Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Edit request on 12 June 2013 - Pls add the below info into the page

On June 9th, 2013, Mr. Narendra Modi was unanimously elected as the BJP's Chief of Election Campaign and Poll Management Committee for the General Elections scheduled to be held in 2014.

Aaranganath (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That request is already posted twice but due to "controversial" nature of Narendra Modi admins are unable to decide exact nature of wording. I believe that some Congress supporting editors forced to protect page so that info about the subject can't be updated hence giving advantage to online campaign of Congress party. neo (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Aranganath's edit is a statement of facts and I support its inclusion, I wish someone who has the privilege would do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am 99.99% sure that there is some paid edition going on here. The Congress just now planned to increase its presence on the internet and since then many new editors have been writing pro-congress things on Wikipedia. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know who these people are, although the last time I looked it was still the case that paid editing is permitted even though often deprecated. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've marked this as answered simply because, as others have pointed out, it is identical to the request made in the preceding section. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013

In the third term section, Saurashtra links to a disambiguation page. It should link to Saurashtra (region).

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem with this. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. --regentspark (comment) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST . REFINING THE ARTICLE . MAKING IT FREE FROM BIAS AND POV

Dear ADMIN,

I have carefully gone through wiki guidelines and standards. This article is well within the quality.

Both as a guideline and fair writeup , can we use MEDIA ARTICLES that could have been prompted by propaganda as reference, especially when on that particular issue INDIAS's highest court has given decision.

Someone could argue that he has reference of articles but i feel that should render useless as long as we know that the information in the article is false.

I propose that "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally" should be removed from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanchachink (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

I request that the article should mention Narendra Modi's caste in the 'Early life' section. He hails from Ghanchi caste and this can be confirmed by the most reputed newspapers and channels like these :[1], [2], [3], [4]

-Khaliharan (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many sources mention it but generally we do not include the caste of living people unless they self-identify as being of a particular caste. We tend to treat caste claims as being similar to those for religious belief. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this source says "I came to know about his caste during an interview delivered to a national Magazine, where Narendra Modi stated that he comes from the Ghanchi (oil presser) caste,” reveals a delighted Borana." It indicates that Modi has self-identified that he hails from Ghanchi caste in some magazine. Right now, I am looking for that magazine interview.

But, how can a caste be treated as religious belief? Caste is someone's ancestral heritage, while religion is what he follows (presently). -Khaliharan (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the meta discussion here: there have been numerous discussions concerning the general issue, some of which can be found at WP:VPP and at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. However, that find of yours might be ok - it would be better if we could track down the "national magazine" that Borana refers to. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I agree with Sitush that the source is almost good enough, but it would be better if we could track down the original source. At the moment the information is only second-hand, which in my opinion is not quite enough to satisfy the biographies of living persons policy. (Although, to be clear, this is only my interpretation of the policy - it mentions self-identification in the part on categories, lists and navigation templates, but it doesn't contain anything about this specific situation.) Let me know if you have any questions about this, and please accept my apologies for the length of time that this request has been sitting unanswered. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Infobox image: File:Narendra Damodardas Modi.jpg

Current image

Official image (proposed)

This image has been published on the official flickr account used by the individual and should replace the existing infobox image. Request an admin to look into this — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The current image is just fine. Just because there is a more official one that doesn't mean we have to use that one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific issues with the official image being used on this page? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DO you have any issues with the current image being used?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The official image is how the individual concerned would like themselves to be represented. Since the image is available under a free license, it is judicious to use the image. Official images are considered to be the best representation of the individuals and are used in several cases. Please review the articles on US politicians (and others) where official portraits issued by their offices have been used in the infobox. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is potentially problematic to rely too much on the subject's own PR sources, and that this article already relies too much on the subjects own PR. The problem may be less pronounced with a picture, but I think it is worth considering.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the way they photoshopped his wrinkles out I think we ought to use the more natural image over this official one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

When official portraits of US politicians are used in the articles why not for this article? -sarvajna (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is a high quality picture and we should use it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly prefer the one in the article, it is him in his element, and far better than some photoshopped pic. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Official images are considered to be the best representation of the individuals - where is the guideline that says this? There is certainly one minor point in favour of the (yes, seemingly photoshopped) image and this is that it would cause him to face into the page, unlike our present image. See WP:MOSIM, which favours but does not require such. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

where is the guideline that says this? – As you should already know, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. There is probably no rule in the book that specifically provides preference for officially released images, however this is the general practice on Wikipedia with regard to biographies of living persons. Living individuals get a fair bit of lee-way in terms of how they would like to represent themselves. For instance, there are featured images of the US President Barack Obama available on the Wikimedia Commons, however an official image used by his office is presented in the infobox of the article (which is not a featured image). This image is also photo-shopped which smooths out his wrinkles and makes him appear a few shades lighter than he is. That is not an egregious problem. The official image is higher quality, in better lighting and was taken as a close-up shot rather than from a distance which is how the currently available image on the page was taken.

As you have pointed out above, WP:MOSIM states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text." There is no need to reverse the current image since there is a better available official version of the subject. In the future, if his PR machinery (yes, the seemingly omnipotent group) makes an official campaign portrait available, we should be happy to use that image.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:AUTOPROB states: "If you do not like the photo, or we do not have one, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good image under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo that you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you."

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't realise the prescriptive thing applied to policies: you've said it a few times but I've never been able to track it down and just because someone keeps saying something doesn't make it so. Your initial wording, quoted by me, sounded like you were stating some policy or guideline and it now turns out to be merely your opinion based on what would appear to be a consensus obtained at the Obama article. AUTHORPROB is a sideshow: we already have perfectly acceptable images for Modi; and there is no need to reverse the current image not because we have an alternate, as you suggest, but because the guideline specifically says that. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you selectively reading what I have written above? The Obama article is a single example among hundreds or thousands of others, there are several other cases where official images, when available, have received preference over images taken or submitted by individual users. There is an overwhelming consensus on this subject. There is no doubt that the individual concerned prefers to the image they have had posted on their official Flickr account to the image that is currently being used on this page. Please see WP:BURO, 'Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy' – Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not written in stone, and they have to be read contextually. So raising "where is the rule for that?" on every possible occasion without regard to established practice is not helpful. More than anything else, the intention behind WP:AUTOPROB was to provide reasonable regard to the wishes of the subject of the biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not selectively reading. I'm asking you to justify your comments and all I'm seeing is vagueness and perhaps a bit of irrelevance thrown in for good measure. I wonder just how many politician articles use official photos when there are decent quality alternatives, for example? I'm not terribly interested in images generally but we've had (still have) so many problems with this article that I'm reluctant to take anything as read, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely vague about what has been said above. The principle that biographies of living persons must receive proper care and due regard for their personal preferences from all editors is manifest in many ways on the project, in fact there is overwhelming consensus in favour of it. For example, we actively advise users not to include caste or religious affiliations and even sexual orientation of individuals unless there is self-identification on their part. This is done in order to respect and accommodate their personal choice wherever we can without compromising encyclopedic integrity. Agreed, there are several problems with the article, but they have to be specifically addressed in other sections on this talk page. This discussion is about which image is better suited for the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• On further deliberation I think it is reasonable to have the official photo in the infobox, additional photos can always be included in the body of the article - for example one in which he is not wearing a business suit to show the different ways in which he projects himself, or a photo of him engaging in other types of activities. For the infobox the official photo is probably the best choice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I've intimated above, I'm really not that fussed either way at the moment. I don't see how respecting personal choice regarding visual depiction can be equated with similar personal choices regarding religion and similar - that seems to be potentially based on non-neutral pandering to a subject's vanity rather than conviction/belief etc but, hey, they are more significant problems that need attention. Purely out of curiosity, I'm going to have to find out what we usually do in situations where, for example, actors are known to knock a few years off their ages! - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• You can start a new thread on the village pump to discuss how not to pander to the vanity of a biographical subject by strictly enforcing neutrality on image files. In the meantime, I am assuming that you do not have more to add to this discussion, but that you are providing your tacit consent for use of the official image on this page. Anyone else? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nick, please stop being an officious so-and-so. There is no need for it and twat-ish behaviour will only lead to twat-ish reactions. Swinging from allowing comparisons with other articles/scenarios to dismissing them, depending on which best suits a purpose, just make it really difficult to form opinions. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please do not make personal attacks. Personal attacks will be reported and appropriate action will be taken against your account until such behaviour is amended. You should probably stop attributing intentions such as "pandering to a subject's vanity rather than conviction/belief etc" to other users if you wish to be treated respectfully. Your lack of respect and collegiality towards other users does not lead to productive outcomes from any content dispute. Thanks, and I hope you will truly consider refraining yourself from employing snark while interacting with other project volunteers. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a talkpage post from you that doesn't "employ snark" Nick. Sitush was responding to your uncalled for and snarky attempt to moderate a discussion in which you are participating as an involved editor and not as an objective arbiter, and doing so in a snarky way. The fact that you couch your snark in a language of policy quotes and admin speak in fact only makes it more offensive. No one here would mistake you for an uninvolved administrator for a second, so please stop playing that card.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, you should stop lecturing others on how to behave, do not forget that you were blocked for incivility and if I am not wrong your remarks were directed at Nick in past also not to forget your various accusations against other editors.-sarvajna (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not lecturing, I am poiting out Nick's ridiculous hypocrisy. Nick needs to stop acting as if he has authority as an administrator when in fact in this area he is an involved editor just like the rest of us. Yes I was blocked for personal attacks. IF he feels this is a personal attack he is free to report it. I stand by the accusations I have made against you and other editors for being politically motivated, perhaps paid, advocates and not neutral editors. Again, anyone who reviews your contributions can make their own assessment - I just as I am entitled to mine. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Strike your accusations or I will report you .-sarvajna (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Official proposed file Image looks better and standardize .Please update .

Done. If anyone feels that it is inappropriate for me to replace the image, let me know and I'll revert. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rgpk, I think it is fine in this instance, but I would recommend that you refrain yourself from taking any administrator actions over and around articles/topics you may be involved in. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Page unprotected

I'm satisfied there's perhaps a renewed ability to collaborate productively in the wake of the discussion above, so I'm removing the protection (at Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's request), let's see how things go for a few days. Please do not expect to be able to utilise the WP:3RR rule however, any disruptive editing, single reverts made without discussion, tag team reverting or other disruptive behaviour will result in accounts being blocked and/or the article being fully protected again. Nick (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Any objections

To a few sentences in the 02 election section about Modi's extensive Anti-Muslim rhetoric which was a part of his electoral campaign? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Provided you have scholarly sources, I have no objection. For something that far back, I suggest not relying on news sources alone. --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly sources aplenty. Am off for a few pints, will post them later on. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please present all analysis/assertions that you wish to add on the talk page for discussion. This is a biography of a living person, so we will stick to the facts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Back from the pub, here are the first two sources. Will add a few more later, am thinking of going back to the pub. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also and many more academic press sources. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus adding contentious material

Maunus's recent and highly contentious additions to the article page have been reverted. The entire paragraph on Modi's involvement has been drafted in a highly partisan manner that reeks of POVpushing. Please discuss such contentious additions on the talk page prior to adding them by default. Please note that this is a biographical article and BLP policy applies. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part of his edits violated BLP then? And do not cite an essay to remove content again. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please cite an actual policy and actual concrete problems with the added content so that it can be adequately addressed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reported your disruptive editing to the administrators' noticeboard. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, as you are already aware, this article is under restrictions placed by Administrator User:Nick. I am asking you to revert yourself until this dispute is resolved. In relation to the content that you have added, there is no need to establish "notability" of the incident, since we are clearly discussing whether this material is suitable for inclusion in this article, not a separate article on itself. Furthermore, I will point out a number of gross misrepresentations that you have made on the biographical article in contravention to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

• "In June 2013 Modi came under criticism after the BJP released a story saying that Modi had evacuated 15,000 Gujarati pilgrims from flooding in Uttarakhand."

Source: Reporter claims Modi’s ‘15,000’ rescue figure came from BJP itself, The Hindu, 28 June 2013.

Misrepresentation: You added that the BJP released a story. The Hindu newspaper story reports that the reporter who made the assertion in the story later claimed that these figures were given to him by a BJP spokesperson.

• The story published in the Times of India claimed that Modi had commisioned four Boeings and 80 Toyota Innovas, to carry out the rescue of the Gujaratis.

Source: Narendra Modi lands in Uttarakhand, flies out with 15,000 Gujaratis, the Economic Times, 23 June 2013

Misrepresentation: The article published by TNN/Times of India/Economic Times does not quote either Narendra Modi or Balguni providing the numerical figure to the journalist.

• "The actions were widely disbelieved by experts because of the sheer enormity of the task, [...]

Source: Forget Modi, even Rambo cannot save 15,000 pilgrims, experts say, the Times of India, 24 June 2013

The article quotes unnamed experts. Your assertion "widely disbelieved by experts" appears to be an attempt at including weasal words into a biography of a living person. Ironically enough, the source you have used it also the newspaper which had published the exaggerated claims in the first place using unnamed sources. Please see Wikipedia's policy on questionable sources.

• [...] but also criticized as they would have been a violation of rescue protocol by giving preferential treatment to Gujaratis and by carrying out the rescue without collaborating with local government in Utterakhand which had explicitly requested ministers of other states not to visit the area as they might divert attention from ongoing rescue efforts."

Source: Narendra Modi denied permission to visit flood-hit areas; Shinde says VIP tours hamper rescue work, Daily Bhaskar, 22 June 2013; Mayawati targets Modi Mayawati targets Modi, sympathises with Uttarakhand flood victims, MSN News, 8 July 2013

Misrepresentation: None of the articles which you have cited make a reference to "violation of rescue protocol" by Narendra Modi. In fact, an Indian Express article which you have used later refers to Renuka Chaudhary defending Rahul Gandhi as not having violated any norm.

• "The story was criticized as an attempt to make publicity for Modi out of the Utterakhand distaster, and create a "Rambo" image of him in the Indian public." [sic]

Source: Congress upset at Modi's Rambo claim, The Hindu, 24 June 2013; Narendra Modi wants to become a 'Rambo' milking Uttarakhand flood tragedy Congress, the Indian Express, 23 June 2013; Rahul Gandhi flies into storm over Uttarakhand visit after Narendra Modi row, the Indian Express, 25 June 2013

• "BJP representatives later denied that Modi himself had ever stated that he had intervened in the rescue operation, and conceded that perhaps BJP PR workers had contributed to the story of Modi's personal involvement."

Source: Modi never said he rescued 15,000 people, says BJP of 'Rambo Act', Sify.com, 26 June 2013; BJP Chief Denies Modi Claimed Rescuing Gujaratis from Uttarakhand, Indiawest.com, 26 June 2013

Misrepresentation: None of the sources that you have cited have any individual conceding anywhere that "BJP PR workers contributed to the story of Modi's personal involvement."

All in all, you have gravely misrepresented the sources that you have cited in this article. This is grossly inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. The subject of this article was also involved in rescue efforts and received wide coverage for the relief work that he was involved in, however you have completely ignored and focused on the made-up controversy. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.

Simply because an assertion is well-sourced (even though it is not in this particular case) does not mean that it will automatically find inclusion in this article. In this particular instance, the Times of India qualifies as a questionable source which made the sensational and exaggerated claims in the first place, and later published a thorough critique of it quoting several individuals of different political persuasion. Similar instances which have been widely covered by the news media but do not find any mention on corresponding biographical articles are Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Please re-acquaint yourself with WP:QS, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and most importantly, do not misrepresent sources. It is wrong and a waste of everyone's time.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I cannot selfrevert, because you already reverted me. I find your accusations of misrepresentation unimpressive, they all hing on minor choices of wording where apparently you want to use the exact wording of the source which I have tried to avoid in order not to do close paraphrasing. I can address your queries in a matter of minutes, but I doubt it would be worth my time since you are obviously going to oppose the inclusion anyways. I find your overuse of the word "grossly" to be gross. Please reacquaint yourself with the English language and particular try to avoid the pompous and officious register that you seem to be overly fond of deploying.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your concerns now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I suppose that making a claim such as "BJP supplied a story" is the same as saying that a Times of India reporter later claiming in an interview with another newspaper that he was provided the figures by a BJP spokesperson (whom he apparently forgot to quote in the original story)? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"[...] and conceded that perhaps BJP workers had contributed to the impression of Modi's personal involvement."

None of the sources that you have provided support this statement. The whole paragraph which you have added is UNDUE and should be removed from this article. First of all, it is a minor incident and non-relevant to the longer scheme of things. Secondly, and more importantly, the subject of the biography has made no statement on the number of people he rescued. If we were to include each and every claim made against the subject of the biography which found its way into a newspaper, this article would become a WP:COATRACK of accusations and controversies. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the exact quote of the source in the citation. I realize that you consider any and all criticism of Modi to be undue, as you have repeated many times. I respectfully disagree.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Niether Modi nor BJP made that claim, read the clarification provided by Times of India [5]. -sarvajna (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Times of India cannot retract Soondas statements to The Hindu nor Singh's statements to the Press trust of India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ToI provided clarification on July 14 while Soondas gave statement to The Hindu on June 28, the latest source that is clarification says that Mr Baluni did not say that 15,000 people had been “rescued”. He neither tried to exaggerate facts nor mislead us also The Hindu source says that BJP president Rajnath Singh said he had spoken to Mr. Modi who denied making any such claim. Mr. Singh also wondered at the source for the figure of 15,000. “Where did this come from”? he asked.. The whole paragraph should be removed from this BLP.-sarvajna (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've not read the sources and I've not read the material that was added. What I have read is WP:RECENTISM, which might be of interest given what this thread appears to be discussing. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Material I added

In June 2013 Modi came under criticism after the BJP released a story saying that Modi had evacuated 15,000 Gujarati pilgrims from flooding in Uttarakhand. The story published in the Times of India claimed that Modi had commisioned four Boeings and 80 Toyota Innovas, to carry out the rescue of the Gujaratis. The actions were widely disbelieved by experts because of the sheer enormity of the task, but also criticized as they would have been a violation of rescue protocol by giving preferential treatment to Gujaratis and by carrying out the rescue without collaborating with local government in Utterakhand which had explicitly requested ministers of other states not to visit the area as they might divert attention from ongoing rescue efforts. The story was criticized as an attempt to make publicity for Modi out of the Utterakhand distaster, and create a "Rambo" image of him in the Indian public. BJP representatives later denied that Modi himself had ever stated that he had intervened in the rescue operation, and conceded that perhaps BJP PR workers had contributed to the story of Modi's personal involvement.

This is what I added, supported by dozens of sources which clearly show notability. WP:Recentism does not say that we shouldn't include recent information when it is well sourced, it says that recent material should not be given undue weight in relation to the whole. A short section on this issue is not undue weight. Especially not in relation to the weighting of other sections. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles are not news. Your material is not noteworthy for BLP. Many controversial, non-controversial news appear in media about him almost every week. Now-a-days his "Hindu nationalist" and "dog under car" are making headlines. We can't include every news. I am removing that section. neo (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So why remove it all? Why not leave a few lines if due weight is your issue? The content seems fine to me as it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The content is fine but perhaps merits less space in the article. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well first I added it in the personality section as a couple of sentences, but it was reverted with the reason that it didn't fit there and that I should add it to another section. So when I found so many sources I thought it would do well as a standalone subsection. Any suggestions for where it should be added if it shouldn't a stand alone section and how much weight it should have?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

→ On 16th July 2013, I had added the photograph of recent 'clarification' issued by the Times of India regarding the Rambo report... This photograph is freely available on the internet. I had uploaded it on Wikicommons. I had also modified the matter to (Quote) "However the newspaper the Times of India(TOI) later clarified that the information regarding 'rescuing' 15000 people was never mentioned by the Gujarat CM or any of his office bearers or any of the Uttarakhand BJP functionaries. TOI expressed its regrets under the disguise of "Clarification" for publishing the twisted article and admitted that it was 'mortified' to publish such a report which created huge controversy, albeit obscurely."(Unquote) But this important evidence of media's tarnishing of Mr. Modi's image was removed by some editor called 'Darkness Shines'. I don't want to comment on the removal but I am sure of the veracity of my edits. This just for the records. For TOI reference, See also : http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP%2F2013%2F07%2F14&ViewMode=GIF&PageLabel=11&EntityId=Ar01106&AppName=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visunaik (talk • contribs) 06:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Visunaik! That photograph will soon be deleted as it is derivation of a copyrighted material where the rights belong to the paper. But that photograph can be seen here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

→The image can not be attributed as copyrighted to TOI because it is a 'photograph' of the newspaper, not the actual news-paper.Otherwise, TOI can sue oneindia news on copyright issue. The link to that image (from oneindia.in) which you have provided does not mention any photographer/copyright holder.So, Dharmadhyaksha, given that the photograph is already in public domain, it can be used under fair use. Or at least the direct link to the TOI e-paper website which shows the clarification can be used. But the matter of 'TOI regrets for the twisted news' can not be overlooked. Visunaik (talk • contribs)

I agree that TOI's this article should not be overlooked. I only noted it here about the image in case you wonder where it went. And the issues of copyrights are better discussed elsewhere. You are welcome on my talk page for that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I brought the retraction up and pruned the material focusing on the controversy rather than what Modi did or did not do. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So should we then change the subtitle to "Uttarakhand floods controversy"; if that's the only content left in there? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the "Rambo" epithet and the question of what he did and didn't do is notable and central.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  I retitled it. Maunus, could you formulate a sentence for the Rambo part (that also takes the retraction into account)? Also, I can't see the article on Daily Bhaskar but there are plenty of other sources so I'll take your word for it. --regentspark (comment) 14:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I Might write something like: The Times article was titled "Modi in Rambo act, saves 15,000", and the reference to the movie "Rambo" came to be used as a derisive epithet by Modi's critics who argued that the article was used to create a tough-guy image for Modi, prior to the coming elections."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But since the TOI has retracted the rescue part of the story, we'd then have to add something on how this was before the retraction and that the BJP is now using it to chastise the media.([6]) My feeling is that we should keep this simple and leave it as it is. If the Rambo name catches on with Modi, then we can write something on where it came from. Otherwise this entire incident is getting overblown and a lot more real estate than it deserves. --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The part I wrote doesn't mention anything about the rescue, it just says that they used the word "Rambo" in the title which they did, and which had consequences, whether or not the article has since been retracted. The Rambo name already has a lot of notable sources, with leaders of congress party using it for example, not to mention news headlines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit on Rambo. --regentspark (comment) 21:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it even important to have this section? -sarvajna (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if 'important' is the right word to use for deciding whether to include or exclude something. Let's just say that it is topical and notable enough for inclusion right now. --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But doesn't some essay somewhere about neutrality say that titles should also be neutral and sections like controversies shouldn't be titled such? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything should be neutral but you are drifting back to "controversy", as happened with the lead. I'd put money on someone finding sources that use the word, so perhaps best to save your ammunition for something more worthwhile? - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not drifting to the use of word in the prose, as it was about the lead. I am talking about the title. Even if any sources call it as controversy, do you want to say that we can also give such titles? Is that allowed by our policies? And don't worry about the ammunition stock. Plenty here! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done I am not Rambo: Nitish Kumar weighs in on Narendra Modi controversy Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Content removal

Will Sarvajna please explain why he reverted the addition of reliably sourced content to the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything that is sourced need not be part of this article, should I write about Yalta conference backed by RS in this article?Those allegations are against SIT and not against Modi. SIT was constituted by supreme court of India not by Modi's government. So such allegations and counter allegations against SIT can be written in the article of SIT if you want. There would be much to write about Jafri's protest petition and SIT's objections but that can go in some other articles.-sarvajna (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you obviously did not even look at the source. Given the article mentions that this SIT gave Modi a clean chit then if the fact that allegations of suppressing evidence are made then this needs to be reflected here. BTW here is what the source says "The much-touted clean chit to Narendra Modi in the Gujarat carnage is thanks to the suppression of a huge pile of incriminating evidence by the Supreme Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT)." Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I did check the source, I know what it says. Just because it mentions Modi doesn't mean we include it here. The allegations are certainly not against Modi they are against SIT and this is not the place to write it. Modi did not control SIT so allegations against SIT should not be associated with Modi.-sarvajna (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case then allegations by the SIT as in Modi got a clean chit has no place here either. The allegations have a bearing in the entire clean chit which is quite prominent in the article, so it'll have to get put back. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This is about the silliest argument I've heard in a while. You can argue about issues like weight but to say that an allegation that addresses why a body gave a 'clean chit' to someone has nothing to do with that someone - what's that about? --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered the same absurd argument arguing that by having been giving a "clean chit" the accusations themselves are now no longer a notable topic of mention. (which obviously any accusation automatically is if it requires a Supreme Court Investigation Team to clarify). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is like X was accused of murder but was acquitted. Assuming it is agreed that Modi has been acquitted, then the accusations should IMO shrink into a few short sentences. And all the rebuttals should go. Absurd? I'll paste a draft here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Draft: In 2002, widespread Hindu-Muslim riots occurred in Gujarat, the Gujarat administration was accused of insufficient action against the violence, and even condoning it in some cases.[7][8][9] In April 2009, the Supreme Court of India appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inquire into the incidents,[10] the SIT between December 2010 - April 2012 reported not findinding any incriminating evidence against Modi of willfully allowing communal violence in the state,[11] particularly Modi's response[12] to the Godhra,[13][14] the Gulbarg massacre[15][16] In July 2013 allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence.[17] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ignore/ improve grammar etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, are you suggesting this in place of the entire 2002 Gujarat violence section? You definitely need to include the train burning bit as it is currently included and the kar sevak part otherwise there is no background to the violence. If you do, I'm not sure if this is really that different from what is already there? --regentspark (comment) 22:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would consider that a step in the wrong direction. The accusations and investigations into Modi and his involvement in the riots is a gigantic part of the literature it needs to be better represented not less so. We don't mention for example that ministers in his cabinet have been convicted for participation in the violence - obviously something that reflects on Modi and his government and throw light on the reasons why people would consider him likely to have been involved. We also cannot get around metioning Zakia Jaffris accusations that Ehsan JAffri spoke personally with Modi who refused to help. ALl of this is notable whether or not it is true, and the article needs to include it as well as any contrary viewpoints or court decisions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RP yes, the entire section, we're not writing about the violence, it has a dedicated article which is mentioned in "See also", we are writing a small biographical sketch of Modi, and 2002 is one incident in his four term career as CM. I stand by the draft. Maunus: If someone would create an article "Modi and Gujarat 2002", then we would have all the details there, not here imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a content fork which we dont do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A content fork isn't necessarily bad. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary style and content forking is not the same thing. Summary style works like this: If on section grows much bigger than the weight it should have in the article then that section is spun out into a daughter article with a full section left in place that summarises it. It does not work the way you think you can segregate unpleasant information into its own article and replace it with a couple of sentences in the main one. But yes, we should have an article on Modi and Gujarat which should have at least a full section of summary in this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my draft. I opine that accusations against Modi's conduct are adequately represented. I opine that the section has grown larger than its weight, considering its vintage, Modi's three electoral victories, multiple terms as Chief Minister, his new national role, etc. The present details are undue. If anyone wants more than my he may create "Allegations against Modi: Gujarat 2002", I hope that is a valid subject. This is my stand. I'm happy with any disagreements. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You certainly have every right to opine.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Some more content

Modi's speech, which had broadcast in 18 U.S. cities should be mentioned.[18] U.S. MP had meet Modi, and invited him to US, it should be mentioned as well.[19] This popular one "UK's most senior diplomat in India meets Narendra Modi, ending 10-year boycott" needs to be added.[20] 122.179.136.233 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Uttarakhand floods controversy

The claims were not made by Modi or Gujarat Govt. on any platform, and were reported by the media. The BJP used this fact to defend itself and this should be included in the section. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make it neutral or something? We don't do that here Vibhi. Why are you behaving like you are new? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

edit sought

Would this be ok " Modi allegedly used extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign." in place of the present "Modi used extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign."? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to write that "X has described Modi's rhetoric during the campaign as extremely anti-muslim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. There are three sources and multiple authors, how do we manage that? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "Several commentators have described..." would work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fellows won't be happy with "several". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"several" is not problematic when it is accurate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "certain" would be more appropriate. As in "Certain commentators have described Modi's rhetoric during the campaign as extremely anti-Muslim." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we shall stick with stating the facts as they are. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion cannot be presented as a statement of facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And once again you are mistaken scholarly analysis for newspapers, get with the times. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not mistaking anything, I seek compliance to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements and to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Modi, convicted of offences under Section 153A of the IPC: offence of promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony?[21] The fact is that there have been allegations.[22] Was he convicted? The answer is no. We cannot present allegations as facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This news story is about a poll official, launching a complaint in a similar case. Can evidence be presented of such a complaint being filed against Modi? Is there evidence of conviction? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Quit the legal crap Yogesh, it is not the job of a court of law to establish whether political rhetoric is "extreme anti-Muslim" it is the job of commentators and analysts. I do still think that it should be attributed because it is more of a characterization and not a "fact" in the usual sense of the word.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus pl don't make comments like "quit the legal crap". I've explained and provided evidence above regarding how targeting any group: religious, caste, linguistic etc. is illegal in India, which is what Modi is alleged to have done, by the statement "extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric", SIT actually rejected section 153a with reference to the riots. If you have evidence that there is a case against Modi, with respect to the campaign, please mention it, if there is a conviction, please mention it, if it is just a characterisation, then we need to state so and also add information about the status of culpability. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat: Quit the legal crap. Wikipedia follows sources, not judges.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not abuse and vitate talk page decorum. (1) Convictions are the final proof of culpability. (2) That is Wikipedia policy. (3) Anti-foo remarks are illegal in India, present sources of convictions to make definitive statements, all we have is accusations. (4) Pl explain civilly which point you disagree. Do you opine that I am mis-presenting policy? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You're actually saying that because a guy did not get arrested for saying something then he never said it cos a court has not said he said it? There are no policy which says that if someone uses anti-Muslim rhetoric in his election campaigns, which is then pointed out byRS then we cannot also reflect what was said. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

YK, I suggest you drop this entire court case thing. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources, preferably academic ones, and what a court has or has not shown is not pertinent in of itself. This repeated reference to convictions is becoming tendentious. Also, your point 3 above could be construed as a borderline threat and you might want to consider striking it. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't read that as a threat but as an absurd argument to the effect that in describing any possibly illegal action we can only follow court verdicts. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if you stop pretending to be victim every now and then? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RP: You are misreading me, I am talking about Wikipedia policies, "extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric" is a criminal activity that Modi has been accused of, this is a BLP, do you have reliable secondary sources that inform us that Modi has been convicted of engaging in "extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric" RP do you want me to strike this out "(3) Anti-foo remarks are illegal in India, present sources of convictions to make definitive statements, all we have is accusations."? Why is it a threat? Who has been threatened? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I believe I misread your point 3 above. I took it to mean that you're saying that any anti Modi statements on Wikipedia are illegal but, on reflection, I think you're talking about anti-Muslim statements by Modi. Sorry about that (I struck my comment). The tendentiousness with the legal stuff stands though (see Maunus below). --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You REALLY need to stop with the legal crap Yogesh, you and Sarvajna have been told my many editors that your legal speculations are not relevant to wikipedia and are not in line with policies. If accusations are notable and published in reliable sources then we can bring them regardless of whether or not they have been tried in court - indeed if the accusations are notable and verifiable we are being remiss if we don't bring them. You are arguing in direct contravention of core policies. This needs to stop.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@RP. Nevermind. @Maunus: I never claimed he hasn't been accused, x was accused of murder ok, but was even a case filed? Was x convicted? If not, then how much weight do those accusations hold. I'll give you the example of Ramesh Prabhoo and I think Bal Thackeray who were tried and convicted in a similar case.[23] I've cited a similar incident above in relation to other persons. This is a BLP, you cannot have accusations, esp 11 year old ones to be carried without necessary explanations. Also to be called tendentious there has to be an overwhelming consensus, if we see this page, the dispute is evenly balanced. Also Maunus please don't belittle fellow editors' considered arguments by calling them crap. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand wikipedia BLP policy, so maybe you should quit citing it untill you do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't I? This was what I was referring to: WP:BLPCRIME: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That passage does in no way support your ridiculous claims. It says that we should not let the article suggest that someone is guilty of a crime that they are accused of untill proven guilty. It does not say that we cannot mention accusations that have not been tried. It also very clearly distinguishes between relatively unknown people and public personalities. It also says that when there are contradicting judgments they should be explained in detail, and one should not override the other. These are all the exact opposite of the absurd nonsense you have been arguing. Furthermore it doesn't even apply because characterizing someone's rhetoric as being extremely anti-Muslim is not the same as accusing them of a crime. If someone were to legally accuse Modi of anti-Muslim rhetoric under the laws you mention then it would apply, but a scholarly making a characteristic of a politicians rhetoric is not a legal accusation. You are as always obfuscating and misrepresenting policies. You should not be editing wikipedia untill you stop editing tendentiously and misrtepresenting policy. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus: (1) At wp:ae Neo just got banned from Gujarat for three months, the closing admin writes "The worst diff (among those listed above) is probably the one about 'academic crap.'" (2) Maunus: you've called my argument "legal crap", you accuse me of obfuscating and misrepresenting policies, call what I write "absurd nonsense" and say that I make "ridiculous claims", and that I "should not be editing wikipedia" (2.1) You see I'd brought a civility based an/i against DS, which I subsequently declared withdrawn as (a) I understand that the community doesn't see the issue the same way I do and (b) DS received my message and (c) as a good faith gesture. (3) I'm not going to bother about your abuse any longer. I should be happy with: "Sticks and stones will break my bones. But words will never harm me", my new motto being Keep Calm and Carry On. (4) Maunus: You argue that WP:BLPCRIME "is about relatively unknown people and not public personalities." which I too read in one of the notes, but the second note discusses the O J Simpson case, so the disclaimer is ambiguous, as if it is not about public personalities then why discuss the Simpson case in relation to WP:BLPCRIME (5)You say "extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric" isn't the same as accusing Modi of being involved in a criminal activity, you need to explain what you mean by " Furthermore it doesn't even apply because characterizing someone's rhetoric as being extremely anti-Muslim is not the same as accusing them of a crime. If someone were to legally accuse Modi of anti-Muslim rhetoric under the laws you mention then it would apply, but a scholarly making a characteristic of a politicians rhetoric is not a legal accusation." Please explain after giving due cognizance to my statement above and the two examples that anti-foo rhetoric especially in the context of an election campaign in India is a criminal offence, punishable with a jail term, forfeiture of seat, ban from holding office etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find there is a big difference between Maunus asking you to stop with the legal crap and another editor calling the best sources "academic crap". Just because a person has not been charged does not mean we do not mention that which the best of sources mention, and that is that Modi used anti-Muslim rhetoric in his election campaign. That is policy, learn to live with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Did I ever say that we don't mention it? Please read before commenting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"He holds a Master's degree in political science"

Anybody else think this is excessive for the lead (esp when it's such a short one)? It's also rather abrupt in a paragraph about his controversies + achievements.—indopug (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It was pointless fluff so I removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist

What, exactly, is wrong with this sentence? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified the context. Other editors can chime in if the sentence belongs in the article or not. Use the talk page - don't edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kumarila blocked for 3rr. DMacks (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong. He is a nationalist. He is a Hindu. He is a Hindu nationalist. The quote is provided so that anyone can see the full context. And nothing is wrong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A person who supposedly has a Master's degree in Political Science saying that being both a nationalist and a follower of a particular religion makes him a religious nationalist is amazing. Anyway, he did describe himself as a Hindu nationalist, whatever excuse he used to justify it. - Aurorion (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

He said that he is a nationalist who is a born Hindu. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you read what he said he said that he is a Hindu nationalist, because he is a nationalist and a born Hindu.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The reporter asked him if he is a Hindu nationalist, and then he replied that he is a nationalist and a born Hindu, due to which he can be called a Hindu nationalist. He did not referred to Hindu nationalism. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Sophistry at the max. Luckily we have about a gazillion other reliable sources that call Modi a hindu nationalist so that we don't need to accept your sophistic interpretation of what he really meant when he said that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do, so I have added a couple. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was just my personal interpretation. When it comes to Wikipedia, sources are the ones which matter, and you have most probably got some of them to back up your comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

International diplomacy

In section 6, 2nd paragraph under International diplomacy, after reference # 98, please add the following, “The letter to Obama had said, "Given that legal cases against the culprits including many senior officials in Mr. Modi's administration are still pending in the court of law, any revoking of the ban at this juncture would be seen as a dismissal of the issues concerning Mr. Modi's role in the horrific massacres of 2002 "It would legitimize Mr. Modi's human rights violations and seriously impact the nature of US-India relations by sending a message that the United States values economic interests over and above the universal values of human rights and justice," the letter had said.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.67.197 (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison needed

"The state is 13th in India for poverty, 21st for education and there is 40% child malnutrition." What was the condition before Modi became Chief Minister? For example whether there was 30% child malnutrition or 50% before Modi became CM. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, find some reliable sources, and add it. Be bold.Pectore^talk 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Kancha Ilaiah is an anti-Hindu (and not in the "Internet Hindu" sense, but in fact actually advocates against Hinduism) political activist and not remotely reliable as an expert on economics, especially in a BLP of a politician who he most likely virulently opposes.Pectore^talk 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur comment about Kancha Ilaiah, we need a better source for the percentages and a comparision too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, adding Kancha Ilaiah's opinions would be like adding Subramanium Swamy's opinions in Rahul Gandhi's article, terming them to be the opinions of a former Harvard professor. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

introduction and personality

The view that "Modi is a controversial figure" itself is controversial. Most of people do not consider him so. If associating someone with controversy because under him/her riots took place, then Rajiv Gandhi, Tarun Gogoi and several other Chief ministers/ Prime miniters must also be put as controversial in their respective articles. Mere opinion of some people in news articles/ editorials cannot be termed as labelling a person overall as controversial. So this part should be edited and written as "some people consider Modi as controversial". In personality section, political parties take various names of rival parties to score political point. How can this be part of personality? If such is the case, then this section would become bigger then the all the other articles put together. I suggest to remove this part where it is written " Congress party has likened Modi to Yamraj". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B07 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The comment is based on an apparent misunderstanding of what it means to be "a controversial figure" it means that opinions are highly divided and polarized. I think sources very clearly show that opinions regarding Modi are highly divided and that Modi therefore by definition is a controversial figure + this is in addition to the many sources that directly describe him as controversial. I also think more context should be given to the Yamraj quote - for example a little bit about who called him that (it wasn't the congress Party but a specific member), what was meant by it and in which situation it was said.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Then going by your logic, most of the politicians, in India particularly should have word "controversial" in their articles; be it "Digvijay Singh", "Akhilesh Yadav", "Mulayam Singh", "Rajiv Gandhi" etc etc. But only Modi is being singled out as being 'controversial'. This is grossly unfair where different yardstick has been used for politicians. I suggest that the word "controversial" should be removed altogether, or it should be added to other politicians as well who are deemed controversial by media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

None of those people are called "controversial" nearly as much as Modi, by reputed international media and academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.36.235.247 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

regardding addition of Uttarakhand controversy

What is the need for adding a separate section mentioning as "Uttarakhand controversy", which was merely a piece of opinion of a newspaper, without citing any authentic/oficial source. Even newspaper later carried out a clarification. Do these kind of speculations find mention in all other politicians as well? This is a BLP and such kind of gossip and unnecessary section should not be part of article for maitaining NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The story was not a "piece of opinion" it was based on a known source close to the BJP and the BJP leadership admitted its role in promoting the story. The story prompted dozens of other articles and commentary from many major political figures. It would be a direct violation of NPOV to try to remove it as it is an exceptionally well sourced and documented media event surrounding Modi. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please cite any source where BJP leadership supposedly admitted its role in promoting the story and don't mention where newspaper would say "their own sources". You are simply airing your own opinion without providing any authentic source. Other articles/comments from political opponents were based solely on the news report of Times of India for which they explicitly issued a clarification on a later date. This is clear violation of NPOV where non of the supposed authentic source is cited and exceptionally doubtful and malintentional gossip has been included in. This section should be removed. It is simply making this whole article extremely bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content: 1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles. If you can successfully show that your biography is unbalanced or non-neutral, does not represent its sources properly, uses poor quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you will find others agreeing quickly to fix any issues" The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India "sources in BJP", name of no big leader cited). Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violatin of Wikipedia policies(policy no 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

Reviving an archived proposal

This proposal fell off through the crack, and was archived. Here it goes: (Of note, I have not provided any reference with this proposal in this talk page; everything is easily supportable with refs, wand will be done). The proposal of the material for central politics section may be argued to be not extremely major. However, the image section, as of now, is a mockery (and only a part) of his image in the media/among scholars/among the citizens of India. That needs to be corrected.

In central politics section: Modi was selected to head the poll campaign for 2014 parliamentary election, at the national level executive meeting of BJP on 10 June 2012. The party's senior leader and founding member L.K. Advani resigned from all his posts at the party following the selection, protesting against leaders who were "concerned with their personal agendas"; the resignation was described by The Times of India as "a protest against Narendra Modi's elevation as the chairman of the party's election committee". However, Advani withdrew his resignation at the urging of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

In image section: Modi has been labelled by the media and some articles in peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure. He enjoys a business-friendly image, and has been reported in the media to be popular among India's middle class.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the image section, it needs expansion. A man who spends so much time and money managing his public image should be insulted by such a short section. It is however not reasonable to say that he has been "labeled controversial": a politician who is accused of complicity in genocide, a politician who has been described as a "merchant of death" by a political office holder, a politician who has had ministers in their administration convicted of genocide, a politician who has been denied visas to several countries, a politician who has known links to extremist organizations, a politician whose appointment as candidate makes the party leader step down simply IS controversial. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, may be. But we have to attribute the claims, as this is sensitive.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not "sensitive" to call someone controversial wen they clearly and obviously are. This is repeated in so many sources that there is no need whatsoever to atribute it - it is simply a well established fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Whether we use "labelled as" or not, my point is we ned to add these things (and perhaps more) in image and personality section. Currently, the section is short reads like a joke.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it does read like a joke.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with the addition. As Maunus says, labeled is unnecessary since controversial, in this context, merely means that there opinions about Modi are diametrically different, something that is so obvious that it hardly needs a citation let alone attribution. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, finally addde these stuff. Edits, addition of refs are welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Content removal, again

Is the "economic miracle" not allowed to be criticised then? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Is pectore going to explain why he keeps removing this or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Try putting it back with 2 or more references, may be that would help. Just one reference many times doesn't just do it to make it notable. If he still removes it then I think you can drag him to court(Content dispute or ANI accordingly).  A m i t  웃   17:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If either of you actually read the talk page, there is an obvious consensus in the section above to not include Kancha Ilaiah because he is a polemicist with no grounding in the field of economics as well as an anti-Hindu activist. Inclusion of his views in the article is problematic for multiple reasons. This is a BLP and demands high-quality critics and sources. Two, because Ilaiah is not particularly notable among Modi critics. Three, because this gives undue weight to a non-expert. Generally, constructive editors don't "drag (people) to court" but I guess its now the "in" thing on India pages to whine on noticeboards if you don't get your way.Pectore^talk 01:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. But I have added copious peer reviewed sources repeating similar criticism of the "Gujarat miracle"User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you didn't, because you didn't read the section above. You have however, added some good sources to the criticisms of the Gujarat miracle section of the article.Pectore^talk 02:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

SIT report

In the 2008-2012 section there should be a section about the 2002 fallout including the Jaffri case, the SIT report and Modi's "clean chit" clearing him of the accusations of direct complicity.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Narendra Modi

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 Narendra Modi'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 "it":

• From Sanjay Pugalia: "Finance Minister presents CNBC AWAAZ Consumer Awards 2010 for Indias Most Preferred Brands". Indiantelevision.com. 2010-06-29. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• From Gujarat: Shah, Ghanshyam (December 20, 2007). "Pulse of the people". India Today. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
• From Sathya Sai Baba: Amarnath K. Menon (April 25, 2011). "Up in the Heir: The secret world of Sathya Sai Baba's Rs 40,000 cr empire". India Today. Retrieved Jun 9, 2011.
• From Maya Kodnani: "Maya gets bail". India Today. 19 May 2009. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
• From Nav Nirman: Shah, Ghanshyam (20 December 2007). "Pulse of the people". India Today. Retrieved 22 November 2012.

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⚡ 06:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Open Letter

User:Abstruce added a link to an open letter by a Delhi Univ Prof, and justified it's addition as: He is — Ph.D. & University of Delhi's Political Science faculty & Renowned Author & Social Activist. Look for Him in Google-Books!. My question is; if this is the case, we should start linking to ALL Open letters written to Modi; I see no specific reason why this one should be present here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Why is this one important enough to include here as an external link? Maybe any points from the letter can be included in appropriate sections, but don't see any reason to have this as an external link. - Aurorion (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see it being a reliable site at all. Two circles seems to be an Anti-Modi site, much like the other ones out there [Pheku.in, et al]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sanjeev Bhatt forged evidence to malign Gujarat govt: SIT

This came two days ago: http://www.rediff.com/news/report/sanjeev-bhatt-forged-evidence-to-malign-gujarat-govt-sit/20130905.htm http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1884953/report-sanjeev-bhatt-forged-evidence-to-malign-gujarat-govt-special-investigation-team http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-05/india/41800675_1_sanjeev-bhatt-zakia-jafri-s-jamuar I guess it needs to be incorporated into this article now. --15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Uttarakhand Controversy violates NPOV and BLP policies of wikipedia

There is no authentic and reliable source where BJP leadership supposedly admitted its role in promoting the story. Other articles/comments from political opponents were based solely on the news report of Times of India for which they explicitly issued a clarification on a later date. This is clear violation of NPOV where non of the supposed authentic source is cited and exceptionally doubtful and malintentional gossip has been included in. This section should be removed. It is simply making this whole article extremely bias.

"Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content: 1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles. If you can successfully show that your biography is unbalanced or non-neutral, does not represent its sources properly, uses poor quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you will find others agreeing quickly to fix any issues"

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India "sources in BJP", name of no big leader cited; just mentioned as local leaders in BJP, even in clarification). Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violatin of Wikipedia policies(policy no 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• You misunderstand policy if you think that section violates it. For something to be verifiable does not mean that the statements themselves have been verified, but simply that they are supported by a source that we can consider reliable. www.sify.com clearly published the statement by Rajnath SIingh saying that BJP workers had contributed to giving the impression[24], so that statement is verifiable. There also isn't a shred of Original Research in the secion as all points are supported by sources. OR is when editors make their own research (for example if I were to call Rajnath Singh to ask him if the sify.com quote is true), not when journalists do. It is also not non-neutral to include critical information if and when it is sourced to reliable sources. NPOV means that all notable events and points of view should be covered. The Utterakhand flood controversy was covered in all major Indian News papers. The article would be less neutral if the section was deleted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the Uttarakhand flood subsection to address all aspects. Initial report by TOI, comments by others, clarification by BJP, retraction by TOI and criticism of TOI for the inaccurrate reporting. Hopefully this is not POV now. Gmcssb (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Caste

Please see Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_3#OBC before reinstating a mention of his caste in this article. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a concensus in the above discussion. Gmcssb (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some links to other discussions, and the outcome of this edit request. There have also been discussions at WP:VPP and other venues. The gist is that unless someone self-identifies, it does not go in. And Modi has actually specifically dissociated himself as per the quote from him in my original link above. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)