Talk:First Modi ministry/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about First Modi ministry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Separate sub-sections for different types of ministers

There should be separate sub-sections for "Cabinet Ministers", "Ministers of State (Independent Charge)" and "Ministers of State". Please make this classification in the "Council of Ministers" section. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why separate sections? Am actually against the current style of baby-sentences also. What can be written in table and elaborated in notes is unnecessarily made in lengthy sentences. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We could create a custom table for ministers or use Template:Cabinet table start as used in Third Council of Ministers of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. BigJolly9 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... thats a nice one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice table BigJolly9! Am not able to decode it; but where is the colour of the party coming from? It would be better if it was next to the party name rather than the minister's name. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Filling in the party name, automatically pulls the colour. Unfortunately, I have not been able to figure out where that mapping has been done. BigJolly9 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

On a bit of further investigation, I found it. The colours are assigned in templates that come under Category:India political party colour templates. BigJolly9 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for that info. But can in no way it be placed along with party name rather than politician's name? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can do that by editing Template:Cabinet table minister. I am not sure, but my guess is that the "#switch:{{{hidepartycol}}}|y=1|2" statement in the Minister column causes the colour to appear there. The only issue would be that the template is used in several articles, including non-Indian cabinet articles. So we might need further consensus to proceed. BigJolly9 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand all that coding stuff. Of the 50-60 transclusions the template has, 10-15 are for Indian ministry articles. Unedited since 2011 I doubt it would be much opposed. Maybe you can change it per WP:BOLD. Also, I don't know where to start the discussion. RFC for 30 days on that templates page is just too much for such a minor thing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Narendra Damodardas Modi (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Article's title

Hi! I think the name of the page should be Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi. That would help include names and portfolios of all three types of Union Ministers: 1) Cabinet Ministers 2) Ministers of State 3) Ministers of State (Independent Charge)

The other articles on this topic are named Second Manmohan Singh ministry‎‎, Third Atal Bihari Vajpayee ministry, I. K. Gujral ministry etc. Internationally, we have Blair ministry, Abbott Ministry etc. Based on convention, this article should be called Narendra Modi ministry. Personally, I dont mind either name. BigJolly9 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, "Narendra Modi Ministry" would be a better name. How do we edit it? Please note.

Regards

The title should have the words "Council of Ministers" instead of "Cabinet", as the article is about the entire "Council", and not just the "Cabinet". The Cabinet is a sub-set of the Council. Also, it may be better to call it the "22nd Council of Ministers of India", and not give the PM's name. Strictly speaking, even the Prime Minister is not permanent. If the ruling party wishes, the PM can be changed, but the Council of Ministers would continue, with the same party or front remaining in power. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We can change the title as 'India's 21st central Ministry' --Arunnirml (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that the article should be renamed as Modi Council of Ministers and subsequently all other related pages referring to the preceding councils. I am not however aware of how to do it, nor do I think it should be done unilaterally w/o any discussion. --Politicoindian (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, defaulting to no action. None of the alternative proposals has gained any traction, so I think it's time to close this round. Perhaps an informal discussion among the interested editors might produce better results. No such user (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

– As per article 74 of Indian constitution, it is a council of ministers with the PM at its head that shall aid and advise the president. I am attaching relevant article link in wikipedia, wikisource Article 74 COI, Wikisource . I am also attaching a recent news article from TOI for the term Union council of ministers News article Politicoindian (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Support change from "ministry" to "Council of Ministers", but elide the parenthetical references to coalitions as they are unwieldy and unnecessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – If this format were to be used, it would need to be written without capital letters as 'council of ministers'. 'First Jawaharlal Nehru council of ministers' is not a proper noun, and per MOS:CAPS should not be capitalised. I also find that the parenthetical coalition markers are unnecessary. However, overall, I see no benefit in moving to a longer and clunkier title, merely because the official name of the actual body is 'Council of Ministers'...we have a tendency to prefer shorter unofficial names that unambiguously define the subject, like 'Second Rudd Ministry' or 'Second Philippe government', per WP:CONCISE. The present titles do appear in RS, but there may be other better titles like 'x government'. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Strong support — The usage of 'ministry' is ambiguous in my books, whereas 'council of ministers' is much clearer; one thing I'd suggest though is to add 'Union Council of Ministers' in lieu of 'council of ministers', as, many prime ministers had served as state chief ministers, which means they'd have had a council of ministers during their stint with a state government as well. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC); edited 14:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC) and 16:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

Replies / Comments

@Kautilya3: - I agree that maybe the parenthetical coalition markers are redundant, but I kept them to signify the period of turmoil between the two Vajpayee governments, since before that period, coalition terms were rarely used.

@RGloucester: - I read that the british and australians refer to their governments as ministries, but that is not the case with India. Its either referred to as the cabinet, which is the wrong term of reference or as the union council of ministers. It is never referred to as a ministry. The term government is too broad for the topic we are trying to cover. As to whether "First Jawaharlal Nehru council of ministers" is a proper noun or not, I guess that argument can be used against the naming convention of the thatcher ministries as well. I agree with the capitalization point. Can I edit it ?

@SshibumXZ: - Can I edit the suggested titles or would that be done at the end of the discussion period ? --Politicoindian (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

'Modi ministry' DOES appear in RS written by Indians. See this Google Books search, the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, &c. However, a quick look at the Google Books search suggests that many references to the 'Modi ministry' are to his tenure in Gujarat, suggesting that the present title is ambiguous. I'm starting to see sense in the proposal by SshibumXZ. It's quite clear we need to specify either 'union ministry', 'union government' or 'Union Council of Ministers', at least for those PMs who served as state chief ministers. In any case, if you change your mind about what you support as titles, you don't need to change the original template, just make a comment saying what you support now. In my case, I think "Modi union council of ministers" might work...but I'm not certain yet. RGloucester — ☎ 15:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reason to spell out "Jawaharlal Nehru", rather than just "Nehru"? bd2412 T 01:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply@BD2412: Not necessarily but in case of Rajiv Gandhi and Indira Gandhi, it needs to spelled out. Also incase of VP Singh, Charan Singh and Manmohan Singh, it needs to be differentiated.--Politicoindian (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Politicoindian Nehru is a perfectly valid and common identifier for JLN. Your reasoning is not appropriate for JLN, just because the other 3 PMs needed full name, does not mean we need to start using full names for all the PMs. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray I agree to that reasoning however the only reason I argued for full names is to maintain the impartiality of wikipedia. However we can use surnames for the articles that do not need differentiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicoindian (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments I would like to indicate that the end of all the titles be changed to Union Council of Ministers. --Politicoindian (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisting comment. As it stands the proposed titles have had various modifications suggested. If all these modifications were applied this would create titles as below. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The current proposal is not based on policies and almost all the votes above are based on WP:ILIKEIT without mentioning any policy based justification. User:RGloucester has rightly pointed out his reasons. The article titles are not based on official name or favourite name but based on a policy of WP:COMMONNAME which prefers the most widely used title by the main stream media. And the title of "union council of ministers" is very rarely used by the media, hence such a move is not appropriate. The word more commonly used is "Cabinet". The best title would be "Modi Cabinet" due to its wide usage in the mainstream media see Google search for "Modi+Cabinet" which gave more than 205k results. The word "Modi+ministry" still gave 40K results and is the second best title. The "Modi+union+council+of+ministers" only gave 700 results and is the least popular names of the list. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Since cabinet is a subset of the union council, so the 2 probables we are left with are "ministry" and "government" and "Modi+Cabinet" which has a search result of 4.2 million hits and most popular among the options. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Adding my proposal based on a policy of WP:COMMONNAME which prefers the most widely used title by the main stream media. And the title of "union council of ministers" is very rarely used by the media, hence such a move is not appropriate. The word commonly used is "Cabinet". Hence the best title would be "Modi Cabinet" and so on. due to its wide usage in the mainstream media see Google search for "Modi+Cabinet" which gave more than 205k results. The word "Modi+ministry" still gave 40K results and is the second best title. The "Modi+union+council+of+ministers" only gave 700 results and is the least popular names of the list. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

[Update] As pointed by RGloucester below, cabinet is a subset so modifying the proposal as "Modi+government" which has a search result of 4.2 million hits and most popular among the options. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – These articles are NOT about the cabinet, which is a smaller entity made up of senior ministers. Please read Union Council of Ministers. You cannot simply reduce the scope of the articles and remove all content related to junior ministers. In addition, this proposal still doesn't solve the issue of 'cabinet' potentially referring to state cabinets that PMs led before becoming PM. A disambiguator like 'union' is required. RGloucester — ☎ 13:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, User:RGloucester I agree that Cabinet is a subset of the Union Counicl of ministers, thanks for your comment. ~~withdrawing~~ Modifying my Proposal--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
User:RGloucester on second thoughts on the choice between Ministry and Government, I do feel Government is more commonly used. hence proposing as "Modi+government" let me know if you can change your !vote on this. regards--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I can accept this...but what do you propose to do about PMs who led state governments, like Modi? 'Modi government' is often used, like 'Modi ministry, to refer to his time in Gujarat... RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RGloucester Those can be taken in a case by case basis since only a few PMs were CMs before. For Modi's state govt, I believe adding a "state" disambiguator in the state ministry article should be ok.--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments@DBigXray: - I can assure you that the modifications that I had suggested is not based on WP:ILIKEIT. Its based on what the official name of the said group is - Official PMO page. I had even quoted the article from the constitution where in it has been categorically specified what this group is.

I am definitely against the cabinet proposal for the same reasons as stated by @RGloucester: which has been subsequently modified to being government. I oppose the "government" proposal as well based on the fact that the government is far more than just the council of ministers. It involves the political appointees of the PM, bills introduced by the government, more or less all kinds of activities that a government engages in.

I understand that naming conventions are driven by search results. Government and cabinet are inherently wrong for this article. If the name cannot be changed to the official name then I would support it to remain in its current form of ministry, irrespective of how strongly I am against it.--Politicoindian (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose — There is no reason to use 'government' suffix, I don't think any media sources describe the Union Council of Ministers (UCM for brevity) as 'government', I think it is just used when the executive takes a decision. Heck, it is wrong as well, the Government of India is a separate entity comprising ministries, autonomous agencies, ministers, civil servants, advisers et al., so, describing the UCM as the government would be plain wrong. WP:COMMONNAME has its limits. My first preference would be following this proposal, or, just staying put with the status quo. I most certainly am opposed to both 'cabinet' and 'government' as suffixes, though. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC); edited 18:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

respected sir I'm Aamir Hussain bagh Jammu and Kashmir barmulla sir plz plz plz share me message personally governor sab I'm paray to you your family Sir personal share my message governa Sir l JAMMU and kashmir Subject___seeking employment in government institutions Sir, With due great respect and regards I want to draw your kind attention that 1.I Aamir Hussain beigh s/o Bashir ahamad beigh R/o Baramulla kashmir is an unemployed youth . 2. Iam single working man in home I have 5 sister and my father is old aged he can't work and my mother often remains ill. 3.Our family income is too less to meet the expenditure and our daily needs can't be fulfilled. 4.I have done matriculation and because of unstable income I couldn't study further. 5.in last 2 Years corona has hit hard our income and it is now impossible for me to meet the family requirements. Thus I request your good self to give me employment in any of your Government institutions so that my suffering will come to an end it will be your great kindness . I will earn Your gratitude if you do so for me. Yours obediently Aamir Hussain Baig [15/11, 6:35 pm] Aamr: Respected sir please try to understand my feelings.Sir I have 5 sister in my home ,they all are unmarried, issue behind this is my income.I am a poor man with least income.I tried my best to get a govt job whatever it would be suitable or not but I failed in every attempt.Now I request your good self to please make a solution for me.Give me some sort of help by providing a job.Plz your highness do something for me ,u r my only hope now

respected sir I'm Aamir Hussain bagh Jammu and Kashmir barmulla sir plz plz plz share me message personally governor sab I'm paray to you your family Sir personal share my message governa Sir l JAMMU and kashmir Subject___seeking employment in government institutions Sir, With due great respect and regards I want to draw your kind attention that

 1.I Aamir Hussain beigh s/o Bashir ahamad beigh R/o Baramulla kashmir is an unemployed youth .

2. Iam single working man in home I have 5 sister and my father is old aged he can't work and my mother often remains ill. 3.Our family income is too less to meet the expenditure and our daily needs can't be fulfilled. 4.I have done matriculation and because of unstable income I couldn't study further. 5.in last 2 Years corona has hit hard our income and it is now impossible for me to meet the family requirements.

        Thus I request your good self to give me employment in any of your Government institutions so that my suffering will come to an end it will be your great kindness . I will earn Your gratitude if you do so for me.

Yours obediently Aamir Hussain Baig [15/11, 6:35 pm] Aamr: Respected sir please try to understand my feelings.Sir I have 5 sister in my home ,they all are unmarried, issue behind this is my income.I am a poor man with least income.I tried my best to get a govt job whatever it would be suitable or not but I failed in every attempt.Now I request your good self to please make a solution for me.Give me some sort of help by providing a job.Plz your highness do something for me ,u r my only hope now 110.225.52.115 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)