Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 15 May 2013

Narendra Modi's Google+ Hangout was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 October 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Narendra Modi. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Gujarat / Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:BLP noticeboard

Modi was a pracharak (full-timer) in the RSS during his university years

How can a person both be a student and a full timer at RSS? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

YK, not all pracharaks go and teach tribal kids, may be he had some other responsibilities. Why would you think a student cannot be a RSS pracharak ? Many of the ABVP guys are Pracharaks. --sarvajna (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

::I don't have issues with pracharak I wonder whether when one has two occupations one can be called full timer in either. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pracharak: "Workers who have dedicated their lives to the Sangha... devoted to the organisational work... free from family responsibilities... they do not enter into marital bonds... pracharak doesn't remain in the limelight... nor does he indulge in religious preaching... the pracharaks are organisers..." "...the lifeblood of the RSS... devoted to lifelong celibacy, poverty and service..." "...the pracharaks... literally a preacher but more an organiser... they work full time but get no salary...". Was Modi a pracharak? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Modi was a pracharak, you see a person who becomes Pracharak during his student life will be given responsibilities which suits him. I personally know people who worked in software industry who quit their job to become a pracharaks, unlike the full time jobs a student's life has ample amount of time for RSS. In any case we have sources which say that. --sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem contradictory and, yes, we do have sources. Some sources use a different term and it is one that I have not come across before - can't remember what it is but I'll try to find an example later today. This may be one of the Modi inconsistencies referred to in the preceding section here. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

YK, those definitions are of an "idealistic pracharak". You see, we call Prime Ministers as Prime Minister even if they don't fit in their constitutional definitions. "Pracharak" is just a commonly used word for an active worker/member with ref to RSS. Isn't it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The word 'publicist' can be used instead of pracharak. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that would mislead readers to think that he was in the publishing industry when in fact he was a full time political activist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, "publicist" is intended in the sense of someone who is involved in "public relations", not publishing. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be the right word to use here. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: I beg to differ, pracharak isn't a commonly used term, it is a position in the RSS hierarchy. @Sir Nicholas: "Publicist" would be a novel translation of the word "pracharak". @Sarvajan: Perhaps you are right. I don't know enough, I tried to understand the term using reliable sources. Is it that Modi was a pracharak and some time down the line he quit the RSS and joined the BJP? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he has ever said that he quit the RSS, and since the two organisations are often considered to be related there would seem to be no need to do so. The BJP is often seen as the "public face" of the RSS, vaguely as Sinn Fein is/was seen as the public face of the IRA (not a perfect comparison, obviously). The Caravan article linked above and in the article defines pracharak as "propagandist": I really would encourage people to read the entire thing, which is not immediately visible from the url (you need to click the "view as a single page" link). According to that, He swore an oath as a bal swayamsevak (child volunteer), later became the maker of tea and cleaner of the offices, then took an officer training course to become a pracharak and became a travel organiser etc and rose to become a significant organiser. "The Sangh pracharak in-charge of a frontal organisation like the ABVP is supposed to function like an underground guide—to be like a vein hidden under the skin, exercising authority away from the public eye—but Modi’s personal style, which chafed at such restrictions, was already making itself evident. ... For all his allegiance to the Sangh and its ideology, the organisation’s structure and style—placing the group above the individual, restraining one’s anger, respecting the protocols established by the leadership—did not mesh with Modi’s personality. Shankarsinh Vaghela, who was senior to Modi in the RSS and the BJP ... " I realise the limitations of that source but the detail is considerable. I've not found the alternate term to pracharak yet - it began with an "s". - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean "Swayamsevak"? Where is the "Caravan" article? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@YK He did not quit RSS, there is no formal membership in RSS. It is a volunteer organization. He is still part of RSS, just that he is not a pracharak anymore. Modi, Advani and many others are still associated with RSS. @Sitush BJP is not exactly the political face of RSS because people from non RSS background are also in BJP(Although RSS has tremendous control over BJP). I am not sure if we can use propagandist in place of pracharak.Pracharaks are kind of first rung of office bearers in RSS, IMO pracharak can be used and there is no need to waste so much time and energy on just this term.--sarvajna (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Sirsikar writes in "The Experience of Hinduism" (from which the quote above "...the lifeblood of the RSS... devoted to lifelong celibacy, poverty and service..." is taken) about his quitting the RSS. (2) Pracharak is best translated as "organiser" per Mark Tully. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Caravan article

The article makes two factual errors that I could identify, it describes Rahul Bajaj to be a Parsi and calls sickle cell anemia a disease from which tens of people were dying like some kind of plague. Then the writer imagines that we should believe behind the scene stories he tells about Modi. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Approximately 150,000 children are born with the sickle cell trait every year. Untreated they rarely live beyond their forties, and treatment is not usually present in many of the countries where it is most prevalent. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the Caravan article to know what I mean. See how the author is bluffing/ not fact checking when he is making allegations, the same with Bajaj. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you subject other sources to similar criteria of credibility.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This one is gross, it sticks in the face, it isn't nit picking if that is what you hint? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Asia Society awarded that Caravan story on Modi with a citation for "reporting excellence" and called it "courageous reporting...a terrific piece of work".—indopug (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reflects poorly on the Asia Society, what else can I say? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another translation of pracharak I've stumbled on is "cadre".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Inaccurate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The Caravan article seems fine as a source and has been in the article for some time. Cherry-picking from sources is rarely a good idea and thus if it is deemed no good for some points then it should not probably be used at all. We may need to treat any opinions with care but that is all. Does the author have some sort of record of being virulently pro- or anti-Modi? Or are they instead writing as a typical skilled investigative journalist etc would do? - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • You've (Sitush) shared the article, what is your take, calls Modi low caste Ghanchi, his opponents high caste Brahmins, is that skilled investigative journalism at work? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is incorrect then why is it also repeated here that he is Ghanchi (OBC) and yet has disposed of upper caste (Patel) rivals within the party? "Gujarat’s BJP vote bank is Patels + upper castes. As a ghanchi from the OBC, or Other Backward Classes, community of oil-pressers (teli) Modi has no caste base. Ghanchis get little respect in a state of merchants and my family will use the word “ghanchi” sneeringly. He has united a very caste-minded society by first rallying it against Muslims/Pakistan/jihad/terrorism and then rousing their pride in their state. He has put to pasture one Patel rival (Keshubhai) and made another Patel, the clownish Pravin Togadia, irrelevant." Please share with us the source of your seemingly endless knowledge about Modi, since apparently every journalist from the Times to the Wall Street Journal have been misinformed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Did I ever allege that Ghanchi was a bad fact, please don't create a strawman. All I say is that the author is holding Modi's low caste as an undesirable attribute, is it Modi's fault that he was born in a Ghanchi family? Does that make him ineligible to aspire any public office, as the author seems to allude. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Do you want a citation for Bajaj not being a Parsi? Or that Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder, or that around 700 Muslims died in Gujarat and not millions or thousands, that figure including deaths in rioting and at the hands of security personnel? What do you achieve by throwing names like WSJ or Time. Facts are facts are facts. If I say Maunus is a forward caste fellow, fair and well bred, poet and all and he is pestered with low caste Yogesh in arguments at Misplaced Pages, how much sense would that make? (2) Modi has refused to identify himself with any caste, check this HT video. We at Misplaced Pages can't call a person a Hindu or an atheist or a lesbian unless they self-identify as such. That's a basic rule. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This peer reviewed 2012 source supports the Caravan article's claim of approximately 2000 Muslim deaths, depending on who does the counting. "This violence, which in several places took on the scale of a pogrom, claimed approximately 2,000 Muslim lives, including many women and children. The official death toll is lower (1,169) whereas some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) mention the figure of 2,500 victims on the basis of information gathered from families about the missing persons – those whose bodies were never found." So not only are your unsubstantiated claim unsubstantiated, it is also flatly contradicted by recent, scholarly sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• That is not the same as saying that 2000 Muslims were killed by Hindus that Caravan says. Additionally the official death toll includes Hindus and Muslims, it includes all deaths, that is rioting deaths and death at the hands of law enforcement authorities. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The source clearly talks only about Muslims. As for who killed them, I am sure most of them died of "shock".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to imagine anything, Misplaced Pages doesn't give them a canvas though. Yes Caravan does say 2000 Muslims were killed, without acknowledging that the official stats are 790 (killed by rioting Hindus, shot by security forces etc.) That is why a source that is poor on facts isn't quite the best one when it comes to being used by us. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You make a new argument at every turn, most of them red herrings or non-sequiturs. No one is suggesting that we should add a category of Ghanchi to the article, or to define Modi as such. We can how ever describe this as his family background, and note that he does not define himself as such (just like we frequently do for example with people who come from Jewish families but who do not identify as Jews). But that is not the question here - it is not what we are discussing at all - we are discussing your ridiculous approach to sources where you think you can cast suspiciion on sources based on the fact that you know better, and furthermore the hypocrisy implicit in your suggestion that we only pick out the positive stuff from these otherwise unreliable sources. Facts are facts - but in wikipedia we only refer to factas that appear in reliable sources. I hate to break it to you but you are not a reliable source. You must bring new sources that contradict the sources we have if you wish to be taken seriously. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You can call me illogical or ridiculous but that won't make the 2000 Muslims killed figure any more factual. I am not a reliable source but that doesn't make Bajaj a Parsi, do you need me to provide a citation for Paris is the capital of France? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be a relevant issue to discuss if we were writing an article about Rahul Bajaj and someone was trying to claim that he was a Parsi based on that source. You may have noticed that that is not the case. Please stop filibustering, it is now verging on disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No amount of abuse or wikilawyering is going to justify a opinion piece, bad on facts to be used to insert controversial material into a BLP. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is now more an opinion piece that, say, a book by Jaffrelot. And it is certainly far less an opinion piece than Modi's own website biography etc, which is a pretty grotesque piece of hyperbole and manipulation even by the standards of some of the UK's less salubrious politicians. Are you happy for all references to Modi's website and related materials to be removed on similar grounds to those that you have raised against other sources? In the interests of balance, I can live with seeing both used as sources provided that we can agree some sort of "proviso" wording that does not breach WP:WEA. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We can use Modi's own website only for facts (such as when he was born, his family etc.) and not for claims, (he did this or that) so also the likes of Caravan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If a reliable source says that he did this or that then we can use it. If another reliable sources differs then we show both. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sitush, have you read the Caravan article, I consider it presumptive, its tone is allusive, I've demonstrated it bad on facts, what is your opinion? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You have "demonstrated" exactly nothing. You have made unsubstantiated claims, and invalid arguments presuming to discount a source as unreliable because according to you they get other facts wrong.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Pl check reply regarding Gray below. Let us have Sitush's opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

As a young man, he joined the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, a student organisation and was involved in the anti-corruption Nav Nirman Movement. After working as a full-time organiser for the organisation, he was later nominated as its representative in the Bharatiya Janata Party. He holds a master's degree in political science from Gujarat University.

Some analytical sources

• Christophe Jaffrelot. 2008. Gujarat: The Meaning of Modi's Victory. Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 43, No. 15 (Apr. 12 - 18, 2008), pp. 12-17
• Nikita Sud. 2009. Cracks in the Facade: The Gujarat BJP and Elections 2009 Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 44, No. 28 (Jul. 11 - 17, 2009), pp. 15-19
• Neil Gray. 2008. Hindutva, Modi, and The Tehelka Tapes The Communal Threat to Indian Secularism. VARIANT 32 | SUMMER 2008

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't the doomsday prophets been proved wrong by Modi's fourth term? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the papers, then comment.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on their dates, pre-fourth term, I've read Neil Gray, he repeats the lies that has been completely trashed, such as "In some cases, pregnant women had their bellies cut open and their fetuses pulled out and hacked or burned before the women were killed". Now what? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you were to actually show that this is a lie instead of just once more asking me to accept your bald statements as a highertruth than peer reviewed articles then you would be easier to take seriously. And wasn't this in fact one of the precise crimes to which a Hindu activist confesses on the Tehelka tapes? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The unfortunate case of "Kausarbano, , Uday Mahurkar writes: "more evidence is surfacing that the human rights lobby had, in many cases, spun macabre stories of rape and brutal killings by tutoring witnesses before the SC. In the process, it might have played a significant role in misleading the SC to suit its political objectives against Modi and his government..." Can we use Gray who uses a discredited false story?" (please read the entire article for details regarding Kausarbano) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A peer reviwed scholarly article is not dicredited by a subsequent political puffpiece in a news paper. Get real. Also the artickle doesn't say she wasn't brutally killed it says that there is doubt about which of the three people accused did it, and the exact details of her mutilation. You are obfuscating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is a sad display of ignorance. I'm sorry to say so. Mahurkar is reporting facts, that according to the courts, "the Kausarbano story is false". "the court dismissed the prosecution theory as "totally false" that Bajrangi had slit open the womb of a pregnant woman Kausar Bano with a sword and put the foetus on the tip." Competence and diligence is one feature of good editing that is missing here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A sad display of ignorance? Really? You guve an opinion piece as the only source to discredit that story and my failure to buy that is a sad piece of ignorance. meanwhile you have been spewing ignorant bullshit so high oj this talkpage that we're all knee deep. I am not going to respond further to any comment of yours, you have proven yourself to be below all standards of reason and decency.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• A string of citations does make one speechless. It is easier to have an opinion, it is easier to abuse, it is difficult to be objective and well informed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The lady died of shock, per the doctor who performed her post mortem . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Maunus, what says you now?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

2002 Riots

There is some need for correction in the 2002 riots section. A Railway Board inquiry found that the fire was accidental, while a special court deemed it an intentional conspiracy First of all it was not a railway board inquiry, it was a one man committe (Banerjee Committee) set up by the railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in 2004 two years after the incident. In 2006 the Gujarat High court held that the Banerjee Committe was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and seting up this committe was "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions.This is the source, ofcourse I can get other source as well. Also should we name the section Gujarat riots or Gujarat violence. --sarvajna (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Modi's goverment is seekign death penalty for Maya Kodnani and others convicted, because we have mentioned Maya Kodnani's conviction, I think we should also include this as well.
• The Modi administration was accused of insufficient action over the riots and suspected of encouraging them. However, Narendra Modi had promptly issued shoot at sight orders and called for Army to prevent the riots from worsening, but given the massive reaction to Godhra carnage, the combined strength of Indian army and State Police too proved insufficient, as confirmed by the media reports on 1 March. Modi administration promptly imposed an indefinite curfew in 26 sensitive cities to ensure that riots do not spread, as reported by The Hindu on 1 March.. Why should we include these sentences of as reported by or as reported on. Whenever we source anything do we write as reported by ??--sarvajna (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of 2002 riots currently reads "On 29 August 2012, an Indian court found Maya Kodnani... On the eve of this decision, Modi refused to apologise and rejected renewed calls for his resignation". You can add the update after this.
• Yes the as confirmed, as reported on are unnecessary. It appears as if we are desperately trying to prove Modi's innocence.
• I don't mind replacing "riots" with "violence". But, in other instances such as "...a series of communal riots in Gujarat consolidated BJP's support among Hindus in the state" we are using riots. We need to be consistent, unless we have a good reason to call 2002 violence and everything else riots.
• Exactly what changes do you want to see with regards to the Banerjee report? Correct Knowledge 14:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We should make it clear that it was not a Railway board inquiry but a committe set up by then railway minister. We need to mention the gujarat High court verdict about the Banerjee report that it was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and seting up this committe was "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions or if you think that too much information is stuffed into the section we can just remove the refernce to the report. At present it looks like a railway board report has proven that the fire was accidental which is not correct as the report is not valid. I don't want to give Sitush another oppotunity to say that I am trying to censor things --sarvajna (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a few bold edits, the Gujarat violence is 11 years old, Modi's biography needn't swell with details referring to it, we've the Gujarat violence article for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 April 2013 (IST)

So we have my edits undone, fine BOLD is one edit, there is no white wash, there was mention of allegations against Modi and his rebuttal, equally balanced, a biography shouldn't be full of accusations and rebuttals. I'm not going to edit-war but will await consensus on this page, the spat with the governor is (yawn) most commonplace. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have asked him on his talk page to explain what he found as whitewashing, first there is no need for detail for how to violence occurred and other details of the violence. Modi has been accused of certain things so let us summarize and mention then let us not sensationalize things here.--sarvajna (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All dedicated articles/biographies of Modi give sufficient coverage to 2002 riots. For instance, the Caravan article devotes 1&1/2 of 11 pages to riots, Zee news profile 4 of 14 paragraphs and Aditi Phadnis devotes 1 of 6 pages in her book. Only Reuters is kinder to him in this sense, it gives only two paragraphs to riots in a relatively long article. I agree that our section is a bit bulky compared to the other biographies, but that is because it has many redundancies like the content on politically motivated early speculations on Godhra train burning which sarvajna alludes to above, or the third paragraph in section on the SIT report which is only tangentially connected to the (sub) topic. The first paragraph of SIT section and last paragraph of 2002 riots section also have overlapping content which can be done away with. But turning the section into 2&1/2 line paragraph (here) is unacceptable. We can get to Kamla Beniwal eventually, let's first try to expand other sections like Sadbhavana, industrial growth (with a bit about Tata Nano) etc. Once we have a comprehensive article we will have a better idea of what to cut down so as to retain maximum amount of information in least amount of words. Regards. Correct Knowledge 18:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CK you want to have Caravan's article here then what is the need for wikipedia editors and all the policies. I hope you know what I am trying to tell here, Misplaced Pages is not Zee News or Caravan. Just because we are using these as source doesn't mean we have structures like them. There is a separate article named 2002 Gujarat violence which is also linked in the article(for obvious reasons such things cannot work with Caravan or Zee news, they cannot have a separate page and say read more about 2002 violence there). No one is trying to whitewash anything like you said, there is a mention in the lead a few lines which also contain a link to main article. Which is fair enough given the fact that Modi is not a convict in this case. Mentioning how people died, where people died, whether Modi ordered shoot at sight or not all these things can be mentioned in the main article.--sarvajna (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well said Sarvajna. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that we should have structures like other journalistic pieces, but rather that prominence given to 2002 riots in those articles gives us some idea of the kind of weight we should give it on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, deciding what to keep and what to delete will become arbitrary and subject to our personal biases. Someone else might argue that we shouldn't have content on Modi's contributions to agriculture/industry because improvements in Gujarat were the result of his government's policies and not him individually. In fact, they already have. Correct Knowledge 20:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

PS I was hoping to find tertiary sources on Narendra Modi because per WP:TERTIARY, "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources... may be helpful in evaluating due weight". But because we have no dedicated entries on Modi in any of the encyclopedias, textbooks, guidebooks etc. independent and reliably published biographies and profiles will have to do here. Correct Knowledge 20:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of communal harmony, :) I have cut down the section myself, something I would have done right at the end. The parts removed were ones we had consensus on and by that I mean which I thought were redundant. Since sarvajna and Yogesh want no more than a 2&1/2 lines paragraph, I am assuming they would concur on any reduction to the section. I am hoping editors involved here will drop the stick after this and try to work on other sections which badly need to be expanded. Please also take a look at Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon to see what comprehensiveness really means (don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that I was inspired by those two articles). Correct Knowledge 21:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that achievements of Modi's government should not be associated with Modi, a quick check of the articles of other leaders will help us. CK, those two artciles are good we can borrow a lot from them. However we should not make a mistake of comparing watergate to 2002 violence. Nixon and his administration was involved in watergate while Modi and his administration are accused of being involved in 2002 violence.--sarvajna (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not making that mistake. Those two are probably the best written political biographies on WP. I was just trying to point out how far we still have to go with this one. Correct Knowledge 13:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing about the work that he has done in Guj, do you have any plans on how to proceed ? --sarvajna (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We could start by addressing the maintenance tags in the article. Issues with the personality section (listed a few sections above this) need to be discussed further and rectified before we can even think about removing that POV tag at the top. While trying to address the weasel word tag in the Second term section, I found out that the sentence, "Modi's decision to link Gujarat's violence with the 9/11... L. K. Advani's unpleasant apology for Gujarat in London a year ago.", is close paraphrasing of the source. We need to rewrite it and remove the tag, since it is unaddressable in this case. And then of course, the lead, paragraph on Sadbhavana and section on Prime Ministerial candidate need to be expanded. Correct Knowledge 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS I think, right now, the article has enough broad coverage of Modi's developmental initiatives for a GAR. For an FAR, the article will need to be comprehensive, which means we will have to include his solar energy policy, industrial growth (Nano etc.), as well as, malnutrition and book ban. We'll cross that bridge when it comes. :) Correct Knowledge 22:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a couple of weeks, and am encouraged by the incremental improvements by CK and others. It'd be marvelous to see this prepped for and sent to FAC.

Comparing this page with Manushi's "Modinama" series of articles makes me agree with what others said above: this page could be much, much more lucid and informative. Saravask 23:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

There is an attempt to mis-interpret sources and word the lead. For example Independent writes: " Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat and a member of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, stands accused of failing to stop (and even of facilitating) the murder of hundreds of Muslims in an orgy of shuddering violence that took place in his state in the spring of 2002. Locally, Mr Modi, who has always denied the claims, did not let the allegations get in his way. Concentrating on development issues and reaching out to industry and business leaders both from home and abroad, he was twice re-elected to the state's most senior position. But at a national level, it appeared there was reverberating unease about the man and his hard-line "Hindutva" philosophy. When he was brought out to campaign in the 2009 general election, his impact was lacklustre and his national ambitions appeared dashed. But last week's announcement by the court may have changed that. The court had been asked to hear allegations concerning the killing of up to 70 people at the Gulbarg Society apartments in Ahmedabad. By sending the case back to a lower, local tribunal and by declining to name Mr Modi, the court deflated much of the potential controversy." (emphasis mine) So Modi is reported to have been accused of complicity, and that the court rubbished the allegations, yet why does this BLP inform "he was accused of facilitating murder". Therefore that has been removed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Hindu-Muslim riots in which over three times more Muslims were killed than Hindus" is a rubbish looking statement(providing ratio) in the lead.Every body is talking about riots but nobody consider Godhra train incident who were responsible for the ignition.It is discourtesy that every nationalist in India has been labeled as "Hindu Extremist".It is clearly written in the article that 790 muslims and 254 Hindus are killed.They were simply riots ignited by Godhra Train Massacre.It is better we should focus about his acheivements and developement policies in the article..---zeeyanwiki 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider that the earlier version didn't mention Hindu deaths at all, it just mentioned Hindu massacres of Muslims or to the effect. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the 254 Hindu deaths includes Godhra deaths? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK that is only the post Godhra count, I might be wrong. --sarvajna (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well at least this says 254 hindus perished in post-Godhra. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So if we add Godhra deaths, three times is reasonably accurate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving the actual numbers will make it clear, "three times more" sounds very vague.-sarvajna (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happier with three times since this lead is about Modi and not the violence, yet if anyone replaces it with those statistics, I wouldn't oppose. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz removed the reference to inadequate handling of 2002 violence by Modi's government, saying it is wp:SYNTH, the text in the article quoted reads "While the State looked on, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and 223 more people were reported as missing in over four weeks of rioting." I have paraphrased it as "...it did not adequately strive to control Hindu-Muslim riots in which over three times more Muslims were killed than Hindus..." how is it SYNTHESIS? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious that your changes were of the pov variety, whitewashing stuff. The stats bit is only a part of the issue. Now let's concentrate on improving the body and then return to the lead that is intended to summarise it. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Blatantly obvious... pov, whitewashing stuff", fine, now where is the evidence to back those allegations? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In the diff and your own history, including IIRC comments by others at ANI. You have frequently exhibited POV when it comes to RSS/BJP-related issues, right back at least as far as your involvement in the maps controversy that you and the BJP were involved in. In this instance, you are trying to reduce the weight of what is arguably the defining image of Modi internationally. But, regardless, we can deal with the lead after we've sorted out the body: the statement that you changed had been there for some time without objection and it is at least as factually accurate as your replacement. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

May we have evidence? Secondly is there a RS that says only "this" is the defining image of Modi internationally? Or is it someone's fancy? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say only this, I said this. There can only be one defining image and I think that the US visa situation is among the many indicators. Modi has done much that appears to have enhanced, for example, the economy in his state but until practically every major analysis of him stops mentioning the violence, well, it is the common denominator from sources. As for the rest, I am not getting drawn into your usual pedantry, some of which in this instance might well take me along the road of "outing" you - I am not falling for it. Please just accept that leads summarise bodies, that the article body is still undergoing a fair amount of work and that the present statement in the lead is not factually inaccurate. You have been fighting to exclude or minimise non-favourable statements in this article from the outset, quite often with your somewhat tortuous interpretation of policy. You can do much good on Misplaced Pages, Yogesh, but perhaps need to consider voluntarily adding politics to the ban. If nothing else, you appear to have misinterpreted Redtigerxyz edit summary, which referred to whether the source mentioned criticism rather than whether the source gave the ratio that you inserted. Maybe ping Redtigerxyz and see if they are prepared to elaborate? - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you have really lost it. In your desire to make YK look bad you are calling his edits as POV pushing, if you look at his edits he wrote that Modi administration failed to control the riots.I am not saying that it was correct or wrong but it was not some pro-Modi POV pushing even a child can say that.When he asks for evidence you go into the history, so you are using his history to justify your reverts today? --sarvajna (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The statistical detail is unnecessary in the lead and can give the appearance of fomenting Hindu-Muslim antipathy, which is a common ploy of the BJP's Hindu nationalist strategy and indeed was a claim in the controversy. Even if statistically correct (and those numbers appear not to be the only figures doing the rounds), it is best dealt with in the body. Yogesh and I can get along just fine, and have done, provided that he keeps away from issues relating to nationalism and colonialism. A similar situation arose with Zuggernaut, who was topic banned etc long before my involvement but persisted in nibbling at the edges. I could invoke Yogesh's topic ban here, since the riots are technically history, but I think that would be somewhat unfair.

Best to see if Redtigerxyz is prepared to comment further and, once again, the lead should reflect the body. Let's not put the cart before the horse. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I would never oppose the removal of the statistics from the lead although I had opposed YK's inclusion of "three time more" and supported the inclusion of actual numbers. I do not think that Misplaced Pages cares about Hindu-Muslim antipathy(if it really care then let us delete all the articles which would forment Hindu-Muslim antipathy and portray that India is a Utopia) , it is the fact that people were killed. How you came to the conclusion that mentioning the numbers in the body but not in lead would reduce the Hindu-Muslim antipathy is beyond me also the assuming that YK is trying to foster Hindu-Muslim antipathy(by writing something that even Modi would not be comfortable with) is a breach of WP:AGF. I still do not understand your accusation of whitewashing, he tried to include extra things not cover anything -sarvajna (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Perhaps even WP:PACT. Do you agree that the lead as currently worded is accurate? - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with the lead now, I did not see anything wrong with YK's version either just that I would have preferred numbers instead of "three times more"(oops now you would think that I am trying to foster Hindu-Muslim antipathy, how can one stop you from imagining crap ?). I would not liked to be dragged into you wikilawyering, if you reverted YK on the basis of WP:DUE, WP:LEAD it is ok, there was nothing POV in giving the statistics when you are already mentioning the event, you are only imagining stuff. with all due respect I must say you are ill equipped to comment on BJP’s strategy, leave aside the riots they are not even speaking about Ram temple these days and BJP would never want any direct links to riots. I would like to end this discussion from my end unless there is something about the article -sarvajna (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: As Sarvajna mentioned above, there is little that one can do about anyone who keeps tilting at windmills, you are misusing the talk page that should be used specifically to discuss how to improve the article. Please stick to the point. If there is wp:SYNTHESIS like Redtigerxyz said there was, kindly demonstrate how as I've asked Redtigerxyz to do the same. @Sarvajna, it is better if the lead which is a summary carries approximations like "over three times" and not exact figures, however if the consensus for statistics well so be it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference only talks about "790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed" and US criticism. How does it support the prime reason for criticism being the specifics in the sentence? There are many "reasons" cited: anti-Muslim bias, deliberate inaction, negligent inaction etc. The last para was discussed at Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_2#POV_Lead_Section in 2012. Redtigerxyz 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The text in the article quoted reads "While the State looked on, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and 223 more people were reported as missing in over four weeks of rioting." I have paraphrased it as "...it did not adequately strive to control Hindu-Muslim riots in which over three times more Muslims were killed than Hindus..." how is it SYNTHESIS? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Add the count in the main article. No objection. My objection is the particularly (prime reason of criticism) in the sentence, which the article does not say. Also "both within India and internationally" is not covered. Redtigerxyz 05:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to present the offensive statement and then suggest what you would prefer pl. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Personality --> Early Life_Early_Life-2013-04-22T14:20:00.000Z">

Should we merge the content of personality to Early life section? Personality right now has only two to three sentences and while going through Nixon's article too I found that his traits were mentioned in Early life section only. I am ready to expand his personality section, but it would be more apt to have it in Early life. Your opinion please? Thanks. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)_Early_Life"> _Early_Life">

How can "He wears business suits to business meetings" be a part of early life as it is a recent change in his personality. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming chaotic. It would be helpful if people could read the prior recent discussions on this page before diving in. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

is the the POV tag still required? --sarvajna (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, till concerns about the personality section are not addressed. Correct Knowledge 12:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you wish to be added or removed from there, please present a draft. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For an article concerning such a controversial person, it is highly likely that the tag will always be required. Certainly, at least, until a couple of years after death. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was so controversial that her death was widely celebrated as the death of a witch. Yet her article doesn't carry a POV tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to say that the tag is required till the death, is there any such policy? CK, can you let us know your concern about the personality section? Also I don't see any POV issues in that section so why a POV tag ? --sarvajna (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Whats POVy in the personality section?

Modi is a vegetarian He is known for leading a frugal lifestyle. He has a personal staff of three. He is known to be a workaholic and an introvert. He is a crowd puller as a speaker. Modi wears "business suits to business meetings".

Only possible line i see which you might be referring to as POV is the "crowd puller" one. Am i right? In that case, will presenting references of how many people attended his various speeches work? If we are able to prove that vast numbers were present in multiple of his programmes, can the line stay as a short one liner summary? (Maybe rephrased if need be. Will search and provide the numbers only if its going to be acceptable. Or else no point in bothering.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, see WP:OSE; Sarvajna, I didn't say it was policy. Strawmen, both. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush you can wikilawyer till the sun goes down. Quote a policy that states that a controversial person's article always carries a POV tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I never said that you were referring to some policy, I was only questioning your rationale behind your statement. I know very well that you have mastered all the policies and if there is no such policy to keep the tag till the person dies then let us list the POV issues that we see.Dharmadhyaksha you may be right but I am not sure. A quick search will show that huge crowds had gathered during his recent rallies in Kerala, Bangalore and other places. Let us wait for CKs response.-sarvajna (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Hindustan Times made album of his recent rallies and titled it "Crowd puller Modi". They also wrote in April 2013 that "Modi proves biggest crowd-puller for beleaguered BJP". The Hindu says "Modi, Waghela crowd-pullers" in 2002. In 2011, Deccan Herald reports "Vaghela no match for crowd-puller Modi". These are exact quotes. If need be, i can work on my above mentioned proposal of collecting figures also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Most big-name politicians pull big crowds - it goes with the territory, especially since many are party faithful & are roistered to attend. It would be like saying Justin Bieber is a crowd-puller - fans will do what fans will do. I really do not see the significance of it unless, for example, he also has a reputation as a demagogue (no idea if he does or not). - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all big-name politicians pull crowds. Sonia didn't. But i agree with your point on how territory matters. I was also thinking of revamping the section to call it as "Personality and image". Then you include stuff about his personality and what he is in the eyes of media, general public, other politicians (of his and other parties), etc. There we can include how he has been crowd puller in territories of Gujarat, Karnataka and other places. He also gets good amount of audience when he speaks of business. A 2K capacity auditorium had 7K people in Mumbai. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me but I am not clear on the territory thing, so if his rally in manipur would bring huge crowd would we add to that list? -sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Something like that. We have to mention only those regions/states where he actually gathered crowd. For example if he doesnt get any in TN, we can't write he is a crowd puller in general in India. If you see the Sonia's article that i linked above, they also have been cautious by commenting only about Congress' condition in Karnataka and not overall India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that he has pulled crowd wherever he has gone (I have not seen any reports that say that he did not), may be we can keep it simple and say that he has pulled crowd at most of the places he visited, we can correct it later when he doesn't pull the crowd in future. -sarvajna (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers etc do not report non-news. While "Man bites dog" is news, "Dog bites man" is not. Reporting that a crowd did not turn up to listen to a senior politician is an extremely rare event. In fact, I cannot recall it ever happening. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the POV tag itself is concerned, I've just found and neutralised some more. Given that and the thread that has just started below, the tag would appear still to be valid. This thread can therefore be closed for at least another couple of months and, honestly, I suspect for a much longer time. Even the headers to this talk page indicate the possibility of pov. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• The POV tag continues to be necessary untill Ratnakar understands that the lead needs to summarize the content of the article AND give an overview of what makes Modi significant and controversial. This requires that the lead describe the allegations against him and the fact that they have not been substantiated. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

POV tag is not required just because you think that everything about the 2002 violence needs to be in the lead and the fact the allegations have not been substantiated gives a better reason why it should not be in lead. There is enough reference to the violence in the lead, we need not stuff everything in the lead. -sarvajna (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, there is a mention in the lead of the violence but no mention of why the violence has any relation to the topic of the article. That is just stupid and uninformative.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also POV tag is not for such content disputes, POV tag is required for neutrality.-sarvajna (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

POV tags are for POV disputes, and this is a POV dispute because you and a couple of other editors are chronically averse to mentioning anything vaguely critical of Modi in the leadin spite of the fact that it is mentioned in the article and in most of the reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this and wonder whether it might be better to pass the issue on to WP:BLPNB or whatever the heck the acronym is. I doubt that we are going to get any agreement here even if/when the other regulars appear, and as it is a BLP we do need to be careful. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I started a thread there about a month ago and it received no responses. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go to attract outside attention to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at BLPN -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. If it gets nowhere, as previously, then I think the RfC suggestion is the best course. We could try WP:DRN but I've found that venue to be not very useful for India-related stuff. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Role in BJP

If Modi is Chief Minister does that also make him titular leader of the BJP in the state? In the UK, the Prime Minister has always to the best of my knowledge been the leader of the governing party. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope the leader/president of a party can be different. Example Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister but Sonia Gandhi is the congress president. Likewise even in states the CM need not be the president. -sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the preisdent of a party in India synonymous with being "leader". It is not in most European countries and, in fact, "president" is generally more an honorary title that an executive title. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

President of the party is an executive title, he has the powers to decide on who should contest election and others like suspending people, accepting resignation of party members etc. The term leader might differ in its meanings. The leader of opposition is some kind of executive post but not exactly however a leader of the party is simply a senior person in the party ( not strictly, a leader can be even a new person with huge following also). -sarvajna (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Who is Modi's leader then? Presumably it is that person who really wields the power, a bit like a puppet-master? - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked it, R. C. Faldu is the state BJP president, legally speaking he would be Modi's boss when it comes to the state BJP affairs but Faldu will not have any say in running the government as Modi would be the boss in govt affairs. Again legally speaking Faldu will have the last word in party affairs but Modi is far more powerful and will have a major say in party affairs. I don't think any decision would be taken without Modi's consent. -sarvajna (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I see: the party and the government have a sort of distance although probably not a ringfenced one. So, who authorised the 2002 bandh that was called by the VHP and BJP? I'm struggling to work this out and it seems potentially to be a conflict of interest if a governing party calls a bandh because it is stoking tension. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any advance on this? It is a mystery to me. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Saw your message now, government doesn't authorized bundhs, it is the state BJP. Just to make it clear to you any party can call for a bandh and every party does that to oppose one thing or other. -sarvajna (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sting Operation

Editor Manus is making some edits about the sting operation. First he says that the grammer is not correct which might be the case however now it looks like its just the critics are against the Sting operation and its only cricts who object to these sting operations. He goes one step forward in his mischief here by writing The tapes have been authenticated by the Central Bureau of Investigation...Nonetheless, critics have pointed out several inaccuracies in the statements. we need to understand that no one has objected that the tapes were not authentic, second the source doesn't say that critics have picked up loopholes in the sting operation, it is the fact the the statements made by people in the sting operation had inaccuracies. -sarvajna (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not about being against the sting operation it is about whether the statements in the recording are true or not. It makes no sense to say that the operation is put into question. Noone has "picked up loopholes in the sting operation" - bevause that is nonsencical: operations dont have loopholes - statements in the recordings resulting from the operation have inaccuracies. No one questions whether the operation happened, no one questions whether the people in the recordings actually said what they are recorded as saying, what is questioned is whether what they say is true. And only the people who do not believe that the statements about Modi are true are using the presence of other inaccuracies to cast doubt on the veracity of the statements about Modi.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, no one is questioning the operation, there are inaccuracies in the statements made by the people who were filmed, like I said you have given a whole new meaning with your edits. The fact is that there were inaccuracies in the statements made by the people who were filmed and enough reasons are given about why they were inaccurate. I hope you understand the concerns and correct accordingly. -sarvajna (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording I change said that "the operation was being questioned" which was why I changed it. Please do read what people write beforte you start making nonsense arguments wasting everybodys time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In your zeal to correct the grammer you have given a whole new meaning to what was written, it is not some critics who are questioning the inaccuracies. It is a fact that there were inaccurate statements made by people. That is all needas to be written not a big saga about the sting operation. -sarvajna (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There WAS no meaning to what was written. And you apparently dont understand what is written now, because it does not say that only critics are questioning the inaccuracies, it says that critics have pointed them out. I didnt put in the saga about the sting operation, obvioulsy some MOdi supporter thopught it was very important to write in detail the three inaccuracies that have been found in the tape instead of the actuall allegations against Modi. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have edited it, I feel that we do not need info about whether the Sting were authentic or not, there is no mention about the Sting being fake, also I have removed the stetement about SIT not considering the sting, this is only increase the length of the section as we will have to get into details about why the sting was not considered. Like Manus said which I very much agree there were inaccuracies in the statements made, the sting operation itself is not inaccrate. -sarvajna (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've not really looked into the underlying issue, although Maunus is definitely correct that the wording made little sense (there has been a lot of this recently). I've reverted you purely because you were weaseling. Perhaps you can find another way to phrase it? - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Deputed

We say "The RSS deputed Modi to the BJP in 1987", which is virtually a copyvio of the source, which also uses the "deputed" word. But what does it mean? According to the Oxford, it means "appoint", "instruct" or "delegate" in both

And who moved him to Delhi to be General Secretary? The RSS, state BJP or national BJP? There are holes all over this thing. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush good catch I must say, this is one of the reason why people who are not familiar with Indian politics and who do not take sentences for granted should review articles. RSS deputed Modi to BJP means that RSS backed Modi's entry into the BJP(second would be the word from the choices that you have given above but there would be no legal paperwork), it is the best way to gain significance in BJP. The national BJP appoited him a general secretary, the national BJP has powers to appoint general secretary, VPs etc. -sarvajna (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what peer reviews should be about, although it is not exactly what I am doing. However, I think that I've messed up my explanation. There are many definitions of "second" - examples are time, finishing position (in a race etc), support nomination (in an election etc) ... and "loan out". The last one is the one I meant (and is pronounced differently - sek-OND, with the emphasis on the last syllable) but I think you might mean the third one. Bloody confusing, is the English language! Are there sources that we can use to sort this out? I know that a lot of his pre-CM history is pretty vague and often contradictory. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking about the RSS supporting his nomination, like I said it would be impossible to get any RS which would say that RSS supported his nomination as RSS would not give it in written about the support. RSS do not own any person so they cannot loan out anyone, once you are part of BJP you loose all the official powers in RSS. Another close example can be Nitin Gadkari, who was a RSS nominee for the post of party president. -sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I may have opened a can of worms here/ Unless we can sort out some decent, unambiguous sourcing I suspect that we will have to remove the statement - I don't see much point in turning it into a quote when it is so vague. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can keep it simple by saying that Modi joined BJP in 1987, we cannot skip this part I assume. -sarvajna (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we cannot skip it but the RSS-BJP relationship might be considered significant and thus the manner of joining the BJP. I'm still fiddling with minor stuff but am checking the occasional source as I wander around. Phadnis does mention the joining but I'll see what else we have. Or someone can do the same. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This source suggest secondment (which is loaning someone). I tend to think that secondment is what happened because, as far as I can determine, he is still a member of the RSS even though perhaps not an official. We already use the source in the article. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is the same source that is already being used in the article.-sarvajna (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the source using "deputed" is a ToI one. I've long argued that the ToI has gone downhill with its standards of writing in recent years and this is a classic example of it. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I had seen the General Secretary source, so what do you propose? -sarvajna (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that until/if ever something better comes along, we would be best adding the Frontline citation to the "deputed" statement and changing the word from "deputed" to "seconded". Doing this (a) avoids copyvio of either source and (b) allows us to retain the sourced date. I'm not usually keen on having multiple cites for simple statements but right now I can see no alternative. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

sounds good for me. -sarvajna (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but I've forgotten how to link to the Wiktionary definition directly and our Secondment article is trying to take us there. We have a template, I think. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Substantiation

To substantiate means to prove, to verify, to add substance to. We say It found her claims to be unsubstantiated because ... she took four years to file a complaint. The length of time involved has no connection to substantiation, even if there were a statute of limitations. One could substantiate something but not pursue action as a consequence of that, or one might not be able to substantiate something because the elapsed time has caused evidence to be lost etc. But length of time has no direct co-relation to substantiation. So, are the SIT and their legal advisers linguistically-challenged or (much more likely) did they say something else? - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Zakia's claims could not be proven not just because she took four years but there are other reasons as well which are present in the article. SIT made those observations because in the very first FIR filed by Zakia she did not accuse Modi but infact she had claimed that police officers protected her and others from gulbarg society immediately after the violence but she filed a complaint against Modi only after 4 years which raised doubts.( I will have to put some efforts to find the source to her first FIR but I do not think that it is required here).-sarvajna (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I am aware that there are other reasons (hence the "..." in my quote above). Nonetheless, the time element is given as one of the reasons why the claims were "unsubstantiated" and this simply cannot be so. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, I am not sure whether SIT used the word unsubstantiated or whether it was other sources which used it when summarizing the whole thing. I would not oppose removal of the sentence(unless someone has good points about why it should be present) she took four years to file a complaint or modifying it to mean that SIT had doubts because she delayed in filing a complaint.-sarvajna (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let's see what others think or can turn up in the way of verification. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Replacing Patel

Is it not significant that Modi is the first RSS parachak to become CM, that he became so despite never having contested an election, that he had to contest one within 6 months of appointment and that Gujarat has been perceived as the BJP's "political 'laboratory'""? All from this, which we already cite. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds significant, especially he becoming CM despite never having contested an election. That can go in Early activism and politics. -sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, given that I appear now to be accused of "ganging up" and bullying etc for a certain POV, I'd better not add it just in case it infringes one POV or another. I'm happy if you are happy to do it but right now we have someone hovering around who has the power to block me if I do it. One of the reasons why I have gone so long on India-related articles without being blocked is because I know where the limits are and, when in doubt, I ask on talk pages etc. At the moment, even though I have asked, I am not comfortable with making that edit. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing {{NPOV}}

I have removed the {{NPOV}} notice from the article as, obviously, only the neutrality of some of the the sub-sections is disputed not the whole article. Kondi (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So, why didn't you tag the subsections? Since so much is causing dispute over so many sections, and since examples of WP:WEA & WP:PEA are still being found, surely it makes more sense to have a single tag rather than littering the article with several of them? I am reinstating. This thread should probably be continued in the section that already exists for POV issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the sections is the lead. The tag should be reinstated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that Sitush and Maunus review WP:NPOVD. Adding tags such as this one should be the last resort and NPOV tags should not be misused. I have noticed a few instances of biased editing and POV pushing on the article and the talk page and would like to ask other editors of this page to review the recent changes made. There are no egregious problems with the page, so don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you review it yourself. It says that the tag can be removed in absence of ongoing discussion of which there is plenty here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rsrikanth here. Some editors have been particularly aggressive with their editing style and have reverted edits of several editors without making an attempt to discuss. We must get biographical articles right and that is policy. In case of any doubt, the issue must be discussed on the talk page first and only then changes are to be made. There are several editors ganging up on the page in order to include and retain material that is irrelevant and slanted towards the negative for a Misplaced Pages biography page. I believe this dispute will have to be escalated to an RfC shortly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That is false and ridiculous - the article and most other Hindu nationalism related articles are complete propaganda not worthy of an encyclopedia. When I came here the article was a hagiography, clearly caused by the several povpushing editors "ganging up to keep any critique of Modi out of the article and particularly the lead. And it is they who have been editwarring and who are now pushing for unilateral removal of the npov tag. Yes, an RfC with broad community involvement will be necessary, and perhaps even an arbcom.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, your style of aggressive editing is not welcome on the encyclopedia. You have continued to edit war on several occasions in the past while leaving rude messages for users who do not agree with you. I have initiated a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard for admin intervention. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol. You are funny.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the earlier discussion or the numerous points where myself and Sarvajna have been trying to sort out phrasing and stuff that might in fact be to Modi's " advantage" (ie: positive). In fact, you haven't done much that I can see for weeks & you allowed clear weaseling to stand. The RfC issue is already mentioned above - it would seem that you have not realised that, either. Perhaps you have been away for a while. If the lead is at BLPN then there is a major POV problem of some sort or another, and you'll note that I have sat on the fence throughout that particular problem: don't go accusing me of "ganging-up", which appears to be what you are saying given your additional comments on my talk page. This article still needs a lot of work and it would be better for all of us if we got on with it, as I am doing in small spurts every few days. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

<snip from my talk page> I suggest that you read the discussions on Talk:Narendra Modi, which include links to the thread at WP:BLPN. If you do not consider that to be a POV concern then you are clearly demonstrating your own POV regarding the subject of the article. Me? I have not opted for or against the BLPN issue, although I have been fixing other POV matters on that article during the last few days. We can do with less Modi-apparatchik type of edits and more useful discussion. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I have gone thru the talk page discussion. I find the usage of the POV tags rather distasteful, especially in the manner it has been used on Narendra Modi for an extended duration. There are no serious outstanding issues on that article that cannot be resolved by the way of discussion on the talk page. Please see the guide on NPOV tags once again (here's the link: WP:NPOVD) where it states clearly that these tags are to be used only as a last resort. Right now, I can only find you stressing over and over again that this tag ought to be a permanent feature because the person himself is so controversial that this dispute will never be resolved. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, Till date, I have only seen you cutting down on every section except the one on 2002 Gujarat violence which appears to be growing with each day. Now that you have labelled my editing as apparatchik-like, what is your advice on writing biographical articles? Should we use Adolph Hitler as a standard? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I have barely touched the 2002 section of late, and certainly not in comparison to work elsewhere on the article. As for cutting down, well, I can't be bothered aggregating the character count of my edits but if people cannot write decent English then I fix it; if people misquote sources then I fix it; if people think it important to this article note that an actor was filming his upcoming movie then, yes, I remove it as not important. Just look at my edits of the last few days and the number of threads I have opened on this talk page about various issues. Whether all this increases or decreases the length of the article is trivial. People really need to pay more attention before they start accusing me of things, including misreading things that I have said, such as on your talk page. I did not say that you were an apparatchik. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There had been a discussion above about the tag and Sitush was also involved, before Maunus started adding non worthy things to the lead the only reason that we found to have the tag was the sentence of Modi being a crowd puller, I would not give much importance to what Maunus says, while accusing others or being pro-Modi he forgot that he has clearly exposed himself as some anti-Modi person. It is very clear from the way he worded the part of Sting operation section twisting the facts given in the source itself.-sarvajna (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Google crash

We say The chat was schedule to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response. The source cited itself says that the crash was "reportedly", which seems like rather lazy journalism but, worse, The Indian Express source cited later in the section just calls it a "technical glitch". Did Google+ really crash? Was it due to "the response"? Do we have a source that actually says so? - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And was it 18 questions or 14? Is this discrepancy because the latter source was referring to only one "session"? - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Governor vs Modi

I have not bothered checking sources etc yet and I know that the phrasing is poor, but was this removal really valid? If the accusations of "parallel government" have any substance, for example, then it is surely relevant? How do these governor/chief minister relationships usually work? What are their respective roles? - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! My apologies: someone reinstated it. Time to take a break, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat in short; President : Prime Minister :: Governor : Chief Minister. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Neutrality of article and lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This rfc asks two questions. 1. is the article currently neutral? 2. Should the lead include mention of the accusations against Modi personally (not just his administration) in relation to the 2002 Gujarat violence?

Specifically: The body of the article describes that Modi has been accused of aiding and abetting a genocidal massacre, of inciting riots, of corruption, of making disparaging remarks against Muslims, and that he has been denied a US Visa under an act "which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or "directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for the visa". It also describes that the SIT report has not found the accusations to be substantiated, although they did not consider the testimonies of the accusers. None of this is currently mentioned in the lead. ] says that the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, the lead should include all notable information from the body of the article. So the question is: are these accusations notable although they have not been upheld in court?

1. 1. not currently neutral 2. Yes include mention The accusations are highly notable, occur in dozens of reliable sources, and occupy a prominent part in the body of the article, for which reason per WP:LEAD they should also be mentioned in the lead which is supposed to provide a full overview of the most important aspects of the subject. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

These discussion in the section above is not over whether the biography page is neutral or not but whether the use of {{POV}} template is justifiable on this article. By extension of Maunus's logic, all pages that are perceived by them or their friends as non-neutral deserve to have that template slapped on the top of the page. This is unbecoming behaviour from an editor of Misplaced Pages, and I hope neutral third parties will take note of this fact. I would also like to highlight that Maunus has gone ahead and hastily slapped a notice on several community discussion pages soliciting comments over a dispute on "Indian Hindu nationalist politician Narendra Modi" probably with the hope of attracting trolls who are naturally drawn to these buzz words. A list of these pages, which also includes the Wikipolitics page on Pakistan(?), is made available below:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics (Not sure why this is relevant for this article?)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Indian politics
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gujarat
• Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Any article that is deemed to be non-neutral by a consensus of editors should have the npov tag of course. That is what the tag is for. It is a warning to readers and a suggestion to editors that they neutralize the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What are people supposed to do here, read the whole article, check all the sources and then come to conclusion whether the article is neutral or not? This is ridiculous. About the wording in the lead there is a discussion going on at BLPN. -sarvajna (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous? That is what any reasonable editor does anytime they read an article. If that seems ridiculous to you then maybe you shouldnt be editing here at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors here are spending a lot of time in Editing articles, they are not paid so excepting them to spend their time for your inadventurous quest is unresonalble, you think there are issues, list them so that they would know the issues. This is a RFC, your are requesting people to comment on issues not review the whole article-sarvajna (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly common to request input on neutrality. You dont have to comment if you dont have time. I am sure others will .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Cue -
  Comment: Both the body of the article and its lead are as neutral as it can get, which is to say that {{POV}} is not required. It is not a dispute; it is a case of I don't like it.
  Elaboration: Nom asks "Should the lead include mention of the accusations against Modi personally?"
  Ans: I see in 2007, the magazine Tehelka published covert video recordings by an investigative journalist showing many prominent Hindu leaders and politicians boasting of their involvement in the killings and the complicity of Narendra Modi in the violence. But critics have pointed out several inaccuracies in the statements, which they argue detract from its validity as evidence against Modi. The Supreme Court Special Investigation Team did not admit the Tehelka recordings as evidence. That report is, at best, spurious. I like Nick's perspective on this, perception of bias is not intrinsically a valid basis to tag a page with {{POV}}, especially when the page is about as prominent a figure as Narendra Modi. One may as well want to call him all sorts of names but that is no reason to tag the article with a {{POV}}. Mr T 10:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has 9 main section. Are all those or majority of those POV according to Maunus? If not, i consider adding a POV tag on top itself a POV.
  Its a simple thing; add POV tag and explain why; add clarification needed tag and explain why. Up in the discussion above i and sarvajna had to sit and keep guessing why the POV must have been added. Are the POV-adders finally settled on all points they consider as POV? In case they are, please enlist those points here. There is no point in asking all editors on Misplaced Pages to come and read and research and find possible POV points. We don't want irrelevant guys to come and comment that lakh shouldn't be used but million and billions should be used. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Now that Maunus has changed the question or say added things to the question, I would like to know whether this would be an end to his addition or whether this RfC will be forced to kept open with his additional statements, I would like to ask maunus to first read what a genocide actually means also we should not forget that we are not here to fight cases, the SIT was not constituted by Modi's government but by the highest court of the country has not found any evidence against him. When the court says something we accept it but not speculate on why courts said something. Like I have said on the talk page we should also compare this article with other BLP which are GA/FA. -sarvajna (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Note: I have removed the bold addition of {{POV}} and let the RFC come to a conclusion. We must take into account that he is running for office and we have to be extra cautious before tagging it with {{POV}} laxly. RFCs should not be used to postpone reversals of undiscussed bold edits. Mr T 16:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is complete nonsense and just reinforces the notion that this article is intended as favourably as possible to serve Modi's PR and image. Since when did the BJP get to run Misplaced Pages? I know they have campaigned against Misplaced Pages's depictions before now, and on one occasion at least it involved someone who has contributed to this thing, but this is a ridiculous rationale. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! BJP is running Misplaced Pages? I always thought America runs wikipedia. Maunus here thinks that Modi's rejection of US visa is lead-worthy. Isn't that an American POV? We barely have three lines in the article about that visa. One of which is a quote of rules of visa authority. If thats lead worthy, Modi's multiple visits to China and the fact about release of 13 traders should also be mentioned. If US visa is so noteworthy then EU's boycott and later withdrawal should also be mentioned. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if anything that should mean that it is more important that it is clear to the reader if there is any bias in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Its the way of doing things. You AFD an article, you state why. You add "clarification needed" and you state why. You propose merger, you state why. Here, until yesterday, you were just talking vague stuff. And the tag had been added many days even before that. I would call that as a bias towards this particular article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are being an idiot. I have describe on this page in excruciating detail why I added the tag. And I have said exactly what I put in the addition to the RfC at least four times on this page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

grand show of civility Maunus, you have really run out of valid points.-sarvajna (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and what election is he running for? He was re-elected in late 2012, wasn't he? - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T wants to point to the fact that Modi is likely PM candidate from BJP in elections that are less than a year ahead in future. A year sounds long time period. But the fact that media has been treating him as a likely candidate is good enough for us to be careful before putting random labels. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

When I raised the Prime Minister issue a few weeks back, I was told that it should not be mentioned because Modi has stayed silent on the matter. Now I'm apparently being told that we can't do stuff because he is a likely candidate. Talk about moving goalposts ... - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone still wants to add the Prime Minister thing to the body of the article, PM or no PM we should always be extra cautious with BLPs. It should not hurt if the consensus goes against you. -sarvajna (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point, which is that the PM thing has been used in two different contexts: firstly, its inclusion was denied because although widely-speculated, Modi has not commented; fair enough, but now something cannot be done because it is "likely". I am well aware of what BLP says but the logical fallacies ... - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Yes, if anything that should mean that it is more important that it is clear to the reader if there is any bias in the article." - stop attacking straw man. I didn't say, "we should avoid tagging the article even if there is any bias." I didn't freaking say that, okay?

  Just because there is a slim chance of the lead or body being non-neutral doesn't mean that they are in fact non-neutral. Just because you perceive it as non-neutral doesn't mean you should be allowed to unilaterally tag a page of a politician before the community arrives at a consensus on the issue. If this were an acceptable pattern of editing then every controversial article would have been perennially tagged with neutrality issues.
  The POV tag is at best vague and you never properly explicated why it is that you think it is not neutral. You tag the whole article as being biased - it begs the question, how? You assert the lead doesn't mention the accusations against Modi personally, that's why it is not neutral. Well, that's your opinion. Besides, it mentions very clearly the criticisms against Modi's administration, that's what makes Modi notable in the first place.
  Personal accusations are too unfounded as well as too numerous to be covered in the lead (not to forget he is a living Politician). The report you perhaps want included in the lead actually didn't prove Modi guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it wasn't even accepted as evidence. Why should we mention it in the lead then? Random accusations are best suited in the body not the lead. Mr T 15:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also you should fight in the court of law if some evidence was not accepted, Misplaced Pages can hardly do anything about that. -sarvajna (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maunus, you think the lead is POV, then please submit your version of lead here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

2002 election section

We say in the section covering the 2002 election that the DMK and TDP were "allies of BJP". The sources do not seem to mention the DMK but do mention the AIADMK, saying Jayalalitha was keen to move towards the BJP-led national government. Being keen does not make her or the AIADMK an ally and in fact she seems to have been suggesting that Modi should be relieved of his office. I can find nothing in the cited sources that say the TDP were allies, although they are mentioned &, again, their leader seems to be suggesting that it would have been best if Modi had left office. Am I reading the sources - this and this - correctly? - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My office network doesn't alow me to check most of the sources, but just for you information TDP and DMK were allies of BJP in the NDA governement, TDP provided an outside support and was not part of the governemnt while DMK was part of the governement. However AIADMK is considered a natural ally but Jayalalitha was not part of the governemnt, not even an ally. Will try to get sources.-sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No rush! The statement has been there for some time and it is only because I am beginning to check a few sources that I noticed the thing is not in fact supported & there may be some confusion between DMK and AIADMK. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic development in Gujarat

Has the alleged improved economic environment in Gujarat been directly due to Modi's policies or could it be seen as largely a "natural" consequence? This article seems to put the dampers on things to some extent. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gujarat is not a Utopia, the poverty, malnourishment has created a lot of buzz recently especially due to some controversial interview that the recently gave. Overall Gujarat has done lot better than other states in India. I can go into specifics if you want. -sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure - Utopia doesn't exist and never will. What I am concerned about is whether we are correctly weighting things regarding the economy: as it stands, our article seems to infer that Modi has done much to enhance it but the link that I give appears to cast some doubt on that. I've no idea whether that source is even-handed or not - it seems to be putting down Modi on a few points, including the significance of him appearing on the cover of Time magazine. Similarly, other sources talk about the improved diplomatic relations since late 2012 being due to concerns in the UK/Europe etc that Modi will one day become PM rather than because they accept that he has not violated human rights etc re: 2002 (a sort of "better the devil you know" argument, I think). This is such a tricky article. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really understand your concern here, are you saying that the work done by his administration should not be attributed to him? If that is not the concern then I would say the article rightly states that Modi is responsible for the development work. Well if Modi inherited good state I would say that his predecessors also inherited the same good state so why are there better figures now?. The article doesn't say that Modi inhireted garbage and converted it into a gulistan(garden). He used the resources properly and made things work like electricity in all villages, making sure every girl child goes to school etc these were not present in Gujarat and still unknown in other parts of country, if there are some shortcomings, those shortcomings are present all over India.Coming to the point of improved diplomatic relations, your reasons might be right.-sarvajna (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I worry that our article implies some economic transformation due to Modi's policies when the Firstpost article I linked puts a somewhat different spin on things. And I use the word "spin" advisedly: there is a lot of it going on, both for and against the man, both in our article and in sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's best not to analyze the chequered development record of Gujarat as a whole or to use op–eds or an aggregation of op–eds, particularly from Firstpost, as our source. Gujarat's successful water conservation and renewable energy policy (not in article) are attributed to him (and sometimes to Keshubhai Patel) by sources. We can easily include them here, but we should also include say... malnutrition caused by Gujarat government's defective policy of encouraging cash crops (just an example), if the sources blame Modi for it. As long as we are able to divide the economic development into parts and include the positive aspects as well criticism of Modi's initiatives we should be alright. Due to RL concerns (I am on a wikibreak) I might not be able to comment on this thread again. Correct Knowledge 12:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One difficulty with Modi is that is difficult to find sources that do not editorialise to some degree or another. For example, His policies are credited with creating the environment for the high economic growth in Gujarat. is currently stated in the lead and is sourced to ... an op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is also the crux of several sources (mostly op-eds) put together, same as the assertion that casts him as 'controversial'. I am happy that the article clearly mentions that it is the policies of the Modi administration that are credited with creating an environment for high economic growth rather than saying that the administration itself is credited for high economic growth. Other information on the 'chequered' nature of the development process can be inserted with regard to WP:DUE backed with established factual information rather than opinion pieces that in conflict with other opinion pieces. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

... which is precisely why we should probably remove this opinion piece. It is in conflict with the Firstpost source I mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

so do you want to remove the sentences of economic development from the lead or just the reference? and why? -sarvajna (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world, we should need no citations in lead sections because the section summarises the article and thus the sourcing is done in the body - WP:LEAD. However, that particular statement is from an op-ed and is contradicted by another op-ed that is not referenced anywhere. It is clearly true that someone - probably more - has credited the Modi administration but it is also true that someone else - and probably more - has critiqued this. Balance would dictate that we show both or none, and since we do need to refer to those economic policies (we say that the emphasis shifted from Hindutva to them post-2002), it looks like we'll somehow have to show both "sides", whether from op-eds or elsewhere. It is easy to think things out at a policy-based, hypothetical level, as Nick has done, but I think that you and I are both aware that the theory and the practice of how we do it are very different kettles of fish. I was basically pointing out a potential fallacy in Nick's theoretical analysis. He seems not to have read/been able to read the source I linked above otherwise he would likely have spotted the difficulty even with talking of "environment".

I am not at all sure how we can resolve this issue practically without reliance on op-eds. I wonder if there are any papers in academic economic journals that touch on this & somehow manage to do it in a rounded manner? And I don't mean Economics and Political Weekly, which is hosted at JSTOR but more often than not comprises a succession of op-eds. Right now, I'm still checking existing sources vs. statements. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can try to check the government figures but they would be primary source not sure how much help, would the TIME magazine help or we can take a lot of news report and summarize the whole thing. Also his supporters praise him for economic development and that is why he is popular among his supporters while his opponents have 2002 and have found loop holes in his supporter's theory. I feel that we should compare this BLP with other BLPs, may be we can get some idea -sarvajna (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think figures taken straight from the government are going to help - aside from being primary, if they are anything like those of the UK then they are subject to a lot of manipulation! 2002 and the economy are completely separate facets, as far as I can see. Looking over some BLPs that have FA status might be a good thing - you're aware that I tend to spend most of my time on non-BLP stuff, so I've not got a tremendous familiarity with them. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably get to the point you are trying to make quickly. An analysis of opinion editorials on the Narendra Modi administration presented in another opinion editorial published by the Firstpost doesn't really hold any weight. There are several non-partisan and independent sources available that highlight how the state of Gujarat has forged ahead in terms of economic development under the administration. It is similarly expected that there will be articles published in the mainstream media that question such progress. You will be able to find a stream of criticism aimed against him for more or less everything he does. Same is true for other public and prominent individuals in the world whose (featured or good) biographical articles we should probably be using as a standard for writing other biographical articles on individuals involved in politics such as – Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and even Adolf Hitler (though there is no comparison here). You will find that all of these individuals have been controversial at some point in their political career or are still controversial. Yet you will not find refutation of each and every policy opinion that they may have expressed or every action that they may have taken. As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is a conservative project that only aims to put factual information in front of its readers allowing them to decide what to make of the subject of the articles. With regard to the point about shifting focus from Hindutva to economic development is pure speculation presented by Phadnis in his opinion editorial over which the article places UNDUE reliance with the source being used five times representing opinions as factual information or making exceptional claims without corroboration from other sources. Same is the case with the Caravan opinion piece by Vinod Jose (who is not a qualified ethnographer or an established journalist by any means) who utilizes a plethora of unnamed sources in his article. A couple of examples on this point: The Barack Obama administration and the President himself have been criticized for their economic policies and actions by the conservative and libertarian spectrums in the US media, however these criticisms do not find their way into the article. Similarly, the featured article on Adolf Hitler does not dwell on how controversial the individual was, but rather describe their actions and ideas in a succinct and coherent manner backed only by sources that have a reputation for being objective on the subject, and you should note that there is no dearth of sources – academic or otherwise – on the subject of the article. You still need to read the archives on the discussion page to understand how the point about 'economic development' came about in the lead section. This was done in order to balance out the insertion on the 'controversial' nature of his administration which some overzealous editors had insisted upon in the past. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I should probably do: you cannot read my mind. And you are yet again ignoring what has gone on in the recent past - Jose, for example, has been discussed, largely without my input. I am trying to improve this article and have so far managed to do so without adding a single source to it. You, on the other hand, were suggesting that one op-ed should stay while another should not, which is incredibly inconsistent. Does this get to the point quickly enough for you? - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you got what Nick is trying to say, we are all colaborating. If you consider all the discussion on the talk page you can see that I hardly added anything to the article while you did everything, it is just a discussion. I am completly in agreement with what Nick has said above, the thing about Modi being credited with economic development was to balance the statement of Modi being controversial. There would always be two kinds of argument over whatever Modi does, if we look at the article of George W Bush you can see that there is mention of what measures he has taken when he was in power, do we see mention about torture of POW, or about the conspiracy theory of 9/11 ? -sarvajna (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jose may have been discussed in the past, but that does not mean that the chapter cannot be opened again. His work is largely an opinion editorial but at the same time it is also an investigate report (and by definition, a primary source), which disqualifies it for use on this article. The opinion piece also makes exceptional claims and relies on several unnamed sources and is written by an author is is neither an established journalist or an expert on the life of Narendra Modi.

You are misrepresenting my views and not for the first time. The biographical article may rely on sources that are established and prominent publications including TIME magazine and other national and regional media sources. However, it will be up to us editors to determine which are the most prominent and objective sources on the subject. The rationale behind the addition of 'economic development' was that it would balance the 'controversy' portion made in the same paragraph. Now you are proposing that the portion on economic development should be balanced further by adding critical views of other commentators. That is not very ingenious.

As proposed above, we should be mainly concerned about presenting factual and objective information about the subject of the article rather than riddling the whole biography with commentaries from every other journalist in the country simply because they were featured in Firstpost or the Times of India. There are several examples that can be drawn from featured articles on politicians around the world as I have demonstrated above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add Jose. He was discussed less than a month ago. If you want to list all the sources that you would prefer to see removed then that's fine by me - I've added none, although I've raised a few here. However, if op-eds are not suitable then they are not suitable, period, not merely unsuitable when it suits someone. Yes, it is our role to be neutral but not to contrive neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Serving soldiers in 1965

Sitush, you have added a clarification needed tag for the line "During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations." through this edit. Your reasons is "reason=serve in what capacity? this comes straight from his own website & is typically vague". I don't understand this. Isn't serving in any sense concise enough for a biography. He clearly wasn't doing heart transplants or such huge things. Or else those would have been mentioned somewhere by now. Can't it be deduced that maybe he was doing small things like giving blankets and water. What more clarification is needed? We have FAs here which have such vague sentences and they are present there because they are backed by source and the notion that nothing can be done of something that's not available. How do you imagine this tag can be removed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be easy to fix, hence I tagged it there rather than raising it here. My suspicion is "serve tea", whereas "serve" alone sounds almost like a military role. In any event, we need to move away from using the bio on Modi's website for pretty much anything other than date of birth etc. It is rarely a good idea to use WP:SPS, although they do have their place on BLPs for basic personal info. Is the sentence really significant anyway? - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Enough quibbling already, it didn't say "he served as a soldier"; it said "he served the soldiers" and it is clear enough.
"We need to move away from using the bio on Modi's website for pretty much anything other than date of birth etc." - Why? Misplaced Pages allows self-published and questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves. Now, you haven't yet proved that this claim on his website is "unduly self-serving" and there is a "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". You didn't provide a source that criticizes the page in those terms as opposed to blowing it out of proportion. Mr T 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Further: , These secondary sources claim the same thing. Mr T 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it is self-serving. In the context of the Hindu nationalism that he espouses, doing his patriotic duty as a child looks good on his website. Your sources are not reliable, imo, but if you must use them then please do so rather than use his own bio. I'd rather see them in this article than more links to his self-promotion. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Most sources that appear in Google seem to use exactly the same phrasing as his website, which is probably not a surprise, Howeverm I wonder if this interview is related to the same thing (search for "railway"). And this one refers to feeding them. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, you can use the primary source in addition to the NDTV source to corroborate the assertion. This is by no means an 'unduly self-serving' or an exceptional claim. I would be careful with using Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay as a source given that he does not have credentials of an established journalist, and the publisher of the book from which the excerpt is quoted from is a no-name company. You can choose to ignore irrelevant commentary around what is self-serving or what is not. When writing about somebody's personal life, it is best to use sources where they have been quoted directly rather than articles that make sweeping claims without explaining the source of their information. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I really do not think that you understand this, Nick. You seem to be a BLP specialist from things that you have said here and I understand the concerns about negative information etc, but I really, really do not think that you understand the subject, the context or indeed the nature of the people (including me) who are involved with this article. I agree that using primary + secondary is ok in principle, but it should also be unnecessary. There is no need to cite a primary if a secondary exists.

However, I am wondering whether we should be sending pretty much every source on this article for review at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. Your definitions do not match mine and I think that the difference maybe because you are concentratiny on the BLP side and I am concentrating on the RS side. Sure, BLP is likely to be a trump card but I'd like to test this case for numerous sources here. For example, the NDTV source that I linked and you agree can be used does not in fact support the statement and may not even relate to the point that Modi makes in his own bio. I linked it because of the "I wonder" ... there is no certainty at all. But perhaps I am nitpicking. What I do see is other people discussing and you making what appear to be pronouncements. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "But perhaps I am nitpicking" - no it seems like you're badgering. You're the one who said "in any event, we need to move away from using the bio on Modi's website for pretty much anything other than date of birth etc.", that was an unconditional claim and I didn't agree with it then. Now you changed your stance from prejudicial avoidance to conditional avoidance. You say, "there is no need to cite a primary if a secondary exists." - by the same logic there is no need to specifically delete primary sources either, esp. since it is clear that the assertion is supported by secondary sources. Mr T 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• You have completely misread what I say and you seem to misunderstand other aspects: we try to avoid primary sources and we try to avoid over-sourcing. If the secondary source is up to the job then we use it. Happen I think the secondaries that you mention are merely copying stuff over from here, from his website etc but in any event, things have moved on and we really, really should not be driving links to a primary source any more than is absolutely necessary. It certainly is not necessary in this instance. Why do you think that it is? - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why are you so eager to delete that link? CITEKILL doesn't say we should avoid PRIMARY SOURCES at any cost. It seems odd. BTW the citation is not causing any clutter; it is hardly a real contravention of WP:CITEKILL. There are many assertions in the article with 2-3 citations appended behind them, you don't seem to bothered about them at all. Suddenly this line has got your attention, what's going on? Mr T 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I never said that citekill even mentioned primary sources, nor did I say anything regarding multiple citations elsewhere. Nor is it by any means the only thing that has got my attention. Try reading what is actually said by me, try reading the numerous contributions I have made and try reading the rest of this talk page, where I have raised all sorts of other points that have varying degrees of significance. This sentence has no more "suddenly ... got attention" than anything else. Rome was not built in a day. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok got it, now we have secondary source let us not use that primary source for that sentence not delete the prmiary source altogether. Let us stop commenting at this thread here as the dispute seems to have ended.-sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that my original point was a dispute. It was a query about what was meant by the word "serve" that I tagged in the article and Dharmadhyaksha raised here. The use of the word alone is still vague but a dispute arose regarding an ancillary point relating to use of primary sources. I'm pretty sure that "serve food and drink" is what is meant but I am not so sure that the secondary sources that have so far been found adequately verify this. It is the sort vague statement that would be pounced upon by a decent GA or FA review, so please can we try to resolve the thing. As a last resort, it could be removed but then people would accuse me of being POV-y. I stress that I am happy enough for it to stay if we can sort out what the heck he served and that as things stand we could as well mean that he served them as a male prostitute as a boot cleaner.

It is a situation rather like the peculiar "business suits for business meetings", which I think is still meaningless to most readers even now it has been turned into a quote. If we can't determine with certainty what the source means because the source itself is unclear then we should not be referring to it. And if we can determine then we should. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is taking it to FA. And for GA, such points are not raised. Even if raised are not necessarily to be cleared. Forget those stupid standards of Misplaced Pages. One dictionary meaning of serve is to provide service. If we would have known what kinda service it was, we would have written it. If we don't know, we cant possible make someone write it somewhere and then use it. Even those called GAs and FAs are written with material that is available. We cannot produce stuff ourselves. Its sufficient to have this current statement as it is with the reference now added. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Official website was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference hindu.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• B-Class Gujarat articles
• Top-importance Gujarat articles
• B-Class Gujarat articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Gujarat articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles
• High-importance Indian politics articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment