views section - they are a list of incidents condensed under Controversies section and extraordinarily fail to state why they are controversial, a serious violation of WP:CSECTION on top of being WP:BLP violation in a contentious article.

The material should be merged with other appropriate content where it is established to be WP:DUE. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully disagree with Mr @DaxServer.

In fact, the entire act of removing the two incidences take away two of the most important political incidences in the Yogi Adityanath.

It seems clear that they have been removed with definite intent, to take them away from public eyes. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This act of taking away these two incidences from Yogi Adityanath page is like deliberately hiding two extremely important facts and incidences related with him, and having its impact on political events of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing these two events in unacceptable in all possible manners and is highly improper. It seems to be an intentional effort to hide away unpalatable and unsavoury facts related with Adityanath. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Mr @DaxServerasks why these are named under "controversies". The answer is plain and obvious. These are controversial because there are definite contradictory and extremely polarized opinions as regards these incidences. One is the view point being propagated by the followers of Adityanath, where they claim to be innocent in these two incidences. Other is the original official records along with the view point held by his opponents.

Mr Adityanath has always claimed himself to be innocent in these two incidences, while he was named an accused in both these cases.

In fact, the investigating agency also presented a Charge sheet in the 2007 riot/hate speech case but it was dropped when Adityanath was himself the Chief Minister, an act which added to the controversy. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Mr Adityanath , the Bhartiya Janata Party and its followers want these facts to be hidden from public eyes and public glare because they are uncomfortable to them. They present facts which the BJP wants to forget and get forgotten. On the other hand, these facts are part of history of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, which have also helped shape of Yogi Adityanath's history, whether they like it or not. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In short, they are extremely important events in the life of Adityanath, as can be seen from the assertions made in various extremely reliable sources. But BJP and its people want to get rid of them because they bring out those incidences in which Adityanath was directly accused of violence and violent act.

It is the reason why they are "controversial" and hence put under the heading "controversies." Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In short, the act of removing these two incidences from Adityanath's Wikipedia page is completely improper, incorrect and unacceptable. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated/prayed previously, the interactions with @DaxServer have fully confirmed the fact that he is not a neutral editor. What is worse is that he seems to be doing so while having hidden his interest. This act is truly dangerous, and comes as being prima-facie against the basic policies of Wikipedia. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All these facts are in large public interest and are in interest of truth/actuality, for which Wikipedia strives for.

Hiding these facts would be doing great disservice to truth and historic authenticity, which can never be accepted. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These write-ups are based completely on fully reliable articles, and written in the most neutral and non-judgemental manner, solely as per the flow of events, without being partisan in any manner, to any of the concerned parties, only in the interest of bringing truth and to bring forth the complete truth related with Adityanath as a leader, while also bringing forth the dynamics of evolution of Adityanath as a leader. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In view of all the above-mentioned facts, I put back these Edits again on Adityanath's page in the interest of truth and justice, because the act of removing them by @DaxServerprima-facie seems to be completely improper, incorrect and unacceptable. Genuinewikiuser (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated in reply to the query/comment/act of Mr DaxServer, it has been completely established that the two major controversies related with Yogi Adityanath are an essential, inalienable and necessary part of his life journey, whether anyone likes it or not. They are both uncomfortable and unsavoury facts related with his life journey, but have helped shape his political rise in the immense complexities of political scenario of Easter Uttar Pradesh, and hence cannot be taken away, and need to be necessarily presented.

It is for these reasons that they have been brought back, based solely on the genuineness of the need of these two issues.

I would request Mr DaxServer not to remove these Edits, because his interactions so far give a very clear indication that he is not a neutral editor but works for the political party BJP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genuinewikiuser (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Genuinewikiuser: You stated on your talk page that you have gone through these rules and norms with great alertness, and shall certainly adhere to them to the best of my understanding, "to err on the side of caution" in response to WP:CTOPS notice. Your restoration Special:Diff/1213314149/1213330761 of challenged WP:BLP material without obtaining consensus speaks otherwise. You're seriously heading towards being sanctioned. Please read these policies and guidelines first:

• WP:BLP
• WP:DUE
• WP:CON
• WP:EW
• WP:NPA
• WP:COI

If you need clarification, please approach WP:Village pump and ask your questions where other helpful experienced editors would answer and help you! — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Genuinewikiuser: Maybe the two major controversies related with Yogi Adityanath are an essential, inalienable and necessary part of his life journey, but they should be integrated into the article, not marooned in a controversy section. See WP:CSECTION.

Please can you work out where the article it would be best to put your proposed subsections on the Pachrukhia case and the 2007 Gorakhpur Riots.^[11]

The text in its current form is unacceptable because much of the content is uncited. I accept that there are some citations, and it is possible that if one of us went through your text and your citations we might be able to give each statement a citation, but it is your responsibility to do this, and if you do not, the edits deserve to get reverted.

If you want to cite a newspaper article for multiple statements, you can use the reference name feature: i.e. <ref name="bhaskar-04June2022"> followed by the citation template and then </ref> in the first instance, and then <ref name="bhaskar-04June2022"/> in later instances. Let me show you how it works (you can see I have completed the citation template to have things like a translation of the title, the date of the article, and the author of the article).

• Yogi cried in Parliament on 12 March 2007. The speaker, Somnath Chatterje, asked him not to cry.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with DaxServer (t · m · e · c), that we must follow WP:BLP and WP:DUE seriously for Living person in this article and avoid adding unproven malicious charges. RogerYg (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The unproven charges and the strong language used in the proposed sections of Pachrukhia case and the 2007 Gorakhpur Riots, are contentious, unproven, and potentially libelous, and hence violate WP:BLP and cannot be considered "essential or necessary". They may only be mentioned in broad Context, such as Gorakhpur riots, with WP:NPOV neutral language avoiding any libelous charges on Yogi. Since, no court has convicted Yogi guilty, libelous unproven charges on living person will violate WP:BLP RogerYg (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Change of image in the infobox

I do not understand why there has been a change of image in the infobox.^[12] It used to have a 2023 photograph File:Yogi Adithyanath in Uttar Pradesh 2023.jpg and it has been changed to a 2017 photograph File:Yogi Adityanath (2).jpg. The edit that made the change was marked as a minor edit and had no edit summary.[13] I am reverting back to the 2023 photograph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)