Talk:Narendra Modi

Education

• I just added a detail about Modi's education at DU. From the book "Narendra Modi: A Political Biography", we see that Modi was awarded an extramural degree, which is what in India is called a "correspondence degree". I am not sure about his Gujarat University degree. The reason this is relevant is because it shows that he didn't spend 4 years in Delhi to get the degree, and continued his work in Gujarat instead. This relates to the claim that people make that he has spent little time in Delhi. --Ninadism (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Instead of getting in revert war, I'll outline the major changes that are being reverted for POV:

• "American National Congress led UPA"
  • no POV issue that I can see
• "a claim which is refuted by Modi and his supporters."
  • I have edited this sentence to make it seem less like an arguement, but if we say that some people are cricising him, then I see nothing wrong with saying that he has defended himself
• "He began work in the staff canteen of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, where he worked until he became a full–time pracharak (campaigner) of the RSS in 1970"
  • I see no POV issue in adding the year
• "In 1988, Modi was elected as General secretary of BJP's Gujarat unit"
  • Again, he was elected in 1988 and I don't see the POV problem with that
• "Gujarat’s agricultural and allied sector outshined other Indian states in the last decade by clocking an average annual growth of 11 per cent, compared to an all-India average of 3 per cent between 2001-02 and 2011-12."
  • Needs to be edited to be neutral, but these are the claims made by the government of Gujarat

I am again reverting, and will work on the text.

Modi's caste

The caste that Modi belongs to is of considerable significance. He was born in the Ghanchi community, which literally means the oil-presser (Ghani=oil-press). It is specifically regarded to be an OBC community. It has been widely discussed in the press.

Malaiya (talk)

Important Development Facts are missing

Gujarat is the only state in the country to have a private railroad dedicated to freight. The Kutch Railway Corporation was incorporated on 22nd January 2004 under the Companies Act with equity contributions from RVNL, Kandla Port Trust, Mundra Port & SEZ Ltd. and the Govt. of Gujarat. The railroad is capable of operating double decker freight containers like in the West. Commercial operations started in July 2006 during Modi's second term. The Palanpur to Gandhidham railway line carries 30-40 freight trains a day each with a capacity of 180 containers each. Reference: http://www.kutchrail.org/index.html

Gujarat is also the first state in the country to develop private ports. The state's port policy was announced in 1995 but several ports have come into operation during Modi's tenure including the Gujarat Chemical port & LNG terminals at Dahej, the LNG terminal at Hazira and the solid cargo terminal at Dahej. Reference: http://www.gidb.org/cms.aspx?content_id=100

Rural electricity connectivity of 98.53% is the best in India. The World Bank has applauded the state's highway sector to have created an "enabling framework" for "efficient governance". Gujarat also enjoys the distinction of having the largest IP-based e-governance system in the Asia Pacific called the GSWAN (Gujarat State Wide Area Network), and boasts of India's highest teledensity, highest number of operational ISPs, the longest optical fibre cable network and the country's first four-lane highway. Its network of airports — 16, including one international — is one of the largest in the country while its coastline of over 1,600 km, the longest in India, is dotted with 41 ports.

Reference: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/highways-uninterrupted-power-help-gujara

Jashodaben, Mistranslation of speech in HP

As the subject has acknowledged he is married but separated (not divorced), in the personal infobox, the year of marriage and separation may be added. And source needs to be a secondary source and not the nomination form in Gujarati.

A sentence reads "However, in February 2014, in Himachal Pradesh, Narendra Modi had said that his single status makes him the best person to fight corruption.""Source 1"."Source 2". The heading by both news sources is a mistranslation. The quote in Hindi (in the body) is "Mere liye na koi aagey, na peechhey. Kiske liye bhrashtachaar karunga?" The idiom "Aagey peeche koi na hona" (आगे पीछे कोई न होना) in Hindi means "to not have any relatives or close relations", a source is [1]. Accurate translation is "I have no close relation", which is true as the subject is separated from his spouse and family for 45 years or so. The translation as "single" in the articles is incorrect. The sentence in the article begins with "However", creating an impression that Modi's statement was a lie. Assuming good faith, I can say probably the editor relied on the mistranslation by Times of India and NDTV of the Hindi idiom, but it may please be changed to read "In February 2014, in Himachal Pradesh, Narendra Modi had said that he has no close relations, ..."

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the following statement needs to be reworded in the lead section " his administration has also been criticized for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state " to "Views about the human development under his administration remains mixed." as per D4iNa4Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No Per the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is a worthless RfC. Asking whether something needs to be changed without proposing a change doesn't actually resolve anything. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Discussed above. It should be reworded, because it is only focusing upon criticism, it is ignoring the praise about his administration. Either it should be "Views about the human development under his administration remains mixed." or that whole line should be removed. Described in subsection which is already neutral but lead isn't. Sitush is right about proposal.D4iNa4 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Eh? You are supporting the proposal but agreeing with me that it is worthless? - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about the proposal, that something has to be proposed. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No as per above. And I agree with Sitush that this is a pointless RFC, because you are not proposing any change. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose

• Balance doesn't have to be in the same sentence. The previous sentence says some positive things, this sentence says some negative things. That's fine IMO.
• The replacement is so anodyne as to be almost meaningless. If all that we can say is that some people have some views on the topic then is it worth us saying anything at all?
• Also grammar-wise I'd prefer 'human development' to 'the human development'.
• I don't understand the comment above that no change is proposed. Has the RfC text changed during the process?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC), just here for the RfC.

• Yes and argh! The RfC text was changed here. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Balaenoptera musculus You can check again. It has been proposed now. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reword- It should be reworded per RfC, because his administration has achieved both type of views for the given subject. Noteswork (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - as a nominator i support this, even though we are trying to be neutral here , it gives out a confusing signal in meaning of the passage, as we praise his achievements like development etc suddenly we have words like low human development... either reword the whole para on such claims (to be mixed completely as there are claims and counter claims in thousands .. ) or reword this specific sentence.Shrikanthv (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Statement - The term "human development" is vague to the point of being meaningless. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section - "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". NickCT (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, uninfomative replacement. It is sufficiently balanced as is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. It doesn't speak about the praise concerning the human development. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: @ all of you complaining about the use of "human development," it is a very well known and frequently used term in academia. It is a composite of health, education and income indices. It is used because saying "health, education and income" is too wordy. HDI is the best known measure, but others exist. Jaffrelot uses the term, and in precisely this way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - Oh great! It's an academic term. You're so clever. So I guess since Wikipedia is for the everyday reader and should not include jargon or academic terms where possible you'd agree the term is bad, right? NickCT (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not, because I said it was "commonly used in academia" as a means of proving it is a specific meaningful term. It is not an academic term, because it is also used in the popular press, just not as frequently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - re "also used in the popular press, just not as frequently" - Very infrequently. It's use on WP should probably be very infrequent as well. I'd understand if you wanted to use this term in an article relating to economics or something, but using it in relation to a politicians BLP is awkward.

Regardless, I think we can both agree that I'm arguing for the more concise verbiage. If you really want to incorporate "human development" you should probably have a good rationale for why it's needed. Frankly I don't think either of the proposed sentences add anything to the article. The "Views about the human development .... remains mixed." could almost certainly be applied to virtually any politician. Doesn't add much real information. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So, just because something is apparently found more frequently in academia than in the popular press means Wikipedia should ignore it? I haven't done any metrics but I don't understand this rationale at all: it isn't actually fringe and academic terminology is as valid as any other. It would be better if it could be linked to something, sure, but almost inevitably indices are referred to more often by academia than by the popular press. We are supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - Read WP:NOTJARGON please. Where possible Wikipedia is written with the expectation that an average reader will be able to understand it. There isn't an assumption that readers are academic. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT; the term "human development" is used frequently enough outside academia that it hardly qualifies as jargon. I also agree with Sitush that this is hardly the time to be mucking around with a sensitive article. That being said, there is no harm in talking, and reaching consensus so that we may, if necessary, modify it post election. So, given that the notability of the sentence is not in doubt, how would you rephrase it, without either diluting the statement or making it too long-winded? At this point, removing it from the lead is not an option, looking at the way this RfC has played out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - re "So, given that the notability of the sentence is not in doubt, how would you rephrase it, without either diluting the statement or making it too long-winded?" - I think that's a good question to ask. There probably is some scope it just reword the sentence to make it a little clearer.

re "removing it from the lead is not an option" - Several editors have now chimed in saying "delete" is the right way to go. I think it is still very much an option, given that "delete" wasn't even offered as a possibility in the RfC. We'll let the closer decide. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick, we can't dumb down to the Facebook generation - that's what Simple Wikipedia is for. The term is used outside academic, not merely within it. If you've or anyone have never heard of it then you probably won't understand an awful lot of our articles, especially those relating to India - where terms such as crore, sanyasa, sant etc abound - or economics, or religion or, yes, politics. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - re "that's what Simple Wikipedia is for" - No it's not. Simple English is for people who have difficultly reading English. There are many people who may have a very firm grasp of English, who may not understand what "Human Development" means in the economic sense of the term.

re "especially those relating to India" - India is not special. There is no reason why English used to cover Indian subjects should be substantially different from American/British English. "Human Development" is not a term which is specific to India. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You've now just proven that you are clueless when it comes to Indian topics, how they are treated, how there are regarded and the problems that abound in them. You should get a job with the WMF - you'd fit in well, I suspect, because they too simply cannot comprehend the problems that their ideas are causing. Why is it, do you think, that so many very experienced contributors and a large chunk of the admin corps cannot grasp the complexities of this topic area, openly admit it and generally thank people like me for cleaning up the mess in the hothouse? FWIW, there have been several recent discussions about "Indian English", the general consensus of which was that we have to allow for the native usage etc. You'll see some at WT:INB and at least a couple at one of the MOS talk pages (where I was actually testing whether we even should be using the {{Indian English}} template. . - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess being clueless about Indian topics is better than being just clueless, huh Sitush? Trying to get back to the point, which you seem to have trouble sticking to, is your argument that "human development" is somehow a term that is more prevalent in "Indian English" than in American/British English? NickCT (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Neither the most prominent reliable sources on the extent to which Modi exceeded or did not exceed the expectations of the governed and the achievements of peers should be summarized with salient measures and facts, not sweeping generalities. EllenCT (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Taken in context with the proceeding sentence I don't see any BLP and neutrality issues and it seems to summarise the body adequately. I have no issue with using human development in the lead as I feel the concept is well enough known. A link to Human development (humanity) may help (although that article is not in the best shape). AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Why should it be removed? It adheres to NPOV. The criticisms are from reliable sources. Harsh (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Like explained before, it is not NPOV because it is focusing upon negative view only. Not the positive view about the human development under his administration. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the sentence that precedes it? - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It took many weeks to obtain consensus for the lead in more or less its current form. The guy is controversial and balancing it is a tricky act, but this did it and still does it. It is poor - too short, for example - but sufficient given the awkwardness of the subject matter. We really need to find an uninvolved someone from WP:GOCE or similar who might be willing to draft something but what we're seeing at the moment is people attempting to sanitise the lead during a high-profile election campaign, just as someone was going the other way by introducing the emotive "pogrom" word. Far better to wait until the campaign is over - it is not as if there is any particular BLP violation in the thing. As for EllenCT's position, well, they seem not to have much understanding of the topic and the heat it generates. Agreement on what constitute the "most prominent" reliable sources is not very likely - I'd suggest a read of the archives, which should keep them busy until the elections are over in five weeks' time. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I have to agree, the rhetoric "human development" is meaningless, it is political rhetoric that has no meaning. Remove the preamble entirely. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is not political rhetoric. Vanamonde, for exmaple, has already indicated the usage. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Nick and Damotclese. The lead should be clear, short and to the point and not the place for pov-pushing. The information can be put into the main article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have you actually read WP:LEAD? It doesn't look like it from your comment. Leads should summarise articles, which includes having to show both the good and the bad. Deleting this, as opposed to perhaps amending it, creates a POV situation that favours the subject and the wider Hindutva agenda. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP article, and in a BLP article the lead does not to mention every single criticism. There is already one criticism in the lead, which is enough for a BLP.

The Rahul Gandhi article has no criticism in the lead. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi's article has no criticism in the lead - what kind of justification is that ? Since, the other article doesn't have any criticism, let's turn this article into a fanpage- is that what you want? Harsh (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Why hasn't the creator of the RfC put up two sub-sections for voting and discussion. The whole RfC is turning a mess. Harsh (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Not lead material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: In my opinion it should be removed because there shall always be claims and counter claims. All the development talks have been criticised and have been countered and this cycle continues. Considering the present political situation, this is bound to happen. A biography page should be kept clean.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that the claims and counter claims are not evenly balanced. In the case of economic growth, most sources agree he has had a positive impact. In the case of the riots, most say he did not act with sufficient alacrity. In the case of Human development, most academic sources agree with the statement as currently presented. In each of these three, claims and counter claims exist, but we have presented a broad consensus in the lead. By your logic, we would then have to delete all of that, and that makes little sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Unclear and so is not appropriate in the lead.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is Called here by the RfC bot. Looking through the article, I see plenty of controversy about the economic development in the state, so noting the criticisms in the lead is appropriate. Either keep as is, or delete both this sentence and the previous sentence, as they form a pair and balance each other. LK (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Reword to include both sides of the story. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

BWC, as the article now stands, the previous sentence mentions the high economic growth under Modi, which is by far the most prominent praise he has received in good sources. Are you suggesting we add more praise, or would you be content with what currently exists? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove We have already the greatest criticism of his government - the 2002 Gujarat riots and balanced it with the greatest appreciation - economic growth. The HDI criticism is minor in comparison. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Electrification

The weight given in this section to one Business Standard article is ridiculous. I have rewritten the paragraph, trimming that content, and adding stuff about the extent of electrification (since that is one of Modi's biggest claims to fame. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If you are referring to something that was just added then there was no consensus for the addition, so just remove it ad stick the diff here for consideration. If you are referring to something that has been around for a while then you have no consensus to support your view that the content was "ridiculous". You'll have to start a discussion and wait for a reasonable length of time, which in the case of an article such as this probably means at least a week. - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Media controversy

In this section the allegations appears as if true and is Wikipedia's voice, although there is no primary source to prove it. The section appears as Wikipedia's voice , based on a single newspaper report without any substantial proof. The single source on which the accusations are made, mentions about Twitter only, but in the section, facebook too has been added. The section should be removed as it is propaganda of some users without any proof and adequate citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the section because I felt that it was really WP:undue. -sarvajna (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The section was again added to the page, which I have removed.--Mohit Singh (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

Enough people know that this is an article about a controversial subject and that there is an election campaign underway. Now, more than ever before, changes to content really do need to be discussed first and then implemented if consensus is in favour of the change. Minor spelling, grammar, referencing issues are obviously exempt from such a requirement but, honestly, the amount of battling and tit-for-tat removals etc over the last 24 hours or so has been crazy. It's fine being bold but it gets silly in a situation like this, where the article has had a long history of content disputes and people have worked hard to attempt settlements.

For this reason, I've just reverted all of the recent back-and-forth. Feel free to reinstate the minor stuff - the "wikignoming" - but for anything else I would appreciate it if the issues were raised here first. Why do you think that, for example, I didn't remove the "consummation" statement even though I disagree with its inclusion? You'll see a thread about that above, if anyone has actually being paying attention. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I agree with you in principle, but the tit-for-tatting (which I was a participant in) was in only one section, and we appear to have reached consensus there. The other change I've already explained here, and several editors CEd my addition, indicating agreement with it....would you mind self-reverting, and only re-instating the removal that was contentious (namely the one about support/opposition to his candidacy)? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you'd rather not waste time picking over specific edits, I can do it, and you can double check. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give me a section link on this talk page that shows a discussion where consensus was achieved for the issue in question. I've no idea what CEd may mean but it counts for nothing: you've only got to look at the archives of this page to see how much discussion has gone on in the past and there is no need to play fast and loose with the policies now.

Like I said, some of your wikignoming was fine but I can't pick my way through the good and the bad. If you're changing content - even a couple of words - then you'll need to discuss. That's just the way it is when you get a very awkward article - being bold does not mean being reckless, and you don't achieve consensus by edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

CEd stands for Copy-Edited. Are you saying that If I revert you and re-instate the grammar edits, you will have no objections? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will object if you add/remove anything that is not clearly gnoming. There has been a lot more than just grammar corrections and I want to see the consensus that you allege for, say, this, this (which appears to be synthesis) and this (good style is always to explain the person's expertise). There are others, of course. I've not even bothered trying to spot whether you changed the electrification thing as you describe in the preceding section, but you have no consensus for that if you did it. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What you describe as synthesis was not me. Explaining an author's background might be "good style" but we don't do it anywhere else; Jaffrelot is a "political scientist," Sen, Panagariya and co are "economists," and so on. So I changed her title to "author." Finally, I changed the electrification thing as per WP:BRD, so if you're reverting it, then you should bloody well read it, which you say you have not done! Anyhow, I am going to reinstate the grammatical changes, which will involve a revert, so for heaven's sake wait until I finish that before doing anything. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was all you but if you are unable to see the distinction then you should not be contributing to the thing at all. You should know better than to deploy BRD when an article is as controversial as this.

I left it for six hours. Your reinstatement of "grammatical changes" did much more, eg: the article mentioned something about 12.9 per cent and that no longer appears; it didn't mention Bhagwati, who does now appear; it had some sources that appear now to have been removed; it didn't have some sources that appear now to have been added (at least one of those looks to be a replacement for an existing source). I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence of consensus that you say existed for such substantive changes. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, I had made more than 20 grammatical edits, and maybe 4 content changes. So, rather than reinstate 20 edits individually, I reverted your edit, and then removed my content changes in a subsequent edit. If you look at the most recent diff, you will see that I did exactly like I said I would. In your haste to safeguard NPOV, please don't assume I'm indulging in blatant double talk; I am not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The changes you are talking about are the content changes I initially introduced, then removed because you had issues, and have now posted below for discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that this particular misunderstanding has been sorted out; There are three more changes in this last revert that I saw as gnoming (and could broadly be construed as such) but which Sitush sees as problematic. This is just a heads up that i am removing, ie moving back to the "consensus" version, on those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edits; minor

Since Sitush clearly feels BRD does not apply to this article, I am proposing edits here, in two sections, minor and major. Please comment on all of them; if objections are not raised, I will insert them after some days.

1) From the early life section, remove the following sentence "That interest has influenced how he now projects himself in politics." as it is not supported by the given source, and none can be found.

2)In the early career section, replace

"Vaghela, who had threatened to break away from BJP in 1995, defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, Modi was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998. While selecting candidates for the 1998 state elections in Gujarat, Modi favored people who were loyal to Patel over those loyal to Vaghela, helping to put an end to the factional divisions within the party. His strategies were credited as being key to winning the 1998 elections."

with

After Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995, Modi was promoted to the post of General Secretary(Organisation) of the BJP in May 1998. While selecting candidates for the 1998 assembly elections in Gujarat, Modi selected supporters of Patel over those loyal to Vaghela, attempting to put an end to the factional divisions within the party. His strategies were credited as being key to winning the 1998 elections.

As being more grammatical, and more in line with the source.

3) Remove the details about Aditi Phadnis, and call her "author" or "commentator" or anything analogous. Currently, she is the only author whose backgroun we have described in such detail.

4) Remove the footer (not the caption!) from the picture of the Sardar Sarovar dam, because the source only talks about Solar power, which is irrelevant to the picture, and certainly does not support the statement as it currently stands. It can be mentioned in the text.

Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1) Support - it is present in the source attributed to a comment by Mukhopadhyay, nevertheless I don't think this sentence is needed.

2) Support - helps to clear up confusion of national and general secretary in this section

3) Support - Article as it stands has suitable attribution by wikilink of name.

4) Comment - Question of relevance of picture as solar power panels are planned to be over the canals and not the dam to my knowledge as part of Canal Solar Power Project. Agree that the statement about hydroelectric, wind and biofuels by Modi government is not supported by source. These sources may be helpful. [[2]] [[3]]

4) Comment - Alternative - keep current picture change caption to something about effect on irrigation of dam development. Cowlibob (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't add this but it is in fact supported by the source and there are numerous analyses of varying quality that reflect the theatrical bent - eg: [4], [5], [6]. Of course, it is well-known that he still retains a love of theatre. I've no objections to attributing the analysis to the person who said it.

2. No problem in principle because at least a couple of people have raised the issue of some confusion regarding National vs General Secretary. But it is still unclear due to issues of phrasing.

2.1 For example, "After Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995, Modi was was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998." is too many "afters" and making a connection between 1996 and 1998 is tricky. Try "Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995. Modi was promoted in ..." (Assuming that the Vaghela point remains relevant - when did he actually leave the party?)

2.2 "While selecting candidates for the 1998 assembly elections in Gujarat, Modi selected" is too many "select"s. Use "Modi favoured supporters of Patel over those loyal to Vaghela". And note that umpteen past discussions at MOS etc have determined that British English spellings more closely align with so-called "Indian English" than do US spellings, so it is indeed "favoured" rather than "favored". As far as I can make out, the source is not saying that Modi was the sole selector of candidates, btw.

3. I've no problem with simplifying the description of Phadnis but "author" is rubbish unless Phadnis is known primarily as a writer of fiction. Try "political commentator", since that is what Phadnis seems to be. Cowlibob, good style is always to explain the relevance of people whose opinion we cite; in the case of FAs (which is a standard that we should at least aspire to), it is a requirement.

4. I don't usually get involved with image-related stuff. Will go with whatever consensus emerges. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Phadnis as only "political commentator" or "political writer" with blue-link sounds good. Maybe she was described so much before i created an article on her. I do remember that i was the one who insisted on describing authors. Maybe not in this particular case, but on many Modi-related articles which were on fire last year. I vaguely remeber some undergrad student's opinion also been put in one of the article with named attribution. So yes, some description is must. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

2.1)Support - This wording is better. Vaghela left soon after losing 1996 LS elections, became chief minister and formed a new party with support from Congress and rebel MLAs according to the source and List of Chief Ministers of Gujarat.

2.2)Comment - How about: While on the selection committee for the 1998 assembly elections in Gujarat, Modi favoured supporters of Patel over those loyal to Vaghela, in an attempt to put an end to the factional divisions within the party.

3) Fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Modi was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998" is wrong. As I had discussed in a previous section, Modi was made so in 1995 and was appointed as a General Secretary which is a higher post in 1998. This should be changed.--Mohit Singh (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify 2.1): The proposed edit as I understand (which I support) would be: In November 1995, Modi was elected National Secretary of BJP and was transferred to New Delhi where he was assigned responsibility for the party's activities in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995. Modi was promoted to the post of General Secretary(Organisation) of the BJP in May 1998. So National vs. General confusion wouldn't be a problem.Cowlibob (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The only significant objections made here have been to the first change, about theatre. Ergo, I have not changed anything there (that might need a little more talk) but I have implemented the others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Minor(?) change

As of now, the content about Modi's rhetoric during the 2002 election campaign is in the "second term" section, which makes little sense. I suggest moving it to the "2002 assembly elections" subsection, which is just above. No content change; the source has been discussed to death and beyond about a year back. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you show me how the last few sentences of the 2002 assembly elections section would look with the insertion of the rhetoric element as you've suggested?Cowlibob (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am not particular about the form it is written in, but as of now I am visualising something like this:

"In the subsequent elections, the BJP, led by Modi, won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly. Anti-Muslim rhetoric formed a significant part of Modi's campaign." Followed by the same sources. The Second term sentence could stay the same, or that bit could be removed, I am comfortable with either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed edit pointed something else out for me. In the 2nd term section, it's mentioned Modi's emphasis shifted from Hindutva to economic development but there's no mention of Hindutva in the first term section.Cowlibob (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, no serious objections have been raised, so implementing this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're absolutely right, but that is a much larger scale problem to fix. If you want to take a stab at it, I would be happy to assist, but it will be a longer process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of changes seem to have happened without discussion at all and they're mostly bad. Expect a big revert when I catch up after my break. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: what is your objection now? I brought up five changes on the talk, described each, waited for a week, responded to comments, and only then implemented four them, and I did not make the change you objected to. All of this exactly as you suggested above. So you can hardly claim I didn't discuss them. If you're objecting to the changes made by other people, why on earth are you posting on this thread? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are clueless, Vanamonde, and have demonstrated it time and again with regard to this article. Stuff here should be implemented if you get consensus, not if no-one appears to object. That's why I haven't implemented some things that I have suggested in the past. You've got to allow for people coming and going and the sher exhaustion factor when the subject matter is as controversial as this is. Things are changing, of course, but if I ever do return properly, I'll be undoing much of what is referred to above ... and then you can await consensus to change. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

International diplomacy To attract foreign investment modi visited Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong , South Korea, Switzerland and China etc. Yogibisu (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Early education: Narendra Modi had his childhood education at S.V.Virani high school, Rajkot Gujarat. He studied there uptil 7th grade. Later he moved to Surat for further education.

Manseta (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done please supply reliable source in support of this information. Tito☸Dutta 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

modi will be sworn in on 21st

Swearing in ceremony of the new prime minister will take place on 21st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.20.164 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ab ki bar Modi Sarkar!

Ab ki bar Modi Sarkar! [7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have undone this edit[8], the stock market indices are an important barometer of a nation's mood, its reaction to the Modi election results is significant, every thing is sourced unlike claimed by deleting editor. Also if a separate reactions section is created, I'd be happy if what I've written is shifted there. Also a photograph is added. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted you again; the stock market is often volatile, especially during the election. I would remind you that it rose by 2100 points after the election in 2009, only to tank most of them the next day. At this point, it is only news. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This time the market jumped to an all time high, in 2009 it wasn't so. The reaction of stock markets is notable. Bring it back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Stock market reactions are not to be mentioned here. Harsh (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoaxes like Uttarakhand can be mentioned, market reactions to his victory cannot, why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

First, we do not present Uttarakhand as a mistake on Modi's part; it is shown as an allegation that was later refuted. And it was directed at him. The stock market is not, it might for instance be a reaction to some party gaining an absolute majority. It is also a very transient phenomenon. Sure, in 2009 it didn't reach an all time high; but the actual jump was far larger than this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The stock market is of course shifting sand, but its reaction to the victory, an all time high SENSEX is a single event and a verifiable fact, the reaction is to victory of the Modi led alliance, the allegations weren't refuted! they were withdrawn, yet Wikipedia carries such slander in a BLP, we cannot have OSE applied wrt one article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see why you are equating the two. The article states explicitly that the allegations were withdrawn. Perhaps it could do with some pruning, but the section itself is hardly POV. I am not saying this stock market event is trivial; I am saying virtually all stock market trends are trivial. Yes, this was a new all time high, but in a growing economy, new all time highs happen all the time. This was the third or fourth "all time high" this year; there will likely be several more. Ergo, it's not worth a mention.

RrS sources had drawn the connection (and its obvious), we don't pick and choose what we find as relevan. A bref mention here and details on the election page would sufficeLihaas (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

As of 2014-05-16, 1249h IST, the NDA led by Mr. Modi has been elected in a landslide, ensuring that Mr. Modi will be the 15th Prime Minister of India. Kindly alter the article to reflect the same. 182.57.240.77 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Already done. --RaviC (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Mr Modi is 15th prime minister. Please edit this Soumya cu (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. He isn't PM yet. MMS is still the PM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, when do we have your ladoos? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What ladoos? Despite the popular misconception, am not paid by BJP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ladoos, because you're going to eat one, khaye vo pach taya na khaya vo bhi, type. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Twit. This is English Wikipedia - you should know all about WP:TPG by now, Yogesh. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

138.106.57.132 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

16 मई 2014 का केसरी रंग नरेंद्र मोदी दामोदरदास के संग बोलो नमो नमो नमो । जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द | — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.114.166 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This is the English Wikipedia, and all requests must be in English.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Considering the changed stature of the subject over the years, the article needs a rewrite, I suggest removal of sections related to trivial incidents in a politician's life (1) Spat with governer and (2) Uttarakhanda controversy they are completely undue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Jyoti (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's really surprising how much significance is given to the Uttarakhand controversy! ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 08:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support seems WP:UNDE IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• support per Strike eagle. N\And its a BLP violation for UNDUE controversy/criticismLihaas (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal of Governor incident. Its well covered in her article at Kamla Beniwal. Support trimming of Uttarakhand incident as it was verbosely written in WP:RECENTISM then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• support as proposer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support trimming both sections. At this point they are both Undue, but a couple of sentences is necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC) If the proposal is strictly for removal, as Yogesh seems to be suggesting, then my vote is an Oppose. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No general objection if someone actually wants to propose specific wording - this is far too vague a proposal as it stands. And it is no surprise to see the BJP supporters coming out in force ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is clear enough, drop the two sub-sections, per WP:UNDUE Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush I understand that the proposal is to trim the two sections (spat with governor and Uttarakhanda controversy). Instead of WP:FOC why do you have to label me? I had requested you to comment on my response to your remark about my conduct on ANI page also. Aside, if I do appreciate BJP party does it disqualify me in some sense by itself? Have I violated any wikipedia policy? Jyoti (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about trimming, it is about removal of those completely non-encyclopaedic sub-sections. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the intent of my wording too. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support trimming: the two incidents don't seem important enough to warrant entire sub-sections. Can be trimmed and merged into the corresponding main sections. And agree with Sitush, the wording can be discussed here. - Aurorion (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support trimming down the sections. We have to be careful of keeping NPOV when removing sections from a BLP. Cowlibob (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support : the Uttarakhand incident was a mistake of TOI and may be TOI's page can have the details. Modi made no such claims. Spat with the Governor is something that is very common thing and not something that should be present in a BLP IMO. -sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I agree that the two incidents are trivial. I'd also advocate removal of the sections "Election commission's cautioning" (practically every politician in India gets cautioned by the EC), "Sadbhavana mission and fasts" (what the heck is that anyway), and "Press and public relations". All these are relatively unimportant. --regentspark (comment) 01:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If no one has any substantial objections, I suggest removing at least the two sections suggested by Yogesh Khandke immediately (without waiting for this RfC to run its course). The reality is that Modi is the next Prime Minister of India and we need to refocus the article to that aspect of his career. The most important thing about Modi's past is the controversy surrounding his role in the 2002 riots and the need to have a detailed account of that controversy continues. But, almost everything else needs to either be tossed from the article or reduced to a single sentence somewhere. The two things suggested by YK are both eminently tossable. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest tossing all the sections you named, to maintain a semblance of neutrality, but go ahead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removed Governor Spat I've removed the governor spat. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing "Election commission's cautioning" Sadbhavana mission and fasts were a significant event in the Modi timeline; from press and PR; Modi Hangout seems significant ("The event made Modi the first Indian politician to interact with netizens through live chat on the internet"). However, both sections need to be trimmed or merged appropriately. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest someone takes the Uttarakhand section down. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Uttarkhand section. If nobody has serious objections, I suggest we also remove the other two sections that RP suggested (they received less coverage, and are hence less notable, than either of the sections we just removed.) Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

False date for oath taking ceremony?

Rajnath Singh clarified in a press conference today that the date of oath taking for Modi being 21 May is pure media speculation and no decision has been taken in this regard. He said the date for Modi's oath taking will only be decided on May 20 at a meeting of the party.[9]

Given this the article (as well as others on Wikipedia) should be edited accordingly to remove the speculative date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.141.136 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Read don't speculate, Wikipedia mentions reports of scheduled oath taking, that is a verifiable fact, mention of media reports. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with anon. The ref is explicit that the date is speculation. The lead read as though we are stating a fact, not media speculation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Unflattering portrait

Could we manage to reach a consensus on a finding a picture which doesn't have him with his mouth weirdly half-open?--Froglich (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's from his official flickr account. I would like though if somebody could colour the background. The white clashes with his hair and hampers clarity.—indopug (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalist

Could someone please shed some light on Modi describing himself as "Hindu Nationalist" (3rd para in lead). He just merely said that he is born Hindu and a nationalist, so a Hindu nationalist. The definition employed by him and by "media and scholars" is clearly not the same. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's not ideal as the definitions employed by the media and what Modi said in the article are different. However, it is clear in the article that he dodged the question like politicians often do. More experienced editors will probably turn up soon to clarify. Cowlibob (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear the he dodged the question. But it should not be taken as his acceptance.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nationalist. I'm patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I am a born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So I'm a Hindu nationalist so yes, you can say I'm a Hindu nationalist because I'm a born Hindu.

Seems straight-forward. — goethean 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kumarila: You have absolutely no consensus to remove this. I have no intention of getting into another edit-war with you, but you are already flirting with a block on another page; please self-revert, and discuss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no consensus. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. You would think this is somewhat obvious, as he is the head of a Hindu nationalist party, and that he is described as one by various sources. JDiala (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is not much doubt that if he is Hindu nationalist. Point is he didn't himself say so. And it is not pretty straightforward from that above quoted line. A hindu who is also a nationalist isn't necessary to be a Hindu Nationalist. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ibnsina786 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)The article needs more information about the reasons why the Indian Muslim minority is apprehensive about Modi. I would add the following from the Wall Street Journal: “Muslims have watched Modi’s Gujarat model over the years — it is one of marginalization,” said Zaraful-Islam Khan, head of the All India Muslims Majlis-e-Mushawarat, an umbrella organization of Muslim groups based in New Delhi."

Modi's party, the BJP, fielded 482 candidates in the most recent election, yet only 7 were Muslim. There were 543 members of Parliament elected and only 23 were Muslim. An estimated 15% of India's population is Muslim., The Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/05/19/indias-muslim-minority-apprehensive-about-narendra-modi/

(1) There are others who disagree with Khan[10] so if Khan has to be quoted, I suggest that the opposite view should be mentioned too for balance. (2) About the 23 Muslim MPs elected, I don't know how it is related to this BLP. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

On (1) We have M J Akbar who mentions Congress' fear mongering, and Modi's stand of ensuring and assuring equality for every citizen, and the need for Hindus and Muslims to fight their common enemy: poverty. Video: http://youtu.be/8KD8dSioiKU We have to consider who is more representative of Indian Muslims in India regarding wp:WEIGHT. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much debate on the Hindu nationalist label (it is appropriate). The 'why muslims are wary of Modi' section/para is a good idea but needs to be carefully written. --regentspark (comment) 01:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is clear to whosoever can see, that Modi describes himself as a Hindu Nationalist. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Since Modi describes himself as a hindu nationalist (per YK above) and since everyone else does so as well, I've tweaked the statement to remove the wishy-washy element from it. Clear statements are always better. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the page today, as Modi is in the news, and I noticed this disagreement. I have no loyalty whatsoever to any side in Indian politics.

User:Vigyani has well said that the Reuters interview should not be taken as accepting the description of Hindu Nationalist. As User:Yogesh Khandke put it, Modi described himself as a Hindu Nationalist but not as a Hindu Nationalist. He was clearly dodging the question in a facetious manner, and that source sheds no light on whether the description is appropriate.

It may well be that other sources are sufficient to support describing Modi as a HN without any caveat. The decision should be based on whether there are significant reliable sources that contradict the claim. If there are, then they should be cited and the caveat likely should remain. If there are not, then the caveat might be removed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you're splitting semantic hairs here. He identifies strongly with a Hindu Nationalist party (the RSS) and that pretty much makes him a Hindu Nationalist. Adding media and scholars is a caveat is the sort of thing we should seek to avoid (and, it is worth noting that if scholars characterize a person in a certain way - without debate - then we can include that characterization without any qualifiers). --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, if there is consensus among reliable sources that he is a Hindu nationalist, then we don't need the caveat. If there is even a significant minority of reliable sources that argue against the label, then we should include the caveat.

So I agree with what you say, User:RegentsPark, from your third sentence onward. Your second sentence is proposing an answer to my questions, and I have no opinion on that matter. Your first sentence (criticizing what I said) makes me think that you did not understand my point.

The other part of my point was that this source, in which Modi seems to admit to being a Hindu nationalist but is actually facetiously dodging the question, should not be used as if it sheds any light on whether the description is appropriate.

By the way, please use the {{reply to}} template or otherwise link to my userpage if you want me to reply to anything written on this Talk page. I am happy to help with my understanding of Wikipedia policy, but this page is way too busy, and I care about the topic way too little, for me to keep it on my Watchlist. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are any scholarly reliable sources that say he is not a hindu nationalist or even argue that the label is incorrect. From what I can figure out, we're in agreement that the caveat should therefore be removed. So, I'm going to remove it again. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with RP. There are sources describing himself as a Hindu Nationalist, there are none denying it, and the only statement from him on the subject either confirms this or is irrelevant, depending on how you choose to read it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How is Modi's repartee irrelevant? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please consider my humble proposal of using "self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist"; with the words Hindu and Nationalist having their separate respective meanings and not indicating Hindu nationalism. Can we really ignore the fact that Modi himself didn't explicitly say that he is a Hindu nationalist(believer of Hindu nationalism)? However widely regarded he maybe as a believer in Hindu nationalism, we should use his definition and idea(no matter how vague) instead of speculating. With regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that we're not particularly concerned with labels that Modi may or may not have attached to himself. Reliable sources label him a Hindu Nationalist so that's the label we use as well. --regentspark (comment) 15:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

kindly tell what reliable sources you are talking about. Media? Newspaper? They have called him a mass murderer too. why are we giving precedence to these "reliable sources" over Modi's own account? Bhaskar1992 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are in the article and appear reliable and you can examine them. Please don't compare Hindu Nationalist with 'mass murderers'. That equation is mere hyperbole. --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Trimming

I went ahead and removed the governor spat as there was a consensus for it. If you wish to readd it, please consider informing me first. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

Please change the name Shankarsingh Vaghela to Shankarsinh Vaghela. It's Sinh in the name postfix, not Singh. Jayraj86 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - well almost - our article is actually Shankersinh Vaghela - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014

Modi was not India's first PM to be born after Independence. It was Rajiv Gandhi Vasthy (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done A cursory search shows that Rajiv Gandhi was born in 1944. If you believe otherwise, please find reliable sources to support your statement. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

This Article needs controversies section about Modi's controversies. Rasulnrasul (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversies sections tend to be violations of NPOV whichever way they are written, and they also become magnets for all the POV pushers floating around. Integrating controversies into the rest of the content is a far healthier option. That said, if you have any "controversy" that has not been covered, and you havesources for it, bring it up here, and see what happens. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Investigation and clean chit

I have made certain changes on the page in relation to the Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Criminal) No. 1088 Of 2008 which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.1765 Of 2011 and further proceedings which finally resulted in a clean chit for Modi. In the earlier content, Raju Ramachandran’s views in relation to his report had been mentioned and date used was 7 May 2012. This was the period in between the first judgment was given by the Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad and the later judgment in December 2013, after a protest petition was filed by Zakia Jafri. It may be noted that Ramchandran’s views on Report came late because vide its earlier order, Supreme Court had asked to keep its report confidential. That is why ‘The Hindu’ has used the line “Though sources had earlier briefed The Hindu on the broad contents of the amicus' report, its text has only now been made public.” It was made public only after it was perused and a judgment was given by the Magistrate Court in Ahmedabad. Hence in this light, I have used the reference of Ramchandran’s report in the earlier part only as his views which became public at a later stage, where given in relation to as to what should be done by the magistrate. SC had kept it open to the SIT (refer judgment dated 12 September 2009) to obtain and look into the report of Ramachandran. SIT discarded his findings and then filed the closure report. Hence his findings in the report cannot be used, as was earlier, in reference that though Modi had received a clean chit, yet as per Ramachandran, he can be prosecuted. I also fail to understand that how this line "the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, observed on 7 May 2012 that Modi could be prosecuted for promoting enmity among’’ was used as in the referenced article there is no reference of 7 May 2012. Also, I have removed the discussion as to the “main contention” because the referenced article makes no such talk regarding any main contention. Be that as it may, the details of the Ramchandran’s report should not be discussed in detail as SIT’s report has also not been discussed and any attempt to discuss any or both shall unnecessarily make the article lengthy. However it can very well be discussed on the 2002 Gujarat riots page. Any different view is welcome and I shall be happy to address it.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see that there may be some problems in how Ramachandran's report has been presented, but you massively increased the amount of detail present in that section, making it hard to read, so I have reverted you for now. Please don't convert the section into legalese. If the date is a problem, then remove it; it is hardly necessary anyway. The primary criticism of the SIT is academic; Ramachandran's report, and Zakia Jaffri's petition, only deserve passing mention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but you cannot just revert an entire edit claiming it to be lengthy. Anyway, I have shortened the information as certain facts were repeated. I hope this satisfies your needs. The edit contained improvement of data which was just reverted even without an attempt to improce it.--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit filled the article with legal-speak; the revert was to let you correct that, rather than me changing your language. If you'd rather that I change it, I will go ahead and do so now. Your current version is an improvement in terms of detail, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already made the changes.--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been over the language a little bit; the only content change I made was to remove Modi's reaction, because he has commented on the proceedings many times, and it is difficult to establish notability for any particular statement of his. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the court judgement as a source in one case; since it is a primary source, it shouldn't be used in a situation where we have to summarize it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim rhetoric

@Lifelessboy:, the rediff.com source you added states that Modi made inflammatory comments; there is nothing there about "alleged" comments. Do not repeatedly add that caveat without sourcing. This issue has been discussed here a lot, so you should probably read the archives. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"designated" prime minister

Is this the right wording? In the U.S. we would call him the "prime minister elect" (if we had prime ministers). Designated seems weird, is this the word used because he wasn't elected directly? He's chosen by his party? This is a top view article so if there's better wording I think it would be good to clarify what is meant by "designated". Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Designated seems wrong. The term used is Prime minister-designate. The term is popular in Indian usage so should be used over Prime minister-elect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious as to who appointed "Martha Nussbaum" (aka ultra-left wing activist) as an authority in Indian politics and society. Shameless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamska (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Early life and education section proposed edits.

• Removing the sentence about the consummation of the marriage. This sentence seems trivial as Sitush mentioned in an earlier discussion. There seems to be no particularly useful reason for having it included.

• Rewording the "having remained silent..." sentence to "Having remained silent on his marital status, during declarations related to candidature during four state elections since 2002 and having claimed that not having familial ties meant that he had no reason to be corrupt..." The rest of the sentence would be the same. This would fit the information in the Times of India source better.Cowlibob (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How is the existence of an estranged wife evidence of familial ties? Cowlibob (talk · contribs) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Image

"Narendra Damodardas Modi (cropped).jpg" is more suitable for its usage in the infobox as it is clearer and better portrays him. Please do not change the image without discussion. Earlier warnings given by others have been ignored. Please do not replace this image unless a clearer one is available.--Mohit Singh (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

I would like to add the Gujarati traslation of Modi Ji's name: "Gujarati: નરેન્દ્ર દામોદરદાસ મોદી" - it says 'Narendra Damodardas Modi, In addition I would also request a possible Hindi translation: "Hindi: नरेंद्र दामोदरदास मोदी". Hindi is optional, but I think that a Gujarati version of his name is necessary. 94.205.101.192 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:INDICSCRIPTS. I am not necessarily a fan of the differential treatment of non-english languages, but the policy exists, and we must follow it. 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Vanamonde93 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

It should be changed from MP to Prime Minister Sagarkhatri93 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific as to what you need edited, where, and why. Give sources to back up your request. --JustBerry (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

15th Prime Misnister

Rvmathew85 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Which_Prime_Minister --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

Narendra Modie is 15th Prime Minister of India. Tapaljor (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

see above --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

14th Prime Minister of India to 15th Prime Minister of India

Jignesh6685 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another

Jashodaben

The words "single person" in Early life and education, 3rd para may imply that Modi lied about his marital status. But the metaphorical meaning of "Mere liye na koi aagey, na peechhey. Kiske liye bhrashtachaar karunga?" would be an indication to his very little family ties, including with his wife. So I humbly propose the word "Asceticism" to be used instead. So, instead of "...having claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt..." I propose to use "...having claimed that his ascetic life meant that he had no reason to be corrupt...". Any suggestion is welcomed. Bhaskar1992 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Dear Wiki editors, I invite your comments for a consensus regarding the inclusion of my following contribs in Mr. Modi's article. I feel that the article contain many references to Modi's alleged role in 2002 riots but nothing to balance the arguments. Since the person is India's PM, I feel his side of story should feature in the article too. Please express your views. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In a 2002 interview, Modi said his only regret about the episode (of 2002 riots) was that he did not handle the news media better. Critics of Modi have used this statement to argue that Modi wanted to curb free speech at that time. In Modi's defense, many have pointed out the allegedly biased reporting of many media houses. Notably, a popular blogger who goes by the name "Ravinar" wrote and explained in his blog how certain reporters exaggerated and intensified the dangerous atmosphere.

Modi was himself quoted saying this in an interview-

Moreover, many websites have tried to refute the allegations hurled at Modi. One of such websites, Gujarat Riots, attempts to ""bring out the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH"" of the Gujarat riots of 2002; including the truth of "myths" like "the Gujarat police turned a blind eye to the rioting", "the Gujarat government was involved in the riots", that Narendra Modi said:”Every action has equal and opposite reaction”, "Narendra Modi gave free hand to rioters for 3 days", "no one was brought to justice for the riots" etc. But the most interesting of all the "myths" is the myth regarding the "famous statement" of former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee who, according to a large section of media, allegedly said Modi was not following Rajdharma and advised him to treat everyone equally. But the video recording of the press conference where Mr. Vajpayee allegedly said the statement proves that Mr. Vajpayee never said that Modi was not following Rajdharma. Instead he acknowledged that Rajdharma was followed by Modi and his administration. Even then over the years these unfounded myths and allegations have created a perception of Modi being a hugely divisive and polarizing leader.

• Oppose There was a very lengthy discussion about the inclusion of any of Modi's statements in the article a few months ago. Consensus was against, because establishing notability for a specific statement over and above every statement he makes is near impossible. A lot of his statements were then removed from the article; by that rationale, this has no place. Also, you may want to read WP:TLDR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93. Not only is it too long but the sources (mediacrooks? gujaratriots.com?) are not even remotely credible. Add the needless long quotes and I don't see any reason for including this material here or even in the riots article. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I admit that my contribs are long. So I'm sensing there is more opposition to come:). Regarding the materials in gujaratriots.com though, regentspark, they had references to videos and newspaper articles. So I thought they were credible. Reason for my edits was because when I read the article of Modi I felt it had references to Modi's role in 2002 riots but none to counter it. So as a compromise, I propose this para one last time.

In a 2002 interview, Modi said his only regret about the episode (of 2002 riots) was that he did not handle the news media better. Critics of Modi have used this statement to argue that Modi wanted to curb free speech at that time. In his defense, Modi told to an Interviewer that during those inflamed days of riots some news reporters acted in the most irresponsible manner.

I only insist on adding this because the statement regarding handling media better has been wildly distorted in both domestic and International media as an attempt to curb free speech. I feel at least this instance merits a quote from Modi as to why he said that. Again, I look forward to your valued opinions. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The first statement is fine but the second statement appears to overstate what the source says. The quote in the manushi article refers only to Barkha Dutt and Vijay Trivedi. I don't think that can be generalized to "some news reporters" because it gives the impression that Modi felt there was more widespread biased reporting but this is just one channel. Also, the "critics of Modi" statement is unsourced and should be dropped unless a source exists. Perhaps something like In interviews, Modi has said his only regret about the episode was that he did not handle the news media better and has singled out India's NDTV channel as being irresponsible in its reporting. It could go at the end of the current last para. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent removals

I just removed the "Sadbhavana mission and fasts" and "Press and Public relations" sections, chiefly because they are highly undue. They were added in a surge of WP:RECENTISM at the time; looking back, they are utterly trivial. A similar conclusion was recently reached with the sections on the Uttarakhand floods and the spat with the governor. If you have objections, please bring them up here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadbhavana mission is not same as Uttarakhand section. Sadbhavana mission was propbably the time when Modi thought that he could get a larger role, he tried to reach out to people (PR exercise may be). Also I partially feel that we could remove the sections of "Press and Public relations", the first para is undue but the google hangout is noteable, he was the first Indian politician to use it. There was a different article about Modi's google hang out. It was merged into this article. -sarvajna (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We cannot use our judgement on whether it was the same or not. The point is, all of these things have received very similar coverage in the sources; significant newspaper coverage for a short while, and silence thereafter; absolutely nothing in academic sources. If we applied this as our standard for sourcing, then this article could comfortably be expanded ten-fold. Or to put it another way, in this case notability cannot be determined by mention in reliable sources, but by the extent of coverage in RS. Its a question of due weight, not of reliability. Also, I take it you are okay with my removing the first para of press and PR? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If we go by your logic this article can be reduced to just one para, let us wait for some more comments. yes I do feel that the first para of "press and pr" should be removed.-sarvajna (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't mis-interpret what I said; you know as well as me that's not true. Most things mentioned on this page have received either extended media coverage, or significant academic coverage, or both; this includes his early career, the 2002 riots, the issue of development under him, the elections he contested, and some of the policies he implemented (though these last two could use work.) The Uttarakhand floods, the spat with Beniwal, and these sections, have not received such. The issue of his marriage needs mention, but it is also excessively long by this criterion. As for other editors, there is a precious lack of neutral ones on this page, but we can wait some. I know RP had something to say about this. Before anybody makes accusations of canvassing, it was his idea in the first place...Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

He is the 15th Prime Minister. Incorrectly quoted as 14th. Please see link: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/modi-now-indias-15th-pm/article6050522.ece Ajitpardeshi (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now:

• There is ongoing discussion whether Mr.Modi is 14th,15th or 16 th PM of india at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Which_Prime_Minister , Once consensus is reached we may change if necessary. Dr meetsingh  Talk  14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)