Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Lead too long

At six paragraphs, and heavens knows how many words, the lead is a gross violation of MOS:LEAD and well short of the standards expected of any article, let alone a theoretical good article. I've trimmed some undue early life details, but the lead is going to need plenty more trimming to get it into some sort of better shape. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

delete the democratic backsliding, nobody cares much. congress just won karnataka. BlackOrchidd (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There are 5 paragraphs, not 6. Capitals00 (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are now. I merged two, and that was where I got stuck. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And I've reverted all your nonconsensual edits back to the chief (GA) author's last edit. Let them (admin Vandermonde93) trim it if they so desire. A new consensus comprises a lot more than making a perfunctory post on the talk page and writing an ungrammatical and distorted summary in poor prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have any problem with the version then propose it here. Your comment "Let them (admin Vandermonde93) trim it if they so desire" reeks of WP:OWN. Capitals00 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is important to keep and there can be no reason to remove it: "During his second ministry, Modi received criticism for maintaining silence over ceding land to China, Adani scandal and Manipur violence."

Changing the sentence "Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan: the airstrike failed,[13][14] but had nationalist appeal" to "Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against Pakistan but the strike failed and the Modi administration took 8 months to admit the deaths of 6 Indian military personnel caused by a friendly fire" is also important. What do you mean by "nationalist appeal"? The so called mainstream media of India for the last many years is dedicated to turning anything into "nationalist appeal" by adding misinformation and ignoring important facts and making it appear as if entire nation is cheering for Modi. Such impact shouldn't be entertained here. Instead, it is important to highlight that Modi administration took 8 months to admit its biggest loss in the conflict.

Also, I disagree with your wording here. The former was clearly better. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the last, I've simply rewritten two clauses combined by subordination (with while, similar to whereas, or even although) with two independent clauses separated by semi-colons. It routine, especially as there is no semantic subordination, i.e. in emphasis or meaning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This wording is not better than the former. Nobody is going to understand your use of the term "pro-growth" Capitals00 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde: You should know that your name is being used in an appeal from authority, in addition to this similar guff: "do not edit war with an experienced competent editor". Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The words in place are of admin Vanamonde93, not mine. Please see their last edit. They are the chief author of this page and of the GA. I have simply combined the six paragraphs and removed verbiage or things that are no longer notable. The prose size is now 565 words and four paragraphrase. The FA Richard Nixon has 693 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead of Barak Obama has 545 words, and thus comparable. So are: George W. Bush (561 words), Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a proper justification for content removal here. It is entirely WP:DUE for the lead. Your words comparison of this GA with FAs is not making sense. Nobody is nominating this article for FA, neither anyone is thinking of it. Dympies (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I restored the chief GA author's last edit, whose sources, all, seemed to emphasize the "alleged" nature of the terrorist camp, overshooting the target, and the patriotic appeal which helped the ruling party win the election, helped by newspapers that reported only perfunctorily on the Indian helicopter lost to friendly fire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is attempting to nominate the article at FAC, but how else are you going to justify the claim of excessive length if the article's lead is not much longer than FAs that are rigorously vetted for length? Thus far I have not seen any semantic or stylistic justification for verbosity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You are still not addressing why "nationalist appeal" needs to be highlighted but not the 6 military deaths which was kept hidden by Modi administration for months. Capitals00 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If you like FAs, then you should appreciate the part of MOS:LEADLENGTH where it states that "Most Featured Articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 15 sentences, or about 300 words total. Trimming the overlength lead was normal, routine editing, as should be obvious, and your initial response here fell far short of AGF. "I've reverted all your nonconsensual edits ... and distorted summary in poor prose" is no way to address an editor out-of-the-blue. Since you have now reduced the lead yourself, you clearly recognize, or at least acknowledge, the problem with respect to our guidelines. But you have only done this because I have prompted discussion, so my service to the project is already plain. I have raised an issue that was neglected by others. A GF response to this would be: "You're right, it needs shortening, but I think we should go about it differently." Since you have made several of the exact same edits here and here, as I did here, here - removing the keshubhai patel material and trimming the 2014 election sentence, clearly, by virtue of your own edits, you confirm that something was done right, unless, you are also a perpetrator of "nonconsensual edits" and "distorted summary". Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have not changed the style, nor the content of Vanamonde93's last edit, only removed some things that are not as notable at the end of Modi's second term as they were in the middle of his first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not the first time by any means. It is acknowledged in Vanamonde93's edit summaries earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

After all, the Balakot airstrike and the Delhi riots took place long after the GA run. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You changed the wordsmithing, making the prose disjointed. It can't be done in the lead (of all places) in a longstanding GA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, if that is correct, a copyedit would have sufficed? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A copyedit does not produce good prose. It only removes syntactical errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That depends on the ability of the copyeditor. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy-editors do not write good prose, only correct prose; otherwise, they would have peopled the ranks of FA writers.

The version I was looking at, to which you contributed, immediately failed the first of the good article criteria Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So you were speaking to the collective? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have removed some things less relevant now than they were in 2017, which was also the purpose of my edit - hence the bizarreness of reverting the works of others only to repeat it. What the relevance of the style of Vanamonde's last edit is here, I am not sure. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, you turned it into poor, disjointed prose. It can't be done in a GA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, you repeated at least one of my edits almost identically, so it can't all have been 'poor, disjointed prose'. (And can't you think of a more civil way of saying that?) Where, pray, did I render the prose poor and disjointed exactly? Specifics would be instructive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• What is "non-[[Indian National Congress|Congress]] prime minister" in the first reference to the Indian National Congress?
• In the second paragraph, you removed his entire childhood, leapfrogging from birth straight to age 19.
• What is "which resulted in 1,000 to 2,000 deaths, mostly Muslims" if not a distortion, as the two estimates but nothing in-between are based on two different sets of sources, the official and the independent? No one said, for example that 1,500 died.
• What does, "criticised for its record on health, poverty and education indices in the state.?" Was the record abysmal, or did it only fail significant improvement, as stated in the previous edit?
• What is: "lower house of the [[Lok Sabha|Indian parliament]] if not an easter-egg; for the Indian parliament is not the Lok Sabha?
• What is "such" in "the first such majority since 1984?" How is the reader to divine what it means, i.e. a single party and not a coalition? The BJP was a coalition but had achieved a majority on its own. Between 1984 and 2014, many coalitions, but no single party, achieved that distinction.
• What is "His administration legislated to raise direct foreign investment?" The administration is a part of the executive branch and only a small part of the legislative branch. The administration does not legislate, the party and its supporters do, or sometimes, its opponents do: e.g. " and trans youth, in particular — as the Republicans attempt to legislate them out of existence. 30 Apr. 2021" cited in Webster's
• What does, "His administration legislated to ... reduce spending on healthcare, education, and social-welfare programmes" as they may not have legislated anything, just not spent the allotted funds?
• What does, "In 2019, Modi's administration launched the Balakot airstrike against Pakistan but the strike failed ..." mean? It wasn't against Pakistan, only against a target in Pakistan, which was alleged to be a terrorist training camp. Foreign news reporters who visited it later found it to be full of children reading books. So, why the "but" even if the foreign reporters were duped?
• What is, "it was later revealed that six Indian military personnel were killed by friendly fire." when said admission took place six months later, long after the elections had been won on an unblemished record of patriotism?
• Why is "resulted in 53 deaths, mostly Muslim" more notable than "Muslims were brutalized and killed by Hindu mobs?" I note Muslims in the 2020 Delhi riots were brutalized in such fashion that case after case of lacerated genitals appeared in the ERs of nearby hospitals, the "circumcision," a non-Hindu practice, being ascertained by the mob first?
• Why did you remove the sentence or clause that followed the previous one: "sometimes with the complicity of police forces controlled by the Modi administration.?" The police look the other way, ... and a summary is removed?
• What is "During his second ministry, ...?" without a link, an ecclesiastical one, a body of administrators, a period of office of a government, or simply one such department, e.g. finance ministry, defence ministry, ...?
• Do you want me to keep going?
• Can someone help me out here @Keith D, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Abecedare:? How long do competent editors earnestly continue this back-and-forth? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Balakot airstrike indeed failed to hit any target and BJP hide 6 military deaths for 8 months. This is 100% WP:DUE.

"Muslims were brutalized and killed by Hindu mobs" is not better than "resulted in 53 deaths, mostly Muslim". Same thing happened during 2002 Gujarat riots but we haven't mentioned anything like "brutalized and killed by Hindu mobs" for it.

"sometimes with the complicity of police forces controlled by the Modi administration" is WP:UNDUE for the lead because this page is about Modi, not the riots.

Second Modi ministry concerns "During his second ministry, Modi received criticism for maintaining silence over ceding land to China, Adani scandal and Manipur violence". There is no reason to remove this from the lead.

I have only described the points that I had added or edited. Capitals00 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would reply if I thought you had made a good faith effort to acknowledge my questions, let alone answer them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I would have preferred it if you had stuck to my edits/my version, which you haven't here. Case in point, I removed the "mostly Muslims" stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The GA version of this article (440 words) was from 2017, before the BJP won its second term, so the landscape has changed. The lead has another four years of details to summarize. Modi isn't a mosquito trapped in amber; all things change. The material that you have chosen to restore includes a statement that the lead defines as having "not been reliably corroborated" - ok, great, so why then is it in the lead, if it is, by all accounts, unverified information? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It is in the lead because the tea selling is a much-told story not least by the subject himself. Further, the story has been retold not just by pre-election, softball, biographies, which is all he has allowed, but also by Barak Obama in Time magazine. As the myth has become very notable, the fact that it is not reliable, that it is flat out contradicted by childhood neighbors and elders, is very notable. He had also claimed to have swum with crocodiles and to be immune to poison. Those we don't mention, as those myths have not gained traction. Summing up, when a myth has become omnipresent, myth-busting becomes notable, not by us, though, we are only reporting the reliable sources that have busted the myth.

It is not "unverified" in the meaning of the existence extra-terrestrial beings, or the Loch Ness monster, being unverified. There, there is no evidence. Here the evidence is there but the more reliable one is against the myth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So we promote the myth only to dismiss it? Is that truly necessary? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't promote the myth, only state what is notable about it. The same with abandoning his wife. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Well with respect to the GA guidelines, the second paragraph is still not good. It drags its feet on the trivial. This particular statement: "He was introduced to the RSS at age eight." is terribly written. "introduced" is vague, and does not convey any sense of importance - being introduced to something could mean anything from a cursory introduction to indoctrination - what exactly is this saying? (And I have read the page; I know what it means - my point is that the lead summary, at present, does not convey this.) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The introduction to the RSS has been already discussed. See the talk page record. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not "a friendly fire," @Dympies:, only "friendly fire." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Questions for Iskandar323

@Iskandar323: Apologies for creating a subsection, but it will help to untangle the responses. See, for example, this post of mine of 11 June 2023, on this talk page which stated: "He was introduced to the RSS at age eight: Being introduced to the RSS, in its usual meaning, is not the same thing as being introduced to chess, baseball, or the piano. It presupposes the maturity to process ideology. Very likely, he was introduced to adults active in the RSS and began to go to some morning drills for children. The details of his initiation must be there in the sources. That sentence should be made age-appropriate."

But I let that post remain there for days if not weeks, and upon Vanamonde93's return when they chose not to take up my suggestion, I respected their judgment. For they have spent an inordinate time on the article and made what is a superhuman effort. I did not dicker away gloriously in the lead without missing a beat after my perfunctory talk page post justifying my notions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly did not lop off the childhood, the reference to finishing secondary school, the self-promoted Horatio Alger stories, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of "he became a junior cadet in the RSS", or "he started attending classes/junior activities with the RSS" would be more useful - it seems like the RSS had some sort of ideological boy scout setup. Sounds like just about the most boring thing you can do at the age of eight and a waste of good childhood, but I guess it was best investment ever by the RSS! Iskandar323 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: :) True, though the parent has had some misgivings lately about the paths trodden by the child. But you are correct; there must be much pride. Either of your suggestions, preferably the first, would be fine, as long as it can be reliably sourced. We can leave it here for Vanamonde93's perusal. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Questions for Dympies

Dear @Dympies: As in this edit, with edit summary, "restore text that seems necessary for the lead," you have changed the original sentence as last edited by Vanamonde93:

"Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan: the airstrike failed, but had nationalist appeal. Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed.

to:

Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against Pakistan but the strike failed and the Modi administration took 8 (sic) months to admit the deaths of 6 (sic) Indian military personnel caused by a (sic) friendly fire.<Defense post references><all of Vanamonde93's references> Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed.

by clumping all of Vanamonde93's carefully separated sources together but sticking your own citation from "The Defense Post" which has no byline, only a staff writer, up in the front, you now bear the WP:ONUS of defending their reappearance. In particular:

• What does, "In 2019, Modi's administration launched the Balakot airstrike against Pakistan but the strike failed ..." mean? It wasn't against Pakistan, only against a target in Pakistan, which was alleged to have been a terrorist training camp. Foreign news reporters who visited the site later found it to be full of children reading books. So, why the "but" even if the foreign reporters were duped?
• If the airstrike failed and the Modi administration took eight months to come clean about the loss of personnel to friendly fire, what makes the next sentence, "Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed." logically coherent as a follow-up? In contrast, Vanamonde93's follow-up was logical after an airstrike which failed, but its nationalistic appeal led to electoral dividends. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This was correctly addressed with these edits by Iskander. Here is The Hindu source supporting "first time the IAF has officially acknowledged" the 6 deaths.[1] Since failed Balakot strike was a part of first Modi ministery, it made more sense to keep it on the paragraph that also talks about the events from his first ministry such as demonitization. If you want to keep content about failed Balakot strike on the paragraph that discusses his 2nd Ministry, then we can mention "February 2019" for Balakot strike and "May 2019" for election victory. Dympies (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies: The question I asked was not about the deaths going unacknowledged officially, nor receiving perfunctory coverage in the Indian media, for that information has been in the article for months, and in the Balakot airstrike article for years, with much better sourcing to boot. The question was about changing Vanamonde93's sentence, with its sources, carefully selected for each clause, clumping the sources together at the end, and wedging a poor source, written by a staff writer, up in the front. How do you explain this?

Please don't bring Iskandar323 into this. It was you who made the revert. Presumably you had your reasons. You need to explain them, per WP:ONUS. It is WP policy. If you don't, and adequately, I will restore the version of the lead last edited by Vanamonde93 who is the chief author of the article, and the chief maintainer, from the time of its GA run. This is not about asserting article ownership on behalf of someone else, only the article's history of careful and meticulous maintenance.

Please don't keep using "ministry." I have already explained that it has multifarious meanings. Before the recent edits, the lead used the expressions "first term" and "second term."

You have not explained how—with your dismantling of the original first sentence on the failed Balakot airstrike—you have chosen to make the election victory a coherent (ie. semantically- and stylistically coherent) follow up. Please read my question carefully. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I got your point. The friendly fire incident does seem to be undue esp. for lead. Hence I am self-reverting my edit. Dympies (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, someone—it may have been @Capitals00:—made the point that "pro-growth" is not adequate, and even confusing. That is a good point, so thank you. I have now Wikilinked "growth" to Economic growth Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have retracted my above statement about undue. That said, I am not gonna restore my version unless we have consensus.

Your own explanation and the page 2019 Balakot airstrikes (see infobox), it seems 6 deaths are indeed part of the outcome that needs to be mentioned here.

Even if your explanation is accepted that how Modi "won comfortably" if the deaths were revealed before elections, is not wholly accurate with regards to your own wording. You could well ask that if the "strike failed" then how Modi won elections?

We can instead think of something else than "Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed." Or we can just shift the sentence (along with 6 deaths) back to the above paragraph like Iskander had. Dympies (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies: I request that you not suggest anything that attempts to directly edit the lead based on hasty bargaining. You should also self-revert the entirely inadequate edit:

During his second ministry, Modi received criticism for maintaining silence over ceding land to China, Adani scandal and Manipur violence.

It is not just poorly written, it is disastrously written. It smacks of WP:RECENTISM that even the most rabid political enemies of Narendra Modi will look askance at. You keep repeating "ministry," which I have already told you multifariously-splendored in meaning.

I request that you immediate self-revert all the edits. We can then discuss your proposed edits here and attempt a consensus. A consensus, need I remind you again, is not about hasty bargaining by editors of the moment, but takes time. It will need to allow the others, especially the chief author of this article, Vanamonde93, to weigh in. So again, self revert. Everything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

And my request for the self-revert includes whatever it is you are attempting to assert about Balakot. I mean this with utmost seriousness. You are messing with the longstanding lead of a WP:BLP WP:GA, and doing so lightly. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now reverted your last edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a nonstarter in a WP:BLP WP:GA. All three refer to events of the last year; two are to the last several months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

WHat is the meaning of "Chief author"? Did wiki defines this phrase?

As far as i know nobody can own any article on wiki or have any special say/naysay about any article/consensus/discussion. Even if @Vanamonde93Vanamonde is a "chief author" of this article , they have the same weight as others? BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

• I've been on break, and will not return to full activity for a few days yet. I'm not going to try to understand the back-and-forth here, but I'm not seeing length problems in the lead at present. I would remind everyone that the lead is a summary, and should be as brief as possible without sacrificing accuracy. The additions to the body require copy-editing, which I would be willing to take on in a few days time. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Few points. You removed the paragraph about Adani. Are you fine with restoring the sentences such as "In January 2023, Hindenburg Research revealed that it had short positions in India's Adani Group, a close ally of Modi's administration,[249] and flagged debt and accounting concerns. Concurrently, Hindenburg released a report claiming that Indian conglomerate Adani Group "has engaged in a brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades."[250] The opposition leaders called it the "biggest scam" and Modi has been criticized for his lack of reaction towards the scandal.[28][259][260]"?

What are your thoughts about the last version of the lead before minor edit-war happened?

This version (which I linked), correctly started the paragraph about Modi's second ministry with a separate paragraph and kept information succinct.

Do you support restoring the following sentences:

• Replace "Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan: the airstrike failed,[13][14] but had nationalist appeal." with "In 2019, Modi's administration launched the Balakot airstrike against Pakistan but the strike failed and it was later revealed that six Indian military personnel were killed by friendly fire."
• Readdition to the lead that "During his second ministry, Modi received criticism for maintaining silence over ceding land to China, Adani scandal and Manipur violence." Capitals00 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding material about the Adani group in general, but it needs to be written from the perspective of Modi's biography, and so copying material over is a bad idea. It's the relationship between Modi and Adani that's the highlight; not the details of what Hindenburg did. I also don't love the last sentence of that; the opposition will always criticize something, other reactions are more significant. As to the rest; the addition of friendly fire is okay, but the rest of the Balakot sentence is awkward, and "against Pakistan" is very vague. The last proposed sentence I dislike strongly; it's combining issues that are utterly unrelated, though they may individually merit mention. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan: the strike failed and it was later revealed that six Indian military personnel were killed by friendly fire." Would be fine? Capitals00 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This issue is not that sentence but whether it fits causally with the next. The current version:

Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan: the airstrike failed, but had nationalist appeal. Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed.

is semantically meaningful: the election that followed was nevertheless won because the display of a military response to an enemy state, successful or not, stirs patriotic feelings. Without "nationalistic appeal," what is the logical connection. Even Bogart, for example, never deadpanned Raymond Chandler's staccato sentences that disconnectedly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The main problem, as I see it, Vanamonde, is that the editors who have attempted to make tweaking run-throughs in the article recently, are not summarizing scholarly books systematically. Rather their tweaks are based on what sounds better to them or on what they consider due or undue. I think you should ask editors to submit a short list (no more than three) of scholarly books they think are important to the topic of Narendra Modi. Use your experience to add your own and make a list of no more than 12. Thereafter, add, subtract, rephrase, based on the overall emphasis of those 12. Thereafter, still, smooth out with journal article material. Otherwise, the back-and-forth, the dickering, will be random and unremitting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that there are not many books that are reliable and up-to-date and that provide an overview of Modi's government, rather than a detailed look at something specific. Even journal articles tend to focus on single incidents; the best overviews are honestly in long-form analyses of Modi's administration in international papers. As long as Modi is in power, some back-and-forth is inevitable as topics arise and better sources are written for older ones. I don't mind revising the lead every so often, so long as it's done carefully.

With respect to this specific sentence, some wordsmithing may handle it: "Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The airstrike failed, with a later revelation of the deaths of six Indian personnel to friendly fire: but the action retained nationalist appeal. Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the reviews and surveys in the literature, so that may well be the case.

As for your reformulation, action retained suggests that the nationalistic appeal survived revelation of the six deaths. In truth, the deaths were reported long after Balakot fever—in whose wake the election was won—had subsided.

Perhaps:

"Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The airstrike failed. Six Indian deaths to friendly fire were acknowledged later but not before Modi's party had won the 2019 general election riding a nationalistic wave."

might be more accurate, subject, of course, to your wordsmithing that gives is a consistent narrator's voice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that attributes Modi's election victory to the airstrike to an extent that I've not seen in the sources. I agree with the chronology problem, but I'd suggest the slightly modified: "Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The airstrike failed, and the deaths of six Indian personnel to friendly fire was later revealed: but the action had nationalist appeal. Modi's party comfortably won the 2019 general election which followed." Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's fine Vanamonde. The version referred to by Capitals00 is incoherent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "nationalist appeal", it is not important to mention because the so called mainstream media of India (see Godi media) for many years is dedicated to turning anything into "nationalist appeal" by adding misinformation and ignoring important facts and making it appear as if entire nation is cheering for Modi.

You should also take a look at this version. As already explained above (by Dympies), it moved the content about Balakot strike to above paragraph (since it was the part of First Modi ministry) instead of starting with the paragraph which is dedicated to Second Modi ministry. If we can do it again then there would be no concern over this sentence being adjusted with the one about election victory. Capitals00 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

The article is biased. The introduction is full of one-sided commentary against the PM of India. Please look into this, 110.226.179.175 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

PM Modi conferred with Grand Cross of the Order of Honour by president of Greece 25-Aug-23

plz addBlackOrchidd (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil16 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Content removed over grammatical issue

@Fowler&fowler: You removed my content citing grammatical issues. The said content reads: He identifies himself to be belonging to a "most backward caste". I won't mind if you replace a "most backward caste" with the most backward caste. Apart from the 2019 rally which has been cited by me as source, he said the same thing in a 2014 interview to Zee news (watch from 3:10 onwards). In both the instances, he spoke in Hindi and we can't clearly say if he meant "a most backward" or "the most backward". In fact, if we check the video of said 2019 rally from 1:20 onwards, he explicitly says that he doesn't belong to पिछड़ी जाति (backward caste) but अति पिछड़ी जाति (too backward caste). From what I understand, he didn't meant to say that his is the most backward caste of Gujarat. He uses the term "most backward caste" assuming that "most backward" is a classification for castes which are too backward. Its something like differentiating between Dalit and Mahadalit. Officially, there is no such thing like "most backward caste" in Gujarat. The official term is "OBC" but we aren't supposed to use it here as Modi himself has never used it. Dympies (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Without interpretation from secondary sources, I don't think that soundbyte is appropriate at all. We have no evidence that Modi is a dalit; and if he's not, what does "most backward" even mean? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're aware that removing surrounding quotes [a] "most backward caste" and rewriting it as the most backward caste is that the latter is an assertion in WP:WIKIVOICE which we can't do without being affirmed by a majority of RS, assuming there's a definitive of what "the most backward caste" is? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, we do have secondary sources which call him backward like this, this, this, this. They don't say "most backward" though. However, I guess we can't use them as citations due to our policy of using self-identification source for mention of caste/class. Considering this, I propose to use the same self-identification source (2019 rally) with a change in wording to:- He identifies himself to be belonging to a backward caste. Dympies (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This one seems even better:

He hails from a backward community.

References

-Dympies (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Rephrasing it to:- He hails from a backward caste background. Dympies (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thus far it is only you talking to yourself Dympies. Where is the consensus? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I kept on waiting for you expecting your rationale. But it seems you are reverting me for the sake of reverting. Anyways, how about replacing "a backward caste background" to "an OBC community? Dympies (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am on vacation and not active until the 16th; a consensus involves several editors and can take days if not weeks. It is not a matter of bargaining with howabouts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I suppose you have returned from vacation. Would you please explain your logic behind your recent reverts related to Modi's backward caste identity? Before you respond , let me requote what I am proposing:- He hails from an OBC community. (Citations are available above.) Dympies (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It will require both support in the reliable sources and tertiary sources (for due weight). I don't see that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Britannica article, for example, says nothing about his caste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, are we supposed to replicate Britannica? And why do you think its not due when both primary and secondary sources support it? Modi has repeatedly said this and its a thing which literally every Indian knows but we aren't adding it here.

@Vanamonde93, this isn't going well. Firstly the content was objected over grammatical issues and now, over tertiary sources. Please intervene. Dympies (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've explained my position above, Dympies. Our policies prohibit using solely independent sources (which is how I would prefer it, but I'm not making policy); but the self-identification in this case is meaningless. As such I would omit it altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I just read WP:CASTEID and found that it doesn't essentially mandate us to use a self-identification source for mentioning caste classification of a living person like FC, OBC, SC, ST. Considering that it has been widely published in media, it is beyond doubt that his caste classification is relevant in his political career. So, I suggest to leave the first two of the above listed citations and mention his OBC credentials citing the rest. Dympies (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Caste and politics go hand-in-hand in India. Modi has made several attempts to claim "backwardness". I don't see why it should be excluded from the article. Reeks of an attempt to obfuscate. Verifiability, not truth is the cornerstone. Please go ahead, @Dympies and add the information about his caste. Padurina (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde said omit it altogether. I say omit it altogether. Your sources are third-rate, besides. The one on the top of your heap was judged to be somewhere between Option 2: Unclear and additional considerations apply, and Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. See closing administrator's summary in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#Times_of_India_RFC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

F&f, aren't you trying to deflect this discussion? Its funny to see TOI being termed "unreliable" here. Anyways, you are well aware that TOI isn't the only source which says about his OBC credentials. There are dozens available on google out of which, I have already listed 7. As I said in my last comment, self-identification isn't essential for mentioning caste classification like OBC, SC, ST. If you still insist, we can use the ANI source along with remaining 5 to state that he comes from an OBC community. Your initial concern was over grammar. You could easily rephrase the sentence using your superior English skills but you chose to remove it altogether. On 11 August you came here stating that you are on vacation and won't be able to edit before 16th. Interestingly, after saying this, you managed to make as many as 75 edits during your "vacation period". And even after 15th, you had to be called here. Its clear that you have no good arguments and what you are doing here is time-pass. Dympies (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing user:Fowler&Fowler as a maestro of relocating goalposts with finesse is nothing short of acknowledging their unparalleled agility in the art of shifting targets. He possesses an uncanny talent for orchestrating a seamless blockade against any incoming changes, displaying a relentless determination to bend circumstances to his preference, no matter the extent. I really admire it! Padurina (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) (blocked sock)

I googled F&F's name. Found this nice quote from him on Kamala Harris: “She identifies as African-American. End of story. Please don’t rehearse tired old banalities about who is black who is African-American. Please also don’t imply (if you are doing so) for the hundredth time the other pieties about whether the Middle-Passage is a sine qua non for being one or another … By any definition, she is more African-American (in the traditional meaning of the word) than Barak [sic] Obama is.”

So let's analyze this in the same light. Here's what Narendra Modi has declared on his caste. Hitting back at BSP chief Mayawati for dubbing him a “fake OBC,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday aggressively pitched his backward caste identity in Uttar Pradesh. He declared he was not just an OBC, but was “born” into the “most-backward caste.”

My suggested edit:

Modi has stated that he was born into the "most backward caste" and not just an other backward caste.

Fowler&Fowler do you have a better alternative? Padurina (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC) (blocked sock)

Padurina, I initially proposed this "most backward" thing but if we decide to not give undue importance to his interviews and political speeches, then we find that he is just another OBC leader. He gave this exaggerated "most backward" statement probably to earn votes like most Indian politicians do. We don't have any secondary sources to confirm his "most backward" credentials. The Wire source too says that they cannot confirm his "most backward" statement but his OBC or backward credentials should not be contested. Even if he belongs to a very backward caste, it is unlikely to be categorised different from OBCs. So we should leave the "most backward" thing for now and proceed with the following:

He hails from an OBC community.

If you agree, I will add this line. Dympies (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I will defer to Vanamonde93 on this issue. Thus far they don't seem to be on board with your edits, user:Dympies. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

PS I am withdrawing from this discussion now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Padurina (blocked sock) and Vanamonde93, what do you say? Dympies (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If you will be counting votes, I meant, "I don't see the need for this mention, but I will defer to Vanamonde93, the chief author of this page and in my view the most knowledgeable and experienced editor in the topic area." In other words consensus is not a matter of horse-trading of personal POVs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Padurina in any case appeared on WP three days ago and thus far have done nothing but follow me around, not to mention grandstand in pompous, imprecise, ungrammatical, and overly familiar English. They are not helping your case Dympies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought you had withdrawn from this discussion, F&f. Dympies (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have. I'm not saying anything new, only making sure my old statement is not misinterpreted, and clarifying further that I do not consider Padurina's argument to be substantive. No closer in an RfC will give it any weight. If you are so sure, why don't you have an RfC at WT:IN and let this be decided by a larger, more knowledgeable, community, instead of wasting time here and pretending that a consensus of two means anything. Please do this at WT:IN. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your comments about me reveal a lot about you. I appreciate it. Padurina (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) (sock strike)

• I am strongly against using only the interview: as I've said before, the label mentioned therein is meaningless. I'm undecided on whether to use secondary sources for an OBC identification. As I recall the text that passed GA did have caste identity, but it was subsequently removed, and I cannot be bothered to track it down. Reliable sources don't make a huge deal out of Modi's caste; unlike some politicians, it has not historically been a large part of his appeal. As such I'm leaning toward exclusion. I suggest launching an RfC, with the precise wording to be workshopped beforehand so we don't get stuck on the grammar. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

References

PM Modi, Saudi Crown Prince hold first strategic meet, discuss energy, defence

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman held the first Leaders’ Meeting of the Strategic Partnership Council. They discussed various issues, including defence, energy security, and trade and investment. Read More 103.176.136.153 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2023

TYPO: search the page for the word "ctiticised" and change it to "criticised" 141.76.91.134 (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, with thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

It is stated in the page that the "Balakot airstrike had failed and six Indian personnel were killed in friendly firing". What is the basis for such a claim? It is completely not in line with Indiangive or Indian military or any other neutral sources claim. This shall be corrected. 94.204.32.195 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Check out the cited sources. Also, https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/10/04/india-mi-17-helicopter-kashmir-friendly-fire/?expand_article=1 Cannolis (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

I want to correct the grammar Sheikbaba36524 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2023 (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". - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding GDP, inflation and Unemployment Under Modi Government

Hello Everyone, I want to add some information on this article, on GDP, inflation and unemployment status in country in his tenure from 2014 till now. Can anyone suggest me the best place in their article to put this information on Economy and the proper title for this paragraph  ? I have researched a lot on India Economy under Modi Tenure from National and International reputable sources.

These are sources 1 2 3 4 5 WikiAnchor10 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of that information is already in the article; but the economy section seems logical. Please avoid using the opinion pieces listed above though. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Update the official photograph

A new official photograph has been added to the https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/image-gallery/ website, the article should update the existing picture to this. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/twitter_2.jpg Xoocit (talk) 6:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in the section under Modi's time as Chief Minister of Gujarat; it states 'measured' rather than 'measures'. Can't edit TheBadBassist (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

'these measured failed to prevent the violence from escalating' should read 'these measures failed to prevent the violence from escalating' TheBadBassist (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks TheBadBassist. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

what is the substantiation for RSS being a paramilitary organisation?, it is a socio-religious organisation. 182.239.87.71 (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits request

change in chief minister section Talking office from December 2002 to March 2003. EVR CNA (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Article is openly biased

Opening paragraph references multiple speculative information including speculative death counts in 2002 riots, labelling farm laws as 'controversial', overstating number of COVID-19 deaths by a factor of 10 and including false statements about democratic backsliding. Consider maintaining at least a semblance of neutrality. 108.31.170.82 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I considered making similar changes back in time. However, we need to have substantial references to make changes we wish too. It's tough to consider personal view while editing an article. Sometimes, we need to add and keep contents in an article, even if we are uncomfortable with them. Sorry for no help. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 03:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed a serious bias against India in all the wikipedia articles, which is why many people do not consider wikipedia a good source anymore. There is no evidence for any democratic backsliding etc. It sounds like the article just wants to bad mouth Modi. The most recent survey declared him as the most popular leader globally but the article fails to mention it. 50.39.108.4 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The entire piece is nothing but a leftist, colonial propaganda against India and Hindus. Wikipedia has plunged to new lows by describing Balakot airstrikes as "failed". They could not digest development of Gujarat and India. Progress of Kashmir is eating them up from inside. Feels like the page is sponsored by Pakistan or CPI(M). Have courage to accept the truth and realities !! Meinhoonbharat (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Heavy Bias

This article is rubbish. Covid deaths were far less than what WHO speculated. Around 500k to be specific according to government data. You should have at least mentioned the government data too. Is this Modi bashing? How is one supposed to get neutral article about someone on wikipedia. Wikipedia has inherent bias. 103.165.22.42 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

+1, India's official count is based on counted numbers. While WHO's data is based on some "methodology".[2]https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-releases-2020-death-data-ahead-who-covid-mortality-study-it-objects-2022-05-03/ Keeping only one sided story is i think violating NPOV. BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

WHO is more reliable than any official government source, not just Indian government. Capitals00 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, Mabe not. The comparative reliability of sources could be discussed on RSN. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You can take WHO Vs Indian government to RSN and inform here once you have. Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Onus is on you. As you said source X is more reliable than source Y. NPOV is not neutrality of sources but neutrality of editing. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the tone of the article

Greetings, I wanted to raise my concern for the texts written in the introduction part of the article which I believe is violating the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living personsand the essay Wikipedia:Criticism. I request for a neutral overall check wether it does or not. I know Narendra Modi is a controversial figure but, it is better to write criticisms seperately or at least limited to keep it Neutral as Wikipeida is not a news ( WP:NOTNEWS) and not a place for advocacy ([[WP:NOTADVOCACY) Regards Yamantakks (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Come to the point. On lead, I had added about Manipur violence, Adani scam, Chinese land grab all of which was removed in a matter of days.

At this stage you can only complain why this article is not highlighting the significant failures of Narendra Modi as PM. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00 ,

I have first of all, asked to just review it unbiasedly, but if you feel such about that the article is at the point biased towards not "highlighting the siginificant failures of Narendra Modi as PM", so as I earlier said, wikipeida has a policy which says what wikipedia is not and it says wikipedia is not a plae for promotion or demotion, and if we see other Prime Ministers' articles, like that of Rajiv Gandhi (Rajiv Gandhi), and Indira Gandhi (Indira Gandhi), the articles unbiasedly criticizes them only wherever needed and that too for the sake of knowledge of the reader not trying to defame them or something like that even if The Emergency (India) was more horrible and inhuman than the Manipur voilence, Adani scam, Chinese land grab. So, why the srticle focuses on only showing the demerits ony of Narendra Modi in certain portion.

Yamantakks (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is clearly less critical on Narendra Modi than what it really needs to be. There are serious arguments that Emergency was a good move, nevertheless it has been mentioned on the page of Indira Gandhi. Whataboutery will not work here. Your topic here is Narendra Modi and you will need to use a better argument than Wikipedia:JDLI. Capitals00 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

backsliding of democracy after Modi ? Seriously Wikipedia?

'Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression.'

This sentence should have to be removed. There are no UN or any other reports on India's democracy backsliding under modi's government.

Wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda and it did not take propaganda articles published by some vested interest groups.

If Saddam Hussain was alive, should we say the same now ?

There are other reports that under mod's rule democracy has flourished.

Unless it is from some credible institution like UN , these propaganda reports cannot be taken in Wikipedia to spread propaganda Afv12e (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There are seven references for that sentence. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I can provide 100s of such papers or reports by Individuals on Chinese and US president. These are just opinions and should be added as opinions only and not as a general conclusion unless it is published by any international organization like United Nations.

Every country has it's own politics and political accusations and attacks, and these propaganda reports should not be added as a validation conclusion in Wikipedia.

'Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression.'

This should be removed. Afv12e (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have high quality academic sources arguing that under mod's [sic] rule democracy has flourished, please do present them. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not the point.

These are the references given to conclude that in India democracy as backslided after modi, who is having approval rate above 70% [3] :

1.New York times [4] - Known for pushing American interests and the mouth piece of American propaganda , and the author expressed his opinion in the news article.

See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies

2. Freedom House - it is an non profit organization in Washington dc, usa

3. Paper[5] by Christian Welzel, a german professor who is also the director of World Values Survey, which in turn is the next non profit think tank from Stockholm, Sweden

4. One [6]by a professor called Tarunabh Khaitan , not notable author, head of another tink tank at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights

5. An article on Foreign Policy , an American magazine

6. A random book [7] called 'Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia' which has Best Sellers Rank: #11,184,093 in Books and only 3 ratings in Amazon written by an assistant professor at a university [8]

7. Another book called Democratization [9], which has only 26 reviews in amazon [10], also written by Christian Haerpfer , President of the World Values Survey Association, assoacited with the reference 3

Seriously wikipedia , are you taking these news articles and only 10 people read books of these authors to conclude that in India backsliding of democracy happened during modi's rule!

No United Nations report on democracy said this , which is a neutral international organization than these think tanks funded to spread western propaganda .

The sentence :

Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression.

Should be removed as this expresses the option of these author and no independent neutral international organization like United Nations never released any reports as such. Afv12e (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what your fixation is with the UN as being either neutral or the sole arbiter of these sorts of things, but that's not the basis of WP:RS. The analyses are cited to the sources, so anyone is free to see what the sources are and form their own opinions. But again, it takes you (or someone else) finding equal or better sources, not just your personal dislike of what is currently there. Non-profits and think-tanks that have a reasonable reputation are fine, exactly because they are notable for studying this sort of thing and others trust them. Freedom in the World is well known and has been studied extensively. Foreign Policy has won many awards for its reporting. The New York Times is generally considered reliable for news and similar reporting based on consensus here on wikipedia. The Bonavero Institute of Human Rights has multiple notable individuals affiliated with it, including Martin Scheinin who is..."is an international law scholar who served as the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism in 2005–2011.[1] He was selected for this position after serving for eight years (1997–2004) as member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the independent expert body monitoring states' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." Yeah, that "United Nations". DMacks (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced

His administration increased direct foreign investment, and it reduced spending on healthcare, education, and social-welfare programmes. Modi began a high-profile sanitation campaign, controversially initiated the 2016 demonetisation of high-denomination banknotes and introduced the Goods and Services Tax, and weakened or abolished environmental and labour laws.

The above in lead is unsourced and should be removed Afv12e (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP standard (WP:LEAD), the lead just summarizes/highlights the main ideas of the body of the article. And therefore per WP standard, it should generally not be cited. I spot-checked the article, and there are multiple cites for those ideas in the body of the article. DMacks (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Supreme court verdict or some political accusations ?

His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. A little over 1,000 people were killed, according to official records, three-quarters of whom were Muslim; independent sources estimated 2,000 deaths, mostly Muslim. A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him.

As the para is talking that supreme court of india found no evidences against him , then what is the reliability of the sentence :

His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. Afv12e (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

His administration is considered complicit but he was himself acquitted.

That is what the lead said. Capitals00 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not related to Balakot airstrike

Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The airstrike failed, and the deaths of six Indian personnel to friendly fire was later revealed: but the action had nationalist appeal.

The sentence in bold letters is not related to Balakot airstrike, but was related to a f16 jet plane crossing Indian border and chasing it. Afv12e (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This is related to Balakot conflict. See the infobox of 2019 Balakot airstrike and get consensus there first. Capitals00 (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Economy comparison: Modi vs MMS

Hello @DMacks,

Firstly, thanks for considering it as a valid point.

Second, I can provide a more updated source here, which compares the two for their first terms which signify the COVID impact. This provides a more holistic view of the current economy. Especially when at the end of Manmohan Singh's term India was in Fragile five. GDP growth with low inflation is the most desirable situation (most economists agree) which did not happen from 2004-14 as suggested here . I mean the difference is very stark 5.1 vs 8.1.

I think at least we should modify the statement as follows:

"The period of Modi's administration from 2014 to 2022 has seen a decrease in GDP growth compared to Manmohan Singh's tenure from 2004 to 2014. However, the inflation rate during Modi's administration has been lower compared to that of Manmohan Singh's years from 2004 to 2014." (cite this with Indian Express source) SpunkyGeek (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, such as that Indian Express piece, don't count for much; see WP:OPED. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What about Suday Guardian And Investopedia? BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Investopedia is already flagged as a source we should not use. The Sunday Guardian appears to be a weekly newspaper with very little visible impact founded by a member of Modi's own party; unless we can establish editorial independence, I don't see how it carries much weight either. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ashok Gulati is a well-known economist. Has also criticized Modi before. According to WP:OPED "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Basically, you endorsed the use of this source.

Now coming to Investopedia, it was used to make the argument that most economists consider. High inflation is bad in long-term scenarios for any economy. The Sunday Guardian is a reliable source unless you can point to any violation of journalistic ethics.. and you should go and post that to WP:RSN SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are talking absolute stats. You cannot dispute the facts. Now, a higher GDP growth rate will have a natural effect on inflation. Hence it is important to keep a check on inflation which UPA wasn't able to do. as compared to the Modi administration. SpunkyGeek (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Fragile five" was just a "new term coined by a little-known research analyst at Morgan Stanley last summer" that identified "Turkey, Brazil, India, South Africa and Indonesia as economies which have become too dependent on skittish foreign investment to finance their growth ambitions."[11] What it has to do with GDP growth? Nothing! Sunday Guardian is a mouthpiece of BJP. Manmohan Singh perfomed much better than Narendra Modi when it comes to GDP growth as well as economy as a whole.[12] If you really want to talk about inflation then we will have to talk about price control under Modi administration which is actually all-time high now.[13] Capitals00 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  (The author is an independent political commentator and can be reached at @politicalbaaba. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.) This is what i found in the footnote of quint article, cant use this source WP:OPED BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  newsclick portal allegedly received money to spread pro-China propaganda.[14]. the founder prabir purkayastha arrested and bail denied by delhi High Court [15] bank account of the website frozen [16] fishy chienese website , cant trust BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Another source which is not an opinion piece: "The average GDP change over the previous year between 2014 and 2020 was 10.18 percent. On the other hand, the same for the 2004-2014 period was nearly 15 percent."[17]

  NewsClick is a reliable source used across Wikipedia.[18] Yes it is facing some hardship because it refuses to become a part of Godi media but that should be ignored. You can take this source to WP:RSN and I register the fact that its a reliable source. Capitals00 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Fragile Five term" was coined because these "emerging "economies were having major issues with balance of payments and high inflation were highlighted.

  If you have problem with The Sunday Guardian post than on WP:RSN. The report on NewsClick was from an independent source it doesn't matter what its relationship with the present government is. SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Replying to several comments here, because previous replies have been all over the place; 1) per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, the person wanting to change content needs to demonstrate the verifiability of the content they wish to add, and get consensus for it. The Sunday Guardian fails many of our checks for reliable sources, quite apart from its political affiliation; it doesn't list its editorial board, doesn't make public its editorial policy, indeed doesn't have anything about itself on its website. Even the name of its chief editor does not appear to be verifiable. It's certainly not enough to support an exceptional claim by itself; indeed its use for anything political should likely be reviewed carefully. 2) This link lists stats, but does not analyze them. Using this to claim the Modi government is doing better would be original research, especially considering that the picture painted by those data is far from clear. 3) Analyses of the Singh administration's record is irrelevant here unless sources explicitly make the comparison. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

edit to the following paragraph " In Ahmedabad, Modi renewed his acquaintance with Inamdar, who was based at the Hedgewar Bhavan (RSS headquarters) in the city. Modi's first-known political activity as an adult was in 1971 when he joined a Jana Sangh Satyagraha in Delhi led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee to enlist to fight in the Bangladesh Liberation War. The Indira Gandhi-led central government prohibited open support for the Mukti Bahini; according to Modi, he was briefly held in Tihar Jail. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Modi left his uncle's employ and became a full-time pracharak (campaigner) for the RSS, working under Inamdar. Shortly before the war, Modi took part in a non-violent protest in New Delhi against the Indian government, for which he was arrested; because of this arrest, Inamdar decided to mentor Modi. According to Modi, he was part of a Satyagraha that led to a political war. " Change "Modi left his uncle's employ and became a full-time" to "Modi left his uncle's employment and became a full-time" 223.178.80.56 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 DoneRegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Why no positive points mentioned?

The use of 'New York Times', 'WaPo', 'The Guardian' etc. as sources for Modi is like using Bible to comment on Theory of Relativity ROFL xD.

Anyway after reading the replies from editors to other notes, will be interesting to see what reasons you have for not mentioning even a few positive things in Modi's govt.

To begin with... not even a passing mention of UPI, Jan Dhan Accounts, India becoming 5th largest economy, India's vaccine deployment and supply to other countries, reduction in terrorist attacks on civilians, Africa's inclusion in G20, more than doubled no. of airports, only major economy to be on track of Paris goals, Ram Mandir, Women's reservation in Parliament, fastest growing economy after Covid slowdown of world etc.

Even Swachha Bharat Abhiyan is termed as 'high-profile sanitation campaign'.

And poverty alleviation guys 😭

From UNDP report: https://www.undp.org/india/national-multidimensional-poverty-index-progress-review-2023#:~:text=The%20NFHS%2D5%20(2019%2D,during%20the%205%2Dyear%20period.

"The NFHS-5 (2019-21) data show that 14.96% of the India’s population are multidimensionally poor compared to 24.85% of the population that was multidimensionally poor based on the 2015-16 (NFHS-4), resulting in 135mn individuals escaping poverty during the 5-year period. This highlights that India is on track to achieve SDG Target 1.2 that aims to reduce poverty in all its forms by at least half by 2030."

Please dont say you didn't find any credible source for even these 😔😂 Divi98 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You can cite the "positive points" about Narendra Modi but you will have to cite WP:RS which are third party source, not WP:PRIMARY like you have cited above. Capitals00 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol so a UNDP report is not a reliable source but WaPo articles known widely to have strong left wing propaganda even in the western world is.

Let's not even take "positive points", while the introduction is plainly filled with negative commentory/opinion, just consider facts:

Women's Reservation Bill: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/22/india-women-parliament-reservation-bill/

UPI: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/07/india-stack-financial-access-and-digital-inclusion.htm

Chandrayaan 3: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/23/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-3

Africa @ G20: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/09/african-union-made-permanent-member-of-g20-at-delhi-summit

Ram Mandir: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/as-a-grand-hindu-temple-starts-to-rise-prime-minister-modi-is-transforming-india/2020/08/05/5d8859fa-d6a8-11ea-a788-2ce86ce81129_story.html

Reliable enough? Divi98 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable? Yes. However, the IMF link doesn't even mention Modi, the Guardian one is about the African Union joining the G20 and only mentions Modi in passing, THe WaPo one is about a very contentious issue which doesn't necessarily paint Modi in a good light, and even the women's parliament one contains some criticism. I can't read the moon landing one as it's behind a paywall, but that would seem to be something that would relate more to the India article (where it is indeed mentioned in the lead paragraph). In the end, you'll have to articulate what you want to change about the article, rather than copypasting random links. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So lovely to see articles from the same publishers, which are used for other things being dismissed as random links lolol.

How can a fact be contentious issue? 'Ram Temple' is actually being constructed and will be inaugurated this month. This is contentious but 'His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots...' this is not contentious 😂.

Hilarious to see that it concerns you whether the articles put Modi in good light or not.

Since you don't know what to write for the things I mentioned, let me help:

'Modi's govt. brought the long pending Women's Reservation Bill for Lok Sabha and got it passed by the country's parliament.'

'Under Modi's Chairmanship, African Union was included in the G20 during the 18th G20 summit in New Delhi in Sept. 2023.'

'163 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines were provided by Modi's administration to 93 countries as part of Vaccine Maitri initiative.'

'Modi govt. is credited for accelerated deployment of UPI and India Stack which transformed the payment system in India with 11 billion transactions amounting to ₹17 trillion in the month of Nov. 2023.'

'Ram Mandir construction which was a controversial issue in India was constructed and will be inaugurated by Modi.'

'Under Modi's economic policies, India saw quick recovery after the Covid pandemic and has remained the fastest growing major economy since then.'

I obviously know you are not gonna incorporate any of these, even though these are not opinions but clear facts, but wanna see what sweet reasons you have to dismiss them. Divi98 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. To be fair, you could have written "I don't understand how Wikipedia works" in a lot fewer words. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, expected this reply, when you are countered with facts and your agenda is caught. Just please don't put this topic from talk in archive. Let the people who care to visit the talk page see our exchanges.

What makes me sad is for a very long time I considered Wikipedia to be an actual encyclopedia which gives opinion-less facts. I had paid $10 from my pocket money to help Wiki "stay neutral" and had encouraged my friends to do the same. But I regret it.

Didn't realise as a teenager that so many websites including this one run with funds from powers unknown, and propaganda is a real thing.

I don't even vote for Modi, and it's not about him fr. It's about the narrative and the false branding Wilkpedia carry of being "neutral". Hope with time more people will come to realise the agenda that runs Wikipedia. Divi98 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you talk about the controversies over "Ram Temple"?[19]

Are you going to mention how many bills Modi government had to withdraw?

What about the many deaths happened in India due to COVID largely due to the mishandling of the crisis?

You are relying over only 1 aspect but we will need to also talk about the decline in India's relationship with the neighbors under Modi government.[20]

The current lead, as it stands, is not covering a lot of controversies about Modi. If you are trying to think that the lead should become more positive in the current times then I would simply assure you that it is not possible. Capitals00 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Capital this ref you quoted above is a blog, it cant be used in support of your arguementBlackOrchidd (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

All is being said that the article as it is, is not neutral. There are some noteworthy achievements which are not included. The reasons given for not including are not logical and I am forced to presume a bias against the current Indian PM. **Code Eater** 20:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code eater (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

"This account shows only one sided story, it doesn't talk about India's growing economy under prime minister Modi. Also the airstrikes launched were reactions against strike by Pakistan's terrorist against Indian Army and they did not fail as mentioned in the article. I thought Wikipedia was unbiased and sticks to the facts instead its increasingly looking like a propaganda machine. 103.157.123.186 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You should also read WP:NPOV on how Wikipedia gives relative weight to different viewpoints. Liu1126 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There is reference of the success of the Balakot Airstrike.The lik has been attached below.

https://www.wionews.com/india-news/balakot-airstrikes-how-india-air-force-carried-out-a-successful-retaliation-four-years-back-565895

https://www.quora.com/Was-Balakot-Airstrike-a-complete-failure-of-IAF-What-shortcomings-were-there-in-IAF-and-was-it-due-to-lack-of-western-weapons

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/iaf-gives-satellite-images-to-govt-as-proof-of-successful-balakot-airstrike-1471417-2019-03-06 ShriVithalnathUpasi (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Remove "right wing" in first paragraph. 2402:8100:303E:A115:130D:47B8:DC0F:C203 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

please change" A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him" to "A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence of Modi's involvement in 2002 Gujrat riots to initiate prosecution proceedings against him"

•  Not done The context of the sentence is already clear, and the suggested one is not good English. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackOrchidd (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

As covid-19 death mentioned with numbers of death. Mention ‘Vaccine Maitri’ initiative started by Modi government.

One of the best thing India did during Covid-19 was gifting vaccine to developing and poor countries when vaccine were exclusive to mostly developed nations. Because of Vaccine Maitri, many poor country and developing nations got vaccine to safeguard their first responders and medical staff. Even Brazilian President as well Guyanese president and many leaders from African nations had thank PM Modi for this. This page Vaccine Maitri needs to be mentioned. 142.122.91.180 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of Modi government reforms and schemes

Modi has initiated great schemes which created base for modern India, which are ‘Digital India’, ‘Made in India’, ‘Jan Dhan Yogna’, ‘Smart Cities Mission’, ‘Ayushman Bharat Yogja’, ‘PM JAY’ (world’s largest health insurance scheme), ‘National Digital Health Mission’, ‘PM-KISAN’, ‘PM GKY’, ‘PM Surya Ghar’, ‘PM AWAS’ etc . All those has done fabulous work for Indian citizens. None of those mentioned in summary and most are missing in details. 142.122.91.180 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

:no point. no mention of chandrayaan or any other achievement of india under his tenure like current gdp growth of 8.4 percent which is unexpected and unprecedented throughout the world? no one is even close. why it is not even mentioned? only negatives? and that too in lede? like all the negatives and rumors you can find. lede feels like modi kills muslims on sight. like what?he has been prime minister since 2014, did so much for india and indian people and all these editors and admins can talk about is 2002,farmer protest etc etc. i mean if india achieves something then its the people, the scientists, the previous government etc etc is responsible not pm but even if a random madman out of a billion people lynches someone for some random reason in pms tenure , its the responsibility of the pm???? i mean if your soros filter dose not allow you to add these points, someone atleast put a neutrality template in the article. but its highly unlikely it will stay. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:551A:5462:F682:7558 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear IP, you can register and use RFC for this where the opinion of numerous editors will be helpful in adding the content BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

::nah. its hopeless. i refuse to believe no one ever challenged it before. its of no use. modi is targeted world wide. not gonna waste my time and energy. i only ask for neutrality disputed tag .it would be fair. no ones gonna mention things like how left wing think tanks puts india below pakistan in hunger index and then cry when india bans export of rice.

heres one more current news btw which you'll never see in the article: The American think tank Brookings Institution, in its latest report, lauded India for eliminating extreme poverty, marking a significant milestone in the nation's socio-economic landscape. Authored by economists Surjit Bhalla and Karan Bhasin, the report attributes the achievement to the Indian government's robust policy initiatives focused on redistribution, fostering inclusive growth throughout the past decade.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-has-eliminated-extreme-poverty-says-us-think-tank-brookings-5162867

https://indianexpress.com/article/business/india-eliminated-extreme-poverty-brookings-report-9192018/

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/economy/story/india-has-officially-eliminated-extreme-poverty-says-us-think-tank-brookings-report-419770-2024-03-02 2409:40E3:6E:A553:1D6A:EE82:E7E7:BB1D (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You can use dispute resolution to tag non-involved administrators and arbitrators. If you find any editor biased, take them to the admin noticeboard BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Plz add "The national Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM)"

Add following "The national Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) was introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 27, 2021. Its goal is to establish an online platform that facilitates interoperability across the digital health ecosystem. Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission provide a digital health ID, which will allow their medical records to be safely stored online." in this section Narendra Modi#Health and sanitation.

[21]https://www.financialexpress.com/healthcare/healthtech/nha-organises-multi-stakeholder-meet-for-ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-microsites-in-delhi/3342689/

[22]https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/up-awarded-for-work-in-pm-health-scheme-pmjay-ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-4426714

[23]https://www.business-standard.com/health/first-abdm-microsite-under-nha-100-microsites-project-launched-in-mizoram-123082300324_1.html

[24]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-dharwad-district-hospital-tops-the-country-in-linking-highest-number-of-health-records-in-the-last-year/article67353326.ece

[25]https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/revolutionising-healthcare-and-empowering-patients-with-ayushman-bharat-digital-mission-86221/ BlackOrchidd (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done please provide reliable sources that document this initiative substantively and show that it is a large part of Modi's legacy, rather than just news sources covering announcements of it. There are literally hundreds of programs started by this government (as by any government); we cannot cover them all in a biography, and WP:DUE must be met for any individual piece of information to be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 NDTV, The Hindu, Financial Express, Business Standard and on other occasion Lancet are not reliable sources? You have used The Wire diff to state that The percentage of the budget spent on children's nutrition, education, health, and associated programs was reduced by nearly half by the Modi administration between 2014 and 2022. and didnt care if this is a news source or not .

Whats wrong in covering Mr Modi's governance initiative, there is a separate section for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi#Governance_and_other_initiatives [26]

You have done 5.25% of the total edits made to the page. All of them neagively. At this point I can understand, this is your concious effort to make this article into negative light. Plz follow wikipillar NPOV. Consider this as a warning. Any further violation of NPOv and you will be reported at Admin's noticeboard. Thanks * Best WishesBlackOrchidd (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 is not saying that these are not reliable sources. He is saying that if we included every single government initiative, the article would be so bloated that it would be unreadable. Is there a particular reason why this one is important enough to be in the Modi article, since pretty much all of the sources don't mention Modi at all? Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've spent several years trying to bring this article into line with the best sources on the subject. If you would like to bring that to a noticeboard, by all means do so. Be aware that "your concious (sic) effort to make this article into negative light" is the sort of personal commentary that isn't permitted on talk pages. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think its perfectly fine, untill you defend it. gazillions of peoples talk of neutrality of this article see archives plz see WP:NEUTRALEDITOR BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 And your 615 edits (5.65% of total edits ) indeed gives an obvious pattern BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd I believe you already are aware of dispute resolution, given that you started 2 RfCs here. Please have another read at that page and see if other processes would help your cause instead of attacking based on the number of edits made. You must stop that. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-useful ranting

100% agreed here. Most people read mainly first few paragraphs of anyone. In case of Narendra Modi, all I see written is negative or negatively put sentences. He has never lost elections and reason for that his developed work & vision for his state and now for the country. But, as person who don’t know about him checks out this wiki page, all he see is negatives, turned him into right-wing & Nazi, based on some articles written by some organization or person who are known left or far-left wing, and considered as source of truth while those articles are mere an opinions than facts. 50.101.117.133 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC) +1 BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) its not gonna change in one discussion or day , the problem runs deeper. just keep taking notes of these admins and keep an eye on their every move keep collecting patterns and evidence. one day truth will surely win. evil cannot reign forever. 2409:40E3:55:3345:C19D:557:F850:611E (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) and also wait for the wiki meltdown of yogi 2028.it would be pure comedy gold. 2409:40E3:55:3345:C19D:557:F850:611E (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Thing is anything positive you ask to put here, they reject saying give a good source, while negatives are put based on some opinionated articles. 50.101.117.133 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you it's not "perfectly fine". Whilst it's not a personal attack to accuse another editor of being biased on a contentious article, you'd better have some excellent evidence to back up that accusation, or it then is a personal attack. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

RSS, NCC, Ramkrishna Mission. Why only RSS is mentioned prominently?

Modi joined NCC in his chilhood days. Why only RSS is mentioned so prominently? BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

ANd surprisingly, NCC & Ramkrishna Mission has zero mention in this page BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

seems like nobody got an answerBlackOrchidd (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you think the material is WP:DUE and is well sourced, add it yourself. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've an answer here, actually; which is that Modi's link to the RSS is widely covered in reliable sources about Modi, whereas affiliation with any other groups barely receive mention. Note that the source you've provided attributes the claim to Modi's website; if an independent source makes the claim, I've yet to see it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"the source you've provided attributes the claim to Modi's website" Pretty true.

• What do you think, from where the info about Modi's RSS affiliation comes from? RSS never gives formal membership/certificate. The claim is based on heresay and/or the declaration by Modi himself in some of his interviews/journals/books etc. Vana, you would like to read the book by Andy Marino which is used as ref in this page where Marino talks about Modi's connection with RSS based on more than half a dozen interviews with Modi. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have read a decent bit of that book. The difference between that and Modi's NCC membership is that Marino, and dozens of other reliable secondary sources, describe Modi's RSS involvement in their own voice, meaning we can state it as fact. As things stand, I'm not seeing such sources for NCC membership. Please read WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Vana, here you go BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:~:text=Reputable tertiary sources,WP:SELFSOURCE). BlackOrchidd (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The NCC website is a primary source, as you would know if you had read the guidelines you link to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are no more arguements left, its better to invole an uninvoled admin at this point of time BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

People have stopped responding to you because you have not provided the sort of sources needed to include the content you want in the article. All you've done is repeat yourself; at some point you're going to be ignored. That does not mean you have consensus for your change, quite the contrary. Feel free to ping as many uninvolved admins as you'd like, but they're not going to take a position on the content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you didnt read my content thoroughly WP:READFIRST. For your ref I am again pasting the source [27]https://indiancc.nic.in/prominent-alumini/

BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 +Reminder BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a reference to Modi's childhood NCC membership, based on Chaturvedi, Arvind (2020-08-28). The Real Modi: The Man Who Would be Prime Minister. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-93-88414-96-8. Andreas JN466 13:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Going by the publisher's description, the book is obviously aimed to market Modi — "A thrilling read, this is an account of Modi's life experiences before becoming the prime minister and the lessons and wisdom that he gathered on the way." It is far from an academic work — not that it claims to be one — and unsurprisingly, the book is endorsed by Modi himself. The author appears to be some barely-known journalist and has written no work of significance prior to this.

So, in light of the fact that much of Modi's early life is hazy (the education controversy, etc.) and that Jaffrelot, et al have noted a tendency to hagiographize him, this is an unreliable source. Arguendo, even if I accord marginal reliability, passage of DUE remains to be shown. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there is a lot of hagiography out there, but are there any sources out there saying Modi's specific claim to have been an NCC member as a kid is false, and the various pictures he publicised are fake? If there are, I'd be interested to read them; otherwise it seems an odd thing to argue about.

For what it's worth, a mention in a scholarly source is here: Perwita, Anak Agung Banyu (2019-11-30). "The Modi Factor: The Role Of Narendra Modi's Idiosyncratic Factors In India's Foreign Policy Responses Towards China Pakistan Economic Corridor". Andalas Journal of International Studies (AJIS). 8 (2): 117–142. ISSN 2355-9500. Andreas JN466 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DUE needs to be met with; a Wikipedia article is not a dumpyard of whatever can be scraped from the interwebs. As to the journal, it is a fringe venue and unindexed in any bibliographic database of repute. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How about this one then:

• NP, Ullekh (2015-01-26). War Room: The People, Tactics and Technology behind Narendra Modi's 2014 Win. Roli Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5194-068-5.

The author does have some international standing and surely isn't a mere Modi hagiographer? Andreas JN466 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Andreas The author has good reach. You may go ahead and add BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dougweller could add? BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Bloomsbury Publishing plc is a British worldwide publishing house of fiction and non-fiction. Bloomsbury's head office is located in Bloomsbury, an area of the London Borough of Camden. Listed in [https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bloomsbury-publishing-lse:bmy-price-target-increased-by-7.17-to-609.45 Nasdaq]. Good source to use. In case of doubt RS notice board is proper place to discuss. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Status

Someone needs to give serious attention to this BLP. This article will definitely lose its GA tag if someone nominates it for reassessment. The article was in good shape in the past, but now it contains information that doesn't meet the standards for GA articles. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 21:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: Could you please be more specific? This article receives far more updates than the average GA, both from its primary author (me) and a number of others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

One or two-sentence paragraphs, sections such as 'Private Life', unclear why numerous images are utilized, and image captions with text Prime Minister Modi (have corrected it though). I haven't checked the references. Since you mentioned being the primary author of the article, I am confident that it is in safe hands. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 21:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, good-faith critique is welcome regardless of who the author is. I personally dislike the one-sentence section (I would fold that into "image"), but it was created after considerable talk page discussion, and unilateral removal would be inappropriate. The image use is a recurring problem; everyone wants their favorite image used, and given that an Indian prime minister is going to have hundreds (thousands?) of PD images available, selection is always a challenge. If you are willing to curate the images used, you are most welcome to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)