Jump to content

Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Recent removals

I just removed the "Sadbhavana mission and fasts" and "Press and Public relations" sections, chiefly because they are highly undue. They were added in a surge of WP:RECENTISM at the time; looking back, they are utterly trivial. A similar conclusion was recently reached with the sections on the Uttarakhand floods and the spat with the governor. If you have objections, please bring them up here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadbhavana mission is not same as Uttarakhand section. Sadbhavana mission was propbably the time when Modi thought that he could get a larger role, he tried to reach out to people (PR exercise may be). Also I partially feel that we could remove the sections of "Press and Public relations", the first para is undue but the google hangout is noteable, he was the first Indian politician to use it. There was a different article about Modi's google hang out. It was merged into this article. -sarvajna (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
We cannot use our judgement on whether it was the same or not. The point is, all of these things have received very similar coverage in the sources; significant newspaper coverage for a short while, and silence thereafter; absolutely nothing in academic sources. If we applied this as our standard for sourcing, then this article could comfortably be expanded ten-fold. Or to put it another way, in this case notability cannot be determined by mention in reliable sources, but by the extent of coverage in RS. Its a question of due weight, not of reliability. Also, I take it you are okay with my removing the first para of press and PR? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If we go by your logic this article can be reduced to just one para, let us wait for some more comments. yes I do feel that the first para of "press and pr" should be removed.-sarvajna (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't mis-interpret what I said; you know as well as me that's not true. Most things mentioned on this page have received either extended media coverage, or significant academic coverage, or both; this includes his early career, the 2002 riots, the issue of development under him, the elections he contested, and some of the policies he implemented (though these last two could use work.) The Uttarakhand floods, the spat with Beniwal, and these sections, have not received such. The issue of his marriage needs mention, but it is also excessively long by this criterion. As for other editors, there is a precious lack of neutral ones on this page, but we can wait some. I know RP had something to say about this. Before anybody makes accusations of canvassing, it was his idea in the first place...Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do not comment on other editors, they can say the same thing about you. Comment on the content, not on the contributors.-sarvajna (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe most of the pre-PM stuff should go. Since Modi is now the Prime Minister of India, that's what he is the most notable for and that's where our coverage should focus. Imagine looking back 10 years from now and reading this page. Would 'google hangout' be something worth including? Almost definitely not, even now that's just cruft and it's not going to survive the test of time. Sadbhavana fasts might make sense in a section titled "relationship with Muslims" with broader contextual information but, as a stand alone section it makes no sense at all. Right now, the article reads somewhat like a "news of the day" listing of news events around the person and that's not good. Getting rid of these two sections would be a good start (unless someone wants to write a "Relationship with Muslims" section). --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, google hangout is notable to the extent of a sentence; he being the first to interact via live video on the net. 3D holograms; the Chai pe Charcha; Social Media were important tools of his election campaign; this should be noted somewhere.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agree....one sentence for Google Hangout is more than enough. ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 17:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be that one sentence is sufficient for the google hangouts section, so I would further propose that it be moved into the section that talks about the general election campaign. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
general election campaign?? -sarvajna (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "2014 General Election," which talks about his campaign. I didn't think there was much room for mis-interpretation there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
with all due respect, the Google hangout was an event in 2012, no where near the general election campaign. sarvajna (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that; from reading the source, it would nonetheless seem to make more sense to mention it in the context of the campaign than in the context of his fourth term, because that is how it is portrayed. It would stick out like a sore thumb in the fourth term section. This was just a suggestion, though, I have not stake in it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly what I meant with my "mews of the day" comment above. The guy hung out in a hangout. The press had a momentary field day. And we throw the stuff into our article. But where does this fit? I say throw it out. How anything to do with google hangouts is meaningful completely escapes me. An article needs some sort of coherence and shouldn't be a mere grab bag of transient headlines. --regentspark (comment) 22:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely, I was merely trying to bring some sort of closure on the grounds that one sentence of non-notable content is better than several kilobytes of it, and that there appears to be consensus for such a change. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I know you're trying and I don't blame you. But this is about as perfect an example of WP:Cruft as it gets. Unless it fits into the narrative somewhere, for example if scholars say he won the election because of it, it is only meaningful to Modi fans. --regentspark (comment) 22:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I would say it does not belong here, I would not prefer a compromise of one sentence also. For consensus I am with Vanamonde93. I have striked out my comment after reading Dharmadhyaksha's comment. Jyoti (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • First Indian politician to use hangout in 2012 later on became first Indian politician to deliver 3D holographic speeches in 2014 and has received e-Ratna award from Computer Society of India. And am sure there are references out there on how his win had large contribution of social media he and his party used. That's how its all relevant. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
If there are references, then we should rewrite this in a "Use of social media" subsection under the 2014 elections and I'll support that. But I don't like the idea of uncontextualized statements in any article because they seem like Cruft. "am sure" isn't enough and we do need to see those references. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has raised any issues with the removal of the Sadbhavana mission section, so I have removed it once again. The Google hangout should go, too, in my opinion, but there seems to be something of a discussion going, so I have left it for now. If you revert me, for heavens sake produce something more than "we should talk about it." Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "Google hangout" section and added a line about it in "Personality and image".Redtigerxyz Talk 06:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Except you didn't actually remove it :-) guessing that was a mistake. You left in two versions of the same sentence. I removed one of them again; if you wish to shift that around, be my guest. Although I'm still of the opinion that it should be removed altogether. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Redtigerxyz:; I know you said you would remove it, but the duplication is still there. There is now a "social media" section both in the 2014 General election section (at the bottom) and in the personality section. Since you created that duplication, I would prefer that you sorted it out yourself, rather than getting into a revert war. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, 2014 General election section only deals with use of social media in 2014 General election section, while personality speaks about his general interest in social media and his 2012 Google Hangout (which was not part of 2014 elections), which gave him the first tag.Redtigerxyz Talk 08:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

203.200.213.98 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what you want changed. Please present your proposed change in the form "change XXX to YYY. Thank you, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2014

Please look into the third paragraph of the introduction. Modi being a 'Hindu nationalist' is based on mere speculation and there is no concrete proof to support it. If there are indeed 'concrete' facts, then mention them too. He is the incumbent prime minister of india and i think such a phrase based on speculation degrades the quality of the article. Please delete the first line of the third paragraph in the introduction as it is based on speculation GauravSimha (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The label is supported by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Promotion of Hindi language

Might this be significant for our article? Promoting Hindi is causing some problems. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh Mr Sitush, the "India Expert" at it again... Aren't you satisfied with looking for the negatives in the Yadavs, that you now have to look for problems and negatives related to the Indian Prime Minister??? How about you finding some problems of the Mr Blair?? I assure you, you'd find plenty of them! Have you ever found problems with the Chinese using Mandarin or the British using English? God save wikipedia. Sure you're not the founder - so don't yet again start another goddamn sermon on wikipedia's policies. They are good as they are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.23.17 (talk • contribs)
There was a stir on Hindi-promotion in Indian media a month ago I guess. But then they found something more interesting, maybe football or so. What and how much are you proposing to add? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have the same thoughts as User:Dharmadhyaksha. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Snarky comments apart, this particular controversy originated from a government circular that asked civil servants to use Hindi on social media. The circular had originally been issued by the previous government on March 10. As a standard practice, it was re-issued a day after the new government took charge, and not as a new order by the new government. Modi's government actually clarified that this circular applied only to Hindi-speaking states. In short, this was just another media-manufactured controversy. Certainly not important enough to be included in this article.
On a sidenote, The Guardian is definitely not the best source for anything related to Narendra Modi - it has been blatantly biased against him, publishing FUD pieces like "Narendra Modi as prime minister would roll back women's rights". utcursch | talk 18:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The link I provide isn't a month old and isn't Indian media. He seems to have gone against convention, which is not necessarily a bad thing but itself maybe notable. More generally, it is pissing off people in his own country who do not understand Hindi but - presumably - either do understand English or object to having Hindi forced upon them when there are a multitude of other languages to choose from. The connection between Hindi and Hindu nationalism is not a minor consideration. Any move to abandon English in official communications even though English is an official language seems to me to be significant and, as Dharmadkasha says, it has been reported. A sentence or two should do it. Personally, I couldn't care less if India abandoned English, replaced it with Vulcan or decided that in future everyone should use Makaton - it is completely immaterial to me because I'm not Indian and I'm not there. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Sitush edits are with extreme prejudice dispute his protestations that he couldn't care less and the inordinate time he spends on India-related pages. This article remains extremely POV an negative in tone but it is unlikely the anti-Modi mafia here will let it be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.183.109 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm wary about including this in the article. It is too early to say whether this is part of a larger push to raise the profile of Hindi at the expense of English and other regional languages. We need to wait and see where this goes first. --regentspark (comment) 01:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it goes on WP sometime later, i think its best suited to have it on an article like Premiership of Narendra Modi. Its not just Modi who is being pro-Hindi but all his big guns are also following it. So its worth 1-2 lines for sure, but not in this article. BTW, when will this new article be created? It might be filled with trivial and recentism if created now, but then we can crop out those things later on as and when they become trivial. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we need that article? I I don't see specific articles for other prime ministers. Not Manmohan Singh. Not even Mrs. G and Nehru. I know other stuff applies but let's wait for enough material before thinking about creating a specific article. Meanwhile, everything meaningful can go into the Prime Minister section. --regentspark (comment) 12:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
RP, we have three articles in Category:Indian premierships. And some people have already made Foreign policy of Narendra Modi. So yes, someday thats gonna be a blue link. Advantage of starting early is that it will grow well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to add some extra data, Modi spoke in English when he went to witness the launch of PSLV at sriharikota. Personally I don't think the Hindi controversy is something that needs a mention especially when the Modi govt has not done anything new, they just reissued an old notification issued by the Congress govt. Sitush connects Hindu Nationalism to everything that is done by Modi or everything that will be done by Modi in future, I am not surprised :-). -sarvajna (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I do not. You are being silly, Sarvajna, as I've made dozens, probably hundreds, of references to Modi that make no mention of it. It is true that I often say that you are a sympathiser of that type of politics but your kneejerk accusation here merely tends to confirm that. I've since done some digging and, yes, there are numerous non-Indian sources that have reported the thing. That said, I'm happy to leave it for now: I asked a question when I started this thread rather than making a statement precisely because I was unsure of relevance/weight etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
relax Sitush, if you haven't noticed there was a smiley at the end. It was meant to be a joke, I was just pulling your leg. There are numerous non Indian sources, true. So anything that is mentioned by non Indian sources about Modi need not be included always. This is not the first time you are accusing me of being sympathetic/biased and this will not be the last. It least bothers me.(just to make it clear, I am not joking about last statement) -sarvajna (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The question I would ask is whether it has received either a sufficient volume of coverage, or some RS coverage well after the event, so that we can be sure it was more than just sensationalized news? I haven't done enough digging myself to comment on that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Can someone add that Modi maintains that vote bank politics is what has 'destroyed' other political parties. See this: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Day-after-Rahuls-attack-Modi-links-UP-riots-to-vote-bank-politics/articleshow/39964023.cms and http://indiatodaynews.in/day-after-rahuls-attack-modi-links-up-riots-to-vote-bank-politics/ ?-Krishna39 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There was a fairly extensive discussion a few months ago, about whether to include some quotes from him. The consensus was against including anything, because establishing notability was so difficult. Therefore, I am declining the current request. You should be able to find the relevant discussion in the archives; if you are unable, I could locate it for you (I don't have the time right now). You may also wish to read WP:NOTNEWS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014

I want to edit a minor thing in the personality topic Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It is written that Modi is 4th most followed politician on twitter but now he has moved to 2nd position. Here's the news website http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social/Modis-world-second-most-followed-politician-on-Twitter-Facebook/articleshow/41735598.cms. SUBhAA CooL (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, SUBhAA CooL thanks for the input. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Instead of getting in revert war, I'll outline the major changes that are being reverted for POV:

  • "American National Congress led UPA"
    • no POV issue that I can see
  • "a claim which is refuted by Modi and his supporters.[1]"
  1. ^ "Gujarat Model and Inclusive Development – Facts & Figures". India 272+. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
    • I have edited this sentence to make it seem less like an arguement, but if we say that some people are cricising him, then I see nothing wrong with saying that he has defended himself
  • "He began work in the staff canteen of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, where he worked until he became a full–time pracharak (campaigner) of the RSS in 1970"
    • I see no POV issue in adding the year
  • "In 1988, Modi was elected as General secretary of BJP's Gujarat unit"
    • Again, he was elected in 1988 and I don't see the POV problem with that
  • "Gujarat’s agricultural and allied sector outshined other Indian states in the last decade by clocking an average annual growth of 11 per cent, compared to an all-India average of 3 per cent between 2001-02 and 2011-12."
    • Needs to be edited to be neutral, but these are the claims made by the government of Gujarat

I am again reverting, and will work on the text.

The introduction is severely POV in its language. Gujarat riots do not belong in the introduction to India's PM despite the obsession for some with them. Neither do dubious manufactured controversies about Gujarat's development model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.183.109 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed must be made about anti muslim nature of modi cited here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpkswn (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Signing to add date and allow section auto-archieving. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Important Development Facts are missing

Gujarat is the only state in the country to have a private railroad dedicated to freight. The Kutch Railway Corporation was incorporated on 22nd January 2004 under the Companies Act with equity contributions from RVNL, Kandla Port Trust, Mundra Port & SEZ Ltd. and the Govt. of Gujarat. The railroad is capable of operating double decker freight containers like in the West. Commercial operations started in July 2006 during Modi's second term. The Palanpur to Gandhidham railway line carries 30-40 freight trains a day each with a capacity of 180 containers each. Reference: http://www.kutchrail.org/index.html

Gujarat is also the first state in the country to develop private ports. The state's port policy was announced in 1995 but several ports have come into operation during Modi's tenure including the Gujarat Chemical port & LNG terminals at Dahej, the LNG terminal at Hazira and the solid cargo terminal at Dahej. Reference: http://www.gidb.org/cms.aspx?content_id=100

Rural electricity connectivity of 98.53% is the best in India. The World Bank has applauded the state's highway sector to have created an "enabling framework" for "efficient governance". Gujarat also enjoys the distinction of having the largest IP-based e-governance system in the Asia Pacific called the GSWAN (Gujarat State Wide Area Network), and boasts of India's highest teledensity, highest number of operational ISPs, the longest optical fibre cable network and the country's first four-lane highway. Its network of airports — 16, including one international — is one of the largest in the country while its coastline of over 1,600 km, the longest in India, is dotted with 41 ports.

Reference: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/highways-uninterrupted-power-help-gujara

Signing to add date and allow section auto-archieving. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Jashodaben, Mistranslation of speech in HP

As the subject has acknowledged he is married but separated (not divorced), in the personal infobox, the year of marriage and separation may be added. And source needs to be a secondary source and not the nomination form in Gujarati.

A sentence reads "However, in February 2014, in Himachal Pradesh, Narendra Modi had said that his single status makes him the best person to fight corruption.""Source 1"."Source 2". The heading by both news sources is a mistranslation. The quote in Hindi (in the body) is "Mere liye na koi aagey, na peechhey. Kiske liye bhrashtachaar karunga?" The idiom "Aagey peeche koi na hona" (आगे पीछे कोई न होना) in Hindi means "to not have any relatives or close relations", a source is [1]. Accurate translation is "I have no close relation", which is true as the subject is separated from his spouse and family for 45 years or so. The translation as "single" in the articles is incorrect. The sentence in the article begins with "However", creating an impression that Modi's statement was a lie. Assuming good faith, I can say probably the editor relied on the mistranslation by Times of India and NDTV of the Hindi idiom, but it may please be changed to read "In February 2014, in Himachal Pradesh, Narendra Modi had said that he has no close relations, ..."

Signing to add date and allow section auto-archieving. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Modi a Major campaign figure in 2009

Narendra Modi was not major campaign figure in 2009 General elections and was not part of the national wide campaign or was not involved in the preparation BJP election manifesto it was Advani and Rajnath Singh .He was just a regional politician at that point only after the election did he come up in the national stage.All Chief Ministers do campaign in there states and neighboring states it as it would be wrong to say Oommen Chandy or Siddaramaiah to be called a Major campaigner and Modi was one of them and It is mentioned in a section below 2009 Elections but remove it from Lead Source and only mention that he campaigned regionally in Gujarat and neighboring states in a general election. .Actually Rajnath Singh did not want Modi to part of the national campaign The statement is POV and implies that the Modi campaign failed in 2009 which is wrong as he only a regional campaigner at best and as per WP:BURDEN needs a clear sources if it is to added to lead.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says that the information needs to be supported by reliable sources; it is. Both the references say that he was a significant campaign figure. If you want more, this also mentions the fact that he was campaign in charge for Maharashtra, Goa, and Gujarat, or a combined total of 70 some seats. In addition, he presumably campaigned elsewhere, as the Z news source seems to say. His electoral history would be incomplete without it. If you wish to clarify that Advani was the PM candidate, go ahead and add that; the section needs a little expansion in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with User:Pharaoh of the Wizards. Both the sources given only talk about his campaigning in Gujarat. So, at best he was a regional campaigner. The article needs to tone down the claims. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
He only campaigned in 70 out of 545 or Uttar Pradesh has 80 seats so if Mulayam Singh campaigned there is a major campaigner is a POV or only a opinion. Shiv Sena led the campaign in Maharashtra in 2009 ,Modi was only part of the BJP Campaign . The comment Modi was a major campaign figure in the 2009 general election which the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance lost to the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) .Want to remove this comment from lead as it clearly a POV term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Tweak the sentence a little, if you wish. It was a part of Modi's electoral history, just as the Gujarat elections have been. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It is already mentioned below in the 2009 election section and I not removing that comment.Modi played a role in the 2009 national general election campaign of the BJP and was one of their star campaigners.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that section is rather thin; if it reflected the quantity of source material, it would be slightly larger, and IMO would require a mention in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
During the election a list of people are by given parties as Star campaigners to the Election Commission of India for every state the Congress list of 40 people for Maharashtra and BJP list of 40 people for Maharashtra now not all of them are Major Campaign figures just because they figured in a few states as did Siddaramaiah. It is national election and not a regional one. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

indicscripts

@HemmyHighlander:, the reason for not adding indic scripts to the lead/infobox is the content guideline WP:INDICSCRIPTS. I hope that answers your question. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Birth State

Can anyone change his birth from Vadnagar, Gujarat, India to Vadnagar, Bombay State, India. When he was born Gujarat didn't exist and it is convention across the world and in wikipedia to give birth location as the name of the place at that time and if confusing again as present day in brackets. Modi himself acknowledged that he was part of Maharashtra in his childhood, during an election rally today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.184.152 (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Premiership of Narendra Modi

@Everyking: I agree with User:Dharmadhyaksha that this kind of detail [2] on an administration doesn't belong in a biography page. Perhaps you would care to create a Premiership of Narendra Modi page, similar to Premiership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which can serve to hold all the details of the day-to-day governance. It can be cleaned up periodically. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please take the initiative. Such a page is of course necessary.Mohit Singh (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Works done as a Prime Minister

I had made an edit which was reverted by User:Vanamonde93. I do not understand why should there be an issue to add works done by a PM under the title of PM. If that is not supposed to go there then what is? Vanamonde93 states that the 'precise' content was earlier removed. I went through the history but could not find such an edit. If I failed to locate such an edit, please point it to me. As I could not find such an edit, I am putting back the content on the page.Mohit Singh (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Because this is a biography page, about Modi's life. We can't put every little detail of his government here. That is why I suggested above a separate page on his government ("Premiership" as it has been called in the past). Please create such a page where you can add such details easily. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I also have a bit of a problem that you don't put edit summaries for your edits. So, we have to look through each one laboriously. Can you please put edit summaries for your edits? Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mohit, the issue is that this is a biography of Modi where we are to cover a gist of his life and not just his tenure as PM. As PM he will launch many projects and those should not find place here as they would only fill up space with unnecessary details. all these details can go in another dedicated page of premiership. This page should have gist and summary of his actions. For example, he has made many diplomatic visits abroad and his major focus has been on our neighbouring countries. We should not write how and where he went when but we should summarize is that his focus has been on improving international relationships. I have hence also removed the content you added about Jan Dhan Yojana & Make In India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2014

The information given below the photo of the Prime Minister Sir is as: "Doosre dharmon ke khilaf nafrat failane wali haramzadi RSS ka kutta Modi (Modi the dog of the bastard RSS which spreads hatred against non-Hindu religions)".

Please change "Doosre dharmon ke khilaf nafrat failane wali haramzadi RSS ka kutta Modi (Modi the dog of the bastard RSS which spreads hatred against non-Hindu religions)" to Narendra Modi.

The comment is Malicious and hatred for a person who is representing the largest democracy in world and should be removed immediately. Please take action against the person who approve this comment.

Gaurav Asthana 1980 (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @SuperHamster:, this is a serious BLP violation, thank you for your prompt actions and thanks for marking this thread as "answered", I forgot it after 2x edit warning. BTW, what I was saying, it is a serious BLP violation, if you are not (are you?), I may go to ANI to report it. --Tito☸Dutta 07:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Article on Modi's wife, Jashodaben Chimanlal

In the past the article on Modi's wife, Jashodaben Chimanlal, has been deleted three times. In my opinion there was never a clear discussion about why this was deleted. The last discussion was three months ago. I have recreated the article and I am posting here to ask that Jashodaben Chimanlal be its own page and not redirect to Narendra Modi.

The bar for meeting Wikipedia's notability standards as inclusion criteria are low and this person meets it. Starting with general notability guidelines, here are some reliable sources which are about Jashodaben:

Interviews with her, "generally accepted as evidence towards notability if conducted by independent reliable sources" per WP:INTERVIEWS:

Those interviews present biographies, and here are some research sources which present biographies of this person:

Some sources say that Jashodaben has had an unfortunate life. Here are some commentaries about her situation which also contribute to WP:GNG.

For those who are unfamiliar with Indian politics, talking to or about Jashodaben is controversial. One journalist has said that he was threatened for trying to interview her. Other sources report that Jashodaben stayed with a religious celebrity to keep her out of public attention.

This person also meets WP:ANYBIO as the Spouse of the Prime Minister of India as that is an office distinct from any other person's office and recognized in Indian law as worth distinguishing. Here is a source confirming that she holds this position, and two other sources timed a month apart confirming that she gets the privileges associated with this office.

Past deletion discussions are below. I think all of these deletions were valid because never before has anyone sorted good sources from bad, or asked for a review of WP:GNG. Now that I am presenting the sources for this person and being more clear about the Wikipedia policies fulfilled, I would like this biography to stand.

Nick said that Wikipedia:Deletion review was the place to discuss this, but SmokeyJoe says that forum is not appropriate but this Modi talk page is.

The attention that Jashodaben is getting is WP:NOTINHERITED from Modi. Modi gets more attention for being the husband of Jashodaben than Jashodaben gets from being the wife of Modi, and an article on her life story can stand alone. Please remove the Wikipedia:Page protection from Jashodaben Chimanlal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Why is this parallel discussion started? I understand that User:SmokeyJoe suggested that this should happen here. But there is no official closer yet on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 30. And what's with that "systemic bias" thing now? I and Redtigerxyz, two editors who endorsed deletion are self-identified Indians and many more delete voters in those 3 AfDs are Indians too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    DD, systemic bias does not necessarily follow national identities. Indians can be as prone to systemic bias against underrepresented India topics as anyone else. That said, I'm not sure this is a systemic bias issue but rather it is one of differences in the interpretation of notability. Whether Jashodaben is notable enough for an article or not is a murky enough topic to warrant discussion and perhaps this is the right place for that. --regentspark (comment) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think a page on Jashodaben would be a bad idea. We will just fill it up with hearsay and fight over what is gossip and what isn't. This is not fit for an encyclopedia. We have better things to do with our lives than fight over this. It is private business and we should let it lie private. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no real coverage of Jashodaben Chimanlal not deriving from her brief marriage to Narendra Modi. Per BLP1E, a separate article is not appropriate, it would only be a collection of trivial mentions, no actual direct secondary source coverage of her. There is negligible material on her in this article, and so arguments for a WP:SPINOUT of his youthtime wife have no merit. Coverage within this article is naturally constrained, much per WP:UNDUE, and would be unconstrained in a spinout. It is appropriate that the redirect is protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal

An article is at Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal and discussion is at Talk:Marriage_of_Narendra_Modi_and_Jashodaben_Chimanlal#Name_change_.22Jashodaben_Chimanlal.22_to_.22Marriage_of_Narendra_Modi_and_Jashodaben_Chimanlal_.22. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark as WP:NPOV. Article is biased with WP:UNDUE topic choices and an ideological slant.

It also quotes highly ideological sources in a polarized context. Quoting Martha Nussbaum for "Summarizing academic views" on the Gujarat riots is like using Chomsky to summarize US foreign policy. She is also at best a tertiary source. Also too much weight on Gujarat riots from 2002 when there is a separate article on that, and despite numerous judicial reviews finding little or no evidence to connect these with Modi. This section clearly violates WP:BLPCRIME in WP:BLP. By contrast, significant initiatives since Modi became PM, a far more powerful position, are relegated to a small area. Like an article about Obama only talking about his time in Chicago. Initiating a discussion to mark this as WP:NPOV. Puck42 (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sakes do not bring up old arguments about Martha Nussbaum; those have been addressed several times over. The weight currently given to the sections is entirely appropriate, because Modi has been PM for approximately five months, and he was CM for 12 years. Moreover, the riots have received a tremendous amount of coverage in scholarly sources, and it is using such coverage that we determine due weight. BLPCRIME applies to low-profile figures; for high-profile figures, WELLKNOWN is the correct guideline to follow. Media sources are no good here, because there are just too many. A year or two from now, there will be far more coverage of his premiership, and those sections will certainly need to be expanded. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Riots have their own page, it does not justify that amount of repeat coverage here. BLP is rapidly changing, even the Introductory section is outdated. Ideological arguments about development record in Gujarat have a place, but the introduction to the PM of India is not that place. What was valid 12 months ago is no longer valid so those arguments have little bearing. US-based tertiary sources, historians have little value in BLP when much rapidly changing analysis based on primary court documents are available with thousands of first-person accounts and painstaking evidence gathering.Puck42 (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the introduction is simply dated, Talking about Gujarat elections when the news is the victories in recent state elections under his leadership. Puck42 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is not very clear, but let me try and address the separate parts of it. The coverage of the riots is appropriate, as an enormous amount of the coverage Modi has received in scholarly sources is related to the riots. The nationality of the author of the source is absolutely irrelevant; find me a policy that says otherwise. Historians are, as a rule of thumb, considered reliable sources, and court rulings are not, being primary sources, especially when applied to a BLP. Modi's policy as PM is 5 months old, and has no substantial shape as yet; when it does, it will be covered, rest assured. If the development of gujarat is irrelevant to this article, then by extension none of his policies are, and that is absurd. The introduction is not dated yet; wikipedia is not a news organization, and what is recent news is irrelevant. He won the gujarat elections multiple times, and what happened more recently does not change that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You do not own Wikipedia so you don't need to assure me what shall be covered in the future. I have started to update introduction with the simpler edits. Modi is a contemporary figure. Historians are not the best source of current events. Political commentators and economists are creating analysis of his policies as PM. Will update shortly. The NPOV issue still remains. Puck42 (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Puck42. Some users think that they own Wikipedia and only they decide what is right and what is wrong. The neutrality of the introduction of this article is disputed for long. How can PM of India is considered controversial, just because some foreign authors/ news articles says so. What about other news articles/ scholars who say that he is a charismatic and one of the most popular leader in history of India? Courts have proven him and his administration non-guilty. The last para need to be corrected 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
If there are any facts under dispute, people are welcome to dispute them in the appropriate way, by opening new sections. Given that you say "courts have proven him non-guilty," your grip on facts seems to be tenuous at best. (No court has ever said a thing about Modi.) Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

I would like to include the link which includes recent visit of Narendra Modi ji visit to guwahati and some info about guwahati Sandeep911 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2014

Narendra Modi – Facts You don’t want to Miss

New.indiglamour (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Modi's Kashmir Flood

When Flood Washed Kashmir in September 2014 Modi https://m.Facebook.com/insaaauqif Bhat auqif (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Butcher of Gujarat

Butcher of Gujarat redirects here. [3] shows it is a term being used in the press to criticize Modi. This should probably be explained in the article in a neutral way, since readers arriving via the redirect will expect that. -- Beland (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfD discussion also mentioned the nicknames "Magician Modi" and "Yamaraj", which might also need to be explained or otherwise researched by interested editors here. -- Beland (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I would rather go for one more RfD, a term used by his political opponents need not be here. There were many others that were used like "Merchant of Death" and other. -sarvajna (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. A term thrown around by a political opponent during an election is not a valid redirect title unless it sticks (which it hasn't). --regentspark (comment) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 to Sarvajna's comment. If we were to record every nick name the opponents bestowed on him, we better have a List of critical nick names of Narendra Modi! ƬheStrikeΣagle 12:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
For other politicians this kind of information sometimes goes into a separate "public image" article, like at Public image of Barack Obama. Politicians are called a lot of things and Wikipedia has enough space to summarize all information which appears in reliable sources. I would support negative criticism like this going into an "image" article because in other cases, image articles tend to be balanced with both positive and negative criticism. In any case, reliable sources are necessary first. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
An article about Modi's image would be an unqualified disaster; this page is bad enough. The term seems not to have sufficient coverage to be redirected here, and should be RfD'd. If somebody feels it does have such coverage, a few sources would help, and them term would have to be explained in the article someplace. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I added information about Modi's image as a fashion icon and presented 8 sources discussing this. There are probably about 30 other English language sources talking about Modi's fashion even while he was minister of Gujarat, because this clothing choice has long been a part of his public image. Right now this is just part of the article, but if this were expanded further, then information like this is the sort of thing which could be summarized here but expanded into an image article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BOOK SOURCES

I think You do Not have the copyrights of the book texts you copied in the article from Marino, Andy (2014). Narendra Modi: A Political Biography. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 978-93-5136-217-3.

If material is indeed a copyright violation, you should remove it. Indicate clearly that you're removing a copy violation and indicate the source from which it has been copied so that others can check whether it is indeed a violation. You can use Template:Cclean on the talk page to clarify what you're doing. --regentspark (comment) 18:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Modi could be dragged into the title of Terrorism

there should be new election in Kashmir against Hurriyat that will prove what kashmiri want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhat Abdul Baari (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A Court in America are to issue a hearing to Deside if RSS should be claimed as a terrorist group, as Modi is part of the RSS would the ref and information come in handy?92.236.96.38 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

http://sikhsiyasat.net/2015/02/04/usa-new-york-court-to-hear-sikhs-for-justice-lawsuit-against-rss-in-april/

Long shot. The case has to conclude. Reliable sources need to figure out what the case means. And somehow all this has to be connected directly to Modi. Not going to happen for a long time. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you For the Reply Rengent, good Info back92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015

Please change the main picture of Narendra Modi to [[

File:Http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140824/images/2408eye modi1.jpg
PM Narendra Modi at Red Fort on the eve of Independence Day

]]

Aamaadmiaayehain (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We cant link to external images. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism Section

There should be a section for relevant Critizisms that have been said about this politician, and also collecting facts that shed other lights on him.

It is a good way of allowing other voices and documented negative facts to be collected. It seems there are enough correct thinkers and probably positively rewarded parties writing only the good about this politician.

I am from Spain and know nothing about this man, and very little about India, but I am sure there are negative relevant opinions, and proven facts that he would prefer that remain not covered. Pablo2garcia (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections tend to become POV magnets very quickly, and it is also very difficult to figure out due weight when those exist. It is much better to integrate any criticisms that have significant coverage in reliable sources into the body of the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This page is missing lot of into info which are negative, his controversies of suit with his name , khuni panja comment, puppy dog under car. But its very silly to see section of Fashion for brand, image, food looks like page is not neutral. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article comes across as being overly positive about Modi. But the negative aspects are minor issues that don't deserve to be listed in an encyclopedia. There is no solid negative information available about him, even though many people suspect that there should be. That is how things stand, for better or worse. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So food,branding and his kurtha are major issues ? Khuni panja (election commission gave warning) and puppy dog are his speeches and he was called hitler by congress and he called Kejriwal Pak agent and compared him with Naxalite. Everything must be included. Telangana Rashtra Samiti president said Modi is stupid for his comment on Telangaana. Modi's comment on malnutrition is controversy. For everything lot of refs are available. just google any word i mentioned. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is practically a fan site and the torrent of scepticism and downright opposition to him worldwide has been brushed under the carpet. That doesn't mean there should be a dedicated Criticism section but the whitewashers have got their way here. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My feeling is that both Modi and his critics waged a publicity battle, and Modi won it. So there is little point going back to the same old story. To my mind, there are two major issues of substance: (a) Modi did little to rehabilitate the 2002 victims, (b) his `Gujarat model of development' has been characterised as an authoritarian development. We could look for more information about those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It most certainly has become a fansite, but the vast number of invested supporters on Wikipedia make it almost impossible to clean up. Kautilya, I think the criticism of development in Gujarat has been broader than that; Jaffrelot, for instance, is essentially saying that it is a highly non-inclusive form of development, benefiting the wealthy/middle classes, and not anybody else. @Cowlibob: and myself were working on a userspace version, but I think both of us have been busy, and also the near impossibility of shifting the POV of this article makes it a thankless job. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Criticism sections are POV magnets, criticism should be present in relevant sections not all put into one place. The "criticisms" rasul has pointed out are trivial, anyone who has spent some time following Indian politics would know things like the EC warning you and making inflammatory speeches during campaigns are common place. What's important is lasting impact. The image section should be present as how a politician is perceived is important (similar ones are present in FAs for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) though I wonder if the section is POV especially the fashion sub section. It's really difficult to be motivated to tackle this article as even the improvements that are made are eventually butchered by the time it gets enough time on mainspace which is unfortunate. I hope it will change with time. Cowlibob (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Which issues are trivial? calling contestant leader agent of other country. If you want to compare this article with Obama or Hillary, show me any controversy of issue missing regarding them missing. Kurtha is added as image but negative issue raised about it is omitted. If all Indians know the issues then what is problem in including it here ? Here every thing positive is given over weight and negative is given zero weight. Making inflammatory speeches during campaigns are common place, is this the reason his controversy comments omitted ? --Rasulnrasul (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this information required?

@Rasulnrasul: added this info and they say "ts related early and personal life.". Yes it is related but every word that appears in the media related to Modi's personal life need not be added here. What his estranged wife think hardly deserves a mention in the page of Modi. -sarvajna (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Its not media words, its his wifes words about him and her wish to reunite. So if you want to remove media words you can remove half of the page, especially image section. His wifes words about relation are more important than his fashion, Branding and food. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
More detail than is necessary. Perhaps a simple "They continue to live apart although Jasodaben has said she would like to live with Modi", or something along those lines. Assuming there is more than one source for that desire. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Few more refs for her statement washingtonpost, Mid-day, in Hindi, ABN telugu tv report, Sakshi telugu tv report --Rasulnrasul (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on the sources provided, I think one sentence along the lines of what I suggest above is reasonable. --regentspark (comment) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be more reasonable to write her exact statement, if you are thinking about something unnecessary, please look into complete article. There is lot of unnecessary info. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no need for a quote. The useful information is that she's expressed the wish to be with him. Never a good idea to use quotes. --regentspark (comment) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No need for that particular quote. regentspark's text is fine. --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Why it is reasonable or Not good idea or fine not to quote. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --NeilN talk to me 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of piling on, Rasul, see WP:NOTNEWS. Anything more than a one sentence summary is going to be undue weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. And along with WP:NOTNEWS, quotes are devoid of context. Much better to use, say, the Washington Post statement "she still hopes to join him one day in the capital as his spouse" because that is a secondary source that is summarizing the content of what Modi's wife said. And, of course, there is the reductio ad absurdum example of an article that contains only quotes because everyone wants to pop their favorite ones into it. Quotes should be used only if they add meaningful information that cannot be conveyed otherwise. --regentspark (comment) 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
^ RP tells it like it is..... Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Quotes should be used only if they add meaningful information that cannot be conveyed otherwise --then plese check all the quotes in article and let me know which quote is required and which is not required. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
None of them is required. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a source of quotes. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Then what about all the comments in article. Is this According to Vogue India editor Priya Tanna in a New York Times blog, "Never before has there been such a strong convergence between what a politician in India stands for and his clothing." Is this not undue weight? --Rasulnrasul (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Relax, nobody you are arguing with right now was responsible for that text, and likely nobody who is currently discussing this thinks it is due weight. All RegentsPark is saying is that quotes from the subject tend to be meaningless, because there are so many, and they are frequently out of context. The comment you are referring to is from the source, not from Modi. That said, it is still probably undue weight, and I would support its removal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations

I am not sure when the citation style began to change but it is making a right mess of things. Please can we stick with the style that was in place for several years rather than drift towards a Harvard/Sfn style that is throwing errors in the article. Whoever introduced it clearly doesn't understand the system they were using. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I can clean it up a bit. What errors are you getting? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Red warnings all over when using Ucucha's tool - that's because the links are not set up correctly. But in any event, WP:CITEVAR applies. As far as I am aware there has been no consensus for this change of style and we are now mixing two different styles. Don;t get me wrong, I like {{sfnp}} but when another style has been around for so long and is so embedded in the article, changing a few bits just confuses things further. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Ucucha is picky about redundant harv tags. I got rid of those. There are two missing citations: Guha 2008 and Kochanek 2007. I have no idea what they are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed. Ucucha asks you to include this line:
window.checkLinksToCitations = false;
to suppress errors from redundant harv tags. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There are two missing citations: Guha 2008 and Kochanek 2007. I have no idea what they are. This is precisely why {{sfnp}} etc doesn't work well in high-traffic articles where a lot of excitable newbies, pov-pushers etc edit, and especially so when they are prone to breaching NOTNEWS.

When I am in the mood, I will trawl through the history to find Guha and Kochanek, and I will get rid of all the harv styles in favour of the format that existed previously. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The GUha and Kochanek stuff came in with this edit by Vanamonde93. Perhaps they can resolve it? I'm not sure that the changes were beneficial in any event, even if the citation style had stayed the same. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added the missing book refs so hopefully no more errors. Cowlibob (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was distracted. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cowlibob. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Godhra train burning perps were Islamists

"2002 Gujarat Riots" section pulls the usual stunt that many dishonest writeups on the subject do: it does NOT mention the fact that a court of law actually convicted several Islamists for burning the train and killing people in what (the court said) was an act of pre-meditated act of arson and murder. The detail can be found in Wikipedia . Not only does this article hide that fact, but it also conveys the impression that the fact of Islamists being the perps of the train burning was merely "rumors". A decent encyclopedia should consider a court ruling a more authentic statement of fact than the opinions or claims of an ill-formed (or worse, prejudiced) author. This article needs to be semi-un-protected so that necessary edits can be made to make it more truthful in this regard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ateditor (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:RS. I have no value judgements about court rulings in general, but on Wikipedia, they carry no weight. What you need is a scholarly source saying what you want to put into the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I am rubbing my eyes in disbelief. Do we identify criminals through a popular vote among "scholars"!?
The court did not sit on judgment of matters that needed scholars to decide. The court adjudicated on a criminal matter, which required police inquiry and sifting through evidence and interpretation of law, not a scholarly debate. In other words, its judgment must be source material for "scholars" and for encyclopaedias.
Wikipedia's purpose is not identifying criminals. We report information as determined by scholarly consensus. (Of course, a court judgement might affect scholarly consensus, or it might not. It is not our concern.) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for reporting facts. It is a fact that a court has convicted several Islamist arsonists for targeting the train and that fact is very relevant to the topic. First and foremost that fact needs to be mentioned. Does some "scholar" have a problem with that conviction? Does he the want to run his own "court" and award a different "judgment"? Let him. Put that too in wikipedia if you think that too is relevant. But it's ridiculous to argue Wiki's job is not to report facts. It's kinda like regurgitating the arguments of 9/11 "scholars" and Michael Moore with not a word on the judicial process or federal investigations surrounding the atrocity. You are insulting the whole concept of an encyclopedia when you argue that relevant facts of the topic don't need to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgotpass (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

Neutrality of article is questionable, much information has been skipped particularly negative and silly points and sections have to added. Please look at discussion comments
Talk:Narendra_Modi#Criticism_Section and Talk:Narendra_Modi#Is_this_information_required
--Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


There are so many issues with the neutrality of this article that one doesn't know where to begin. Let us consider the last two paras in "2002 Gujarat Riots" section. Two people are quoted regarding Modi's "involvement" in riots, as if the claimed "involvement" is a proven fact: one Martha Nussbaum and a Celia Dugger. How exactly are these two people comprehensively representative of all that needs to be said on the subject? It seems only these two (and no one else contradicting them) were chosen to selectively project a partisan view.

The article does need to be unprotected so that corrections can be made to remove the bias and improve its quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgotpass (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fashion

There's been some sentiment expressed above that this article is too favorable to Modi. Given the coverage that he has been given in scholarly sources, it seems to me that the first place to make changes is the fashion section; it is given far too much weight. Thoughts? @Sitush and Kautilya3: Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed Fashion as well as branding. If someone can write a meaningful sentence or two, that could - possibly - go in the main Image section but this was a tad ridiculous. --regentspark (comment) 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion: simply expand the existing sentence, "He is known for his charismatic speeches." to (say) "He is known for his charismatic speeches, and even seen as a fashion icon". Also the section can be further trimmed and copyedited, eg "Modi's 31 August 2012 post on Google Hangouts made him the first Indian politician to interact with netizens on live chat." is nothing more than jargon-heavy, outdated recentism. Resisting urge to get sucked into this black hole :) Abecedare (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, RP. A sentence would not go amiss, perhaps, but more solid sourcing that the previous version had. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed the charismatic thing. It is sycophantic nonsense - all successful politicians make charismatic speeches and indeed, by definition, are charismatic. Even those at the extremes, such as Hitler, Stalin, Castro etc. They also all make crap speeches and have a tendency to say a lot and do rather less (eg: Modi's obeisance to the "rape in India" issue but lack of actual action, for which he has got a massive amount of criticism in op-eds etc). - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why was the fashion section removed? I put it here for consideration. RegentsPark, you say that it was "ridiculous" and "mere fluff". Vanamonde93, you say that it is "too favorable to Modi". Can you both say more about the problem with this content? A large number of sources covered this topic. Is there some problem with the sources, the way they were summarized, was there an inappropriate slant to only positive fashion coverage, or what is the objection? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an edit war over this but a collection of news articles on a peripheral characteristic does not a Georgio Armani make! One line, if even that, under image is more than due. Think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason why it was removed is already stated, and others seem to agree. Indian news sources, in particular, tend to be very fluffy and sycophantic when it comes to people in positions of power but there is no need for an encyclopaedia to reproduce that trash. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What Sitush said. Moreover, a high-profile subject like Modi is going to have literally millions of articles about him; which is why I would argue that we should stay completely off the media sources as far as possible, especially when it comes to figuring out due weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sitush Vanamonde93 RegentsPark About the quality of sources - The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time magazine are among the American sources cited. These are among the most respected publications in the United States, so I have trouble understanding why they should not be considered as reliable sources. As for the Indian publications - Outlook and India Today are international magazines sold in every country, including where I live in the United States. The Times of India, The Hindu and Hindustan Times are all 100-year old newspapers which seem to be well respected also, and also available internationally. What kind of media sources are appropriate? Are these not among the most popular and internationally read news sources from India?
RegentsPark, you call it peripheral, but there is fashion coverage continually when Modi travels and that is very unusual for anyone. Sitush, American newspapers cover this, and from American perspective, it is only strange and no one would call it fluffy. Vanamonde - what do you mean stay away from media sources? What else exists? The newspapers of record for both India and the United States covered this.
If the sources are a problem then I want to know more about the problem. If the weight is the problem then I would move this to Fashion of Modi or some other such place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue is not RS or even NPOV, as in flattering/detracting content. It's due-weight. Everyday there are several hundred newspaper articles written that mention Modi, and it is always possible to pick and choose sources covering a singular aspect of his personal or political life. That is the reason it is almost always an error to try to determine due-weight by looking at daily coverage (and not just for Indian pols or celebrities: there were enough sources to create a well-sourced article on Michelle Obama's arms, which was rightfully deleted).
A better way to determine due weight for a contemporary figure is to:
  • check on/off-wiki biographies of comparable historical figures. The Nehru jacket, which is mentioned briefly in the Jawaharlal Nehru article, would be the closest analog to Modi kurta, although the former has had a more lasting effect; and
  • check comprehensive/academic sources on the subject to see what weight they place on an aspect. In this case, even the Lance Price bio, which is focused on the Modi campaign, devotes only one of its 20 chapters to Brand Modi (Chapter 13), only part of which covers his fashion sense. The Financial Times review of the book does not even mention clothing or fashion. Rajdeep Sardesai's book on the 2014 election campaign, which covers Modi extensively, pays even less attention to fashion than Price, only mentioning "his signature half-sleeved white kurta" in passing.
In the next 5-20 years, we will have a better idea of whether this topic deserves any more/less weight. But as of now, Modi as a fashion icon can be covered in a sentence or so in this article; it does not rate any greater coverage, or an article of its own keeping WP:DUE and WP:ENC in mind. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Abecedare put it very well; it is not the reliability that is in question, but a question of due weight. What else exists? Scholarly sources; last I checked, there were comfortably more than a thousand books and journal articles that covered Modi in any detail. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to BluRasberry's note on WT:FASH I came over to take a look. I think it's worth covering in the same way it currently is. I defer to editors more familiar with the Indian media than I for their assessments of the worth of that coverage, but leaders' sartorial choices can be important and well-chosen for their symbolism, and here's The Washington Post making direct connections between his style and his politics. And it links to The New York Timess fashion blog saying much the same thing:

Indeed, even by the standards of India itself, where leaders have perhaps understood the use of clothing as a communication device better and longer than any of their international peers (see: Mohandas K. Gandhi’s adoption of the dhoti, Jawaharlal Nehru’s jacket, and Indira and Sonia Gandhi’s saris, made from traditional Indian khadi), Mr. Modi stands out. Literally and strategically.

Coverage along this theme, analyzing his clothing choices in terms of his politics, seems to me to be relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DC, as so often you clearly know nothing about the background here. This issue has been discussed repeatedly since well before Modi became Prime Minister. At one point, the article said something like "Modi wears business suits to business meetings" and there was a big row about that also, involving activist supporters of his party. What is apparent every time such a row develops is that the Modi fan club swings into action on WP: they love to bury bad news and promote the good, however trivial.
You are aware, of course, that modern political leaders change their clothing according to the circumstances? Or are you one of the idiots who just sucks it up and thinks, "oh, that's a nice jacket for the occasion"? Formal gear for formal occasions, casual gear for casual occasions, etc. We all do this: it just happens that high-profile people get more coverage and journalists (but not encyclopaedia writers) have to fill space with something.
I know you are keen to improve coverage of "fluffy" issues - you mean well, however misguided - but I'd be more interested if there were sources out there addressed his choice of fashion brands in the context of his repeated PR blurb that he lives a frugal lifestyle etc. I doubt that there are any but I know a few journalists who might oblige! - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It really seems to me as if your (ahem) beef is with the Indian media. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sitush I added information about a suit that Modi wore which was criticized in the context of his supposed humble lifestyle. I hope that makes this section closer to what you were imagining.
Abecedare This might be WP:UNDUE as you say and if it is then I will move it somewhere else. WP:ENC is governed by WP:N, and I would not suggest making an article which does not pass WP:N. If this content is not due in this article then I would be happy to move it to a subarticle. Right now I fail to recognize what seems to be your complete resistance to covering this topic.
Vanamonde93 I feel like you are criticizing this content too harshly. I used excellent news sources covering Modi's fashion, and you tell me that scholarly sources are better. Of the 200 sources currently being used in this article at least 170 of them are also newspapers. I feel like you are expecting scholarly sources on fashion when you will tolerate less good sources elsewhere. I know that other stuff exists but of all the criticism that could be made against this article the fashion section in my opinion is among the best sourced parts in my opinion.
If there are still objections, then I propose as a compromise that I move this content to its own article, link to it from here, and perhaps then someone can propose it for WP:AfD. At AfD it can be determined whether this is more like Michelle Obama's arms or a stand-alone topic. Thoughts from anyone? What next? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry, that is not what I am saying. I am not talking about verifiability, or notability, I am talking about WP:DUE weight. Modi has, quite literally, millions of media sources talking about him. Therefore, we cannot use media sources to determine what aspects we should cover in the article. If a scholarly source were to be found that does make the connection, that would be different. The fashion section is as long as the riots section, for goodness sake! D'you know how many media sources cover that? If we gave those sources the same weight, this article could be turned into a thesis. It needs to be significantly pruned; there is no way around that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have summarized the Fashion section, which had grown into a 10kilo-byte behemoth, in a (admittedly lengthy) sentence per WP:DUE and the above discussion (diff). Feel free to tweak, copyedit etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Noticed that the diff is practically indecipherable so, if interested, see here for the previous lengthy version, and the second paragraph here for the replacement summary. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks Abecedare. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, I like this too. I put the rest of the content at Public image of Narendra Modi. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

I hereby want to send my request to edit this page with more relevant information that is reliable.Hence I submit my request to edit this page at the earliest Arunprakash1990 (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide your suggested changes in X→Y format. Thanks. — Yash! (Y) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Narendra Modi crack down On NGO from america and europe, shall we create a section or leave it?

From low key threats to internional warnings, im guessing a section on the latest NGO funding crack down needs be placed on here?

So to break it down NGOs are being used by charities who act on behalf of forgien goverments to disrupt A nations Sovereignty, Which in turn starts the ball rolling for a large inner conflict. Same thing seems to happening is in russia. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102616455 http://www.rferl.org/section/crackdown-on-ngos-in-russia/3272.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_foreign_agent_law

While the BJP or rss has this (Ghar Wapsi) Program, Outside goverments use whats dubbed as Microfinancing Christian Programs, which works in the same manner as The Ghar wapsi.

http://www.sephi.com/microfinancing-loans-or-christian-missionaries-in-disguise-2/ http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/may/stayingonmission.html

US Reply to the cut of NGO By modis bjp http://www.newsweek.com/modis-war-foreign-ngos-will-have-dire-consequences-332314

Germany Reply to the cuts by modi bjp http://time.com/3851480/india-germany-ambassador-steiner-ngo-support/

Another warning here http://www.counterview.net/2015/05/top-british-weekly-economist-warns-modi.html92.236.96.38 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Tadaa

Tadaa (talk · contribs) This is an interesting section i believe. However would it be relevant in THIS article depends on if Narendra Modi has personally cracked down upon it or is it being led by the BJP as a party ? How about this, in response, you type out the section here on the talk page and well build consensus to it and then you can copy it to main article as a new section or heading under the relevant part. i will be writing about the recent #modiinsultsIndia, so you can probably write about it there or wherever as you may seem fit . Cheers. Anonymousbananas (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_13&oldid=1137034958"