Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 13 July 2013

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Gujarat / Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in June 2013.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Edit request on 16 June 2013

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

I request that the article should mention Narendra Modi's caste in the 'Early life' section. He hails from Ghanchi caste and this can be confirmed by the most reputed newspapers and channels like these :, , ,

-Khaliharan (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many sources mention it but generally we do not include the caste of living people unless they self-identify as being of a particular caste. We tend to treat caste claims as being similar to those for religious belief. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this source says "I came to know about his caste during an interview delivered to a national Magazine, where Narendra Modi stated that he comes from the Ghanchi (oil presser) caste,” reveals a delighted Borana." It indicates that Modi has self-identified that he hails from Ghanchi caste in some magazine. Right now, I am looking for that magazine interview.

But, how can a caste be treated as religious belief? Caste is someone's ancestral heritage, while religion is what he follows (presently). -Khaliharan (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the meta discussion here: there have been numerous discussions concerning the general issue, some of which can be found at WP:VPP and at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. However, that find of yours might be ok - it would be better if we could track down the "national magazine" that Borana refers to. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I agree with Sitush that the source is almost good enough, but it would be better if we could track down the original source. At the moment the information is only second-hand, which in my opinion is not quite enough to satisfy the biographies of living persons policy. (Although, to be clear, this is only my interpretation of the policy - it mentions self-identification in the part on categories, lists and navigation templates, but it doesn't contain anything about this specific situation.) Let me know if you have any questions about this, and please accept my apologies for the length of time that this request has been sitting unanswered. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST . REFINING THE ARTICLE . MAKING IT FREE FROM BIAS AND POV

Dear ADMIN,

I have carefully gone through wiki guidelines and standards. This article is well within the quality.

Both as a guideline and fair writeup , can we use MEDIA ARTICLES that could have been prompted by propaganda as reference, especially when on that particular issue INDIAS's highest court has given decision.

Someone could argue that he has reference of articles but i feel that should render useless as long as we know that the information in the article is false.

I propose that "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally" should be removed from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanchachink (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Infobox image: File:Narendra Damodardas Modi.jpg

This image has been published on the official flickr account used by the individual and should replace the existing infobox image. Request an admin to look into this — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The current image is just fine. Just because there is a more official one that doesn't mean we have to use that one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific issues with the official image being used on this page? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DO you have any issues with the current image being used?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The official image is how the individual concerned would like themselves to be represented. Since the image is available under a free license, it is judicious to use the image. Official images are considered to be the best representation of the individuals and are used in several cases. Please review the articles on US politicians (and others) where official portraits issued by their offices have been used in the infobox. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is potentially problematic to rely too much on the subject's own PR sources, and that this article already relies too much on the subjects own PR. The problem may be less pronounced with a picture, but I think it is worth considering.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the way they photoshopped his wrinkles out I think we ought to use the more natural image over this official one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

When official portraits of US politicians are used in the articles why not for this article? -sarvajna (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is a high quality picture and we should use it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 09:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly prefer the one in the article, it is him in his element, and far better than some photoshopped pic. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Official images are considered to be the best representation of the individuals - where is the guideline that says this? There is certainly one minor point in favour of the (yes, seemingly photoshopped) image and this is that it would cause him to face into the page, unlike our present image. See WP:MOSIM, which favours but does not require such. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

where is the guideline that says this? – As you should already know, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. There is probably no rule in the book that specifically provides preference for officially released images, however this is the general practice on Misplaced Pages with regard to biographies of living persons. Living individuals get a fair bit of lee-way in terms of how they would like to represent themselves. For instance, there are featured images of the US President Barack Obama available on the Wikimedia Commons, however an official image used by his office is presented in the infobox of the article (which is not a featured image). This image is also photo-shopped which smooths out his wrinkles and makes him appear a few shades lighter than he is. That is not an egregious problem. The official image is higher quality, in better lighting and was taken as a close-up shot rather than from a distance which is how the currently available image on the page was taken.

As you have pointed out above, WP:MOSIM states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text." There is no need to reverse the current image since there is a better available official version of the subject. In the future, if his PR machinery (yes, the seemingly omnipotent group) makes an official campaign portrait available, we should be happy to use that image.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:AUTOPROB states: "If you do not like the photo, or we do not have one, you can help Misplaced Pages by contributing a good image under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo that you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you."

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't realise the prescriptive thing applied to policies: you've said it a few times but I've never been able to track it down and just because someone keeps saying something doesn't make it so. Your initial wording, quoted by me, sounded like you were stating some policy or guideline and it now turns out to be merely your opinion based on what would appear to be a consensus obtained at the Obama article. AUTHORPROB is a sideshow: we already have perfectly acceptable images for Modi; and there is no need to reverse the current image not because we have an alternate, as you suggest, but because the guideline specifically says that. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you selectively reading what I have written above? The Obama article is a single example among hundreds or thousands of others, there are several other cases where official images, when available, have received preference over images taken or submitted by individual users. There is an overwhelming consensus on this subject. There is no doubt that the individual concerned prefers to the image they have had posted on their official Flickr account to the image that is currently being used on this page. Please see WP:BURO, 'Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy' – Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are not written in stone, and they have to be read contextually. So raising "where is the rule for that?" on every possible occasion without regard to established practice is not helpful. More than anything else, the intention behind WP:AUTOPROB was to provide reasonable regard to the wishes of the subject of the biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not selectively reading. I'm asking you to justify your comments and all I'm seeing is vagueness and perhaps a bit of irrelevance thrown in for good measure. I wonder just how many politician articles use official photos when there are decent quality alternatives, for example? I'm not terribly interested in images generally but we've had (still have) so many problems with this article that I'm reluctant to take anything as read, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely vague about what has been said above. The principle that biographies of living persons must receive proper care and due regard for their personal preferences from all editors is manifest in many ways on the project, in fact there is overwhelming consensus in favour of it. For example, we actively advise users not to include caste or religious affiliations and even sexual orientation of individuals unless there is self-identification on their part. This is done in order to respect and accommodate their personal choice wherever we can without compromising encyclopedic integrity. Agreed, there are several problems with the article, but they have to be specifically addressed in other sections on this talk page. This discussion is about which image is better suited for the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• On further deliberation I think it is reasonable to have the official photo in the infobox, additional photos can always be included in the body of the article - for example one in which he is not wearing a business suit to show the different ways in which he projects himself, or a photo of him engaging in other types of activities. For the infobox the official photo is probably the best choice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I've intimated above, I'm really not that fussed either way at the moment. I don't see how respecting personal choice regarding visual depiction can be equated with similar personal choices regarding religion and similar - that seems to be potentially based on non-neutral pandering to a subject's vanity rather than conviction/belief etc but, hey, they are more significant problems that need attention. Purely out of curiosity, I'm going to have to find out what we usually do in situations where, for example, actors are known to knock a few years off their ages! - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• You can start a new thread on the village pump to discuss how not to pander to the vanity of a biographical subject by strictly enforcing neutrality on image files. In the meantime, I am assuming that you do not have more to add to this discussion, but that you are providing your tacit consent for use of the official image on this page. Anyone else? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nick, please stop being an officious so-and-so. There is no need for it and twat-ish behaviour will only lead to twat-ish reactions. Swinging from allowing comparisons with other articles/scenarios to dismissing them, depending on which best suits a purpose, just make it really difficult to form opinions. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please do not make personal attacks. Personal attacks will be reported and appropriate action will be taken against your account until such behaviour is amended. You should probably stop attributing intentions such as "pandering to a subject's vanity rather than conviction/belief etc" to other users if you wish to be treated respectfully. Your lack of respect and collegiality towards other users does not lead to productive outcomes from any content dispute. Thanks, and I hope you will truly consider refraining yourself from employing snark while interacting with other project volunteers. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a talkpage post from you that doesn't "employ snark" Nick. Sitush was responding to your uncalled for and snarky attempt to moderate a discussion in which you are participating as an involved editor and not as an objective arbiter, and doing so in a snarky way. The fact that you couch your snark in a language of policy quotes and admin speak in fact only makes it more offensive. No one here would mistake you for an uninvolved administrator for a second, so please stop playing that card.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, you should stop lecturing others on how to behave, do not forget that you were blocked for incivility and if I am not wrong your remarks were directed at Nick in past also not to forget your various accusations against other editors.-sarvajna (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not lecturing, I am poiting out Nick's ridiculous hypocrisy. Nick needs to stop acting as if he has authority as an administrator when in fact in this area he is an involved editor just like the rest of us. Yes I was blocked for personal attacks. IF he feels this is a personal attack he is free to report it. I stand by the accusations I have made against you and other editors for being politically motivated, perhaps paid, advocates and not neutral editors. Again, anyone who reviews your contributions can make their own assessment - I just as I am entitled to mine. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Strike your accusations or I will report you .-sarvajna (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Official proposed file Image looks better and standardize .Please update .

Done. If anyone feels that it is inappropriate for me to replace the image, let me know and I'll revert. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rgpk, I think it is fine in this instance, but I would recommend that you refrain yourself from taking any administrator actions over and around articles/topics you may be involved in. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Page unprotected

I'm satisfied there's perhaps a renewed ability to collaborate productively in the wake of the discussion above, so I'm removing the protection (at Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's request), let's see how things go for a few days. Please do not expect to be able to utilise the WP:3RR rule however, any disruptive editing, single reverts made without discussion, tag team reverting or other disruptive behaviour will result in accounts being blocked and/or the article being fully protected again. Nick (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus adding contentious material

Maunus's recent and highly contentious additions to the article page have been reverted. The entire paragraph on Modi's involvement has been drafted in a highly partisan manner that reeks of POVpushing. Please discuss such contentious additions on the talk page prior to adding them by default. Please note that this is a biographical article and BLP policy applies. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Which part of his edits violated BLP then? And do not cite an essay to remove content again. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Material I added

In June 2013 Modi came under criticism after the BJP released a story saying that Modi had evacuated 15,000 Gujarati pilgrims from flooding in Uttarakhand. The story published in the Times of India claimed that Modi had commisioned four Boeings and 80 Toyota Innovas, to carry out the rescue of the Gujaratis. The actions were widely disbelieved by experts because of the sheer enormity of the task, but also criticized as they would have been a violation of rescue protocol by giving preferential treatment to Gujaratis and by carrying out the rescue without collaborating with local government in Utterakhand which had explicitly requested ministers of other states not to visit the area as they might divert attention from ongoing rescue efforts. The story was criticized as an attempt to make publicity for Modi out of the Utterakhand distaster, and create a "Rambo" image of him in the Indian public. BJP representatives later denied that Modi himself had ever stated that he had intervened in the rescue operation, and conceded that perhaps BJP PR workers had contributed to the story of Modi's personal involvement.

This is what I added, supported by dozens of sources which clearly show notability. WP:Recentism does not say that we shouldn't include recent information when it is well sourced, it says that recent material should not be given undue weight in relation to the whole. A short section on this issue is not undue weight. Especially not in relation to the weighting of other sections. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Prashant Jha (June 28, 2013). "Reporter claims Modi's '15,000' rescue figure came from BJP itself".
2. Anand Soondas (June 23, 2013). "Narendra Modi lands in Uttarakhand, flies out with 15,000 Gujaratis".
3. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-24/india/40165548_1_gujarati-pilgrims-narendra-modi-rambo
4. Smita Gupta (June 24, 2013). "Congress upset at Modi's Rambo claim".
5. "Narendra Modi wants to become a 'Rambo', milking Uttarakhand flood tragedy: Congress". June 23, 2013.
6. "Rahul Gandhi flies into storm over Uttarakhand visit after Narendra Modi row". June 25, 2013.
7. "Modi never said he rescued 15,000 people, says BJP of 'Rambo Act'". June, 26, 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. "BJP Chief Denies Modi Claimed Rescuing Gujaratis from Uttarakhand Read more at http://www.indiawest.com/news/11736-bjp-chief-denies-modi-claimed-rescuing-gujaratis-from-uttarakhand.html#Df14tOrUsfAfP8iJ.99". June 26, 2013. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 66 (help)

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