Talk:Manmohan Singh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Minister of External Affairs Wrongly Mentioned

Current Minister of External Affairs is Mr. Pranab Mukherjee. Please correct this in right pane of introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.58.71 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC) For the kind information of the above commentator, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee was the FINANCE Minister during the Month of May (including 11 May),and resigned on 26 June, 2012 to contest for the President of India Election. Actually, the External Affairs portfolio is being held by Mr. S M Krishna during May, 2012 and even now.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC). CLARIFICATION : Actually, after the 2004 General Elections, Mr. K. Natwar Singh was the External Affairs Minister in UPA-1 Govt. and when he resigned in December 2005 the PM was holding that portfolio for some time, which eventually passed on to Mr. Pranab Mukherjee in October 2006 and retained by him until 2009 General Elections. During the UPA-2 Govt., Mr. S M Krishna was made the External Affairs Minister and he is continuing till this day in the same portfolio and Mr. Pranab Mukherjee had served as the Finance Minister up to 26 June this year (2012), when he resigned.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Fait accompli (!?) ( or, OVER-ENTHUSIASM ?! ) WIKIPEDIA has already included ( the name of ) Mr. Pranab Mukherjee as the President (of India). Please see the biographical article of Dr. Manmohan Singh and the write-up below the photograph of Dr. Manmohan Singh. Pranab Mukherjee's name is listed below (after) Abdul Kalaam and Pratibha Patil. The Presidential Election is slated for 19 July, 2012 (TWO DAYS LATER), and the result of the THIS Election will be announced on 22 July,(FOUR OR FIVE DAYS LATER).--68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2012(UTC).68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you, Wikipedia, for the immediate response by correcting the mistake, by the deletion of the name of Mr. Pranab Mukherjee from the list under the sub-title President in the Template below the picture of Dr. Manmohan Singh.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Fraud and POV in Manmohan Singh Article

(Retained for reason's of talk page tagging - OR tag. AshLin (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

• I agree with Aksi that there is too much POV, (even fraud) and content in the opening section.

• Fraudulant Content in the opening section such as "architect of modern India" should be corrected to "architect of economic reforms in narsimha rao government". Manmohan Singh is not the only one who carried out these reforms, there are several others who made contributions. One example is P Chidambaram. But he was the one who had the leadership qualities. He was the one who convinced everybody to put thier inhibitions aside and trust him.

In the light of this fact, the language should be changed to, "Manmohan Singh was ONE OF THE architects of economic reforms in India" and references should given as to who these key people were including ManMohan Singh. Failing to do this means Manmohan is given all the credit which is not his. Others' who have contributed are not acknowledged. These may include people from Tamil nadu Such as P Chidambaram and others from UP, Gujarat, Karnataka and I believe others states too.

• Statement " he is the most educated prime minister in history" should be verified. What about rajendra prasad, radhakrishnan etc.

• "Singh is also known as a unassuming politician, enjoying a formidable, highly respected and admired image". This is the third POV,laudatory, deifying image, giving him an almost demi-god status and the article has just begun.

• "Due to his work at the UN, International Monetary Fund and other international bodies, he is very highly respected in the world." This is the fourth POV statement and "...very highly respected..." is forcefully added. This statement should be modified to "He also worked in the UN and International Monitory Fund". besides it should be asked what was so great that he did in UN and IMF which made him such a highly respected person?

• Information like "outstanding parliamentarian award" is useful information and should be retained.

• He has been generally regarded as honest and a technocrat which till now is well deserved and should be retained.

• "His economic policies - which included the reduction of several socialist policies - were popular, especially among the middle class. He enjoys strong support among the middle and educated classes of India due to his educational background." This is the fifth POV, totally baseless deifying, glorifying statement. "enjoys strong support", "were popular" Where is the reference? There have also been criticisms of his policies, none of which has been mentioned. This is a very biased statement.

• "Despite its economic liberalization policies, Rao's government was defeated in the next election because Rao and other top ministers were widely seen as corrupt."

I wonder what the above statement has to do with Manmohan Singh. To me it seems that there is an attempt to attack and blame everybody other than Manmohan Singh as corrupt". There were several top ministers which were clean and even Rao's story has two sides. None of this was taken into account and besides, this statement is not even relevant to this article.

• "His appointment is notable as it comes 20 years after India witnessed significant tensions between the Indian central government and the Punjabi Sikh community. After Congress Party Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the mother-in-law of Sonia Gandhi, ordered central government troops to storm the Golden Temple (the holiest site in Sikhism) in Amritsar, Punjab to quell a separatist movement, she was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. The result was a tremendous nationwide crisis in which many innocent Sikhs were murdered in riots at the behest of Congress party heavyweights."

I do not understand what this statement is doing here. We must ask this? Was he made PM because he was Sikh? or was he made PM because he was competent? If his sikhness was a factor in him making a PM (and this means there were other candidates who were discriminated against becuase they were not sikhs) then it should added as such and reference should be provided. Otherwise the above statment should be removed.

• "Singh's image is of a formidable intellectual, a political leader of integrity (a prevalent stereotypical public perception denounces most national bureaucracies as corrupt and tainted)".

This is again POV. where is such a sterotype? why this is the sixth time a glorifying statement added.

Are we to add a glorifying statement on every single paragraph. is this an encyclopedia or a cheap tabloid which says "she is so sexy" " she is hot", "she is a bombshell" on every second line or a new starlet. Wikipedia has become a cheap tabloid with such edits.

• "Exchange visits by top leaders from both countries have highlighted this year, as has reduced terrorism and increased prosperity in the state of Kashmir." No reference again! Has prosperity really increased? What about continued genocidal wars against kashmiri hindus, what about Manmohan's government's steps to rehabilitate kashmiri hindus? What about major terrorist activities in India under his leadership? Absolutely nothing! This is a blatantly biased article.

• "The peace process has also been used by the government to build stronger relations with the United States, China and European nations. But the Government suffered a setback when it lost the support of a key ally, Russia, for its bid for a permanent membership to the U.N. Security Council with veto privileges."

Has this above statement anything to do with Manmohan Singh. besides, russia has supported not opposed India's candidacy and is one of the very few countries to do so. This statment is misleading and potentially fraudulant. On the other hand china continues to claim indian territory as its own and still occupies tibet, a foreign country.

• "While Manmohan Singh has a long and illustrious past as an administrator" This is the eighth POV statment which should be modified. Long and illustrious by whom? And where are the criticisms of his monetary and fiscal policies? This seems to be biased.

• "It is his highly respected image which is expected to make Singh an highly-regarded choice of Prime Minister for the Congress, its allies, and the Leftist parties for the full five-year tenure".

There you go, highly respected and highly regarded for the ninth time. The page 3 of wikipedia if there ever was one.

Manmohan Singh has been praised by none other than Bala Sahib Thakrey who called him "a brave Sikh" on winning the vote of confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhsa4 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirteenth Prime Minister

As clearly mentioned in the article that Dr. Singh is the sucessor to Mr Vajpayee. The link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atal_Behari_Vajpayee decribes Mr Vajpayee as the 10th PM of India. I m not sure about this, but would like someone who knows about this to review the articles, so as to rectify the errors if any. Thanks.

As detailed on Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee served two terms. When he took office for the first time, he was the 10th prime minister of India. There were two other prime ministers (as well as Mr. Vajpayee's second term) before Mr. Singh became the 13th prime minister. The previously mentioned article has a nice tablhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manmohan_Singh&action=edite. User:Gaurav

Nominated for Collaboration of the Month at Wikiproject:India

Headline says it all. Nomination here. Rishi.bedi (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

His Surname is Kohli

As per this source his full name is Manmohan Singh Kohli, i.e his surname is Kohli not Singh, Singh is just a middle name that all the Sikhs use in their name. I think it should be mentioned in the page and his name should be addressed as Manmohan Singh Kohli on top.Winston786 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section should not exist. It is a list of partisan attacks levied at various times by political opponents. In fact there is nothing which the Prime MInister is actually criticized for but is actually attacks on his party. He is constantly praised in the news as the most honest or perfect politician and considering that other politicians don't have a criticism section I don't think this page should either.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if these are properly cited, then I don't see any reason why these should not be included in the article. The PM has been criticised by the opposition leaders and the media on multiple occasions. Moreover, other similar articles not having a criticism section cannot be a valid reason. It would also be helpful, if you guys stop the edit war and discuss this in the talk page and reach a consensus. Shovon (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about manmohan singh's life which includes the part in which he leads a corrupt government and in which he surrenders to corrupt ministers. He is the leader of the government, surely he must be held accountable for scams under his regime These criticisms have been in the public domain and have been covered by most media including newspapers. Is this not a fact that he was reprimanded by the supreme court for his inaction in 2G Scam. Why did he not take action for 16 months. Also he was personally responsible for choosing PG Thomas as the CVC chief despite him having a chargesheet against him and Sushma Swaraj requested him to select any other person but he was adamant to select this tainted man. How do you say it is speculation. Also reliable references have been provided most of which are newspaper articles. How do you say other politicians dont have a criticism section, most of them have a criticism section. Sumitkewl (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shovon (talk). Various points in the criticism section can be added like him being a Perceived weak Prime minister. But points suggested by Sumitkewl (talk) is totally incorrect & i totally disagree with him. Accusations by Newspapers cannot be used in his articles.He is not directly involved in all the corruption scams we see around today. Its his government which is involved in them. These accusations should be put in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) article.--Yohannvt (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Daughters

A part of the article says "Singh married Gursharan Kaur in 1958. Their three daughters, Upinder Singh, Daman Singh and Amrit Singh, have successful, private-sector, careers.[53]" When you follow the reference link, the website doesn't comment on their careers. It just says he has three daughters. Can someone please change that sentence? It's inaccurate and sounds like partisan promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.155.214 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done AshLin (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bit dated perhaps?

This article is pretty short for a man of Singhs(lions) caliber. Also, I think, it lacks in current events. The nuclear deal signed between India and USA is pretty historic by any rational. Manmohan Singh has had an important role to play in this as the current prime minister. It would be worthwhile if someone with better knowledge on the topic could mention about this in the article.

Sure he had a role in selling country to push a secret agenda. The recent incidents in Japan prove that the Govt. did not look at the risks caregfully and limiting the laibilitues to USD 500 M is leaving the counrtymen and Govt. exposed for gains of a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.204.131 (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Positions held data is incomplete

you missed his position as chairman,UGC.

source:http://pmindia.nic.in/meet.htm(official site of prime minister of india)

Edit request from 117.254.231.73, 4 October 2011

He was also the chairman of UGC(University Grants Commission)for a brief period(March - June 1991) before being appointed as the Finance Minster of India. Thus the List of Posts held by him should be edited. 117.254.231.73 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See below request --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.149.0.252, 4 October 2011

he was the chairman of ugc before becoming finance minister in 1991

180.149.0.252 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See below request --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ruchirrathore, 4 October 2011

In "Degrees and Posts Held" - below "Advisor to Prime Minister of India on Economic Affairs (1990–1991)" Add this line: "Chairman, University Grants Commission - 15 March 1991-20 June 1991"

http://india.gov.in/govt/rajyasabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=2 http://www.indiatoday.com.au/yourstory-primeministerindia.htm

Link to University Grants Commission Grants Commission (India)

Ruchirrathore (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC). See: Wikipedia article titled University Grants Commission (India) . 68.193.2.168 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

Sujitjadhavkarad (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) आदरणीय प्रधानमंत्री जी

मेरी तरफ से बहुत बहुत बधाई स्वीकार करे .

चूँकि आपने हम सब भारतीयों का सपना पूरा किया है . हम सब भारतीय अमीर बनने के सपने देखा करते थे ओर अपने एक ही झटके मे हम सबका अमीर बनने का सपना पूरा कर दिया .

इसके लिए आप और सोनिया ग.. बहुत ही बधाई के पात्र है ..

आपने [ क्योंकि योजना आयोग का मुखिया प्रधानमंत्री होता है ] सुप्रीम कोर्ट मे जो हलफनामा दिया की ३२ रूपये रोज कमाने वाला व्यक्ति अमीर है इससे हम सब भारतीयओ का सर गर्व से ऊँचा हो गया है . आखिर हम सब भारतीय अमीरों की परिभाषा मे जो आ गए .

प्रधानमंत्री जी शायद आपको फ़्रांसिसी क्रांति की कुछ जानकारी जरुर होगी .. एक बार जब फ्रांस का राजा अपनी रानी के साथ अपनी आलीशान बघ्घी मे जा रहा था तो उसके पीछे फ्रांस की भूखी और गरीब जनता रोटी रोटी रोटी चिल्ला रही थी फिर रानी ने बघ्घी रोककर जनता से कहा कि यदि तुम्हारे पास खाने को रोटी नहीं है तो तुम लोग केक क्यों नहीं खाते ?

आज आपकी पार्टी ने इस देश मे भी ठीक यही हालत पैदा कर दिए है ... एक तरफ आपकी सरकार के स्वाथ्य मंत्री संसद मे बयान देते है कि हमने इस देश को मेडिकल टूरिज्म हब बना दिया है लेकिन आश्चर्य कि बात है कि आपकी पार्टी की अध्यक्ष सोनिया जी को भी आपकी सरकार पर विश्वास नहीं है इसलिए ही तो वे अपना खुद का इलाज भारत के बजाय अमेरिका मे करवाने गयी ..

आपको मैंने ३२ रूपये का एक चेक भेजा है और मै आपसे गुजारिश करता हूँ कि आप एक दिन जरा ईमानदारी से ३२ रूपये पर गुजारा करके तो देखिये

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} plz allow us

59.98.138.113 (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cancelled, as no specific edit was requested.  Chzz  ►  07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done spelling of punjab is worng

"Manmohan Singh" is COTM - December 2011

Hello friends,

FYI,this article is WikiProject Collaboration of the Month for December 2011. Please take time out to make some improvements. AshLin (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Faux pas : How is that in the Template of this Wikipedia Article, (below the photograph of Dr. Manmohan Singh), under the subtitle President, the name of Pranab Mukherjee APPEARS after (below) Abdul Kalaam and Pratibha Patil. The Presidential Election is NOT YET ( as of today, 17 July, 2012) over and / or Mr. Mukherjee has not yet been elected to the Presidency, nor his election was unanimous (UNOPPOSED)!--68.193.2.168 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, now, has suitably corrected this error, by deleting the name of Mr. Pranab Mukherjee in the said list. Thank you, Wikipedia, for your expeditious corrective action in this regard.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, apparently I should have seen your note earlier. In the future, you might want to add {{editprotected}} when you're requesting changes to a protected page as your request will then be visible to far more editors to address. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Typo error

Zerkroz (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In the Public image section, last paragraph.

"The Independant, a british daily also remarked..." should be "The Independent, a British paper also remarked..."

Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3