Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Request for comment

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.

---

Does the following statement needs to be reworded in the lead section " his administration has also been criticized for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state " to "Views about the human development under his administration remains mixed." as per D4iNa4Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No Per the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is a worthless RfC. Asking whether something needs to be changed without proposing a change doesn't actually resolve anything. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Discussed above. It should be reworded, because it is only focusing upon criticism, it is ignoring the praise about his administration. Either it should be "Views about the human development under his administration remains mixed." or that whole line should be removed. Described in subsection which is already neutral but lead isn't. Sitush is right about proposal.D4iNa4 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Eh? You are supporting the proposal but agreeing with me that it is worthless? - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about the proposal, that something has to be proposed. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No as per above. And I agree with Sitush that this is a pointless RFC, because you are not proposing any change. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose

• Balance doesn't have to be in the same sentence. The previous sentence says some positive things, this sentence says some negative things. That's fine IMO.
• The replacement is so anodyne as to be almost meaningless. If all that we can say is that some people have some views on the topic then is it worth us saying anything at all?
• Also grammar-wise I'd prefer 'human development' to 'the human development'.
• I don't understand the comment above that no change is proposed. Has the RfC text changed during the process?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC), just here for the RfC.

• Yes and argh! The RfC text was changed here. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Balaenoptera musculus You can check again. It has been proposed now. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reword- It should be reworded per RfC, because his administration has achieved both type of views for the given subject. Noteswork (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - as a nominator i support this, even though we are trying to be neutral here , it gives out a confusing signal in meaning of the passage, as we praise his achievements like development etc suddenly we have words like low human development... either reword the whole para on such claims (to be mixed completely as there are claims and counter claims in thousands .. ) or reword this specific sentence.Shrikanthv (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Statement - The term "human development" is vague to the point of being meaningless. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section - "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". NickCT (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, uninfomative replacement. It is sufficiently balanced as is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. It doesn't speak about the praise concerning the human development. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: @ all of you complaining about the use of "human development," it is a very well known and frequently used term in academia. It is a composite of health, education and income indices. It is used because saying "health, education and income" is too wordy. HDI is the best known measure, but others exist. Jaffrelot uses the term, and in precisely this way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - Oh great! It's an academic term. You're so clever. So I guess since Wikipedia is for the everyday reader and should not include jargon or academic terms where possible you'd agree the term is bad, right? NickCT (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not, because I said it was "commonly used in academia" as a means of proving it is a specific meaningful term. It is not an academic term, because it is also used in the popular press, just not as frequently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - re "also used in the popular press, just not as frequently" - Very infrequently. It's use on WP should probably be very infrequent as well. I'd understand if you wanted to use this term in an article relating to economics or something, but using it in relation to a politicians BLP is awkward.

Regardless, I think we can both agree that I'm arguing for the more concise verbiage. If you really want to incorporate "human development" you should probably have a good rationale for why it's needed. Frankly I don't think either of the proposed sentences add anything to the article. The "Views about the human development .... remains mixed." could almost certainly be applied to virtually any politician. Doesn't add much real information. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So, just because something is apparently found more frequently in academia than in the popular press means Wikipedia should ignore it? I haven't done any metrics but I don't understand this rationale at all: it isn't actually fringe and academic terminology is as valid as any other. It would be better if it could be linked to something, sure, but almost inevitably indices are referred to more often by academia than by the popular press. We are supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - Read WP:NOTJARGON please. Where possible Wikipedia is written with the expectation that an average reader will be able to understand it. There isn't an assumption that readers are academic. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT; the term "human development" is used frequently enough outside academia that it hardly qualifies as jargon. I also agree with Sitush that this is hardly the time to be mucking around with a sensitive article. That being said, there is no harm in talking, and reaching consensus so that we may, if necessary, modify it post election. So, given that the notability of the sentence is not in doubt, how would you rephrase it, without either diluting the statement or making it too long-winded? At this point, removing it from the lead is not an option, looking at the way this RfC has played out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - re "So, given that the notability of the sentence is not in doubt, how would you rephrase it, without either diluting the statement or making it too long-winded?" - I think that's a good question to ask. There probably is some scope it just reword the sentence to make it a little clearer.

re "removing it from the lead is not an option" - Several editors have now chimed in saying "delete" is the right way to go. I think it is still very much an option, given that "delete" wasn't even offered as a possibility in the RfC. We'll let the closer decide. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick, we can't dumb down to the Facebook generation - that's what Simple Wikipedia is for. The term is used outside academic, not merely within it. If you've or anyone have never heard of it then you probably won't understand an awful lot of our articles, especially those relating to India - where terms such as crore, sanyasa, sant etc abound - or economics, or religion or, yes, politics. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - re "that's what Simple Wikipedia is for" - No it's not. Simple English is for people who have difficultly reading English. There are many people who may have a very firm grasp of English, who may not understand what "Human Development" means in the economic sense of the term.

re "especially those relating to India" - India is not special. There is no reason why English used to cover Indian subjects should be substantially different from American/British English. "Human Development" is not a term which is specific to India. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You've now just proven that you are clueless when it comes to Indian topics, how they are treated, how there are regarded and the problems that abound in them. You should get a job with the WMF - you'd fit in well, I suspect, because they too simply cannot comprehend the problems that their ideas are causing. Why is it, do you think, that so many very experienced contributors and a large chunk of the admin corps cannot grasp the complexities of this topic area, openly admit it and generally thank people like me for cleaning up the mess in the hothouse? FWIW, there have been several recent discussions about "Indian English", the general consensus of which was that we have to allow for the native usage etc. You'll see some at WT:INB and at least a couple at one of the MOS talk pages (where I was actually testing whether we even should be using the {{Indian English}} template. . - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess being clueless about Indian topics is better than being just clueless, huh Sitush? Trying to get back to the point, which you seem to have trouble sticking to, is your argument that "human development" is somehow a term that is more prevalent in "Indian English" than in American/British English? NickCT (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Neither the most prominent reliable sources on the extent to which Modi exceeded or did not exceed the expectations of the governed and the achievements of peers should be summarized with salient measures and facts, not sweeping generalities. EllenCT (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Taken in context with the proceeding sentence I don't see any BLP and neutrality issues and it seems to summarise the body adequately. I have no issue with using human development in the lead as I feel the concept is well enough known. A link to Human development (humanity) may help (although that article is not in the best shape). AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Why should it be removed? It adheres to NPOV. The criticisms are from reliable sources. Harsh (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Like explained before, it is not NPOV because it is focusing upon negative view only. Not the positive view about the human development under his administration. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the sentence that precedes it? - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It took many weeks to obtain consensus for the lead in more or less its current form. The guy is controversial and balancing it is a tricky act, but this did it and still does it. It is poor - too short, for example - but sufficient given the awkwardness of the subject matter. We really need to find an uninvolved someone from WP:GOCE or similar who might be willing to draft something but what we're seeing at the moment is people attempting to sanitise the lead during a high-profile election campaign, just as someone was going the other way by introducing the emotive "pogrom" word. Far better to wait until the campaign is over - it is not as if there is any particular BLP violation in the thing. As for EllenCT's position, well, they seem not to have much understanding of the topic and the heat it generates. Agreement on what constitute the "most prominent" reliable sources is not very likely - I'd suggest a read of the archives, which should keep them busy until the elections are over in five weeks' time. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I have to agree, the rhetoric "human development" is meaningless, it is political rhetoric that has no meaning. Remove the preamble entirely. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is not political rhetoric. Vanamonde, for exmaple, has already indicated the usage. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Nick and Damotclese. The lead should be clear, short and to the point and not the place for pov-pushing. The information can be put into the main article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have you actually read WP:LEAD? It doesn't look like it from your comment. Leads should summarise articles, which includes having to show both the good and the bad. Deleting this, as opposed to perhaps amending it, creates a POV situation that favours the subject and the wider Hindutva agenda. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP article, and in a BLP article the lead does not to mention every single criticism. There is already one criticism in the lead, which is enough for a BLP.

The Rahul Gandhi article has no criticism in the lead. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi's article has no criticism in the lead - what kind of justification is that ? Since, the other article doesn't have any criticism, let's turn this article into a fanpage- is that what you want? Harsh (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Why hasn't the creator of the RfC put up two sub-sections for voting and discussion. The whole RfC is turning a mess. Harsh (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Not lead material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: In my opinion it should be removed because there shall always be claims and counter claims. All the development talks have been criticised and have been countered and this cycle continues. Considering the present political situation, this is bound to happen. A biography page should be kept clean.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that the claims and counter claims are not evenly balanced. In the case of economic growth, most sources agree he has had a positive impact. In the case of the riots, most say he did not act with sufficient alacrity. In the case of Human development, most academic sources agree with the statement as currently presented. In each of these three, claims and counter claims exist, but we have presented a broad consensus in the lead. By your logic, we would then have to delete all of that, and that makes little sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Unclear and so is not appropriate in the lead.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is Called here by the RfC bot. Looking through the article, I see plenty of controversy about the economic development in the state, so noting the criticisms in the lead is appropriate. Either keep as is, or delete both this sentence and the previous sentence, as they form a pair and balance each other. LK (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Reword to include both sides of the story. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

BWC, as the article now stands, the previous sentence mentions the high economic growth under Modi, which is by far the most prominent praise he has received in good sources. Are you suggesting we add more praise, or would you be content with what currently exists? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove We have already the greatest criticism of his government - the 2002 Gujarat riots and balanced it with the greatest appreciation - economic growth. The HDI criticism is minor in comparison. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:46, 2 May 2014 (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.

Image

"Narendra Damodardas Modi (cropped).jpg" is more suitable for its usage in the infobox as it is clearer and better portrays him. Please do not change the image without discussion. Earlier warnings given by others have been ignored. Please do not replace this image unless a clearer one is available.--Mohit Singh (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

I would like to add the Gujarati traslation of Modi Ji's name: "Gujarati: નરેન્દ્ર દામોદરદાસ મોદી" - it says 'Narendra Damodardas Modi, In addition I would also request a possible Hindi translation: "Hindi: नरेंद्र दामोदरदास मोदी". Hindi is optional, but I think that a Gujarati version of his name is necessary. 94.205.101.192 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:INDICSCRIPTS. I am not necessarily a fan of the differential treatment of non-english languages, but the policy exists, and we must follow it. 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Vanamonde93 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

It should be changed from MP to Prime Minister Sagarkhatri93 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific as to what you need edited, where, and why. Give sources to back up your request. --JustBerry (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

15th Prime Misnister

Rvmathew85 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Which_Prime_Minister --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

Narendra Modie is 15th Prime Minister of India. Tapaljor (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

see above --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

14th Prime Minister of India to 15th Prime Minister of India

Jignesh6685 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another

Hindu Nationalist

Could someone please shed some light on Modi describing himself as "Hindu Nationalist" (3rd para in lead). He just merely said that he is born Hindu and a nationalist, so a Hindu nationalist. The definition employed by him and by "media and scholars" is clearly not the same. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's not ideal as the definitions employed by the media and what Modi said in the article are different. However, it is clear in the article that he dodged the question like politicians often do. More experienced editors will probably turn up soon to clarify. Cowlibob (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear the he dodged the question. But it should not be taken as his acceptance.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nationalist. I'm patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I am a born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So I'm a Hindu nationalist so yes, you can say I'm a Hindu nationalist because I'm a born Hindu.

Seems straight-forward. — goethean 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kumarila: You have absolutely no consensus to remove this. I have no intention of getting into another edit-war with you, but you are already flirting with a block on another page; please self-revert, and discuss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no consensus. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. You would think this is somewhat obvious, as he is the head of a Hindu nationalist party, and that he is described as one by various sources. JDiala (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is not much doubt that if he is Hindu nationalist. Point is he didn't himself say so. And it is not pretty straightforward from that above quoted line. A hindu who is also a nationalist isn't necessary to be a Hindu Nationalist. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ibnsina786 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)The article needs more information about the reasons why the Indian Muslim minority is apprehensive about Modi. I would add the following from the Wall Street Journal: “Muslims have watched Modi’s Gujarat model over the years — it is one of marginalization,” said Zaraful-Islam Khan, head of the All India Muslims Majlis-e-Mushawarat, an umbrella organization of Muslim groups based in New Delhi."

Modi's party, the BJP, fielded 482 candidates in the most recent election, yet only 7 were Muslim. There were 543 members of Parliament elected and only 23 were Muslim. An estimated 15% of India's population is Muslim., The Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/05/19/indias-muslim-minority-apprehensive-about-narendra-modi/

(1) There are others who disagree with Khan[1] so if Khan has to be quoted, I suggest that the opposite view should be mentioned too for balance. (2) About the 23 Muslim MPs elected, I don't know how it is related to this BLP. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

On (1) We have M J Akbar who mentions Congress' fear mongering, and Modi's stand of ensuring and assuring equality for every citizen, and the need for Hindus and Muslims to fight their common enemy: poverty. Video: http://youtu.be/8KD8dSioiKU We have to consider who is more representative of Indian Muslims in India regarding wp:WEIGHT. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much debate on the Hindu nationalist label (it is appropriate). The 'why muslims are wary of Modi' section/para is a good idea but needs to be carefully written. --regentspark (comment) 01:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is clear to whosoever can see, that Modi describes himself as a Hindu Nationalist. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Since Modi describes himself as a hindu nationalist (per YK above) and since everyone else does so as well, I've tweaked the statement to remove the wishy-washy element from it. Clear statements are always better. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the page today, as Modi is in the news, and I noticed this disagreement. I have no loyalty whatsoever to any side in Indian politics.

User:Vigyani has well said that the Reuters interview should not be taken as accepting the description of Hindu Nationalist. As User:Yogesh Khandke put it, Modi described himself as a Hindu Nationalist but not as a Hindu Nationalist. He was clearly dodging the question in a facetious manner, and that source sheds no light on whether the description is appropriate.

It may well be that other sources are sufficient to support describing Modi as a HN without any caveat. The decision should be based on whether there are significant reliable sources that contradict the claim. If there are, then they should be cited and the caveat likely should remain. If there are not, then the caveat might be removed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you're splitting semantic hairs here. He identifies strongly with a Hindu Nationalist party (the RSS) and that pretty much makes him a Hindu Nationalist. Adding media and scholars is a caveat is the sort of thing we should seek to avoid (and, it is worth noting that if scholars characterize a person in a certain way - without debate - then we can include that characterization without any qualifiers). --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, if there is consensus among reliable sources that he is a Hindu nationalist, then we don't need the caveat. If there is even a significant minority of reliable sources that argue against the label, then we should include the caveat.

So I agree with what you say, User:RegentsPark, from your third sentence onward. Your second sentence is proposing an answer to my questions, and I have no opinion on that matter. Your first sentence (criticizing what I said) makes me think that you did not understand my point.

The other part of my point was that this source, in which Modi seems to admit to being a Hindu nationalist but is actually facetiously dodging the question, should not be used as if it sheds any light on whether the description is appropriate.

By the way, please use the {{reply to}} template or otherwise link to my userpage if you want me to reply to anything written on this Talk page. I am happy to help with my understanding of Wikipedia policy, but this page is way too busy, and I care about the topic way too little, for me to keep it on my Watchlist. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are any scholarly reliable sources that say he is not a hindu nationalist or even argue that the label is incorrect. From what I can figure out, we're in agreement that the caveat should therefore be removed. So, I'm going to remove it again. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with RP. There are sources describing himself as a Hindu Nationalist, there are none denying it, and the only statement from him on the subject either confirms this or is irrelevant, depending on how you choose to read it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How is Modi's repartee irrelevant? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please consider my humble proposal of using "self-proclaimed Hindu nationalist"; with the words Hindu and Nationalist having their separate respective meanings and not indicating Hindu nationalism. Can we really ignore the fact that Modi himself didn't explicitly say that he is a Hindu nationalist(believer of Hindu nationalism)? However widely regarded he maybe as a believer in Hindu nationalism, we should use his definition and idea(no matter how vague) instead of speculating. With regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that we're not particularly concerned with labels that Modi may or may not have attached to himself. Reliable sources label him a Hindu Nationalist so that's the label we use as well. --regentspark (comment) 15:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

kindly tell what reliable sources you are talking about. Media? Newspaper? They have called him a mass murderer too. why are we giving precedence to these "reliable sources" over Modi's own account? Bhaskar1992 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are in the article and appear reliable and you can examine them. Please don't compare Hindu Nationalist with 'mass murderers'. That equation is mere hyperbole. --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

He is the 15th Prime Minister. Incorrectly quoted as 14th. Please see link: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/modi-now-indias-15th-pm/article6050522.ece Ajitpardeshi (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now:

• There is ongoing discussion whether Mr.Modi is 14th,15th or 16 th PM of india at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Which_Prime_Minister , Once consensus is reached we may change if necessary. Dr meetsingh  Talk  14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We should stick to the official PMO statement as 15th; till a consensus is achieved. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Early life and education section proposed edits.

• Removing the sentence about the consummation of the marriage. This sentence seems trivial as Sitush mentioned in an earlier discussion. There seems to be no particularly useful reason for having it included.

• Rewording the "having remained silent..." sentence to "Having remained silent on his marital status, during declarations related to candidature during four state elections since 2002 and having claimed that not having familial ties meant that he had no reason to be corrupt..." The rest of the sentence would be the same. This would fit the information in the Times of India source better.Cowlibob (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How is the existence of an estranged wife evidence of familial ties? Cowlibob (talk · contribs) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Yogesh Khandke: Sorry for the late reply. I've had a rethink and I think this sentence would be better if the whole single status bit was removed like it was in this edit[2] as the phrasing he used in that speech is very open to interpretation. However, the marriage issue and reasons why he didn't disclose it should be discussed in the article but perhaps it's better suited in the 2014 general election with appropriate references of course. Cowlibob (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current image of Modi swearing-in in the infobox seems to lot of distraction in the background. The mike in the front, the "third hand" on his left, a part of the Sari pallu on the right, a decapitated guard on top right. The flickr official Modi img is cleaner which no distractions. Compare with Cameroon and Obama articles.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

This Article needs controversies section about Modi's controversies. Rasulnrasul (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversies sections tend to be violations of NPOV whichever way they are written, and they also become magnets for all the POV pushers floating around. Integrating controversies into the rest of the content is a far healthier option. That said, if you have any "controversy" that has not been covered, and you havesources for it, bring it up here, and see what happens. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, A lot of issues are missing here, like his comments bloody hands,puppy comments Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Clean Chit"

@Mohitsingh: I removed the phrase, because as I said in my edit summary, it is colloquial English, and as such should not be used in the Encyclopedia. It is not a legal term; where is it ever used in a court order without quotation marks around it? "The court found no evidence" is perfectly clear, and neutral. "Clean chit" adds nothing, and is bad English to boot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry about your lack of legal knowledge if you say that the term clean chit is not used by courts without quotation marks around it. However I shall take the opportunity to give you few examples:

• Supreme Court of India: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Gandhi [Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2014] Para 23. It is true that the Respondent was given a clean chit by an order of the CBI court on 22nd December, 2012 but by that time the entire process initiated in pursuance...Had he applied for the post in question and had he been given a clean chit by the CBI court at the...para 15 "the Respondent was given a clean chit by the court of CBI by an order dated"
• Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital , Bareilly vs . Medical Council of India and Anr WP No. 585 of 2013 ( 06 . 09 . 2013 - SC )...non-production of the original appointment letters, even when asked for, the said Central Team still went ahead to give a clean chit to the...
• Nupur Talwar vs . Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr . ( 07 . 06 . 2012 - SC ) - ...the vehement contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Krishna Thadarai could not have been given a clean chit, when the blood of Hemraj...

I am ready and willing to give you as many cases as you want. However I hope that the above three judgments may suffice as they are latest and have been delivered by the of the apex court of India.--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Might be better to use some other phrasing. I'm not sure 'clean chit' is understood outside India and we don't want to confuse our global readers. We should strive to render all our material in plain, easily understood English. --regentspark (comment) 00:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Absolved him of the charges" is a well recognised term. We can use that in place of clean chit as it means the same.--Mohit Singh (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Outside India, "absolution" is something granted by a priest for a person's sins after confession. Here, it would confuse non-Indian readers. What is the issue with saying "found no evidence"?He wasn't "cleared of charges," because that would have happened in a trial; Modi never stood trial. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The article says "failed to find any prosecutable evidence" which is, I guess, the 'clean chit'. Perhaps we could say "determined that there was insufficient evidence for the charges to be prosecutable". --regentspark (comment) 01:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me. Anything that uses straightforward english, rather than idiomatic english. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I observed that there are syntax and grammatical errors in this article. I hope someone who has the time can correct them (I've corrected some).—Khabboos (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Image for Varanasi

For the sub-section 2014 general election, I believe that "File:Narendra Modi in Varanasi after winning Lok Sabha elections from the constituency..jpg" would be more suitable as it is directly linked with both of them and also to the sub-section. However Powerplant786 feels that "File:Ahilya Ghat by the Ganges, Varanasi.jpg" would be better as a representative image. He has cited an example of David Cameron's page where for 1997 election, such a representative image is used. However for 2006 local elections in Newcastle upon Tyne an image with Camaroon in his constituency is used. Opinions are welcome.--Mohit Singh (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, as i have reasoned earlier, putting a picture of any famous place, associated with the person is not very rare to find, I have cited the example of British PM, Cameron's page. It must be mentioned, that during the elections, Varanasi constituency became the most talked about election battle, hence the place itself requires a special mention. Not to forget, Varanasi is city of international repute. Second, the picture that has been put up as replacement/option, is of no particular significance, there are multiple pics of Modi, post election, on the page, also the picture is of no significance, it shows many people including Modi, who is not even easy to make out from the lot, standing at some place, it doesn't show any direct landmark or symbol of Varanasi, that can be related to his constituency, also the picture is of bad quality in relation to Modi, notice how his face has hid behind the garlands. Powerplant786 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as the example of David Camaron is concerned, I have already cited an example from the same page. So when a picture is available which included both the features, why should we use one which only shows a particular locality of Varanasi. Rest of the above arguments need no reply as they are not relevant. As far as the image is concerned, its clear enough and his face is not covered with garlands. Moreover the image is exactly related to the sub-section.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The example I cited still holds its ground, you have not actually refuted it, Picture of the constituency is still very much there on the aforesaid page. So the point of using a picture of the constituency/place, related to the person on the page still stands. As far as the picture you have brought in, is of no significance, its not clear, does not show Modi(subject of the page) standing out and is in no way showing any reference to Varanasi. Powerplant786 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

When we have many free images of Modi during the campaign, then last have a generic varanasi img?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Honorable

Is this a kosher honorific? Does Narendra Modi become "The Honorable Narendra Modi"? --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It is not a title that the Indian system uses, I think. It is occasionally used when referring to somebody, but I believe that is along the lines of "Shri" being used in Hindi. Not a formal honorific, but a mark of respect. In any case, are there sources for it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case I'll remove it pending sources. Probably added back by Inwind since their edit summary talks about overreferencing. --regentspark (comment) 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Its not honorific but style & I don't think we follow that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone who is unaware of the existence of article talk pages has re-inserted it. It looks like a form of address to me rather than an honorific but .... --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close. Consensus clearly in favour of removing the trivial incidents. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Considering the changed stature of the subject over the years, the article needs a rewrite, I suggest removal of sections related to trivial incidents in a politician's life (1) Spat with governer and (2) Uttarakhanda controversy they are completely undue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Jyoti (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's really surprising how much significance is given to the Uttarakhand controversy! ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 08:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support seems WP:UNDE IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• support per Strike eagle. N\And its a BLP violation for UNDUE controversy/criticismLihaas (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal of Governor incident. Its well covered in her article at Kamla Beniwal. Support trimming of Uttarakhand incident as it was verbosely written in WP:RECENTISM then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• support as proposer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support trimming both sections. At this point they are both Undue, but a couple of sentences is necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC) If the proposal is strictly for removal, as Yogesh seems to be suggesting, then my vote is an Oppose. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No general objection if someone actually wants to propose specific wording - this is far too vague a proposal as it stands. And it is no surprise to see the BJP supporters coming out in force ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is clear enough, drop the two sub-sections, per WP:UNDUE Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush I understand that the proposal is to trim the two sections (spat with governor and Uttarakhanda controversy). Instead of WP:FOC why do you have to label me? I had requested you to comment on my response to your remark about my conduct on ANI page also. Aside, if I do appreciate BJP party does it disqualify me in some sense by itself? Have I violated any wikipedia policy? Jyoti (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about trimming, it is about removal of those completely non-encyclopaedic sub-sections. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the intent of my wording too. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support trimming: the two incidents don't seem important enough to warrant entire sub-sections. Can be trimmed and merged into the corresponding main sections. And agree with Sitush, the wording can be discussed here. - Aurorion (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support trimming down the sections. We have to be careful of keeping NPOV when removing sections from a BLP. Cowlibob (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support : the Uttarakhand incident was a mistake of TOI and may be TOI's page can have the details. Modi made no such claims. Spat with the Governor is something that is very common thing and not something that should be present in a BLP IMO. -sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I agree that the two incidents are trivial. I'd also advocate removal of the sections "Election commission's cautioning" (practically every politician in India gets cautioned by the EC), "Sadbhavana mission and fasts" (what the heck is that anyway), and "Press and public relations". All these are relatively unimportant. --regentspark (comment) 01:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If no one has any substantial objections, I suggest removing at least the two sections suggested by Yogesh Khandke immediately (without waiting for this RfC to run its course). The reality is that Modi is the next Prime Minister of India and we need to refocus the article to that aspect of his career. The most important thing about Modi's past is the controversy surrounding his role in the 2002 riots and the need to have a detailed account of that controversy continues. But, almost everything else needs to either be tossed from the article or reduced to a single sentence somewhere. The two things suggested by YK are both eminently tossable. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest tossing all the sections you named, to maintain a semblance of neutrality, but go ahead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removed Governor Spat I've removed the governor spat. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing "Election commission's cautioning" Sadbhavana mission and fasts were a significant event in the Modi timeline; from press and PR; Modi Hangout seems significant ("The event made Modi the first Indian politician to interact with netizens through live chat on the internet"). However, both sections need to be trimmed or merged appropriately. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest someone takes the Uttarakhand section down. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Uttarkhand section. If nobody has serious objections, I suggest we also remove the other two sections that RP suggested (they received less coverage, and are hence less notable, than either of the sections we just removed.) Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

Please change the words "He is a controversial figure both within India as well as internationally[4][5][6][7] as his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots."

I suggest "He has been projected as a controversial figure by left wing parties and supported medias and his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots" Renjithmn0 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done the article quotes four highly reputable, independent, reliable sources (Reuters, Time, The Guardian and The Independent) - you haven't suggested one. Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A foreign name may not be a reputed one. Moreover the reports in these media cannot be termed as a universal truth. It is merely opinion of the media house. The same has been deplored by many and questions have been raised about the certain media opinions. [3], [4], [5], [6] .

So clearly if some media is raising the bogey to make him controversial, there are others who are critizing and questioning it. But it is also clear that somehow and mysteriously, only one view is given prominence here.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hillary's policy against Modi

That particular paragraph needs far better sourcing. Currently, it is sourced to a Guardian article, but the article itself refuses to make the allegations in its own voice; all it is willing to say is that "senior analyst said" and "officials claimed" and so on and so forth. So the paragraph is essentially built on the word of these anonymous officials, which is not good enough. The current sourcing would be on par with using a quotation from a Congress party leader about Modi, which, of course, is unacceptable. I have struck everything that was based on a quotation, as per the BLP policy; if a source is found, reinstating it is easy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, the three paragraphs devoted to Modi's troubles with Western nations should be reduced to one very short para. Something that basically says that the US, the EU and the UK boycotted Modi because of perceptions related to his role in the 2002 riots but reinstated ties with him during the run up to the 2014 elections and after he was elected PM. We've got too much stuff in the gujurat cm portion. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you make a cut? A lot of the users who've been involved with the dirty details here, myself included, cannot sometimes see the wood for the trees....Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Gave it a shot. :) --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

About deleting a sentence

If there is consensus, I want to delete the embarrassing sentence, 'He is a controversial figure both within India as well as internationally', in the Lead, because a lot of foreigners will be reading this article, since he is now the PM (anyway, the Supreme Court's SIT has given him a 'clean chit' - that he wasn't involved in/responsible for any of the rioting).—Khabboos (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, this again? Yes, that sentence is non-ideal, but it represents a balance between all the pro-Modi editors pushing the court verdict, and all the others (neutral as well as anti-Modi) who want to rely on Academia. If you can present a less weaselly version, I'd be happy to discuss it; but I would oppose a plain deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him controversial and that's why we use that word to describe Modi. It has nothing to do with whether or not he has received a clean chit. If he becomes uncontroversial per reliable sources in his new role (and I, for one, hope so), then we'll remove the label. --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

He is controversial. There is no denying that. And the word controversial is pretty much neutral too in my view. Bhaskar1992 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A foreign name may not be a reputed one. Moreover the reports in these media cannot be termed as a universal truth. It is merely opinion of the media house. The same has been deplored by many and questions have been raised about the certain media opinions. [7], [8], [9], [10] .

So clearly if some media is raising the bogey to make him controversial, there are others who are critizing and questioning it. But it is also clear that somehow and mysteriously, only one view is given prominence here, that too as a Wikipedia's voice.Users having biased mindset will term "foreign media" as something of a bible whose every article is true. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Modi's siblings: Wrong number!

Article states:

'He was the third of four children born to Damodardas Mulchand Modi and his wife, Heeraben.'

It is incorrect. Damodardas Mulchand Modi and Heeraben had six children, not four. The India Today report has a significant error. A number of English and Gujarati newspapers have correctly published the six names, which you can see at the article 'Family of Narendra Modi':

• http://www.bombaysamachar.com/frmStoryShow.aspx?sNo=73586
• http://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/national/at-a-glance-narendra-modi-s-family-members-13139.html includes photographs of all six
• http://narendramodisarkar.com/?p=120
• http://m.indiatvnews.com/m/article/4827681/?image=6
• http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/GUJ-AHD-know-about-newly-elected-bjp-poll-campaign-chief-narendra-modis-siblings-what-th-4287242-PHO.html?seq=1

Malaiya (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jashodaben

The words "single person" in Early life and education, 3rd para may imply that Modi lied about his marital status. But the metaphorical meaning of "Mere liye na koi aagey, na peechhey. Kiske liye bhrashtachaar karunga?" would be an indication to his very little family ties, including with his wife. So I humbly propose the word "Asceticism" to be used instead. So, instead of "...having claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt..." I propose to use "...having claimed that his ascetic life meant that he had no reason to be corrupt...". Any suggestion is welcomed. Bhaskar1992 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear wiki contributors, should we change the words "single person"? Any suggestions? Bhaskar1992 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

tweaked. --regentspark (comment) 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better now. Thanks RP. Bhaskar1992 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment-2

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.

---

Dear Wiki editors, I invite your comments for a consensus regarding the inclusion of my following contribs in Mr. Modi's article. I feel that the article contain many references to Modi's alleged role in 2002 riots but nothing to balance the arguments. Since the person is India's PM, I feel his side of story should feature in the article too. Please express your views. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In a 2002 interview, Modi said his only regret about the episode (of 2002 riots) was that he did not handle the news media better. Critics of Modi have used this statement to argue that Modi wanted to curb free speech at that time. In Modi's defense, many have pointed out the allegedly biased reporting of many media houses. Notably, a popular blogger who goes by the name "Ravinar" wrote and explained in his blog how certain reporters exaggerated and intensified the dangerous atmosphere.

Were there terrible killings? You bet, some of it very horrible. But the kind of dramatic and hysterical reporting on TV was no more news reporting.[...] For all this to make one man singularly responsible could not have been anything but an agenda driven media. This agenda had to be surely backed by political forces and extraordinary influx of funds. This is where the witch hunt of Narendra Modi started”.

— Ravinar, www.mediacrooks.com

Modi was himself quoted saying this in an interview-

It was my endeavour that we restore peace at the earliest possible.[...] But these TV channels kept on playing up the same incidents over and over again.[...] During those inflamed days, Barkha acted in the most irresponsible manner. Surat had not witnessed any communal killings, barring a few small incidents of clashes.[...] Barkha stood amidst closed shops screaming “This is Surat’s diamond market, but there is not a single police man here."

— Narendra Modi, Manushi.in

Moreover, many websites have tried to refute the allegations hurled at Modi. One of such websites, Gujarat Riots, attempts to ""bring out the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH"" of the Gujarat riots of 2002; including the truth of "myths" like "the Gujarat police turned a blind eye to the rioting", "the Gujarat government was involved in the riots", that Narendra Modi said:”Every action has equal and opposite reaction”, "Narendra Modi gave free hand to rioters for 3 days", "no one was brought to justice for the riots" etc. But the most interesting of all the "myths" is the myth regarding the "famous statement" of former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee who, according to a large section of media, allegedly said Modi was not following Rajdharma and advised him to treat everyone equally. But the video recording of the press conference where Mr. Vajpayee allegedly said the statement proves that Mr. Vajpayee never said that Modi was not following Rajdharma. Instead he acknowledged that Rajdharma was followed by Modi and his administration. Even then over the years these unfounded myths and allegations have created a perception of Modi being a hugely divisive and polarizing leader.

• Oppose There was a very lengthy discussion about the inclusion of any of Modi's statements in the article a few months ago. Consensus was against, because establishing notability for a specific statement over and above every statement he makes is near impossible. A lot of his statements were then removed from the article; by that rationale, this has no place. Also, you may want to read WP:TLDR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93. Not only is it too long but the sources (mediacrooks? gujaratriots.com?) are not even remotely credible. Add the needless long quotes and I don't see any reason for including this material here or even in the riots article. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I admit that my contribs are long. So I'm sensing there is more opposition to come:). Regarding the materials in gujaratriots.com though, regentspark, they had references to videos and newspaper articles. So I thought they were credible. Reason for my edits was because when I read the article of Modi I felt it had references to Modi's role in 2002 riots but none to counter it. So as a compromise, I propose this para one last time.

In a 2002 interview, Modi said his only regret about the episode (of 2002 riots) was that he did not handle the news media better. Critics of Modi have used this statement to argue that Modi wanted to curb free speech at that time. In his defense, Modi told to an Interviewer that during those inflamed days of riots some news reporters acted in the most irresponsible manner.

I only insist on adding this because the statement regarding handling media better has been wildly distorted in both domestic and International media as an attempt to curb free speech. I feel at least this instance merits a quote from Modi as to why he said that. Again, I look forward to your valued opinions. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The first statement is fine but the second statement appears to overstate what the source says. The quote in the manushi article refers only to Barkha Dutt and Vijay Trivedi. I don't think that can be generalized to "some news reporters" because it gives the impression that Modi felt there was more widespread biased reporting but this is just one channel. Also, the "critics of Modi" statement is unsourced and should be dropped unless a source exists. Perhaps something like In interviews, Modi has said his only regret about the episode was that he did not handle the news media better and has singled out India's NDTV channel as being irresponsible in its reporting. It could go at the end of the current last para. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

regentspark you worded it nicely. If there is no further objection then with your permission I would like to use your modified contribs along with the two references of nytimes.com and manushi.in. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you intend adding only the sentence RP composed in italics above, with sources, I have no objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Vanamonde93. will add it after regentspark gives his consent to use his modified contribs. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Bhaskar. Thanks for the rethinking! --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I see that Vanamonde93 and Regentspark had opposed but have agreed on another version now. If it is not a quote please do not WP:EDITORIALIZING by using 'singled out' and 'only regret'. He has on several occasions expressed that it was an unfortunate incidents... and mentioned other news channels too. Wait I do not see the proposed statement coming out of the replaced text at all! I would say just remove the quotes because there are no WP:RS for them and that is that. Jyoti (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jyoti, I believe regentspark put it very aptly. 'only regret' is part of Modi's quote. You can check the source. 'singled out' too is backed by the fact that both Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt (both of them worked for NDTV back then) were irresponsible in Modi's view. There is a source for that too. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This RFC started for inclusion of some quotes for which I see three oppose, no support, now we are discussion interpreted summary of it. For 'singled out' please read WP:EDITORIALIZING. Similarly please note that he has expressed sadness over the entire episode several times. 'only regret' came in the context of the immediate handling of the situation. The way it is summarized now the 'episode' presents an incomplete context. Jyoti (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What I originally proposed was very long. I took upon the suggestions and proposed a compromise because I felt very strongly that there should be a counter balance for allegations against Modi. I'm not saying Modi hasn't expressed any regrets. It is exactly in the context of handling of riots that he said 'only regret'. The reference too indicates that. Regarding 'singled out', in the interview to Madhu Kishwar he explicitly pointed out Barkha and Rajdeep. Maybe there are other instances of other news channels being pointed out by Modi. If you are willing, please provide some references. We will discuss to change the narrative then. Do you have any suggestion to improve upon 'singled out' and 'only regret'? What suggestions are you proposing to improve on the modified version of RegentsPark? with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Added the question of New York Times reporter Celia Dugger about handling of riots to the para by RP in the context which Modi said 'only regret' to clarify that 'only regret' shouldn't indicate that he was not sad about the killings. Bhaskar1992 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your discussion approach. I think you should wait for responses and not hurry up into editing the article. It is sufficient and better to say ...and said India's NDTV channel as being irresponsible in its reporting instead of ...and singled out India's NDTV channel as being irresponsible in its reporting. Please do read WP:MOS. Jyoti (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, I'm a bit confused as to why you are opposing singled out. Yes, I read the manual of style but please explain your reason a bit. According to me, 'singled out' is okay and well-within the guidelines of MoS & WP:EDITORIALIZING because it is used in the context that Modi has only cited NDTV's Barkha and Rajdeep for irresponsible reporting to date. If you have sources that say otherwise, please provide it. It will justify removing 'singled out'. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you simple use 'said'? The section from where you have picked the statement is titled "Narendra Modi on the Role of NDTV during the 2002 Riots" from here. Let me drag this a little further "But these TV channels kept on playing up the same incidents over and over again." and "On that day I had put a ban on TV channels because they were actually provoking trouble.". Please note channels and the title of the source. In the context 'singled out' falls under WP:EDITORIALIZING use simply 'said'. Jyoti (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Touché. I will rephrase it. Thank you. with regards, Bhaskar1992 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Simpler too, which is always good. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 30 May 2014 (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.

Formal membership of RSS

"There is no formal membership procedure of RSS. Any one can join the nearest ‘Shakha’, which is the basic unit and activity of RSS. There are no fees, no registration process. Once he starts attending Shakha, he is considered as a member".[11] is what the RSS declares.This article informs "Modi formally joined the RSS..." which is incongruent to RSS's stated policy, article needs to be corrected. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So should we change it to "Modi was actively involved with RSS after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971."? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "became a member". That fits with YK's definition above. --regentspark (comment) 11:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No! In the "Early life and education" section we have stated that he began attending shakha since he was 8 i.e. in 1958-59. So per RSS' website he was member-like since then. Also, I remember reading stuff elsewhere on RSS having no formal membership. This "membership" was also an issue in Nathuram Godse's case. While RSS was being roped in Gandhi's murder, RSS stated that he was active participant earlier but not since few years just preceding the assassination. RSS has clarified there too that they have no formal membership as such. So I would suggest not calling him a "member" and definitely not saying "became a member in YYYY". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We could say "joined the RSS" since that's what the source says. The formally is not necessary but we should go by what the sources say and "involved" has a different meaning. --regentspark (comment) 12:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we trust the newspaper on the right choice of words? Per RSS' definition, he happened to "join" since he was 8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the RSS definition, 'member' may actually be the better word. One becomes a member when he (are there women shakas?) attends a shaka therefore Modi is a member. The issue then is resolving this with the age 8 stuff but I would rather stick with what the sources say than delve into what definitions mean and draw conclusions of our own. Either way, the point is that the RSS is an important part of his life and that's what we're trying to get across. The source says "formally joined" so we should say "joined" or "formally joined".--regentspark (comment) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

{od} In my opinion "joined". --Jyoti (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On further research, this membership issue seems a bit disingenuous to me. Apparently, RSS members take the following oath: I hereby vow that I have become a unit of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in order to protect our sacred Hindu Dharma, Hindu culture and Hindu society and to achieve the all-round development of the Hindu nation. I assume that the India Today article refers to this oath taking and if taking an oath that includes "become a unit" is not "formally joined", then I don't know what is. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting, do we know if Modi took part in such an event? 'swyamasevaks' are RSS members, no? --Jyoti (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He formally joined according to the source and I've never seen a source that contradicts it. But Indian newspapers etc are often a bit sloppy with their phrasing and I have no objection to dropping the "formally", which is really just padding in our article: you are either in or you are not. I think that the oath issue muddies the waters: we cannot assume that he took it and in any event, for example, I took an oath around the age of 8 when I was in the Cub Scouts but I'm blowed if I understood it or that it was somehow binding for the rest of my life. That the Cubs influenced my life and that the shakas influenced Modi's is pretty much a given, if only because kids are vulnerable to suggestion, but I really wouldn't read too much into a child pledging allegiance to anything. (FWIW, RegentsPark, the RSS place high regard on the celibacy of its male members - devotion to the cause etc, pretty much as Modi has repeatedly said that he is better than his opponents because he has no wifely distractions. I've never heard of a female member of the RSS but perhaps they have a separate wing, similar to the National Socialist Women's League. One for the RSS article, I guess.) - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course they have a separate wing Rashtra Sevika Samiti since 1936. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazing, Sitush, with all your editing in the India environment, you seem not to be aware that RSS is an organisation for Hindu males.[12] Just like Scouts is for males and Guides is for females, and for the same reason I was told, when I enquired, that RSS like the Baden Powell movement in your kingdom doesn't want boys and girls to "rough and tumble", together. Same surprise with RP's knowledge.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of politics stuff anyway but I particularly dislike dealing with extremist right-wing sympathisers here or elsewhere (nor left-wing ones, for that matter). That's why I tend not to get involved with RSS stuff - it makes me want to puke & is a waste of time. But we're really going off-topic now. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You judge entities without having even basic understanding of them, great! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Modi's caste

The caste that Modi belongs to is of considerable significance. He was born in the Modh-Ghanchi community, Ghanchi literally means the oil-presser (Ghani=oil-press). It is specifically regarded to be an OBC community. It has been widely discussed in the press.

Malaiya (talk)

H doesn't belong to it anyway, unless we have a source showing that he self-identifies as doing so. His family may belong to it, provided there is no violation of their own "rights" under WP:BLP. Basically, we can't give the caste of a living person unless they have acknowledged the affiliation, and workrounds such as "born into" are also likely to be BLP breaches even though not of the article subject. As a general rule, caste is not particularly significant to notability or achievement anyway, although obviously there are exceptions. This is probably one of those exceptions but absent the self-identification, we cannot say it. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me see. Sitush claims that Modi does not belong to the Modh-Ghanchi caste, but his family may belong to it. Is Barrack Obama Black? Is Queen Elizabeth White? Is Hillary Clinton a woman? Was Nehru a Kashmiri Pandit? a How does one "self-identify" himself as belonging to a group one is born in? Provide a signed and notarized affidavit? Malaiya (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional news reports:

• Narendra Modi belongs to Modh-Ghanchi caste, which was added to OBCs categories in 1994, says Gujarat government, DNA 9 May 2014
• Modi a 'Fake OBC', Claims Congress "On Modi playing the caste card to counter Priyanka's "neech rajniti" barbs, saying Congress was targeting his lower caste origin, Gohil, who was a former CLP leader of Gujarat, released a copy of a Gujarat government circular to claim that Modi "manipulated" to bring his 'Modh Ghanchi' caste into the OBC list after he became Chief Minister of the state"
• Narendra Modi's 'Caste' Comeback for Priyanka's 'Neech Rajniti' May 06, 2014 ""I cannot deny I was born into a 'neechi jaati' (backward caste) but is that a crime?" asked Mr Modi at a rally in Domariyaganj in Uttar Pradesh today."
• મોદીની જાતિ સમૃદ્ધ વણિક નહીં પણ બક્ષી પંચ હેઠળની ‘મોઢ ઘાંચી’જ્ઞાતિ "રાજ્ય સરકારના પ્રવક્તા મંત્રી નીતિનભાઇ પટેલે કરેલી લેખિત સ્પષ્ટતા મુજબ મોદી બક્ષી પંચમાં સમાવિષ્ટ મોઢ ઘાંચી જ્ઞાતિના છે!"

-Malaiya (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the early life section, Modi is said to be one of four children as per the India Today article referenced. The Emperor uncrowned article [13] used for other parts of the sections says one of six children. This DNA article says one of six. [14]. Which is correct? Cowlibob (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

6. See [15] - Malaiya (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is likely to be an underlying problem because Indian media often just copy info from their competitors etc, which gives rise to all sorts of long-running issues for statements of what should be basic fact. For example, the garbage that regularly gets reinstated at Milkha Singh re: his birth date and alleged track successes. We could add a footnote saying that sources disagree, we could try to find a quoted statement from Modi or one of his siblings, or we could rephrase so that the number is not mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the latter course; removing the number until an unequivocal source is found. I've always been a bit cynical about the Indian media, but it does not help that yesterday I discovered that several websites had plagiarized this article; who is to say that the source for these newspapers was not Wikipedia in the first place? I'd also be curious as to what his biography has to say about it; haven't looked into that yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The now-at-AFD article Family of Narendra Modi lists six siblings with some info of each. It has no citations for all entries; but maybe its possible to hunt down names of all 6 and thus establish its actually 6. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact that that "information" is unsourced, there may be additional issues because of the Indian tradition of referring to cousins as siblings when discussing them in English. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have the author of that article in this discussion. Let them shade shed more light. (There is no Indian tradition to refer cousins and as siblings.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: No the information is not unsourced. The article Family of Narendra Modi lists multiple sources that mention the six children. I could have pointed out the specific ones that mention the 6 children, if I has thought there would be a question. The articles gives names, ages and professions of all of them. Anyway there are enough links that have been shared on this page. Malaiya (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "shed more light." And what is that comment in small letters supposed to mean? Have you genuinely never heard of it, or are you trying to get the last word? Perhaps "custom" was the phrase I was looking for; but it certainly exists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets see if they shed or shade it! I understood you meant custom and not tradition. But I guess Indian languages have more assorted varieties of cousins than "cousin" of English and hence I see no reason why they would be mixed with siblings. In fact, Indian languages have variety names for the nth-cousin-mce-removed too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha. One can hope. Yes, I am aware of that, and that is kind of what I was getting at; most Indian languages allow for complexities in ways that English does not, which is why when translated, stuff gets messy. Anyhow, let's see what that author has to say. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

From the Andy Marino biography, Modi is third of six children and it has names. You can see this info on the Amazon preview here on page 1 of the early years section of the book: [16] Dunno about the Mukhopadhyay one. Cowlibob (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC) - Thanks, Cowlibob. Malaiya (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is some doubt about the number of siblings, why don't we say "one of many children" and let it go. --regentspark (comment) 03:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt. Six children. I have updated the article Family of Narendra Modi, even though it will certainly be deleted soon.Malaiya (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Sitush, Dharmadhyaksha, and Vanamonde93: Is the Andy Marino bio source strong enough to add the three of the six children "correction" to the early life section? If not, shall we just go with the "one of many children" like RP has suggested above? Cowlibob (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've not read it and probably never will, so I can't really comment. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to the ebook preview above which has the relevant info. Here it is again anyway: [17] Sorry I can't link directly to the page but it's about half down the preview at the start of the Part 1 - beginnings section. The relevant text says:

When Narendra arrived he joined two elder brothers: Som, who was six years old, and Amrit, just four. There would come a sister, Vasanti, two years after Narendra was born, and then two more brothers, Prahlad in 1955 and Pankaj in 1958. Cowlibob (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mystery of the missing brother: The link given by Cowlibob will take you to Andy Marino's book when the text in question is easily seen. Andy Marino's book is practically an authorized biography (see NYT article For British Biographer, Modi Was Only a Phone Call Away. Apparently Amrit (or Amrut the common Gujarati spelling) અમૃતભાઈ દામોદરદાસ મોદી who until recently worked as a lathe machine operator at a factory, is too ordinary even for a such an ordinary family, he is the only one missing from the photographs (see (તસવીરમાં નરેન્દ્ર મોદીના બાળપણના મિત્ર શામળદાસ) the photo is of a childhood friend of Narendra, and not Amrit.) and not counted by an early reporter (Modi brothers quite an odd lot). Tracking him on the web would be hard because there is another famous અમૃતભાઈ મોદી in Gujarat. Malaiya (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Visual Proof: Here is visual proof of the siblings in videos. Except for Amritbhai who has not been appeared in the news (but is included in this geneology. Jashodaben, Somabhai, Prahlad Vasantiben, PankajMalaiya (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Needs immediate correction in the lead

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.

---

The article mentions that "Mr Modi is a controversial figure.....". The same is expressed as a Wikipedia's voice. However terming Mr Modi controversial is itself controversial as many prominent personalities as well as media aricles have raised doubts over the same. Moreover certain overenthusiastic users always cite that because foreign media is terming him as controversial hence he is so. A foreign name need not be a reputed and authentic one. Reports or articles printed in it are not bible; the reports in these media cannot be termed as a universal truth and are subject to questions. It is merely opinion of the media house. The same has been deplored by many and questions have been raised about the certain media opinions. [18], [19], [20], [21] . So clearly if some media is raising the bogey to make him controversial, there are others who are critizing and questioning it. But it is also clear that somehow and mysteriously, only one view is given prominence here. This seriously needs to change and removed. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot remember how many times you have brought up this same argument on this talk page. I have no intention of getting into a conversation with you; suffice to say you need to look up the definition of controversial, as you have been asked to do before. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is better to talk on facts and sources, but rather than arguing logically, your habit has become to always rant on the definition of controversial. By your definition, every politician in this world will be controversial. So kindly limit your dictionary knowledge of English to yourself and talk on facts/ sources that counter the argument. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2014 (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.

Controversial is considered as a weasel word in UK, why use a weasel word? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)