Talk:Narendra Modi

Removal of the Gujarat riots controversy from lead

Modi is a controversial figure because of his actions (or inaction) during the 2002 Gujarat riots and this is noteworthy and needs to be included in the lead. That much should be obvious. Relegating this material to somewhere in the body of the article is a disservice to our readers. Feel free to explain your @Yogee23: views here but, per WP:BRD, please don't reinstate your edits. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the riots should be mentioned. I also think that more positive things could be added to the lead - Modi gets a lot of favorable attention and something else positive could balance the criticism about the riots. I made some changes, including moving some percentages about approval. I am open to hearing suggestions about improving the lead but the riots are too often discussed to remove - even ten years later it is often the primary criticism against Modi. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed from the lead. Including such thing in criticism is enough, anything and everything can not and should not be included in the lead. Since he is prime minister now, there is no need to talk about his economic policy of Gujarat or HDI. Lead should focus on Prime Minister Modi. It's enough to say that he was Gujarat Chief Minister from x to y. Those who are interested can read about his activities as a chief minister in particular section.-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, notable material should always be included in the lead since it is a summary of what the reader needs to know (otherwise, we could just remove the lead entirely and relegate everything to the body). But I do agree with Blue Rasberry that the lead should contain a summary of his prime ministerial activities as well.--regentspark (comment) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I havent asked to remove everything from lead. I have just asked to remove not-so-important old items to make some space for more important recent items. As I have already said, his PM initiatives or criticism should replace his CM initiatives and criticism. Otherwise there's a lot in his multi-decade lifetime to include in lead. Since this article is about a living person it should get updates as and when more notable events happen -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Modi is notable because he is the PM of India. That's in the lead. He is also notable because he is controversial because of his role in the gujarat riots. So that's also in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please refer to some non-indian, recent WP:RS to support notability of your claim? As far as I've seen, none of International media refer to Gujarat Riots anymore while referring to Mr. Modi, do they? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been much discussed (search the archives for 'controversial'). But, it isn't hard to find recent examples [1]. --regentspark (comment) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with some of the above editors, we should also mention some positive things. I think Gujarat riots should have mention in lead because it is the major event in Modi's life. But last line in current lead "although his administration has also been criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state" is not relevant here and should be removed, it can be written in section "Modi as CM". That line was probably written when Modi was CM. We should write his role as PM in lead, we can add some points from Yogee's version. We should also rethink over line "however, the prime minister, a Hindu nationalist and a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is a controversial figure domestically and internationally". It seems very biased line and probable WP:BLP violation. Why to mention "Prime Minister" in this line? He is not controversial as "Prime MInister". At least mention his name there. And is he currently member of RSS? He is memebr of BJP, not RSS, he is former member of RSS. This seems very biased writing by someone. --Human3015^TALK  21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, this has been much discussed. The guy is controversial regardless of whether we refer to him as Prime Minister or just plain Modi. It is definitely not a blp violation since it is well sourced. Like I say, we need to work his year as a PM into the lead but carefully and without hagiography. Perhaps a sentence or two on the major initiatives (successful or not) but the current text is well sourced and is according to consensus. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya, obviously it should not be hagiography, it is good thing that you moved text related to his role as CM, now we should summarise his role as PM till now. We can use some points from Yogee's version. I will try to summarise. --Human3015^TALK  22:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

Modi is known for his quotes. Both supporters and critics lay importance to his quotes, yet none is included in this article. There should be a section containing Modi's mantras like minimum government, maximum governance, justice for all, appeasement to none, 3D's and other notable quotes he has made in his speech. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrative reforms

There's no mention in this article about the administrative reforms of Modi like use of aadhar linked attendence mechanism, reduction of lawsand steps to curb corruption and bring back black money. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't act like Bhakt otherwise your edits will not get accepted, try to be neutral. There are many other individual articles related to Modi Administration, we can add few things to those article. A person like President and Prime Minister does many things as a administrator, we can't write all the things. But we have mentioned very major initiatives like Make in India and Digital India which have really made some impact on global level. Administrative reforms are something routine thing and current lead do have brief mention of "reducing bureaucracy". And there is no big achievement in "Black money" department. --Human3015^TALK  00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reduction in laws is quite an innovative, unique and notable act of him as PM. This article lacks mention to that. It's not about being bhakt or neutral. I am just talking over facts :) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

although his administration has also been criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state and failing to prevent the 2002 Gujarat riots.[9][10] [11] Despite his progressive initiatives, Modi, a Hindu nationalist and a former member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)[12][13] is a controversial figure domestically and internationally.

His administration during his tenure was top class in Gujarat state where his state's growth rate was 14% for "industries" and 11% for "agriculture".His administration was extensively praised for his extensive work in improving Gujarat's infrastructure such as ports,roads,electricity. Advaiet (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi

Proposal from sock of indef blocked editor

The proposed article can be a section in the parent article of Narendra Modi.Rajib56789 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Or it can not be. Possibilities are both. You need to elaborate more on why you think so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose: Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi was a notable event attended by some world leaders and was covered extensively in media. So separate article can be worth on that event, also considering the length of the article Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi it is not good option to merge it to parent article Narendra Modi.--Human3015TALK  13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose The article is a WP:FORK because the concept meets WP:N and if that content were moved here, then it would be WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia grows in size by forking out sections whenever there is too much content to share in the main article. Since the concept was covered in multiple reliable sources, and since this large amount of content should not go here, it should have its own article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Foreign policy of Narendra Modi

proposal from sock of indef banned editor

Does not merit separate article. It can be a section of Narendra Modi or Foreign relations of India.Rajib56789 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Or it can not be. Possibilities are both. You need to elaborate more on why you think it does not merit separate article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose: Article Foreign policy of Narendra Modi is too long and it is keep on increasing in size with various foreign visits of Modi. Considering that this article only includes Modi's visits in last one year and still nearly 4 years of his tenure are remained, it really deserves separate article.--Human3015TALK  13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose for the same reasons as in the "swearing in" merge proposal above. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the Gujarat riots stuff a WP:BLP violation?

Modi has been cleared multiple times by the Supreme Court.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Cullen328: on this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, specially he is cleared from SIT of Supreme Court. But mention of Gujarat riots is necessary because Modi become "famous" since that event. But there should be way of mentioning that event, we can read in article that statements by various other leaders and scholars has been given in article. For example, statements like "Several scholars have described them as a pogrom, while others have called them state terrorism.", also, "Despite his second-term focus on economic issues, Modi's relationship with Muslims continued to be criticised.", also "After the elections Vajpayee called the violence in Gujarat a reason for the BJP's electoral defeat (2004 Lok Sabha) and said it had been a mistake to leave Modi in office after the riots". There are many such statements in article. Last statement of Vajpayee indirectly states that he was believing that Modi is reason behind behind those riots. But does any political leader or any news analyst or scholar has authority to declare anyone as accused of some crime? I think courts have to decide it and Modi has got clean chits from all levels as of now. --Human3015^TALK  19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't really care what courts have or have not said but rather look at what scholars and other reliable sources say. Nothing in this article is a blp violation. --regentspark (comment) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on several occasions. It is not a violation for the reasons RP gives. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This would be a BLP violation only if the content was written to state or imply that he was guilty, and if the content excluded or downplayed the exonerations. The allegations are a significant part of his life story. They must be covered with due weight, and neither overemphasized nor whitewashed. The exact balance is a matter for consensus based on informed editorial judgment.

This type of allegation should perhaps be excluded from the biographies of notable but low profile individuals who have not sought out public attention. The Prime Minister of the second most populous country in the world does not fall into that category. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)