Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 23 May 2013 (Robot: Archiving 1 thread from Talk:Narendra Modi.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Narendra Modi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New section added / Citations needed for previous sections

I have added a {BLP sources} tag to point out the need for citations. I have not tried not to put too many citation needed tags so that the document does not look messy. I also had to add another section under Views and Opinions as it had just one particular view on Modi. The section contains no original research. I have noticed that many parts of the article have been subjected to Quote mining. For example the statement "Modi has also tried to turn his image from an Hindu Nationalist politician to an image of able administrator" has been quoted from a New York times article. The article states, "With a national profile clearly in mind, Mr. Modi has assiduously sought to reinvent himself from a scruffy mascot of Hindu nationalism to a decisive corporate-style administrator." With the initial part of the statement removed and a few words changed, it looks like Modi is a changed man. Some citations were incorrect too. I have also changed the contents of the section "Modi's position on terrorism". This part again was subject to Quote mining. This is because the author had changed the context to show that the acquisition of the surveillance equipment was entirely a state affair. I have changed some parts that were the author's original research with the exact statements given in the citation so that the section becomes less biased. I would like to hear from the author, if he/she has any justification for this. The last part of the section "Awards and recognitions", contains reference to an Award that has been given to Gujarat state after taking it away from Modi. Shouldn't that reference belong to some other section or page? The reference to another award above this, contains no citations at all. I hope the author provides some citations soon. I request my fellow Wikipedians to look at this article with more scepticism. --AlllllX (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As no sources are being provided for the numerous failed citation verifications and missing citations, these unsourced statements will have to be removed. I wonder why no wikipedian has yet made an attempt to discuss this problem. --Alex (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed most statements that were missing citations and were one sided --Alex (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:2002 Gujarat riots

Nick have raised an objection to adding modi to Category:2002 Gujarat violence on the ground that it is an event. But WP:BLPCAT doesn't have any such rule. It only hinders one from adding a person to a faith without the person's own affirmation and to groups (like Criminals) which are defamatory. There exist umpteen number of categories for events which include people associated with it. For example Category:People of the Iraq War or Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots. I request Nick to put forward some valid objection citing the text of the concerned rule. Aravind V R (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have included our discussion on your talk page over here. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

From User talk:Aravind V R#Narendra Modi

Hi, just letting you know that I have reverted your addition of Category:2002 Gujarat riots to the above-mentioned article since the category refers to an event or series of incidents which happened in the past, while the page Narendra Modi is a biography of an individual. Hence the category does not qualify for inclusion on that page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no such rule against including a biography to category of an event. You can search and find any number of such instances in wiki. For instance Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots -- Aravind V R (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLPCAT. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that I hadn't read this? The limitation is mainly against "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified" and adding under groups such as Criminals which are defamatory. This particular category is concerned with an event and every person associated with it are included (even the then DGP Sreekumar). Aravind V R (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you need to go and have a look again. This category does not pertain to the notability of the individual concerned. He is notable as the chief minister of Gujarat and not because of the incidents of violence in the state. There have been no convictions or rulings with reference to his alleged involvement in the incidents of violence either.

A general principle on Misplaced Pages is that policy and guideline pages are intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive and therefore they must be read in context.

"Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." (emphasis mine)

For instance, the biography of George W. Bush does not include categories with references to Iraq War, or for that matter, the biography of Indira Gandhi does not contain category references to 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. Please use caution while editing biographies of living people. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let us discuss it here. (Just saw the long discussion above). The first thing you should understand/accept is that the Gujarat riots is all what modi is notable for (in the national level). I might not have even seen his face if not for his (alleged) role in the riots. Certainly haven't heard of his name before the riots.

Regarding the 1984 riots, rajiv gandhi is included in the category under whose regime the riots happened. bush has been included in List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that is such a long list and bush's article has been already overcategorized.

I agree that till he has been convicted, he should not be added to any defamatory category. But this one is just about the event. Even the then DGP Sreekumar has been added to the list. Aravind V R (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale is unconvincing. A Chief Minister of a state of India would become notable due to the very reason that he holds the office. This biography's primary qualification for notability is the fact that he is the longest-serving chief minister of the state, and not 2002 Gujarat violence. DGP Sreehari is primarily notable for being an individual associated with 2002 Gujarat violence and its aftermath. The use of Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots is not justifiable on Rajiv Gandhi biography page. Also, there is no rule against "overcategorization" on Misplaced Pages, the practice is to liberally apply common sense. What you may have heard or what you have known is not critical. The project does not run by personal opinions and knowledge of its users but by precedent and policy. Please do not restore the category until you have built consensus on this page. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Modi's role in the Gujarat riots is as important as his Chief Ministership and his Prime Ministerial ambitions. Being the Chief Minister of a state, he might never get convicted, but that does not erase his connection with the riots.1 2 Adding the category would not outright defame him, but one cannot deny that he was an important player in the events that unfolded. The Discoverer (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Discoverer, what you have said above is original research. We go by facts and not personal opinion. Misplaced Pages is not an instrument for personal or political advocacy. Please stick to the facts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that you didn't bother to remove rajiv from the anti-Sikh riots category but did remove modi from 2002 Gujarat riots and also your insistence of naming it "violence" rather than a "riot" like 1984 expose your lack of neutral POV.

modi is certainly not famous (or infamous) for being longest serving cm of Gujarat but for the riots. Who knows the longest serving CM of Rajasthan, Assam or UP for that matter (outside those respective states)?

Modi should be included in the category just like rajiv and bush should be in 1984 and Iraq war respectively. FYI, there are guidelines regarding overcategorization. But since the category is important I have just added it to bush's page. Let us see what happens. He is a bigger hatemonger and probably would have a larger group of fan-boys "controlling" his article.

Regarding consensus I think it is you who have to prove it in your favor since I see only a few in this page going out of their way defending modi. Aravind V R (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit on George W. Bush as it was disruptive. Please be aware that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and further disruptive editing may result in revocation of your editing privileges. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know you had problem with adding that category to Bush's page (but still ok with rajiv being added!!). Ok then we shall wait for the opinion of others. And was that "revocation of privilege" a threat? Please don't get that silly and emotional. Just put your arguments to carry on the discussion. Aravind V R (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my opinion. I have stated above that it is inappropriate to place the Anti-Sikh riots category on the Rajiv Gandhi biography. Please go ahead and remove it yourself. When any user disrupts Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, they are generally issued a warning as a courtesy before an uninvolved administrator examines the situation for administrative action. There was nothing emotional about the warning issued to you. Your conduct on this page is not constructive as is demonstrated through your comments above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Please see WP:BLPCAT. Unless the requirements of our BLP policies are met, the category shouldn't be added here. If you have a problem with the policy or interpretations, then please take to WP:BLPN, but do not add the category unless the requirements listed out in our policy are met. It doesn't matter what individual editors think on reasons for it not being met, we are not here to speculate. —SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why adding the Gujarat riots category to Modi does not satisfy WP:BLPCAT. I'm paraphrasing BLPCAT, categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources ; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.. Take a look at Modi's profile on the BBC here, a source you would assume to have NPOV. It's lead speaks about three things: His chief ministership, prime ministerial ambitions, and his role in the Gujarat riots. The Discoverer (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than lamenting about Nick not removing a category in another article you can be bold and remove it, Modi or any other CMs/ PMs are known for the post they held, if there were scams in their period you don't add a category of corruption if that exsists in the article. Unless they are convicted. --sarvajna (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just about being associated with the incident. Everyone in the news regarding the incident should be added. Aravind V R (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In my simple humble opinion, Category:2002 Gujarat violence can only be added to the various articles primarily related to the violence like the one of Ehsan Jafri, who was burnt to death during the violence. The notability of Narendra Modi comes forward for his role as CM of Gujarat, and his alleged involvement in any event doesn't justifies to add a category. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is included in Category:Chief Ministers of Gujarat as well. So even if his fame is due to chiefministership, it is a non-issue here. What Nick says is that there is some rule which prohibits adding biographical articles to categories related to events even though he was so far unable to cite any. WP:BLPCAT clearly state a person can be added to a category for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources. Aravind V R (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Modi is not natable for the 2002 violence but for being a cheif minister and this is what Nick was saying. Hope you got the point. --sarvajna (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No. If he he is notable than any other CM in India, it is squarely for the riots.Aravind V R (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why you continue to misrepresent my position on this subject. I refer you to my comment from a few hours ago – . The incident does not form the primary reason why the subject of the article is notable. Narendra Modi became the chief minister of the state in 2001 and he happened to be in office during the time period when the incidents of violence occurred. There have been allegations made by notable individuals, however the courts have consistently absolved him or his government of any wrongdoing. So I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend what I have stated on your talk page and above – the 2002 Gujarat violence incidents are not relevant to the notability of the subject. Notability is established through fixed criteria which are stated and available here – WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. I have also pointed out similar pages on notable politicians whose biography pages do not contain category references to incidents and events initiated, operated or concluded either by them or their governments. Irrespective of what you know or have known about Narendra Modi, his notability was established long before 2002 Gujarat violence occurred. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and it supports inclusion of encyclopedic facts. The biography page on George W. Bush is a high-quality good article, which has been reviewed and vetted by users with significantly higher amount of editing experience than yourself. If you are interested in political advocacy, I would recommend that you start a blog and write your thoughts down there. For now, the consensus is clearly in favour of non-inclusion of the category. The users who have commented alongside me are experienced users of the projects with thousands of mainspace and projectspace edits. Please take some time to review our policies, guidelines and general practices to avoid unnecessary confrontation with other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been a lot of CMs in India. But he was the CM while the second biggest massacre of an Indian community happened in Gujarat. The incident of thousands of Indians loosing their lives is far more important than this individual. In any international news, he figures only due to his alleged role in the riot. So he is notable for this important incident that happened (whether primarily or secondarily or whatever).

What I do not understand is that even if his prime notability is of being a CM what prevents adding him to another category for which he is notable? Is there any limit on categories that can be added? I didn't ask to remove the Category Category:Chief Ministers of Gujarat but to also include Category:2002 Gujarat riots to his page.

Again, I didn't understand why you moved the Category:2002 Gujarat riots to Category:2002 Gujarat violence. If this is not a riot then what is? How the incident in 1984 can be called as a riot? Aravind V R (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But he was the CM while the second biggest massacre of an Indian community happened in Gujarat. This is not a valid statement at all. The same can be said about Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh violence right? AS for moving the category, I believe that the move was to include both the riots and other related events. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 failure in Himachal Pradesh

He went to another state and campaigned to no avail, but this is not notable because he wasn't successful? Hcobb (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it even sourced? Are there sources available? - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Modi's marriage

Long time ago it was discussed that the news about Modi's wife should not be added to the article. The diff are and . I was reverted by Sitush here who had asked for diffs which I had provided on my talk page. I thought it would be best to bring it here.--sarvajna (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I have been tardy in responding and I got caught up in some drama. I said that I'll be staying off India topics pretty much until tomorrow. Revert me if you wish and we'll pick it up then. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be reverting it as of now as it is a BLP. We can go ahead with the discussion here.--sarvajna (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is about a 62 year old person who has been the chief minister of one of India's most prosperous states for eleven years, and polls predict another term for him. India is a democratic country, thus his being in power reflects popular consensus. Repeated mention of controversial incidents makes the article lopsided, without doubt I do not argue about the reliability of the sources, I argue that the weight various incidents are given in his article make it un-encyclopaedic. We ought to have a debate on what is of enduring importance as far as an encyclopaedia goes in terms of his personal and public life and then include it in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, Gujarat violence section is the biggest section in this article. I feel its undue also is it not violation of BLP? He is not convicted of anything and I don't think there is any police complaint. Let us know the opinion of others. --sarvajna (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Now going through the article, criticism sections have been covered very well with reliable sources I must say, but at the same time the awards and recognition section is smaller than Gujarat violence. So yes if one can trace the awards and recognition with reliable sources, even those should be mentioned there. Also yes he is not convicted in the violence, but his position in government made him the central point for the entire violence, thus this article also has got plenty of mentions of him and violence with reliable sources though. But yes I completely agree with you, his recognition should also be visible in this article. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvagya, the space provided to 2002 Gujrat violence needs to reduced. I'll present a draft when I find time to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What the heck?? Why does any section have to be pruned? There's no length limit on the article is there? ALWAYS add more to the other side, don't edit out! Frankly, the language in the entire article seems far from neutral, and is supportive of Modi. Yes, he has a lot of popularity. But that's among SOME Indians. There are others -not just INC, and some MSM, but the general public who are equally strong in their opposition to him. The article doesn't reflect that at all. 220.224.246.97 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What has his age and popularity got to do with anything? - Sitush (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He has played a long innings (age), is that all we have to write about his years in politics and in office? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, what else has he been involved with? And what did you mean about the popularity? What is the relevance of the "democratic country" truism etc? Balance does not necessarily equate to pruning negative stuff: it could equally well be achieved by adding positive stuff. I accept that we do have a main article for the violence and so something could probably give a bit but I also think that the issue is central to understanding quite a lot of what went on subsequently, perhaps even including his re-elections, his entry bans and his move away from obvious caste-centric politics. I understand that he is being touted as a possible PM in 2014? - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) I wish to prune in a neutral way, per BLP guidelines, a strawman is being created when it is alleged that it is only negatives that have been sought to be removed. (2) Modi is an elected representative, a four term CM, his actions represent the consensus of the represented, it is wrong to accord too much credit or put too much blame on him as an individual. (3) Were the riots a central issue in Gujarat 2012? Or was it development, Modi claimed that he made it possible, the opposition Congress presented the shallowness of Modi's claim? They used photographs of starving Sri Lankan babies, as evidence of lopsided development in Gujarat. (4) Did Keshubhai resign or was he removed? Yogesh Khandke (talk)

January/February changes

Many of the changes made to this article in January/February are just not acceptable and will soon be reverted or modified. Please do not sanitise just because you favour the man, and please bear in mind that sections exist to organise an article. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific ? --sarvajna (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

When I have time, yes. One glaring example is the emerging section containing Modi quotes; It is not conventional, it is potential undue weight, it disrupts the flow of the article etc. I'm not saying that the quotes are unworthy of inclusion - I've not delved into the sources yet - but the placement is all wrong. Just as we deprecate "trivia" sections, so too we are generally not keen on "quotes" sections. And the style is wrong also: see WP:MOSQUOTE for why we should be using {{quote}} and not {{cquote}}.

Some other stuff is more serious but I need to thoroughly check contribution histories first because it may involve a trip to a noticeboard re: user behaviour, especially of the Hindutva variety. I'm playing catch-up at the moment so some delays and delving around are inevitable, sorry. - 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013

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

101.62.53.21 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify the request. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section in controversy about Mr.narendra Modi's marriage. I also cited the article from the OpenMagazine 2009. Can I know if this particular section doesn't violate any of the wikipedia policies. This particular controversy of his life is always a heated discussion. Hence his marital life isn't mentioned in the Personal Life category.

I have reverted you for now. There has been past discussion, per Talk:Narendra_Modi#Modi.27s_marriage, and I think that the issue needs to be revisited here before any possible appearance in the article. In addition, your contribution appeared to contain original research in the bit that was not sourced to the magazine. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The source is no idiotic gossip column. Its a well known magazine. And the paragraph I wrote clearly mentions the ambiguity in the issue. Isn't marital status of a person a part of his bio-page? Can you please either state him as a life long bachelor in the personal life section or mention the controversy around the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.39.133 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

International diplomacy

Should we have the recent visit of US Congresspersons mentioned? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Congressmen represent the official government line in the US then perhaps yes as a counterpoint to his earlier problems concerning visas etc; otherwise, no because it would be akin to implying that, for example, the visits of George Galloway (a British political oddball) to various extremist regimes somehow represents the UK government position regarding those regimes. A Congressman from, say, Oregon has no authority regarding either US domestic or foreign policy and is entitled to meet whomever he or she chooses & make whatever press statements he or she wishes. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The visit is not as official as the "visa" decision for sure. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OBC

Editors have used this source to write that Narendra Modi is from a other backward class, to be honest I do not have any issue with that but I as far as I know there is a policy that the subject atleast people who are still not dead need to identify themself with some cast and till then we cannot write that X is either a OBC or something else, correct me if I am wrong. If we cannot use this source to write that he is from OBC we also cannot write He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination . I and Sitush were having a discussion on his talk page as he had written he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so. This is perfect if we consider the source but I objected with its placement. I feel this cannot be included in the personal life section, the only other section which I think is suitable is "2012 Elections". However we just cannot pick up this one thing about 2012 election, we may need to cover more about his manifesto and other things.--sarvajna (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of misplacement, "demolition of many illegal Hindu temples" doesn't fit in personality section. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it, I do feel that it needs to be mentioned somewhere atleast for balance because the biggest sections of this article is about 2012 riots, sometimes I feel that this article need to be re-written. --sarvajna (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It definitely has to stay in the article. But that has nothing do with his personality. Thanks for removing from there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I do wish people would use their noodle. If something is in the wrong place then move it, don't just delete it. If you do the latter then it gives the appearance that you are attempting to censor. Modi is an arch-manipulator - most prominent politicians are - but there is no need for us to join in. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Other Backward Class as Sitush rightly pointed out isn't about caste. Muslims, Jains, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs everyone is included if his community is backward in terms of development. There is another parameter that applies and that is income: No family whose income is above Rs. 4,50000 per year (about USD 700 per month) can have its members claim OBC status. It therefore is ridiculous to make statements like "Modi belongs to the OBC" based on election time news reports that suggest that "Modi's going to bat for the OBCs". I suggest it be taken off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources that I have seen, which include people like Christophe Jaffrelot, say that he is from an OBC family and that the BJP etc have or plan to exploit his OBC connection. I have no idea what Modi earns nor what (if any) financial qualification criteria there may be but politicians appealing deliberately or by inference to their background when seeking votes is a common tactic around the world. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So are we ok to include it if it is not self identified? --sarvajna (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IMO all that allows us to write is, "Jaffrelot alleges that BJP plans to exploit his OBC connection", that is not the same as painting him with a colour he himself may not associate with. Has he bracketed himself as a OBC as Mundhe or Bhujbal have? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot remember the context in which Jaffrelot refers to it, but "alleges" is always the wrong choice of word when dealing with the output of an academic with considerable subject experience. We would have to say "says". However, the tactic of using the OBC connection came from newspaper reports and interviews. I don;t have time to track them down again right now but if, for example, the tactical comment came from someone senior in Modi's party it would probably merit inclusion. Framing it neutrally is the tricky bit and that is what I was trying to do when the content was deleted (someone else had added it initially and they had put it in the lead section, which was clearly undue). Anyway, I've got enough reading on other stuff to do, so you'll have to dig around yourselves. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

All I know is that Modi has not yet sold himself as an OBC leader, so is anyone claims otherwise the sources have to be more matter of fact than the present ones as far as I am concerned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush was using two sources one was this one, no where it says that Modi has identified himself with OBC, yes you may be right about the tactics but that doesn't merit an inclusion in his personal life section saying He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class ..... he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so.--sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Hindustan Times summit of 2007, Modi had claimed that his family did not have a caste. The video is available here (relevant part begins at 6:40). I am translating his reply to a question on "Why politics is based on religion, caste and gender, and not ability?" from Hindi to the best of my ability:

I have been born into a family which has no caste, from which no one has ever participated in politics. I am an exceptional case who does not have a Jāti, Biraderi etc. I have been born into an ordinary rural family and no one in my home is a graduate.

Unless he has explicitly changed his position on this since 2007, IMO we shouldn't mention his caste or even the fact that he is an OBC leader in the section on personal life. That being said, his and BJP's tactics of milking the OBC vote can be mentioned in a separate paragraph/section on electoral strategy. And while opinion pieces, editorial commentary etc. need to be attributed, "alleges" would not be an appropriate substitute for "says". Correct Knowledge 17:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is uncontroversial that BJP has been "milking" the OBC vote using Modi, then we need not have "alleges", but we need evidence for that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If your are explicitly attributing a statement to a particular author, like in the Jaffrelot example above, it is absolutely clear that the statement is only the author's opinion/analysis and not a statement of fact. Substituting "says" with "alleges" is unnecessary. Correct Knowledge 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is a negative, minority view, then? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's a minority view then WP:DUE applies. If the author who holds the view has known (read reliably sourced) conflict of interest then that can be mentioned as a descriptor. For instance, Manish Tewari, spokesperson of Congress, said....Correct Knowledge 17:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Though Modi is from an OBC caste, he is well in tune with the upper caste ethos, largely because of his RSS training. Moreover, he projects himself as an ascetic fully devoted to the cause of the people, a 'Karmayogi', like so many pracharaks. ..." And more about his position as at 2010 here. As I said, I was trying to develop the content when it was removed; as I've also said, removing something completely just because it is in the wrong place borders on being censorship, however well-intentioned. You may find more in this, which I downloaded from JSTOR. I'll try to take a proper look at the issue but no promises. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jaffrelot says Modi belongs to an OBC caste, Modi refuses to identify with any caste per CW's video. Doesn't Modi prevail per Misplaced Pages rules? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Access not available to the epw article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Sitush has said more than once that his content was removed, this is what he had written He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination - he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so (emphasis mine). Sitush was/is one of those person who actually supported self identification of caste but when it comes to the article of Modi, Jaffrelot is enough. Unless I am misreading anything here --sarvajna (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You are. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Here Sarvajna is misreading you, at another place I am the culprit. There may be others too. We need to start a category: Editors who misread Sitush. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Polical stance?

It seems completely ridiculous to have a biography of a leading politician without once mentioning his political views or the type of party he is a member of. The page links to the parties and movements that he is affiliated with, but without giving a description of their political stances, and only using their indian names. The average reader has no way to judge form the leade whether he is a moderate, a libertarian, a communist or a Hindu Nationalist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a section of his political views, you are most welcome. That would be very different from what you tried to do. You added undue weightage. What kind of party the BJP is and the political views of L.K Advani can be mentioned in the respective articles. --sarvajna (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not undue weight to mention the stance of a political party that most readers are unlikely to be familiar with, it is in fact a logical necessity if an encyclopedia means to inform their readers. It is completely nonsensical not to mention it - readers come here to understand what kind of a politician he is and what he stands for. The Lead HAS to include his political standpoint and that of the BJP. And the lead has to summarize the article and give a general overview of the topic. Modi is notable for his politics and currently the lead does not describe them at all. The descriptions of the parties that I supplied were sourced and taken directly from the articles on those parties. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not the problem of the source, it is the problem of the weightage, the description of the party will be in the page of that party. People will click that link if they want to know more about the party. As I said you can have a new section called Political Views and put things there if you want to write about Modi's political views. Lead mentions his political affiliations and that is more than enough.--sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. We have a politician described as controversial with not a single clue as to what is controversial about his politics, or even what they are at all - that is ridiculous.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was checking the article of Margaret Thatcher I do not see the lead mentioning her political views, you can note that it is a good article. --sarvajna (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Try to read it again. The definition is: "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was a British Conservative Party politician." ..."As Prime Minister, she implemented conservative policies that have come to be known as Thatcherism."..."Her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the privatisation of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess you read it wrong, "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was a British Conservative Party politician." It is the name of the party. (In any case I do not see that, all I see in the first line is Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was a British politician, the longest-serving (1979–1990) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of the 20th century, and the only woman to have held the post ) Yes you are right about the second thing. I was wrong, may be we can add the political philosophy of Modi in the lead.However that would not mean writing what kind of party the BJP is, the views of RSS and Advani. Also in your previous edit you gave the translated name in place of the real name, now the article says He has been a member of the National Patriotic Organization (RSS) since childhood, having an interest in politics since adolescence. He holds a master's degree in political science. In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Indian People's Party (BJP) Give the translation in a bracket --sarvajna (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You are very funny Rtnakar. I inserted those bolded phrases myself. Before we had only the Hindi names which are meaningless for most English speaking readers. And we still dont describe what Indian Peoples Partys political platform is, the British Conservative Party has their platform in their name the BJP doesnt.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not understand my last concern, there is not party called Indian People's Party even if there is one Modi is not a member of it, ditto about RSS. We need to mention the real names, translation if any should be mentioned in the brackets. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. we do not have the article of BJP titled Indian People's Party. I am sorry to say this is plain common sense. --sarvajna (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then put the translations in brackets, instead of removing it. Right now the article gives NO INFORMATION about his political standpoints at all for people who don't understand hindi or are already familiar with indian politics. That is not commonsense, but verges on wilfully misleading the reader.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ratnakar. The names of the organizations that the subject of the biography is affiliated with are accurately reflected in their native names. This is an international encyclopedia, which, though written in English, is written with the perspective of accurately reflecting verifiable and reliable sources. For instance, the article on the parliament of Japan is entitled "National Diet", rather than "National Parliament (Japan)". Similarly, the article on Barack Obama does not mention that he is affiliated with the 'left-liberal Democratic Party'. That would be a wide and grossly inaccurate generalization. The term "conservative" has very different meanings in different countries. In the erstwhile Soviet Union, it would be a reference to communist ideas, and in the United States it refers to an ideology completely opposed to communism.

Also, please stop bullying other users with aggressive comments on the talk page. Misplaced Pages appreciates constructive and respectful engagement with other members of the community. They are all volunteers who are putting in their valuable free time in the service of Misplaced Pages (as I hope you are), and showing some basic courtesy will go a long way in your effort to improve this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

such as your very respectful and courteous reversion of a goodfaith edit using twinkle and without adding an editsummary, and your subsequent very respectful comment on my talkpage requiring me to discuss every edit on the talkpage before I am allowed to edit? If that is your idea of respectful dialogue then I think I am able to play that game.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The article as it is now is not Neutral as it does not give any hint of the fact that Modi and the party he represents is on the Right Wing of indian politics, nor much less give a explanation, analysis or critique of the viewpoints of the Hindu Nationalist Right. This is is mentioned in a huge amount of sources that need to be represented in the article. The Gujarat violence is mentioned vaguely without in any way describing how Modis involvement has been criticized. It says that he has refused to apologize, but gives no hint about what he has been asked to apologize about. It doesn't mention the rather substantial evidence that exists for his involvement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what is wrong with the article. We would all appreciate if you could provide your input on the talk page first as to how you would like to specifically address each and every issue on the article. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I am specific enough here, and I am pointing this out on the talk page, and no I dont need to do that before editing the article. And who exactly are the "we" you are talkng about? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Modi represents BJP, it is made very clear in the very first line. You can check the article of Rahul Gandhi or Manmohan Singh or may be Atal Bihar Vajpayee, we do not write anything of that kind which you are saying. What kind of party the BJP is or its agenda should be part of BJP's article not this article. This is not some forum to discuss the critical viewpoints of Hindu Nationalists. Have you even read the article?? 2002 Riots is one of the biggest section in the whole article. A lot has been covered and not to forget he was exonerated by the law and as a matter of fact the section of 2002 Riots needs some culling. Again wikipedia is not a forum to discuss 2002 riots.--sarvajna (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to discuss the riots, and I am not using this page as a forum - please stop wikilawyering and address the substance of my concerns. I am pointing out what is abundantly clear - namely that this page has a couple of owners who wants to keep mention of actual descriptions of politics out of the biography of a politician who is running for office, and who are using spurious argumentation to do so. I have referred this issue to the NPOV note board to request outside comments. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns in my comment, I just checked you comment on NPOVNB. I do not see any specific concerns made by you there as well just some general thing. I am removing the NPOV tag. There is no ownership problems here, only your edits did not make any sense.Proper explanation was provided to you. --sarvajna (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are umpteen POV issues with this article and there have been for some time. Some are mentioned in prior discussions, some are visible at various user talk pages (not ideal, I know). This article has been "softened up" over the last few months. Sure, it was not particularly good in the first place but I for one had made attempts some months ago to tidy things, to sort out citations, to remove undue content and add under-represented content, etc. I left it alone for a bit, came back and the thing had begun a process practically of being sanitised. We know Modi is clever with PR and with the use of IT: don't let us allow him or his supporters to manipulate Misplaced Pages to suit those ends, please. The man has a very chequered history but is considered to be a possible future head of India and is positioning himself as such. We need to cover all aspects of the person with equal weight and neutraliy etc. For example, there have been several recent removals of perfectly valid, sourced content where the objection has been really regarding placement - if something is in the wrong place then move it, amend it to suit if necessary but don't delete it. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, everyone has their biases and political affiliations. Let us not bring that into discussion, lest you want others to question your motivations. It is possible to edit this article in a manner that complies with Misplaced Pages's NPOV requirements. If you think this article has been "sanitized", please feel free to specifically address the most important issues on the article over here so we can consensually find a solution for improving this biography. The end result should be an encyclopedic article, not something found in a tabloid. Thanks, — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is rapidly becoming a tabloid. If anyone wants to question my motivations then feel free: as an atheist, apolitical, non-Indian, I really do not have much to play for here, do I? I've never even heard Modi speak or read a speech by him, nor indeed have I ever seen him in a video/on film. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion was not ended by me but because of your lack of participation, the rational behind deletion was very much explained, I am not sure what what you mean when you say that the article was sanitised, you need to be more specific about it. If there are any POV issues then they are the excessive importance given to 2002 riots which I do not see you making any mention. Keep your personal opinion about Modi with yourself. --sarvajna (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment above, Sitush. I understand your concerns too (just saw your email). On the other hand, I also agree that there is UNDUE weight being given to certain sections such as "2002 Gujarat violence" and "Google+ hangout", and issues such as these have to be addressed thoughtfully. I think it is possible for us all to work together to write an NPOV article by working together. We can, hopefully, start off with the section on his early life and work on expanding it. We can move on to the other sections later on. We can always use other well-written articles on politicians as a reference for our work on this page (e.g. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush etc.). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, start at the top; leave the lead until last because that is intended to summarise the article. When we get to the Gujarat section, stuff is going to hit the fan because it is far and away the thing that Modi is most known for, like it or not - as one of the sources says, many of his enemies compare him to Hitler and other such characters. But let's do the easy stuff first ... and the Early life section is very poorly written. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely portions where a broader viewpoint is necessary for NPOV to be maintained. For eg: the Sadbhavana Mission was widely seen to be Modi projecting himself as a prime-ministerial candidate, yet what we have here is propaganda: "a three-day fast aimed at strengthening the atmosphere of peace, unity, and harmony in the state". There's also the fact that we have happily printed here his dubious claim that because of his diplomacy, "Chinese Government released 13 diamond traders from India jailed by the Shenzhen Customs".

Yet strangely, there's little about his achievements in governance and development, which is the main thing he and his fans are proud of. On the other hand, excessive importance is given to his comments in combating terrorism.—indopug (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is biased....Under awards section there is mention about the times magazine and the authour made a violation of the neutrality by just including His leadership was described as being strong and businesslike; one that could guide India towards honesty and efficiency where as the original issue features Modi, with the caption: "Modi means business but can he lead India? Also the original article describes Modi as a "controversial, ambitious and shrewd politician". The source which is mentioned in wiki itslf says soShivramkrishnareddy (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that is why the article wears the "controversy" remark on its sleeve. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

It appears that we will have to decide which image is more suitable to be in the infobox. Currently, we have two free versions of the image available with us and I have linked to them below. I think the previous image with the Swami Vivekananda background is more suitable since it is available in a higher resolution and was taken while he was speaking in a public place. The current image, on the other hand, is of low quality, taken indoors with another individual in the background. I recommend that the previous image be restored.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree --sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Vivekananda image also has the Swami in the background. :) I moved to the body of the article as it can be used to show that SV was his inspiration.

But you're right about the current infobox image being of low quality. I think the best solution is to trim ABD 0165 into a portrait crop. In the article body, we can use the uncropped version.—indopug (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Beware of subliminal influences, which is what happens when Vivekananda is shown. ABD is dreadfully washed-out on my screen but, hey, maybe my eyesight is getting a bad as my hearing. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The practice on Misplaced Pages is to allow the subject of BLPs to be represented in the best possible manner in pictorial representations. This is easily applicable to BLPs on US politicians since their images are available in the public domain on a government website. e.g. File:Rand Paul, official portrait, 112th Congress alternate.jpg (notice the flags in the background) or File:Garyjohnsonphoto - modified.jpg (where his campaign manager submitted the image). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the practice is. I am also aware of WP:POV. Sticking an image of Modi with Swami Vivekananda in the background, particularly when elections are coming up, is a subliminal reference. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indopug, if the washed-out version can be cropped then that resolves the Vivekananda issue (although it will still be washed-out). However, we do not use images twice in the same article and thus the suggestion of using an uncropped version in the body seems wrong to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to images and Misplaced Pages does not concern itself with elections. For now, I think, we agree that the current image is not suitable. The proposed image (ABD) was taken in a public place where the subject of the article was fully expecting himself to be photographed with the specific background. This should be sufficient rationale for us to accept the image as is, and wait until we have a better image available for use with us. We can also consider writing to his office to see if they can present us with a shot of their preference. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, of which images form a part. And where did you get the idea that I agree that the current image is not suitable? Or were you referring to the consensus when you said "we"? - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have presented you with examples, yet you are pointing me to a non-existent Misplaced Pages decree against use of "subliminal" messaging in pictures. Perhaps you should consider that the reason why the article is in the current situation is because of biased editing on both sides, rather than simply being the case with your opponents? There are three people above saying that the current image is of low quality, with Indopug additionally suggesting cropping the proposed image. That makes 3-1. In any case, I reiterate, NPOV does not apply to images, and subjects of biographies are given leeway in being represented in the best possible manner, which is why even though there are several high resolution and good quality and free images available for so many US politicians, the ones that are used are those determined by their offices. We do not have the luxury in our case, however, we do have an image available with us of the subject with a preferred background of their choice. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

May be it is POV because Sitush thinks that it is, well I wonder who is showing WP:OWN attitude here. --sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have opponents here - how many times do I have to say that I have no investment in this. I am merely saying that there is a subliminal message there and we should avoid it if we can: "beware" is not the same as "do not use it". If you were referring to consensus then that's fine; if you were referring to me then it is not - I think that it is a washed-out image. I have no idea what other images may be available for Modi - as I implied earlier, I've never seen the man except in this article.- Sitush (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I tell a lie: I've seen photos of him in the sources that are used but, of course, they are copyrighted so I've paid no attention. I really wouldn't recognise him if he walked past me in the street. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is any message to be honest I never thought about that until now let there be one, it is a good quality pic. --sarvajna (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No surprise there, then. That is why I used the word subliminal. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the image until a better version can be found. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall a facility somewhere for requesting images. Or was that just the tag that can be put near the top of article talk pages? - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was just the template for article pages. I will write to his office and see if they respond with a few relevant images for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cropped the ABD image in the infobox into a portrait (you might need to purge your cache to see the new version), because the point of an infobox image is to easily identify the subject. In the article body I've added a different image of Modi with Vivekananda in the background. I hope this addresses all concerns.—indopug (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Do not crop images. Upload a separate one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fixed.—indopug (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Indopug, that is not what was agreed and you couldn't just add photos on your will by giving underline notes without proper source. Please remove the second photo as you are trying to convey subliminal message there and we should avoid it if we canShivramkrishnareddy (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Personality sub-section

What is the point of He is a crowd puller as a speaker. Modi wears "business suits to business meetings". There may be some useful information in the cited source but I', pretty sure it is not this pair of inanities. Most senior politicians, and especially those who utilise their skills in demagoguery, are "crowd-pullers". As for suits, well, I'd be surprised if he turned up in swimming-trunks for a business meeting. It is the exception that would be of interest, the classic example of which is perhaps Gandhi's tour of the mill-towns of northern England. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the good laugh I had at your comment, am still shaking as I'm typing it, actually I think NYT means that though Modi wears Indian clothes most of the times he's started to wear "business suits to business meetings". (P. Chidambaram for that matter wears white lungi and bush shirt many times. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about the crowd puller thing but the business suits thing can/should be removed --sarvajna (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone of note who is connected to the RSS/BJP pulls big crowds - they are corralled in there if necessary. The same applies to most political rallies worldwide. It is inane. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The personality section should not be a part of "Early life". We can work on that later. For now, if possible, let us please collect all available sources for us on the subject over here so we can analyze and comment on them. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is a part of "Early life", although I've long said that it should not be. I'll promote it now and maybe later we'll move it to where it should be, which is almost certainly not at the top end of the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: The suits info makes sense when read after "is known for leading a frugal lifestyle". For the "crowd-puller", the actual line in the reference is "With national elections under way, Mr. Modi is the biggest crowd-puller for India’s main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party." Using a superlative degree within a stated category makes sense, as is done in the original source. A random crowd-puller with no comparison as is in our article makes little sense. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the source is 4 years old, so although I presume that he still is the biggest crowd-puller for the BJP it might not be the right thing to say. As for frugal lifestyles, I take such things with a pinch of salt. Harold Wilson famously smoked a pipe and drank beer in public so that he gave the appearance of being a common man, but in private he was a brandy-drinking cigar smoker. He is not the only example, and we already know that Modi is image-conscious (like most politicians, I hasten to add). This is a part of the problem: how do we reflect information that seems mostly to emanate from Modi himself without descending into weasel wording. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... You may actually remove the crowd-puller bit for (i) it being quite old (though it still could be true) and (ii) it most probably being a general statement made by a not-so-notable reporter. Had the statement been made by any politician (preferably non-BJP) or some reputed reporter or columnist, etc. then it could go in as a quote. For the dressing, one may rephrase that "Modi is often seen in khadi and traditional Indian clothes but also wears business suits to business meetings." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says 'He is a complete loner' , 'Prefers to eat alone ', 'Entertains no relatives: Even his mother does not stay with him' ,'Is only good at mass interactions ','Is obsessed with his public image' and is a 'workaholic . But the authour has taken only the fact that he is 'workaholic' . The entire section need to be removed Shivramkrishnareddy (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very tendentious use of the source indeed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Early life section: discussion

• The Rediff source says that his family were "grocers"; the next source, which refers to his parents' names and regarding which we have actually breached copyright, goes into much more detail. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• We really should not be using his official website for things such as During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations. For those in doubt, have a read of the biographical sections there: they are very self-serving. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Aren't they just simple facts or do you consider them tall claims, the former we can use from websites attached to the subject, the later we cant. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• ... but we might have a problem sourcing elsewhere. I think that I hit this issue of contradictory "official" accounts etc a few months ago. NB: link is an excerpt from an "authorised-turned-unauthorised" biography. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sitush. I generally agree that the use of primary sources ought to be minimal, however they can be used for straight-up factual information unless an exceptional and opinionated claim is made (e.g. "he's awesome!"; see WP:SELFSOURCE). Similarly, the feature story in the Caravan Magazine also comprises a primary source as it is a written investigative account and opinion piece by a journalist. Straight-forward and descriptive assertions made in the article which can be backed by other secondary reliable sources can be used in the article, however, all exceptional claims that are not backed by secondary sources should be avoided. Please note that exceptional claims must be backed by exceptional sources (see WP:REDFLAG). You will find that several of these media publications have a self-serving agenda of their own. On Misplaced Pages, we must learn to sift through the muck. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• You are preaching to the converted. But if he cannot even keep his own story straight, and nor can his friends, then we really do have a problem with SPS in a BLP. We'll need either to show all the variations or to show the most recent. The former would be the way that differing opinions are shown when secondary sources disagree; the latter would give Modi the optimal point of personal preference (it would be the version that he currently abides by). I'm not sure which way to go but if we do the former then it could be a very long article. Oddly, his official bio at present doesn't give his birth date, merely that it was in September 1950 - that is exactly the sort of info that we usually do consider to be ok to take from SPS (although sometimes it needs qualifying if secondaries say they mess around with their age). - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally

The paragraph should start with "He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally..." and then explains why. Not the way it is now. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to say he is controversial withoput giving even the faintest hint of why that might be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I couldn't understand why your change of sentence-ordering was reverted earlier today but did not have time to comment. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards and recognitions

Under awards section there is mention about the times magazine and the authour made a violation of the neutrality by just including the favourable points only.The entry in wiki says 'his leadership was described as being strong and businesslike; one that could guide India towards honesty and efficiency ' where as the original issue features Modi, with the caption: "Modi means business but can he lead India? Also the original article describes Modi as a "controversial, ambitious and shrewd politician". All these mentions were omitted when it was added to wikipedia. The source cited itself has all these points and they were omitted deliberatelyShivramkrishnareddy (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We read and replied. Controversy is written on Modi's forehead, metaphorically meant: actually in the lead, why splash it all over the place? "Can he lead India" is a question, that is attempted to be answered in the article. Modi did feature on the Times cover, didn't he? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. The one positive sounding adjective has clearly been cherry picked from an otherwise fairly critical source. That is tendentious editing. Saying that someone is controversial provides no information whatsoever. We of course have to describe why that is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We have considerable text describes the alleged reasons as to why Modi is considered controversial, Modi is on the Time cover not for the controversy but for his leadership was described as being strong and businesslike; one that could guide India towards honesty and efficiency ' the violence occurred ten years before the cover story. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no text in the lead that describes the reason he is controversial. The article barely mentions it but in entirely exculpatory wordings, never mentioning the actual substance of the accusations. The fact that the Times ask "can he lead india" is exactly an expression of doubt of his ability to be a uniting figure given his divisive agenda and problematic past. The article here is even less critical than the Times article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead section provides sufficient context for the controversy linking to 2002 Gujarat violence. The body text further elaborates on the reason behind the controversy. Given the fact that he has been absolved of any wrongdoing, there is no reason as to why a detailed explanation needs to be provided in the lead section. Please review WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. And yes it there are reasons we should describe how he is controversial, and I gave those reasons above. Please review WP:NPOV.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The actual Time article on him seems to be pretty even in praising him and being apprehensive of his riots record.—indopug (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a primary source, we can't look at that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is not a primary source, it is a news article, and even if it were we could still use it - and you were just saying yourself we should adopt its "good for business praise". What gives? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Time story is a primary source when we write about the Time story, that is elementary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a time story when we write about Modi. Then it is a high quality secondary source, which is also incidentally critical and not just praising his business skills.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Use another story to write about the Time story. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, I am not suggesting to use the Times article to write about the Time article, but to write about Modi. Just like we use a wealth of other news articles to do so. Times is a reliable secondary source about Modi.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if you see how this thread started that is what I assumed you said, again the Time story is uneasy with facts, it says 2000 Muslims were killed by Hindus, whereas 790 Muslims and not all were riot deaths a part of them were rioters killed by the police. So we have to separate grain from the chaff. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to pick the nice things from a source and then say it is unreliable about the negative things. You have to make up your mind. And if you want to challenge claims in an otherwise reliable source you have to present better sources, not just your own claim that it is mistaken.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't quite like the way you present it. In a BLP any controversy would need exceptional sourcing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what BLP says, it says any exceptional claim needs exceptional sourcing, particularly if it is controversial. Critiques of Modi and descriptions of why he is controversial are not exceptional claims they are the rule and appear in ALL reliable sources I have had a chance to look at. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They are allegations and accusations, not a single one has been proved in 11 years. In the meanwhile he has lead his party through three election victories, we need to take the hyperbole with a pinch of salt. We are editing an encyclopaedia not writing a tabloid article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry but there is nothing in any policy we have that says that the inclusion of allegations and accusations is limited to those that have been proven in a court of law. What determines whether allegations and inclusions are to be included is solely their notability which is a function of how frequently they are referred to in reliable sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in any policy? A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. (Please look it up at the BLP page.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another irrelevant statement since no one is trying to insert claims about his guilt but rather noting the nature of the accusations AND the fact that they are unsubstantiated in court. According to your ridiculous standards we couldn't mention that a person had been in court for murder allegations and then acquitted. Again, you are wasting time and I will not abide it much longer before requesting administrative interaction against your tendentious filibustering tactics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

2002 polls

There was a cn tag in the 2002 poll section with the statement that BJP won 127 seats. I changed it to 126 with this ref as support. However, our article on Gujarat legislative assembly election, 2002 also states for 127 seats and lists 127 wins also. Any idea where this list is taken from? This source gives us poll results of 1998 (although it says 2002 on top, inside there are results of 1998 and they mention it that way too). Another ref counts 126 for BJP, 51 for Congress and 4 for others. But that sums to only 181 whereas GUJ Assembly is of 182. So is the right figure 127? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the report of 2002 elections from Election Commission of India, it states BJP won 127 seats, INC 51 and 4 for others which sums up to 182 seats. Hope this helps. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the link. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

I understand that the information about support from the upper castes was removed from the lead because it was not already present in the body, and because the wording could be read as conflating class and caste. The source used however is talking about the BJP and Modi support in general and does not support the claim that the composition of supporting voters differ between Gujarat and Northern India - that claim would require different sources. The Jaffrelot source also specifically states that in spite of Modis OBC background he is able to get support mostly from the upper castes by projecting himself with as an ascetic karmayogi. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this can be added at the end of the section on Second Term or beginning of "Third term". I also support adding BJP's caste based electoral strategy in "Fourth term" which probably needs to be retitled "Campaign for Prime Ministership". We had discussed something similar on this talk page here. Let's start with that, lead will eventually have to be rewritten. But let's leave it for now. Correct Knowledge 20:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2002 Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Wharton management deliberating on allowing Modi to speak : The American Bazaar