Talk:Raghav Chadha

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

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

• Raghav Chadha Indian Politician.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerning and advertising LSE on the Wikipedia page

Raghav Chadha was never admitted to a degree program at LSE. An alumnus at LSE is regarded as someone who has been admitted as an internal student for an undergraduate or a master's program. I am an LSE alumni, his name is not listed under the alumni directory or list. A certificate holder is not an LSE alumni and neither a alumnus of University of London. Please provide proof for his alumni status at LSE. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.17.144 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to move recent political shifts/quotes from the Lead Section

I've noticed several reverts regarding the recent addition of Raghav Chadha's move to the BJP and his specific quotes about 'illiterate goons' in the lead paragraph. While the information is sourced, per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, the introductory section should be a neutral summary of his entire career. Including specific, colorful quotes and the term 'defected' in the first paragraph provides undue weight to very recent events (WP:RECENTISM). I propose moving these details to the 'Political career' or a new 'Controversies' section and keeping the lead section clinical and concise. ~2026-25270-70 (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The edit warring is happening again. A brand-new 16 days account has put the controversial quote back into the introduction section again. Along with the violation of rules, I also highly suspect sockpuppetry (this should be taken to admin). ~2026-33980-60 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The quote in general is very WP:UNDUE with reeks politicisation of the wiki by the original editor. It masks the views he held after joining the party and reasons he claimed necessary to defect to it. If a 3 year old remark on a podcast is represented on the wiki but not his actual reason stated to join the party then it is definitely violating WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM Xoocit (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"The edit warring is happening again. A brand-new account (created just 16 days ago) has put the controversial quote back into the introduction. They are completely ignoring the agreement we all just made on this Talk page a few days ago.

This completely violates the basic rules for writing a neutral introduction. Because we just had a massive case of fake accounts (sockpuppets) being banned on this page, this new account looks very suspicious.

Could a registered editor please change the page back to the clean version and report this user to the administrators for disruptive editing?" ~2026-33980-60 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Protected

The article is fully protected for two weeks due to the edit-warring and other sub-par behaviour that has occurred here. Discuss any changes on this page. Edit requests that ask to change the material that was being edit-warred over will be denied during this time . Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Logically speaking, several ex-opposition leaders previously too criticised the BJP even harshly, but such info is at least not there in their lead section. So logically why Raghav should be an exception, particularly when he's under attack by "left-wing" groups (I live in India, so I am not lying)? So at least, the lead section should have a neutral POV, and not the "illiterate goons party" statements. For the sake of convenience, I'm trying to at least save the lead section. Shakya2007 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

And also, if the statement isn't removed from lead, then should we use similar mockery statements in the lead section of hundreds of other ex-opposition leaders too (I don't think that's a good idea). Shakya2007 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, the introductory section should remain a neutral summary. The specific quotes about 'illiterate goons' are better suited for the 'Controversies' or 'Political career' section below. We should aim for a stable, clinical version for the lead. ~2026-25270-70 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree. Even if said such things and then switched party, still those comments should be mentioned in the controversies section. Not in the lead. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed change: Remove the final paragraph of the lead section containing the specific "illiterate goons" quote.

Rationale: There is a clear consensus on this talk page (see comments by Shakya2007 and others) that including this specific, recentist quote in the lead section violates WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. It places undue weight on a very recent event (WP:RECENTISM) and unbalances the neutrality of the biography. We propose keeping the lead clinical and moving specific controversial remarks to the body of the article once protection is lifted. ~2026-26106-93 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Support as per above. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ping Black Kite * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I linked to "The Wrong Version" hoping that people wouldn't file edit requests, but clearly that hasn't worked. If the consensus after the protection expires is that it should be reverted, then fine. It's not a BLP violation, just a dispute about where in the article the material belongs, so it can wait until the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I told you this page needed protection. Now you yourself got frustrated with another edit war lol. Shakya2007 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Restored the balance. Now I've also asked for edit protection. Shakya2007 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Since the page is now under Semi-protection, autoconfirmed editors like yourself have the ability to fix the lead section. Could you please move the 'illiterate goons' quote and the April 2026 defection specifics down to the 'Political career' or 'Controversies' section to maintain neutrality? ~2026-26106-93 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I removed earlier, will do once more. Wth why again infighting? Shakya2007 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)