Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Uttarakhand floods controversy section

I suggest to compress Uttarakhand floods controversy section in one or two lines as it do not hold much importance in relation to person. And also this controversy was arose due to false media report. If it sounded right to be removed than remove it. Please put your opinion below. Nizil (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

[1] Been discussed already. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nizil a bunch of users comprising Darkness Shines, Maunus, RegentsPark, Sitush have formed a cartel. They continue to add objectionable material in the article which is supposed to follow BLP policies. For any discussion, they agree among themselves and term it as decision arrived through CONSENSUS; while for any objection, they threaten to block/ notify the user. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Were you not already warned of the discretionary sanctions for exactly the same accusations you are making again? Do I really have to go to AE to get you to stop with these allegations? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to know the reason about consistently adding negative material in Modi's article, while at the same time desisting from anything that amount to criticism/ libelous for any other politician. Anything negative that is related to Mr Modi, whether correct/ verified or not is included in the article, even amounting to making it as Wikipedia voices, making a mockery of Wikipedia rules. No other leader has been maligned and vilifiedin a way Mr Modi does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:d660::b99 (talk • contribs)

If you want to propose an edit then write one up and it can be discussed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

. niticentral newsletter .

, Defence.pk newsportal. " This is just an example of a media/NGO nexus that believes strongly in 'truth by repeated assertion', a successful tactic by the Communists too....."

, Deshgujrat news portal " The Indian Mainstream Media i.e. Print & Electronic have never been covert in displaying their antipathy towards Narendra Modi. Commending him for the development in Gujarat has often been synonymous with attracting a Communal tag. ......"

, The Outlook India. " The systematic demonisation of Narendra Modi in the media began with .....".

, IBTL news portal " When it comes to matters involving selective quoting, no one can beat Indian media. That too when the matter involves Narendra Modi or Gujarat, you can always expect one or the other media house goofing up.....".

, Rediff news " ....there is a concerted campaign to malign him and somehow prevent him from assuming a leadership role.".

, Hillpost news portal. " ...he is vilified as communal and anti-minorities by the same party that presided over more than two hundred anti-Muslim riots in the seventies and eighties in Gujarat.". This all need to be put in the article as well.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Zeeyanwiki, your statement on my talk page does not make too much sense; "Your perspective might be fair or correct to some extent but any state enjoys high growth rate have a further growth rate is obviously slower than the low economy states.Your statement in lead section cast him in negative light whereas that might not be the case among the masses or media.Statement in lead section need strong evidences from reliable sources where the primarily suspect needs to be the person in question.What i have written in edit summary is than it is not the leader among HDI but where is the actual criticism,Nowhere and that is essential for any BLP." what precisely does this mean? The sources say that Modi's government has not had an impact upon Human Development, in very clear terms. So I say in the lead "his admin has been criticized for" which is a neutral way of putting it, as opposed to "he has not had positive impact" which would, indeed, be biased. One of the sources is an academic paper; Sarvajna, how do you call that unreliable? As for this being about his administration, so is the earlier point about economic growth. If that remains, this should as well. If you're really being honest here, you would remove that, too. Vanamonde93 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs)

I do not agree with your comments,If realiable newspapers like The Hindu,Hindustan times has given such statements then it is the case,For BLP these lightweight sources with no clear evidence do not make any sense.Show me where he has been criticized solely by any reliable newspapers or Magazines.Then you would make your point.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 18:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An academic source is a lot more reliable than newspaper, what on earth do you mean by lightweight source? Jaffrelot is a very well known scholar, with decades of publishing history......tell me exactly why you think a newspaper is more reliable? It's easy to find such, there's plenty more evidence. The statement I put in says "criticism", not "media criticism". You need to be more clear with your objections; ungrammatical sentences that do not mean anything don't help. What do you mean criticized "solely" by any reliable paper or magazine? User:Darkness Shines, you might have something to say about this. Vanamonde93 20:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So here are your "reliable" newspapers making exactly the same point. The academic sources were probably better, for obvious reasons; but if this satisfies you, then I'm willing to add these as well. If you have some substantive objections, please make them now. I still fail to see how the Jaffrelot paper is "lightweight," "with no clear evidence," and all the other stuff you spouted. It is a rigorously researched journal article.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]

Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Commenting, Jaffrelot is a solid source, reverting a peer reviewed journal source is beyond parody, the only question here is ought it be in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a difficult question; on the balance, though, I feel that a) the praise about economic growth is in the lead and b) the criticism is from a minority but is by no means from a fringe group. So it seems to me appropriate to the lede. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If jafferlot is a reliable,it's ok but first thing is that the link is not working,the my only question is where he has been criticized publicily and for lead section it need better two or more sources with clear indication..I just checked the link.It is not appropriate in the lead section.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 02:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolute and utter nonsense, Amartya Sen is not lightweight neither is Jaffrelot, neither are the many other sources. And even if they are the criticicism is still widespread, notable and necessary for the article to conform to NPOV. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of doing all such thing,just show me where he has been criticized personally so i wont remove anything,Done---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 03:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

" Modi used extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric...." shown as Wikipedia's voice. Hope it's a criticism too harsh, libelous and prejudiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Amartya Sen is not lightweight, but it was his personal opinion, did Sen publish a paper about his findings? NO,he did not, Jaffrelot, even he is nor lightweight, I have not checked the source but just want to tell that we have no reason to mention something in the lead unless we have it in the body. -sarvajna (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

[7] It is in the body? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• The so called " failed positive impact " should be changed to "alleged by some". There are sources which says there is improvement under Modi. , ,"Gujarat has improved under Modi at a rate greater than national average....., The drop in share of population below poverty line in rural areas between 2004-05 and 2009-10 has been remarkable in Gujarat at 13% reduction (from 39% to 26%), which puts Gujarat among the top few states in this parameter. (Tendulkar methodology, compared between 2004-05 and 2009-10, Page 45 of 232, Planning Commission Report).......the improvement of HDI in Gujarat is a shade better than national average ". , "Gujarat has lowest unemployment under Modi" Gujarat has improved under Modi at a rate greater than national average.
• The factors only upto 2008-9 are taken while calculating various indices. In comparisan to India, Gujarat developed at a higher rate. Keeping aside all these figures, it is interesting to note that it is the only politician Modi in whose article Wikipedia has put it's own voice in criticising, whether as "failed to make a positive impact...." ,"used extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric....", " is a controversial figure...". Some users citesmedia sources/ authors' papers while conviniently ignoring policies about Wikipedia that wikipedia's voice should not be given while criticising. I have not came across any other politician like this. Even though many media sources also point towards the same vilification by media, still no account of the same in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point the sentence in question is very neutral in tone; "his administration has received criticism for failing" as opposed to "his administration has failed." It also mentions the "high economic growth," and does so before the criticism. In addition, I looked up the sources you posted. The two that explicitly contradict the HDI criticisms are blog posts from not very reliable sources, and both obviously have an axe to grind. The first one contradicts itself in several places, and makes several arithmetic mistakes as well (in a piece supposedly about correctly interpreting statistics). The second one is a lot of polemic with no evidence. The third is a single statistic, and that based on one survey; besides, unemployment is a measure of social development, but not a very widely used one, especially in a developing country. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What about sentences regarding the rhetoric one and "...a controversial figure". Secondly did you check with the references made in the report itself? ((Tendulkar methodology, compared between 2004-05 and 2009-10, Page 45 of 232, Planning Commission Report).......the improvement of HDI in Gujarat is a shade better than national average). The sources cited are based on actual data provided by various commissions/ institutions. The point mentioned is quite simple. Gujarat has improved under Modi at a rate greater than national average. It is this very point that needs to be incorporated in the lead along with the Wikipedia's voice "...recieved criticism for failing ...." 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at exactly what NPOV means. Wikipedia's voice is saying that people have criticised Modi for failing to impact HDI, not that he has failed. Also, the argument here is about the HDI statement, don't shift goalposts and talk about anti-muslim rhetoric. Also, yes, I read the sources, otherwise I wouldn't have said that I had. And like I said before, they seem to me not very reliable. I don't want to repeat my arguments again, but you haven't really addressed them.

Since you seem so bothered by the "controversial" adjective, I'd like to point out that "controversial" is not in and of itself a negative description. A lot of well loved people are controversial. Gandhi was very controversial during his lifetime, and in many ways still is. Receiving a lot of criticism is enough to make you controversial, the truth of the criticism is irrelevant. So please stop getting strung up over that particular debate.Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, then for the same reason, why users like Sitush are so vary of adding word " controversial " against Digvijay Singh or Akhilesh Yadav, if its not a negative description. Is the same word mentioned in the lead of BLP of these people? And don't harp the same line that reliable "international media" says so. These so called reliable as very much based on domestic media opinions.A media opinion as Wikipedia's voice is not the rule. Please don't say 'people' have criticised; it's mostly the opposition and some so called intellectuals. Some people have also criticised these intellectuals for biased reporting by media and opposition. Some intellectuals have praised the development and slammed the biased reporting. Is it part of the article and if it is, is it in the lead?

• Some intellectuals have criticised media's selective targeting and oppositions constant bashing of Modi for 2002 riots without any proof. He is exonerated by apex court of India. Not a single allegation has been proved. But is it mentioned in the lead along with " his .....criticised for 2002 riots...". Many sources have already been provided for your kind reference, along with facts. : . niticentral newsletter, , Defence.pk newsportal, , Deshgujrat news portal, , The Outlook India. " The systematic demonisation of Narendra Modi in the media began with .....", , IBTL news portal " When it comes to matters involving selective quoting, no one can beat Indian media. That too when the matter involves Narendra Modi or Gujarat, you can always expect one or the other media house goofing up.....".

, Rediff news " ....there is a concerted campaign to malign him and somehow prevent him from assuming a leadership role.", , Hillpost news portal. " ...he is vilified as communal and anti-minorities by the same party that presided over more than two hundred anti-Muslim riots in the seventies and eighties in Gujarat.".

Now if you consider bashing as reliable but the criticism of bashing as unreliable, then nothing can be said or argued. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Saying he has received criticism is not claiming that criticism is correct, just like mentioning the praise he has received does not validate that praise. Whatever facts you might muster, he has received criticism. And also praise, both in very large quantities. So, they are mentioned in the lead. Wikipedia's voice doesn't, at that point, support either of them.

Also, with reference to the "controversial" debate, I cannot speak for Sitush, or for an article about which I don't know very much. All I know is, the controversial label is an entirely factual one in this case; if he were not controversial, we would not be having this bloody debate in the first place. If you want to insert that adjective in other articles, go debate it there.Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead "controversial" is itself controversial and that's why debate is taking place and not because of the person concerned. I have absolutely no problem with inclusion of word controversial, if it is neutralised based on the news articles cited by me above. By selective cherry picking of articles to make him controversial makes the whole article to be read from certail point of view.

• The praise he received for high economic growth is countered by the criticism, but not the lead "controversial". However the same do not hold for any other Chief Minister or any Prime Minister, whether the current one , who is presiding over the most corrupt govt ever. An introduction should atleast look neutral and not make an biased impression in mindset throughout the rest of the article, and the word controversial do make an impression against the person concerned (especially when it is coming as Wikipedia's voice) whether according to you the word is controversial or not. The same is reflected by the Wikipedia's policy NPOV: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution.....cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact." 210.212.144.141 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Puppy Comment

The debate at this point is over whether the comment is significant enough to mention. Looking at WP:UNDUE it's fairly clear that if a quote is considered significant by a reliable, secondary, source, such as a national newspaper, then it's more than reasonable to include it. The quote in question and the response to it are sourced from a national newspaper, and so are significant enough to include. Moreover, Modi's rebuttal is also included, so there isn't really any reasonable objection to be made. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Vanamonde93, eveything that is mentioned in reliable source need not be mentioned here. Please note that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Modi has said several things in the past and many of his quotes have been covered by reliable source. Almost everything that Modi says is covered by reliable sources, should we start including everything? This article would only because a quote farm and nothing else. -sarvajna (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If we're going to include every allegedly contentious thing that he has allegedly said then this article will become silly. The puppy comment as currently shown is undue weight. I can't prove it but I rather suspect the thing was a spur-of-the-moment faux-pas anyway. We all do it! - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not hung up on this particular quote. The question is, what criteria are we applying to decide whether a quote deserves to be in the article? My reference to the source above is not to indicate that the source for the quote itself is reliable (which of course is a must) but to show that a reliable source considers the quote significant. You're right in that there are many such quotes. Do we then include none of them?Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, what is happening is that certain editors are applying very different criteria when they remove negative media attention and when they include positive media attention. That is unacceptable. Either we generally prioritize news reports low whether their attention is laudatory or critical, or we establish similar criteria for when news reports should be included that do not simply depend on wheher Sarvajna can see a reason to include something or not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What other instances are you thinking of? I, for one, have until recently tended to think that this article contained a lot of trivial pro-Modi stuff but in this instance I really do think that the trivia is on the other "side". Modi probably makes a contentious remark at least every other week: where do we draw the line in order not to become something akin to a dictionary of quotations with copious explanations of press reaction? Don't forget that newspapers are good at making news as well as reporting it. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably trivial unless some highly reliable sources have commented on it, which I don't know if they have. Nussbaum or Brass might for example have mentioned it, but I am too far away from my books to check it. What I object to and the reason I removed it was because Sarvajna a highly tendentious editor removed the entire sourced section claiming simply that he didnt see a reason to include it. That is not a valid argument for removing an entire paragraph that is equally well sourced as the rest of the article. Especially not by a tendentious editor. That had to be reverted pending discussion. If consensus turns out to be that the paragraph is too marginal to be relevant then so be it, but I am not going to give Sarvajna carte blanche to remove the stuff he doesn't like, because if we do I know what the article will end up looking like in a few weeks. A simple hagiography based on shoddy BJP sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Maunus stop making personal attacks, comment on the content not on the contributor. When you agree that this is trivial then why did you revert me?. I am recently back from a break and have hardly added anything to the article. This is my last warning to you, I would seek administrative action if you continue your personal attacks.-sarvajna (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I don't think anybody's taking the word of newspapers as gospel. But there are definitely other such quotes in the article; Modi discussing 9/11, discussing TV-9, discussing the comparison between him and Hitler, etc, etc. We need to develop a consistent set of criteria, which is of course easier said than done. It seems to me the problem is that everybody who visits the article feels they have some unique fact about Modi which needs to be included, which has led to a mishmash of not terribly significant material.

On a somewhat related note, even if we are to include the puppy comment, is it in the right place? the comment was made in 2013; it is in the riots section.Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Modi's quote on terrorism is also not required, it is better suited for wikiquotes, I would not oppose the removal of 9/11 thing either.-sarvajna (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So can I go ahead and remove those quotes, the puppy comment, terrorism one and 9/11 one?.-sarvajna (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, but I would wait a bit to see if others do, and then proceed.Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made those changes, if there was an issue please let me know.-sarvajna (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Lata Mangeshkar endorses Modi as PM

Recently eminent singer Lata Mangeshkar endorsed Narendra Modi as PM. This need to be included in the article. , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are so many prominent people who endorsed him.The list is quiet long.So,it's hard to insert particular people for that.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 08:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Let Mika endorse Rahul and then we will edit both pages accordingly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why was my edit of Lata Mangeshkar endorsing Narendra Modi as the PM been deleted twice from this article? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by War&passion (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag

The "neutrality is disputed" tag is only valid if there is a talk page discussion specifically addressing NPOV issues in the entire article. Absent such, I am removing the tag, per Template:POV. If there are specific concerns, they can be highlighted with inline or section tags. SPat ^talk 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Language in Lead

The first sentence in the lead mentions that Gujarat is in Western India which is unnecessary, and neglects to mention that he is a politician. These are trivial points, but given that they are in the lead, I felt I should ask for comment before modifying them. I bring them up after comparison to articles about other well known politicians.Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lead says that he is the current chief minister, will that not imply that he is a politician? -sarvajna (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it not in western India?Even you mention them trivial points.It seems you have the ownership of the article now.What is written in other articles have nothing to do with it.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 19:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Get a grip for heaven's sake. I am saying that the "western India" bit is unnecessary because if a reader were unsure about where gujarat was, they could look it up. This is standard practice for mentions of well known places, because the lead is meant to be concise. And "politician" is necessary, because tomorrow he may have a different position, or none at all, but still be a politician. Also, leave off the ridicule; if I had had ownership, I would have changed it without bloody asking for anybody's opinion.Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with User:Vanamonde93 that "western India" is unnecessary, but disagree that "politician" is necessary - any title of the form "officeholder" or "former officeholder" is more descriptive than "politician". SPat ^talk 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right in saying that "politician" is somewhat imprecise. My point simply is that "chief minister" is not a permanent title; at some point, he will not be chief minister anymore. This is true of any office he holds; and if he holds multiple, which one do we define him by? "Politician" encompasses his whole career, and is permanent. I wouldn't mind an alternative solution to this issue, but I feel it needs to be addressed.Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When he looses the office of CM and doesn't hold any other office we will say "he is blah and was the CM". Being CM for such a long duration would always be his identifier, unless something else happens in future life. And i doubt politician is permanent. You never know he might become notable as something else in future. Also, the advantage of being an online editable encyclopedia is that you can always come and edit it back when the data is outdated. Currently its perfectly fine to describe him as CM instead of dumbing down to call him politician and then saying oh-btw he is also CM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C}

I have removed the word "western". I am also removed "center-right" since it is the ideology of the BJP and not of the NDA as the alliance has parties of different or unknown ideologies. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed "an indian state" to "state of Gujarat" which makes clear the fact that it is a state in a larger country, and removes the somewhat unnecessary wording.Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

2002 election

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reading "Modi used extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign." This sentence though has some reference sources. The sources are baseless. There aren't any videos or speech recordings which depict Modi to do anti-Muslim rhetoric campign. Also there wasn't any restriction by Election Commission of India because if Modi had used rhetoric anti-Muslim campaign then EC would have notices him. So I request to remove this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilvp 5 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-existence of video recordings is not a good reason to remove this material since there are sources backing it up. If you think those sources are baseless, you'll need to demonstrate that somehow. Finally, what the EC does or does not do is not relevant, we only look at what reliable sources say. --regentspark (comment) 11:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Election commission monitors all activities that are done during election and sees if any rules are not broken. An anti Muslim rhetoric would be breaking rules of Election Commission. Also those books do not have any reliable sources. I would like to notify you that activities Election Commission are relevant and are completely reliable sources as they are official and better than those books which don't have any official sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilvp 5 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is original research to presume something by its absence. There are plenty of acceptable sources for the statements made and you will need to find sources that opine differently if you wish to see those aspects of the article changed. Please note that when we have sources that show different opinions, WP:NPOV applies, so even if you were to find such sources it is unlikely that the present ones will be removed - we'll just revise the article to show all sides. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia we support truth. So if the truth is that there isn't any reliable source which says Modi of using Anti-Muslim rhetoric. There aren't articles or speech and most of all Election Commission is being ignored. If there had been any such incident then INC would have reported EC and EC would have sent appropriate notice to Narendra Modi which makes truth clear. Thousands of people had attended him and if any such incident happened it would have been reported to EC which monitors all election campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilvp 5 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand, sorry. We do not support "truth" on Wikipedia; we support verifiability. The two are not necessarily the same thing. There are reliable sources that verify the statements and your personal speculation about the EIC is just that: speculation. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So I have been telling since the start of this talk about EC being a "reliable" and "official" source so it is also a "verifiable" source. You can visit its website if you doubt it. Also EC is NOT my personal speculation but a general speculation. As election is not so small thing but a big event and is constantly monitored by EC. EC has always given warnings to those who break the rules. I don't get why you have been constantly ignoring EC as it is a verifiable source while the books don't have any such source.Nikhilvp 5 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

EC website does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Read the relevant sections (blue linked). --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the EIC is verifiable but it says nothing about the subject. It is your interpretation that the absence of published comment by the EIC means that something did not happen; many things happen that are not referred to by the EIC (my birthday today, for example, has been completely ignored by them) and the fact remains that plenty of other sources - including academic ones - do refer to it. There are all sorts of reasons why the EIC may not have bothered with it, including political pressure, corruption and a different standard to that of reliable sources. Just because one source says nothing does not mean that we ignore all of the others. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

These so called reliable sources are piece of opinion by the authors. Moreover there is a lot of difference between running a anti-Muslim campaign(by Brasted, Howard V. (2005). Nelly Lahoud, A H Johns, ed. Islam in World Politics), "made Islamic terrorism and its ties to Pakistan a central plank in the BJP platform" (Hardgrave, Jr., Robert L. (2005)) and the vitriolic language used in the article " extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric". Also the same is not proved by any video as mentioned by Nikhilvp above. Mentioning the opinion of some author as Wikipedia voice is obviously not its policy.117.199.24.250 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As with the prior attempts to sanitise this article, I ask whether you have checked this talk page and its archives for the relevant recent discussions. This issue was discussed and from that emerged the consensus that it was acceptable. Yes, consensus can change but it rarely does so in a matter of weeks and we can't keep responding to these discussions every time some Tom, Dick or Harry appears on this page. I suggest that you Google "modi anti-muslim rhetoric" and read around. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, the issue is contentious that's why agents like you will face the questions and accusations for the propaganda you are promoting on a neutral encyclopedia. Rather than advicing people to search on google for "anti-Muslim rhetoric", you rather search "malicious campaign by media against Modi". Perhaps that may change your attitude towards Modi from being a paid/ unpaid agent of some corrupt political party. 210.212.144.133 (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP user, please use appropriate language during discussion, if you call someone a paid/unpaid agent then the same thing can be said about you as well. Comment on the content not on the conrtibutors. I agree that this is a point that would need discussion but let us maintain some amount of civility here. -sarvajna (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, I've just searched for "malicious campaign by media against Modi" as you requested & I got zero hits. Sarvajna, you've been involved in past discussions about this, eg: here. Other discussions include this. You'll need to find some sources to contradict the statement, take it to another noticeboard or else live with it. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, my comment above was made with good intentions of bringing some civility in the discourse. End of the story. I know what needs to be done to change statements on wikipedia so you can save some energy by not telling me what to do. Also you might want to check the links that you provided, I am involved in the first discussion which is about a different topic but I am not involved in the second one.-sarvajna (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were involved with the second one - you've misunderstood that completely. The second one is an example for the IP of other recent discussion, and my comment about the available options is directed as much at them as you. Sheesh, I try to be helpful and I get grief for it? Unless the IPs etc can come up with something that fits those options, this thread should be closed. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement in body

FACT Narendra Modi is not legally allowed to enter the United States. He is banned from traveling to america FACT. FACTS can not be hidden, censoring only makes it worse, showing everyone the corruptness and incompetence of censoring. The world world is watching. It will be on record forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.35.199 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Further down in the body. Reading A: "Modi has been labelled by the media and some articles in peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure." Reading B: "Modi has been labelled by some authors in the media and peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure. This portrayal is contested by some other authors who claim that political opponents and media have unfairly targeted him." What is wrong in adding the second sentence - numerous authors believe he is not polarising or divisive, rather unfairly targeted by the media. Gmcssb (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it is stupid. IF half of people consider him controversial and the other half dont then he obviously is controversial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you even read or respond without thinking? Your reasoning is itself stupid. Does statement B remove the "controversial" adjective? Furthermore the first statement contains very strong adjectives like "divisive" and "polarising" which are obviously views, not just the word "controversial". It is because of stupid reasoning like this that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Gmcssb (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been no objections to Reading B here for a week. I am inclined to add back Reading B - I am happy to even reword the second statement if there are any better suggestions. Once again, reading B is NOT in the lead, and it does NOT remove any cited material. It is more balanced than Reading A (which uses very strong negative adjectives) and the second statement in reading B (the addition) is supported by multiple reliable references. I have no idea why this change had problems - it was not a part of edit warring, it was not a change in the lead, it was not removal of any sourced material, and the counter-view I added was cited by multiple sources. Yet Sitush hastily threatened to report me unless I reverted it. When raised on talk page, Sitush has nothing to say for more than a week? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· goes off on a tangent without paying attention, and uses words like "stupid" for a change which adds a counterview supported by secondary sources? If senior editors with Administration rights act in this manner, are the best interests of Wikipedia served? Gmcssb (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

See my response of a few minutes ago in the next section. I'm not sure that I would call you "stupid" but you really are not understanding this. You are also not understanding that people who did understand the point held a long, tortuous discussion about the issue quite recently and that what you see now is the consensus outcome of that. I suggest that you drop this particular stick before accusations of tendentious editing start flying around - enough people have already been warned, blocked and topic banned for such attitudes relating to this article. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't name it as consensus. It is bulldozing of an opinion in an article which is suppose to be neutral. Further, rather than engaging in consensus, the dissenting voices are being threatened of being blocked, warned. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia guidelines, one is not supposed to say anything negative about an individual while editing his/her biography that could malign his/her image, or create a certain type of a negative impression about him/her to a reader who is reading about the individual for the first time. You can read more about it here. --War&passion (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP says nothing of the sort. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed tag

I tagged the sentence about gujarat becoming an attractive destination for investment, because it was not sourced, and in any case written in Wikipedia's voice. I will re-write it, but it still needs a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

122.166.91.228 (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Ahmedabad Court gave clin chit to modi on 26.12.2013.

 Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible Prime Minister

Sitush, I think you made a great attempt at cleaning up this section, but while I can see why most of the material you kept might be considered significant, but why exactly have you kept the sentence about spiritual leaders? All the other opinions given can be justifiably called significant, but precisely why is Morari Babu more important than any Muslim leader who dislikes Modi? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

All I did was look at changes made since X, where X was a contribution made by someone whose efforts at patrolling etc I respect. I've not really read the article through completely for a while, although probably I should make that effort. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning spiritual leaders is important because Baba Ramdev has been campaigning for Modi in various parts of India. Also he is not only a spiritual leader, but also an anti-corruption activist. As of Muslims leaders, they can be mentioned but their views on Modi are not same. Shia Muslim leaders have supported Modi and such information should only be added if both views are represented. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: fair enough. @VJ: you misunderstand. I'm not disputing the inclusion of spiritual leaders views, per se. I'm saying that all the other views expressed have sources which explain why they are significant. The economists are Modi's biggest critic and supporters among academia. I'm asking not "why spiritual leaders" but rather "why Morari Bapu and Ramdev," and especially why Morari Babu. Is that clearer? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Many spiritual leaders have supported Modi but most of them belong to organizations like VHP. However Morari Bapu is an exemption and that is why I think that he can be mentioned. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

VJ, that still doesn't answer my question, despite being a true statement. Yes, we should not mention VHP sources, because they have a very obvious vested interest. But that is not, in itself, reason to mention any other leader. Obviously MB CAN be mentioned; but should he? Where is the source showing his significance? If I don't get a satisfactory response from anybody, I will remove his name from the section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

just thought i would ask if you could maybe add a few thing into this page

Could you add a image of Modi with Baba RamdevAlso I think this page would look great with a write up about modi ambitions & focus on clean green energy, maybe put some images next to the section of wind & water turbines,solar harnessing, china is just about to start its clean up so i think this only goes to show how far ahead modi is thinking way before the today asian giants.82.38.161.217 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Veda

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

In the Section entitled "Early life and education", the correct translation of the word "pracharak" in this context (which is given within the parentheses) is "missionary". GReceiver (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Marked as answered, as this request has been superseded by more a detailed request below. Arjayay (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014

122.162.146.124 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC) he is 64 born september 17 1949

Do you have a source for his birthdate? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Making criticisation of his economic policies too a wikipedia's voice

Giving a further blow to the credibility of this article and roadrolling policies/ rules of Wikipedia, the sentence regarding criticism of his economic development model has been made as Wikipedia's voice ("his administration has also been criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state"). Initially it was written as "criticised by some", but in the hindsight it was really the strategy of the overactive editors to delete this line gradually and make it Wikipedia's voice.

• First of all this is not the view in general, but personal opinions of some pro-lefts intellectuals/ magazine editors(in this case the sole source is a work of Jeffrelot).
• Why the efforts have been made to make every negative view of Jefferot to be included in the articlea and that too in the Introduction section, as if he is the supreme truth machine of the universe and has majority stake in Wikipedia.
• Why views of praise is selected , restricting to "high economic growth" only and not in other fields like infrastructure, jobs, education, safety and security, not included in the introduction page, as is the case with negative views? , , , .

Some editors having myopic views about Modi should see with a neutral point of view rather than jumping upon very attempt to critize him. Eminent economist Jagdish Bhagvati has written a book "India's Tryst with Destiny: Debunking Myths that Undermine Progress and Addressing New Challenges" about the Gujarat model and how it helps in sustaining human development growth. But no mention anywhere about the book. 210.212.144.133 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, you need to get your understanding of that sentence straight, because this has been argued to death and beyond several times. Wikipedia is saying that he has been criticised. That is all. Not that the criticism is correct or justified, only that it is prominent enough to be mentioned. The source is a single source, because it is there to prevent your ilk from removing it saying it is unsourced. Standard practice is to not give any sources in the lead at all, since the lead is merely a summary of the significant points in the article.

As for impact in other fields, if you actually read the article, you will find enough instances of the same. Bhagwati is mentioned, multiple times; the book is hardly necessary, if his views are clear enough outside it. All the things you mention are to be found in the article, just not in the lead, which is as it should be. For heaven's sakes read the archives before bringing up issues here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

He has been criticised, but how reliable is the criticism? What group of people/ media criticised him? Is the person too important to be included in the introduction section itself, and given as Wikipedia's voice? In the same way why the praise by some people regarding the human development in Gujarat is not mentioned as counter? Far better would be " Modi' administration is criticised by some people/ a section of media....", as this criticism is limited to some particular section of intellectuals/ opposition and not a universal truth. For mentioning criticism by any xyz is not the policy of Wikipedia, and at least not to make it as Wikipedia's voice.210.212.144.133 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have tried explaining these points in a reasonable manner, assuming you would respond. Since you don't, let's see if a blunt approach works better;

1) The criticism is very reliable;

2) The praise for HDI is negligible, hence irrelevant to the lead;

3) The criticism is NOT, repeat NOT, in Wikipedia's voice as of this moment;

4) Therefore, the changes you suggest are not needed. Goodbye. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

GA

The article currently fails on the criteria of comprehensiveness (the article mentions that there has been allegations of involvement in the Gujarat violence but does not describe any of the actual accusations, nor does it adequately describe the way in which he is a polarizing figure in India, or his close connections to extreme Hindu nationalism - this is a severe lack since it accounts for a very large part of the coverage of Modi in reliable academically published sources (Brass, Nussbaum, Jaffrelot, etc.). It also fails on MOS compliance because of the extremely short and uninformative Lead. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that it passes the GA criteria but look who is taking the decision here!!.-sarvajna (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are as usual an idiot Savajna. I am making this statement on the talkpage, I am not undertaking the formal review of the article. So no I am not "taking the decision here".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You as usual need a best mouthwash as you have a dirty tongue ( I have no idea what needs to used for a bad habit of using uncivil language on wiki, this is not a first time).sarvajna (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You could start by not being an idiot. If you expected a "civil reply" to your own ridiculous and offensive comment, then you are even more of an idiot than I thought you were.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are on fire today, looks like you had something bad for breakfast and you still have the bad taste in your mouth, you are breaking your record you using dirty language. Go on Maunus.-sarvajna (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oh wow! Suddenly people are nominating random articles for GA. The User:Rudra john cena probably hasn't got hang of what it is. He recently tried to make a FA article also GA. LOLz! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it was a drive by nomination. Then it is unlikely to be taken seriously by a reviewer of course.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@Dharmadhyaksha: Please explain why you are reverting this content out of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have given edit summary. And do we want everyone's opinions in the article? Am game for it, if every blue-linked person's opinions are to be included. Or else none of these irrelevant people's opinions should be included. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I note we have several people extolling his virtues and how he would be a great PM in that same section, for neutrality we need to balance that with those who say he would not be a great PM. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with DS on principle, but I think it would be appropriate to move both the positive and the (deleted) negative comments to the "possible prime minister" section. The reverts are problematic. However, to overcome the problem pointed out by Dharmadhyaksha, I would suggest deleting all content about his potential prime ministership. It is sufficient to say that he is a candidate; everything else is speculative, and so could be legitimately removed.........Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@DS: Well... those are economists commenting on his economic-skills. These are fiction writers and we will keep their opinions in fiction, not in encyclopedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

They are notable people whose words carry weight, to remove them is a violation of NPOV. So we can either remove the lot or restore what you removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well then lets add Mangeshkar and Murthy also. And there are plenty more people from Business and arts as well who have expressed their opinion. We probably should have separate article at Feelings of people about Narendra Modi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to start it, but as you are incorrect on this particular content I shall restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that we are putting poets and fable writers' opinions in it, i would also add other blue-linked's views. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense when DS says as you are incorrect on this particular content I shall restore it, since when did you assume the role of a Judge here?. I partly agree with Dharmadhyaksha, we do not need an opinion of all and sundry.-sarvajna (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the direction this is taking, i would again suggest that the entire section about his possible pmship be deleted. At this point, the section is speculative, and all we can put there are opinions of a million people. If we start doing that, where do we stop? In six months we will know the results of the election, reliable analysis will be done, and we can write about his candidacy then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: thanks for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have such predictions in this wikipedia page, is it about only facts or not? thevikas (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

Would ThevikasIN please explain, why he has removed reliably sourced content, twice? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding opinion polls prediction

All opinion polls conducted in India since at least last many months have projected Narendra Modi as top choice for PM, with second candidate having less than half of the votes Modi has got. , , , , , .

• these are just few of many surveys that were conducted recently. To be fair, the wordings should be changed to " all opinion polls predicts that Modi is top choice for PM" under section "Possible prime minister", rather than "three opinion polls conducted......". 210.212.144.133 (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Luddite

P. Chidambaram has called Modi a Luddite.[8] 117.195.82.70 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So what? Just the usual political verbal jousting, surely? - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the controversies/critics section?

If we are going to say all the good of the person, we will also say all the bad. The article will stay neutral and have no political affiliations or ambitions. Im tagging this article for POV checkup. Every public person has controversies section which show everything in good detail to everyone. The article will never give its own judgement. It will always give all facts and let the reader based on his curiosity make his own judgement. thevikas (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC) A public figure such as him and his page does not document any of his publically known controversies?. And no objects on this matter in the talk page? thevikas (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Friend, I'm not a fan of Modi, but I don't really see the need for a controversy section, if all the controversies are integrated elsewhere. Looking at it right now, items like the Gujarat riots and lack of Human Development have been included. I'm not saying that the article is NPOV, not yet, anyway; but I think we can work with the current structure. Controversy sections tend to become battlegrounds. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Has been discussed before. We avoid such sections wherever possible because they induce undue weight and are magnets for POV-imbued editors & vandals. You'll find many points are already covered in the text anyway - all you have to do is read and, frankly, that is precisely what most contributors of the type I have just referred seem to prefer not to do. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Narendra Modi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Needs copy editing.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per point 1
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is not stable enough to be considered neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Constant edit wars over trivia, unlikely to change.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fail, per above points

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

17 Allegatıons on Narendra Modı: 1)Land for Nano plant at low rate The state government allotted 1100 acres of land to Tata Motors Ltd (TML) to set up the Nano plant near Sanand. The land was allotted allegedly at Rs900 per square metre while its market rate was around Rs10,000 per square metre. Simply put, the government gave Tata Motors total monetary benefit of Rs33,000 crore.

2)Land sold cheap to Adani Group Land was allotted to Adani Group for the Mundra Port & Mundra Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Re1 per square metre. This is grossly lower than the market rate.

3)Cheap land for ind, not for airforce The Gujarat government allotted 3,76,561 square metre of land to real estate developer K Raheja at Rs470 per square metre, while the South-West Air Command (SWAC) was asked to pay Rs1100 per square metre for 4,04,700 square metre land.

4)Agricultuure University land allotted for hotel State government allotted 65,000 square metres of land belonging to Navsari Agriculture University in Surat to Chatrala Indian Hotel Group for a hotel project despite objection from the institute. This deal was allegedly brokered by the chief minister through his office causing a loss of Rs426 crore.

5)Border land for chemical firms A huge plot of land near the Pakistan border was allotted to salt chemical companies said to be close to BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu.

6)Essar Group's encroachment State government has allotted 2.08 lakh square metres of land to Essar Steel. Part of the disputed land is CRZ and forest land that cannot be allotted as per Supreme Court guidelines.

7)Land given to Bharat Hotel Prime land was allotted to Bharat Hotels without auction on Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway in Ahmedabad. The company has been allotted 25,724 square metre land.

8)Corruption in allotment of lakes State government, in 2008, awarded contracts for fishing activities in 38 lakes without inviting any tenders; bidders were ready to pay Rs25 lakh per lake.

9)Land given to L&T Larson & Toubro (L&T) was allotted 80 hectare land at Hazira at the rate of Re1 per square metre.

10)Land allotted to other industries Instead of auctioning prime land in the major cities of the state, the Gujarat government had allotted the land to some industries and industrialists who had signed MoUs in the five editions of VGGIS.

11)Cattle feed fraud The Gujarat government had purchased cattle feed from a blacklisted company at Rs240 per 5 kg whereas the market rate is just Rs120 to Rs140 per 5 kg.

12)Scam in Anganwadi centres Two bidders apparently formed a cartel and bid for supplying supplementary Nutrition Extruded Fortified Blended Food (EFBF) to Anganwadi centres of the state. One company bid for three zones, while the other for only two. Guidelines were violated, causing the state exchequer a loss of Rs92 crore.

13)GSPC Despite an investment of Rs4933.50 crore, GSPC has been able to earn only Rs290 crore from the 13 out of 51 blocks of oil and gas discovered by the company. Contractual relations of Geo-Global and GSPC deserve investigation since Geo-Global is to be hired for a higher fee, above profit-sharing.

14)Luxury aircraft used by CM Instead of using commercial flights or state-owned aircraft and helicopter, chief minister Narendra Modi had used private luxury aircraft for around 200 trips in five years. The cost had been borne by the beneficiary industries.

15)Rs500 crore SSY scam The Rs6237.33 crore Sujalam Sufalam Yojana (SSY) announced in 2003 was to be completed by 2005 but it is still not completed. Public accounts committee of Gujarat assembly unanimously prepared a report indicating a scam of over Rs500 crore which was not tabled.

16)Indigold Refinery land scam Around 36.25 acre farmland in Kutch district was purchased and sold in violation of all norms by Indigold Refinery Ltd.

17)Swan Energy 49% of the shares of Pipavav Power Station of GSPC were sold to Swan Energy without inviting any tenders. Sam1234512345 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-17-scams-that-narendra-modi-doesn-t-want-lok-ayukta-to-probe-1580274

The above are unproven allegations made in 2011 against Narendra Modi by a political party, Indian Nation Congress (INC), which is itself mired in financial scams such as coalgate, 2G, CWG, and many, many others, currently being investigated. INC was soundly defeated by Narendra Modi in the subsequent 2012 Gujarat elections. INC has controlled the Central government since 2004, and has initiated numerous unsuccessful investigations against Modi but none of the above alleged 'scams' is under INC investigation. INC has become very unpopular and faces an election in 2014 which it is expected to lose according to all major opinion surveys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GReceiver (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If I had even a penny for every allegation made against every Indian politician, I'd be a millionaire. Seriously. This is a BLP and we have to be careful. I'm not even sure that many of the items in your lengthy list are actually directed against him as a person rather than as an officeholder, ie: if anything, they reflect the administration rather than the individual. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Per sit, plus sources would be useful. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Images from Modi's Flickr account

Is it really a great idea for us to include so many images that are derived from Modi's official Flickr account? I mean, he is acknowledged to be one of the most internet-savvy among Indian politicians and they're almost certainly uploaded to that account for political reasons. Should we be doing his work for him, given that his Flickr account is easily accessible from his official website? - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely feel uncomfortable about the idea in general, but looking at the article itself, I'm not so sure. There are a few images that I do not feel should be present in a balanced article, specifically the Solar power, skyscraper, and sardar sarovar ones; those don't seem to be from the flickr account, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Personality and Image

This section, as of now, is a meaningless amalgam of allegations and praise. I propose that it be integrated into the rest of the article. If anybody has any objections, please state them here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NYT changes its tone, Uttarakhand

1. NYT under instructions from its masters in the establishment has changed its tone regarding Modi.[9], NYT is a wp:RS, and is typical of media perception. The present article ought to account for this change, Wikipedia is a reflection of reliable sources.
2. The Uttarakhand section is wp:undue, please take it off. 117.195.66.240 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Please change the word "propagandist" to "missionary" in the Section entitled "Early life and education", because it is the correct meaning of the Sanskrit/Hindi/Gujarati word "pracharak" in this context. In Google Translate, "missionary" in English, translates as "pracharak" in Hindi. http://translate.google.com/#en/hi/missionary NOTE: This request is being resubmitted to follow the guidelines provided in "the instructions to submit an edit request". GReceiver (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Having looked for English definitions of "pracharak" they all seem extremely similar. To quote Collins Dictionary verbatim:-

"(in India) a person appointed to propagate a cause through personal contact, meetings, public lectures, etc"

This is not the generally understood meaning of "missionary" in English, which almost always has a religious meaning, so this would seem an inappropriate substitution.
The translation of "missionary" backwards into Hindi, seems a strange thing to do, and does not disprove that "propagandist" is the correct forwards translation. - Arjayay (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Technical 13 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In Hindi, "pracharaka" means a campaigner and is a neutral term. "Prachar" in Hindi means publicity or campaign. You have Congress "pracaharak", BJP "pracharak" and See [10]. In English "propagandist" has negative shades - and shows anti-RSS bias (it is like saying publicity for RSS is propaganda). A better word is "publicist" or "campaigner". Gmcssb (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe the person relied on Google Translate. Google Translate accurately translates "prachaar" (प्रचार) to "campaign" (see [11]) but very strangely "prachaarak" (प्रचारक) to propagandist (see [12]). Both words come from the same Samskrita root "pra + char". Gmcssb (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

[13] is a mainstream Hindi publication using the word "prachaarak" (प्रचारक) for a Congress campaigner - the heading says कांग्रेस के स्टार प्रचारक मैदान से 'गायब' (Star campaigners of Congress missing from action) - no native Hindi speaker would agree with the POV translation "propagandist" for "prachaarak". Gmcssb (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We had lengthy discussions concerning how to explain the term only a few months ago. You might want to review the archives to this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked archives for last six months but could not locate the discussion on the term "pracharak". Please point out where the discussion is. Gmcssb (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi can you please point out where in the past few months we have discussed the translation of the word "pracharak" and agreed on the highly POV word "propagandist"? I would like to go through the discussion. I could not find it. 192.193.132.8 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that RaviC has changed "propagandist" to "campaigner", so I am currently fine. Anyway I could not locate the discussion on translation of "pracharak" in the archives that Sitush was referring to. I request editors to discuss here before changing it further. In India and in Hindi, the term "pracharak" is neutral and is used for campaigners or all political parties - parties in left, center or right. A translation of "pracharak" as propagandist is highly misleading and inaccurate. Gmcssb (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Meeting with Nancy Powell

A couple of editors have attempted to introduce content about Modi's meeting with Nancy Powell, stating that it indicates a change in America's policy of denying Modi a visa. I have reverted this a couple of times, for the following reason. The meeting itself is not in dispute (obviously) but its significance is very much in dispute. The US state department denies that it has any significance. So, any content would have to include both interpretations, and that would be very wordy for a minor incident. Second, any "change in stance" is at this point entirely hypothetical; all sources about that are speculating. Which is why I feel we should hold off introducing this until something more concrete has happened. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As a CM of a state he meets lot of ppl, nothing special about this meet. I feel that nothing much should be written about Nancy Powell meet.-sarvajna (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My point precisely. If it DOES lead to a significant change (if Modi is granted a visa, for instance) then we could consider it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is the first direct contact between the two sides in a decade. Even if it doesn't lead to anything at all, it would be worthy of mention for that reason. --RaviC (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that it's NOT the first direct meeting. He has met business delegations that included members of the house of representatives. Here's an example from just last year. If you look, I'm sure you could find more. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are some senators (many Republican) who have met him. However, senators are not members of Government in the US, unlike in the Westminster system found in India and the UK. There's a huge difference here.--RaviC (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure U.S. senators would be quite surprised to learn they're not part of the government. U.S._government#Legislative_branch. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what I mean. A meeting sanctioned by the US State department. --RaviC (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Any business delegation very much represents the government as a whole, and not any political party. As such, they have the sanction of the state department. Besides, they outrank any state department representative like Powell. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed template

I just added a CN template to the 2002 Gujarat violence section after removing a source. Although this must look a bit strange, I have a very good reason, as follows. The piece linked to was a news item in DNA speculating about the contents of the SIT report. It is not an actual piece on the report itself, and thus definitely cannot be RS for the blunt statement in the article; it is also too speculative to support even a watered down version. The ref is here. If no source is found within a reasonable span of time, I propose to remove the statement. I will, of course, make an effort myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can get it too, I am sure you will be trying to get the source. Since the court has upheld the SIT report there would be enough sources now. Will get it tomorrow (Might not find the exact wordings though ). -sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ordered Sikh farmers to 'get out' of Gujarat

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modi-failed-to-announce-relief-for-Gujarat-Sikhs-Partap-Singh-Bajwa/articleshow/30923942.cms

Notable for Modi himself? Hcobb (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Its just an allegation. I don't think this should be added. Somnath Bharati said modi had paid news reporters. Surely it can't be added here! Shriram^Talk 04:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Uttarakhand floods

I've just reverted Lihaas, who had removed a section concerning the floods in Uttarakhand. There was a fair amount of discussion about the issue - see these search results - and I think that removing the section without revisiting the issue on the talk page potentially amounts to a unilateral overturning of consensus. That's a dodgy thing to do in a controversial article. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would not remove it, but maybe condense it since it is far too detailed (WP:UNDUE). I have two reasons to put forth. Firstly it is one of the many events that media and newspapers talked about for some days and then moved on. There have been many such events - for instance Dehati Aurat reference to Nawaz, Zeher ki Kheti remarks by Sonia, etc. We cannot include all reports on Modi, how media and opponents reacted to them, how Modi/BJP responded and what happened later. Often people add fine details of recent events (WP:RECENTISM) as happened for this section in June 2013 but as time progresses, some events have hardly any impact in the long term. So maybe condense and wrap it in 3-4 sentences. Secondly, this being more a case of inaccurate reporting by TOI and a corrigendum, it does not deserve this much space in an article on Modi. Gmcssb (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing needed: Opinion polls projection

All opinion polls conducted in India since at least last many months have projected Narendra Modi as top choice for PM, with second candidate having less than half of the votes Modi has got. , , , , , .

these are just few of many surveys that were conducted recently. To be fair, the wordings should be changed to " all opinion polls predicts that Modi is top choice for PM" under section "Possible prime minister", rather than "three opinion polls conducted......". I suppose the anti- Modi baiterss lobby won't have any problem with the editing.210.212.144.133 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be OR. We have reliable sources for three polls; so we write about three polls. Do you have a reliable source saying that there is NO survey which found he was not the favoured candidate? Until then, we cannot make a statement about "all" surveys. You cannot make the jump from "I cannot find any surveys of that kind" to "There are no surveys of that kind." Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am really dumbfounded with the argument made. Do I have a reliable source......? Can you find any survey which does not project Modi as favourite contendor for PM post.

For more research you can google on all the surveys carried out in last 3 years to check the argument. At least the surveys which are in public domain and telcasted/ printed by various media/ research agencies can be treated as a source. I have listed many "respected" media sources and many more can be listed which says that Modi is favourite contendor for PM post. These "respected" media sources are always cited to term Mr Modi "controversial".210.212.144.133 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The article SAYS three surveys found him to be the preferred choice; it is not ignoring that. All I am saying, is that wikipedia cannot claim "all surveys have found" because we have no source for that. We can say "3 surveys" (which is what we should say, because they are the only meaningful ones) or we could say "15 surveys," if you find fifteen good surveys. But until you find a source that says "all surveys" we cannot write that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you so consider, I have listed many sources above about various surveys which put Modi as top choice. , this article says about what surveys says in general. Now in place of three surveys, at least it can be said that various surveys carried out have found Modi as top choice for PM, if there is any issue for writing "all surveys".210.212.144.133 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• May I know why the editors are showing so much of reluctance to modify the section. There are ample number of sources and all surveys conducted till date have indicated Modi as the top choice of peiople for PM position. Still the section look out of the time and not updated since last one year.210.212.144.133 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Vadodara Riots of 2006

Added factual information of the second tenure on an existing section of his second tenure. The second tenure did not mention this information. thevikas (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it again. Unless you can link the events to something that he did, said or was accused of, this looks like we are creating an inference. Especially given the riots of 2002. Many things happened during his periods in government and many things happened in 2006 - we can't list them all. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding sir. I have reverted my edit again. The section is titled his second tenure. The essential fact of his second tenure was found missing in this list. If there is no implication with Modi and Bombay or Modi and 2002, then there is no implication here as well. Either way facts stay facts. The reader should be aware about the facts of his state while this second tenure. There is no other objective. Wikipedia is to show all information with related facts. I have referenced 2 news articles to the matter. We are not listing all references, here I am listing 2 since the matter itself is missing from the description of his second tenure.thevikas (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Vadodara riots may warrant a sentence or two as one of many events in a 5 years tenure. However, I agree with Sitush regarding the creation of an implication of improbity. Kindly justify here & get consensus before reverting. You are now approaching your 3 revert rule limit. AshLin (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In 2002 Modi faced severe criticism, that is why it has been added. You can't argue the same here. Explain what exactly is your point. I don't see any links between vadodara riots and Modi. I have requested for temporary full protection to help resolve the edit war. Shriram^Talk 14:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The items stated in the tenure of Modi actually don't even belong on this page since he himself did not do them himself but it was the Gujarat Government which he was leading, this page is his personal one, not titled as The chief minister of Gujarat. This page is his personal page and high level details of his indirect activities should move away to separate section. But since all his tenures has been listed, and in very much detail his third tenure, following the same suggested format, I have worked on the detail of the second term. Which incidentally is very less, I have mentioned the detail which was left out. If you propose to edit my content and reduce the sentences, you are most welcome. Its the just a regular duty as a chief minister. They too don't warrant a mention in such detail on this page. The rest I have explained very nicely in my previous explanation. Facts will stay. That is the policy of wikipedia articles. The development links of Gujarat has nothing to do with Modi personally. Lastly, the Gujarat police has killed the muslims which are directly under Chief Minister who was Modi at the time. There cannot be any better other link for him to this incident.thevikas (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed distinction between the personal acts and the acts by his government is absurd. That woudl be like not mentioniing the Holocaus in Hitlers article because he didnt personally perpetrate it, or not to Mention New Deal on Roosevelts. The reason political leaders are notable is because of the way the both influence and represent the policies of the governments that they are leading. That is why the acts of Modi's government reflect on him for both good and bad, and why they belong in his article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The economic development issues are relevant because Modi has variously been lauded and criticised for allegedly turning Gujarat into a economic powerhouse. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Sitush that economic developmeent issues are relevant. thevikas, you add this line "The riots were caused by the municipal council's decision to remove the dargah". How is it related to Modi? Well the municipal council may be a local governing body under the purview of state government. That doesn't mean Modi took the decision. Also statements like, "Police had targeted Muslims during the incident" without any hard references, violates WP:NPOV. It does not show fact but tries to defame the person, I believe that will be a BLP issue too. Not just the article, even here you are saying, "the Gujarat police has killed the muslims which are directly under Chief Minister who was Modi at the time." The reference only suggests that someone made an allegation that govt was trying to encourage riots or something, I seriously don't think that the comments made by random politicians should be added. Also what has baroda riots got to do with Mumbai attacks? I seriously don't get it. Shriram^Talk 18:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've protected tha article for 24 hours to allow you guys to reach some sort of conclusion without any more reverting. If you need the protection lifiting early, you're best off going to WP:RFUP as I may not be available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)