Misplaced Pages

Talk:Narendra Modi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:26, 13 June 2013 editRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,688 edits Edit request on 13 June 2013: ok← Previous edit Revision as of 12:32, 13 June 2013 edit undoSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits Edit request on 12 June 2013 - Pls add the below info into the page: mark as answered, since the preceding section contains an identical requestNext edit →
Line 575: Line 575:
== Edit request on 12 June 2013 - Pls add the below info into the page == == Edit request on 12 June 2013 - Pls add the below info into the page ==


{{edit protected|answered=no}} {{edit protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request --> <!-- Begin request -->
On June 9th, 2013, Mr. Narendra Modi was unanimously elected as the BJP's Chief of Election Campaign and Poll Management Committee for the General Elections scheduled to be held in 2014. On June 9th, 2013, Mr. Narendra Modi was unanimously elected as the BJP's Chief of Election Campaign and Poll Management Committee for the General Elections scheduled to be held in 2014.

Revision as of 12:32, 13 June 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
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.
WikiProject iconIndia: Gujarat / Politics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in June 2013.


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


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


RFC: (2002 violence) What would the section ideally contain?

Which version should the section on 2002 violence contain from the following, A/B?

A B
In February 2002 following Godhra Train Massacre where 58 Hindu pilgrims including 25 women and 15 children were burnt to death in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train by a radical Islamist mob of around 2000 Muslims("Fifty-eight killed in attack on Sabarmati Express". Rediff. 27 February 2002. Retrieved 11 May 2013.), there was widespread communal violence in Gujarat, that resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. In, 2002, widespread communal violence involving clashes between Hindus and Muslims occurred in Guajart following the Godhra train burning. Many people were killed...

Please comment below. Bear in mind that wikipedia articles avoid deliberate imprecision. Thank you all. Mr T 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn, my perspective has changed on the use of numbers. I would have withdrawn it earlier but it skipped my mind. I believe we have a lot of other issues to deal with. Mr T 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: could you link the policy that refers to the "deliberate imprecision" notion that you mention (I realise that you may have paraphrased)? Please could could you also explain what is deliberately imprecise in option B. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
You are asking that? You were pulling out your tonsils and demanding what exactly Modi "served". And now you are pro for this deliberate imprecise statement B? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The key word that I am seeking clarification on is "deliberate" and the context in which that applies. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, there is no policy that Mr. T. can cite. If I had to close this RfC--and I've closed quite a few of them--I'd be tempted to say that the comment invalidates the entire thing. To balance it out, I'll add that Misplaced Pages articles should avoid including excessive, unrelated detail, but the damage is already done. Dharma, you can yell that B is deliberately imprecise, but one might as well say that A is also, since it doesn't include the names and family histories and castes of the victims. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a policy that dictates us to avoid deliberately placed imprecise words? duh!! Because it is called common sense. One line description of the event that led to strident censure of Modi government and Modi personally is directly related to the subject. Nobody is asking to include a whole essay about it, just one descriptive line, how the hell can that be seen as ″excessive″ is what I don't get. Besides, it was a Massacre / Murder / Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading. And in any case we are talking about Godhra Train Massacre that means it is relevant here and I agree, but instead of calling things as they are we're covering it with deliberate vague assertions. Why? Mr T 06:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think that there was such a policy and I was very concerned about the statement. However, I thought it best to inquire just in case there is some obscure policy somewhere that I had missed. Thanks for clarifying. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
So should we settle on calling this as double standards by you? Serving tea or snacks or water or whatever was very upsetting for you but now a vague term like "many" is okay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dharmadhyaksha, the "serve" issue was different. It was initially sourced only to a primary SPS, ie: Modi's website and the vaguity was apparent. One can serve in numerous ways but by adding a couple of words that can be resolved. I gave examples of possibilities as wide as shoe cleaning, food and male prostitution. And the vaguity made it self-serving. In this current instance, we are not using an SPS and the word "many", for example, can only mean one thing. I wonder if Modi even refers to the violence in his biography? - he does make various claims for his achievements while in office but I have a feeling that he will not mention the violence because it is not to his advantage to do so. His website biography spans seven different pages and is slow to load here so I am not checking it again, but I cannot recall seeing a mention when I did read through it all.

Mrt3366, I agree that "Godhra train burning" is open to interpretation but I have explained a way to resolve that, ie: invoke WP:COMMONNAME, including for the capitalisation or otherwise of "massacre". It would probably be best to check sources published outside of the subcontinent because of the religious tensions. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, now this "vaguity" makes it even worse, misleading. You're deliberately choosing a version that contains more ambiguous language and less precise information, Why? You are imposing your judgement. You hate Modi, and that's the truth. You're unnecessarily creating fuss about this. Let others comment and decide for themselves. If you want to discuss, discuss anywhere else, not here. Mr T 10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
So, I am supposed to discuss this section of this article anywhere except on the talk page for this article? That's a new concept, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No, you're supposed to discuss this section of this article anywhere except this RFC-thread. This is not a "request for discussion", let others comment and this discussion may influence the outcome or, worse, make people avoid this altogether. Don't put words in my mouth. You can continue discussion above. which was the original section about these edits. Mr T 10:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I understand you now. But I disgree. I've just done a quick GNews search for "godhra train", deliberately omitting "burning", "massacre" and similar. These are the top results shown in the UK, excluding an irrelevant story about a girl who was attacked in a complete separate incident
  • The Hindu - "Naroda-Patiya massacre" and "Godhra train burning"
  • Times of India - "Naroda-Patiya massacre" and "Godhra train carnage"
  • Times of India - "Godhra train burning"
  • Indian Express - "Godhra train carnage"
  • BBC - "train fire" and "Naroda-Patiya massacre"
  • Zee News (not a source I care for) - "Godhra train burning"
  • NDTV - "Godhra train burning" and "Gulberg Society massacre"
  • Hindustan Times - "Godhra train fire"
Is this any use, here or elsewhere? - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Read
  1. There is a reason why we have redirects and Piped links. If you disagree then I couldn't care less.
  2. WP:COMMONNAME is for article title and they can't be forcefully applied to article contnent. Godhra Train burning is not only imprecise, it is deceptive.

You forgot to add:
(my emphasis)

  • BBC : Godhra train massacre
  • Asianews: Godhra train massacre
  • DAWN: Godhra Train carnage
  • Zee news: Godhra train carnage
  • The Hindu Godhra Train carnage
  • Business-standard: Godhra train carnage
  • Oneindia news: Godhra train carnage
  • Rediff: Godhra Train carnage
  • TOI : Godhra Train carnage
  • DNAINDIA: Godhra Train carnage
  • Hindu business line : Godhra Train carnage
  • Indiatvnews: Godhra Train carnage
  • deccan herald : Godhra train carnage
  • Dailypioneer: Godhra train carnage
  • Indianexpress: Godhra train carnage
  • India Today: Godhra train carnage, who the hell is talking about "patiya"-thing? Mr T 11:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) (multiple) I did not forget to add anything. I said that the results were as seen in the UK and that I searched for "godhra train", deliberately omitting any subsequent term. I agree that if I search for "godhra train carnage" then, not surprisingly, I will get hits for things mentioning "carnage" also. I was also not passing comment but rather asking a question, ie: does this help? - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    UK ??????? Why the heck would we exclude the reliable sources from the country where the event took place, i.e. India? It will be biased editing. Do the people from UK search for Indian papers while referring to one of their own massacres? That would be hypocrisy. Mr T 11:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. It was a Massacre / Murder / Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading, hence per WP:COMMONNAME We should avoid "Godhra train burning". Mr T 11:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mrt, I am struggling to cope with all these comments being added in succession. To address just one of your points, you have misunderstood why I mentioned the UK. Google shows different results depending on one's location - eg: see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks & the essay linked therein - and thus that can affect impressions. I searched for "godhra train" using Google News in the UK; I did not search for "godhra train UK". As you can see from my results, all but one of the top results listed were in fact sources based in India. That does not mean that you will see the same top results (ie: first page of results) where ever you may be. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Wow! You're one heck of a neutral commenter, Abhishek. Pardon me for asking this but is that your real name? Mr T 17:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah! We have already seen how neutral you are! And about my real name, that's none of your business! — Abhishek  17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    What kind of a question is that? Mr. T., you can start an RfC, but poisoning the well is never a good idea. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    He can. Thats how one should avoid repeatedly saying same stuff. Maunus claims same stuff that "he has said everything". I dont remember you pinpointing him there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    I neither know nor particularly care what Maunus does. I can't spot where this so-called policy is mentioned and I would like to take a look at it so that I can consider Mrt's prescriptive declaration at the head of this RfC in context. It is not an unreasonable request, surely? - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    RFC is as simple as it can be. A or B. Why does anyone's prespective have to be appended to it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    Because Mrt3366 includes the statement that Bear in mind that wikipedia articles avoid deliberate imprecision. Thank you all. within the RfC notice. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    So? Thats all he wants to say. Why are you insisting on him to speak more? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    Because he seems to be claiming to be citing policy and I'm not sure what policy that is. Can you imagine, as an extreme example, being taken to court and found guilty by a jury when neither you nor the jury know what law you have been charged with? - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are asking what policy says we have to avoid deliberate ambiguous and misleading terms? It is called common sense if you want more go ahead and ask any other more experienced editor, they might be able to help you out with policies and stuff. Mr T 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support something like B. Shorter is better--I don't see how the numbers are relevant to the supposed response or lack of response by the subject of this article. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Shorter is better" - following the pattern of Sitush, which policy says that? "Shorter" in this case means exclusion of legitimate info i.e. minimum description in one line of the gruesome event and its aftermath to provide some context for the reader. I don't think a "complete" article would eschew the information as to what really happened that Modi had to face immense heat for it, "many were killed", begs the question, how many? Don't forget that we do allow for offline reading and distribution of our content (in pdf format where a reader may want to enlighten himself about Modi without being able to visit other pages or go into excessive details of Godhra Train Massacre). If one guy reads the criticism section and doesn't know what exactly is Mr. Modi and his administration being criticised for or accused of, then it leaves the reader in a confused state or quite possibly in a deceived state.
    It is not complete. Keep in mind that we don't create articles that are inherently dependent on other articles because then that article will not be called "complete". I am imploring others to move towards the more informative version of this article, move towards completion. Lay-out the fact as they actually are.
    Also, Censoring material just because some think it demonises xyz entity, is not the way forward.
    But I am not much hopeful about this, I understand we are not yet ready for clear description of terrifying events. It is not how an encyclopaedia should work. (cf. WP:CENSOR, WP:OFFENSE, WP:IDL, etc) Mr T 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support B as being closer to where we need to end up. Perhaps it needs the odd tweak but A is far, far too much information for this article. The need to be precise that is mentioned by Mrt3366 in the opening comment of the RfC is a red herring. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: subsequent to my above, Drmies has come up with a suggestion below that deals with the tweaks to which I referred. I'm happy with that version except for the word "even". I'm not sure how to say it better but using "even" seems to be a sort of subjective emphasis. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    And you would rather choose vague terms and absence of detail than clear description of a terrifying event? Is this for real? Mr T 11:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I am more inclined to support section B as Misplaced Pages articles should avoid including excessive, unrelated details as pointed out by Drmies above. However, to remove factual information on the basis that it is "incendiary" or "anti-Islam" or "anti-Muslim" is not an acceptable rationale. The phrase – "Many people were killed " – is imprecise. Extending the discussion further, the portion about Tehelka's expose on Babu Bajrangi is irrelevant for the article as the allegations contained in the tapes against the subject of the article have not been entertained in any court of law as evidence against the subject. The commentary is more suitable for the article on Babu Bajrangi himself. This discussion is connected to the present RfC as the point behind the current discussion is to remove speculative details and information surrounding the person and to include objective facts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    diff In this ^ nick changed the original wording of the RFC which has been partially reverted. Sorry for any inconvenience to Nick and others. Mrt3366 12:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is really getting a bit stupid. B is rejected by some because it is too vague. Well, it's vague, "Many people were killed", because that's how Mr. T. wrote up the RfC--in a way that would push people towards A. That's why this RfC is in many ways invalid from the get-go: B isn't a very viable option, which is why I said "something like B", not B. "Many people were killed" should be cut as well. Bare-bones facts is all that is needed here: the fewer the better. After all, the massacre/carnage/violence is wikilinked right there. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    The words in "B" came from me. I noted here that I'd made a bold attempt to get nearer to what I saw as the consensus, while acknowledging that it was imperfect. My actual edits removing stuff from that section were here. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    The diff is this. With an edit summary: "again, being bold: I'm hoping that this appeases the various views expressed on the talk page"
    "what I saw as the consensus," - what does that mean? Was there a consensus established? If yes, then where? If you mean you'd made a bold attempt to get nearer to what you wished the consensus were, then I think this line is futile. AFAIK, there was not consensus to exclude any sourced info. Mr T 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Just drop it, Mrt. It is water under the bridge. I was merely pointing out Drmies' misunderstanding in an attempt to avoid you getting all worked-up again. The fact is, you stuck the thing as an option in this RfC, so here we are now. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Gotcha, Sitush. And I see that you tried to work in a kind of compromise. If it were up to me, I'd leave out that phrase altogether, to produce something like

    In 2002, widespread communal violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Guajart after the deadly Godhra train burning; the Modi administration was accused of insufficient action after the violence and even suspected of encouraging it.

    Shorter is better, as I said somewhere above (producing another angered response from Mr. T.), because that's good article writing. As it happens, I've been teaching writing for almost twenty years and I've written some fairly decent stuff here on Misplaced Pages, so I think I know a little bit about it. Encyclopedic writing is by definition writing a summary of the available information; to which extent it is summarized is a matter of editorial judgment. This artice is not about the violence, as I said before--it's about Modi's reaction to it and possible responsibility for it. That's where the focus ought to be; too much detail detracts from it. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Firstly I am not angry and was not angry when I replied to you earlier. The troubling thing is that you've introduced a huge lump of vaguity.
    "the Modi administration was accused of insufficient action after the violence" - begs the question in what way? And we're asked to knowingly hide the well-known facts. Why? People got burned and then communal violence took ~1,000 lives. That would be something worthy of a mention, it is a significant piece of info that you're omitting Drmies, but nobody apparently notices that and it is what saddens me. I will defer to a consensus. I have done my job by making a way for it. Again, it was a Massacre / Murder / Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading. WP:COMMONNAME encourages us to avoid ambiguous terms. Mr T 19:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    a. "knowingly hide the well-known facts" is nonsense--you're yelling CENSORSHIP where there ain't none. Pretending that editorial decisions are the result of bias is the hallmark of POV editing. b. I'm not omitting nothing. I'll say one more time, since apparently this isn't getting through to you, that this article is about a politician, not about the violence. Duh. Finally, take your issue with the name of the article someplace else; this is a different article. I think that this latest diatribe sufficiently demonstrates that you are incapable of neutrality here. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with everything that Drmies has said, as well as the reasoning behind it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Finally, take your issue with the name of the article someplace else; this is a different article." - Sitush asked me repeatedly to invoke WP:COMMONNAME, but you didn't complain against him. Now I follow his pattern you're actually dictating me to take it someplace else.
    "'knowingly hide the well-known facts' - is nonsense" - No Drmies it is not nonsense. I am not yelling anything nor am I pretending now. What are you, a hall-mark specialist of some sort? Can you read minds now? I couldn't care less about what you believe I am doing. Let us both focus on the content rather than each-other!
    "I'm not omitting nothing" - again you're wrong (well, you're technically right if you consider that double negative yields a positive), you are trying to omit certain facts but under the auspices of "consensus". And that is not a bad thing per se. My view is that you cannot simultaneously mention the Godhra Massacre and omit minimum description of what that was. Now people differ on the definition of "excessive". Like I said, I would defer to whatever the consensus is.
    And Ninja don't take this the wrong way, but why bother with a meta-comment, when you've nothing to add to the argument. You've already voted, haven't you? You like it, good, but so what? Mr T 07:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mr. T., you claim to be the mindreader here, not me--you said I "knowingly hide" some facts. I thought I was leaving them out based on editorial judgment, but apparently you know my mind better than I do. No, I'm not doing anything "under the auspices of 'consensus'"; we have no consensus here, as far as I can see. My aegis is editorial judgment. I've said that half a dozen times by now--I don't know how you could have missed it. And don't get cutesey with pointing out a double negative: I know what I'm saying. Then again, you know my mind...maybe you know what my next move is. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I think it is fair to say that we know for certain that that was a mass-murder and we are trying everything in our capacity to swiftly excise that germane fact from the article. Hence, using "knowingly hide" is a manifestation of deductive reasoning, logical syllogism and not mind-reading. Which you are doing by accusing me of pretence and other things which I didn't even express. Let's not squabble any more over our views on each other, it is not going to lead us anywhere better than this. If you think I am POV editor, what can I say? You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine. Mr T 06:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I did not like B because like many editors said here "many were killed" is too vague. I did not like A as well because there is too much detail about the violence, there is a separate article for the violence, my version would be A minus the details, something like In February 2002 following Godhra Train Massacre there was widespread communal violence in Gujarat.I also agree with Nick about those Tehalka tapes--sarvajna (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Prefer B though I do feel that including the fact that the train contained Hindu pilgrims is germane. A is too wordy and, since this article is about Modi, the Godhra incident is included only because it was a trigger for the subsequent killings of muslims. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    "a trigger for the subsequent killings of muslims." -- about 300 Hindus were killed too, isn't it? It's not one-sided, even though the article is heavily skewed in the direction of Muslims' deaths. It actually doesn't mention the fact that why the riot was caused in the first place. Mr T 06:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    This article is about Modi not about the train burning. The allegations against Modi are that he was responsible for the killings of Muslims during the riots that followed the train burning. It is not our role to exculpate his actions in some way, neither is it our place to attempt to make some sort of moral equivalency argument here by presenting numbers or even to present this as some sort of Hindu Muslim conflict with casualty figure on 'both sides'. Like I say below, all that matters is that the train burning was the trigger for the riots that Modi did or did not control. Anything else about the train burning should go in the train burning article.--regentspark (comment) 10:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    It is not our role to exculpate his actions in some way, ... Yes, it is. This is a BLP, and if we present allegations and ignore to present exculpatory points, even when we know about them, it is a clear display of our hostile attitude towards this subject. Since this is a BLP, it is imperative that we present exculpatory points in this article regardless of whether we present it elsewhere or not.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    Sources

    For the convenience of any uninvolved editor who makes it across this page I here take the opportunity to provide a list of academic publications describing various aspects of Modi, his politics and his administration.

    • Edward Luce. 2010 . In Spite of the Gods: The Rise of Modern India. Anchor Books.
    • 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
    • Christophe Jaffrelot. 2012. Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims? The Supreme Court, the SIT, the Police and the State Judiciary. Economic & Political Weekly february 25, 2012 vol xlvii no 8
    • Christophe jaffrelot. 2008. Le Gujarat de Narendra Modi : les leçons d’une victoire électorale. Critique internationale

    2008/3 - n° 40. pp. 9 - 25.

    • 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
    • Nalin Mehta. 2006. Modi and the Camera: The Politics of Television in the 2002 Gujarat Riots. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Volume 29, Issue 3, 2006
    • Anuja Jain. 2010.‘Beaming it live’: 24-hour television news, the spectator and the spectacle of the 2002 Gujarat carnage. South Asian Popular Culture Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010 ).
    • Nalin Mehta. 2010. Ashis Nandy vs. the state of Gujarat: authoritarian developmentalism, democracy and the politics of Narendra Modi. South Asian History and Culture Volume 1, Issue 4
    • Palary Kanungo & adnan Farooqui. 2008. Tracking Moditva: An Analysis of the 2007 Gujarat Elections. Campaign. History and Sociology of South Asia December 2008 vol. 2 no. 2 222-245.
    • Britta Ohm. 2011. FORGETTING TO REMEMBER: THE PRIVATISATION OF THE PUBLIC, THE ECONOMISATION OF HINDUTVA AND THE MEDIALISATION OF GENOCIDE in South Asian Media Cultures: Audiences, Representations, Contexts. edited by Shakuntala Banaji. Anthem Press.
    • Ghassem-Fachandi, P. (2010), Ahimsa, identification and sacrifice in the Gujarat pogrom. Social Anthropology, 18: 155–175.
    • Anand, D. (2007), Anxious Sexualities: Masculinity, Nationalism and Violence. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9: 257–269.
    • Raheel Dhattiwala and Michael Biggs. 2011. Explaining Spatial Variation in Hindu-Muslim Violence in Gujarat, 2002. Sociology Working Papers. Paper Number 2011-06.
    • .68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    The issue isn't really about sources, it's about the way people have been phrasing some very controversial statements. BLP policy requires coverage to be impartial, balanced, fair, neutral and above all, proportional. One statement that isn't in any way suitable is "He also writes poems in Gujarati which have been described as "rubbish"." - that's not how we cover that, we would say something like He writes poems in Gujarati, some of which received a poor critical response .
    Sign your posts. Yes it is about sources, because the article currently use lowquality sources from news media, which pro-Modi editors then use to argue that the sources are only reliable for whatever statements they find it reasonable to include, but unreliable for other purposes. The reason sources are important is that sources determine what neutral is. Neutral is not to include only good, or equal amounts of good and bad. Neutral is to include the critical and positive information weighed according to their prominence in the sources. Now, reliable, peer-reviewed academic sources, which are the highest quality sources we have, are overwhelmingly critical of Modi. And they cannot be dismissed as "inaccurate" based on some RSS blog that contradicts them, or as "political mouthpieces" or "opinion pieces" because THAT IS NOT HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. We report what reliable sources say whether or not we agree with it. And reliable sources are sources written by specialists and published in highly reviewed journals.68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    This is a great job ip has done. Yes, in such controversial cases, the peer reviewed journals should be considered as much better source than regular media publications. In addition, in text attribution (according to xyz in abc journal, ...) will be needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Modi has been given a clean chit by the SIT. The situation has been transformed by this development. Obsolete sources are useless.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    The issues here are largely about sources. One problem, as I've just noted in the preceding section, is to what extent the SIT report constitutes a game-changer. It certainly does not alter what Modi said, for example, nor does it alter the academic analyses of his attitudes and policies: they just differ from the SIT's opinion. The wider issue with this article is the cherry-picking of sources and, in particular, of those that are alleged to mix comment with investigation: almost everything that might be construed as negative seems to be shouted down as commentary, while the non-negative from the same sources is admitted. It stinks and we should be able to do better than this. We desperately need uninvolved eyes here. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Are we going to call Modi guilty because that is what many journals say that" or "Are we going to consider Modi an innocent because no court of law has found him guilty". Even if there was no SIT, the fact is that no courts found him guilty. -sarvajna (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Apart from being obsolete sources and much of their content being rhetorical in nature, some of these articles have been composed by doctoral students and such as research projects, having no real expertise on the said subject. We cannot entertain opinions of such authors on a biographical article without giving WP:UNDUE weight. Reiterating myself, to effectively author a biography, we need to stick to clinically writing established and factual information about the subject of the article as has been done on several other high quality biographical articles of politicians around the world. Opinions of prominent individuals – academicians and journalists – can be included with WP:DUE regard in a section on 'public image' (see Barack Obama#Cultural and political image, Bill Clinton#Public image). Frankly, I'm quite exasperated with the continuous POVpushing going on this page and the possibility of a conflict of interest given the affiliations of some of the editors on this page who appear to have adopted a different set of standards for writing biographical articles on individuals affiliated with political organizations they do not agree with. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sarvajna, I'm not saying that we should call Modi guilty or innocent. We just present what has happened. Nick,.I rather think you will find that the exasperation is mutual. Perhaps you need to name names instead of making vague accusations. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    "We just present what has happened." - what has happened, Sitush, is Modi has been absolved by the Supreme-court appointed team because no evidence was found against him. That's what has really happened. Congress didn't like it so they are trying to stoke the controversy further. Mr T 08:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) You seem to think that I do not know that the SIT consider him and his administration to be absolved of responsibility. I do and I accept that is what the SIT think. It doesn't mean that we should necessarily ignore what others think. Cue NHN, pontificating umpteen BLP-related reasons. We are going round in circles here, so probably no need to bother: take it as read that I know what you will refer to.- Sitush (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    When sources are saying baseless, wrong things, we do need to ignore them. Their claims are baseless, wrong, therefore their conclusions are also wrong. Such sources should be ignored. We do not need the article to say wrong things and reflect wrong conclusions.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    You fail to understand the basic principle of wikipedia: it is the sources that determine what is baseless and wrong. Your personal knowledge and opinion is 110% irrelevant. Find sources contradicting these sources, written by experts with comparable or better credentials, and published in comparable or better academic journals. Then you have a case. The SIT report is a primary source, which does not have any direct bearing on how the article should be written, unless as it is summarized and analyzed by scholars and reporters. Some scholars and reporters (e.g. Jaffrelot 2012) severely criticizes the report and the way it was elaborated basically considering its results invalid manipulation. That is something that needs to go in the article.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

    Maybe I am one of a kind, but I believe the credibility of a report by Supreme court-appointed investigative team, with almost limitless access to germane information, whose primary task was to investigate Modi's role in the riots and ensuing controversy, is much, much more than opinions of Modi's opponents, clairvoyants (we're fortunate enough to have some of those around ;) ) and conspiracy theorists. Some of you may think I am weird, I know. Mr T 13:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

    Having access to testimonies is not really relevant when testimonies from witnesses AND confessions of pertetrators are systematically excluded from revisions...68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Extraordinary claim, do you have any solid proof that "confessions of perpetrators are systematically excluded from revisions"? If no then don't fling accusations around. Mr T 08:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    The IP address above is an unrepentant POVpusher. No one is quoting directly from the SIT report(s). The sources used are from several secondary and reliable news organizations which have reported on the findings of the Special Investigative Team (a Supreme Court appointed body). That is "110%" acceptable on Misplaced Pages. What is not acceptable on Wikipdia are theses published by doctoral students or unsubstantiated opinions of authors who have no expertise on the subject. This is a biographical article, and not an article about the 2002 Gujarat violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    You have not produced a single source of comparable quality to any of the ones I have just presented, and you wouldnt recognize an "expert" (or a reliable source) if he jumped from behind a bush and bit you in the ass. You are the worst kind of threat to wikipedia: an administrator who will wilfully abuse and misrepresent our policies and lie and slander honest editors while doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Nick (NHN, not the other one), you seem to have ignored the Jaffrelot point. Or is that covered by a response in another section? I don't always think Maunus is handling things well here but, again, if you have a problem with POV pushing then go report it. These blanket accusations against people who disagree with how you think the article should be presented need to stop. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    He has not been ignored. Please see what has been stated above. Most of these articles have been published by PhD students and the remaining are by individuals who are not established experts on the subject. Jaffrelot's professed expertise is in "Hindu nationalism", not specifically Narendra Modi. More importantly, he is not a recognized expert on this person. He is a "political scientist" and a columnist in newspapers. Is there anything in particular from his works that you would like to propose for inclusion? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Which papers have been published by PhD students? The one in sociology working papers of course. Which others? Do you seriously think it is possible to get a PhD in Narendra Modi? (the closest one might get to that is the Journalist Edward Luce who has interviewed Modi several times one on one) In any case PhD students ARE experts, and YOU are anobody on the internet and have no qualiications whatsoever to think you can dismiss anyone who gets a paper published in a peerreviewed journal. Thinking so is a subvention of wikipedias most foundational principles: NOR, RS and V.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    AFAIK WP eds regularly dismiss and select papers published on peer-reviewed journals at article talk pages and RSN and various other venues.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Nick, Jaffrelot is a political scientist whose "specialism" is India and Pakistan, as opposed to, say, the UK or Germany. His output has been used for articles discussing the development of caste associations etc, not just Hindu nationalism. However, even if you choose to narrow the scope then it still applies to Modi because he discusses Modi and Modi is/was apparently a member of the RSS, which I'm pretty sure most people would consider to be a Hindutva organisation. If you will now only accept sources that are experts on Modi then this is going to be a very short article. Like, a paragraph.- Sitush (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    There are several academicians who have a professed expertise on South Asia, and that does not automatically accord them any form of authority on specific individuals. Instead of going around in circles, can you propose what you would like to be included in the article? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    By definition anyone who publishes work about Modi in an academic peer-reviewed journal is an expert on Modi. It is not possible to my knowledge to be an academic expert in a single individual in anytother way. There are no departyments of Modi studies, no professorships in Narendra Modi, and noone who writes doctoral dissertations about Modi. Your argument is absurd, and would allow no one but Modi himself as possible source fort the article, which in fact I do suspect is your entire objective with your extreme tendentious misrepresentation of policy.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    This very subject has been discussed above where it has been demonstrated that the matter-of-factly opinions presented in the papers that you cite above have been proven false by a Supreme Court appointed investigative body. Now regardless of policy, you may be of the opinion that Jaffrelot's positions still deserve inclusion, but that does not happen on a biographical article. You are probably looking for a page such as 2002 Gujarat violence which discusses every aspect of the topic. Now I suggest that you speak in specific terms as to what you would like to be included in the biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    You havent read a single one of the papers. And none of the central critical claims have been tried in courts, and the SIT excluded them from their investigations. And that needs to be in this article, because it is notable, and it is notable because it is published in dozens of reliable sources. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Nick, I think that you may be confused. Your diff points to a discussion where Jaffrelot's 2008 article appears but I think Maunus/IP is referring to his 2012 one, linked near the top of this section. Or is it me who is confused? - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    WP cannot take sides, really. We have to cogently present the views of the journal articles (with in text attribution), and also, obviously, the court verdicts. Yes, PhD students' articles, if those are peer reviewed, would be reliable enough source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sitush has been asked to propose what they intend to include in this article from one or more of these sources. They have not done so yet. Dissertations published as a part of course requirements for completion of a PhD and which are publicly available may be used as a source in this article. The reliability of a source often depends on context. Some of the material linked above is outdated and in contradiction with the inquiry report published by a Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team which is the prevailing and acceptable source on the subject. It is well accepted that Misplaced Pages does not take sides in a dispute, however it is not an instrument to give equal validity to theories and claims which have been debunked through a judicial investigation by a Supreme Court appointed body. We will have more clarity on what may be included and what cannot be once there is a proposal so it may be contextually analyzed. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    What about the report of the Supreme Court-appointed Amicus Curiae? This was also an official judicial investigation report ordered by the Supreme Court, independent of the SIT report. The Amicus Curiae's report disagrees with many findings of the SIT report, as widely published in the media. If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court accepted both reports, and directed the Trial Court to take decisions based on the reports. Isn't the Amicus Curiae report as legally valid as the SIT report? - Aurorion (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Can you please present sources that say that the amicus curiae was appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct a parallel judicial investigation? The report prepared by the amicus curiae is a legal opinion which says that the subject of the biography can still be prosecuted under specific sections of the IPC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please see this Deccan Herald article: The court has only returned to a trial court in Ahmedabad, the complaint, the evidence collected by a Special investigation Team (SIT) appointed by it and the views of an amicus curiae, again appointed by the court, on the SIT’s findings. ... The apex court had ordered the special investigation and then an independent review by an amicus curiae. (emphasis added by me) Other reports: 1, 2, 3. All say that the Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme court to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and submit a separate report to the SC. - Aurorion (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    This is probably a discussion for a different section. The articles clearly state that the amicus curiae was appointed to prepare an independent brief of their own assessment of the investigation conducted by the SIT. Their disagreement is generally with the manner in which the SIT conducted the investigation and specifically with their rejection of Sanjiv Bhatt's testimony as unreliable. In their brief (and not judicial investigation report), they have disagreed with the SC appointed SIT on points of evidence. This is better suited for inclusion on the article on 2002 Gujarat violence rather than this specific biographical article due to WP:WEIGHT concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    All legal proceedings and documents that may have an impact on the the subject of this article are relevant for this article.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Only if they have a negative impact?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, but I disagree that the Amicus Curiae's mandate was just to provide an assessment of the "investigation". As this article says, the Supreme Court appointed the Amicus Curiae to provide an independent assessment of the evidence: The court gave power to Ramchandran to analyse the report, comments and statements of the witnesses and, if required, interact with them to give an "objective" assessment of the evidence. From another source: The order said “the copies of the report, along with the comments of the Chairman, be given to the amicus curiae, who shall analyse them in the light of evidence, statements of witnesses, and have his independent assessment of the entire evidence which has come on record.” The Amicus Curiae did not assess just the investigation, but provided an independent assessment of the entire underlying evidence too, and submitted a separate report to the SC. I think that the observations of the Amicus Curiae related to Narendra Modi's role deserves to be in this article, especially if the findings in the SIT report are included. This is not a minority view, this is also an "official", "judicial" report sanctioned and submitted to the Supreme Court, and is covered widely by reliable sources. But yes, perhaps this is a discussion for a different section, but I wanted to talk about this here because you mentioned the SIT report in an earlier comment. - Aurorion (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry for the late response but Sitush has been asked to propose what they intend to include in this article from one or more of these sources is plain wrong. I was not asked, although you did respond to someone else. And I really am getting fed up of your baseless accusations regarding motive. You should know better given your admin status - much more of this and I'll be seeking a review of that. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Okay chill! Why not propose now? Lets get going that way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    He has been asked specifically. Can you clarify what baseless accusations you are referring to in the statement above? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've not been able to follow the discussion closely, BLP rules clearly state when a person is considered guilty and that is only when the courts convict him, no court has convicted Modi, on the other hand he has been exonerated of various accusations. Quoting sources that predate court judgments are like indulging in flagging a dead horse. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    That is not what BLP says. It does not say that if someone is tried and acquitted we cannot mention the trial. It says that we have to mention the acquittal, not that we cannot mention the trial, the accusations, the evidence presented by the defense and prosecution, or the ongoing appeal. We can and should mention all that - while noting that he has been acquitted. That is how objectivity and neutrality works.128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    The likes of Jaffrelot have been severely criticised by Rajiv Malhotra for their anti-India bias, I'll provide a quote as soon as I lay my hands on his book. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    "the likes of Jaffrelot"...You mean academic with actual credentials? Malhotra is a pseudoscientist prpmoting Hindu versions of "creation science". He has no authority to criticize anyone at all, least of all a professor at a major university.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Back your claims regarding Malhotra with sources, funny isn't it that Malhotra who supports academic programmes with millions of dollars and has two books published by reputed publishers to his credit cannot criticize Jaffrelot, but an IP can criticize Malhotra! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    IP is Maunus. New tricks YK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe you could back your claims with sources first? We have yet to see whether he has ever in fact mentioned Jaffrelot. My guess is that he hasn't and that you are just bluffing and obfuscating.128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Rajiv Malhotra, Aravindan Neelakandan. Breaking India - Western Intervention in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines Page 328 - 331 . I will quote few sentences Jaffrelot consistently portrays Hinduism and Hindu Social leaders including Mahatma Gandhi, as caste-biased..... later he gives example of how erroneous the example of Jaffrelot was, there are few more paras dedicated to Jaffrelot.-sarvajna (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    OK, so he did write it. That doesnt change the fact that he is a pseudoscientists with no academic credentials, and that his critique has no bearings for Jaffrelots academic credibility. The critique could go in the article about Jaffrelot, but here it is basically irrelevant.68.9.182.96 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    So now you have a new argument, how about backing your claims about Malhotra with sources like YK said above. It would be helpful if you start making some constructive comment rather than writing statements which are not goign to help the article in any way -sarvajna (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    It is a not a new argument, it was the first argument I made regarding Malhotra. Malhotra has studied physics, but apparently never achieved a degree. A multimillionaire he funds Hindu studies at different universities, but is not himself a scholar. 198.7.241.250 (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    IP kindly come up with sources to back your allegations reg. Malhotra i.e (a) he is a college drop out (b) he is a "creationist". Regarding Jaffrelot (a) he contends that CJ uses "convoluted ways to invent racism in the Hindu polity. (c) he works with CAP the planning unit of the French foreign ministry (d) he looks down on "Sanskritisation" (e) he values anyone who distances himself from Hindu society (e) he is one of those (so I wrote "the likes of CJ) who is well placed in policy making institutes of Europe who engender divisiveness in India and encourage such thoughts (f) he considers each "patriotic" Indian to harbour "racist" and "fascist" tendencies (g)his work is commonly used in "atrocity literature that flooded the western media in the aftermath of Gujarat (2002)." All in all he considers CJ a biased source when it comes to Gujarat which makes his (RM's) views pertinent to this discussion. Now IP you have to provide evidence that RM is a bad source when it comes to this debate. (All the above from Breaking India, the source Sarvajna has quoted above.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    I cannot prove that Malhotra doesn't have a degree, seeing that it is impossible t prove a negative, but maybe you can show me wrong? His wikipedia biography and other biographies I have been able to find says "he studied physics", not that he received a degree. His own biography sketch on his website also claims no academic title.Malhotra does not just criticize Jaffrelot he criticizes the entire scientific establishment, and he does so from a Hindu religious point of view, not from a basis of academic knowledge. His claim that Jaffrelot is biased is as worthless as your own claim of the same.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    YK, on the one hand we have a "multi-millionaire, author, philanthropist" and on the other hand "a political scientist specializing in South Asia". I'm sorry, but the second one is far more acceptable as a source than the first. Merely being wealthy does not a scholar make. If Malhotra makes good points about atrocity literature and western media, then it should be easy to find academic sources that make the same point. I think the onus is on you to show that Malhotra's statements are valid ones by finding academic peer reviewed sources that either support what he says or cite his book. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    That is a ad hominem attack on Malhotra, some how being wealthy is bad? A source that one agrees with would seem more acceptable. Breaking India was written in 2011 after many stories were exposed as lies such as the foetus canard and the allegations from victims that their misery peddled for profit by those who claimed to help them. and the exoneration of Modi, I'm surprised that more importance is given to "scholars" than to court judgments in determining Modi's guilt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    YK, one of the pillars of wikipedia is that we work with material that can be verified by reliable sources. Peer reviewed academic sources are considered reliable. Books written by wealthy individuals with no academic credentials and without peer review are not. Once again, if his material is good, then doubtless you can find good quality peer reviewed sources that quote or use his material. You may agree with Malhotra and disagree with Jaffrelot but we can't really go about building a serious encyclopedia that basis its material on your opinions (or that of any individual editor). --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are making absurd claims and nonsequitur arguments all over the place. Being wealthy is not bad, but it doesn't give you expertise to make academic judgments. And pointing out that he has no such expertise is not an ad hominem argument, any more than your absurd attempt to discredit all academics writing on India and Modi (except perhaps Koenrad Elst, I am guessing) 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    I am quite perplexed over the lack of any specific propositions with regard to the said expert on this biographical article. Why is this discussion being unnecessarily prolonged with no visible outcome? Being an established "political scientist" may confer expertise with regard to political theories and ideas, but does not establish authority over historical facts, which are determined through the due process of law – investigation and subsequent adjudication in a court of law. Apart from being obsolete, the article is hardly scholarly and makes speculative claims relying entirely on opinion editorials published in Tehelka and the Times of India. Furthermore, EPW is a known left-wing journal with a not so solid reputation for fact checking, publication and promotion of far left viewpoints. This is a questionable source at best for the article which should not be used to support exceptional claims, if any. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    EPW is just a collection of op-eds, not just nick's opinion.-sarvajna (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    EPW is a refereed academic journal. Academic journals do not "fact check" they have peer review. You guys really havent a clue about how research works. It is a classic POVPUSHing strategy to try to dismiss respectable journals or entire fields of science that happens to be uncomfortable as "opinion". EPW has a clear demarcation between opinion pieces (that are still possible to cite with attribution) and research articles. You will not get through with this game.138.16.114.174 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Jaffrelot's article "Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims? The Supreme Court, the SIT, the Police and the State Judiciary" published in 2012 is using Tehelka as reference. The Tehelka reports that came out in 2007 were proved bogus just after their release. The SIT report also declared them so. But still late after this all was out Jaffrelot is using it as reference in 2012 in his so-called-peer-reviewed essay. Interesting that is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is all this discussion over something which investigators and law officials have refuted? Anything that was not proved in a court of law will remain as POV and this whole farce will be a WP:POVPUSH. No editor in this discussion is a neutral reliable certified expert to call any other renowned expert who is famous as non-reliable... Call it a spade only if it is a spade Amit (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Another absurd argument that fails to get the question. The issue is that the article needs to mention the fact that he has been accused because that is notable and verifiable whether or not the accusations were upheld in court.138.16.114.174 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Absurd by your claim... what you have been doing is putting good faith edits and more neutral language in a BLP page in the back burner. Any incident will have critics and if they are notable or verifiable is always a question...

    I know most of my co-editors here are operating with way more information than I have access to, but still I would like to spell-out the facts of the matter here as I see them:

    1. No charges have been brought against Modi by the Supreme-court appointed team because no evidence was found against him.
    2. Indian National Congress party is all for framing Modi as guilty regardless of what the Supreme court appointed team says in its report. Mr Advani said in his 60 years of political life he has not known any of his colleague “so consistently, so viciously maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi”.
    3. As expected the SIT-report has been questioned. And SIT-representative R. S. Jamuar said in response to the much-touted "appeal": "In comparison to the complaint as defined in Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC), this (the FIR) is not at all a complaint, it's a piece of waste paper to be thrown away, It's a fiction or novel written by 4-5 persons and complainant Zakia has no knowledge about anything written in it," (my emphases)
    4. The authorities found Tehelka report to be dubious. Sensationalist claims do get shared between news sources, and are often printed in hundreds of papers but that doesn't make them true, does it? The whole thing and it's validity is pivoted upon the veracity of the claims of one man Ashish Khetan (who performed the sting operation). Misplaced Pages should avoid scandal-mongering. The conspicuous and flagrant incongruity of the claims detract from its validity as evidence Chandan Mitra, described the timing of the Tehelka report's release as being "so transparently pegged to the Gujarat assembly polls that even breast-beating secular fundamentalists found it hard to defend."
    this forces me wonder who is behind all this, could it be a political game to assassinate Modi's reputation before elections?

    These are the well-established facts as of now. So let's not get carried away and start treading on the domain of speculations, conjectures and opinions. Lest we forget we are writing a BLP, Mr. N. Modi is still alive. Mr T 08:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Comment RegentsPark as admin I request you as admin to rein in this abusive IP who wrote above "You are making absurd claims and nonsequitur arguments... ...any more than your absurd attempt..." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Also whatever MRT3366 has written above supports Malhotra's comments that CJ and others indulged in creating "atrocity literature" that was lapped up by those willing and happy to denigrate Modi, I BLP policies do not allow us to collaborate in such a campaign. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Edit request on 29 May 2013

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

    Please add a section of "Further reading" or of any suitable name above the "References" section with following information.

    • Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay (2013). Narendra Modi : The Man, The Times. Westland. ISBN 9382618473.
    • Kingshuk Nag (2013). The NaMo Story: A Political Life. Lotus Collection. ISBN 8174369384.
    • M. V. Kamath; Kalindi Randeri (2009). Narendra Modi: The Architect of a Modern State. Rupa & Company. ISBN 8129114682.
    • Pravin N. Sheth (2007). Images of Transformation: Gujarat and Narendra Modi. Team Spirit (India). ISBN 8178970430.

    §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    Comment. The discussion here may have a bearing on whether or not to enact this request. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
     Not done: I don't see a consensus to enact this request at this time due to the objections raised in the thread Sitush linked to. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Interesting to see that some admin finally paid attention after Sitush commented on it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

    Something about Modi and editing wikipedia

    Some editors here seem to be forgetting or distorting some of the basic policies for what we include in wikipedia. They are quite simple: we include information that is notable and verifiable. If there is contradicting viewpoints on a topic we portray all of them weighted according to their prominence. Now the following must be considered.

    1. Narendra Modi is a member of the RSS and the BJP both of which are widely considered and described as Hindu Nationalist/Hindutva political organizations. This is notable and verifiable.
    2. Narendra Modi has been openly critical and dismissive of Indian Muslims. This is notable and verifiable.
    3. Narendra Modi has been accused by many parties of aiding and abetting the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002. This is notable and verifiable.
    4. The SIT report absolved him of any responsibility in relation to the violence. This is notable and verifiable.
    5. The SIT report has been criticized by academics as leaving out important testimonies and evidence. And its conclusion has been appealled. This is notable and verifiable.

    All of this information needs to be in the article AND in the lead which per policy supposed to summarize the article. You can argue and nitpick all you want about whether he is innocent and whether those who accuse him are stupid or biased or opinionated, but in the end it doesn't matter a whit, because their biased and stupid opinions are notable and verifiable. So deal with it.138.16.114.174 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    What you claim as notable and verifiable is what others are not accepting as notable and verifiable... personally all you claim to be notable and verifiable is a bunch of conspiracy theories... just by opening a new section wouldnt make it true...Amit (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    You cannot in any meaningful way deny that there are many sources mentioning the accusations against him, nor that the accusations have been made. That amounts to denying reality. We all agree that they have been made and that sources say they have been made. The very fact that they are repeated in about 90% of the sources that talk about Modi and are not written by his own party members clearly show that they are notable. You simply cannot get out of this while following the rules for editing wikipedia.68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    IP (are you Maunus) only if wikipedia was your fiefdom, I wonder how you became even an admin,coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion .-sarvajna (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Are you seriously going to try to make the claim that the fact that the likely next prime minister of India has been publicly accused of complicity in genocide by multiple sources and was cleared by the supreme court is not notable? Try to make a coherent argument for that. Seriously. I'd like to see what it would look like. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    That doesn't mean you exclude stuff either. Maunus is right. Modi is a controversial character with people holding diametrically opposite views of him - the good Modi and a bad Modi (not my phrasing so don't jump on me ) - and attempting to focus only on one view is a disservice to our readers. Attempting to do so through selective quoting of policies and guidelines is lousy service to our readers. --regentspark (comment) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    I don't have issues in adding controversies about the person in the page, but i surely have issues with the way it is put. An edit like this is what pulled me into this whole discussion. I would not stand for it and be it WP or any other place where i have a say i would stand against it. Till date I have not seen a meaningful proposed text from Maunus. All I have seen till now is a push towards painting this persons page negatively. Where is the neutral language or content which we are ready for? Is this the kind of edit you want to add to the page? Amit (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    That edit was a demonstration the hypocrisy of how this page has been turned into a hagiography by a small segment of Modis fanclub who uses sources to cherrypick whatever information is convenient to them, while disregarding what they dont find convenient. The additions were sourced verbatim to the same sources that the Modi activists are using to source that he is a fantastic speaker and a pious karmayogi, and en glorious businessman. That is hypocrisy, it is against our policies and that edit and the ensuing editwar drew attention to that. No that is not necessarily how it should be put, but these editors oppose ANY mention of anything vaguely negative about this man who is described as controversial and problematic in 90% of the non-Indian sources. You may not have seen a "meaningful proposal" from me, but as you will note I am the only one in this discussion who actually presents high quality peer+reviewed sources in support of my argument. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    Maunus, that edit seemed nothing but scandal mongering and incitation WP:NOTSCANDAL. Would you propose a text now? Lets read it at-least and see what you are expecting out of all this instead of going round the sun and aging like pluto - the page is protected - it gives you time to put things and propose a text.Amit (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    He wont. Just here for all jibber jabber. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please don't tell me what to do. Your credibility is below zero.128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Maunus, a personal attack again? if you do not have anything worth contriubting please stay away. -sarvajna (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    The application of double-standards while writing this biographical article is a huge disservice to our readers. Writing this article like an advocacy or propaganda piece is a disservice to our readers. Several other examples of high-quality biographies of notable individuals have been quoted above on this page. Any argument that gives equal validity to a debunked conspiracy theory is not acceptable. See my comments below:
    • "Narendra Modi is a member of the RSS and the BJP both of which are widely considered and described as Hindu Nationalist/Hindutva political organizations. This is notable and verifiable."
    • There has been an extensive discussion on this talk page on why a biographical article should not include descriptive phrases with regard to the nature of the political organizations which the individuals are associated with. There are several other examples of biographical articles which do not include such descriptive phrases except link to them.
    • "Narendra Modi has been openly critical and dismissive of Indian Muslims. This is notable and verifiable."
    • This is neither notable nor verifiable. Is this a perception and/or an opinion? Possibly. And hence suitable for inclusion in a section on 'public image' provided that there is proper sourcing included.
    • "Narendra Modi has been accused by many parties of aiding and abetting the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002. This is notable and verifiable."
    • This is an allegation which has been widely reported in the media, however, no charges have been brought subsequent to an investigation. This is again specifically more suitable for a section on 'public image' that describes the nature of allegations and where they originated from. Encyclopedic ledes are written in a different manner than journalistic ledes.
    • The SIT report absolved him of any responsibility in relation to the violence. This is notable and verifiable.
    • False. The SIT report does not have any vested authority to "absolve" him of any crime. The SIT is an investigative body which was specially created by the Supreme Court in order to investigate the allegations against the Gujarat administration. The team consisted of police officials with expertise in gathering evidence and examination of witnesses. Upon the completion of their inquiry of the Gujarat administration, the SIT reported that there was "no substantial incriminating evidence" against the subject of the biography, and hence no charges were brought against him.
    • The SIT report has been criticized by academics as leaving out important testimonies and evidence. And its conclusion has been appealled. This is notable and verifiable.
    • This needs actual sourcing instead of Jaffrelot/EPW relying extensively on Tehelka, Times op-eds and speculative hand-waving to have such claims included in the body text of the article much less the lead section. Jaffrelot may be an expert on "Hindu nationalism' and its various theories and ideas, but that does not lend expertise on historical and factual information such as that determined through the due process of law. Criticism of the SIT investigation are better placed on the article on 2002 Gujarat violence itself or someone else will propose to include SIT's criticisms of its criticisms in this article. See my comments above.
    I do not understand why Maunus/IP keeps creating new sections for the same discussion over and over again.
    Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    You have now demonstrated that you do not know what "notable" or "verifiable" means in Misplaced Pages. The "extensive discussion" you point to consists of you and your cohort repeating ad nauseam that you don't like it. I dont care whether you like it and neither does wikipedia, wikipedia cares about the fact that reliable sources report this. You also continue with your crusade against reliable academic sources. Your ridiculous statements about what it means to be an expert is just infuriating because it is so patently counter to everything wikipedia stands for. Jaffrelots articles are excellent sources and whether or not you dislike the sources they cite is entirely irrelevant. Yes there should be a section on public image AND that section MUST be summarized in the lead. You have even tried to change WP:LEAD just to fit your view of this this particular case, that is dishonest and absurd. Contrary to you I know how to write a Lead because I actually have a history of writing content. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    You seem to have overlooked the discussion on WT:LEAD which has been initiated to seek clarification on the current wording of the content guideline. Your manipulative campaign of defamation will not succeed on Misplaced Pages. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    That is exactly the discussion I am referring to. Your manipulative campaign of using wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle for your political candidate will not succeed.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    @IP: You have now demonstrated that you do not know what "civility" or "collegiality" means in Misplaced Pages. Mr T 09:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

    Maunus' suggestion for Lead

    (a)Narendra Damodardas Modi (pronunciation; born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India.

    (b)Modi is a key figure in the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was a central strategist in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns. (c)In 2001 he became Chief Minister of Gujarat for the first time, being promoted to the office upon the resignation of his predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, following the defeat of BJP in by-elections. (d)Since childhood, Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindutva paramilitary organization. (e)He holds a master's degree in political science.

    (f)During his first term the 2002 Gujarat violence took place. (g)Modi's personal decision to bring the bodies of burned Hindu pilgrims from the Godhra train burning to Ahmedabad was criticized as contributing to the onset of the following riots. (h)Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to protect its Muslim population during the riots. (i)These events contributed to making Modi a polarizing figure. (j)Subsequent reports by the Supreme court have found no reason to fault Modi in relation to the 2002 events, although one minister of his administration has been convicted.

    (k)As a result of Modi's business friendly policies, during his tenure the state of Gujarat has seen a high index of economic development, and the state has been branded as "Vibrant Gujarat". (l)The combination of liberal economic policy and strong Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, that Modi has made his trademark has been dubbed by some as "Moditva". (m)In July 2007, he became the longest-serving Chief Minister in Gujarat's history when he had been in power for 2,063 days continuously. (n)Under his leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2012 State Assembly Elections and he was chosen to serve for a fourth term as chief minister. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)]·snunɐw· 21:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)]


    1. ^ Buncombe, Andrew (19 September 2011). "A rebirth dogged by controversy". The Independent. Retrieved 10 October 2012. Cite error: The named reference "Controversial_Independent" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    2. David, Ruth (24 December 2007). "Controversial Gujarati Premier Confirmed in Office". Forbes. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    3. Rupam Jain Nair (12 December 2007). "Edgy Indian state election going down to the wire". Ahmedabad: Reuters. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    4. Simon Robinson (11 December 2007). "India's Voters Torn Over Politician". Time. Surat. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    5. Jason Burke (28 March 2010). "Gujarat leader Narendra Modi grilled for 10 hours at massacre inquiry". The Guardian. Delhi. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    6. Joseph, Manu (15 February 2012). "Shaking Off the Horror of the Past in India". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 October 2012.

    When was this decided that the current lead needed an overhaul????

    When was this decided that the current lead needed to be re-written? Why does Maunus get to create redundant spiral discussions about subjects that are already dealt with in detail previously? Mr T 07:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    Like Nick above wrote, "I do not understand why Maunus/IP keeps creating new sections for the same discussion over and over again." Mr T 07:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with you, moreover writing the lead before the work on the body is completed makes no sense, Maunus/IP proposed this Lead when asked by Amit to make some proposal, Maunus was just writing long essay like comments which were leading us no where. -sarvajna (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mr.T, something is better than nothing. Maunus would have posted huge sections irrespective of what we do or don't and attacked editors. See the above section for example. This way when we atleast have a proposal, we have a way to go and a possible way to reduce attacks. Ideally, yes the article should be edited before the lead. But Maunus has had problem only with the lead since beginning. Since long back he only wanted to have the US visa rejection in lead. I am happy he did not propose that not-so-important thing now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Maunus would have posted huge sections irrespective of what we do or don't and attacked editors." - for that we have a number of things we can do. For one, we don't have to pander to his whimsical demands. Where are the uninvolved admins? I mean what the heck is going on? The page is taking longer than usual to load because of this bulge. This sort of refusal to get the point, is disruptive. Also there is no response from WT:LEAD as to the need for using the word "controversial". Till then I don't think using "controversial" in the lead is a good idea, especially when Nick's proposal got a good many "support" votes. We must work on the body first, then we can make a summary. This article has become a POV-hellhole in recent times. Thank heavens it's fully protected! Mr T 10:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Also, what's up with all the accusations?? In case of any other controversial Politician, do we leave unfounded accusations and nullified allegations in the lead? No. Why is Modi article an exception to the rule of thumb? Mr T 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    Discussion on proposed lead

    I have numbered all sentences proposed by Maunus. Lets take this point by point and discuss and agree on whats to be written. Simplest way would be support each line or oppose each line in their respective sections. In case of no consensus, please carry on with a discussion in those sections itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Generally you do not modify other peoples posts on the talkpage like that. Especially not without requesting permission first. I am not convinced this is the best way of discussing the lead proposal.But lets see.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    We have seen your way of discussion and that hasn't helped so far in getting any consensus. So lets have some structure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    I am telling you politely to respect the guideline for talkpage posts in the future. Now I am repeating that advice. You do not modify or edit others posts. You will find walls of text on this talkpage, but I have not written them.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    (a)

    • "Narendra Damodardas Modi" should be changed to "Narendra Modi" as he is not popular with his middle name. The middle name can be mentioned in infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    I do not have much issue with this, it is written as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on the page of Mahatma Gandhi, similiarly on other articles. -sarvajna (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not a major issue. Either is okay actually. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Most articles on persons include middle names and titles in bold in the lead definition. The title is the common name but the definition uses the full name.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    No conflict here either i suppose Amit (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    (b)

    (c)

    "Promoted" to chief minister, what was he, dy-chief minister? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    This points to the fact that he was not elected but appointed.138.16.122.94 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    We will just use the words "replaced" kesubhai patel, The electorate doesn't specifically elect a "chief minister" they elect a MLA - the chief minister is always elected/selected by the party Amit (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I fully agree with Amit. Mr T 07:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (d)

    Calls RSS "a Hindutva paramilitary organization" - what warrants this derogatory descriptor? Where is the irrefutable proof that RSS is a paramilitary organization? Are they banned? Maunus is an unrepentant POV-pusher. What he has suggested actually renders all previous toilsome discussions futile. Mr T 07:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Take care of your indentation. Where does that "if" come from? In no uncertain terms have I written my perspective. I will deal later with the WP article on RSS, but first thing first RSS maybe a lot of things, people may say a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true. The proposal doesn't frame it as an allegation as in "RSS which is alleged to be a Hindutva paramilitary organization", it claims it as a statement of fact as though there were cases and bans against RSS which proved the RSS is a paramilitary organization. It hasn't happened yet and I, for one, care about the validity of claims some throw around. Mr T 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Also Yogesh wrote below, "RSS is as much para-military as the Salvation Army is an army." Mr T 10:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (e)

    (f)

    The wording doesn't look optimal to me. How about "The 2002 Gujarat violence occurred during Modi's first term as CM."? Aurorion (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    This whole section of f-g-h-i should be summarized more say something like - "2002 Gujarat violence was a controversial event during his tenure for which his administration has been criticized and scrutinized. Members of his administration and party have been prosecuted and in one case convicted, So far, no official criminal charges have been filed against Modi himself." (Stole some words from aurorion text from (j)). Other things should probably be put in some detail section. I don't know how neutral this sounds but i guess i am just trying to summarize this section Amit (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Your proposal doesnt work either in terms of language or in terms of information. The reason the 2002 violence is relevant to this article is because Modi himself has been accused and investigated and cleared, not just because his administration has been "scrutinized". It is misleading the reader not to mention what it is that he has been criticized for.68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Your proposal doesnt work either in terms of language or in terms of information." - We're talking about the lead, not the body. Mr T 07:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    How does this line merit a separate mention in the lead?

    What has this got left to do with Modi especially since that no charges have been brought against Modi by the Supreme-court appointed team and that no evidence was found against him??? Why is this repeated and undue allusions to the accusations that have been found baseless in court of law? Why??? Mr T 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (g)

    "Modi's personal decision to bring the bodies of burned Hindu pilgrims from the Godhra train burning to Ahmedabad was criticized as contributing to the onset of the following riots." ← How does this line merit an additional mention when the lines '′h, i, j'′ are present?? Should we leave some criticism for the body or just take this lead as a platform to crucify Modi??? Good job maunus! Mr T 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    The process has been probed into and found to be justified. But there is no mention of that. ″there was no evidence to prove that the Chief Minister had sent the bodies of the 2002 Godhra victims to Ahmedabad with a view to parading them before the public.″ If the sentence is to be placed in the lead at all, this should not be suppressed. Mr T 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (h)

    • The line "Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to protect its Muslim population during the riots." should be changed to ----> "Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to prevent riots." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Why? Many of the accusations are specifically about failing to protect or even aiding violence against the muslim population.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please provide those many references which talk about failure to protect Muslims alone and not people/property and all in general. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    How about all of the sources I provided in the section above, from Luce and Jaffrelot to Ohm and Mehta. The accusations is generally that they did not order the police to help muslims, or that they ordered them to help the Hindu mobs by giving them access to election registers to specifically target muslim homes and businesses.68.9.182.96 (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    "administration" can never be a verb, it is only a noun. I think you mean that it could mean his government or his way of administrating it.68.9.182.96 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes! Thats what i meant. Two meaning. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    ″To his detractors, Modi will always be the man who stoked the sectarian tensions that made the 2002 riots possible.″ This makes it very clear. It is the riot in general. Mr T 11:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (i)

    Typical Maunus - strong hindutva ;) LOL... is hindutva like sulphuric acid? concentrated and diluted :P Though i have no issues with the word hindutva, i dislike the word "hindu nationalism" in this context - the party portfolio doesn't say that and we mentioning it here would just scream POV. Amit (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    I was considering "extreme" put thought that some might find the word "strong" to have more of a positive connotation. BJP is a hindu nationalist party according to all reliable sources and according to the wikipedia article on the party. It is not a POV term, but simply what the combination of Hinduism and Indian nationalism is called.68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    I understand what hindu nationalism means but except for some biased texts (and wiki BJP page where the citations are not clear) I don't see this anywhere else... We should go with the official stance of the party is what i would say, but open for discussion Amit (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • permanent link Sources n 2, n 3, n 4 are not up-to-date and doesn't use the word "polarizing". Reuters says ″Modi has been accused of encouraging Hindu-Muslim riots in 2002″, it is not framed as an assertion of fact, and since its out-dated it doesn't have the latest fact there were no evidence against Modi to link him to the riots. Mr T 11:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (j)

    I think he is referring to Maya Kodnani, she was not a minister when she was convicted nor during the 2002 violence. -sarvajna (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Right! She wasn't minister or MLA in 2002. So she is irrelevant here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Of course it is relevant that someone had orchestrated and participated in a massacre, and was subsequently made a minister in Modi's administration. Especially when the Chief minister had himself faces similar charges.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Presumption of innocence! It wasn't proven that she was guilty when she was sworn. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    We don't need to presume innocence when someone is in fact convicted. Do you think we wouldn't include if a minister of education appointed by Barack Obama's turned out to be a mass murderer? You don't think people would consider that saying something about his judgment? Especially if he was himself accused for complicity in the same murders?128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    For example this news report on her conviction mentions Modi three times, so obviously it is relevant to his administration.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    Laws of India, and hopefully of all world, presume innocence. She was considered innocent while she was sworn as MLA. If she was elected by people, there was no reason even with the President to stop her from being an MLA. There is no connection here with Modi, both as person and as CM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    If there was "no connection with Modi", then news media would not mention Modi in reports about her. There are several connections: (a) she was a member of his party, elected to the legislature, (b) she was appointed as a minister by Modi, after the violence (with full knowledge of the allegations against her), so she was by all accounts a senior leader of the party. So this is relevant. But I think a better wording is something like "other members of his administration and party have been prosecuted, and at least one convicted". -Aurorion (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    She was elected to the legislature by people. She was appointed as a minister not alone by Modi. If i file an ANI or SPI against you, your account doesnt get blocked automatically unless you are proven guilty. Same here! Kodnani was assumed to be innocent by law. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    She was a member of Modi's party. She was appointed as a minister in the Modi administration: Modi heads the government, and is directly responsible for ministerial appointments. I don't dispute that she was assumed innocent until proven guilty: but all I am saying is that this is notable and relevant here - almost every news report covering Kodnani's conviction mentions the connection to Modi. Since the content here is about criticism of the Modi administration regarding the riots, the conviction of someone so closely related to the administration is relevant. - Aurorion (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    If you agree that she was presumed innocent, then thats that. Why does it need to be mentioned in lead of some other person who is neither responsible for her acts nor solely responsible for her appointment? And if its regarding his administration during the riots then you should note that she was not even elected then and had nothing to with that particular administration. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    If I am not mistaken, she was an elected BJP MLA during the time of the riots. But yes, you are right that she was not a minister then, she was appointed as a minister after the riots. The wording should not imply otherwise. - Aurorion (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh yes, my mistake! She was an MLA during the riots but not minister and thereby had no connection with Modi's administration during the riots. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Let us keep away from guilt by association, if Maya Kodnani who was a MLA during the riots or a Minister later or a non Minister later is convicted, it has nothing to do with Modi.-sarvajna (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "Subsequent reports by the Supreme court have found no reason to fault Modi..." - this is incorrect, incomplete and misleading. Firstly, as far as I know, the Supreme Court has not publish any reports. There was an official report submitted to the SC by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the court, which did find no reason to fault Modi. However, there was also another official report submitted to the SC by an Amicus Curiae, again appointed by the court, which was based on an independent assessment of all evidence, and which opined that there was enough evidence for the filing of official charges against Modi. So, it should be amended to something like A Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court to look into allegations related to the 2002 violence found no evidence of criminal wrong-doings against Modi. However, another report by an Amicus Curiae appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence differed with the SIT findings and recommended that Modi be prosecuted. So far, no official criminal charges have been filed against Modi, though other members of his administration and party have been prosecuted, and in some cases, convicted. I believe this presents a more complete picture. - Aurorion (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      The reportdoesn't say prosecute, but investigate, i think there is a difference. though the wordings other than that seem unbiased enough to be used (not for lead but for the details section).Amit (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link to the report, Amit. You are right, the report does not recommend prosecution, just lists the points of disagreement with the SIT report, and gives opinion that some offences can be made out against Modi. So in my suggestion above, that particular sentence should be amended to omit the "recommended that Modi be prosecuted" part. - Aurorion (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    First of all the report of amicus curie is not legally binding But these expressions of excitement and anguish do not have much basis at this point of time as the amicus curiae report in itself do not have any legal teeth. It is the discretion of the court whether to admit an amicus brief (typically a shorter version of the report) or whether to act on an amicus report. As of now, the only report admitted by the court is that of the SIT which basically exonerates Modi of any wrong doings. also the report of amicus curie was part of the closure report filed by the SIT and SIT rejected the findings of amicus curiae . It would be misleading to write about amicus curiae report, that too in the lead. -sarvajna (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "legally binding"? The report of the SIT is also not "legally binding" - as in, the SIT cannot act on it, and the findings themselves do not have any legal authority. The SIT is just an investigation team appointed by the Supreme Court, and its report is just an investigation report, submitted to the Supreme Court. This is the same for the Amicus Curiae report: the Court appointed the Amicus Curiae to analyze the SIT investigation, and in addition, also go beyond that and conduct an independent assessment assessment of the entire evidence. It was always up to the court to decide whether to actually act on any portion of these reports. The Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme Court, and not by the SIT. The news report which says "SIT rejects" means SIT disagrees with the report - the usage is similar to reports saying "the BJP rejects the report" - it is the Supreme Court which the Amicus Curiae submitted the report to. The Supreme Court accepted both the reports (the full SIT report, including the independent assessment by the Amicus Curiae), and forwarded them to the magisterial court which was looking into the violence.
    Including only the information about the SIT report would be misleading, since another official judicial report commissioned by the Supreme Court contradicted the findings of the SIT. The Amicus Curiae report should also be mentioned to provide a complete perspective. - Aurorion (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "legally binding" Well if you have read the source I provide you would know what I meant, the DNA column doesn't say that the court accepted the Amicus Curiae report, look at the source I provide also the Amicus Curiae report was part of the closure report of SIT submitted in the Ahmedabad metropolitan court. Amicus curiae is not a investigation authority like SIT, they just commented on the SIT report.Giving point-by-point answers to all observations made by the amicus curiae after investigating the charges, as directed by the Supreme Court, the SIT said: “The offences under the aforesaid sections of law are not made out against Mr. Modi.” I am giving you the source again so that you read it..-sarvajna (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    I did read the sources you provided, but still do not understand what you meant by "legally binding". You are right that the Amicus Curiae report is not "legally binding" - but the SIT report is not, either. It is just an investigation report based on which the court would take decisions. Investigation reports are not judicial judgements in themselves. Neither the SIT nor the Amicus Curiae is a judicial authority in that sense with the power of final judgement.
    The Amicus Curiae was ordered by the Supreme Court to analyze and examine the SIT report: but as the source which I provided above says, its mandate was expanded by the SC to conduct an independent assessment of the entire evidence. So the Amicus Curiae did not just "comment on the SIT report" as you say.
    After the Amicus Curiae submitted his report, the SC gave an opportunity to the SIT to revisit their own assessment and prepare a final report. The SIT stuck by their earlier stance, and disagreed with the Amicus Curiae.
    But this does not mean that the Amicus Curiae report is rendered invalid. It was an official report ordered by, and submitted to, the Supreme Court. The Amicus Curiae's report disagreed with the SIT's findings, and the SIT later disagreed with the Amicus Curiae's. This doesn't mean either report ceases to exist or is cancelled.
    I cannot find any sources saying that the Supreme Court rejected the Amicus Curiae report. The IBN report saying "as of now the only report admitted by the court is that of the SIT" (emphasis added) is probably outdated. In this this interview, the Amicus Curiae who submitted the report, Raju Ramachandran, says that the SIT is "required to place report before the trial court". The DNA column says "the SIT and amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran later submitted their final reports before the Supreme Court and the court sent the matter to the magisterial court with instructions to decide on the whole matter." And the Hindu article you provided says that the Amicus Curiae report was included as part of the SIT closure report. If you have any sources which say that the Supreme Court (as opposed to the SIT "rejecting" claims in the Amicus Curiae report) rejected the Amicus Curiae report, please provide.
    The Amicus Curiae report, being an official report ordered by the Supreme Court, is as relevant to this discussion as is the SIT report. Presenting only one side of this is misleading, I believe both sides need to be presented. - Aurorion (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Aurorion kindly make your comments brief if possible, that would be very helpful. Your arguments are hollow and they do absolutely nothing other than consume a colossal amount of space. Read what Dharmadhyaksha is saying. You're not refuting his contentions, rather vehemently attacking strawman. You're synthesizing various sources to reach conclusion that is patently false. Mr T 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    And what is the conclusion that you think I am reaching, that is patently false? - Aurorion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)“Point-by-point answers to all observations made by the amicus curiae after investigating the charges” were given, as directed by the Supreme Court, the SIT said: “The offences under the aforesaid sections of law are not made out against Mr. Modi.”
    The SIT also dismissed two “fax messages”, as “false and fabricated documents”, which were “claimed to have been sent by the suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who was then Deputy Commissioner in the State intelligence branch, to the Chief Minister and Minister of State for Home Gordhan Jhadafiya, with copies to the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner, the State police control room and others, alerting them about the developing communal situation.” (My emphasis) Mr T 10:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Mr T, if I dismiss your arguments, and provide "point-by-point answers" to all your points, and argue something against what you are saying, does it mean that we should automatically ignore all your arguments and points? You are quoting from the SIT report, which disagrees with the Amicus Curiae report. How does the SIT's observations affect the AC report? The Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme Court, not the SIT. Just because the SIT disagrees with the AC report doesn't mean that the AC report is nullified. - Aurorion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I will try to keep my reply short, I never said that Amicus Curiae's report was rejected, the reports or the closure reports given to the magisterial court included the SIT and the Amicus Curiae, the court did observe that SIT gave Modi a clean chit(closure report also consisted of Amicus Curiae), can you provide any source where the courts made similar observations regarding just the Amicus Curiae report? Did any courts made observation regarding the Amicus Curiae's report and said that it should be considered instead of SIT or anything like that?. -sarvajna (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    saravajna, all I am saying is that the Amicus Curiae report is also an official report ordered by, and submitted to, the Supreme Court of India. It was widely covered by reliable sources, and there is no evidence that it was rejected or cancelled by any judicial authority. Just because the SIT disagreed with the Amicus Curiae, or it provided rebuttals to the AC's findings, the report cannot be ignored. I think the AC report is notable and relevant to this article, and hence deserves to be mentioned. Why do you say it would be "misleading" to write about it? Please explain. - Aurorion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Aurorion, amicus curiae report does not have sufficient weight since it's not a parallel or independent re-investigation, but a review of evidence gathered by SIT and possible re-examination of witnesses.The SIT report is the culmination of a police investigation, where police are specialists in the process of gathering evidence the amicus brief is a legal opinion hence does not have the weight.Like I said above, the AC's report was not submitted to the lower courts independently, it was part of the closure report filed by the SIT, the AC report might have found the loop holes but the closure report which also included the AC report criticized the AC report. You say that there is no evidence that it was rejected but similarly can you give me any evidence where it is shown that it was accepted independently(where the court made observations) but not as a part of SIT closure report?.-sarvajna (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. I disagree that the AC report does not have "sufficient weight" since it's not a "re-investigation". I think any official report ordered by and submitted to the top court in the country carries a lot of weight. You are right that the AC report was not submitted to the lower court independently: but it was submitted to the Supreme Court independently by the AC, and there it was considered an independent and separate document. The Supreme Court did accept the AC report, and made observations and deliberated on it - please see this source. Note that the SC refers to the AC report as a separate independent report in its statements quoted in the source. The Supreme Court later ordered the SIT to submit a final report to the lower court and include the AC report as part of it: it was only in the lower courts where the AC report was attached as part of the SIT closure report. In my opinion, this does not diminish the status of the AC report as an official report commissioned by the Supreme Court. After all, the weight of the SIT report is not because it submitted a report to a lower court, it's primarily because it was appointed by the Supreme Court - the same is the case with the Amicus Curiae report. - Aurorion (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Aurorion, you might be already knowing it, the SIT report and the AC report were both given to the SC, SC sent both back to the lower court. Now let us consider the source that you provided, the SC asked SIT to to examine the observations of the amicus curiae and if you see the other sources I provided above, it is mentioned that the SIT did examine and rejected the observations of the AC. Now it hardly matters what you consider, the AC report has been rendered useless with the closure report. Incorrect official reports need not be mentioned here. -sarvajna (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    "the AC report has been rendered useless with the closure report": I strongly disagree with this statement. Official legal reports like this do not get "rendered useless" just because another report comes out later with different conclusions. If it was "rendered useless", why was it included in the closure report in the first place? It was included so that the trial court can examine it too when pronouncing its verdicts. Has any court (the Supreme Court, or the trial courts) ruled that the Amicus Curiae report has been "rendered useless", or is "incorrect"? Has any court ruled that the Amicus Curiae report is "cancelled"? The SIT is just an investigation team, it has no judicial authority to "render useless" any report. It can only argue in courts against the Amicus Curiae report, as it has done according to many media reports.
    Also, has any court declared a final verdict on the SIT closure report? In January of this year, the Supreme Court restrained the trial court from giving a final verdict on the matter. As far as I know, neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court has yet given a final ruling on the matter - please correct me if I am wrong. Hence, the SIT closure report - and the Amicus Curiae report - are still sub-judice, the courts are yet to give a final verdict on the conclusions in the SIT report or the Amicus Curiae report.
    Even after the court gives a ruling on the matter, and even if it is in favor of the SIT's observations, in my opinion the Amicus Curiae brief does not become obsolete. It would still be relevant and notable enough to warrant a mention in this article. But that's a discussion for later. - Aurorion (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Exactly, Aurorion. This has been said several times previously: a judge has acknowledged receipt of the SIT report but I can find no ruling on it and I can find no ruling on the AC one either. Acknowledgement of receipt and even publication of contents does not constitute judicial acceptance of the contents. Well, not to my knowledge anyway. This is why we have to word things very carefully and we should not assume that the SIT outcome is the be-all and end-all of this matter. Indeed, the SIT is now having to protest a petition that has been judicially allowed in the Jafri matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Aurorion, I said that the AC report have been rendered useless as the closure report by SIT has rejected the ACs objections,it has become useless after the closure report. Yes, you are correct no final orders have been passed by any courts but courts did say that "According to SIT, no offence has been established", the courts did not say anything about the AC report, Sitush, you might know this, Zakia asked for another investigation from another body but she did not ask for the consideration of the AC report. The final report of the SIT which included the AC report has given Modi a clean chit, there is no other official report which says that Modi is guilty or anything like that, so there is no need to mention of AC report separately as it is part of SIT report. We will have to consider him innocent till proven guilty not the other way.-sarvajna (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    "there is no need to mention of AC report separately as it is part of SIT report": Sorry, but I disagree with this. Even though the AC report was submitted to trial court only along with the SIT report, it was originally submitted to the Supreme Court - and there it was submitted as a separate, independent report. The Supreme Court itself ordered the Amicus Curiae to submit a report. I think that makes it a separate "official report" in its own right. I am not saying that we should consider Modi guilty - nobody should be considered guilty unless convicted by a court of law: however, I think that if the SIT report is mentioned as a Supreme Court-ordered report, the AC report should also be mentioned to provide the complete point of view. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not,the fact is that AC report was not submitted as an independent report in the metropolitan court, you know that very well, you also know that SC asked SIT to examine AC's observation which they did, till SC or some other court says that SIT's observation are wrong we need not mention it.Again, please I know very well that SC ordered AC to submit a report, please do not repeat it again.But you also know that SC asked SIT to examine AC's report which they did, why do you only stress what SC did in the beginning, why not what happened later?Later SIT rejected ACs report.As I said before SIT closure report consisted of the AC report and SIT report gave clean chit to Modi, that is what we need to write, AC's report was not submitted as an independent report. We have those source, all we need to mention that SIT gave him a clean chit, your insistence to mention the AC report in spite of all the sources which clearly says that AC report was rejected makes no sense.-sarvajna (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    sarvajna, I know that the AC report was not submitted as an independent report in the metropolitan court: but again, the fact that it was submitted as a separate independent report in the Supreme Court is relevant. We should mention all the facts. We can also mention that the Supreme Court directed the SIT to study the AC report and submit a final closure report along with the AC report in the trial court, and that the final closure report dismissed the AC's findings. Please note that the AC report has not been "rejected" by any competent judicial authority yet: the SIT's "rejection" just means disagreement and is legally irrelevant. (Same as the BJP's rejection of the AC report.) We should present all the facts, and not just one outdated version of it. So we should mention that the AC report submitted to the Supreme Court disagreed with the SIT's findings; but that the final closure report filed by the SIT in the trial court found no evidence to support filing criminal charges against Modi. We should also mention that the courts are yet to give a final verdict on the matter. - Aurorion (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    Aurorion, thanks for your response.We are discussing about the lead here, the final status as of now is that the SIT rejected the AC's observation. When we write that Modi got clean chit, it should be mentioned that the investigating team gave him a clean chit in its closure report(which also had AC report). BJPs rejection has no weight what so ever here, probably BJP would reject anything that would go against Modi.All the details you mentioned above can go into the article of SIT and a wikilink can be provided. -sarvajna (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "although one minister of his administration has been convicted." - It doesn't warrant a mention in the lead because the lead is about Narendra Modi, not Maya Kodnani's biography, her conviction virtually has nothing to do with Narendra Modi, albeit some in the opposition are in the business of connecting distant dots and winging theories arbitrarily. Mr T 10:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes! Thats discussed at the start of this section j. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (k)

    (l)

    (m)

    No issues hereAmit (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think this sentence is needed here. There is no need for going in so details in lead section. Simply add a line at the end; after (n) something like Since 2001 having served four terms, he is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. All those days can go in the appropriate sections below. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    I agree Dharma, but only in one condition that other redundant, conjectural stuff, that is there with the sole purpose to demonize a living politician, Modi, also gets excised from the lead along with it. Mr T 11:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

    (n)

    No issues here eitherAmit (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Other additions proposed

    Preferred version of the lead

    Editing all those sections is a pain. So have put my preferred version here. The accusations against him have made him controversial, that he was accused is a fact, I don't think we need to put rebuttals in the lead. Also RSS is as much para-military as the Salvation Army is an army.

    Narendra Damodardas Modi ( pronunciation (help·info); born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India. Modi belongs to the BJP. Modi has been a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since his childhood. He first became Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2001 and has been in office since then having served four terms making him the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat.

    During his first term the 2002 Gujarat violence took place. Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to protect its Muslim citizens during the riots. These events contributed to making Modi a controversial politician.

    The state of Gujarat has seen a high index of economic development. as a result of Modi's business friendly policies and responsible administration.

    Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Ratnakar's version of the lead

    Narendra Damodardas Modi ( pronunciation (help·info); born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India.
    Modi is a key figure in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was a central strategist in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns.In 2001 he became Chief Minister of Gujarat for the first time, being appainted to the office upon the resignation of his predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, following the defeat of BJP in by-elections.Since childhood, Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).He holds a master's degree in political science.
    Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to contain the 2002 Gujarat Violence,Subsequent reports by the Supreme court have found no reason to fault Modi in relation to the 2002 events.
    As a result of Modi's business friendly policies, during his tenure the state of Gujarat has seen a high index of economic development, and the state has been branded as "Vibrant Gujarat". Having served four consecutive terms since 2001, he is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. Under his leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2012 State Assembly Elections and he was chosen to serve for a fourth term as chief minister.

    Hindu Nationalist, para military can be found in the related articles of the BJP and RSS. We need to summarize the lead so I trimmed the whole thing about violence occured and also Maya Kodnani is not even mentioned in the body of the article, it is useless to mention about her in the lead. I am not sure about Moditva being added to the lead, I do not see that it can be fit anywhere in the body, I think we need to write about his economic policies and the fact that Gujarat has seen high index of economic development in the body.Also we are writing the lead here, the details about 2002 violence can be mentioned in that section.-sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

    Mrt3366's version

    Narendra Damodardas Modi (pronunciation; born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India. Modi was a key strategist for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns. He first became chief minister of Gujarat in October 2001, after the resignation of his predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, following the defeat of BJP in by-elections. Having served four consecutive terms since 2001, he is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. Under his leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2012 State Assembly Elections and he was chosen to serve for a fourth term as chief minister. Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

    Modi's business friendly policies have been accredited for the high index of economic development in Gujarat and the state has been branded as "Vibrant Gujarat". Modi has been at the centre of an enduring controversy following the accusations of both his involvement and connivance towards the rioters during 2002 Gujarat violence. However, the Supreme Court of India appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) reported to the court in December 2010 that they did not find any evidence to vindicate the accusation of Modi's involvement in the riots and subsequently no charges were brought against him.

    References

    1. Joseph, Manu (15 February 2012). "Shaking Off the Horror of the Past in India". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    2. Phadnis, Aditi (2009). Business Standard Political Profiles of Cabals and Kings. Business Standard Books. pp. 116–21. ISBN 978-81-905735-4-2.
    3. Rupam Jain Nair (12 December 2007). "Edgy Indian state election going down to the wire". Ahmedabad: Reuters. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    4. Simon Robinson (11 December 2007). "India's Voters Torn Over Politician". Time. Surat. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    5. Jason Burke (28 March 2010). "Gujarat leader Narendra Modi grilled for 10 hours at massacre inquiry". The Guardian. Delhi. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    6. ^ Andrew Buncombe (19 September 2011). "A rebirth dogged by controversy". The Independent. Retrieved 10 October 2012. Cite error: The named reference "Controversial_Independent" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    7. David, Ruth (24 December 2007). "Controversial Gujarati Premier Confirmed in Office". Forbes. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
    8. Mahapatra, Dhananjay (3 December 2010). "SIT clears Narendra Modi of willfully allowing post-Godhra riots". The Times of India.
    9. Narendra Modi Gets Clean Chit in Gujarat Riot Case

    RegentsPark version

    I think all the above versions say too much for a lead. I'd prefer something simple and straight forward as below. Details are best left to the body.

    Narendra Damodardas Modi' (pronunciation; born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India. Having served four consecutive terms since 2001 Modi, a member of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. Modi is also a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right wing Hindu organization.

    Modi is considered to be a pro-business leader and his policies are credited with the economic success of his state. However, his decisions following the Godhra train burning and continuing allegations relating to his role in the anti-Muslim 2002 Gujarat riots have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India. An influential figure in the BJP, Modi is a possible candidate for Prime Minister of India if his party wins the next general election.

    Comments on RP's proposal
    • I think all the above versions say too much for a lead″ - for the record, I don't.
    • his decisions following the Godhra train burning have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India.″ — Modi's decisions following the Godhra train burning did not automatically render him controversial; the controversy was triggered and stoked by the persistent accusation that there was "a conspiracy" in "a closed door meeting" to incite people to perpetrate violent acts of vengeance.
    • SIT counsel R S Jamuar said, "There is no truth behind complainant's claims that a conspiracy was hatched in a closed door meeting, between CM and other political leaders, held at Godhra circuit house on February 27, 2002 to handover dead bodies to VHP and send it to Ahmedabad," he added that "the bodies had to be brought to Ahmedabad, since many of them belonged to this district". Also that "decision was taken with consensus", it wasn't Modi's decision. Besides, "no substantive evidence has been found" to support that he ever took the decision unilaterally. Thus, I believe my way of presenting the pertinent facts about his controversial-ness is more accurate. Let's put all the germane info in the body. Mr T 09:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party" —— I don't support the "nationalist"-label instead of the descriptor major opposition party. BTW The Bharatiya Janata Party designates its official ideology and central philosophy to be "integral humanism". Mr T 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Mrt, as I've said before, Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots. But because a hefty chunk of the population continues to believe that he did. Sitting or standing reports have nothing to do with his being controversial. Getting into detailed reasons as to why he is controversial and whether he did or did not do bad things is not the purpose of the lead. The BJP is a nationalist party according to Misplaced Pages where the label seems to be well supported by references. We use reliable secondary sources to describe things, not party manifestos so saying "BJP, an integral humanist party" is completely out of the question. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    "Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots" - yes, thank you for acknowledging it. But your version frames "his decisions following the Godhra train burning" as the very reasons that "have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India." We should not lay it as an assertion in that way. We should make it crystal clear that Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots but the personal vilification and accusations he faced. Mr T 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: (a)We don't need the qualifiers "nationalist" for BJP and "right wing Hindu organisation" for the RSS (b)We don't need "anti-Muslim" as a qualifier "Gujarat 2002". (c)I support MRT's statement that Modi is controversial not for what he did or didn't but for what the media/ and atrocity entrepreneurs trumpeted what he did, non of which has been proved in the court of law. Regarding "divisive" we should be careful in taking cognizance of the ground realities that Muslims see Modi as a harbinger of prosperity and a large majority amongst them voted for him in the 2012 elections. (Source: Kishwar and Uday Mahurkar (India Today)) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: A small lead section will end up giving undue weight to the "controversy" rather than the individual himself. The lead section should ideally be four paragraphs succinctly describing the life and work of an individual and "prominent controversies, if any" (see WP:LEAD). The addition of qualifiers is not justified in line with the manner other high quality articles have been consistently drafted. We don't see "right-wing" and "nationalist" appearing on other biographical pages. Also while, Modi is "considered" to be a pro-business leader, but certain "anti-Muslim" incidents "have made him controversial and divisive" is hardly NPOV even when we ignore the rather clever addition of one more subjective term "divisive" on the top of "controversial". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      I don't know about that. Both Marine Le Pen and her dad are identified as nationalist and right wing (and they do look "consistently drafted"). So is Udo Voight. If an organization is right wing or nationalist, what exactly is wrong with saying that? --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
    • regentspark proposes "However, his decisions following the Godhra train burning and continuing allegations relating to his role in the anti-Muslim 2002 Gujarat riots have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India.", but argues, "Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots. " The absurd and self-contradictory nature of his position is breathtaking. Besides that, this proposal is blatantly trying to smear Modi with the 2002 riots handle without making any effort to balance the allegation with SIT clean chit. To be neutral, it will have to mantion the SIT clean chit to Modi, and mention things like . Trying to add negative material/allegations, without adding any counter, even when it is available, is a violation of NPOV. Moreover, BLPs are supposed to be written conservatively. But here, regentspark seems to be having an agenda of smearing Modi, and suppressing any counter related to the 2002 riots allegations. This proposal is extremely non neutral and particularly unsuitable for a BLP.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
      I believe you're having comprehension difficulties. My position is entirely consistent. --regentspark (comment) 18:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

    Comments

    • I think the versions of Ratnakar and Mrt3366 are good enough......however, I feel that the rise of modi into the national politics needs a mention in the lead.also it shoiuld be mentioned that he enjoys super majority in home and also in the youth of the country....Maunus version seems to be completely pro-congress version and calling RSS a paramilitary organisations is completely unacceptable Strike Σagle 05:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

    The description "paramilitary" comes straight of the RSS wikipedia article where it is sourced. Also nothing "pro-congress" about it, being critical of Modi does not equate to being in favor of the congress party - in this case it just follows the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Regentspark version seems clearly the most neutral and clear, neither promotional nor convicting him out of hand for the unproven accusations. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • ʍaunus version as first choice, RP's as first after further deliberation, ʍaunus version as second. this needs to be added to RP version however. Recovered files show Modi complicit in Gujarat pogrom Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      DS, there is going to be evidence that he deliberately incited people with his decisions following the train burning and that he supported the rioters. There will also be evidence that he was cleared of all personal involvement. That's why he is controversial and that's why we should leave details of either his culpability or innocence out of the lead and keep them in the body. If we start bringing one side or the other into the lead, we're going to have to include everything. This showed this but then there is that that showed that and however nonetheless etc. No place for that sort of thing in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 20:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but given the size of the article should there not be three paragraphs in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps it is a bit short. We could move the last sentence into the next para adding stuff about his victory in 2007 and throw in his pol. sci degree if necessary (though that is mere fluff). My main concern is the attempt to establish guilt and innocence in the lead - he's too complicated for that. --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, I agree with that, leave all the guilt stuff to the body then. If you add stuff re his 07 victory I have a line which needs to be added. I will change my vote to support your version as being most neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I think regentspark's lead falls somewhat short of the purpose of the lead to function as a stand alone summary of the article. I agree its fairly close to neutral, but it also isn't very informative at all. I would want to flesh it out a little to at least three full paragraphs.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Cautious support for RP proposal. I'd quibble some of the grammar but that is minor stuff. Please bear in mind that leads need to summarise articles and we really are putting the cart before the horse here. As the article (hopefully) gets fixed then we can probably justify an increased lead length. I am actually very tired of looking at the article in the state that I last saw it but I rather think that we do not mention the potential prime minister issue anywhere in the body. If so, then we need to sort that out asap if this proposal is to do its job. Various people had raised objections to including that info and, hey, that puts us back where I started: if it ain't in the body then it should not be in the lead. Of course, my opinion is that it should be in the body. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      I agree that there is a cart/horse issue here but I also think that that will work well for this article given the level of bickering that we're seeing. Sometimes the summary in the lead can point the way to what to include in the article. --regentspark (comment) 01:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • For length and style we might look at an article like Paul Kagame another controversial, living politician who has been involved in genocidal events, and whose article is in fact a Good Article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Support for RP's version, provided, (a) we stick to, for now, a shortish lead and (b) the prime ministerial thing, as of now, is not included. This can be included once he is formally announce to be so. The BBC article and many others could provide support to contentious terms (controversial, nationalist etc). When mainstream world media, at current time, are using these terms, why do we fight?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Edit request 9 June 2013

    With the Bhartiya Janta Party winning all the 4 seats in the Assembly by-elections its tally in the House has gone up from 115 to 119. This should be included. Thanks. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.25.138 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


    During BJP's national executive meet at Goa on 09 June 2013 Narendra modi has been appointed as BJP's chief of election campaign committee for general elections to be held in 2014. I request admins to make this edit here as per these sources. Pls note, there are hundreds of reliable sources but unnecessary to mention all. Thanks. neo (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

    Why this fact is not being included? I am reading below to include 'controversial' word for Modi. That word already exist in lead. No need to repeat that. neo (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Edit request on 9 June 2013

    It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Narendra Modi. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

    This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

    The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

    Mr Modi has been elevated as chief of BJP's 2014 poll campaign panel at Gova.


    49.206.30.56 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

     Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Sources were given by another editor Neo. in the above section. Seems that IP doesnt know that sources are required and Neo doesnt know the right template for requesting edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    Not done. The protection is in place because of edit warring relating to the balance of information in the article and not because of completeness and sourcing. We can't really add anything to this article without discussion. --regentspark (comment) 20:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    You find this bit also as imbalance of information? Whats to discuss on this? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    The question with this article is whether it is balanced or not. Adding any information, factual or not, cannot be done without consensus because that would shift the balance one way or another. (BTW, note that a patrolling admin cannot make content changes that don't have consensus. This article is basically dead in the water unless we can resolve some of the issues outlined above.) --regentspark (comment) 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think the point is that since everything is being contested, mostly by those who seemingly want to whitewash the article, it would be a brave admin who allows something through "on the nod". Even to an uninvolved person, it must be obvious that this article has been hijacked. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... !!!!! So now lets sit and ponder. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Sitush, please stop the continuous allegations of bad faith. They are quite unconstructive. Uninvolved administrators are sufficiently capable of determining who is pushing an agenda. This page requires dispute resolution/mediation. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    If people stop acting in bad faith, I'll stop the allegations. From a UK newspaper yesterday:

    BJP anoints controversial Modi India's main opposition party, the BJP, has said that Narendra Modi will oversee its 2014 election campaign, making him its likely prime ministerial candidate. Mr Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, has been widely condemned for failing to stop organised attacks in the state in 2012 that left more than 1,000, mostly Muslims, dead

    And the main story begins "Narendra Modi, India's most polarising politician ... While he has never been charged, some of his ministers have been jailed and Mr Modi has been widely condemned for at the very least failing to stop the massacres. ... Many senior figures believe his strident, authoritarian style and association with the 2002 killings will cost the party votes, especially among Muslims. Mr Advani was notable by his absence from the BJP's meeting in Goa where the decision was announced yesterday." etc. All stuff that people have been fighting tooth and nail to keep out of this article. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    As mentioned above: "his (Jaffrelot's) work is commonly used in "atrocity literature that flooded the western media in the aftermath of Gujarat (2002)".(Malhotra). Interestingly the figure "thousands massacred" has been toned down to the more realistic "1000 killed, mostly Muslim". Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the place to provide a platform for wild allegations from any quarter in a BLP. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    I sense deflection again. What has Jaffrelot go to do with this story, which comes from a source that is also one of the links in the preceding section and quite clearly has been cherry-picked? - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    See what I mean? Making any change to this article is likely to be controversial - if I may use that word. :) --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Here it was a simple edit request which doesn't require a lot of discussion, Sitush you are the one who is trying to deflect the whole matter here, under the section "Role in central politics" it can be mentioned that he was made campaign committee head, whether he is controversial, a "male prostitute" or something else will not fall under that section and need not be discussed under this section.-sarvajna (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    You miss my points. Firstly, NHN someone has been arguing recently that we cannot mention the prime ministerial stuff because Modi hasn't said it (basically, the line of argument NHN has used for just about everything here and that, like it or not, has made this article at present little more than a Modi vehicle). Secondly, the content is cherry-picked from the sources and if it is ok to mention the statement as given then it should be ok to mention all the "controversy" stuff etc that they refer to. Thus, the request does in fact require discussion. But since Jaffrelot is not mentioned in the source that I quote, I don't see the relevance of any comments regarding him. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone has still said anything about he being a prime ministerial candidate. Campaign committee head is not PM candidate. Leaving that aside, what do you guys think should go in?
    & YK, why do u have to bring that Jaffrelot here? Now Maunus will come and start his jibber jabber. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I don't want to get into a debate on who said what, why, when.All I am saying is that it need not be mentioned anything about prime ministerial stuff (I had opposed the PM thing I guess), he is not yet a PM candidate, the section "Role in central politics" should mention that he has been appointed as the head of campaign committee, other stuff that you are saying about polarizing, controversial and things will not be present in that section. -sarvajna (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Trying to come back to this discussion. Yes, Modi's appointment as the chief of BJP's poll campaign needs to be mentioned. Why do we need discussion on that? At the same time, BBC article (or, other many other articles) clearly states Modi is a controversial/polarising figure, and condemnation for his role in the riot. So, now that we have such terms even in mainstream world media, what is the problem here mentioning those in the article? Although Sitush (and others) might have acted stubbornly in these long discussions, I cannot but agree that these terms should be definitely used, of course citing good references (like, BBC).--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Hmmmmmmmm......!!!!! So now lets leave this campaign thing and discuss the "controversial" issue here as well. Dunno why sections were every invented? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps my wordings were not clear. I meant to say why do we need to discuss the campaign thing at all? It is a plain simple fact, and should be added straight in the role in central politics section.--Dwaipayan(talk) 18:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Dwai, getting back on track doesnt happen on this article. Now it will flow that ways and you will see huge essays on controversial, visa rejection, number of Muslims killed, khadi, tea serving, Kodnani, and what not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Anf also, controversial, divisive, business-friendly, loved by business people etc in perhaps the "image" section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't have a particular problem with the committee stuff being in the article. I do think that cherry-picking the sources is wrong, however. The ramifications of the position, and the fact that some within the BJP are unhappy about his role, needs to be mentioned. ... and that takes us straight back to the controversy/divisive stuff. And, by the way, some of those sources do use the "divisive" word that only a few days ago was being contested. These are news sources of good standing and if someone were to suggest, for example, that they are engaging in wild speculation & thus the ancillary points should be omitted then it would just be another example of us failing our readership.

    Similarly, it needs to be made clear that the renewed diplomatic efforts are because of the prime ministerial issue + economics and not because the countries involved have suddenly decided that the 2002 allegations are without merit. They have gone out of their way to make a distinction, if you know how to read diplomatic language. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    "I do think that cherry-picking the sources is wrong" - I agree. About the about the word "divisive", but if we are to include it at all, then we should sensibly define what he actually did that fuels disagreement. And the sources which make only a passing mention of the word shouldn't be cited to support the assertion of fact that "he is divisive", but these sources, making neglectful trivial mentions of the word, may be cited for something like "he is considered to be divisive" lest it seems that he enjoys being divisive or intentionally does it. We must not forget, he has many rivals, adversaries, both in and out of the BJP party, we must be careful. Mr T 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    Dharmadhyaksha my point is that we cannot hang Modi until the courts do so, no matter what Western or Eastern media pronounce. If you wish I'd strike my comment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

    Proposal

    Ok. So we need to add the following:

    1. In role in central politics section: He is appointed as the chief of the campaign; however, this led to some leaders in BJP getting dissatisfied. Advani', the prominent founder member, resigned.

    2. In image section: Media has labelled him as controversial, divisive, business-friendly, and popular among middle class (and some other stuffs).

    Do we agree here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Advani's resignation can be mentioned but stopping just there is not fair. He withdrew his resignation today. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Oh I didn't know that! Sorry. Yes, of course that should be mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    If issue is 'balance of information', for each achievement of Narendra Modi each achievement of Rahul Gandhi should be included as per this source. I am neutral. neo (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Are you saying we should blank the page. (Just kidding!) --regentspark (comment) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    You might find WP:SARCASM helpful. Correct Knowledge 20:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    Dwai, it's not just the media that has labeled him controversial and divisive - scholarly work has too (see the many reference above). I'd prefer not to see this qualified as 'by the media'. I agree that the his role in central politics should be mentioned, particularly his the possibility of a PM Modi and also his role in the BJP. --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Ok. 1. In central politics section: Modi was selected to head the poll campaign for 2014 parliamentary election, at the national level executive meeting of BJP on 10 June 2012. The party's senior leader and founding member L.K. Advani resigned from all his posts at the party following the selection, protesting against leaders who were "concerned with their personal agendas"; the resignation was described by The Times of India as "a protest against Narendra Modi's elevation as the chairman of the party's election committee". However, Advani withdrew his resignation at the urging of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

    2.In image section: Modi has been labelled by the media and some articles in peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure. He enjoys a business-friendly image, and has been reported in the media to be popular among India's middle class.

    Of note, we are not describing each and every controversy, or instances of divisiveness; this is just n the image section. Also, I have not added the sources for this in this discussion, as there are many, and will be added in the article. lease advise on content and prose improvement. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

    Sources

    1. "Advani grabs lifeline, meekly withdraws resignation". The Times of India. 12 June 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.

    Edit request on 12 June 2013 - Pls add the below info into the page

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

    On June 9th, 2013, Mr. Narendra Modi was unanimously elected as the BJP's Chief of Election Campaign and Poll Management Committee for the General Elections scheduled to be held in 2014.

    Aaranganath (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

    That request is already posted twice but due to "controversial" nature of Narendra Modi admins are unable to decide exact nature of wording. I believe that some Congress supporting editors forced to protect page so that info about the subject can't be updated hence giving advantage to online campaign of Congress party. neo (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    I think Aranganath's edit is a statement of facts and I support its inclusion, I wish someone who has the privilege would do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    I am 99.99% sure that there is some paid edition going on here. The Congress just now planned to increase its presence on the internet and since then many new editors have been writing pro-congress things on Misplaced Pages. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'd be interested to know who these people are, although the last time I looked it was still the case that paid editing is permitted even though often deprecated. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

    Edit request on 13 June 2013

    It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Narendra Modi. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

    This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

    The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

    In the third term section, Saurashtra links to a disambiguation page. It should link to Saurashtra (region).

    ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, no problem with this. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    No problem. --regentspark (comment) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Categories: