Talk:Narendra Modi

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

This article is an attack piece. It says, evidence of a majoritarian and exclusionary social agenda but those are just allegations. The BJP has a minority cell which is doing good work for minorities. The other parties however indulge only in minority appeasement at the cost of Hindus. The lead says, A Supreme Court of India-appointed Special Investigation Team found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against Modi personally but in the, "Personal life" subsection of the, "Personal life and image" section, it says, Nonetheless, his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots continues to attract criticism and controversy with no mention of being exonerated by the Special Investigation Team. The allegations need to be removed or at least, the exoneration by the Special Investigation Team should be mentioned everywhere an allegation is made. What will foreigners think? Imran Khan, the Pakistani PM seems to not have such a negative article although he openly supports terrorists, including the Taliban!-2405:204:5097:B014:F83A:2702:C785:FDDE (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC) 2405:204:5097:B014:F83A:2702:C785:FDDE (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead says, A Supreme Court of India-appointed Special Investigation Team found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against Modi personally but in the, "Personal life" subsection of the, "Personal life and image" section, it says, Nonetheless, his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots continues to attract criticism and controversy with no mention of being exonerated by the Special Investigation Team. The allegation need to be removed or at least, the exoneration by the Special Investigation Team should be mentioned everywhere an allegation is made.-2405:204:5097:B014:11BB:E03:607E:A4D1 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The special investigation team report is already mentioned in para 3 of the lead. Repeating it everywhere would be unnecessary duplication. Note also that wikipedia gives more weight to academic sources and less weight to court rulings or reports. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, at least, can you add that he was exonerated by the Special Investigation Team after the sentence Nonetheless, his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots continues to attract criticism and controversy which is in the, "Personal life" subsection of the, "Personal life and image" section?-2405:204:5097:B014:C4CC:F50C:AB9:FFDA (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam or Kautilya3, it is left to one of you to do so now as RegentsPark is not doing it.-27.7.6.227 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies upon academic scholars for the better or worse. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, IP, wikipedia moves at wikispeed. I don't think your proposed addition is necessary, nor does not it fit in the text. The actual sentence says nothing about what he was responsible for or not responsible for in the riots, it merely says that there is controversy about his role. Which, apparently, is well sourced. Adding "he was exonerated", or rather "no evidence was found" seems unnecessary because we aren't saying he was guilty of anything. Even if we had said "Modi was responsible for ....", the government report doesn't carry much weight on Wikipedia and it would be undue to keep harping on it. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the reliable sources have not "exhonerated" Modi. The Special Investigation Team is undue. People should be glad that we are even mentioning it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources dont have any authority, capacity & capability to 'exhnorate' or 'not exhonater' Modi. It is the task of investigating agencies like SITLodoVena (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Against Deleting several days of good peer-reviewed research

Hi, unfortunately I found something which is very sad. I mean I suddenly noticed that some editors have removed some well researched material discriminately, which has been done for so long. For ex.-Just look these- [1], [2]

And my second objection is that What’s the problem with many Indian authors which they have removed like [3](Strange claim that Bhattacharjee does not seem reliable according to their own suitability and bias).

And the Third and most Critical objection-

Look at the statements of the Article that says:-

“Modi had only infrequently spoken of his family background during his 13 years as chief minister of Gujarat. In the run up to the 2014 national elections, he began to regularly draw attention to his low-ranking social origins and to having to work as a child in his father's tea shop on the Vadnagar railway station platform”

Are you saying something like 'he's got attention’? What kind of statement is this? I know editing is what everyone can do, but please be specific and respectful too. Please correct the article, which is turning out to be very hostile for the individual. Even if you don't respect the PM, you should be at least neutral enough that it doesn't leave the audience feeling a smell of hate. I hope other editors do take note here.223.190.167.197 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

The talk section about the problems in the environmental policy section has been silent for a whole month with nobody raising any objections. I'm going to assume Qui tacet consentire videtur (WP:SILENT) and ask that the following edits be done:

1) Correct the claim that the budget allocation for the environment went down by 50% to 14%, or remove that part entirely because it's outdated.

2) Mention that the budget allocation for MoEF has gone up ~18% since his election in 2014

3) Mention the founding of the International Solar Alliance

4) Mention the meeting of India's Paris Climate agreement vows 9 years before schedule (sources for the above points are listed in the "Issues in the Environmental Policy section" section in the talk page)

5) Mention the creation of the national hydrogen mission to help the country produce and adapt green hydrogen

6) Mention that solar power generation has risen 1200% from 4.6Twh in 2014-15 to 60.4 Twh in 2020-21

7) Mention that the world's largest and second largest photovoltaic power stations were built in India under his premiership

The fact that all these points have been omitted in the article while inaccurate and outdated figures stay in the Wikipedia article of a living elected head of government is a shame and must be corrected to better reflect his actual environmental policy. If people want to start a discussion about this instead of making the changes, I am going to have to at least have to ask you to mark the neutrality of the section as disputed in the meanwhile Anirudhgiri (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Haven't checked all, but (4) is a complete exaggeration of what the source says. (1) is neither wrong nor outdated. It's the central funding that was cut. You can see it in same table you linked to - "Plan outlay" at the bottom is split into Central and State contributions. The specific numbers are 2430cr in 2013-14 (UPA), 1850cr in Revised 2013-14 (NDA) and 1171cr in 2014-15. This source specifically talks about the halving.

Since there appear to be issues, I'm setting this to answered for now. For others, please provide actual text for the proposed changes. Hemantha (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove Operation ganga

Operation ganga is ongoing. Remove it. SameepS (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@SameepS There is a whole article on 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, which is ongoing. Would you like to delete the whole article? Souryadeep630 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Add when it finished.SameepS (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Souryadeep630

This person is whitewashing this article.SameepS (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha The Harriss 2015 as you mentioned in edit Special:Diff/1075008329 corresponds to page 712, is that correct? If you were able to verify, could you add the citation removed by @Souryadeep630 along with the page? Seems like a contentious claim, so more refs would do only good, imo. — DaxServer (t · c) 13:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer, On Harriss 2015, no, it isn't page 712. Those pages are intro to a collection of essays. One of those essays, in later pages, is by Ronojoy Sen in which he discusses campaign financing by corporate donors. But the ref I added in my edit is much better than that both in ease of access and verifiability; and I feel that readers wouldn't be better served by adding ref to Sen's essay (also because Sen mentions Rajdeep Sardesai; which might make the next editor checking the ref, remove it as biased) . Hemantha (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also reverted Special:Diff/1075273643 - the Efn provides sources for Modi's administration being considered complicit. Looking at 2002 Gujarat riots, the statement attributes to scholars studying the riots. Maybe it should be done here as well? Opinions?

Also reverted Special:Diff/1075287008/1075366185 by @Souryadeep630: The body seems to sufficiently source it. Do you see any gaps? — DaxServer (t · c) 13:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @SameepS and @DaxServer I have not done any censoring/whitewashing of any information. I have been editing on Wikipedia from the past 2 years and have had constructive experiences of editing and writing an article on wikipedia. I bring in legitimate references and citations for all the information that I add. At the same time, unsourced information, especially when it is commendments or allegations must have a strong source as per the policies of Wikipedia. The information which I added at my budding days as an editor were also reasonably deleted, due to lack of references and sources. @DaxServer I trust you and I request you to keenly see my past editings in this page and amend this false allegation of whitewashing Thank You, Cheers Souryadeep630 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Souryadeep630 I don't think you did any whitewashing. All I see is you challenging some content, some of which is clarified and other sources being added. I forgot to mention that the second diff Special:Diff/1075273643 I reverted was by @Jhy.rjwk, which actually falls under whitewashing. I thought I mentioned it. Sorry about that! I've also left a note on @SameepS's talk page asking to post some diffs when they accuse someone. Thanks :) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

All his editing blindly support BJP in many articles. He is adding unnecessary content in many articles witout neutrally. You know what. BJP has big IT cell to spreading hate online. Every one should be careful.SameepS (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@SameepS Firstly I respectfully ask you to be sensible, Writing true facts, both positive side and negative side of any article does not account to biasing. Do understand this first. Daxserver has also had a look at my inputs. I have written almost all of the controversies section in article Yogi Adityanath. Go have a look if you are still confused about the word favourism, biasing and neutrality. Have a nice day Souryadeep630 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You written BJP propaganda in Yogi adityanath. Some people deleted it. SameepS (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By the above message I come to know you do not know how to view a specified editings of a user. I wish May you get the knowledge of it, God bless you Souryadeep630 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• @DaxServer: You seem to have restored the problem edit here despite the well-explained removal which seemed to have been removing the remaining WP:GEVAL attempted on this problematic edit. It is also WP:UNDUE for the lead because courts make hundreds of comments, only their verdict is important for highlighting. This edit was never discussed on the talk page either. I think you should remove this sentence. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ya, the remark shall be removed from the lead. Thanks for the observation! — DaxServer (t · c) 19:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the 3rd para needs a bit of re-work — DaxServer (t · c) 12:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

The following section shall be added in this subheading.

PM Modi approval rating is highest among 13 world leaders in a survey conducted by US-based global leader approval tracker Morning Consult. PM Modi garnered an approval rating of 71 per cent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kichupila (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That site seems to be masquerading as Times of India. Hemantha (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Kichupila one source says 71 rating, would you like to say anything about this, the last line will not match, is there any other source.. – B203GTB  • (talk)  • 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Kichupila don't edit comments after they've been replied to, see WP:TALK#REVISE. Hemantha (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

added more sources, corrected approval rating to 71% Kichupila (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

• Strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Update the official photograph

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Add - "In 2019, PM Modi donated Rs. 21 lakh from his personal savings to the corpus fund for the welfare of sanitation workers ok Kumbh Mela" in the Personal Donations Section. Ankit18gupta (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-modis-donations-from-his-savings-and-proceeds-of-auctions-exceed-rs-103-crore/articleshow/77907816.cms#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20PM%20Modi%20donated%20Rs.%2021%20lakh%20from%20his%20personal%20savings%20to%20the%20corpus%20fund%20for%20the%20welfare%20of%20sanitation%20workers%20of%20Kumbh%20Mela. Ankit18gupta (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This Edit Request was made under Edit Request Wizard Project for GSoC 2022 ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T300454 ) Ankit18gupta (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That ToI article, without a by-line and very similar to the actual PMO tweets, isn't reliable or independent. Most of the other sources I was able to find were all reporting on the same set of tweets from the PMO, thus making the claim WP:SPS and unsuitable for inclusion. If you can find reliable, third-party verification for the PMO claims, please reopen. Hemantha (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the section was already sourced to similar questionable articles, I've added this as well after rewording the whole thing to clarify where the claims have come from. Hemantha (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Powerful man in the world

Studies said, Narendra modi is powerful man in the world, because narendra modi is one of the man who creates international pressure from india, every country wants to discuss with india and suggestions from india in wars and business deals Johndate (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)