Thank you for fucking up the NPOV, and shifting the focus, and incomplete information

Some suggestions.

• Small changes can greatly improve things. When the original objection was raised here, there would still have been time to make a surgical adjustment to the article to improve it.
• Leaving information out of an article is a dubious way to achieve neutrality; on the face of it, leaving out the BJP's objections because you don't agree doesn't seem neutral. If you are deliberately leaving out something under such circumstances, it'd be a good idea to leave a note on the collaboration page explaining it — not only for the reviewer (though I missed this issue during review, alas), but also for some third party such as came along in this case.
• I don't think the outcome is direly problematic.
• The objection at the start of this thread would have been more useful all around if it had confined itself to discussing ways of improving the neutrality of the article, treating SVTCobra as a colleague who shares that goal (which they are). It's even possible that SVTCobra also would have done better to have more confidence in the neutrality of the article to start with, which suggests that in fact the article may have suffered (somewhat) from the two of you not having enough confidence in each other.
• Most of this thread would have seemed to me more appropriate on the collaboration page.

Yeah, I didn't bring the discussion here. I think it may have been due to the logged-in user protection thing. Though I don't think it applies to collaboration pages, but I may be wrong. Anyway, it is not unusual to see a young person ideologically driven. It's probably useful for the world that they have this passion. But passion can lead to oversights and missteps, and that's what old people like me try to correct. I did what I did out of concern for NPOV. If I had wanted to shred the article, I probably could have done so. It would not have been hard to find sources to cast this in a different light.

I realize you were concerned about neutrality. I had reviewed the article, though, and I didn't think there was a problem, or I wouldn't have passed it. As I say, I don't think the final outcome here is disastrous. I'm just wondering — this is a subtle effect — if your lack of faith in acagastya's grasp of neutrality made you more inclined to perceive a problem in this case.

TBH. 100% honest. It was the disappointment when not all cities in the state observed bandh. It was sincere (but betrayed a POV) and described as a "flop". Don't know if you recall that message.

Having an opinion does not imply non-neutral news writing. An intelligent person generally does have an opinion, but if they understand how to write neutrally for Wikinews, their opinion should rarely get in the way of their writing, and they'll usually know when it's a problem. (I remember brianmc declining to write about the Scottish independence referendum.)

Amit Shah has various roles to play. He, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi would be coming to Karnataka for the upcoming state election in late April, or early May. The opinions of Shah like finding the murderers from hell, or the corrupt government, etc can be discussed indefinitely. There is no stopping. Not mentioning it is hiding important information since things are not mentioned in the context, and what is mentioned requires more explanation which would distract the focus. There needs to be a proper flow, and change a lot of things to present that information, which will require significant structural change. The way sati pratha or the pork/beef was discussed in the Triple Talaq article -- there needs to be a clear difference between what is relevant, fresh and to the context, and what is not directly relevant to the story or needs a proper set up. The difference is just like Marvel Cinematic Universe vs DC universe.