Talk:Narendra Modi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleNarendra Modi has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
January 22, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Recent updates to healthcare section[edit]

I had made small update to this section, one example, It was reverted in these two edits: [1] [2] Because previous years are reported, this half a sentence only brings the article up-to-date. The lancet article has mistakes and its budgetary data is contradicted in other sources. Similarly this edit was reverted here. Business Today had this report. And repeating same thing in consecutive sentence is not good writing. G (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say healthcare budget increased in 2016[1], 2017[2][3], 2018[4]. Some lower quality sources report different percentage but none report decrease. The 2015 percentage reported by Lancet is unreliable and contradicted in other sources, given that the article had other mistakes too, it is a medical journal not very reliable for political or budget analysis. --G (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
When media sources are contradicting each other, the solution is to find higher quality sources. The Lancet is a medical journal (and is often considered the premier medical journal); it is thus an excellent source for analysis of health policy. If we wish to remove that source and/or add contradictory information, we need other sources of equal weight. Similarly, for your "updated" numbers, adding random media sources will not work. You need to demonstrate that there is consistent support for a certain figure when you add it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be editing in a hurry. The source for 15% decrease actually stated that it increased marginally. Lancet is not more reliable than Business Today or Economic Times for Budget. Lancet can have mistake like I demonstrated about the political commentary on Harsha Vardhan. --G (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me retry the few things I am feeling needs change: 25% is in Lancet (written as 'almost quarter'), it is 20% in Business Today which I think is reliable for budget. 15% decrease in Lancet is different in Economic Times (tells of increase) which, again, I think is more reliable for budget. I have less trust on Lancet for budget or political notes, evidently because it did make mistake in reporting a fairly easily verifiable statement. The summary about 2016 is similar to the third sentence, almost exactly same repeated. I think it is plausibly acceptable to not mention number, it is not a strict necessity. There were other research paper that analyzed health care differently from Lancet but I didn't pursue them (they were less focused on politics than Lancet though), because this article is more BLP than Healthcare. --G (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
BMJ[5] concurs with Business Today on 20%, Lancet is demonstrably wrong here too. --G (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
To be entirely honest, you're throwing some numbers around without describing what you are referring to. I can guess, but I'd rather not; so let me make some general points.

"this article is more BLP than Healthcare" Yes, absolutely; and I'm not sure you, or several of the other folks here, understand this point. As a BLP, this should not be a blow-by-blow account of Modi's government; it should document substantive policy, as determined by reliable sources. The media is going to cover each and every action of the government on a daily basis. As such, media sources are terrible for determining due weight; we should instead focus on scholarly sources, and rely on media sources only for things which obviously deserve inclusion, but are absent from more reliable sources.

For instance, in a growing economy, virtually every portion of the budget will be hiked every year. Therefore, that the health budget increased for three years means nothing. Similarly, every new government announces new initiatives and schemes. More often than not these are repackaged versions of previous programs. What is worthy of inclusion (Up to a point; we have too much policy detail anyway) is the substance of these changes. At the moment, the only substantive points are the following: a universal health insurance scheme, the sanitation program, slashing the health budget initially (highly unusual, that), and a shift in emphasis from public to private healthcare. All the points, of course, require a little more fleshing out than I've given them here. Virtually all else is trivia. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I never questioned due weight, I am telling, with reliable reference, that the Lancet data is wrong, we should correct it. I pointed very specifically and you know what you have reverted me twice for, I gave links above, here it is a third time when I self-reverted. --G (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that isn't going to fly. You've removed the Lancet source, and the sentence about a 15% reduction, several times. You have yet to correct it. Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Please review this edit, maybe this tells you exactly what I am saying. --G (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
References should be at the end of the sentence unless there's a specific reason to place them elsewhere, but otherwise, that's fine. Vanamonde (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I think I was able to convey my point clearly by the edit. The second remark was about sourcing 15% to the Lancet article when 1. The Lancet article has been shown to have got two mistakes already. 2. Economic Times is a highly reliable source for budget, also contradicts it. Please understand I am not talking about weight here but I am saying that the data needs to be corrected. --G (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Totally forgot this. Hi Vanamonde93 can you look at my comment? --Gian (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Any thoughts? --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gbohoadgwwian: I do apologize. I am busy for the next 24-48 hours, but will take a look after that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I finally got around to looking at this. Taking a few steps back, it seems to me the best way to go forward is to drop the budget numbers altogether, and to drop mentions of any policies that we don't also provide analysis for. The Lancet source is still a heavyweight source; let's just use it for analysis. Newspapers, as I've said elsewhere, are really bad for this sort of thing because they write in-the-moment, without historical perspective, and so might be okay for factual details but are terrible for the big picture. Vanamonde (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this particular Lancet article is not so reliable. There are three factual mistakes already. It is by a non-specialist journalist on contract in a tone that reeks of political commentary. Even if other sources are reporting in-the-moment they got their facts right. I would not overlook the mistakes selectively and still use this source. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Lancet is going to trump newspapers every time. It also far more likely to issue corrections in the event that it does get something wrong. But, as was said near the top of this thread, this article is supposed to be about the man, not his government's policies. Please note that Modi is not a dictator and any policies will be the outcome of internal discussions etc rather than all springing from his own mind. I think we're losing sight of this. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From where are you getting "non-specialist journalist"? The Lancet has stringent editorial oversight, after all; it doesn't publish any old thing. And I'm still not seeing blatant errors; the decrease in the budget does not seem to have a consensus figure elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC) (Added post-ec) I agree that we may be getting bogged down in details. I rewrote this in 2016, when the Modi government was relatively new and a lot of the sources were focusing on policy details. Two years down the line we can probably prune this a good bit, and add some bigger-picture material. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Mudur, Ganapati (2016). "Rise in India's health budget is "disappointing," say experts". BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online). 352. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  2. ^ "Impact on Life Sciences & Health Care" (PDF). Deloitte. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  3. ^ "Three years of Modi govt: Transforming India's healthcare landscape". Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  4. ^ "Budget 2018 boost for healthcare: Lessons for 'Modicare' from Obamacare - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  5. ^ Bagcchi, Sanjeet (2 January 2015). "India cuts health budget by 20%". BMJ. 350. ISSN 1756-1833. |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018[edit]

He left home after graduating from school -------- Please replace school with college Anshulkush (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Add another category to this article[edit]

Narendra Modi was Pracharak of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Hence, the category "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh pracharaks" should be added.

Nealhooper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nealhooper:, That category is already added in the article, see the bottom category section on the article main page.. Also see he is listed in [3] --Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: Thanks

Extended-Confirmed Protection Request[edit]

I would like to put forward my request of granting this article extended protection, as this is about Sri Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister and the head-of-government of the world's fastest growing economy. Plus, the article is also a good article. Other articles about other leaders of republics, such as P.O.T.U.S. Donald Trump, already have extended protection.
AnotherHomoSapein (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. We don't grant protection based on the nature of the article but rather on the nature of the editing that goes on in the article. I don't see any serious vandalism or blp issues with this article (presumably that's why D.T.s article is protected) that makes extended confirmed protection necessary. --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Good article" classification[edit]

Not sure why this article has been rated a "good article."

It is filled with grammatical errors, unverified and biased information, and a lack of adequate citations.

Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to clean up the grammatical errors. If you think the information is biased, you should point to specific pieces that are, in your opinion, biased. Other editors can then try to address the problem. FYI, WP:Good article criteria. --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist[edit]

@Daredevil83:. The source describes Modi, not the RSS, as a Hindu nationalist. But your edit summaries (both of them) imply that the source is describing the RSS as a hindu nationalist organization and we're making the leap to Modi being one. If you want to remove "Hindu nationalist" because you think it is unnecessary, then you should address that directly with your reasons. Perhaps here? Misleading edit summaries are never a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 13:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite aside from the misleading edit-summary; "Hindu nationalist" is likely the most common descriptor applied to Modi's ideology in reliable sources (and I've read a fair few of those). There's absolutely no basis to remove it. Vanamonde (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RTI Reports[edit]

As per RTI there is no official record of Narendra Modi being a tea seller[1][2] nor graduated from Delhi university[3][4][5] Please update the same accordingly. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


That's a bit of an overstatement, Akhiljaxxn. The news stories say the government has no record of Modi being a tea-seller. So what? We have reliable sources saying he was a tea-seller, and no one has really contested the substance of this. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)