Jump to content

Talk:Narendra Modi

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gmcssb (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 13 January 2014 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Citation needed tag

I tagged the sentence about gujarat becoming an attractive destination for investment, because it was not sourced, and in any case written in Wikipedia's voice. I will re-write it, but it still needs a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

@Dharmadhyaksha: Please explain why you are reverting this content out of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given edit summary. And do we want everyone's opinions in the article? Am game for it, if every blue-linked person's opinions are to be included. Or else none of these irrelevant people's opinions should be included. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note we have several people extolling his virtues and how he would be a great PM in that same section, for neutrality we need to balance that with those who say he would not be a great PM. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with DS on principle, but I think it would be appropriate to move both the positive and the (deleted) negative comments to the "possible prime minister" section. The reverts are problematic. However, to overcome the problem pointed out by Dharmadhyaksha, I would suggest deleting all content about his potential prime ministership. It is sufficient to say that he is a candidate; everything else is speculative, and so could be legitimately removed.........Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DS: Well... those are economists commenting on his economic-skills. These are fiction writers and we will keep their opinions in fiction, not in encyclopedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable people whose words carry weight, to remove them is a violation of NPOV. So we can either remove the lot or restore what you removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then lets add Mangeshkar and Murthy also. And there are plenty more people from Business and arts as well who have expressed their opinion. We probably should have separate article at Feelings of people about Narendra Modi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start it, but as you are incorrect on this particular content I shall restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we are putting poets and fable writers' opinions in it, i would also add other blue-linked's views. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes any sense when DS says as you are incorrect on this particular content I shall restore it, since when did you assume the role of a Judge here?. I partly agree with Dharmadhyaksha, we do not need an opinion of all and sundry.-sarvajna (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the direction this is taking, i would again suggest that the entire section about his possible pmship be deleted. At this point, the section is speculative, and all we can put there are opinions of a million people. If we start doing that, where do we stop? In six months we will know the results of the election, reliable analysis will be done, and we can write about his candidacy then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: thanks for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

122.166.91.228 (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Ahmedabad Court gave clin chit to modi on 26.12.2013.[reply]

 Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Prime Minister

Sitush, I think you made a great attempt at cleaning up this section, but while I can see why most of the material you kept might be considered significant, but why exactly have you kept the sentence about spiritual leaders? All the other opinions given can be justifiably called significant, but precisely why is Morari Babu more important than any Muslim leader who dislikes Modi? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was look at changes made since X, where X was a contribution made by someone whose efforts at patrolling etc I respect. I've not really read the article through completely for a while, although probably I should make that effort. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning spiritual leaders is important because Baba Ramdev has been campaigning for Modi in various parts of India. Also he is not only a spiritual leader, but also an anti-corruption activist. As of Muslims leaders, they can be mentioned but their views on Modi are not same. Shia Muslim leaders have supported Modi and such information should only be added if both views are represented. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: fair enough. @VJ: you misunderstand. I'm not disputing the inclusion of spiritual leaders views, per se. I'm saying that all the other views expressed have sources which explain why they are significant. The economists are Modi's biggest critic and supporters among academia. I'm asking not "why spiritual leaders" but rather "why Morari Bapu and Ramdev," and especially why Morari Babu. Is that clearer? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many spiritual leaders have supported Modi but most of them belong to organizations like VHP. However Morari Bapu is an exemption and that is why I think that he can be mentioned. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VJ, that still doesn't answer my question, despite being a true statement. Yes, we should not mention VHP sources, because they have a very obvious vested interest. But that is not, in itself, reason to mention any other leader. Obviously MB CAN be mentioned; but should he? Where is the source showing his significance? If I don't get a satisfactory response from anybody, I will remove his name from the section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sandip tiwari( Bhatpar rani vill-piparahiya) iam big friend of namo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.63.166 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making criticisation of his economic policies too a wikipedia's voice

Giving a further blow to the credibility of this article and roadrolling policies/ rules of Wikipedia, the sentence regarding criticism of his economic development model has been made as Wikipedia's voice ("his administration has also been criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state"). Initially it was written as "criticised by some", but in the hindsight it was really the strategy of the overactive editors to delete this line gradually and make it Wikipedia's voice.

  • First of all this is not the view in general, but personal opinions of some pro-lefts intellectuals/ magazine editors(in this case the sole source is a work of Jeffrelot).
  • Why the efforts have been made to make every negative view of Jefferot to be included in the articlea and that too in the Introduction section, as if he is the supreme truth machine of the universe and has majority stake in Wikipedia.
  • Why views of praise is selected , restricting to "high economic growth" only and not in other fields like infrastructure, jobs, education, safety and security, not included in the introduction page, as is the case with negative views? [1], [2], [3], [4].

Some editors having myopic views about Modi should see with a neutral point of view rather than jumping upon very attempt to critize him. Eminent economist Jagdish Bhagvati has written a book "India's Tryst with Destiny: Debunking Myths that Undermine Progress and Addressing New Challenges" about the Gujarat model and how it helps in sustaining human development growth. But no mention anywhere about the book. 210.212.144.133 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you need to get your understanding of that sentence straight, because this has been argued to death and beyond several times. Wikipedia is saying that he has been criticised. That is all. Not that the criticism is correct or justified, only that it is prominent enough to be mentioned. The source is a single source, because it is there to prevent your ilk from removing it saying it is unsourced. Standard practice is to not give any sources in the lead at all, since the lead is merely a summary of the significant points in the article.
As for impact in other fields, if you actually read the article, you will find enough instances of the same. Bhagwati is mentioned, multiple times; the book is hardly necessary, if his views are clear enough outside it. All the things you mention are to be found in the article, just not in the lead, which is as it should be. For heaven's sakes read the archives before bringing up issues here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just thought i would ask if you could maybe add a few thing into this page

Could you add a image of Modi with Baba RamdevAlso I think this page would look great with a write up about modi ambitions & focus on clean green energy, maybe put some images next to the section of wind & water turbines,solar harnessing, china is just about to start its clean up so i think this only goes to show how far ahead modi is thinking way before the today asian giants.82.38.161.217 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Veda[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

In the Section entitled "Early life and education", the correct translation of the word "pracharak" in this context (which is given within the parentheses) is "missionary". GReceiver (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [5][reply]

Marked as answered, as this request has been superseded by more a detailed request below. Arjayay (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Please change the word "propagandist" to "missionary" in the Section entitled "Early life and education", because it is the correct meaning of the Sanskrit/Hindi/Gujarati word "pracharak" in this context. In Google Translate, "missionary" in English, translates as "pracharak" in Hindi. http://translate.google.com/#en/hi/missionary NOTE: This request is being resubmitted to follow the guidelines provided in "the instructions to submit an edit request". GReceiver (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked for English definitions of "pracharak" they all seem extremely similar. To quote Collins Dictionary verbatim:-
"(in India) a person appointed to propagate a cause through personal contact, meetings, public lectures, etc"
This is not the generally understood meaning of "missionary" in English, which almost always has a religious meaning, so this would seem an inappropriate substitution.
The translation of "missionary" backwards into Hindi, seems a strange thing to do, and does not disprove that "propagandist" is the correct forwards translation. - Arjayay (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Hindi, "pracharaka" means a campaigner and is a neutral term. "Prachar" in Hindi means publicity or campaign. You have Congress "pracaharak", BJP "pracharak" and See [1]. In English "propagandist" has negative shades - and shows anti-RSS bias (it is like saying publicity for RSS is propaganda). A better word is "publicist" or "campaigner". Gmcssb (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the person relied on Google Translate. Google Translate accurately translates "prachaar" (प्रचार) to "campaign" (see [here|http://translate.google.com/#hi/en/प्रचार]) but very strangely "prachaarak" (प्रचारक) to propagandist (see [here|http://translate.google.com/#hi/en/प्रचारक]). Both words come from the same Samskrita root "pra + char". Gmcssb (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.financialexpress.com/news/lessons-to-be-learnt-from-narendra-modis-gujarat/1187235
  2. ^ http://www.ibtl.in/video/6363/03-pillars-of-gujarats-development-model--narendra-modi/
  3. ^ http://forbesindia.com/article/boardroom/narendra-modi-role-model-of-governance/33783/1
  4. ^ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/narendra-modis-development-model-impresses-latin-american-envoys/396543-37-64.html
  5. ^ http://translate.google.com/#en/hi/missionary
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi&oldid=590440916"