Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Narendra Modi. 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Reveal the truth about Godhara Incident and 2002 Gujarat riots

Forget about these reports... everyone knows how those committies are set-up and how they operate and under whose direction they operate. Nanavati-Shah commission was only Shah commission initially.. Set up by Gujarat Government after the riots. Imagine a RSS linked retired judge commissioning an inquiry of genocide of minorities. After this, the central government was forced to appoint Mr. Nanavati as a watchdog to Shah Commission. That's why it is called Nanvati-Shah comission. Also please check out the Tehelka expose of all RSS, Bajrang Dal and BJP leaders who were bragging about killing, raping and burning minority community. Don't make me write all these as I believe you already know these things. Also don't make the absurd comments about legitimacy of those Tehelka videos. If Tehelka catches some Congress leader in corruption sting, then these so-called "Indian Patriots" widely acclaim Tehelka's sting operations and if Tehelka catches any of RSS people, they blame Tehelka of having ties to Congress and Leftist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.67.21 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

IX. On March 1, the CM announced a judicial commission of inquiry into the Godhra tragedy alone, appointing retired judge, KG Shah at it’s head. Again, only after widespread protests, did he announce the inclusion, in the terms of reference of inquiry of the judicial commission, to cover the post Godhra carnage. (March 5) . The appointment of the KG Shah Commission is the subject matter of serious controversy given not merely the conduct of this particular judge in an earlier matter but on the simple grounds that the situation in Gujarat, where judges, academics, professionals and others live under threat of fanatic groups who have become a law unto themselves, the criteria of a free, fair and independent inquiry demands the appointment of a senior judge (preferably judges) from outside the state. The appointment of KG Shah has been challenged in the Supreme Court and the SC has served notice to the Gujarat government on April 15.

Justice Shah’s judicial record, especially while delivering the judgement when presiding over the TADA court in the matter of the Dabgarwad, Laliwala case must to be recalled. He convicted persons from the minority community under TADA (they were given the death penalty), a judgement that was completely overruled by the Supreme Court. In its verdict, the SC acquitted all the accused and also questioned the reasoning of the TADA Court. The said decision is reported under Dilawar Hussain, s/o Mohammed Laliwala etc. vs state of Gujarat, reported in A I R 1991 SC 56.

Respect Supreme Court of India

Firstly the report of the Banerjee commission is yet to be tabled. The commission which leaked its report has been criticized by Supreme Court and not allowed to be tabled in Parliament, nor has it been discussed in Parliament of anywhere else. Before Parliament discussed it, it just cannot be accepted, nor can it be accepted here.

Seconly the original Nanavati-Shah report has yet to be tabled, so any findings of any committee just cannot be considered yet.

So, that reference just cannot be made.

Let us wait how the reports turn out.

IF SUPREME COURT HAS stopped that report being submitted in Parliament yet, respect the SUPREME COURT of INDIA and dont post any findings of ANY commission here before it is tabled in parliament.

so, that and especially the widely believed conspiracy theory that RSS and BJP etc started the riots by blaming Muslims for whatever reason just cannot stand. Such a statement is just not admissible. Anyone can then write any conpiracy theory and pass it off as widely believed and truth etc.

The quotation added at the end of the Visa Controversy section VIOLATES NPOV standards. The quotation clearly tries to make readers believe that the US govt. was wrong in what it did. It provides no information as such, except providing an opinion of the person. The Visa Controversy portion is more fair and balanced now, WITHOUT the quotation.

Editing

How can "unconfirmed" reports of his being married be written here?

There are unconfirmed reports that Iraq has WMDs!!!

So, removing.

---

Conspiracy Theory Time!!!

Firstly the report of the first commission is yet to be tabled. the commission which leaked its report has been criticized by Supreme Court and not allowed to be tabled in Parliament, not has it been discussed in Parliament of anywhere else.

Seconly the original Nanavati-Shah report has yet to be tabled, so any findings of any committee just cannot be considered to push POV.

So, that reference just cannot be made.

Let us wait how that turns out.

IF SUPREME COURT HAS stopped that report being submitted in Parliament yet, respect the SUPREME COURT of INDIA and dont post any findings of ANY commission here before it is tabled in parliament.

so, that and especially the widely believed conspiracy theory that RSS and BJP etc started the riots by blaming Muslims just cannot stand. Such a statement is just not admissible. Anyone can then write any conpiracy theory and pass it off as widely believed and truth etc.

Wide "beliefs" like this just cannot be written. You need proof just as when you deleted that Muslims burnt Hindus. If that cannot be written then the POV that it was a Hindu conspiracy is patent nonsense and cannot be tolerated.

So, deleted...

To blame Muslims? You mean they did not burn down those 59 Hindus? Then perhaps no Muslims died in the ensuing riots. Because there were no riots at all!!! After all, why would there be riots in the first place if Muslims had not barbarically killed those Hindus???

To blame Narendra Modi and Hindu organizations is a well thought out plan by Muslim terrorist organizations in India and abroad, too many to mention, to blame Hindus and Hindu organizations like RSS/BJP etc for the riots!

So deleted.

Subsequent reports from several human rights organisations and political opponents have claimed that Modi and his ministers instructed Gujarat's police officers not to obstruct the attacking mobs.

- Not a single charge has been filed personally against Modi or any of his ministers in any court.

Political opponents also claimed that Manmohan Singh is a Shikhandi and also claim that the US government was having hypocritical double standards because it did not do anything against Pakistani terrorist camps even when it had all the satellite footage of such terrorists and terrorist camps operating on Pakistani soil!!! So much for the war on terror as long as your self-interests are not affected!!!!!

Deleted.

"It is largely believed that the 2002 Gujarat Riot Pogram was funded by the Saffron Dollars provided by the AAHOA. Majority of the Members of AAHOA are from Narendra Modi's home state of Gujarat and are believed to be active members of the hardliner organizations like RSS and VHP."

It is largely believed by Christians, Jews and Muslims that theirs is the only way and the only God. Obviously two or more are wrong!!! Thats the cause of many wars and murders on earth. Such ridiculous beliefs which Hindu Yogis laugh at.

So, deleted such dangerous large beliefs.

Conflict

This article has to be submitted to the administrators of Wikipedia, and has to be protected from individualistic views. Keeping in view, the reversions by some adamant person, this should be brought to the notice of wikipedia. I had posted a picture of Narendra Modi, which had been found over the Internet, which has been removed. I request that the picture be put back to its place.

Anirudh

The image is still there at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Narendramodi.jpg and can be linked back in. I did not re-include it because it did not name the copyright holder, and therefore the statement that it may be reused seems to be unverifiable. However, if it is permitted by Wikipedia copyright policies, then it can be re-added. (Also, it is conventional to add new entries to the bottom of the talk page). Imc 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us not debate on conventions and conventionality because Wikipedia itself, is not a conventional encyclopedia (and judging from a late entry of yours, which has been kept on the top of the page itself, your comment seems hypocritical). Keeping on to the subject, this was a Press Release Photograph publication by the Seoul Times of South Korean origin.

Link: http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1698

And moreoever, I have not copied any part of the article and posted it here. I hope this justifies my reinstatement of Narendra Modi's picture on this page. If you have a better picture candidate to put up here, you are welcome to replace this picture.

I would also like to point out to you that, in the future if you wish to remove any element of an article from a page, please discuss it with other users on the talk page. Being responsible and patient is what describes a true Wikipedian

Anirudh 1726 hrs 14 February 2006 (IST)

I'll comment here only on what is relevant to this article, and to this talk page;

1.Now the source for that photograph of Modi is known, but I still see no evidence that it is in the public domain. This is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Image_guidelines . Being a press release does not release it from copyright, anymore than publishing it in Wikipedia does.

2.Guidelines for talk pages are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout . Certainly I was hypocritical in putting the section 'Talk page conventions' at the top of the page. If you read the page history, you will see that it was because others were adding material to either the top of the page (if they did not follow the convention), or the bottom (if they did follow it). It was intended, successfully, as a short reminder that the convention should be followed. If I had followed it, then again, this exchange would have become unreadable, though it would have demonstrated the need for the convention. This entire section should therefore be moved to the bottom of the page, to remain in accordance with the guidelines. I don't intend to do it. Finally, I have triple indented these last comments of mine for a reason. Imc 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Imc, Thanks for illuminating my mistakes. I have taken the steps in accordance. I mailed the Seoul Times for getting permission to use this picture on Wikipedia. This is the reply I received from their Managing Editor, Mr. Joseph Joh

X-Gmail-Received: b2eb8fa678811270d5913e6bf57b3e101c81c076 Delivered-To: anirudhsbh@gmail.com Received: by 10.35.29.12 with SMTP id g12cs46118pyj;

       Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:32 -0800 (PST)

Received: by 10.48.42.2 with SMTP id p2mr297726nfp;

       Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:31 -0800 (PST)

Received: by 10.49.12.9 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <28fcf830602161647k3d6bcb26qb9dbc24e193d8467@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:47:31 +0900 From: Joseph Joh <seoultimes@gmail.com> To: anirudh singh bhati <anirudhsbh@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Copyright request In-Reply-To: <ef792da70602160535n3755173n4a271ca04a9c64b8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2986_11139464.1140137251693" References: <ef792da70602160535n3755173n4a271ca04a9c64b8@mail.gmail.com>

=_Part_2986_11139464.1140137251693

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Bhata!

We allow you to use our photo for only non-commercial purpose. We ask you for only one thing. You have to put <Courtesy The Seoul Times> in your photo. Thanks for the letter.

Your wonderful service is also very helpful to a great number of news media inclluding ours.

Yours, Joseph Joh Managing Editor The Seoul Times 82-2-555-6188

On 2/16/06, anirudh singh bhati <anirudhsbh@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > I have a request to make. I am one of the countless editors of wikipedia. > Your coverage on the article of Denial of Visa to Narendra Modi (http://t= heseoultimes.com/ST/?url=3D/ST/db/read.php?idx=3D1698) > is commendable. However, I would like to use the photograph of Narendra > Modi that is published on the page. Would it be against your policies? Co= uld > you send me the appropriate URLs which contain the terms and conditions > under which the contents of your publications can be used? > > I assure you that the picture would be used for academic and research > purposes only. I have temporarily put it up on Wikipedia [http://en.wikip= edia.com/wiki/Narendra_Modi > ] > > It will be removed in a week, if I do not receive any confirmation from > you. > > Thanking you, > Yours sincerely, > > Anirudh Singh Bhati

This picture is not under license from GDFL, and should be removed - Anirudh 1529 19 February 2006 (IST)

I have removed the picture for the time being. I will be uploading another picture that would have no copyrights over it. Probably when Mr. Modi comes to my college. - Anirudh Singh Bhati

I have reincluded the orphaned image ([[Image:Narendramodi.jpg]]) into the article as it qualifies for fair use on Wikipedia. (Please note that Andy123(talk) is Anirudh and Anirudh Singh Bhati). If anyone has any objections to it, please discuss it here. --Andy123(talk) 12:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page conventions

I'm putting this at the top of the page, to point out the stated convention that new comments should be added at the bottom of the page. This of course itself violates the convention. Imc 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs a rewrite to conform to the NPOV standards of wikipedia. The lead section has to be expanded to include other details of the guy like his birthplace, education etc. its too short. The section on the riots is a very POV with statements like "Over 2000 Muslims led by a local politician belonging to the Congress party forcibly stopped a passenger train and torched several compartments after locking them from the outside to prevent passengers from escaping" which have not been substantiated by any courts in india. The gujrat riots have a substantial page and thus only needs to be mentioned breifly without any POV with a link for further reading. The assasination attempt is also highly POV with statements like "The people shot down were terrorists and their accomplices, although most of the original critics have refused to acknowledge the same and continue to profess the innocence of those killed". The case is by no means closed by the courts yet and hence the persons are innocent until pronounced guilty. If this case is closed by the courts or the NHRC please provide a link.

Please refrain from making statements like "much to the chagrin of his detractors, most of whom are self-proclaimed human-rights activists who have actively championed the cause of terrorists". You have no substantiation for it. Also no mention of the fact the BJP lost in the recent Lok Sabha elections held in gujrat.

Please discuss the article in the talk pages before removing NPOV.

kaal 00:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He is the champion of communal harmony - this sentence is very POV. KRS 17:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following statements (again) because these express a point of view.

" Though it has been established later on that it was not a mere suspicion but indeed a terrorist conspiracy. The people shot down were terrorists and their accomplices. "

If as alleged, this is proven, is there a reference to a court case that supports it? Police making such statements is not proof. After all, they have to defend themselves after having killed people. I found the following news articles, some including their own viewpoints and opinions;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3816673.stm http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040619/edit.htm http://www.hvk.org/articles/0604/203.html http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/696/in1.htm

Imc 17:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting back to the earlier statement. Again it is not a POV. It has been categorically established that people shot down were militants and/or had terroist links. POV is "...Gujarat police have shot down civilians on mere suspicion", maligning the police as well as the Chief Minister. Either remove the whole paragraph or show all the details.

Links -

Alren 14:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the number of times a statement is made in newspapers is an account of truth. The matter is disputed. For instance, again, in this page - http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Jul04-Print-Edition/011507200498.htm as well as some of the references above. Compromise proposal; take out all references in this article to the 4 dead; it is not directly about Modi anyway. That's one more (previous) sentence, not the whole paragraph.

If necessary it can go into another article on Lashkar e toiba and people who may or may not have belonged to it.

(also added line feeds after my previous sig for readability). Imc 21:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed today most of the arguable content about the alleged plot. Imc 16:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed "...allege...". Either have even points of view or none. Alren 18:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The riots were in response to the death of 57 Hindus in the town of Godhra, which was either due to being set fire to my local Muslims or due to a stove fire in the train itself, as indicated by subsequent forensic investigations.

What is this supposed to mean? Everything after town of Godhra must be removed. I suggest the text be replaced with due to a fire incident in the Sabarmati Express. Or something better maybe? Jam2k 16:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that this be replaced with something like due to a fire incident in the Sabarmati Express, the causes of which are disputed. Imc 16:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This statement is in the section "Challenges"

... much to the chagrin of his detractors, most of whom are self-proclaimed human-rights activists who have actively championed the cause of terrorists.

This statement is itself seriously biased, and should be removed. Imc 16:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following POV statement has been added by user 67.182.161.29 since the last edit of 26 December. This person also removed some of the previous material.

Comong from a very modest background, he became the Chief Minister of Gujarat when Keshubhai Patel resigned from office following the loss of 2 Assembly bypolls and 1 Lok Sabha seat. Modi is regarded as a clean, energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future. He has championed the common-man's cause.

I would like some evidence of his 'very modest background'.
Modi is plainly not regarded by everyone as 'as a clean, energetic leader ...'; that is why there is much controvery about him.
I would also dispute that 'He has championed the common-man's cause.'

I propose that these statements be removed. Imc 17:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV again

The article is still very POV. I agree with Imc that the first first paragraph need to be removed. More information about his background and qualifications need to be put in the article in an non-pov way. let people read and decide if he the champion of commmon man. The article also needs formatting. right now it feels like the article is more about the riots and the assasination attempt than a biographical article about Modi. There is no need for whole new subsections about the riots or about assasination attempts. This is page about the man not about gujrat riots which has its own big page. The challenges section is useless. All political leaders have challenges. There is need for subsections about his acheivements as the CM and for critisims about his functioning. Heres how i think the article can be formatted

biography and the various roles he played before becoming CM.
acheivements during his tenure.
critisms about functioning of his government.

feel free to add to this and suggest modifications.

Please do not remove NPOV tag before this article is fixed properly. As of now it seems like he is either a great guy or a really bad guy based on which version of the article one reads. kaal 21:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following phrases seem very suspect. Modi is energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future. He has championed the common-man's cause. He is a passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption Disturbed by the accusations, he resigned and sought a fresh mandate from the people of Gujarat. - Prove this.

These sections were removed but then added again. I am new here. how does one go about resolving such situations?

Firstly Just because you do not believe it does not make it suspect. How can you suspect that he's not energetic, not focussed on Gujarat's future, championing the common man's cause, is passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption? I myself put some examples supporting it. Unless you have something which questions the above it should not be removed.
Secondly, last part about resigning. I would tend to agree on that. He was not disturbed by accusations. In a sense, he did not resign. Dissolving the assembly to seek a fresh mandate is not resigning. Resigning from the post is leaving it and not coming back again (Yes, a somebody can indeed come back, but not immediately or withdraw's the resignation).

Alren 22:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still not NPOV

This article has improved, but it is still not NPOV. Please keep in mind that the best way to avoid bias in writing is to report facts as facts, and opinions as opinions.

I have no prior opinions concerning Narendra Modi, Hindu-Muslim antagonism, or the politics of Gujurat, and yet this article has clearly been written by a supporter of Mr. Modi.

This paragraph needs work:

--

Narendra Modi came under criticism from his opponents during the Gujarat riots. After the massacre of Hindus in a train by Muslims, the Gujarat riots in 2002 saw many Muslims killed in retaliation. The opponents accused Mr Modi's government of turning a blind eye to the rioters despite his government deploying army in 72 hours, making preventive arrests of over 33,000 people, firing over 12000 rounds of bullets and 15,000 rounds of tear gas shells to control riots. His government was one of the few ones in history of India to quickly bring in the army to control the riots.

Disturbed by the accusations, he resigned and sought a fresh mandate from the people of Gujarat. To the chagrin of his opponents, he won by the landslide, the biggest victory in the history of Gujarat.

--

"After the massacre of Hindus in a train by Muslims," is not a good start. The cause of the Hindu deaths are a point of dispute, and because of this, this statement is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. User IMC made what I consider to be a sensible suggestion (see above).

The next sentence might be acceptable per NPOV rules, but I recommend reworking it. In its present state, (a simple statement of one viewpoint followed by an overwhelming barrage of statistics for the other side) it looks like a debate tactic, not an encyclopedia article.

The last sentence, "His government was one of the few ones in history of India to quickly bring in the army to control the riots", is a subjective masterpiece. Edit it or drop it. And not to get to involved in debating Mr. Modi himself, but deploying the army after 72 hours of rioting wouldn't be considered "quick" by any objective measure.

"To the chagrin of his opponents" seems to reveal some glee on the part of the author, and should be reworked. Also, throw in some numbers to help support the landslide remark.

Finally, I have to disagree with Alren concerning the following argument of his:

--

Firstly Just because you do not believe it does not make it suspect. How can you suspect that he's not energetic, not focussed on Gujarat's future, championing the common man's cause, is passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption? I myself put some examples supporting it. Unless you have something which questions the above it should not be removed.

--

"Modi is energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future." "He has championed the common-man's cause." "He is a passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption."

None of these statements are really supported by Alren's examples. Well, actually, there's "The 'Lok Kalyan Mela' scheme, which has brought the government to the common man." Well, what is the Lok Kalyan Mela scheme?

Actually, don't bother explaining it. Even if the statements about Modi were supported by neutrally-described goverment policies, they still wouldn't qualify as NPOV. I mean, how can "he is a passionate crusader" ever be NPOV? Or "he is an energetic leader"?

Those statements, however, would make great voice-over lines in a TV commercial supporting a Narendra Modi political campaign.

I really don't want to seem like I'm bashing Mr. Modi here. I honestly have no opinion of him whatsoever at this point. And how could I? The only thing that I've read about him is so blatantly partisan that I have no idea what the truth really is. Please reform this article. --Rroser167 19:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vicious anti-semitic platform ?

I dont see how anyone can call his platform anti-semitic ? There are virtually now jewish or semetic people in India. And it was the muslims who bore the brunt of the violence, so it should read anti-islamic.

I reverted to the last version which was more NPOV. the page you saw was a vandalized page by some anon user. kaal 20:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

new edit

I've attempted to clean up some of the POV anti- and pro- Modi language on this page. I'm also becoming very tired of watching both sides play with this article. --Rroser167 13:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, I've just had to revert from some anon user who reverted me. I don't understand what the user's purpose in doing so was; they restored both pro- and anti- Modi material. If you want to engage in an edit war, at least apply some thinking to it. --Rroser167 16:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help!

I've been trying to keep a fairly NPOV version of this page going, but it keeps getting reverted. Perhaps the Wiki community can help, or the person who keeps reverting can actually come here and explain their arguments to us all, instead of changing things and avoiding having to defend your changes. There is no reason to be afraid, no one knows who you are, especially since you only use anonymous handles. --Rroser167 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMC, your edits are excellent, but I took the liberty of erasing the comment concerning "yielding rich electoral dividends", as this seems to accuse Modi of being anti-Muslim for political reasons, a statement that we can't make without being POV. --Rroser167 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't believe I wrote those words anyway. Imc 09:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Opinions of 203.99.42.15

Following the last modification by 203.99.42.15, the article reflects certain views and is definitely not NPoV. Would the anonymous user at that IP care to log in, and justify his repeated insertions of his opinions, before he does it again, on this page please? Imc 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rroser167

I agree with you that this article must stop becoming a play-thing for pro-Modi and anti-Modi folks. I personally hate the guy, but I agree with you.

I apologize if my edits to the article have tipped into the anti-Modi end.

However, I must ask for your support when people go knocking-off the entire "Gujarat Riots" section, or attempt to obliterate the clear fact that Modi is far from clean in all this. The article should be candid in pointing out the allegations surrounding Modi, or else it becomes a laughing stock without any integrity at all.

not NPoV - add links maybe?

To me, this article reads like it has been written by a Hindutva apologist - looking at the history page, it looks like it's improved somewhat from what it used to be, but as it stands certainly not NPoV, whatever that position might be. 2002_Gujarat_violence at least acknowledges that it is far from clear that the Godhra fire was started by "Muslim terrorists", as one railway ministry inquiry headed by a former Supreme Court justice, Justice Banerjee concluded that the fire was accidental. Also at the very least, external links should reflect the reports of numerous human rights organisations that have held Modi's government culpable in the Gujarat pogrom. Nedloh 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please give reasons before removing any part of the article

12.39.196.98 has twice removed parts of the article which(particularly the text book controversy and the Riots). Please give reasons before doing major edits, otherwise your actions will be considered as attempts of vandalism and will be reported to the administrators. anil 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV continues...

I'm afraid this article is making no progress in overcoming persistent vandalism, insertion of POV materials and propaganda. Rama's Arrow 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest attempt to fix POV issues

In the summary, his only opponents are communists and Islamic fundamentalists? Until someone sources this, it's being deleted.

Gujarat violence - editing to only leave relevant material for Modi

Criticism and Praise sections merged with Gujarat violence because all criticisms and praise therein were about the violence.

Elections - he won a mandate, vindication, and comprehensive political victory. Don't these all mean the same thing?

Political Future - someone should add the names of the awards his admin has won.

Removing all the left-wing media nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong, but what tangible effect does an alleged (no sources) left-wing english media have in a state where most people can't speak english.

Most progressive state according to who? Remove unless there's a source, I think.

The rest is just semantics and grammar fixes.

Let's keep up the discussion if any of my changes are thought to be unreasonable. Superdosh 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please find support

Could some concerete support or PROOF be provided for these statements?

he masterminded the political takeover of Gujarat by the BJP in the mid-1990s, by building an agenda and political strategy sensitive to cultural nationalism (????)

Narendra Modi continues to be extremely popular in Gujarat. (Again, no real proof, his party did win the elections, but that does not mean he is "extremely popular")

He became especially well-supported in the state's urban areas, due to his push for rapid industrialization, urbanization and investment, policies welcomed in the traditional economic power. (Any proof, that he is supported in urban areas for these exact reasons?!)

Leaders of the Hindu nationalist groups Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh praised Modi for standing up to a blitzkreig of propaganda from the Communists, while bringing attention to what they view as the real problem - rising Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism in India. (Downright POV)

The biggest surprise was that in riot-hit Godhra, a group of independent Muslim councillors decided to extend support to the BJP in the city's municipal corporation to provide a model for communal harmony. (To provide a model of communal harmony? What is this supposed to mean?)

All these sections, BTW, have been deleted by me. If you are intent on reverting, please JUSTIFY these with proof (Say 1 or 2 sources?)

I also see no reason why the Gujarat textbook controversy section was deleted. It needs to be shortened, but it is relevant, and need not be deleted.

NPoV tag 30 Jan 06

There's still far too many unjustified and unreferenced assertions in this article. And such inherently PoV statements as India's largely left-wing media. The article is more a collection of disparate opinions than an useful entry. Perhaps all statements that are made without a reliable external reference being quoted, should be promptly removed. Imc 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is hopeless

Some person is REPEATEDLY reverting this article to make it POV. This person (referred by Imc above) makes baseless statements both about institutions that have criticized Modi in the past(like "India's largely left-wing media", which is an unacceptable label), and Modi himself, who this person likes to glorify without citing any sources. The Gujarat violence piece read more like an opinion piece essay, rather than a fact piece. Sorry, but I HAD to revert to the old version!

This article is going to be POV forerver

Just YESTERDAY, I tried to make this article less POV, only to find 59.92.196.98 revert back to the original. This person takes the liberty of making COMPLETELY unsubstantiated comments such as these.

"Minutes later, it came to a halt as a MUSLIM MOB of 2000 strong surrrounded and attacked it stones and ion rods."

"India's largely left-wing media...."

"Bashing Modi has become the normal, expected journalistic practice, and any praise of him came to be looked at with a "how-can-you" kind of horror."

The below paragraph has to be read to be believed. And YES, this DOES feature in a Wikipedia entry, and can be read right now!!

"Communist and minority organizations went to work to manufacture a case of orchestrated pogrom against Muslims, made to fit the pattern of Nazi cleansing of Jews to the dot. In this projected redux of the Holocaust, Modi's BJP supporters play the role of Hitler's Brown Shirts, systematically identifying and targeting Gujarat's Jews, i.e, the Muslims, using contrivances such as municipal records and voters lists. If Hitler gassed the Jews, so would the alleged Muslim-killers of Modi, using the gas cylinders meant as cooking fuel in India. Modi's police would bury their victims in "mass graves", just as the Nazis did. And like Hitler and his accomplices, Modi's men would plot and plan the 'pogrom' months and even years in advance, thoroughly and comprehensively, leaving nothing to chance. In this gigantic conspiracy -- which goes undetected till it actually culminates in the 'pogrom' just as it was meticulously planned to culminate -- the Godhra train carnage either becomes a mundane train accident that is best ignored or a devious trick played by Modi's Hindu nationalist supporters themselves"

I'm obviously not going to take the trouble to clean all this up again, because I obviously know that 52.196.... will revert back to this matter again. Oh well! It's too bad, because this present version of Narendra Modi's entry is unacceptable by any standards.

Major rewrite 3 Feb 2006

Much of the article was PoV, partisan, opinion and editorialising, unjustified by external references. Some of it was factually wrong. I have removed most of it, even though some had some value, pending justifications and references as per Wikipedia policy.

I removed the 'humble beginnings' statement. It is stated at the official government site http://www.gujaratindia.com/government/govt2.htm that he came from a middle class family.
I removed most of the speculative material on his politics, views of him by the press, and other disputations, since it is opinion and PoV.

Added inline references for each current paragraph. Left npov tag for other comemnts.

Imc 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There's far too many changes being added under new headings, rather than as indented replies to previous comments as they are supposed to be under talk page conventions. I'm going to comment on the most recent changes I made here. Any text that cannot be justified in terms of the references given may be opinion; given the extent of PoV that has appeared on this site, it needs to be followed rigorously. I've therefore removed most things that I could not find justification for in the references. Imc 11:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you care to justify why you keep reverting the changes I made backed up with references? According to who is Modi "controversial"? Definitely not those who voted him into power? This is like saying "George Bush" is controversial! Every important leader is "controversial". Likewise, why must the fact that there is evidence that the denial of visa to Modi is the result of lobbying by the Christian Right be suppressed? Satyameva jayate 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. First, I apologise for the previous straight reversion, that was me forgetting to clear the clipboard on my PC. I've remade the changes that I intended to make. Certainly Modi is controversial, on a scale that no other current Indian politician is. Not the prime minister, not Jayalalitha, or anyone else. The allegation that it was only the English language press that was anti-Modi has not been substantiated at all. Give us some evidence of a media study that says so. Since I remember reading severe editorial criticism in at least one English language publication that has a non English version, I doubt that you will be able substantiate it. The allegation that the US visa incident was due to the Christian right is not borne out at all, and in any way, by the reference - [1] - that was provided. Perhaps you had something else in mind, or if there is some other page with this evidence that this one leads to, please provide a direct reference. If you do provide such evidence, then that's fine, but don't accuse me of suppressing something that so far has not appeared here. Finally, I've taken teh liberty of indenting your previous response, in line with talk page convention, and in order to retain readability. Imc 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The wiki PoV guidelines say that majority opinion must prevail. I don't take that to mean "majority media opinion". And that too the opinion of India's Eng-lang media in a country where less than 5% of the population speaks English! So the demand for "media study" is pointless. The fact is that Modi won an election with an overwhelming majority, and even if a hundred pro-Congress and pro-CPM editorialists run a propaganda campaign against Modi, that campaign fails the test of democratic endorsement, because after all Modi won an election that was fought largely on the issue of his handling of the riots. And yes, Joe Pitts has close links with Christian Coalition and other Christian Right organizations. Do I have to provide references for that too? That would be a digression from the main topic of Modi, but no problem, I can provide.

Well, it is good to see that some references are coming in. We may still need to discuss the relevance of these. The allegation of it being only an English language media issue is still only an allegation, but now with a suggestion that the allegation doesn't matter since 'ess than 5% of the population speaks English'. I don't see the logic, it is still an allegation.

The original terse statement that he was denied a visa now seems to have become dominated by explanations as to why the US was wrong to deny the visa, even if these explanations miss the point. There is still no evidence of the 'Christian right' even if it is true. The fact that most Americans are Christians does not itself mean anything in this context. I'm removing that which was speculative or irrelevant, again.

'The wiki PoV guidelines say that majority opinion must prevail.' - Where does it say this and what does it mean? Majority of what, wikipedia contributors or the electorate of Gujarat? Imc 19:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If we need to debate the relavance of changes I introduced, I request that first we debate the relevance of including that bit about US visa denial. When the other side of the story is not presented, it gives a skewed perspective to readers. Why this particualr fact, of all facts related to Modi, needs to be highlighted in a writeup of all of a dozen sentences? Modi gets a lot of hate-mail and death threats. This has been in the news lately. He is a target of Islamic terrorists. Attempts have been foiled to kill him. How come these are not deemed to be as important as that visa thingy?

"I don't see the logic, it is still an allegation". No bigger an "allegation" than the allegation that Modi is a controversial figure. COntroversial according to WHO? To his voters? To the people of his state? Yes, it is true that Modi is a "controversial" figure for editorliasts, but with lay people he is extremely popular, as the media itself is forced to report now and then. His meetings are often standing-room only. He won a massive election victory. What Gujarati Press has to say on Modi is at wide variance with what the English language Press has to say.

It is an unproven claim that Eng lang media in India is a barometer of public opinion. Time and again, it was proved that they are not, most notably in the case of Gujarat elections themselves. Blinded by their hatred for Modi, editors predicted that Modi would either lose or just scrape through by the skin of his teeth. As it happened, he went on to win a record margin.

Joe Pitts is closely allied with the Christian Coalition. This fact can be ascertained by simply googling. I am amazed at IMC's insitence on technicalities. Looks like any statement not in consonance with a policy of projecting Modi as a villain must meet with rigorous standards of proof, but statements villifying him need not. Why should it even be mentioned that there are allegations against him, when no court of law has convicted him? Surely, Wiki cannot be a Kangaroo court?

(Return indents back to left for readability)

1. Modi is a controversial figure. For instance see the BBC report; the BBC is usually considered a credible source, and if you feel it is not so here, then provide reasons. Whatever you feel about the importance of the English media, this is the English language Wikipedia.

2. Whatever the importance or otherwise of the English language media in India, is not relevant; it is essentially the only media that we can use for reference here. I made no claims about its importance; only quoted it.

3. Most non-Americans like myself know little of Joe Pitts, or the Christian Coalition, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an attribution before adding that. Don't take it out, provide a citation.

4. The relevance of the US visa denial is that it is one of the major recent news stories about him. Feel free to add more; provide references.

5. I reverted the major anonymous change made on 6 Feb because it was made without discussion, removed previous references and discussions.

Imc 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Modi is a controversial figure for English language media; for the Gujaratis, and Indians in general, he is not. That BBC is a "credible" source requires some references. To many it is not credible. Quite recently, it was found guilty of peddling falsehood by a British judge. The logic that the prejudices of English language media must prevail since the language of this edition of Wiki is English, is silly! THis is in fact a chauvinistic argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, for chrissakes! Knowledge is language-neutral.

2. Then why shy away from stating the FACT that Modi is controversial according to the Eng Lang media? Is there any poll conducted across India that judged Modi as "controversial"? If so, please give reference. Looks like you doon't hold yourself to the standards that you hold others to.

3. Ridiculous argument again. Your ignorance is not an excuse to omit an important fact out. And you are not the benchmark for average Wiki reader's intelligence either, no offence meant. When readers who don't know who Joe Pitts is see "Christian Right" and "Joe Pitts" together in the same sentence, they can pretty well google, establish the connection, and verify the claim.

4. The most recent news about Modi is not Visa denial; it is that a man was arrested in Delhi for sending hate mail and death threats to Modi.

5. Well, I am making some changes after this discussion.

Satyameva jayate 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes made to Imc's rewrite

To say that Modi is "nationally controversial" is PoV. Is he controversial in Gujarat? Rajstan? MP? Among the millions who voted for him? Granted Modi is a "controversial" figure for the English-language media, which has pretence to being 'national', but that doesn't make him nationally controvesial.

Included facts (and a reference) about Gujarat's progress under Modi.

The fact that Modi was denied a US *diplomatic* visa is much bandied about. This attitudinizes readers. If of all the facts about Modi this fact is so [significant (why?), then readers deserve to be told of the reaction of Modi's supporters to the US action as well.

This article has long last atleast become somewhat nearing NPOV standards. I have made the following changes :

-- He popularity in Gujarat borders on stardom (A very vile statement. Just because he's won elections, or if he's been given some unknown 'Chitralekha Person of the Year' Award, does not prove this.

-- and the state has made significant economic progress under Modi's administration, winning four international awards for its development-oriented policies. (Very subjective. Those awards mean absolutely nothing, and are no proof of the fact that he has brought significant economic progress) The awards sentence can be added again, however, the 'economic progress' should be accompanied by sources citing statistics, ALONG with one more reputed source citing that those statistics are good indicators of economic progress.

-- Also, mention needs to be made of Ishrat Raza as well as the Gujarat textbook controversy.

This concerns the last edits made by several different users. Including particularly me, Imc, also by user Satyameva jayate, who does not have a talk age, and the user at 220.227.221.42. I have reverted the edits by Satyameva jayate to that made previously by Anirudhsbh. Most of the reasons are those given previously, but let me restate the more important ones for clarity;

1.referenced material of wide interest in the media, (the visa controversy) removed. This item may or may not be of interest to voters in Gujarat but it is relevant here. The BBC reference is adequate for the purpose, but given criticisms of this news organisation, we can also go to many others instead, e.g. [2].
2.there was added an unsupported allegation, that his 'his popularity among the people of Gujarat borders on stardom ' . That is not what the reference [3] says, and to interpret it as such is editorialising.

Imc 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, this talk page is beginning to lose readability. Unnecessary headings are being added, and responses being added without consideration of talk page conventions. I was not sure where to add my last comment, and I suggest that this page be refactored. Imc 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I find Imc's talk very agreeable. But I believe that all the POVs should be presented on this page, or an NPOV approach should be taken. In this case, it seems that this page is not going any further towards being NPOV, so I suggest that all the POVs should find mention in this space (viz. Denial of diplomat visa to Modi and the views of his supporters).

In the end, the main aim of the WP:NPOV should be fulfilled. No user should make any opinion of a particular thing or person just because of reading this article. They should be allowed to form their own opinions. There should be no imposition on the minds of the readers.

Moreover, I think that this article should be protected for sometime, and anonymous users and new users should not be able to make any edits into this article. - Anirudh 2053 hrs 20 February 2006 (IST)

The claims of "human rights" orgs are being trumpted, while the REFERENCED matarial I added quoting the Nanawati commission -- a gazillion times more authentic than any human rights outfit that is not accountable to Indian citizens -- is being edited out, apparently by IMC. THat "some" call the violence "anti-Muslim pogrom" is also being trumpted, with no mention of the fact that "some" also think it a retaliation to the burning to death of Hindus in a train. I'm perplexed: what is the intent of this wiki-page: to run propaganda or to tell all sides of the story to wiki-readers?

Satyameva jayate 16:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is further to the claim above by Satyameva jayate that

"the REFERENCED matarial I added quoting the Nanawati commission -- a gazillion times more authentic than any human rights outfit that is not accountable to Indian citizens -- is being edited out, apparently by IMC."

Satyameva jayate added the Nanawati commission references, two references to articles in thehindu.com, including [4], on at 16:22 on 4th Feb. See the editing log at [5] . These references remained in the article till s/he removed them him/herself, apparently while in an edit war, at 20:21 on 4th February. See the editing log at [6]. At 18:31 on 6th Feb user Imc re-added them. See the editing log at [7]. Satyameva jayate removed them again on 7th Feb at 19:16. See the editing log at [8] . They have not been included again in the article since then.

To summarise, Satyameva jayate's addition of the references to the Nanawati commission was valid as far as anyone else was concerned, but no one else interfered with them.

Truth alone triumphs, but truth also requires some work and checking.

Imc 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, rewrote the article again, including some of the material previously removed by the person who first put it in. The statement that 'his popularity among the people of Gujarat borders on stardom ' is still not a true reflection of the article at the reference; if someone wishes to place a neutral interpretation of the reference (quoted above) feel free. However the reference to the landslide victory is probably sufficient to make that particular point. Imc 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article requires re-writing. Once again. --Andy123 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

While dealing with numbers, please cite proper sources from where you have retrieved the figures. I would request the users (esp. Imc) to get proper sources. This is with reference to AumprakashReddy's [9] entry. --Andy123 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4536199.stm

India has for the first time published detailed figures on the number of people killed in the religious riots in the western state of Gujarat in 2002. The government told parliament that 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, 223 more people reported missing and another 2,500 injured.

It was responding to a written question from an unnamed MP.

The riots were sparked by a fire on a train at Godhra in Gujarat that killed 59 Hindu pilgrims —Preceding unsigned comment added by AumprakashReddy (talk • contribs)

Major changes in the article

I have altered the page, and cited the sources properly in accordance with WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:MoS. Some of the sentences might be considered weasel statements and POV, but they are well cited, taking the best possible sources.

Statements like: "A hate figure among the Muslims and a popular personality among the Hindus, the state leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, came back to power in 2002. He won re-election as chief minister with 126 seats in the 182-member assembly" might be considered POV but they are cited by relevant sources.

"His critics have accused him of assuming complicity during religious clashes and some of them even claim that he indirectly goaded the Hindu mobs who are believed to have led most of the mobs. His supporters however claim that there was little else he could have done in that case." I hope with proper citations, this statement doesnt qualify to be a weasel statement as per the WP:AWT --Andy123(talk) 19:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few mostly minor changes, but would contest some statements and make some suggestions for some significant ones.

'A hate figure among Muslims ... ' - I cannot see the source.

above was added by Imc 09:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC). This line added for clarity; original post has been split by comments below.

"hate figure" is a POV. Modi was popular among voters and many voters are muslim. I would contend anyone to show Modi was a hate figure among muslims. Atleast Ghulam nabi Azad doesnt hate him. Kartik.nanjund 09:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kartik, if you care to take a look at this source of my edit, ie. reference no. 4, click here, BBC news clearly gives substance to this statement. I am not reverting the edits now, but I urge other users to take a look at this. --Andy123(talk) 12:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I reverted the edits, to remove unsubstantiated comments that appeared on the page. But, please see the cited source --Andy123(talk) 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anirudh why is the BBC article authentic, do you feel a comunal generalization is NPOV ?Kartik.nanjund 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, you're right when you say that, words like 'minority community' can be used as well. I am only citing using official sources. But, I think we should wait for more experienced users to express themselves here. Please be patient. Cheers! --Andy123(talk) 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If the question is; should this text A hate figure among Muslims and a popular personality among some right wing Hindus, be replaced with this - A popular personality among gujarati voters,. There is considerable evidence that he is very unpopular among some people, and that this unpopularity is more significant than for most comparable political leaders. Much of the reason that this article gets argued about so much, is how he is seen among people other than BJP-voting Hindus. The second version implies that he is not unpopular with anyone in Gujarat. This is not borne out by the election result; he only won a majority, he would need near 100% votes in his favour to argue that he was universally popular. If the second version is intended only to state that he is popular enough to win the election, then it does not add anything to the more informative election result statement that follows He won re-election as chief minister with 126 seats in the 182-member assembly.. I would agree however, that hate figure among Muslims is somewhat overarching, and simplistic. I'll accept that there may be some Muslims that may support him (but references would be needed given the existing references), and I believe that there are sufficient references to justify referring to his extreme unpopularity with part of the non-Muslim electorate as well. There are probably fairly neutral versions in previous edits of this article; but I'll suggest this; He won re-election in December 2002 as chief minister with 126 seats in the 182-member assembly. Despite his popularity with the wider Gujarati electorate, he remains a controversial figure and extremely unpopular with many, including some minority communities. (refs as before). Imc 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is better than the current version, can you please change it. Anyway the current version makes little sense IMHO; just read between lines. Modi is hated ... Modi won the elections in a clean sweep. what do you think is implied? Kartik.nanjund 10:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Imc should make the changes in the article. It definately looks NPOV. But, to answer your question, Karthik, Modi won the elections in a 'clean sweep' because the majority consisted of Hindus in the state of Gujarat, who are his staunch supporters. And please remember that, in case BBC News can be labelled as POV, then most of the sources in the world can be questioned. I was only substantiating my edits, when I cited BBC News that 'Modi is a hateful figure among the Muslims'. This is the truth, backed by a verfiable and reliable source. Cheers. --Andy123(talk) 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes discussed above, and a few more, (these fairly relatively uncontroversial I hope). Imc 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

'Official estimates state that 100+ policemen,[5] 259 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed, ' - the 100+ policemen is as far as I can see, based on the memory of one individual, and despite being published, it cannot be regarded as a valid source. The published source (5) is not 'official' in any way. If this figure is used, then other similarly published figures should be used for other non police deaths.

'The mobs formed and attacked in retaliation of the carnage in Godhra, when a train was lynched and attacked by another mob and 58 people were burned alive. ' - this statement is disputed, including in Wikipedia, since there are other well referenced claims that the fire was accidental. Since this article is about Modi and not the Godhra incident, it would be better to avoid this issue altogether by saying something neutral; I suggest something like "the incident in Godhra, where 58 people died in a fire on a train, and which was blamed on local Muslims"

I removed the following from the Biography section, as it seems to be a misfit there, and also seems to be duplicated somewhat the 2002 riots sections.

His critics have accused him of complicity during religious clashes and some of them even claim that he indirectly goaded the Hindu mobs who are believed to have led most of the mobs. His supporters however claim that there was little else he could have done in that case.

Imc 09:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

'A hate figure among the Muslims' This is the link, which is the fourth reference link in the article. I am quite unaware how to link it with the above comment as well. --Andy123(talk) 16:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The death of 100 policemen note was not made by me. :) --Andy123(talk) 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely biased.

Three VITAL topics that need to covered in Modi's wikipedia article ALWAYS are : (i) Gujarat Riot Controversy (ii) Textbook Contrversy (iii) Visa Contrversy

These were the last three major news involving him, but these keep appearing and disappearing again. Both Modi's and his critics point of view needs to be added to these topics (Note : Textbook controversy needs Modi's point-of-view), but they SHOULD not be deleted. One who deletes this is a COWARD, and should be ASHAMED of himself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.221.42 (talk • contribs) .

You contentions would definately be looked into. Kindly refrain from making any agressive comments. --Andy123(talk) 12:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[removed as per WP:BLP] See diff by Hornplease 07:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for my changes made today to the recent edits by the user at 220.227.221.42. It's necessary to keep relevance to the subject here. This is an article on Modi, not on the BJP in Gujarat. The Gujarat textbook controversy is a matter for the 'Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks', from the given reference. The reference does not show that it was due to any one person, including Modi. (If Modi's leadership of the state is considered relevant, then by the same logic, anything that happens in India could be laid at Manmohan Singh's door, and could be included in the Manmohan Singh article.) I would suggest to the user at 220.227.221.42 that he or she write a separate article on the textbook controversy. It may then be worth a mention and a link in the Modi article. Meanwhile I've removed the textbook section.

Some similar arguments apply to the 2002 riots. There have been more references to his involvement here, hence may be considered relevant to have the short section that we do have. However, given that there has been little direct evidence of his involvement, and because there is a separate article on the riots, mention of it here should be kept short, and only to that material directly relevant to him.

On the other hand, the visa controversy is specifically about Modi, and it is therefore quite relevant to include it here in detail. However, the reference added recently [10] adds a quote about the 'International Religious Freedom Act of 1998'. This does not have a page on Wikipedia, nor does it seem to exist in reality, apart from the US State Department pages here [11] . Correct me if I'm wrong in this, I did not make an exhaustive search for it. If it is an United States act, then it needs to clarify this; the US does as yet pass 'international' acts, and this article is not about the US. I've therefore removed some of the recent changes to this section, which leaves the BBC reference to the visa matter at [12] but removes the Times of India reference, first url quoted above in this paragraph.

Imc 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your contention about the removal of the part on the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 because, that act exists in reality and substance, whatever stance it might be taking. The act was created (as is taken from the website) for:

To express United States foreign policy with respect to, and to strengthen United States advocacy on behalf of, individuals persecuted in foreign countries on account of religion; to authorize United States actions in response to violations of religious freedom in foreign countries; to establish an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom within the Department of State, a Commission on International Religious Freedom, and a Special Adviser on International Religious Freedom within the National Security Council; and for other purposes.

I will create the article (or atleast a stub) in short time. It was already in my to-do list. The act is not *throughly* international in nature, but some might interpret the act to be violative of the sovereignity of other nations. That again is a POV, but its properly cited and deserves a mention on the page.

In the earlier part you say that - The Gujarat textbook controversy is a matter for the Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks, which is absolutely right. But the US Congress took aim on Modi for trying to incite incite religious persecution and urges the US to condemn all violations of religious freedom in India. See [13]. There are allegations such as -- The resolution says Modi revised school textbooks to describe the 'charismatic personality of Hitler the Supremo', while failing to acknowledge the Nazi extermination policies, the concentration camps, and the religious persecution. Now, this is the controversy. Can you see it? I think I have cited some links where Modi has refuted previous claims. If you can find the relevant links here, kindly post them. I am not reverting your edits as of now and will wait for you to do the same. Regards, --Andy123(talk) 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I was wrong in removing the reference to the IRFA98. Please reinstate it.

Regarding the textbook matter and the visa refusal, I believe I have only been making changes on the basis of the references that have been given so far. I took out material that was not justified in my eyes by the references. The references show that the two matters have been indirectly associated, however they have not been directly associated in the article. What I removed was material on the textbook controversy, which was not associated in the article with the visa refusal.

Further, the US Congress, and Congressmen only influence decisions on such matters, they do not make it. The various criticisms of Modi made by US Congressmen are not the given reason for the visa refusal, though they were part of the campaign for its refusal. The visa refusal reasons may presumably be given at a www.state.gov deeplink somewhere. If a formal US State Dept. statement says that the visa refusal was partly because of the textbook controversy, then it is a direct association. The best reference of those quoted so far that I have seen is the BBC article, [14] which does not include the textbook controversy in the reasons. Feel free to re-add the textbooks matter with reference to the visa refusal, but it needs to make clear that it was not (as far as I can see from the existing references) the reason given for the visa refusal. Imc 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the textbook controversy is a part of the visa denial controversy. Please include it in the article. --Andy123(talk) 11:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I feel that the textbook business only has a somewhat tenuous connection to the visa affair, it was another weapon (a very lightweight weapon IMO considering the more powerful stuff they had) in the arsenal of those who wanted to ban him. If however the general opinion is that it should be included, then it should be included, but not by me; I've expressed my opinion, and see no reason to change it. Imc 20:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Details about Modi's resignation

I noticed that there was no mention about Modi's resignation and the dissolution of the Assembly after the riots. Have added the information (with citations, ofcourse). - Aksi_great (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Person of the year

Here's something which I found on the net. Modi was awarded "Person of the Year" in 2005 by the top-selling Gujarat magazine Chitralekha [15]. Do you all think it is worthy of mentioning in the article. Chitralekha is the highest selling Gujarati weekly, with readership figures above that of India Today [16], [17]. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Chitralekha is only a local magazine, while India Today is a national magazine. I dont think that we should include the 'person of the year' part into the article. The case would have been completely different, if it had been Time magazine instead of Chitralekha. If you check out the history the same thing had been removed the User:Imc earlier. --Andy123 talk 12:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't hv a problem with info as long as it is notable and verifiable - I think the info is both notable and verifiable here. One issue may be integrating it with the article. Personally, I'd use this fact to show how popular he was in Gujarat while country-wide, people expressed strong reservations against him in opinion polls held post-Godhra (I don't remember the details of such opinion polls, though). --Gurubrahma 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that someone else had removed it. Yes, it could be used as Gurubrahma has pointed out. But, I also don't remember any opinion polls saying that. I think India Today had ranked him high in the list of best chief-ministers. But looking at the current standard of India Today, I think it may no longer be regarded as a credible source. All they do is publsh surveys :) - Aksi_great (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's put this into some context. A major Gujarati politician has been chosen person of the year by a Gujarati publication - that is not really significant, is it? Given that this politician has twice been elected chief minister, and this award was during his term as the leading citizen of the state, it is actually trivial in comparison. It just restates the fact that he has majority support. If it is felt proper to include this, then I suggest that it be listed briefly with any other honours and awards in a separate section in the article, in a style consistent with other articles. See e.g. Abdul Kalam, M.S. Subbulakshmi. And if there are Wikipedia articles for any other people who have been named person of the year by this same magazine, they should have it mentioned too! Imc 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Hindus like Modi. Since India is at least 15% minority, those people despise Modi but the majority of Hindus feel he is a smart, shrewd, and strong leader. Outside the US, close to 80-90% of Hindus like Modi (only the seculars despise him).Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again

the wiki is not stating facts as they are. It is not the wiki's job to make assumptions, add hearsay and so on. India is the world's largest democracy and people have a right to choose their leader, good or bad. It is fine if the discussion section contains comments, it is not right for the main article to show bias, or make assumptions on the outcome of pending court cases. As far the denial of visa goes, it is fair to state the facts as they are, not make assumptions to why the visa was not given. If the facts stated are correct, please provide the relevant link on the US Dept of Immigration's web site. Note that a lot is hyped in the indian media, and has been and will always be over time (for and against politicial figures), but it does not have to come down in print anywhere till a final verdict is reached by some court of authority.

Dubious Assertions

The United States Government declined to grant him a visa, mainly because of the alleged violations of religious freedom, under the US Immigration and Nationality Act and the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

This is just a guess as the USA is not under obligation while refusing visa and no reasons were given for refusing the visa. Please do not get fooled. If two countries have diplomatic relations and are not at war, diplomatic visa is a formality. Governament of india did not press for any diplomatic visa to save the US admin's face

...Added by admin Badhani as comment.

Hkelkar 20:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of this, I will post everything you deleted on this talk page, so I can check for sources which you deny exist. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

THe statement by Kelkar or Bhadani above is blatantly incorrect.The US State Department states openly on its site

Issue of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's Visa Status

Statement by David C. Mulford, U.S. Ambassador to India,Roosevelt House,New Delhi, India

March 21, 2005

The Chief Minister of Gujarat state, Mr. Narendra Modi, applied for a diplomatic visa to visit the United States. On March 18, 2005, the United States Department of State denied Mr. Modi this visa under section 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because he was not coming for a purpose that qualified for a diplomatic visa. Mr. Modi's existing tourist/business visa was also revoked under section 212 (a) (2) (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 212 (a) (2) (g) makes any foreign government official who "was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for a visa to the United States.

This report is being repeatedly being removed from the article ~~to whitewash the truth~~.OK Now tell me why it is being removed?TerryJ-Ho 20:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed info

Here are some statements that were removed from the article:

Despite his popularity with the wider Gujarati electorate, he remains a controversial figure and unpopular with minority communities.
His alleged anti-minority agenda is mired in controversy.
The National Human Rights Commission criticised the government, pointing to "a comprehensive failure on the part of the State Government of Gujarat to control persistent violations of rights
However, recently a case implicating Modi and his administration was filed by the widow of ex-Congress MP Ahsen Jaafri
The visit did not meet the criterion of a diplomatic visit either

If any other quotes are removed, please add the to the list above. I will try to look for sources supporting these quotes, and I'd really appreciate any help. Some of these statements may be wholly unsupported, and others are worded badly/with biase, so I will also try to fix these problems. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All these comments are sourced. Read the linked articles from the references section properly. I have restored them. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Modi Video

Per precedent in 2002 Gujarat violence the video needs to be kept. Either keep this video or remove tha one.OK?Hkelkar 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove that one. Google Vidoes and YouTube are absolutely unreliable sources; as any dork on the Internet can make a video and upload it conviniently. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK.Hkelkar 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

problems

I have removed the following in-line comments placed in the article. These kind of comments are suitable only for this article talkpage. Embedded in-line comments are used only to point out a particular technical problem and not give commentary on more subjective concerns. I have left the 1 embedded comment that was technical. These 3 below, are definitely not:

No one knows about his childhood or education. A wikipedia page beginning when he was 25 years is a collective insult to our knowledge! So sad!!

Which human rights organizations? There is only one in the world officially recognized, and all are parts of the same one. And, only a particular HR organization will have jurisdiction to examine such matters, and its decisions shall also be subject to review by the apex court of India. I fail to understand why people try to lower the credibility of wikipedia where as we have a system of verifiability. We are writing an encyclipedia and not chit-chatting. Let us tell the truth.

India is a democracy and a developed judicial system unlike most of the other countries around India. Anyone can file a case against any one. A sub-judice matter cannot be discussed in this manner to impute guilt.

Rama's arrow 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no need to add Category:Hindus when there is already a Category:Hindu politicians - the latter is a subcat of the former. Same for Category:People from Gujarat and Category:Gujarati people. Rama's arrow 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rama's arrow, I agree with your logic on Hindu politicians, but People from Gujarat is not always a umbrella for Guju people. I know a large number of Gujus not from Gujarat, and I know non-Gujus from Gujarat. I guess we should go with Gujarati people cat since its obvious that Modi-ji was born in Gujarat.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

or "people fropm amdavad"Baka _man 05:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Puzzlement: Why..

..Cant the 2002 violence be mentioned in the first para? It is a large section of the article and is primarily why he is known outside India... Hornplease 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Recentism Hkelkar 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

per WP:LEAD, it shld be. and stuff like "born in a small town in the northest of..." shldn't. Doldrums 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Can we agree on what the reference should be? A statement like "..was controversially accused of administrative inaction during the 2002 Gujarat riots?" Hornplease 16:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:LEAD says it all. I will be trying to fix the article *sigh* once again; in some time. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} ^{L} 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But nick, नरेन्द्र मोदि तो एक देवा हे | Baka man 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Since this 'fixing' never took place, I've taken the liberty of introducing this information myself. I trust it wont be reverted on sight like the last time I meddled in this. Hornplease 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease - Question

There's a note from an anon [18] on my talkpage. Is it of any importance? I don't see any conversation either on your talkpage, or in the archives, or in the appropriate page's archives, to indicate what on earth is going on. Could you also explain your protection of the Narendra Modi article. Hornplease 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The only edit I made to this page – [19]. As per WP:BLP we will have to be careful while writing for living personalities. There has been no solid proof provided in the article (by a competent authority, i.e.) that points directly that Narendra Modi or his administration were directly responsible for the act. Also, it was a "fake encounter" and the header Fake encounters is far from justifying. Provide the references carefully and write carefully. Words like allegations and imputations should be used.
As for the protection of the page, a range of IPs has been used disruptively on this article, I suggest that you ask your friend to get himself an article and then edit legitimately to absolve himself from sockpuppetry accussations. This article has a history of disruptive editing, hence the semi-protection.
Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. BLP is rather clear about not letting the subject fall susceptible to guilt by association. There is no proof (communist revolutionary publications dont count) that Modi ordered these fake encounters. Therefore it doesnt belong.Baka man 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, there isnt any proof. There does exist proof of the allegation, though. I find it hilarious that the original 'assasination attempt' receives a giant section, along with a sanctimonious last line saying 'this explains his tough line on terrorism' (please!), while the latest updates that it was all staged are kept out of the article. There's a bit too muchc ownership here.Hornplease 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see someone added it pretty much as I was typing this. I'll let it stand as it is for a bit and then add as many details as seems appropriate. Hornplease 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

General Comment about This Article and Wikipedia

Entries like this, in my very humble opinion, are destroying the project that is Wikipedia. Too many heavily-biased people insist on using it solely as a propaganda tool, and immediately edit out anything that does not conform 100% to the heroic image of N. Modi (or Ataturk, Bal Thackeray or whomever) they would like to have disseminated in the world. Any reader unfamiliar with current Indian history coming to this page would have no idea whatsoever why Modi is a controversial figure, because all references to it have been deleted. They would probably just scratch their heads and wonder why the U.S. singled this Chief Minister out to deny a visa to, but there would be nothing here to enlighten them. Whichever side one takes in a controversy, don't Wikipedia users at least have the right to know they exist (or existed)? Those editing articles should attempt to bear in mind that Wikipedia, especially in its English edition (less than it might be in, say, its Gujarati version), is a resource for people worldwide. It is really harmful to cannibalize it for narrow and provincial political viewpoints of any stripe. This is meant to be a CLEARINGHOUSE of information, not a Stalinist repository of "the world according to whomever is less democratically inclined to allow critical viewpoints," or "the world according to whomever performed the last edit." If you don't agree with something, present facts contradicting what is there, don't just delete. Please. It's important that this project work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RDSweet (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Administrator

He is also regarded as an excellent administrator, and a possible future leader of the national party.[2]

This claim seems to use weasal words, and unless someone can provide me with the text of the reference, I will delete this rather sweeping claim. Recurring dreams 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And another line on "Excellent Administrator"

India Today polls have rated him as the best chief minister in terms of in-state support three times in four years. Apart from the controversy that he always generated he is also regarded as an excellent administrator[6] [7] [8].

I don't believe this line belongs in the article either. The references do seem to give it credibility, but:

One reference is not available online (the same mentioned above), and the text of which I'd very much like to see.
Another reference is a broken link.
Finally another reference is from nahendramodi.org, hardly an unbiased reference. Recurring dreams 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

NarendraModi.org lifts the article directly from India Today 12 Feburary 2007 edition, and has excerpts on it. How can he lie and say that he's the #1 CM in the Country? Why dont you complain to India Today and say he's tarnishing the reputation of your magazine by lying about an article that wasnt printed on 12 Feburary? Tri400 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

* Even if its reproduced, it is not from an unbiased source [nahendramodi.org] (do we know if its reproduced correctly, what is the context for the reproduced sections, etc?) You must find a better source if you want to insert such a sweeping claim into the article. Recurring dreams 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Its very clear: He's the #1 CM in India, and the honorable CM's website simply says he was acknowledged as the #1 in the 12th Feburary edition of India Today magazine. Tri400 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Update on reference

I have now read the "India Today" reference: NARENDRA MODI: FACE OF DISCORD. In provides absolutely no base for the two claims above, and unless other sources can be found, I am promtptly deleting them. Recurring dreams 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chotte Sardar's future as India's leader

Why was the honorable Sri Narendra Modi's paragraph on him being called "Chotte Sardar" removed? And what about him being the future leader of the BJP? Tri400 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias Article

Obviously this article is bias, the few words I inserted about the Sri Modi's Global Investors Summit of 2003, 2005 and 2007 which attracted over $102 billion of investment was trimmed to just 2 lines! Even though it attracted dozons of billion dollars of investment in one of the regions most prosperous states. While the section on controversies dominates the page. Nice going. Tri400 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, please read WP:UNDUE. The section should be expanded to cover the rest of his economic policy, not concentrate exclusively on a few fairs. Hornplease 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)