Talk:Narendra Modi

Conflict

This article has to be submitted to the administrators of Wikipedia, and has to be protected from individualistic views. Keeping in view, the reversions by some adamant person, this should be brought to the notice of wikipedia. I had posted a picture of Narendra Modi, which had been found over the Internet, which has been removed. I request that the picture be put back to its place.

Anirudh

The image is still there at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Narendramodi.jpg and can be linked back in. I did not re-include it because it did not name the copyright holder, and therefore the statement that it may be reused seems to be unverifiable. However, if it is permitted by Wikipedia copyright policies, then it can be re-added. (Also, it is conventional to add new entries to the bottom of the talk page). Imc 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not debate on conventions and conventionality because Wikipedia itself, is not a conventional encyclopedia (and judging from a late entry of yours, which has been kept on the top of the page itself, your comment seems hypocritical). Keeping on to the subject, this was a Press Release Photograph publication by the Seoul Times of South Korean origin.

Link: http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1698

And moreoever, I have not copied any part of the article and posted it here. I hope this justifies my reinstatement of Narendra Modi's picture on this page. If you have a better picture candidate to put up here, you are welcome to replace this picture.

I would also like to point out to you that, in the future if you wish to remove any element of an article from a page, please discuss it with other users on the talk page. Being responsible and patient is what describes a true Wikipedian

Anirudh 1726 hrs 14 February 2006 (IST)

I'll comment here only on what is relevant to this article, and to this talk page;

1.Now the source for that photograph of Modi is known, but I still see no evidence that it is in the public domain. This is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Image_guidelines . Being a press release does not release it from copyright, anymore than publishing it in Wikipedia does.

2.Guidelines for talk pages are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout . Certainly I was hypocritical in putting the section 'Talk page conventions' at the top of the page. If you read the page history, you will see that it was because others were adding material to either the top of the page (if they did not follow the convention), or the bottom (if they did follow it). It was intended, successfully, as a short reminder that the convention should be followed. If I had followed it, then again, this exchange would have become unreadable, though it would have demonstrated the need for the convention. This entire section should therefore be moved to the bottom of the page, to remain in accordance with the guidelines. I don't intend to do it. Finally, I have triple indented these last comments of mine for a reason. Imc 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Imc, Thanks for illuminating my mistakes. I have taken the steps in accordance. I mailed the Seoul Times for getting permission to use this picture on Wikipedia. This is the reply I received from their Managing Editor, Mr. Joseph Joh

X-Gmail-Received: b2eb8fa678811270d5913e6bf57b3e101c81c076 Delivered-To: anirudhsbh@gmail.com Received: by 10.35.29.12 with SMTP id g12cs46118pyj;

       Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:32 -0800 (PST)

Received: by 10.48.42.2 with SMTP id p2mr297726nfp;

       Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:31 -0800 (PST)

Received: by 10.49.12.9 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <28fcf830602161647k3d6bcb26qb9dbc24e193d8467@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:47:31 +0900 From: Joseph Joh <seoultimes@gmail.com> To: anirudh singh bhati <anirudhsbh@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Copyright request In-Reply-To: <ef792da70602160535n3755173n4a271ca04a9c64b8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2986_11139464.1140137251693" References: <ef792da70602160535n3755173n4a271ca04a9c64b8@mail.gmail.com>

=_Part_2986_11139464.1140137251693

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

Dear Bhata!

We allow you to use our photo for only non-commercial purpose. We ask you for only one thing. You have to put <Courtesy The Seoul Times> in your photo. Thanks for the letter.

Your wonderful service is also very helpful to a great number of news media inclluding ours.

Yours, Joseph Joh Managing Editor The Seoul Times 82-2-555-6188

On 2/16/06, anirudh singh bhati <anirudhsbh@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > I have a request to make. I am one of the countless editors of wikipedia. > Your coverage on the article of Denial of Visa to Narendra Modi (http://t= heseoultimes.com/ST/?url=3D/ST/db/read.php?idx=3D1698) > is commendable. However, I would like to use the photograph of Narendra > Modi that is published on the page. Would it be against your policies? Co= uld > you send me the appropriate URLs which contain the terms and conditions > under which the contents of your publications can be used? > > I assure you that the picture would be used for academic and research > purposes only. I have temporarily put it up on Wikipedia [http://en.wikip= edia.com/wiki/Narendra_Modi > ] > > It will be removed in a week, if I do not receive any confirmation from > you. > > Thanking you, > Yours sincerely, > > Anirudh Singh Bhati

This picture is not under license from GDFL, and should be removed - Anirudh 1529 19 February 2006 (IST)

I have removed the picture for the time being. I will be uploading another picture that would have no copyrights over it. Probably when Mr. Modi comes to my college. - Anirudh Singh Bhati

Talk page conventions

I'm putting this at the top of the page, to point out the stated convention that new comments should be added at the bottom of the page. This of course itself violates the convention. Imc 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs a rewrite to conform to the NPOV standards of wikipedia. The lead section has to be expanded to include other details of the guy like his birthplace, education etc. its too short. The section on the riots is a very POV with statements like "Over 2000 Muslims led by a local politician belonging to the Congress party forcibly stopped a passenger train and torched several compartments after locking them from the outside to prevent passengers from escaping" which have not been substantiated by any courts in india. The gujrat riots have a substantial page and thus only needs to be mentioned breifly without any POV with a link for further reading. The assasination attempt is also highly POV with statements like "The people shot down were terrorists and their accomplices, although most of the original critics have refused to acknowledge the same and continue to profess the innocence of those killed". The case is by no means closed by the courts yet and hence the persons are innocent until pronounced guilty. If this case is closed by the courts or the NHRC please provide a link.

Please refrain from making statements like "much to the chagrin of his detractors, most of whom are self-proclaimed human-rights activists who have actively championed the cause of terrorists". You have no substantiation for it. Also no mention of the fact the BJP lost in the recent Lok Sabha elections held in gujrat.

Please discuss the article in the talk pages before removing NPOV.

kaal 00:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He is the champion of communal harmony - this sentence is very POV. KRS 17:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following statements (again) because these express a point of view.

" Though it has been established later on that it was not a mere suspicion but indeed a terrorist conspiracy. The people shot down were terrorists and their accomplices. "

If as alleged, this is proven, is there a reference to a court case that supports it? Police making such statements is not proof. After all, they have to defend themselves after having killed people. I found the following news articles, some including their own viewpoints and opinions;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3816673.stm http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040619/edit.htm http://www.hvk.org/articles/0604/203.html http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/696/in1.htm

Imc 17:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting back to the earlier statement. Again it is not a POV. It has been categorically established that people shot down were militants and/or had terroist links. POV is "...Gujarat police have shot down civilians on mere suspicion", maligning the police as well as the Chief Minister. Either remove the whole paragraph or show all the details.

Links -

Alren 14:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the number of times a statement is made in newspapers is an account of truth. The matter is disputed. For instance, again, in this page - http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Jul04-Print-Edition/011507200498.htm as well as some of the references above. Compromise proposal; take out all references in this article to the 4 dead; it is not directly about Modi anyway. That's one more (previous) sentence, not the whole paragraph.

If necessary it can go into another article on Lashkar e toiba and people who may or may not have belonged to it.

(also added line feeds after my previous sig for readability). Imc 21:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed today most of the arguable content about the alleged plot. Imc 16:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed "...allege...". Either have even points of view or none. Alren 18:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The riots were in response to the death of 57 Hindus in the town of Godhra, which was either due to being set fire to my local Muslims or due to a stove fire in the train itself, as indicated by subsequent forensic investigations.

What is this supposed to mean? Everything after town of Godhra must be removed. I suggest the text be replaced with due to a fire incident in the Sabarmati Express. Or something better maybe? Jam2k 16:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that this be replaced with something like due to a fire incident in the Sabarmati Express, the causes of which are disputed. Imc 16:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This statement is in the section "Challenges"

... much to the chagrin of his detractors, most of whom are self-proclaimed human-rights activists who have actively championed the cause of terrorists.

This statement is itself seriously biased, and should be removed. Imc 16:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following POV statement has been added by user 67.182.161.29 since the last edit of 26 December. This person also removed some of the previous material.

Comong from a very modest background, he became the Chief Minister of Gujarat when Keshubhai Patel resigned from office following the loss of 2 Assembly bypolls and 1 Lok Sabha seat. Modi is regarded as a clean, energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future. He has championed the common-man's cause.

I would like some evidence of his 'very modest background'.
Modi is plainly not regarded by everyone as 'as a clean, energetic leader ...'; that is why there is much controvery about him.
I would also dispute that 'He has championed the common-man's cause.'

I propose that these statements be removed. Imc 17:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV again

The article is still very POV. I agree with Imc that the first first paragraph need to be removed. More information about his background and qualifications need to be put in the article in an non-pov way. let people read and decide if he the champion of commmon man. The article also needs formatting. right now it feels like the article is more about the riots and the assasination attempt than a biographical article about Modi. There is no need for whole new subsections about the riots or about assasination attempts. This is page about the man not about gujrat riots which has its own big page. The challenges section is useless. All political leaders have challenges. There is need for subsections about his acheivements as the CM and for critisims about his functioning. Heres how i think the article can be formatted

biography and the various roles he played before becoming CM.
acheivements during his tenure.
critisms about functioning of his government.

feel free to add to this and suggest modifications.

Please do not remove NPOV tag before this article is fixed properly. As of now it seems like he is either a great guy or a really bad guy based on which version of the article one reads. kaal 21:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following phrases seem very suspect. Modi is energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future. He has championed the common-man's cause. He is a passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption Disturbed by the accusations, he resigned and sought a fresh mandate from the people of Gujarat. - Prove this.

These sections were removed but then added again. I am new here. how does one go about resolving such situations?

Firstly Just because you do not believe it does not make it suspect. How can you suspect that he's not energetic, not focussed on Gujarat's future, championing the common man's cause, is passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption? I myself put some examples supporting it. Unless you have something which questions the above it should not be removed.
Secondly, last part about resigning. I would tend to agree on that. He was not disturbed by accusations. In a sense, he did not resign. Dissolving the assembly to seek a fresh mandate is not resigning. Resigning from the post is leaving it and not coming back again (Yes, a somebody can indeed come back, but not immediately or withdraw's the resignation).

Alren 22:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still not NPOV

This article has improved, but it is still not NPOV. Please keep in mind that the best way to avoid bias in writing is to report facts as facts, and opinions as opinions.

I have no prior opinions concerning Narendra Modi, Hindu-Muslim antagonism, or the politics of Gujurat, and yet this article has clearly been written by a supporter of Mr. Modi.

This paragraph needs work:

--

Narendra Modi came under criticism from his opponents during the Gujarat riots. After the massacre of Hindus in a train by Muslims, the Gujarat riots in 2002 saw many Muslims killed in retaliation. The opponents accused Mr Modi's government of turning a blind eye to the rioters despite his government deploying army in 72 hours, making preventive arrests of over 33,000 people, firing over 12000 rounds of bullets and 15,000 rounds of tear gas shells to control riots. His government was one of the few ones in history of India to quickly bring in the army to control the riots.

Disturbed by the accusations, he resigned and sought a fresh mandate from the people of Gujarat. To the chagrin of his opponents, he won by the landslide, the biggest victory in the history of Gujarat.

--

"After the massacre of Hindus in a train by Muslims," is not a good start. The cause of the Hindu deaths are a point of dispute, and because of this, this statement is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. User IMC made what I consider to be a sensible suggestion (see above).

The next sentence might be acceptable per NPOV rules, but I recommend reworking it. In its present state, (a simple statement of one viewpoint followed by an overwhelming barrage of statistics for the other side) it looks like a debate tactic, not an encyclopedia article.

The last sentence, "His government was one of the few ones in history of India to quickly bring in the army to control the riots", is a subjective masterpiece. Edit it or drop it. And not to get to involved in debating Mr. Modi himself, but deploying the army after 72 hours of rioting wouldn't be considered "quick" by any objective measure.

"To the chagrin of his opponents" seems to reveal some glee on the part of the author, and should be reworked. Also, throw in some numbers to help support the landslide remark.

Finally, I have to disagree with Alren concerning the following argument of his:

--

Firstly Just because you do not believe it does not make it suspect. How can you suspect that he's not energetic, not focussed on Gujarat's future, championing the common man's cause, is passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption? I myself put some examples supporting it. Unless you have something which questions the above it should not be removed.

--

"Modi is energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future." "He has championed the common-man's cause." "He is a passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption."

None of these statements are really supported by Alren's examples. Well, actually, there's "The 'Lok Kalyan Mela' scheme, which has brought the government to the common man." Well, what is the Lok Kalyan Mela scheme?

Actually, don't bother explaining it. Even if the statements about Modi were supported by neutrally-described goverment policies, they still wouldn't qualify as NPOV. I mean, how can "he is a passionate crusader" ever be NPOV? Or "he is an energetic leader"?

Those statements, however, would make great voice-over lines in a TV commercial supporting a Narendra Modi political campaign.

I really don't want to seem like I'm bashing Mr. Modi here. I honestly have no opinion of him whatsoever at this point. And how could I? The only thing that I've read about him is so blatantly partisan that I have no idea what the truth really is. Please reform this article. --Rroser167 19:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vicious anti-semitic platform ?

I dont see how anyone can call his platform anti-semitic ? There are virtually now jewish or semetic people in India. And it was the muslims who bore the brunt of the violence, so it should read anti-islamic.

I reverted to the last version which was more NPOV. the page you saw was a vandalized page by some anon user. kaal 20:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

new edit

I've attempted to clean up some of the POV anti- and pro- Modi language on this page. I'm also becoming very tired of watching both sides play with this article. --Rroser167 13:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, I've just had to revert from some anon user who reverted me. I don't understand what the user's purpose in doing so was; they restored both pro- and anti- Modi material. If you want to engage in an edit war, at least apply some thinking to it. --Rroser167 16:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help!

I've been trying to keep a fairly NPOV version of this page going, but it keeps getting reverted. Perhaps the Wiki community can help, or the person who keeps reverting can actually come here and explain their arguments to us all, instead of changing things and avoiding having to defend your changes. There is no reason to be afraid, no one knows who you are, especially since you only use anonymous handles. --Rroser167 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMC, your edits are excellent, but I took the liberty of erasing the comment concerning "yielding rich electoral dividends", as this seems to accuse Modi of being anti-Muslim for political reasons, a statement that we can't make without being POV. --Rroser167 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't believe I wrote those words anyway. Imc 09:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of 203.99.42.15

Following the last modification by 203.99.42.15, the article reflects certain views and is definitely not NPoV. Would the anonymous user at that IP care to log in, and justify his repeated insertions of his opinions, before he does it again, on this page please? Imc 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rroser167

I agree with you that this article must stop becoming a play-thing for pro-Modi and anti-Modi folks. I personally hate the guy, but I agree with you.

I apologize if my edits to the article have tipped into the anti-Modi end.

However, I must ask for your support when people go knocking-off the entire "Gujarat Riots" section, or attempt to obliterate the clear fact that Modi is far from clean in all this. The article should be candid in pointing out the allegations surrounding Modi, or else it becomes a laughing stock without any integrity at all.

not NPoV - add links maybe?

To me, this article reads like it has been written by a Hindutva apologist - looking at the history page, it looks like it's improved somewhat from what it used to be, but as it stands certainly not NPoV, whatever that position might be. 2002_Gujarat_violence at least acknowledges that it is far from clear that the Godhra fire was started by "Muslim terrorists", as one railway ministry inquiry headed by a former Supreme Court justice, Justice Banerjee concluded that the fire was accidental. Also at the very least, external links should reflect the reports of numerous human rights organisations that have held Modi's government culpable in the Gujarat pogrom. Nedloh 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reasons before removing any part of the article

12.39.196.98 has twice removed parts of the article which(particularly the text book controversy and the Riots). Please give reasons before doing major edits, otherwise your actions will be considered as attempts of vandalism and will be reported to the administrators. anil 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV continues...

I'm afraid this article is making no progress in overcoming persistent vandalism, insertion of POV materials and propaganda. Rama's Arrow 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest attempt to fix POV issues

In the summary, his only opponents are communists and Islamic fundamentalists? Until someone sources this, it's being deleted.

Gujarat violence - editing to only leave relevant material for Modi

Criticism and Praise sections merged with Gujarat violence because all criticisms and praise therein were about the violence.

Elections - he won a mandate, vindication, and comprehensive political victory. Don't these all mean the same thing?

Political Future - someone should add the names of the awards his admin has won.

Removing all the left-wing media nonsense. Perhaps I'm wrong, but what tangible effect does an alleged (no sources) left-wing english media have in a state where most people can't speak english.

Most progressive state according to who? Remove unless there's a source, I think.

The rest is just semantics and grammar fixes.

Let's keep up the discussion if any of my changes are thought to be unreasonable. Superdosh 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please find support

Could some concerete support or PROOF be provided for these statements?

he masterminded the political takeover of Gujarat by the BJP in the mid-1990s, by building an agenda and political strategy sensitive to cultural nationalism (????)

Narendra Modi continues to be extremely popular in Gujarat. (Again, no real proof, his party did win the elections, but that does not mean he is "extremely popular")

He became especially well-supported in the state's urban areas, due to his push for rapid industrialization, urbanization and investment, policies welcomed in the traditional economic power. (Any proof, that he is supported in urban areas for these exact reasons?!)

Leaders of the Hindu nationalist groups Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh praised Modi for standing up to a blitzkreig of propaganda from the Communists, while bringing attention to what they view as the real problem - rising Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism in India. (Downright POV)

The biggest surprise was that in riot-hit Godhra, a group of independent Muslim councillors decided to extend support to the BJP in the city's municipal corporation to provide a model for communal harmony. (To provide a model of communal harmony? What is this supposed to mean?)

All these sections, BTW, have been deleted by me. If you are intent on reverting, please JUSTIFY these with proof (Say 1 or 2 sources?)

I also see no reason why the Gujarat textbook controversy section was deleted. It needs to be shortened, but it is relevant, and need not be deleted.

NPoV tag 30 Jan 06

There's still far too many unjustified and unreferenced assertions in this article. And such inherently PoV statements as India's largely left-wing media. The article is more a collection of disparate opinions than an useful entry. Perhaps all statements that are made without a reliable external reference being quoted, should be promptly removed. Imc 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hopeless

Some person is REPEATEDLY reverting this article to make it POV. This person (referred by Imc above) makes baseless statements both about institutions that have criticized Modi in the past(like "India's largely left-wing media", which is an unacceptable label), and Modi himself, who this person likes to glorify without citing any sources. The Gujarat violence piece read more like an opinion piece essay, rather than a fact piece. Sorry, but I HAD to revert to the old version!

This article is going to be POV forerver

Just YESTERDAY, I tried to make this article less POV, only to find 59.92.196.98 revert back to the original. This person takes the liberty of making COMPLETELY unsubstantiated comments such as these.

"Minutes later, it came to a halt as a MUSLIM MOB of 2000 strong surrrounded and attacked it stones and ion rods."

"India's largely left-wing media...."

"Bashing Modi has become the normal, expected journalistic practice, and any praise of him came to be looked at with a "how-can-you" kind of horror."

The below paragraph has to be read to be believed. And YES, this DOES feature in a Wikipedia entry, and can be read right now!!

"Communist and minority organizations went to work to manufacture a case of orchestrated pogrom against Muslims, made to fit the pattern of Nazi cleansing of Jews to the dot. In this projected redux of the Holocaust, Modi's BJP supporters play the role of Hitler's Brown Shirts, systematically identifying and targeting Gujarat's Jews, i.e, the Muslims, using contrivances such as municipal records and voters lists. If Hitler gassed the Jews, so would the alleged Muslim-killers of Modi, using the gas cylinders meant as cooking fuel in India. Modi's police would bury their victims in "mass graves", just as the Nazis did. And like Hitler and his accomplices, Modi's men would plot and plan the 'pogrom' months and even years in advance, thoroughly and comprehensively, leaving nothing to chance. In this gigantic conspiracy -- which goes undetected till it actually culminates in the 'pogrom' just as it was meticulously planned to culminate -- the Godhra train carnage either becomes a mundane train accident that is best ignored or a devious trick played by Modi's Hindu nationalist supporters themselves"

I'm obviously not going to take the trouble to clean all this up again, because I obviously know that 52.196.... will revert back to this matter again. Oh well! It's too bad, because this present version of Narendra Modi's entry is unacceptable by any standards.

Major rewrite 3 Feb 2006

Much of the article was PoV, partisan, opinion and editorialising, unjustified by external references. Some of it was factually wrong. I have removed most of it, even though some had some value, pending justifications and references as per Wikipedia policy.

I removed the 'humble beginnings' statement. It is stated at the official government site http://www.gujaratindia.com/government/govt2.htm that he came from a middle class family.
I removed most of the speculative material on his politics, views of him by the press, and other disputations, since it is opinion and PoV.

Added inline references for each current paragraph. Left npov tag for other comemnts.

Imc 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's far too many changes being added under new headings, rather than as indented replies to previous comments as they are supposed to be under talk page conventions. I'm going to comment on the most recent changes I made here. Any text that cannot be justified in terms of the references given may be opinion; given the extent of PoV that has appeared on this site, it needs to be followed rigorously. I've therefore removed most things that I could not find justification for in the references. Imc 11:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you care to justify why you keep reverting the changes I made backed up with references? According to who is Modi "controversial"? Definitely not those who voted him into power? This is like saying "George Bush" is controversial! Every important leader is "controversial". Likewise, why must the fact that there is evidence that the denial of visa to Modi is the result of lobbying by the Christian Right be suppressed? Satyameva jayate 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First, I apologise for the previous straight reversion, that was me forgetting to clear the clipboard on my PC. I've remade the changes that I intended to make. Certainly Modi is controversial, on a scale that no other current Indian politician is. Not the prime minister, not Jayalalitha, or anyone else. The allegation that it was only the English language press that was anti-Modi has not been substantiated at all. Give us some evidence of a media study that says so. Since I remember reading severe editorial criticism in at least one English language publication that has a non English version, I doubt that you will be able substantiate it. The allegation that the US visa incident was due to the Christian right is not borne out at all, and in any way, by the reference - [1] - that was provided. Perhaps you had something else in mind, or if there is some other page with this evidence that this one leads to, please provide a direct reference. If you do provide such evidence, then that's fine, but don't accuse me of suppressing something that so far has not appeared here. Finally, I've taken teh liberty of indenting your previous response, in line with talk page convention, and in order to retain readability. Imc 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki PoV guidelines say that majority opinion must prevail. I don't take that to mean "majority media opinion". And that too the opinion of India's Eng-lang media in a country where less than 5% of the population speaks English! So the demand for "media study" is pointless. The fact is that Modi won an election with an overwhelming majority, and even if a hundred pro-Congress and pro-CPM editorialists run a propaganda campaign against Modi, that campaign fails the test of democratic endorsement, because after all Modi won an election that was fought largely on the issue of his handling of the riots. And yes, Joe Pitts has close links with Christian Coalition and other Christian Right organizations. Do I have to provide references for that too? That would be a digression from the main topic of Modi, but no problem, I can provide.

Well, it is good to see that some references are coming in. We may still need to discuss the relevance of these. The allegation of it being only an English language media issue is still only an allegation, but now with a suggestion that the allegation doesn't matter since 'ess than 5% of the population speaks English'. I don't see the logic, it is still an allegation.

The original terse statement that he was denied a visa now seems to have become dominated by explanations as to why the US was wrong to deny the visa, even if these explanations miss the point. There is still no evidence of the 'Christian right' even if it is true. The fact that most Americans are Christians does not itself mean anything in this context. I'm removing that which was speculative or irrelevant, again.

'The wiki PoV guidelines say that majority opinion must prevail.' - Where does it say this and what does it mean? Majority of what, wikipedia contributors or the electorate of Gujarat? Imc 19:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we need to debate the relavance of changes I introduced, I request that first we debate the relevance of including that bit about US visa denial. When the other side of the story is not presented, it gives a skewed perspective to readers. Why this particualr fact, of all facts related to Modi, needs to be highlighted in a writeup of all of a dozen sentences? Modi gets a lot of hate-mail and death threats. This has been in the news lately. He is a target of Islamic terrorists. Attempts have been foiled to kill him. How come these are not deemed to be as important as that visa thingy?

"I don't see the logic, it is still an allegation". No bigger an "allegation" than the allegation that Modi is a controversial figure. COntroversial according to WHO? To his voters? To the people of his state? Yes, it is true that Modi is a "controversial" figure for editorliasts, but with lay people he is extremely popular, as the media itself is forced to report now and then. His meetings are often standing-room only. He won a massive election victory. What Gujarati Press has to say on Modi is at wide variance with what the English language Press has to say.

It is an unproven claim that Eng lang media in India is a barometer of public opinion. Time and again, it was proved that they are not, most notably in the case of Gujarat elections themselves. Blinded by their hatred for Modi, editors predicted that Modi would either lose or just scrape through by the skin of his teeth. As it happened, he went on to win a record margin.

Joe Pitts is closely allied with the Christian Coalition. This fact can be ascertained by simply googling. I am amazed at IMC's insitence on technicalities. Looks like any statement not in consonance with a policy of projecting Modi as a villain must meet with rigorous standards of proof, but statements villifying him need not. Why should it even be mentioned that there are allegations against him, when no court of law has convicted him? Surely, Wiki cannot be a Kangaroo court?

(Return indents back to left for readability)

1. Modi is a controversial figure. For instance see the BBC report; the BBC is usually considered a credible source, and if you feel it is not so here, then provide reasons. Whatever you feel about the importance of the English media, this is the English language Wikipedia.

2. Whatever the importance or otherwise of the English language media in India, is not relevant; it is essentially the only media that we can use for reference here. I made no claims about its importance; only quoted it.

3. Most non-Americans like myself know little of Joe Pitts, or the Christian Coalition, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an attribution before adding that. Don't take it out, provide a citation.

4. The relevance of the US visa denial is that it is one of the major recent news stories about him. Feel free to add more; provide references.

5. I reverted the major anonymous change made on 6 Feb because it was made without discussion, removed previous references and discussions.

Imc 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

1. Modi is a controversial figure for English language media; for the Gujaratis, and Indians in general, he is not. That BBC is a "credible" source requires some references. To many it is not credible. Quite recently, it was found guilty of peddling falsehood by a British judge. The logic that the prejudices of English language media must prevail since the language of this edition of Wiki is English, is silly! THis is in fact a chauvinistic argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, for chrissakes! Knowledge is language-neutral.

2. Then why shy away from stating the FACT that Modi is controversial according to the Eng Lang media? Is there any poll conducted across India that judged Modi as "controversial"? If so, please give reference. Looks like you doon't hold yourself to the standards that you hold others to.

3. Ridiculous argument again. Your ignorance is not an excuse to omit an important fact out. And you are not the benchmark for average Wiki reader's intelligence either, no offence meant. When readers who don't know who Joe Pitts is see "Christian Right" and "Joe Pitts" together in the same sentence, they can pretty well google, establish the connection, and verify the claim.

4. The most recent news about Modi is not Visa denial; it is that a man was arrested in Delhi for sending hate mail and death threats to Modi.

5. Well, I am making some changes after this discussion.

Satyameva jayate 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to Imc's rewrite

To say that Modi is "nationally controversial" is PoV. Is he controversial in Gujarat? Rajstan? MP? Among the millions who voted for him? Granted Modi is a "controversial" figure for the English-language media, which has pretence to being 'national', but that doesn't make him nationally controvesial.

Included facts (and a reference) about Gujarat's progress under Modi.

The fact that Modi was denied a US *diplomatic* visa is much bandied about. This attitudinizes readers. If of all the facts about Modi this fact is so [significant (why?), then readers deserve to be told of the reaction of Modi's supporters to the US action as well.

This article has long last atleast become somewhat nearing NPOV standards. I have made the following changes :

-- He popularity in Gujarat borders on stardom (A very vile statement. Just because he's won elections, or if he's been given some unknown 'Chitralekha Person of the Year' Award, does not prove this.

-- and the state has made significant economic progress under Modi's administration, winning four international awards for its development-oriented policies. (Very subjective. Those awards mean absolutely nothing, and are no proof of the fact that he has brought significant economic progress) The awards sentence can be added again, however, the 'economic progress' should be accompanied by sources citing statistics, ALONG with one more reputed source citing that those statistics are good indicators of economic progress.

-- Also, mention needs to be made of Ishrat Raza as well as the Gujarat textbook controversy.

This concerns the last edits made by several different users. Including particularly me, Imc, also by user Satyameva jayate, who does not have a talk age, and the user at 220.227.221.42. I have reverted the edits by Satyameva jayate to that made previously by Anirudhsbh. Most of the reasons are those given previously, but let me restate the more important ones for clarity;

1.referenced material of wide interest in the media, (the visa controversy) removed. This item may or may not be of interest to voters in Gujarat but it is relevant here. The BBC reference is adequate for the purpose, but given criticisms of this news organisation, we can also go to many others instead, e.g. [2].
2.there was added an unsupported allegation, that his 'his popularity among the people of Gujarat borders on stardom ' . That is not what the reference [3] says, and to interpret it as such is editorialising.

Imc 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this talk page is beginning to lose readability. Unnecessary headings are being added, and responses being added without consideration of talk page conventions. I was not sure where to add my last comment, and I suggest that this page be refactored. Imc 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find Imc's talk very agreeable. But I believe that all the POVs should be presented on this page, or an NPOV approach should be taken. In this case, it seems that this page is not going any further towards being NPOV, so I suggest that all the POVs should find mention in this space (viz. Denial of diplomat visa to Modi and the views of his supporters).

In the end, the main aim of the WP:NPOV should be fulfilled. No user should make any opinion of a particular thing or person just because of reading this article. They should be allowed to form their own opinions. There should be no imposition on the minds of the readers.

Moreover, I think that this article should be protected for sometime, and anonymous users and new users should not be able to make any edits into this article. - Anirudh 2053 hrs 20 February 2006 (IST)

The claims of "human rights" orgs are being trumpted, while the REFERENCED matarial I added quoting the Nanawati commission -- a gazillion times more authentic than any human rights outfit that is not accountable to Indian citizens -- is being edited out, apparently by IMC. THat "some" call the violence "anti-Muslim pogrom" is also being trumpted, with no mention of the fact that "some" also think it a retaliation to the burning to death of Hindus in a train. I'm perplexed: what is the intent of this wiki-page: to run propaganda or to tell all sides of the story to wiki-readers?

Satyameva jayate 16:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is further to the claim above by Satyameva jayate that

"the REFERENCED matarial I added quoting the Nanawati commission -- a gazillion times more authentic than any human rights outfit that is not accountable to Indian citizens -- is being edited out, apparently by IMC."

Satyameva jayate added the Nanawati commission references, two references to articles in thehindu.com, including [4], on at 16:22 on 4th Feb. See the editing log at [5] . These references remained in the article till s/he removed them him/herself, apparently while in an edit war, at 20:21 on 4th February. See the editing log at [6]. At 18:31 on 6th Feb user Imc re-added them. See the editing log at [7]. Satyameva jayate removed them again on 7th Feb at 19:16. See the editing log at [8] . They have not been included again in the article since then.

To summarise, Satyameva jayate's addition of the references to the Nanawati commission was valid as far as anyone else was concerned, but no one else interfered with them.

Truth alone triumphs, but truth also requires some work and checking.

Imc 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, rewrote the article again, including some of the material previously removed by the person who first put it in. The statement that 'his popularity among the people of Gujarat borders on stardom ' is still not a true reflection of the article at the reference; if someone wishes to place a neutral interpretation of the reference (quoted above) feel free. However the reference to the landslide victory is probably sufficient to make that particular point. Imc 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article requires re-writing. Once again. --Andy123 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

While dealing with numbers, please cite proper sources from where you have retrieved the figures. I would request the users (esp. Imc) to get proper sources. This is with reference to AumprakashReddy's [9] entry. --Andy123 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4536199.stm

India has for the first time published detailed figures on the number of people killed in the religious riots in the western state of Gujarat in 2002. The government told parliament that 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, 223 more people reported missing and another 2,500 injured.

It was responding to a written question from an unnamed MP.

The riots were sparked by a fire on a train at Godhra in Gujarat that killed 59 Hindu pilgrims