Jump to content

Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Orphaned references in Modi administration

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Modi administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Stepan":

  • From Narendra Modi: Stepan, Alfred (January 2015). "India, Sri Lanka, and the Majoritarian Danger". Journal of Democracy. 26 (1): 128–140. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0006.
  • From Indira Gandhi: Stepan, Alfred; Juan J. Linz; Yogendra Yadav (2011). Crafting State-Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies. JHU Press. p. 105. ISBN 978-0801897238.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Fixed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

@RegentsPark: I've been looking at analogous articles to this one, and I'm wondering whether "Narendra Modi administration" would not be a more appropriate title. Vanamonde (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not technically correct to call it "administration". Parliamentary systems have "governments", not administrations, because the ministries also lead the legislation. I would be ok to call it "Narendra Modi government" but elsewhere in Wikipedia, we have things like Premiership of David Cameron. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Kautilya says, technically a Prime Minister does not have an administration in the same sense as the President does (Prime Ministers are from the legislative branch of the government). I took the example of the British PM and used Premiership but my main objective was to get rid of the informal Modi Administration so if there is a better title, no worries.--regentspark (comment) 16:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content forking

[edit]

This article is a content fork, of main article Narendra Modi . Junosoon (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on WP:CFORK. Yes, this is a content fork, because there is too much material to deal with on the main page: and that is perfectly acceptable. It is not a POV fork, which would be a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word to word, sentence to sentence copied?

[edit]
This page is a WP:SPINOFF of the Narendra Modi page, created after the "prime minister" section of that article was written. The entire thing began as a word for word copy, and that is fine, because attribution was provided when it was copied over. The idea being, of course, that extra detail can be added here that cannot be reasonably accommodated there. If you wish to expand the section here, please do so. Vanamonde (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the discussion on the Narendra Modi page can be condensed. Personally, I think it is excessive detail for a biography page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps it can, and I would welcome suggestions in that regard (not that my permission is required, just that I wrote that section). It's just that all the "suggestions" so far have been IDLT blanking. Vanamonde (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the premiership of Narendra Modi

[edit]

? --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: you need to make a merge proposal. A single question mark isn't a valid proposal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I propose to merge Give up LPG subsidy into this article since it is merely single paragraphs. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I further propose to merge Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana into thi article since there not enough content on these articles. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with all merges. Let those articles grow with time and just insert the stub tags. Rome was not built in a day. Merging these stifles growth of wikipedia. I ended up here while searching for Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and this article does not have sufficient details nor it seems like a right place for me to add more details to that scheme. This is just killing the wikipedia. No thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further

[edit]

I propose to merge Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana into this article as there is not enough content. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, stop killing wikipedia's growth by excessively merging this and that. Demerge previously merged articles. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UBA

[edit]

I propose to merge a single para article Unnat Bharat Abhiyan into this article for lack of content. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support both mergers; there isn't enough for standalone articles. Just a procedural suggestion: Capankajsmilyo, why don't you close this discussion for now, make a complete list of articles that have insufficient content (there's a lot of tiny pages about specific policies and programs) and make a single merger proposal, that you could then advertise via RFC? Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice suggestion Vanamonde93! I would need some help in that as I am all caught up in GST last dates and can't spare that much time. Would you like to help? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather busy at the moment, but will do what I can. Vanamonde (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all merges, stop killing wikipedia's growth by excessively merging this and that. It neither does justice to those "notable topics" nor to Modi's own article. Just stop. Enough already please. Demerge previously merged articles. Can we merge all wikipedia articles into one article of one sentence length? 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PMKVY

[edit]

Further proposal Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana for same reason. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, stop killing wikipedia's growth by merging binge. Enough already please. Demerge previously merged articles. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: PGKVY is a scheme under Government of India. It was started by PM Modi in his official capacity. Even if the PM changes later the scheme will probably continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.131.43 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This merger was performed by @Capankajsmilyo:. Since all users who have commented on this proposal opposed it, and I would do the same. I have now unmerged it since this discussion clearly didn't find consensus to merge. Trialpears (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushman Bharat

[edit]

Same rationale Ayushman Bharat. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Disagree -- Generally for all the merges and specifically for Ayushman Bharat. Many people search government schemes especially when India is a developing country with fastest growing new internet users... Why you guys proposing these mergers? Let the Wikipedia grow, let more people have access to important informations they seek online.. thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree. The scheme has larger scope and should not be limited to contribution of the Prime Minister. The scheme is a predecessor of RSBY and contributes to MDG goals on Universal Health Coverage. Should not be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.151.250 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana –“Saubhagya”

[edit]

Another Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana –“Saubhagya” Capankajsmilyo (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree -- For all the merges. Ayshman Bhrat Yojana at least deserves a separate article in my opinion. We can create a category and add all those articles under that category so that it will be easy to access those articles. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree -- Generally for all the merges and specifically for Ayushman Bharat. Many people search government schemes especially when India is a developing country with fastest growing new internet users... Why you guys proposing these mergers? Let the Wikipedia grow, let more people have access to important informations they seek online.. thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DDUGJY

[edit]

Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana should also be merged here for similar reasons. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose While it's certainly possible to discuss the individual programmes in this article, and probably even disirable to mention most of these programmes, I find no good reason to do so. Many users have mentioned disadvantages of this approaches, such as programmes continuing with the next prime minister, less likley that editors expand on the programmes, and more difficult for readers to find information about the specific programme they're looking for. I fully agree with these arguments for this longer article (but would support for really short/unsourced ones such as [Unnat Bharat Abhiyan]) Trialpears (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garib Kalyan

[edit]

Income declaration scheme, 2016 too for similar rationale. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 01:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose While it's certainly possible to discuss the individual programmes in this article, and probably even disirable to mention most of these programmes, I find no good reason to do so. Many users have mentioned disadvantages of this approaches, such as programmes continuing with the next prime minister, less likley that editors expand on the programmes, and more difficult for readers to find information about the specific programme they're looking for. I fully agree with these arguments for this longer article (but would support for really short/unsourced ones such as [Unnat Bharat Abhiyan]) Trialpears (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Opinion polling on the Narendra Modi premiership

[edit]

There is a discussion ruption to merge Opinion polling on the Narendra Modi premiership into this article. Please comment there.--User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 08:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"New India" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New India. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 13#New India until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on science

[edit]

There is nothing on science related initiatives during the Premiership of Narendra Modi in this article? DTM (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demonetization

[edit]

@Thecybergulf: the section you are adding here has no heads and tails. The Demonetization lead gives a much more informative and balanced picture of the event. Please discuss you concerns here. Venkat TL (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL but still it was informative, so the edit should be more of focusing on making it more neutral and informative rather than deleting whole section. I was planning to re-write it but. Thecybergulf (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thecybergulf the content that you had added here was a violation of WP:UNDUE and out of place. If someone wants to read what the Swedish Prime Minister had to say about Demonetization, they should be reading the Article Demonetization. Not Priemiership of Narendra Modi. Please read MOS:LEAD. Only a summary of the event should be added here, and the lead of Demonetization article is much better summary. That is why it was Transcluded here. If you have improvements to offer to the section, please post it here on this talk page or to the talk page of the Demonetization page. Venkat TL (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL Yes, and that summary just includes cons of demonetization, more or less feels like a framed to demote demonetization(I mean POV). And I think this section needs more than just a one sided summary. Yes I also agree that the older version was written poorly and was sometimes irrelevant also and I was trying to improve it. Thecybergulf (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thecybergulf please be aware that Wikipedia should not be used for WP:PROMO of Modi or BJP or Indian government and its policies. If there are criticism it has to be included. If the neutral and reliable sources are discussing the topic they can be added. Please see WP:HISTRS to understand the expectation of the quality of sourcing. Since the transcluded WP:LEAD is a better summary of the incident, it should stay for now. Going forward, we have 2 options, (1) You can propose a better draft for the Demo section for this article. Propose it from your WP:USERSANDBOX or on this talk page, and we can discuss if it is good enough to be added.
or (2) you can propose improvements to the Lead of Demonetization article. Again for both these options you would need WP:HISTRS and not newsarticles from leaders claiming this or that. Venkat TL (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL Let me make it clear, I am not trying to promote or convince if it is good or bad( & I am also not an economist so I don't know about these stuff). I have dedicated lot of time to this page and removed many spams, POVs and unreliable and irrelevant sources and also added dozens of reliable sources to this page. what I was try to say is current version of Demonetization is well written but it somehow lacks too. I will be also looking for more possible edits if I came up with one. Thecybergulf (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, I am saying that it was a badly written fluff piece which is why I removed it and replaced with Lead demo. Since we disagree on this basic thing, we can seek WP:3O and get feedback on what version LEAD Demonetization vs the Demonetization fluff piece, that I removed., is deserved here. Agree? If I were you, instead of arguing here, I would be reading Economic and Political Weekly, where reputed international scholars have covered DEMO, and use that to fill up the gaps in coverage (if any). Yes you dont need to be economist to edit this article, but you will still need mainstream reliable sources that are independent of influence from BJP or GOI. Venkat TL (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL well I am pretty/personally sure I have sources that are independent of the influence of not just BJP/GOI and other extremist too and is not politically biased. Don't worry I won't be editing that section again. Thecybergulf (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL And sorry for wasting your time and undoing your edit, I should have prepared my article own article before editing it. And as I said I never supported the old section but I was planning make tweaks to make it better. Thecybergulf (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of investigative agencies

[edit]

There is a dispute over the section "Use of investigative agencies" whose discussion occurred on my talk page so I'm linking it here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part that is still under dispute is whether the sentence, "Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot cites the example of former Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi to have "often made use of income-tax raids to intimidate opponents or send them to jail" and adds that since 2019, the Modi government has been using this technique more systematically than what it did in its first ministry." or some variation of it should be added in the section. I'm of the opinion that it should not be as the article does not concern Indira Gandhi or her activites which occured during The Emergency in the 70s and is not a part of Modi's premiership. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite obvious that the bits concerning Indira Gandhi do not belong here but at her page. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the part about Indira Gandhi is irrelevant and should be removed from that section on Modi's use of investigative agencies. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
As an uninvolved observer it seems to me that such content would be more fitting to her article than this general article about the Premiership. TylerBurden (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs here because Jaffrelot is talking about BJP's use of investigative agencies. There is nothing "irrelevant" about it because if it was really "irrelevant" then it wouldn't be mentioned by reliable sources when discussing this subject. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Sanjay Gandhi and Modi did this, but why is Sanjay Gandhi being invoked here unnecessarily. A lot of tactics used in the Premiership of Narendra Modi are directly copied from the Nazi playbook, So are we going to invoke Hitler on this page for all those tactics? --Venkat TL (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both Sanjay Gandhi and Modi" Do you mean "Indira Gandhi and Modi"? Sanjay Gandhi is mentioned by the source from the beginning of this chapter and that's why he has been mentioned. It does not mention Nazi or Hitler. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content shouldn't be removed over how you are viewing it personally. The content in question is directly relevant to the section and should be preserved since it is sourced to a scholarly source. It seems that those saying that it belongs to Indira Gandhi's own article haven't read that there is one more sentence in this article that highlights the similarities between Indira Gandhi and Modi over arrests of critics. This sentence existed in this article since it was created in 2016. This confims that we are not obliged to remove content only because it has highlighted similarities between Modi and Indira Gandhi. Now back to this new content, if you want to get rid of it then you need to find an actual explanation that can be justified by a policy. Ping top contributors to this article: Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, RegentsPark, Capankajsmilyo. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what source you or your friend uses if the material is largely out of scope of the article and doesn't have sufficient weight for inclusion. The objections are policy based whether you like it or not. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinged here. This article is about Modi, obviously, and we need to be wary of WP:COATRACKing. That said, if a comparison has been made in reliable sources, it may be worth including, and you cannot include a comparison without mentioning both things being compared. I would say the text should be trimmed, to something like "Jaffrelot writes of similarities between the way the Modi administration has used investigative agencies, and the use of income-tax raids as a tool of intimidation by the government of Indira Gandhi". And then followup with the details of what Jaffrelot says Modi is doing, because that's what's relevant here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would still be coatracking. The proposal of its addition is in a short two paragraph subsection that doesn't go into much depth about how the Modi premiership itself has used investigative agencies, starting such a sub-section with a tangential line on its similarities with Indira's governance is undue. There is already a sentence comparing Modi's governance style with Indira's in the section "Governance and other initiatives" and it doesn't need a repetition of similar material in sub-sections under it, at the least not untill there's a much more comprehensive expansion but even then it shouldn't be in the beginning as it's not the primary point for the topic. Also note, that the source specifies the emergency under Indira and not her government(s) in general so any rendition when due would need to have that mentioned in particular. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On an additional note, I don't think we should be using attribution to an individual, it's is usually only warranted if there is either something novel or something that's otherwise contested among reliable sources about the material that's being attributed. It's neither of those cases here and even the source is a book where Jafferlot is a co-author. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This book's only author is Jafferlot.[1][2] D4iNa4 (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with reworking the attribution, and if the source is discussing the emergency specifically, that should be included (which makes it an even more critical comparison). It strikes me as something of a summary statement, and therefore worth including. There's room for reasonable folks to disagree. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source doesn't really discuss it, it has a single line stating "During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi often made use of income-tax raids to intimidate opponents or send them to jail. In 2019, the Modi government began using the same technique ..." That's the only mention of it in a chapter of around 50 pages. The source doesn't even draw any tangible relation.
    A comparison is not a defining or characteristic feature of the Modi government's action so I don't see how it could be used as a summary statement. I'd think it just detracts from the primary topic of the article at least in the form presented and with regards to how developed this article is at present. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now read the whole section, I'm inclined to agree we shouldn't lead with it. I do think it's worth mentioning. I don't think the proponents of the content above have realized this, but Jaffrelot surely did not write that sentence to make an unflattering statement about Indira Gandhi. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: The last question should be that where we should include "Jaffrelot finds similarities between the way the Modi administration has used investigative agencies, and the use of income-tax raids as a tool of intimidation by the government of Indira Gandhi." After the first sentence, or after the second sentence, or it needs to be the final sentence of the first paragraph? D4iNa4 (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at the beginning, otherwise not very particular; it would depend on the flow of the paragraph. Please note the sentence should mention the Emergency, as the source is explicitly saying that; it's not any old Indira Gandhi government, it's specifically the one during which democracy was suspended. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Vanamonde93. The article is not about Modi but about his premiership and a well sourced comparison with past prime ministers is not necessarily out of place. I'm not really qualified to comment on the content but, as a general rule, my suggestion is to make the comparison as simply as possible and keep the focus on Modi's administration. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence is backed by the book written by Christophe Jaffrelot (best available source so far) and it also starts with this sentence when talking about the use of investigative agencies. The author has made the statement very clearly and there is no source that refutes it. If you really want to learn more about this subject then you can read read this article. You should provide an equally reliable source that refutes this statement. Have you done that yet? We should not pretend that Modi is alleged of using investigating agencies against opponents when Jaffrelot is clear that this is has happened before too. There are many other reliable sources which also support this sentence. I would like to see something that is different from WP:JDL. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pranesh Ravikumar We are not citing opponents as our source, but the government data on conviction rate is our source which is explained in detail by the reliable sources we have mentioned in the section. I don't know why you keep repeating that we are citing opponents as source. No, we are not. We are citing Modi's government data themselves, at least for IT and ED. It is not necessary to include everything Christophe said. Isn't the less than 0.5% conviction rate in PMLA act a good indicator to conclude the misuse? Usually such conclusions are based on data. So I don't think Christophe's book is more reliable than government records which themselves point to the misuse. If government data is inaccurate, then that means the situation is even worse. Further, it does not require refuting the book's conclusions to not mention here. Otherwise, I will just bring another statement from the book and I will say you should refute it before removing it and end up copying the whole book in what was intended to be a short summary. (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    @Pranesh RavikumarThe WP:JDL also applies to you in this case in reverse. Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add a section on propaganda, spreading of fake news

[edit]

Would anyone like to help in adding a section on fake news spread under the premiership of modi? Which section should it go to?(Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premiership_of_Narendra_Modi&oldid=1236607857"