Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Controversies Section

Sp. Att RegentsPark (talk · contribs) this is regarding the Controversies section I had created. it doesnt make sense for the 2002 gujarat riots to come in middle of political career and terms. Additionally there are a lot many entries left in that area, which will follow soon, including the recent #ModiinsultsIndia twitter debacle, the Bandhgaa controversy ( Maybe ), so i think the article can be afforded a separate controversies section instead of merging it inside the political career and terms, it really doesnt harmonize with the flow there. Cheers. Anonymousbananas (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it fits better in the chief minister section. Primarily, because the riots did occur during his tenure as CM (no controversy about that!) and need to be mentioned there whether or not there was any culpability on his part. Given that we need to mention the riots in that section, it doesn't make sense to split the thing into two parts. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Addition to lead

@Dvishnu: The lead is supposed to summarize the body. You shouldn't just move a chunk of the body into the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I understand, and accept that change. However, my aim was to present a decent amount of relevant neutral information excluding the political & media rivalry. Most political leaders face criticism and communication in that aspect need not be in the prominent part of the article. --cpajourney (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

cpajourney, why did you change "Hindu nationalist" to "nationalist"? [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm reverting these changes to the lead. The statement about 'secularity; should be included only if reliable sources say he is committed to secularism. Sources that say that he says that he is committed to secularism are not worthy of inclusion in the lead since the source is Modi himself. That said, the second paragraph focuses entirely on his tenure as chief minister and needs to be updated. --regentspark (comment) 21:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

Modi has recently auctioned his "Controversial Kurta" for about 700k US dollars. "The suit cost $16,000, some eight times as much as the average annual salary in India. Modi later had the suit auctioned for nearly $700,000, with the proceeds going toward a project to clean up the River Ganges." -CNN world news

Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/20/narendra-modi-monogrammed-suit-auction http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/25/opinions/agrawal-modi-first-anniversary-in-power/index.html Shaash317 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This kind of stuff goes into the Public image of Narendra Modi. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Please add the following the intro: Mr Modi is also known for his extra-human powers by many in India and therefore he has been worshiped in many parts of India as an avatar of God at the temples specially built for this purpose.

Vglant (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds more appropriate for the Public image of Narendra Modi article. Stickee (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of Jashodaben article, linking to it again

Hello. Previously I developed an article on Jashodaben. It was deleted. I developed it and just posted it again. I am linking to that article from here. Check it out at Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

@Ganesh085:, you have made a serious of unexplained edits here: [2]. You should always write clear edit summaries for all your edits, especially for critical articles like this one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Interested Users are invited to give their individual opinion about this Redirect Butcher of Gujarat which is directed at this page Narendra Modi. You can give your opinion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat

--C E (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is now closed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Prime Minister

Why does this article contain next to nothing about his actions as Prime Minister? Doesn't everyone think that's kind of important? Charles Essie (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

PM born post independence

Modi is the first Indian PM who was born post-independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shataneek Banerjee (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

220.227.35.138 (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I begin by saying that the introduction of this article is outdated and misleading. By reading this article, it is clearly understood that this was in fact drafted by detractors with a certain bias against the Indian Prime Minister with the intention of tarnishing his image. In the second paragraph of the introduction, "... is a controversial figure domestically and internationally", is a line which has to be removed and is of no relevance to the present although it could have been speculated in the past with no evidence, but Prime Minister Modi has been given a clean chit by the Supreme Court of India and he himself has said in his statements that he has no feeling of guilt whatsoever since in his consciousness he feels he has taken all the right steps to curtail violence to the best of his abilities. By continuing to say that he is a controversial figure, Wikipedia is disrespecting the verdict of the Supreme Court of India. Wikipedia cannot give a certificate to the Prime Minister on being controversial and the only right thing to do is to propagate the truth and not rumors. Therefore I kindly request you to remove this line from this article.

Not done: The four citations on that sentence all refer to Modi as controversial within the first paragraph, so I see no reason to make the requested change. If you feel it needs to be changed, there will need to be a clear consensus to make the change, not just an edit request. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

All the sources mentioned in the introductory paragraph to back up the "controversial figure" description are all several years old and seem pretty dated now. I am not sure if he is still such a controversial figure now. He enjoys good relations with many world leaders and many politicians like Harper and Abbott are doing photo-ops with him to appeal to the Indian diaspora in their countries. Obama wrote a piece on Modi for the Time magazine describing him "India's reformer in chief". In fact, few newspaper articles describe him as being a controversial leader anymore. -- Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be right that the use of controversial is declining. But it hasn't gone away. [3], [4], [5]. I don't see any need to hurry to remove that adjective. --regentspark (comment) 02:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it hasn't gone away, and there are still some articles alluding to those controversies, but I don't think that that's part of the dominant narrative about him anymore. The introductory paragraphs need to be rephrased to reflect this change. Right now, the controversial part is way more emphasized than it should be. That's my view, anyway. --Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully Wikipedia is not personal fiefdom of any particular individual who feel that controversial tag hasn't gone away yet. Articles do run on the basis of news and reports. Introductory paragraph seems to be of stone age, when the media was against Modi and some reporters, Leftists termed Mr Modi as controversial. This is not a general view anyway. So the lead need to be changed completely and do away with the negative tone as set by some editors. World leaders/ Industry captains have great regard for Modi. He is the most popular leader of India and the same has been continuously confirmed by various media houses. Hopefully truth prevail over some biases.210.212.144.133 (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the lead as biased against Modi. If anything, by associating the 'controversial' label with 'failure to prevent' the 2002 riots, it only minimizes the 'why he is controversial' part. What's missing, of course, is a couple of lines on his first year as Prime Minister and I'm surprised that the article says little about that. Perhaps someone could add something and then a summary could make its way into the lead? --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Buddy, the controversial tag that you are associating with Modi is not some universal truth, for which you are against minimizing "controversial" tag. Some Indian media reporters have added it to their reports which was taken up verbatim by some foreign media. That too was long ago. Now most of the media reports do not associate this term with Modi. Of course few lines about his first year as PM can be added, but for that a new thread may be initiated for discussion.210.212.144.133 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

Saraswathysureshkumar (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
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, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

counter-criticism

Teja srinivas You are edit-warring here [6]. I believe my edit summary was clear enough. The sentence begins saying that Modi's efforts were "praised." If you want more discussion it should go into the relevant section, not the lead. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As Kautilya3 points out, the second clause is a counter to the first clause and all it says is that he has been so criticized. Also, your references don't support the "although statistics part'. The first one merely presents a single HDI statistic without comment and using that to make a more general statement about the validity of the criticisms is WP:OR. The second one talks about growth in Gujarat during the Modi administration and doesn't say anything about Human Development. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

regentspark My references:

http://www.ideasforindia.in/article.aspx?article_id=270 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Infant-mortality-rate-down-by-33-in-Gujarat/articleshow/24769581.cms http://personal.lse.ac.uk/GHATAK/EPWModiRev.pdf First one clearly shows gujarat in green color in every statistics. It seems this reference did not got added due to bad net connection when I added it.

Regardless, the sources don't support the 'even though statistics' part of the statement. You're using raw statistics to draw a conclusion about what the criticism and that's WP:OR. The statement already says he received praise for his handling of the economy and it is true that his administration has been criticized on HDI issues. It is not for us to make meta comments about those criticisms. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

hello 116.203.73.249 (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi  Done --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  10:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

116.203.73.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) You have to specify what change you want to make in the article. If any spelling or grammar mistake then you can tell directly. If you want to add any content or info in this article then provide reliable source (for example, news website/reliable book etc) for your text and post it here. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  11:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

The word estranged is misspelt in "Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi (1968. enstranged)". Please correct it. Thanks.

Sgr11 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

Modi is known for his quotes. Both supporters and critics lay importance to his quotes, yet none is included in this article. There should be a section containing Modi's mantras like minimum government, maximum governance, justice for all, appeasement to none, 3D's and other notable quotes he has made in his speech. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the Gujarat riots controversy from lead

Modi is a controversial figure because of his actions (or inaction) during the 2002 Gujarat riots and this is noteworthy and needs to be included in the lead. That much should be obvious. Relegating this material to somewhere in the body of the article is a disservice to our readers. Feel free to explain your @Yogee23: views here but, per WP:BRD, please don't reinstate your edits. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the riots should be mentioned. I also think that more positive things could be added to the lead - Modi gets a lot of favorable attention and something else positive could balance the criticism about the riots. I made some changes, including moving some percentages about approval. I am open to hearing suggestions about improving the lead but the riots are too often discussed to remove - even ten years later it is often the primary criticism against Modi. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed from the lead. Including such thing in criticism is enough, anything and everything can not and should not be included in the lead. Since he is prime minister now, there is no need to talk about his economic policy of Gujarat or HDI. Lead should focus on Prime Minister Modi. It's enough to say that he was Gujarat Chief Minister from x to y. Those who are interested can read about his activities as a chief minister in particular section.-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, notable material should always be included in the lead since it is a summary of what the reader needs to know (otherwise, we could just remove the lead entirely and relegate everything to the body). But I do agree with Blue Rasberry that the lead should contain a summary of his prime ministerial activities as well.--regentspark (comment) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I havent asked to remove everything from lead. I have just asked to remove not-so-important old items to make some space for more important recent items. As I have already said, his PM initiatives or criticism should replace his CM initiatives and criticism. Otherwise there's a lot in his multi-decade lifetime to include in lead. Since this article is about a living person it should get updates as and when more notable events happen -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Modi is notable because he is the PM of India. That's in the lead. He is also notable because he is controversial because of his role in the gujarat riots. So that's also in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please refer to some non-indian, recent WP:RS to support notability of your claim? As far as I've seen, none of International media refer to Gujarat Riots anymore while referring to Mr. Modi, do they? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been much discussed (search the archives for 'controversial'). But, it isn't hard to find recent examples [7]. --regentspark (comment) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with some of the above editors, we should also mention some positive things. I think Gujarat riots should have mention in lead because it is the major event in Modi's life. But last line in current lead "although his administration has also been criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state" is not relevant here and should be removed, it can be written in section "Modi as CM". That line was probably written when Modi was CM. We should write his role as PM in lead, we can add some points from Yogee's version. We should also rethink over line "however, the prime minister, a Hindu nationalist and a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is a controversial figure domestically and internationally". It seems very biased line and probable WP:BLP violation. Why to mention "Prime Minister" in this line? He is not controversial as "Prime MInister". At least mention his name there. And is he currently member of RSS? He is memebr of BJP, not RSS, he is former member of RSS. This seems very biased writing by someone. --Human3015^TALK  21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, this has been much discussed. The guy is controversial regardless of whether we refer to him as Prime Minister or just plain Modi. It is definitely not a blp violation since it is well sourced. Like I say, we need to work his year as a PM into the lead but carefully and without hagiography. Perhaps a sentence or two on the major initiatives (successful or not) but the current text is well sourced and is according to consensus. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya, obviously it should not be hagiography, it is good thing that you moved text related to his role as CM, now we should summarise his role as PM till now. We can use some points from Yogee's version. I will try to summarise. --Human3015^TALK  22:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

although his administration has also been criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state and failing to prevent the 2002 Gujarat riots.[9][10] [11] Despite his progressive initiatives, Modi, a Hindu nationalist and a former member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)[12][13] is a controversial figure domestically and internationally.

His administration during his tenure was top class in Gujarat state where his state's growth rate was 14% for "industries" and 11% for "agriculture".His administration was extensively praised for his extensive work in improving Gujarat's infrastructure such as ports,roads,electricity. Advaiet (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi

Proposal from sock of indef blocked editor

The proposed article can be a section in the parent article of Narendra Modi.Rajib56789 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Or it can not be. Possibilities are both. You need to elaborate more on why you think so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose: Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi was a notable event attended by some world leaders and was covered extensively in media. So separate article can be worth on that event, also considering the length of the article Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi it is not good option to merge it to parent article Narendra Modi.--Human3015TALK  13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose The article is a WP:FORK because the concept meets WP:N and if that content were moved here, then it would be WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia grows in size by forking out sections whenever there is too much content to share in the main article. Since the concept was covered in multiple reliable sources, and since this large amount of content should not go here, it should have its own article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Foreign policy of Narendra Modi

proposal from sock of indef banned editor

Does not merit separate article. It can be a section of Narendra Modi or Foreign relations of India.Rajib56789 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Or it can not be. Possibilities are both. You need to elaborate more on why you think it does not merit separate article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose: Article Foreign policy of Narendra Modi is too long and it is keep on increasing in size with various foreign visits of Modi. Considering that this article only includes Modi's visits in last one year and still nearly 4 years of his tenure are remained, it really deserves separate article.--Human3015TALK  13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose for the same reasons as in the "swearing in" merge proposal above. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the Gujarat riots stuff a WP:BLP violation?

Modi has been cleared multiple times by the Supreme Court.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Cullen328: on this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, specially he is cleared from SIT of Supreme Court. But mention of Gujarat riots is necessary because Modi become "famous" since that event. But there should be way of mentioning that event, we can read in article that statements by various other leaders and scholars has been given in article. For example, statements like "Several scholars have described them as a pogrom, while others have called them state terrorism.", also, "Despite his second-term focus on economic issues, Modi's relationship with Muslims continued to be criticised.", also "After the elections Vajpayee called the violence in Gujarat a reason for the BJP's electoral defeat (2004 Lok Sabha) and said it had been a mistake to leave Modi in office after the riots". There are many such statements in article. Last statement of Vajpayee indirectly states that he was believing that Modi is reason behind behind those riots. But does any political leader or any news analyst or scholar has authority to declare anyone as accused of some crime? I think courts have to decide it and Modi has got clean chits from all levels as of now. --Human3015^TALK  19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't really care what courts have or have not said but rather look at what scholars and other reliable sources say. Nothing in this article is a blp violation. --regentspark (comment) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on several occasions. It is not a violation for the reasons RP gives. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This would be a BLP violation only if the content was written to state or imply that he was guilty, and if the content excluded or downplayed the exonerations. The allegations are a significant part of his life story. They must be covered with due weight, and neither overemphasized nor whitewashed. The exact balance is a matter for consensus based on informed editorial judgment.

This type of allegation should perhaps be excluded from the biographies of notable but low profile individuals who have not sought out public attention. The Prime Minister of the second most populous country in the world does not fall into that category. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly Cullen, in my comment also I said that we can't remove Gujarat riots from this article but as you said balance should be maintained between "positive" and "negative" things. None of us want that this article should be HAGIOgraphy but neither it should be HATEROgraphy. Some sections need to be re-written with WP:NPOV.--Human3015^TALK  06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, this has been discussed at length in the past. The balance is fine: it gives both the official version (incidentally, making no mention of how corrupt the Indian legal processes can be) and it mentions various alternate viewpoints from reliable sources (incidentally, without detail of the scorn poured on reversal of boycotts etc by western countries when it became apparent that Modi might become PM). We've found the middle ground that avoids the extremes of speculation etc that do exist. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrative reforms

There's no mention in this article about the administrative reforms of Modi like use of aadhar linked attendence mechanism, reduction of lawsand steps to curb corruption and bring back black money. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't act like Bhakt otherwise your edits will not get accepted, try to be neutral. There are many other individual articles related to Modi Administration, we can add few things to those article. A person like President and Prime Minister does many things as a administrator, we can't write all the things. But we have mentioned very major initiatives like Make in India and Digital India which have really made some impact on global level. Administrative reforms are something routine thing and current lead do have brief mention of "reducing bureaucracy". And there is no big achievement in "Black money" department. --Human3015^TALK  00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reduction in laws is quite an innovative, unique and notable act of him as PM. This article lacks mention to that. It's not about being bhakt or neutral. I am just talking over facts :) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well so far development and corruption is concerned this is the best government ever in India and these are not my views but views by many worlds survey agencies including IMF .The growth rate is so far reaching almost 8% ahead of China and other leading economies and foreign investment are at their boom.No corruption charges on Narendra Modi as earlier PM was.So all such achievements should be mentioned here other then threatning any member .Honi02 talk 13:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)