Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

he is a murderer a activist of RSS group which is a terrorist group 83.110.225.61 (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

World Records

Multiple world records of PM Modi and his initiatives including 1 for Jan Dhan Yojana(see [1]), 2 for yoga day (see [2][3]), 1 for 1st PM to (see [4]), 1 for 3D Appearance (see [5]), 1 for largest assembly of party workers (see [6]), 1 for PAHAL (see [7]) and 1 for twitter (see [8][9]) deserve a mention in the respective sections. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea. But perhaps better suited at [10] --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha I would phrase my reply in Hindi Uplabdhiyan dekhke mirchi lagi? (Feeling jaleous of his achievements?) :p -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar reply here too. These feats can go in the individual articles of these events/schemes or when the PMship article is written. Lets keep biography away from such feats. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Don't use such words like "mirchi" and "jealousy" here, some editors said you got very much leeway, your such comments will go only against you. This is not facebook. Limited humour is allowed here but preferably you avoid it specially debating with experienced editors. Don't show your immaturity again and again. You are topic banned from Indian religions, just think what will happen if you are topic banned from Indian politics or all India related topics? I think you will not get anymore chances. Maybe your next mistake can lead you to topic ban. Be aware. --Human3015^TALK  02:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that Human3015. I should have not used it. But I guess, even I deserve some respect. I mentioned about referenced content and asked for if it can be added or not. And the answer I got was "Nice idea. But perhaps better suited at [11]". -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The academics' verdict

There have been repeated calls to include information about Narendra Modi's tenure as Prime Minister, and many of us have felt that the dust hasn't yet settled on his performance yet. Now, 125 academics have issued a letter that says this:

Modi’s first year in office as the Prime Minister of India includes well publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary. Under Mr. Modi’s tenure as Prime Minister, academic freedom is also at risk: foreign scholars have been denied entry to India to attend international conferences, there has been interference with the governance of top Indian universities and academic institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Indian Institutes of Technology and Nalanda University; as well as underqualified or incompetent key appointments made to the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Film and Television Institute of India, and the National Book Trust. A proposed bill to bring the Indian Institutes of Management under direct control of government is also worrisome. These alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country.

Follow-up letters here and here. The pro-camp has created a change.org petition. So, it looks like we might have a serious debate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is important and has value. It could be cited in this article. This letter was drafted in the context of Modi's visit to San Francisco in the United States. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The second follow-up letter gives loads of sources that we can use directly. It is sad to find out that the Kalburgi's murder was nationalist-inspired. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

These are all blogs which seems to be not written in neutral manner, also has some factual errors like one of above blog mentioning that "Prime Minister Modi who is a RSS member", while Modi left RSS before joining office of CM of Gujarat. --Human3015^TALK  21:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 Yes, confirmed, these are not written in a neutral manner and are obviously criticism. Wikipedia has to be neutral, but cited sources do not need to be. Neutrality in Wikipedia happens when all perspectives are included, and when the major biased perspectives can be compared. This is from a blog but it is published by American Association of University Professors and can be trusted as a source for the consensus statement of the people who signed it.

If this is put into the article, it would be nice to balance with a counter-perspective that has the opposite bias. These people talk about censorship, but lots of other sources say that Modi has greatly increased government transparency. Both of these perspectives are valid. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 forgets that our policies permit self-published material from reliable scholars: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. These are top scholars in the South Asian Studies field that we cite in almost every article we write. He also ignores the fact that they have given us loads of factual information in the second follow-up that I posted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a piece on the scholars' letter.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In India too, protests are coming in pretty much every day against the growing intolerance in the country and the government apathy (in fact, Narendra Modi's apathy):

• Writers: Munawar Rana, Katyayani Vidmahe return Akademi awards; PEN International expresses solidarity with authors, The Indian Express, 19 October 2015; Here are the 33 writers who returned their Sahitya Akademi awards, The Indian Express, 25 October 2015; Writers protest ‘rising intolerance’, The Indian Express, 21 October 2015; Writers make a point with silent march to Sahitya Akademi building, The Indian Express, 24 October 2015.
• Actors: Kabir Khan, Emraan Hashmi, Soha Ali Khan slam intolerance towards Pakistani artistes, The Indian Express, 23 October 2015; Pune theatre artiste’s creative Protest — a silent 15-minute ‘blood bath’ on stage, The Indian Express, 25 October 2015.
• Film makers: Full text: Dibakar Banerjee and 9 other filmmakers’ letter to President and Prime Minister, The Indian Express, 28 october 2015; FTII row: 12 filmmakers return national awards to join agitation against ‘intolerance’ The Indian Express, 29 October 2015.
• Scientists: Top scientists join protest, slam ‘climate of intolerance’, The Indian Express, 29 October 2015.
• Historians: Now, historians speak out against ‘highly vitiated atmosphere’, The Indian Express, 29 October 2015.

Loads of top people in all fields, including Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan awardees have returned their awards, protesting against the government's acquiescence of the growing intolerance. It seems to me that this government has acquired a serious deficit of trust. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You must have missed everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of award-returners and their affiliations to the Congress party. They were pretty much universally condemned. Please post those articles too. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::@Kautilya3: it is not only about facts but perception of the facts. Modi bhakts going to support Modi whatever he does, same way some Modi haters going to criticise Modi on any issue. There are "scholars" in both of these group. Regarding perception of facts, attacks on churches in India during Modi's administration are same that of last year of Manmohan Singh's administration, then why Singh's rule was not "communal"? Kalburgi was assassinated recently but Dabholkar was assassinated during Congress regime then why they are not responsible for it? I can provide scholarly sources for my claims. We are encyclopedia, we can't put forward someone else' agenda. We have written lots of criticism regarding Gujarat riots which this article deserves and we can add criticism of his first year of PM regarding his failure in implementation of policies or bringing back black money etc, but writing "intolerance in India is increased since Modi came" is just direct or indirect POV pushing or supporting some propaganda. --Human3015^TALK  22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Not all of them affiliated to Congress, some of them like Sarah Joseph are Aam Admi Party leaders. But it is may not be good to call all of them as political people, some of them are non-political, but questions remains how it can become part of biography of Modi? We can also get many scholarly criticism of these "scholars" who are returning their awards, common question is "Where were they at XYZ religious incidence during Congress regime?". These things are political moves and I think that don't deserve place here. There are many articles related to Secularism in India or related to religious violence, maybe it can be added there. We also have various lists of Indian who got some award, we can also create List of Indians who returned their award. --Human3015^TALK  23:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015 and VictoriaGrayson: Please stop engaging in WP:OR and WP:FORUMy discussions. If you have reliable sources of stature equivalent to the scholars and writers being referenced here, please bring them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's sourcing is not based what you personally feel is "of stature equivalent to the scholars and writers being referenced here".
• The scholars' letters are primary sources.
• Regarding the award-returnees, the link to Modi is not explicitly mentioned by many of your own sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia sourcing indeed takes into account "stature" in the sense of academic and professional standing of sources. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
• The paragraph I quoted above is by no means a primary source. If you think so, your understanding of WP:PRIMARY is wrong.
• As for the mention of Modi, I can quote this from the historians' statement:

“And when it is hoped that the head of government will make a statement about improving the prevailing conditions, he chooses to speak only about general poverty; and it takes the head of the state to make the required reassuring statement, not once but twice. When writer after writer is returning their award of recognition in protest, no comment is made about the conditions that caused the protest; instead the ministers call it a paper revolution and advise the writers to stop writing. This is as good as saying that intellectuals will be silenced if they protest,” it said.

That seems quite clear and explicit to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the Carly Fiorina page. The sources it uses are not scholars. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are doing more damage than good by running such an agenda. I have checked Arvind Kejriwal, Sonia Gandhi and many other pages related to BLP. They have been strongly censored to exclude all the criticism and now there is not even a single word which talks about the other side of them. The articles are like court poets of Akbar which do nothing but sing for him either to praise him or to please him. Where its opposite in case of Narendra Modi. You bring here all kinds of justifications and logics to include any and every criticism that might have been done by anybody. He is PM of the India. If you feel you want to damage Wikipedia for your agenda go ahead. By the way, The most so called reliable source considered here is INDIAN MEDIA, which have been time and again accused by everyone to be biased. If you want, go ahead and see Social Media, where there is a flood of both supporters and haters of EVERYONE. Be it Kejriwal, or Sonia. But its only MODI you want to include everything negative about, no matter how politically motivated it is. Further, he has just found his place in WEF top 10 people. No discussion on that. I asked for slogans, you said include it in public image. I suggest you create a separate criticism article and do all the agenda talks there and give the link to that page in See also. But let this page respect BLP. If good needs to go to separate pages and not in this one, so should be bad. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this would be considered to include any info in this article. I am 100% sure the source I shared would be ignored. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

World Record is not a reliable source I guess, because it has not been able to find its place in this article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I can give you many examples but you can read these, Vidya Balan on her National Award, "Scientist" ISRO Chief says "return of award is just a show, Madhur Bhandarkar on award return row, Anupam Kher slams award returning filmmakers (you can say Anupam Kher is affilated to BJP, but with same logic many award returners are affiliated to some party), Lyricist Prasoon Joshi speaks against award returners, Even Shashi Tharoor slamming award wapsi. Also there are many cricketers including Tedulkar, filmstars, Singers like Kailash Kher, authors who are working for Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and praises government. If you want to mention award returners then you have to also mention who is criticising them. There are many editorials by reliable scholars who also cricised these award returners.--Human3015^TALK  03:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt you would include this. By the way, its hilarious that I havent been able to find or read about a single leader post Mahatma Gandhi era, which have addressed the huge rallies like Modi do abroad. All his public meetings abroad have count of tens of thousands without a fail. And every time the stadium is filled with the hootings Modi Modi. But the fact is not relevant for agenda runners here. Right? Can you please point me to a single political leader of the world who have adressed such huge audience live abroad even in a single country, leave alone modi comparison. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Control Pankaj Control. That is different thing. Here we are talking about inclusion of recent events. I think you gave one nice suggestion to create new criticism page of Modi, that may work. But even creating "crtiticism" secion within article is not allowed, we have to merge or write "criticism" in overall article without creating such section, so creating separate article on "criticism" is against policies.--Human3015^TALK  03:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I think you have missed the point. The people who are protesting by returning their awards are not under trial here. Whether other people think their manner of protest is reasonable or not is not our business. You can go and debate them in debating forums, of which there are plenty. The point of relevance is the causes for which they are protesting, the causes for which the government is being blamed. In the words of the American South Asian scholars, they are: well publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary as well as the attack on academic freedom. If these assessments should not be included in our article, you better find reliable sources that contradict them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why no word of criticism included in Arvind Kejriwal? Has no-one ever opposed him? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kautilya3, In your list you have even mentioned Emran Hashmi and you are denying other people. If Vidya Balan returns her award then she becomes scholar and deserves mention but if she says she will not return her award then her statement becomes non-notable? Padma Bhushan Scientist Bhargav is returning his award but Padma Vibhushan ISRO scientist Madhavan criticising these award wapsi which you think do not deserve mention. And all these we are writing in biography of Modi instead of somewhere relevant place. On Wikipedia we write both sides, we should mention "protest" but also "criticism of protest". --Human3015^TALK  04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana needs a mention, they are longer topics with many scholarly analysis done. Not a single word on these in the article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Modi has said to Hindus and Muslims to not fight against each other but fight poverty. Modi also said to ignore statements given by various communal leaders and do not listen to them. read here, here. Bur those "scholars" who don't read news papers are keep on saying that Modi is mum over "intolerance" in country. Where does his these statements have mention? Is there any statement by Modi against any community which increased intolerance in country? Does Modi incited intolerance? There are statements by some leaders like Sakshi Maharaj and others but how Modi is responsible for that? If you want to write "there is increasing intolerance in India since Modi became PM" then we should also mention that "In reply to increasing intolerance in country Modi urged Hindus and Muslims to not fight against each other but fight against poverty." Afterall this article is about Modi, not about "intolerance in India", so Modi's statements regarding this issue gets priority here. --Human3015^TALK  11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 Once again, you are falling into a FORUMy discussion.

• Whether Modi has incited intolerance or not, we have no way of knowing. You should not be making that kind of an argument.
• We have no obligation to include both "positive" and "negative" views. We are not a television network. As per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT we summarize all the viewpoints that appear in reliable sources. It so happens that the scholars who are critical of Modi (if that is what they are) have spoken. The scholars who might possibly support Modi haven't. If they have spoken, please produce such sources. Not news items but scholarly analysis of news items.
• We don't cherry pick from the thousands or millions of news items that cover a national government or head of government. We depend on the scholars to do such picking.
• We also don't include "criticisms of criticisms". We might include, as per due WP:WEIGHT, contradictory views among scholars. To pick an example, Vamsee Juluri has written a blog post criticising the original 125 scholars. But that is of no value to us. If Juluri had produced a scholarly analysis of Modi government, we could include that. But it appears that Juluri is a Media Studies scholar. So it is unlikely that he will produce anything useful here.
• So where are the scholars (third party scholars) who might give you positive views of the Modi government? If you want to make an impact on this article, that is whom you need to hunt for.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder you want to write about "intolerance in country" in Modi's article but don't want to write Modi's views on "intolerance in country". --Human3015^TALK  12:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not scholars. It would be arrogant of us to assume such a role. We don't decide whether the views of Modi should be covered in an analysis of Modi. That is for scholars to do.

@Abecedare, NeilN, and SpacemanSpiff: Can somebody step in and put an end to the WP:FORUM that is developing here? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you should provide your draft what you want to write. Moreover, Modi's views about "intolerance in country" are important if you are writing it in this article. This is article about Modi. Modi's views on intolerance are not important if there is an article named Intolerance in India. And also read WP:ADMINSHOP.--Human3015^TALK  12:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adminshopping much? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Time and again we see proposals to edit this biography when that all content is more suitable for Primeministership of Narendra Modi or something such. Most of the "academics" can be linked with non-BJP parties. If one wishes to write their stand and be neutral too, the page will have a lot of UNDUE stuff here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment
• The problem with much of the above discussion is that it is too early to judge Modi. Ideally, what we should say is something along the lines of "As Prime Minister, Modi has initiated various economic initiatives - list 3 or 4 of the more important ones here. However, his administration has also been marked by allegations of attempts to curtail religious and academic freedom in India - mention the sahitya academy stuff and the beef bans and murders." Anything more is too much and, as DD says, should probably go in his PM article. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes it should have been in his PM article. Regarding "intolerance" Modi said "Hindus and Muslims should not fight each other", no one insisting to include this sentence but people are opposing to include this statement even while mentioning current "intolerance" in country. If he would have said opposite that "Hindus and Muslims should fight with each other" then this statement would have featured in lead section of this article. There is a basic Wikipedia policy named WP:NPOV. I think what Kautilya is suggesting lacks NPOV. He want to write about award returners but don't want to mention other elite people who are critising those award returners. Arun Jaitley called these award returners as "rabid", but I'm not saying to include it here, but remarks of other scientists and filmmakers are important in this respect. (But if there is separate article on PMship then we can mention "rabid" remark there). He want to write "intolerance" is increasing in India since Modi came but don't want to write Modi's view on "intolerance" in Modi's article. If Modi would have said any inciting statement then same people would have supported to write it here.--Human3015^TALK  13:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  Human3015, we don't really care what Modi has said or not said. What we care about is what reliable source say his premiership is doing. By all appearances, they are saying that he is starting various economic schemes but also that there is an increasing climate of intolerance under his administration. That's what we should say too. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

But as many sources pointed out, there were worse communal incidents under the Congress party, even as recently as 2013.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

When Modi says "I'm Hindu Nationalist" then we mention it in lead attaching citation of his that interview, but when he says "Hindus and Muslims should not fight against each other" that time we don't care what Modi says. It is a biography article, and his views does deserve mention, same way "Hindu nationalist" mentioned in article. --Human3015^TALK  15:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

we are not writing Modi's views on his own government, we are just writing his views on "intolerance", which is biographic and encyclopedic. We are also adding criticism by others. --Human3015^TALK  16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clear my stance, I'm not Modi supporter or his Bhakt. I have never done any editing on page of BJP, RSS, Bajarang Dal etc to show them some nice organization. I have created page Foreign Direct Investment in India which was featured on main page under DYK section, I wrote how FDI in India increased and other things, but not a single time I wrote name of Modi in that article, I have not written "something good happened because of Modi" though I was having all liberty to edit that article. I have mentioned Make in India but I just said it is initiative of Government of India. Im saying this because many times some editors gets "labelled" and other editors thinks that he is doing some POV pushing.--Human3015^TALK  16:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Um, no. When other people call Modi a Hindu nationalist, we say he is a hindu nationalist. And, surely, 'biographic and encyclopedic' includes opinions about a person's career. Otherwise we will be reduced to "born in, married in, and died in." --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

He is a Hindu Nationalist. Has anyone objected? --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark and Kautilya3: What you were opposing to add in this article for some reasons is currently on the main page. I think these kind of "intolerant" things can be added in dadri article. Actually its already there. --Human3015^TALK  05:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gaurdian report in Public Image section

Why the article Narendra Modi: the divisive manipulator who charmed the world it should not be include in public image section. Are planning to add only the positive content ? --Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been referred to WP:NEWSORG which states that newspapers are only reliable for news, not opinions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Note also that your attribution is wrong. It should be attributed to the author of the opinion, not the newspaper. Only editorials can be attributed to the newspaper. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If attribution is wrong, we can use articles author name like it was in positive opinions. I referred the mentioned WP:NEWSORG, what about deleting positive opinions on the same lines. Modi has also been called a fashion-icon(_{and this part describes everything positive by omitting controversy over his name on suit}) . Modi is "good on economics" – one of the things "India desperately needs in a leader""The Indian stock market's greatest hope..... --Rasulnrasul (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you attribute it Pankaj Mishra, it is not going to have any weight any more. It would be just an isolated commentator. The "divisive" bit is already mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. "Manipulation" and "charming the world" come naturally to politicians. So there is no substance there. The factual information that can possibly be attributed to the Guardian itself is the phrase "presided over a rising tide of assassinations and religious zealotry." That issue is in fact substantiated in the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

your reasons are selective and not valid. Also please provide your opinion about remove positive opinion. Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't agree with rahurlnasrul's edit, he is right about one thing. The entire image section is tiptoeing around what is probably Modi's most salient characteristic - the fact that he is a divisive and controversial figure. An entire paragraph to fashion icon? I thought that this was supposed to be a serious encyclopedia that focused on what was important. The takeaway from the current image section is that Modi is a hardworking, powerful, and popular leader who manages the economy well and also finds the time to be a fashion leader. Oh, and yes, 'some media sources' think he is divisive. Fan of Modi or not, this is not reality. --regentspark (comment) 20:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Only in the western media where every mention of Modi is accompanied with 2002 Gujarat riots.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Indian media also relates Modi with Gujrat roits, but current issue is why only selective positive opinions are included while ignoring negative opinions. How wiki rule vary about positive and negative opinions from reliable sources? The takeaway from the current image section is that Modi is a hardworking, powerful, and popular leader who manages the economy well and also finds the time to be a fashion leader. It looks like paid advertisement rather than enclyopedia Rasulnrasul (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rasul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:428:AFBF:0:30:E27E:C601 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Narendra Modi ministry

Proposer blocked for socking in invasion of his block. Closing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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 is not notable enough. However, if it is merged with the Wiki page Narendra Modi, it will be in the right context. Isnowden (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, suggest renaming to "Narendra Modi administration" and expanding it. The administration clearly needs an article, but the cabinet by itself, not so much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Proposer has been blocked as sock. --Human3015^TALK  21:00, 16 December 2015 (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.

Proposed merge with Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi

Proposer blocked for socking in invasion of his block. Closing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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 is neither an encyclopedic subject, not a historical event. The swearing-in ceremonies happen around the world, but they do not qualify to be an encyclopedic subject. This article should be created as a sub-section and not an individual wiki page. Currently, it is nothing more than a press release. Isnowden (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Rather non-encyclopedic article, in my view. The person is (obviously) notable, and there will likely be more than enough material for an article about his administration; but this is overboard. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Proposal is made in block evasion. Proposer of this merge has been blocked as sock. --Human3015^TALK  20:42, 16 December 2015 (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 figure domestically and internationally*"

Could I add to that, that controversy does not begin to describe it. His party is openly fascist, founded by an admirer or Hitler. He himself has a long series of bigoted statements and actions against Muslims, investigated repeatedly for failing to protect Muslims who were mass murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.249.3.198 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"controversial figure domestically and internationally" of lead only sources to links before 2011 and they don't support the assertion except that he was controversial in India. His travel ban on the US was also removed. Can we have some new and accurate source to support this sentence? Or we can just remove now. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I support a removal if new sources are not available. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the various discussions above (and note the sources provided). --regentspark (comment) 12:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:, those discussions and sources only support the sentence "criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state and failing to prevent the 2002 Gujarat riots", but not more than that. Can you verify again? D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Indian PM Narendra Modi still mired in controversy, Modi has become one of the most polarizing political characters on the world stage since he was elected last year, receiving both rock star status and antagonized receptions throughout his international visits, Modi remains mired in considerable controversy about his role in the event. Looks clear enough to me. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

He was and he remains a controversial figure both at home and internationally. Just go search for his name on the BBC News website, for example. The guy pops up almost weekly in stories that raise serious criticisms and debate regarding such things as his economic policies, his failed promises and his underlying Hindu nationalism. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the pre-2011 examples, of which there are many more than those we list, are still "live" and most probably will remain so long after Modi himself has died. The previous discussions dealt with all this and reached the compromise that is reflected in the article as it exists now. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked, not that I could find any, but you have a point, can we just keep it as "He remains a controversial figure." D4iNa4 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If examples are required, the current controversy may help. Modi has been criticized for not condemning the killing of a Muslim man suspected of the sin of eating beef, whilst he is at the same time calling for the banning of the killing of cows and the beef trade. The inference that the lives of cows are more important than those of Muslim men is inevitable, even if not an accurate indication of Modi's views. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Narendra Modi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131207150752/http://www.hindustantimes.com/specials/coverage/gujarat-assembly-elections-2012/chunk-ht-ui-gujaratassemblyelections2012-topstories/narendra-modi-wins-maninagar-by-70-000-votes/sp-article10-976853.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-TopStories/Narendra-Modi-wins-Maninagar-by-70-000-votes/SP-Article10-976853.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130210144412/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-BlogPostsAshokMalik/Popular-but-polarising-can-Narendra-Modi-be-PM/SP-Article10-956550.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-BlogPostsAshokMalik/Popular-but-polarising-can-Narendra-Modi-be-PM/SP-Article10-956550.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

Under the heading "2014 Indian general election campaign", consider the third paragraph, first line, the verb to be used is "speed-up" instead of "speed up" because the '-' indicates the association of 'speed' to 'up' and not to 'government decision-making'. Anuraglal13 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Some people on Wikipedia are quite particular about which particular Short horizontal line should be used. User:Chris the speller may like to comment - Arjayay (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Please re-open this once consensus is reached. Thanks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The phrasal verb "speed up" does not need any punctuation at all. A phrasal verb should never be hyphenated. Chris the speller ^yack 03:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Development debate

Hello. I wanted to correct the following for erratic English: "He has been praised for facilitating ease of doing business and ending buerocratic logjam which made investment in India an olympic feat. Gujarat topped the World Bank's ease of doing business rankings for two consecutive years.[149] of which the first report was blocked by the then UPA government.[150]". But then, I checked the sources and what I see there is quite far from what the article says:

1. it's not a World Bank ranking
2. it's not clear that Gujarat was on top the previous year
3. the UPA government didn't block the first report

So I would propose to replace the whole thing by: "Among Indian states, Gujarat topped an ease of doing business ranking in September 2015". But then the problem is, in September 2015, Modi hadn't been Chief Minister of Gujarat for quite some time. So, should we remove this? Thanks, Biwom (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This forum is already rife with examples of the lack of NPOV in this article, which reads more like a propaganda piece than a neutral view of a politician. I could give nearly the entire article as an example, but we have particularly egregious lines like "As Prime Minister, Modi began working to speed up the efficiency of India's economy and make it more business-friendly.".

Jkoudys (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be simpler if you just go ahead and change the text and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, then the discussion can move to the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling out one line, I'm calling out the whole article. I don't know that much about the man, but it's quite obvious to me (or any reasonable person who reads it) that the tone is heavily non-NPOV. I'm simply following the guidelines for marking an article as POV by starting this section on the talk page. Jkoudys (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark on this. Point out the phrases and copyedit and if someone revert, then start the discussion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkoudys: - I agree with your concerns. I think a lot of the biased wording is due to Modi's current very high personal popularity in India and high poll ratings. AusLondonder (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I also think it is appropriate to raise the matter here prior to any significant clean-up being attempted. AusLondonder (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd still suggest moving ahead with small scale changes first. A generic 'the article is non neutral' is not going to get us anywhere. Start with specific non-neutral statements (obvious ones like jkoudys' example in the OP is a good place to start). Reword the statement (or argue for its removal). And let's see what happens. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a knotty problem and perhaps discussion is the way to go after all. I took a look at the statement quoted above and it looks like the entire paragraph is sourced to news reports immediately following the election. Except for the abolishment of the planning commission, the stuff is entirely speculative from a 18 month old perspective. Either we get references that are more up to date that tell us whether these speculations about reforms actually took place, I would suggest deleting the entire thing. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously he's an incredibly influential and important person, so there needs to be something here, but yeah it does feel like like the first cut needs to be done with an axe, not a scalpel. I mean, the first paragraph states "Modi remains a controversial figure domestically and internationally, despite his progressivism", which is a weasel-words way of saying "Modi has critics in spite of how great he is". It's embarrassingly POV. Jkoudys (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The controversial statement was settled on a while ago and 'despite his progressivism was recently added by someone. I've removed it. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that someone would add a statement saying Modi is "progressive" given he is actually from the centre-right party of India. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Meh. As with the case of every article on an incumbent head of state, there is bound to be some POV language creeping in. At least this page is in way better shape than the whole slew of articles in Template:Narendra Modi which is rifled with copyright violations and other major issues. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Masked Man of Mega Might: He's actually a head of government, you know. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's Call the Whole Thing Off. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

New section on IT policy

I propose to create a new section in Prime Minister IT Policy from the existing article Digital India. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not needed. Digital India is already mentioned in Economic Policies and has its own article. It is premature to say much about the impact of Digital India anyway. I do not think it warrants a whole section on Modi's page. Givemeplease (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? I echo Givemeplease's thoughts, apart from a brief mention+link, this is better covered on its own page.Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Impact is not relevant here. Its biography of Narendra Modi and we need to mention his initiatives and reactions on it from public. Impactful or not, the initiative has created a buzz in Indian media and is has got international attention from IT giants. If you see the article Digital India, there is enough content we can extract directly related to Narendra Modi. And in the last, I would like to say, that it being a key initiative of Modi's policies need a mention as a brief subsection. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo There is room in Wikipedia for all information that summarizes reliable sources. Draft a few sentences of content if you like. It can be considered here, or if for some reason it does not fit here, then it can be placed in another article like "Political positions of Narendra Modi" or "IT policy changes during the Modi administration". The only concern is the quality and appropriateness of content. If you provide good content that is appropriate for Wikipedia then there is always room for it somewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Honorific Suffix

I think that the previous honorific suffix i.e. "Prime Minister of India" should be there rather than the current one which is "OAS".According to me the "Prime Minister of India" is in itself a great honor.All other honors should be after that only.So if there is any valid reason,then please do provide us with that. Dpshmrt (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Prime Minister of India" was removed as an honorific suffix because that is not an official honour, let alone an honorific suffix. It may be an honour to serve in the role, but that is not what is meant by an honorific suffix. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi AusLondonder, It's quite delay in your response but no matter .I found this suffix a little bit strange and I think that "Prime Minister of India" can be there as a part of prefix.Don't you think so ??As both of them would make it more attractive. Dpshmrt (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think OAS is a bit weird. Not exactly a well known honor. However, we don't need to say Prime Minister of India either (that's already there below the picture) and it is not a permanent label. I'm going to remove the OAS while you all figure this out. --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Also, the prefix "The Honourable" is debatable. A brief discussion earlier here concluded that it is not used in India as a title. Perhaps it should be removed as well? --regentspark (comment) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Prime Minister of India says "The Honourable" is a formal title. A number of sources refer to the Prime Minister of India as "The Honourable" such as here and here. Order of Abdulaziz al Saud is an official honour awarded by the King of Saudi Arabia. However, other recipients of the honour such as David Cameron to not have it listed in their infobox as an honorific suffix. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... are all using "The Right Honourable". So I don't see why "The Honourable" should be removed from here it being a style of reference. I have now wikilinked it. I noticed that Manmohan Singh doesn't have that and it should be added there too. Would have to check all PMs and Presidents and like wise.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. It would be nice to see a source that explains its usage (for example, is it ex-officio, if yes, will it still apply to Singh, does it apply to all parliamentarians as it does in the UK, stuff like that). In the case of the UK there seem to be good sources but all we have here are a couple of examples from government websites which doesn't necessarily make it reliable. If someone has access to the official policy on honorableness, that would be great.Tongue in cheek comment: Popping an 'honorable' in front of a politician is the best example of British humour I've seen in a while :) --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016

This page provides false information about educational qualifications of Narendra Modi. There are no evidence regarding the same, and the concerned department has denied to reveal the information as well. Thus the information must be removed from the page. Aman9.bits (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done the education section is referenced, whereas your claim "the concerned department has denied to reveal the information" is unreferenced - so cannot be considered - Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reference: http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/gujarat-university-rejects-rti-request-on-pm-modis-masters-degree/13645

Unfortunately that reference doesn't contradict the sources that say he does have those educational qualifications. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per RegentsPark. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

His educational qualification should be discussed if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNS Cosmos (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The person at question does not have any educational qualification and any false claims of his honors must be refuted with evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNS Cosmos (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Honourable term

Hi,

RegentsPark, I want to know that what part of Wikipedia supports term like Honorable, Dear, or any kind of honor tittle. Referred articles Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin. Please do correct if I am missing something. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 05:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: Did you actually read the page on The Honourable or have a look at the section above? The "part of Wikipedia that supports terms like Honorable, Dear, or any kind of honor title" is MOS:HONORIFIC and articles include The Most Honourable Andrew Holness, The Honourable Steve Bracks, The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher and a whole lot of others. Now join the discussion above instead of reverting blindly. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what the Masked Man says. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Masked Man of Mega Might: Thanks for correcting. I need some time to get that. As of now you can revert the edit. Good luck.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegations/ accusations - Narendra Modi

dear Administrator I was going through the pages on Narendra Modi and to my surprise I could not find any sub heading (describing allegations/ accusations) that made the Narendra Modi such a controversial figure. After lot of effort and reading irrelevant sections I could find some lines on his accusation for which he was barred to travel to US and EU for 12 years, under the heading of Gujrat Riots. I suggest we must have a subheading where all the allegations are listed below for easy reference and assimilation of comprehensive picture. Under that heading I suggest following well sourced material could be added.

Narendra Modi is seen by many as revivalist of Hindu culture and dominance and other see blood on his hands. Mr Narendra Moodi was denied its entry to US and Eu for twelve years till he became Prime Minister of India. He was blamed to covertly allow massacre of Gujarat deadly riots of 2002 in which large number of innocent people died. Later, however, it is said, Supreme Court of India has cleared Moodi of the charges / allegations. Though many believe that supreme Court has never given Mr. Modi a clean chit Mr Narenda Moodi is a controversial figure.And this needs to be written in his page for the sake of improving information and record. MalikAttaRasool (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a separate section for Gujarat riots. All the allegations and the clean chit by the court has been mentioned there. Bharatiya29 09:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bharatiya29 dear , Sure, there is a separate section as Gujarat Riots but it does not solve the problem of researchers who when looking for, why Mr. Narendra Modi was denied entry to US and Eu for 12 years. Mr Narendra Moodi was denied its entry to US and Eu for twelve years till he became Prime Minister of India. therefore, in order to have proper understanding of BJP leader profile some suitable heading needs to be created. It is further added that clean chit by Supreme Court of India is also dubious claim. - MalikAttaRasool (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@MalikAttaRasool: All these are adequately covered in the article. The visa issue has an entire paragraph devoted to it in Narendra Modi#International diplomacy. The article you cited from July 2013, (which btw is a press statement from 'Citizens for Justice and Peace') about the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri is also mentioned in the article with the conclusion - "In December 2013 the magistrate court rejected the protest petition, accepting the SIT's finding that there was no evidence against the chief minister". The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Any researcher who is interested in knowing controversies / allegations on Mr Modi will not look into section like “International Diplomacy” and “Gujrat Riots”. Therefore, for the purpose of clarity and improve the standing of article, it is once again suggested we should have a suitable sub paragraph heading covering the allegations which are talk of town, provided we are interested in better and easy accessible information on Wikipedia rather promoting the image of a leader.MalikAttaRasool (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@MalikAttaRasool: Well, we cannot possibly in good faith call them a "researcher" then. Which town are we talking about here? "We are interested in better and easy accessible information on Wikipedia" and that is exactly why we have the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and what you are suggesting goes against WP:STRUCTURE. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Modi is the 14th PM of India

Wiki page shows Modi as 15th primeminister, but he should be the 14th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.216.95 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. clpo13_(talk) 15:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I think the Prime Minister sequence in which Honourable PM Narendra Modi is actually 15th and not 14th as specified in the article.

Please do make the correction immediately.

Best regards,

Harsha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshakasi (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Gulzarilal Nanda was only an acting PM. According to my knowledge he has never been sworn in as PM.

Hence Modi is the 14th PM to hold the office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.216.95 (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Law repeals

The law repeal info is trivia. All governments do it but you can't compare one with another because times and situations change. It is housekeeping, not substantive. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, repeal of a significant active piece of legislation, rather than something which is obsolete or affects a very few people, would be a different ball-game. This article is way too slanted towards promotion of the man, driven by slavish press reports that in turn are driven by him. People really do need to look outside India for media sources. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The entire Modi as Prime Minister section is just a bunch of bullet points taken from news headlines. Modi announced this. Modi did that. No attempt to go deeper into anything. We should just throw the whole thing out and start again. --regentspark (comment) 13:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary/lead text

Dear Administrator, I've made a recent edit that was undone and I am taking it to the talk page for some discussion. Here's my take:

Under Summary

Much limited information is present in the quick intro compared to international leaders. As opposed to the world leaders, the information present is again critical and not informative. For instance, that he has been praised and that he has been criticized (which is congress press driven, due to opposition politics). In an attempt to present a generic image of the leader, we must just say what he has done (and not be carried away with critical information that any world leader has including Obama).

Not only that, all cite notes are outdated by 5-10 years, and the sentence says "remains" a controversial figure. He remains a cheerleader, and a savior among the supporters and a controversial leader among the suspicious ones. We need not establish our democratic favoring in the summary for the international audience to see that creates a fragmented image of the democratic victory of our Prime Minister (in majority). In order to create a matured content, we should move the content of criticism, performance as a chief minister to the subsections below.

Suggested add/edit to the First section/Summary

• Description of his first electoral victory (commonly present in pages of world leaders including Obama and his distinction of having served CM for the longest time.
• Description of his international awards and recognition by fortune and other magazines, facebook following, twitter following.
• Some notes about his recent campaigning for PM candidate under BJP that has led to the historical victory.
• Current "unique" efforts as a prime minister surrounding international tours, schemes he has launched (ranging from Swacch Bharat), Man Ki Baat (through which he connects to millions of Indians)

Justification

As a world leader, we are obliged to present a generic relevant up-to-date view and information about their activities. Outdated, critical information isn't recommended. Articles of Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi are perfectly well written offering generic, unbiased, non-critical information (despite "much" controversy surrounding them). — Preceding unsigned

comment added by Dvishnu (talk • contribs) 09:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your appeal to make Prime Minister Modi look good for the international audience makes it seem like you are under the impression that this page is edited/managed exclusively by Indian editors who are duty-bound to show their Prime Minister in good light - not the case. As for the "remains a controversial figure" part, please see this article from just two days back or this one from last December. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I agree on your last point. My request for the last sentence on "controversial figure" was requesting that to let it remain in the summary with updated cite-noted. There are severe allegations against "most" statesmen of the same degree. India has been ruled by the opposition party for the most part, after independence. While it's understood that he remains controversial, a good amount of it is fragmented for political reasons. He could have done better (before 14 years), but, in a critical situation that is already ridden with communal rage as expressed through mind-boggling violence, the sheer inability to do a satisfactory job can take up multiple definitions and it is not a crime in itself.

And if such a precedent is established for punishing the CM for his perceived incompetence, then no sane person would even dream of taking the Chief-ministerial job of any state that has a history of communal discord.

Coming to my other request, referring to my request to add more detail to the "very short" summary about his activities, campaigning, electoral victory, recognition as a leader can be addressed in the top. Please suggest. cpajourney (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree to the proposer to some extent. Firstly, lede should be updated with recent info and cites. Second, international honors do require a mention. Third and most important is that it should be in line with information present on other world leaders. The current version is definitely not neutral with any stretch of imagination. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks completely neutral to me. What part do you think is biased? --regentspark (comment) 19:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already pointed out three points which need to be adressed by lede. Further, refs older that 2011 need to be removed from lede or moved to content below. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with what the masked man has done below. And updating cites. But the presence or absence of international honors has nothing to do with neutrality and "in line with information present on other world leaders" is very vague (and perhaps has nothing to do with neutrality either). I did take a look at David Cameron and nothing really leaps out as being particularly different. Regarding international honors, world leaders get tons of honors and who are we to decide which ones should be in the lead and which ones not? Better to shove that stuff into a separate section titled "International Honors" or somesuch. --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Or, better still, don't even bother with another round of fluff section designed to promote Modi. I could understand mentioning, say, being the recipient of a Nobel Prize but pretty much everything else is just diplomatic BS. As for the old chestnut re: him being controversial, well, he remains so - does anyone read the regular stuff published about him on the BBC News website? It is almost without fail critical of him, albeit often in a subtle style. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think the status quo is just fine and we should leave it as it is. If anything, the article is completely biased towards Prime Minister Modi. The lede and section Narendra Modi#Prime Minister (2014–present) goes into detail about what he’s done since taking office, but does not mention anything negative about his premiership. The Guardian article from just a few days back has this to say - A series of cases involving official attempts to curtail freedom of expression and censor online media, harsh treatment of a student activist accused of sedition, failure to curb the misogynistic treatment of women, and the banning last year of a British documentary about a notorious Delhi gang-rape in 2012 have all contributed to perceptions that Modi’s premiership and aggressive nationalism are combining to undermine India’s democratic ethos and postcolonial liberal, secular tradition. Amnesty International has also expressed concern about current trends. Its 2015 report said: “Religious tensions intensified, and gender- and caste-based discrimination and violence remained pervasive. Censorship and attacks on freedom of expression by hardline Hindu groups grew.” The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Then please include such content to make it neutral. Talking about the lede, For instance, consider "Earlier, as Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi's economic policies have been praised,[9] although his administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state and for failing to prevent the 2002 Gujarat riots.[10][11][12]". His Economic policies have been praised (for what?). Negative point has descriptive text detailing and linking articles. whereas positive point is just that it has been praised without answering what why and by whom. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Pankaj raises a good point. @Capankajsmilyo: Do you happen to know of any prior discussions regarding this statement? The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems I was the one who removed the “(credited with encouraging economic growth in Gujarat)” part from that sentence (Special:Diff/706238059). I honestly can't remember why exactly I did that and since the edit summary “some tweaks” is as vague as it gets, I’ve restored the text. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The content as it is, is fine. In my view, it's just limited and very small (compared to Obama, Justin Trudeau or any other world leader). We could briefly write about his electoral victory (first time and now), the progressive steps he has taken as a Prime minister (including international visits), the alignment/transparency he has brought in the Ministry (by reducing Cabinet positions), and initiatives taken. Honorable Forbes and Fortune mentions are present in other leaders lead text, for instance Justin Trudeau (and not limited to Nobel Prize). To indicate the popularity among the masses, the key social media stat (one line about his mass twitter following and 66% nationwide attendance to his Man Ki Baat) could be added too.

Just specifically the number of laws repealed, number of initiatives taken are worth-mentioning (Swacch Bharat, Make in India, Smart Cities, etc) (It is mentioned in Barack Obama's lead text that states the major initiatives he has taken taken, and law's that were passed both in his previous and current terms). We can mention a point in the summary to state some thing like "During his term in office as a Prime Minister, Modi has introduced various initiatives to attract FDI and reformed IT, Energy and Defence Sectors. He sought to improve economic equality and standard of living domestically through initiatives such as Skill India, Smart Cities & Villages, Housing for All, Digital India, etc. Other major initiatives include the abolishing of the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog in an attempt to foster involvement and participation in the economic policy-making process by the State Governments of India. His frequent international visits and a corporate approach to diplomacy has helped improve the relationship of other countries with India [1] [2]."

Referring to some of the above cite notes - One of the links hyperlinked above states about the clean chit issued "during opposition rule" [2] [3]. On the note of his controversy and new links that were passed on, whether it is Guardian or Telegraph (some of what they're writing is contradicting their own sentences). Press would've to cover news "for and against" any sensational leader for it to attract it's audience base. There are significantly larger number of intolerance issues, nut-cases at an international level that we do not often attribute to the prime minister of a State. Going by WSJ, Modi has never been found guilty of anything for his Visa to be banned (it was about the people who were found guilty, and nothing to do with Modi). The WSJ article states his clearance from the apex Indian Supreme Court. With all that, I am not making it a point to edit anything to make it neutral.

My request is to propose the addition of some relevant text about his administration, international diplomacy in line with the International World Leaders. dvishnu (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a fine line between an "initiative" and a PR stunt. Modi is very adept at PR; many of his "initiatives" amount to little or nothing in practical terms in the eyes of the world. For example, a promise relating to river clean-up has resulted in bugger all tanneries being closed (300 or so, out of tens of thousands that all do the same thing). - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Are any of the following notable enough for lede?

• Solar Alliance
• Yoga Day
• Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. If there is some significant legislative action with a meaningful outcome, then we could consider that. --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with RegentsPark, although they probably wouldn't agree with what I am going to say next! Those are classic PR stunts: lend your name to something that looks unifying but has no practical rationale or purpose and/or meaningful impact. I'm surprised they even have standalone articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to be surprised. I'd suggest you to initiate a deletion discussion instead. Since your are sounding so confident, I'd like to see you delete these "classic PR stunt" pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to know what "billions" of people and leaders of "hundreds" of countries feel who are a part of yoga day and solar alliance. Also please share some RS proving it to be a "PR stunt." -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my life than argue with Modi acolytes at AFD. Like I said, he is an acknowledged master of PR and we know from past discussions that they come out of the woodwork on such occasions. The items you mention are trivial: if he has enabled the passing of some significant legislation to fix caste issues, relieve the horrendous poverty, stop the corruption etc and that legislation was workable then we might have something to talk about. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:POV and cite some sources describing these as trivia or PR. We are not discussing legislation here, if you want to discuss that, please initiate another discussion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, please refer me to a WP guideline which says to include ONLY "if he has enabled the passing of some significant legislation to fix caste issues, relieve the horrendous poverty, stop the corruption etc and that legislation was workable" or to NOT include sourced content like Solar Alliance and Yoga Day. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever goes in the lead should be significant (India joining the Paris agreement as Modi promised today would be something includable). The Jan Dhan Yojana is probably the most ambitious of the three things you've mentioned but it is not clear what effect it has had on India. What we have at this point is many initiatives, some that are still at the slogan level while others that have yet to be analyzed so let's just wait and see. Meanwhile, what I suggest is that we build good articles on the initiatives - the Jan Dhan article is, for example, in terrible shape. As material pours into those articles it will become clearer what to include and what not to include in the Modi article and then we can figure out what should flow into the lead. --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There are in-numerous witnesses of the benefits people have derived, despite being in power for "just" 2 years. For the first time in Indian Governance, we're witnessing a scam-free central government that said "no to nepotism" and is progressive. To name a "few" among the many result oriented large-scale actions taken, (Successful Spectrum Auction, Coal Auction (transforming into into a surplus nation), International Investments growing 30+% ([1] [2]), Shipping (Port Revenue Growing/Internal Cargo Chabbar Port). Stagnant highway construction has gone up several folds under his administration (everyone are aware of all stalled projects from debt/scam stricken developers were sorted). Every department has been reformed altogether to produce electrifying results whether it's Railways [1], Energy, Road Transport, Shipping, Defence or anything.

As a citizen of India, when we reject this progress out of our sheer hatred, limited analysis, confirmation bias and [picking] - it is truly worry-some. Congressmen and haters consistently and repeatedly produce stories surrounding 1 or 2 irrelevant incidents to divert attention, and attract voters and it is congress that has significantly more influence with PR makers in the country (being in rule for decades). With due respect, noting your intent to do better things in life, I clearly see that you're misinformed and speaking with limited information. Modi has clarified repeatedly both through Man Ki Baat and through several channels on his idea of securalism. Just because someone is following a religion, his followers wouldn't become acolytes. If so, then we're biased. People of India have given him their approval of his merit, that has made him Prime Minister. After becoming one, he is tirelessly serving the nation to the fullest of his capacity.

You are correct about the rhetorical clerics that play on one-sided incidents to attract haters of each side. Biased dismissal of initiatives of the large scale Central government with allocated budget is inappropriate. We must furnish the efforts taken, initiatives taken during his government. The whole proposal is to furnish adequate information about his honors, work undertaken (in the recent time), and his electoral victory. Even in the existing article, we're "critically" specific about his HDI going down, but just informative about the economic growth the state has achieved (without being specific). There are accounts of endless stories (ranging from Tata, Vibrant Gujarat till GIFT) that have all empowered the state economy that could have been given equal weightage to the poor performance in HDI.

I think we could mention in a brief one-line note about the following things:

* Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana

* Foreign policy of Narendra Modi

* Paris Agreement

* Swachh Bharat

* Make in India

* Skill India

* Coal Surplus Nation/Compact Ministry (Passing maximum bills with the highest approval rate)

* Himself elected as the CM for maximum times in his home state. His electoral campaigning, charisma and mass appeal that led to his success. His honors (by Fortune and Forbes similar to Justin Trudeau). His :::: popularity among the social crowd of the nation/fan following. dvishnu (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think if you focused less on the lead, which is fairly well balanced right now, and more on building substantive content in the body, we would be better off. Nothing in the body currently points to anything that should be included in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I will work on the inclusion of a few items this week in the substantive content. I do not disagree that the lead is well balanced. It's just very short and slightly outdated with mostly information about things that happened 10+ years ago. dvishnu (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy this "outdated" argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this is a biography article. It is not a newspaper or magazine article commenting on the hot topics of the day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Information about the past is in the "already short" lead text, as opposed to the information of the present (that's non existent). This is not in line with any international leader. This is like limiting the lead text to state about Mr. Obama's actions and progress as an Illinois Senate, but not as the President of America. Mr Modi has become the Prime Minister of India in 2014. Much of the lead text speaks about his actions during his tenure as the CM of Gujarat. While I do not ask for removal of anything of the past (added before ages), but just to update it with relevant up-to-date cite notes. I primarily call upon to add information that's recent and current.

You're right. It's a biography article. Any biography's brief should be presented with a holistic brief in the lead text to portray the appropriate full image of the person that is up-to-date. Not limited to the parts of it that are few years old, like a printed text book subject to be constant. dvishnu (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your comment in principle. However, it is unclear what exactly we should list. Unlike in the case of Obama, there seem to be no significant legislative accomplishments (at least none that I can see in this article) to list. None of your short list items above appear to have had an impact on India (again, at least not as described on Wikipedia). Of the lot, I'd say the one that could be fleshed out is the foreign policy one, particularly the relationship with the US which appears to be a significant shift in India's foreign policy. If Modi's government follows through by ratifying the Paris accord, then that's another possibility. But, this article confines the foreign policy of Modi to one line in the text and the Paris accord is yet to be ratified. Once again, I suggest you focus on improving the body of this article and/or related articles rather than on the lead. A fixation on the lead results in poor overall articles. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I'm not opposed to adding more as time passes, but just two years into his office the lead already summarizes what he has done so far. Since taking office as Prime Minister, Modi's administration has focused on reforming and modernising India's infrastructure and government, reducing bureaucracy, encouraging increased foreign direct investment, improving national standards of health and sanitation and improving foreign relations. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

A fair chunk of the article, which is supposed to cover the policies Modi has pursued as prime minister, seems to be somewhat fluffy at the moment. This is not because the sources are not reliable per se, but essentially this is a collation of reports that have come out soon after a policy was announced. Which means that none of these are looking at the larger picture with any sense of perspective; what is the general thrust of economic policy? Of social policy? etc. Determining due weight is near impossible when relying on sources like these. Over the long term, I think a good target would be to replace these sources with academic sources that cover a longer period and take a more general look, and which should now be available in a way they have not been in the earlier days of Modi's government. Vanamonde (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Maninagar in infobox

I think Modi was not MLA of Maninagar from 1 Jan 2002. He was not MLA when he became CM. He was not elected until 24 Feb 2002 when he won by-election from Rajkot-II. He resigned and elected again in Dec 2002 from Maninagar. Possibly he was MLA from 1 Jan 2003. Please check and correct it. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush:-Nizil (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Narendra Modi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140524050207/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131222/commentary-columnists/commentary/poetic-side-narendra-modi to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131222/commentary-columnists/commentary/poetic-side-narendra-modi
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222182023/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132920-Narendra-Modi-invites-Pak-investment-offers-energy-solutions to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132920-Narendra-Modi-invites-Pak-investment-offers-energy-solutions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Baubles

This restoration of awards that amount to baubles seems inappropriate to me. I really don't care what significance the award might have to a "normal" person from those countries, the fact remains that they are doled out like toffees to foreign dignataries in the interests of diplomacy, not merit etc. Lots of countries do it and, as with honorary degrees, they are not usually worth recording because they're pretty much worthless. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We always needed WP:NAWARD to be out of inactive pages and be expanded and put to use. It would include which award is notable for independent page and which is notable worth mentioning on bios/organizations/etc. as recipients. Despite the inactivity of that page am not sure why State Order of Ghazi Amir Amanullah Khan and Order of Abdulaziz al Saud would ever be excluded. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have explained why. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This link, while far from ideal, gives you the gist re: these being baubles. I will say the same at Talk:David Cameron later - these barely get a mention outside the awarding country, which presumably is why the source in the Cameron article is not from the UK. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And while inactive, note that NAWARD says There may be a conflict of interest if the award is presented in a small field where most of the eligible candidates personally know each other. That's the diplomacy thing in this instance, eg: the UK's controversial continued sales of arms to Saudi. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NAWARD as long as is inactive should not be quoted in arguments. With that logic all film critic/jury awards should be discarded. For that matter, almost all awards are given by a selection committee who are experts of relevant fields, like Nobels, and might very well know each other. It also says Being covered by multiple, independent, non-trivial sources and this two are covered well by many sources Indian as well as non-Indian. Also not sure why diplomacy should not be awarded? Awarding diplomacy can itself be the function of a particular award. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they probably are covered by the Indian media because the Indian media are slavish, petty people who just love a bauble. How many non-Indian sources cover it, especially those that are also outside of the awarding country? And as for film awards etc, well actually I would agree that they are the same rubbish, as also are awards in the financial services industry etc: given by those who receive. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes

Why are we using both {{Narendra Modi}} and {{Modi}}? It adds clutter, especially since they contain the same links. They're the same template by different names. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: We should send one of the them to TfD. I've never been a fan of the big navbox on the side, since it really does seem like puffery: but the fandrones will never let us get rid of it, and in any case that's a much wider problem (far too many articles about Merican politicians also have those). The other one, though, should be very deletable: if you want to send it to TfD go ahead, else I'll do it myself after doing some checking. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That is actually the one that should be binned: it is ugly, distracting and breaks the flow of the article. However, I think there is nothing to send to TfD because one is a redirect to the other. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Then what on earth is being transcluded at the bottom of the page? I am confuse! I'm just going to remove that for now: we can deal with deletion by and by. Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

117.240.224.78 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Avialone (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

In making a public statement after the incident, Modi said that the attack had been pre-planned terror attack by local Muslims is a lie said by modi,<-- it is a lie said by modi, RSS the notorious terrorist organisation in India which MODI belongs to, killed the hindu pilgrims, then they spreaded the news as local muslims attacked, to create the communal riots in india and to use it for political gain, you can easily understand this if you look into his history and history of rss, don't just read what RSS and Modi Bhakth's share, they are 100% fakers, They pay and use media to spread news biased to their side. and they block or threaten news agencies and journalist if they try to share real story to any one, and charge them and arrest them by saying they are anti nationals and terrorists. Almost all terrosrist stories from India are fake, most of them executed by RSS and related Organisation. Haf rah (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

sub-sub-sections + diplomacy

If anybody is wondering why a lot of fourth level sections disappeared, it is because the content in those sections did not fit cleanly within the different level two sections (terms of office). I have therefore reorganized the content into level 3 sections. Additionally, I have removed the long catalogue of international trips from the chief minister section, because an article about Modi is no place for such a list. Individual visits of his have gotten barely any coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

SIT on black money.

@Capankajsmilyo: You're not getting it. Every source you have provided is a source relating a statement by somebody in the government. These cannot be used to determine what is due weight. Moreover, we cannot cover every decision taken by the cabinet: there are far too many. The ones covered are the prominent ones, and this decision is not near prominent enough. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The first cabinet decision of a government is definitely not "every decision", and has due weight. As far as, statement is concerned, this will adress your reservations. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, not really, it doesn't. Nothing noteworthy about the first decision in and of itself, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

@Barthateslisa: What terms Modi has or has not used are utterly irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say, period. Since you seem keen on citing NPOV, perhaps you should read the policy first. Also, read WP:REDLINK, and do not remove links to notable individuals, even if the articles do not exist yet. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

New article?

Should we start a new article on Modi administration? Would anyone like to intiate? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Section "Hindutva and social policies" by User:Vanamonde93

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) has come with a section about "Hindutva and social policies" during Modi's term as PM. The problem is that none of it is actually about Modi but several state governments and other BJP leaders. Kindly discuss here, build a consensus before adding it. Thanks. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources connect these issues to Modi, which they have, it is an NPOV violation not to include them: especially when those are scholarly sources, not tabloids. Consensus is based on policy, not simply on agreement: and you have yet to offer a policy based reason as to why the content should not be in the article. Also, you have now violated WP:REDLINK by removing the link for the third time, despite my citing the policy multiple times. You have self-reverted this edit: good. Now please read NPOV, particularly the part about due weight. Modi's education policy, the appointments made by his government, and the environment created by his government, are related to the article because scholarly sources have made the connection. There is really no argument here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the red link. Secondly, reliable sources have not connected all these events and incidents to Modi, please go through the section, written by yourself. All these incidents have happened during his term but they do not attribute any of them to Modi in particular but to BJP and more specifically RSS. For exapmle the starting sentence of the section, "Modi expressed hopes for a tenure without communal violence. The BJP sought to identify itself with political leaders known to have opposed Hindu nationalism, including B. R. Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose, and Ram Manohar Lohia." How is it about Modi? Further it says. " The campaign also saw the use of rhetoric based on Hindutva, however, by BJP leaders in certain states. Communal tensions were played upon especially in Uttar Pradesh and the states of Northeast India. A proposal for the controversial Uniform Civil Code was a part of the BJP's election manifesto...", again, no mention of Modi. Throughout the section there is only mention of BJP, not Modi. May I remind this is a page about Modi and neither BJP nor RSS. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not sources but the relevance, none of it belongs on Modi's page as these incidents are not directly attributed to Modi, please read the section in the old revisions, it talks about BJP not Modi in particular. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is connected because these are sources discussing the policies of Modi's government: as is most of the content under "Prime Minister". By your argument, every part of economic policy, foreign policy, defence policy, etc, which does not mention Modi by name should be removed: which of course is ridiculous. I don't see you trying to remove details of his budget, for instance. He is responsible for the budget: for the military actions: for Make in India: and for his education policy, and the appointments of his government, and if any sources comment on the atmosphere created by his government, then for that, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

How is Modi responsible for random statements of BJP members and incidents which are not activities of his government? Were Assam riots and Muzaffarnagar riots attributed to Manmohan Singh government? Are gun-shooting incidents in US attributed to Obama? Is Modi under investigation for these incidents and events? Are these subject of central government, headed by Modi? The answer is NO. These are not directly related to Modi or part of his government's activities, someone accusing Modi of being responsible is nothing more than a POV or a political position, not neutral edit. Barthateslisa (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if reliable sources had connected any of those incidents to those heads of state, then those articles should make such mentions. The sources actually connected these incidents to his government: they are not simply sources saying that these incidents occurred. Besides which, you also removed content about Modi's education policy, and about the appointments made by his government. Are you telling me he is not responsible for his education policy as well? Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Barthateslisa to some extent. Firstly, most of the sources Vanamonde93 has used don't have any link, so I can't verify. Secondly, he has removed my additions based on WP:RS citing that they are not important even when they are covered by enough media sources and are linked directly to Modi. Lastly, he is adding lots of POV linking things to Modi which are not even linked to him. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If a source has somehow connected Modi to these events, doesn't mean it has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It is their POV, there are 'n' number of people with as many views about Modi. It doesn't mean we have to pick each of them and add them on the person's Wikipedia page. Much of it is POV and political accusations, which is a norm in politics. Modi has not been formally charged by any neutral body like courts or enquiry commission for these "issues". Just because some commentator has a POV doesn't mean it has to be mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Would we, for instance, add every accusation, direct or indirect on Manmohan Singh's page? These are no related to Modi, nor involves his participation. Barthateslisa (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there we get to the crux of the matter: your misunderstanding of WP:NPOV on Wikipedia. Courts or enquiry commissions count for nothing. Reliable sources count for everything: and scholarly sources count above all others. I rewrote the article based on essentially every scholarly source about Modi published after he became prime minister. You have deleted a bunch of content that you didn't like, including about his education policy. Vanamonde (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of difference between NPOV on Wikipedia and real world. You are just adding incidents which are not directly related to the subject i.e. Modi. Some random political incidents, which do not involve him directly. One sided POV of certain commentators are not FACTS. They still remain POV, and BTW "reliable source" is not even an issue here, its the false association, which is an issue, you can't add incidents which are not directly related to Modi on his page. Everyday accusation by some politicians are POV and are not meant for Wikipedia. The whole section looked liked an op-ed in a newspaper not FACTS on an encyclopaedia. Barthateslisa (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you're still dodging my question, let me take the section part by part, and ask you explicitly: what issues do you have with the paragraph discussing Modi's education policy? Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine, lets start subject by subject, what is it that you want to put on the page? Please make it clear. Barthateslisa (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Some quick comments. The new content is in the section titled "Prime Minister". It is about his government and his governance. The Modi government is "presidential" (sources tell us so), which means that pretty much all the policies are decided by him. He is also the de facto boss of the BJP, its president being his personal appointee and a long-time colleague. So, once again, all the policies of the BJP are decided by him. So, none of this content is "unrelated" to Modi.

On the other hand, I sympathise with the view that this section may be getting overweight. In the long run, we should have separate articles for his government, perhaps several such articles. For the moment, I am just happy that good reliable content is being created. The material can be reorganised in due course.

"The Modi government is presidential (sources tell us so)", lol, are we on an encyclopedia or doing a cover story for a newspaper? He is PM, if some people have a view that it is a "presidential" govt and all the policies are decided by him, then it is their observation, not an official position. These are unrelated to Modi as none of them have his DIRECT involvement. Barthateslisa (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the people that don't have access to the sources, please flag up any content that you find questionable. Those of us that have access can try to cross-check the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Thanks, K. Barthateslisa: to begin with, the section about his education policy, as I said earlier. The last of the four paragraphs that you removed: it begins "The government began formulating a New Education Policy, or NEP, soon after its election..." This is identical in structure to the rest of the prime minister section. Vanamonde (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Didn't get that, please be specific about what do you want to put on the page, I mean what exactly is it that you want to add, all the points. Barthateslisa (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously unable to see what "fourth paragraph" means? Okay, then, here is the paragraph in its entirety. Obviously, you might have to go back to the article for the full source in some cases. Vanamonde (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The government began formulating a New Education Policy, or NEP, soon after its election. As of March 2016, this policy had yet to be implemented. This was the third education policy introduced by the Indian government, following those of 1968 and 1986. The policy was described as having overtones of Hindutva. The RSS had a role in its creation, and it did not explicitly mention the goals of "socialism, secularism and democracy" that had been mentioned in the first two policies. The policy emphasized the education of minority students, as well as those of economically backward groups, in particular on improving enrollment in schools among those groups. The policy proposed bringing religious educational institutions under the Right to Education Act. There was also a debate about removing caste-based reservation in favor of reservation based on income, a move supported by the RSS, but which was criticized as being discriminatory on the basis of caste.

References

"The policy was described as having overtones of Hindutva", "The RSS had a role in its creation", "There was also a debate about removing caste-based reservation in favor of reservation based on income, a move supported by the RSS, but which was criticized as being discriminatory on the basis of caste."

All of the above quoted sentences from the para are nothing but POV of a person i.e. Madhulika Sharma, none of it is official and not even has a response from the government. Giving undue weight to one person's POV obviously makes about that person and not the subject of the page, it also goes against NPOV principle. Where are the counter-claims? Why just one sided observation of one individual? Barthateslisa (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

More misunderstanding of WP:RS. Find me a scholarly source arguing the opposite point of view, and I'll cheerfully include it. "Official" has no meaning on Wikipedia. It doesn't need a response from the government: none of it does. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

RS is not even an issue here, NPOV is, you are giving undue weight to one view from a person about a policy of the government. What makes Madhulika Sharma, so important so as to to mention her views selectively on a living person's page? Go through WP:NPOV again, you are giving undue weight to one person's observation. Citing RS, one can assert facts, not opinions. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not really understand what NPOV means. The first sentence of the policy says Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Vanamonde93 has cited a peer-reviewed scholarly article published in the Journal of Asian Public Policy. It is improper to call it "one person's view". Unless you produce a peer-reviewed scholarly article of equal quality that takes an opposite point of view, it is improper to raise an issue of NPOV. Repeatedly doing so to an editor with an excellent track record constitutes casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I suggest that you stop throwing mud at people and do some real work of going out and finding sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the same old tired argument that has been presented in previous arguments. Scholarly sources are not somebody's opinion: they are facts, and analysis of facts, and they receive both peer reviews and editorial oversight: which is why we weight them so high. You need to find sources supporting your position. Vanamonde (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions, not facts, you can not call opinion FACTS, and you can't use RS to stress on opinions, only facts. Did RSS have a role in NEP? No, it didn't, it is Sharma's opinion not FACT. I am well aware of NPOV principle, you can not give undue weight to one opinion. Opinions, even by scholars, do not become facts, their is a very basic difference between opinions and facts. Also in your writing there is no attribution, i.e. according to whose opinion this version is presented. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• High time we write an article at Premiership of Narendra Modi removing it as redirect and then condense it here for simplicity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Dharmadhyaksha We certainly need an article about Modi's administration, and need to summarize it here: but "summary" is not the same as "throw out the sections we don't like." I'm open to pruning, but it can't be selective. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that proper summarization would only be possible when we have a long version. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. When you're operating only with media sources, then yes, proper summaries are tricky. When you're using scholarly sources it's much easier, since virtually all of the substantive work on Modi since his election has been cited here. This has been my point since the beginning: the content in the article two days ago was supported by reliable sources: to remove or contradict it you need to show that it is undue weight, which requires producing sources of equal weight. This, Barthet has not done. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been open for a while, but policy-based objections to the content have yet to be made. Therefore, I will reinstate the content shortly, unless further reasons are brought up here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. The abstract also says: "The NEP, along with other interrelated initiatives, is a timely and most appreciated feature of Modi’s overall development agenda." The summary written here is not similar. 2. She worked for the Modi Government at the time of publishing the article and was herself part of formulating the said education policy. 3. "Was described as" kind of phrase begs the "by whom" tag. Why not keep the "overtones" aside? 4. This particular Journal describes about itself: The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. --Neaom (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Being a scholar appointed to a government committee is not the same as working for the government. Do you have evidence that she was actually involved in creating the document in question? Additionally, if you read the paper in its entirety, you will see that the abstract of the paper itself is not an accurate summary of the body: which is why the text here, written based on the body, sounds different. It does mention the things the author sees as positive: the first new policy since 1986, the focus on minority education. Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Modi leading the general election

@Js82:, I am disappointed with your edit-warring. The sentence you have changed has a link to 2014 Indian general election, which says Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was chosen to lead the Bharatiya Janata Party's campaign after a party conclave in Goa, supported by two sources. You needed to check them first. If you keep disrupting Wikipedia in this way, there will be consequences! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm the one disappointed with your uncivil threat. This was my last edit summary "@Kautilya--Rajnath Singh, as BJP President, led the party. If the election page says otherwise, we should correct that too, IMO. Feel free to revert if you still disagree, and we may discuss further". If you call this attitude (clearly stating that you can revert if you do not agree) as "edit-warring", then more power to you. I could have shared my views on the content, but given your belligerent attitude, I guess I will just pass. Js82 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No, edit-warring means continuing to revert after it becomes clear that there is disagreement. The content is verifiable. And, you have not provided any source to contradict it. So, there ends the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware there was "disagreement", since we never actually discussed anything. I had made the last edit in good faith (again, see my edit summary) and with some reasoning, but yeah, let's just end the matter. Js82 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Uniform Civil Code

Under the Hindutva and education policy section it is mentioned that UCC was part of BJPs manifesto, UCC was part of the BJP manifesto previously and there is nothing new about this. To include this in Modi's article and giving an impression that it has something to do with only 2014 election is wrong. Also how can the election manifesto be listed under policy? -sarvajna (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

i need to change the iamge to this File:Narendra modi dsfsdf.jpg with the caption : Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the nation. Dojablack (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: we cannot accept copyrighted images. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse

The "Hindutva and education policy" claims that Godse has been celebrated by Sangh Parivar organizations after NDA's coming into power. However there have been no such instances. It must be noted that Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, which did promoted Godse, is not a member of the Sangh Parivar. Bharatiya29 12:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The source mentions Hindu Mahasabha. So I will change it. The source does say: Astonishingly, the prime minister has chosen to remain silent on this issue. Indeed, silence is his usual response to inflammatory provocations from the Hindu Right. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This source seems to be a little outdated as it covers just the first year of Modi administration. For example, Modi did spoke up against right-wing organizations after the Dadri incident. Bharatiya29 11:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Commentators find his responses to be far below the standard expected of a Prime Minister. In any case, it is not for us to make such judgements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Narendra Modi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Given my previous experience with getting political biography articles to GA and FA status, I probably have the required know-how to give this article an appropriate review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: y'know, I was on the cusp of asking you to do this... :) Thanks. Vanamonde (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a very important article and it is good to see it brought here to GAN. However, given the size and complexity of this subject it may take some time to put together a full review so please bear with me! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable: I am not in any hurry. Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of sourcing

First things first, I'm a little concerned about the use of sourcing. As we (sadly) see all too often on Wikipedia, this article relies fairly heavily on 'free' online sources. Of course, these are the easiest and cheapest to access and they are often WP:Reliable Sources but they are not often the best sources; academic, peer-reviewed sources and full-length biographical studies are generally better. Quite a few academic sources have been used (which is great) but often the entire journal article is cited, rather than the specific page, which is unfortunate. Similarly, while Marino's biography has been used, it has only been used in a very scanty manner; other fuller biographical studies are relegated to "Further reading". Nothing here is intrinsically damaging at the GAN stage but these are significant concerns that I would like to see taken on board if this article is to move forward past GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll go over the uses of sources in more detail, but let me offer this explanation up front. I like to rely on scholarly sources when possible, but these sources do not provide a uniform coverage of Modi. Scholarly coverage falls into three rough categories: articles about the economic/social aspects of Modi's chief ministership (the smallest category); articles about the 2014 election and his prime ministership (slightly larger); and articles about the 2002 riots (by far the largest category). Scholars have by and large ignored other aspects of his life. For these, the article relies on news sources, and on the biography. The biographical entries in the further reading section are actually rather dodgy; examining them in detail will show why this is so (they are neither published nor authored by scholars); and we are actually probably better off with news sources. I will work on the issue of page numbers. Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

An additional issue here is that, in contrast to Mandela (for instance) Modi's appraisal by reliable scholarly sources is, on the balance, hugely negative; which has led to a lot of editors "correcting" this by adding news sources, which are on the whole less critical, especially when they are Indian in origin. This is not a perspective I have much sympathy for: in my view reliable sources are reliable sources and we have no business "correcting" them in any direction; but I offer this as an explanation of how the article has reached this point. Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I quite understand, Vanamonde. Modi has only been in power for a comparatively short period of time and thus the academic literature on him is likely to still be in its infancy. I have found that it is far easier producing an article about a political figure who is either dead or at least retired then it is about one who is still in office. Still, I do hope that the issues that I have raised are ones that you keep somewhere in your mind in the coming few years, particularly if you choose to take this article forward to FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in (and feel free to move/reformat this as I know different reviewers have different preferences regarding layout of comments/responses). While it has often seemed odd to me that specific pages are required for books but not for academic journals, that is in fact the de facto method at both GA and FA. Presumably because articles are short by comparison. Sitush (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"that is in fact the de facto method at both GA and FA." I'm not quite sure that that is strictly the case, Sitush. At least, not anymore. In all my years of taking articles to GAN and FAC, and reviewing the nominations of others, I have always ensured that the specific page numbers are cited and no one has ever questioned that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I must confess I am stumped as to how to collect references in a manner that is both elegant and does not screw up the formatting. Any ideas? Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion: just at the top of my head and assuming this is about addressing cite overkill, WP:CITEBUNDLE? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Your intrusion is most welcome. I've taken a shot at this, but I suspect these is a more elegant solution: can any of you think of one? Also Midnightblueowl, I believe that is the last of the points you have raised so far. Vanamonde (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The manner of citation is a little higgledy-piggledy. There are citations that make two separate appearances ("Narendra Modi wins reader's poll for Time Person of the Year 2016". Time Magazine.") There are web sources without dates, without retrieval dates, and without website names. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that the citations need cleaning up. I did do that once but they've drifted again. I am happy to re-do it but am concerned that it would cause confusion during a review. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, Sitush, I'd be very glad of any assistance in cleaning up sources, as there's rather a lot of them, and I'm sure you will see stuff that I do not: it should be fairly easy to avoid edit-conflicts by going a subsection at a time. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• MBO, I believe I have fixed all source formatting issues. Vanamonde (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Citation 189 is causing problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• When the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are first mentioned, the reader is not then provided with an acronym (RSS). Despite this, the second mention of the party only uses the acronym (and again links to the article on the party). Then, in the fourth paragraph of the lede we are provided with "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)", giving us both a duplicate link and an unnecessary acronym. This sort of thing really needs to be cleaned up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Specific issue fixed.

• The opening paragraph makes no explicit mention of Modi's ideology. I would recommend that the article does this by combining it in a sentence mentioning Modi's leadership of the BJP (for instance, see how this approach works in the FA-rated articles for Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela or the GA-rated Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi articles). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

• No need to give the specific date on which Modi became Prime Minister. The year alone will do fine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• It is worth mentioning which year Modi became BJP leader in that opening sentence. Again, look at the Mandela article as a template. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is trickier. "Leader" here is used in the looser Indian English sense of "prominent member," which is hard to put a number to. It is possibly a weasel word, now that you mention it, and perhaps I'll remove it altogether: I'm going to try reworking the lede shortly.

• "Modi remains a controversial figure domestically and internationally" does not really give the reader enough information. Why is he controversial? You make mention of some of these reasons in the third paragraph, but really this should come after the above quoted sentence. Again, I would point to the Lenin and Mandela articles as useful templates. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

• There are far too may citations clustered at specific points in the lede; it looks messy. Really we do not need any citations in the lede at all, as it should simply summarise the contents of the article in a clean and straightforward manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• The point I made at the Guatemalan coup article is even more important here; this article has seen long-running edit-wars over content in the lede, and the presence of citations in the lede has been a large factor in these. Things have calmed down a bit of late (partly thanks to indef semi), but I'd really rather keep at least some of them there...Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Citations are definitely needed in the lead, per WP:LEAD. The guy is hugely contentious and the reason that they exist there is because of past extremely lengthy discussions where people challenged the statements. It's all there in the talk page archives. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I understand your reasoning here. I still think that such citations are completely superfluous (as the aforementioned articles testify, there are plenty of articles on highly controversial political leaders that do quite well without them), but it is certainly not a requirement of GAN that they be removed. I would however hope that they be condensed. Five citations to support one point, and then nine to support another, is just too much. It is superfluous, and creates a clustered, messy appearance. I'd recommend condensing each to a single citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I've reworked the lead a little; do take a look. Wondering, though, if we should return to this after going over the rest of the article. Vanamonde (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think that that will prove to be a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education

• "Damodardas Mulchand Modi (c.1915 - 1989) and Hiraben Modi" - Do we have no idea when his mother was born? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Source says she was 94 in 2014, so I've added a "c. 1920"

• I would have thought that Modi's early life is an area that is discussed in his biographies. If so, they would be the best sources to consult here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes and no. They are biographies, but not scholarly biographies; and both sources, especially the Mukhopadhyay book, are filled with tangential, not terribly neutral, asides about the broader political situation at various points. Vanamonde (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• ""Modi's life is said to have Vivekananda's deep influence. People close to Modi have often been quoted, saying that Modi has molded many aspects of his life as Vivekananda's." - I would avoid having random quotes in the prose without attributing them to someone. Perhaps this information should merely be paraphrased. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• reworded, and pruned a little, because when I look back at the source it seems a little like puffery; sort of like saying "I've molded my life after jesus".

• "Reaching the Belur Math in the early summer of 1968 and being turned away" - this sentence could definitely be improved. How about "In the early summer of 1968, Modi reached the Belur Math but was turned away."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "based at Hedgewar Bhavan (RSS headquarters) in the city" - should this be "based at the Hedgewar Bhavan (RSS headquarters) in the city"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• First "Political Science" appears in capitals, and shortly after in lower case. Standardise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

Early political career, 1975–2001

• My main concern here is that this section is shockingly short. Two fairly brief paragraphs to cover a quarter of a century is, to be honest, insufficient. While it may still meet the GA criteria because "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" I really think that this section could do with a lot of work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Point taken, I'll dig into the biography. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the RSS is a cadre based organisation, which tends to value the organisation over any individual (indeed, this has been a point of contention with Modi in later years); thus the activity of any low-to-middle ranking individual is difficult to get at. But I will investigate, so more on this later.
• Okay, I've added some material here; it's now a sizeable section. If I try to expand further, we are going to start getting into material that is speculative/much more in the nature of commentary, rather than fact.

• "during the Emergency." - the period has not been referred to with this name before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• well it's referred to, as the "state of emergency" in the previous sentence, which links to "The Emergency (India)"...I'm not sure how to introduce the precise term "The Emergency" without clunky wording, but sources do tend to use the proper noun "The Emergency". Ideas?

• How about this: "During this period, known as the Emergency, many of her political opponents were jailed and opposition groups were banned.[50][51] Modi was appointed general secretary of the "Gujarat Lok Sangharsh Samiti", an RSS committee coordinating opposition to the Emergency in Gujarat."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "On 26 June 1975," - we probably do not require this level of precision. The month and ear should be quite sufficient. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "considered central to BJP victory " - the BJP. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

• "defected to the INC" - what is the INC? We have not come across them in this article before now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• linked.
• @Midnightblueowl: There's no rush, just so you know I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Ekta Yatra" is italicised, but is this necessary? I'm not really sure what the Ekta Yatra actually is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it's not an English term: the term is from Hindi, which is why it is italicized. It was a travelling political rally, a phenomenon evidently common in Indian politics but not so elsewhere. How might I clarify this?

Chief Minister of Gujarat

• "Rajkot – II assembly constituency" - I do not really understand what is being referred to here. Can we get some clarification? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's a constituency in the state legislature; "Rajkot II" is it's name, for some reason. I've tweaked the sentence: is it clearer now?

• "Indian National Congress (INC)" in "Taking office" is now a duplicate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed

• "passengers was burned near Godhra" - is "burned" the right term here? Maybe "torched" would be more appropriate, or "set alight", "faced an arson attack", something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, here you put your finger on one of the many flashpoints in this article. That the train burned is universally accepted. Why it burned is highly contested; theories (in reliable sources, mind you!) range from planned arson, to spontaneous arson, to accident. Which is why the term "burned" was chosen; although it should probably omit the "was"...I've tweaked this, take a look.

• "Ayodhya" - probably worth linking this. Not many people outside of India will be very familiar with the city. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "been pre-planned terror attack" - "a pre-planned..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah it's easy to slip into the argot of the local newspapers, which I have to read to write the piece

• "The SIT questioned Modi in March 2010; in May, it presented to the court a report finding no evidence against Modi." - "against him" would probably suffice, and would stop any repetition here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "After an election campaign in which the BJP benefited from religious polarisation among the voters, during Modi's second term the rhetoric of the government shifted from Hindutva to Gujarat's economic development.[6" - This information seems to largely duplicate what was previously stated in the paragraph above it. These should probably be merged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• merged, and trimmed a couple of sentences that seem like excessive detail when I look at them now.

• "Modi's relationship with Muslims continued to be criticised" - "continued to attract criticism"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• yeah, better. done.

• "Manmohan Singh "... for" - no need for the ellipsis here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "After the November 2008 Mumbai attacks Modi held a meeting" - it would be a good idea to have a comma in this part of the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• Really no need for a link to Government of India during "resulting in government authorisation" - surely the republic's central government has already been mentioned in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Removed link, because I agree that it's odd here; but actually, the link has not been used. I'll look for a better place to put it.

• "By December 2008 500,000 structures" - again, a comma would improve the flow of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "agricultural growing" - either "agricultural growth" or "agricultural sector growing". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done: sector.

• "Nano after after a popular" - after after? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• Link World Bank after it is mentioned for the first time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "conditions for rural adivasi and dalits, in particular, have declined" - this has already been mentioned in the paragraph above. Avoid duplications of information, bring all this sort of stuff together, keep it all streamlined. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• reorganized

• "In July 2013 economics" - comma after the year. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• No need for links to Indira Gandhi and the Emergency in the "Final years" sub-section; we have already seen links to these articles earlier in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

2014 general election

• "Modi played a dominant role in the BJP's 2009 general-election campaign." - but this section is discussing the 2014 general election? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• typo: fixed

• "Modi's neoliberal ideology" - add link to neoliberalism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• There seems to be some patches of further duplication here. For instance "However, the BJP's campaign was assisted by its wide influence in the media" repeats pretty much exactly the same sentiment as was found in the sentences above it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• reorganized

• " The election was described as "India's first social media election.[168]" - there is no closing quotation mark here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "The BJP won 31% of the vote,[11] and more than doubled its tally in the Lok Sabha to 282, and became the first party to win a majority of seats on its own since 1984" - too much repetition of "and" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• tweaked.

• "Voter unhappiness" - "voter dissatisfaction"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "progressive parties" - add link to progressivism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "tweet" - link to Twitter? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• My general concern with this section is its sheer length. Six paragraphs is quite a lot of information to have on the events one election. My advice would be to trim this down to about three paragraphs, only keeping the most important information, and trimming down a lot of the trivia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Midnightblueowl: Okay, I've trimmed it to four paragraphs: I think its hard to go lower without losing essentials. Also, this is just to let you know I've responded to everything, again, there's no flaming hurry. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Prime Minister

• "previous UPA government" - the UPA have not been introduced previously in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Expanded

• "but opposition from scholars within the country." - could we be a bit more specific than "scholars" here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The source sentence used says "Despite their international backing, such neo-liberal reforms have met fierce opposition from scholars and activists." It then goes on to provide examples of such, mentioning Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze by name. What would you suggest?

• If that is what the source provided states, then we can probably leave it as is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, a constituent of the Sangh Parivar, stated that the reforms would hurt labourers by making it easier for corporations to exploit them. In his first budget, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley promised to gradually reduce the budgetary deficit from 4.1 percent to 3 percent over two years, and to divest from shares in public banks.[" - These two sentences do not seem to be obviously connected yet rely on a single citation. If they do indeed both rely on the same citation then I would suggest duplicating it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• duplicated

• "making it the fastest-growing large economy" - perhaps "making it the world's fastest-growing large economy"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "social welfare measures was greatly decreased" - "were greatly decreased". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "and on primary and secondary education, by 16%" - no need for that comma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "India, with the goal of turning India" - this is a little repetitive. I'd change the latter use of "India" into "the country" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "bring IT companies" - link and/or explain IT. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "to investigate black money" - again, I'd add a link or explanation as to what this is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've linked it, but honestly I don't think that sentence belongs at all, because of due weight issues: no scholarly sources mention it at all. Thoughts?

• "The Modi government launched a "New Health Policy" in January 2015, although this did not increase the government's spending on healthcare but rather placed emphasis on the role of private healthcare organisations. This represented a shift away from the policy of the previous Congress government, which had supported programmes to assist public health goals, including reducing child and maternal mortality rates. The National Health Mission, which included public health programmes targeted at these indices received nearly 25% less funds in 2015 than in the previous year. 15 national health programmes, including those aimed at controlling tobacco use and supporting healthcare for the elderly, were merged with the National Health Mission, and received less funds than in previous years. Modi initially appointed Harsh Vardhan, a doctor and an advocate of tobacco control, as minister of health. However, Vardhan was removed in November 2015. The government introduced stricter packaging laws for tobacco which requires 85% of the packet size to be covered by pictorial warnings" - This is a lot of text to rely purely on one citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is your issue with the single source, or the single footnote? The source is The Lancet, which is as good as it comes; the duplicated footnotes were removed by Sitush.

• It is the single footnote that is the issue here. A reader may assume that the earlier sentences here are not actually referenced at all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• " eliminating open defecation, eliminating manual scavenging, and improving waste management practices" - this is a little repetitive, perhaps "improving waste management practices and eliminating both open defecation and manual scavenging"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• tweaked, and I've also removed that last clause: it's really vague.

• "against "Love Jihad", a religious conversion programme" - "an Islamic conversion programme"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, those are separate items...there's a campaign against "Love Jihad", which is supposedly a phenomenon wherein Muslim men marry Hindu women to convert them (but there's a degree of skepticism about whether this actually happens): and a separate religious conversion program, in which many non-Hindus publicly convert to Hinduism. How can I make this clearer?

• "a campaign against the alleged Islamic practice of "Love Jihad", a Hindu conversion programme," ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• tweaked.

• "The attempts at religious conversion have been described by the VHP and other organisations involved with them as attempts at "reconversion" from Islam or Christianity." - we mention Islamic conversion in the previous sentence but here seem to be talking about Hindu conversion; can this be made a little bit more explicit here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• See previous comment.

• "former members of the ICHR" - what is the ICHR? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Acronym added at the link.

• "ceremony where he was sworn in as prime minister" - "swearing in ceremony"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Manmohan Singh's policy of" - this is a duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• removed

• "Islamic republics in the Middle East, such as Bahrain, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates" - most of these countries aren't republics! Also we probably don't need to give Iran its full title here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Whoops, good point! "states", and done.

• "that Pakistan was" - no need for this link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "launchpads in PoK" - what is PoK? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's "Pakistan occupied Kashmir", but the title of the Wikipedia page is at "Azad Kashmir" (because we use the name of the country which rules it, as with the Indian chunk of the state) so I've changed it to "Azad Kashmir".

• There is a citation needed tag in the "Environmental policies" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've struck the sentence, not because it couldn't be sourced (it's covered by the next citation) but because it seems redundant

• "the Supreme court" - "Supreme Court"? Maybe a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's been linked in the chief minister section; do you want a second link? I've changed the capitalization

• "had essentially put on hold," - "essentially been put on hold". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• " to GM crops" - this is the first appearance of this acronym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• added acronym where the link is

• "policied frequently " - "policies frequently". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "building infrastructure so rural areas get high-speed Internet access" - "building infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet access to rural areas"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

Personal life and Image

• These two sections could probably be merged into one (see for instance the manner in which these issues are dealt with in he Nelson Mandela article). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Merged

• There is nothing here on his personality. Would the biographies be useful in this regard? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm really reluctant to get into this issue, because when people analyze Modi's policies, they have hard facts to go on, but when they discuss his personality, what little information there is is highly opinionated; descriptors range from "arrogant" to "inspiring". This is probably also a good place to mention that I'm not entirely happy with this section as a whole at the moment; give me a couple of days. Sitush: do you have any suggestions here? I know you're not a fan of "image" sections, but I think we have to do our best to knock this one into shape... Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with saying things like "Biographer X described Modi as p, q, and y, while biographer J disagreed, believing him h, g, y" etc. Again, I'd point to the Vladimir Lenin article as an article of how that approach has been successfully applied. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• " the puritan Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS).[" - "Puritan" may be a misleading term here. Also, we already have been introduced to the RSS' name earlier in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• removed the link, but "puritan" is the term used by the source, and I'm struggling to think of a good synonym

• Barack Obama is linked to twice in quick succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

Books

• I would recommend scrapping this section and reintegrating the text into the chronologically appropriate sections of the article. For instance, Vladimir Lenin wrote widely over the course of his life, but we do not have a separate sections on his writings in our FA-rated article about him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

Awards and recognition

• I would recommend refashioning this section into a "Reception and legacy" section (again, I would point to the Mandela and Lenin articles as useful stencils). That could also entail bringing the third and fourth paragraphs from the "Image" section into this one. It would also entail merging a number of stand-alone sentences into larger paragraphs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a point I'm afraid I disagree with you on. The chief reason for this is that there has been very little analysis of Modi's legacy. Yes, I know that sounds strange at first; but if you dig into the literature, it's quite true. There is a lot of analysis of specific policies, specific incidents, specific elections, specific administrations. I could mention this analysis, but it is likely to become repetitive. Honestly I'm not certain of the value of an "awards and recognition" section, but there is a problem with "reception". Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Could we at least merge a number of these lone sentences into a single or couple of paragraphs? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Section titles

• Early life and education; Early political career, 1975–2001; Chief Minister of Gujarat - Either have dates appended to them all (Recommended) or none at all. Make sure it is standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the date, purely out of a personal distaste for wordier titles, and the fact that the subsections often do not lend themselves to such temporal labels.

Images

• All of the images are appropriately sourced and are relevant to the subject of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• The images are perhaps a little too clustered around the "Development projects" section. Could do with dispersal to other sections which lack images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed one of those clustered images, as it was not very relevant: Modi building hospitals is not something any substantive source mentions. I'll look for images for the sections lacking them, but honestly there's a lot of them already...

• Don't be scared of aligning some images to the left hand side at certain junctures of the article. I appreciate that you don't favour it, Vanamonde, but it is a perfectly acceptable stylistic option at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, I am now happy that the article meets the necessary Good Article criteria. I definitely think that there is room for improvement, particularly in the use of sourcing and coverage (more on what biographers describe of his personality would be great) but that is not an impediment to GA status. Well done on all your hard work, Vanamonde. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Many thanks, MBO. I was in the middle of doing a last revamp of the image section to address that concern, but you can check that at your leisure, I imagine. Vanamonde (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What does many mean?

In the line "many of the country's labour laws" in economic policies in Prime Minister, what does the word many mean. Should it be clarified? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Many" is generally used to suggest more than a couple, but in a context where the precise number does not matter. As such, it is used in many places in the article; why are you raising objections to this usage? Are you also going to demand that we clarify which political opponents Indira Gandhi jailed ("many") and which industrial projects began under Modi's government ("several")? Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be avoided whenever possible, if exact no. is not available, more clear versions like hundreds, thousands can be used. Quantification is important in this case since there are only handful of labour laws in country. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The precise figure does not matter: which is why none of the sources actually mention a precise figure. For that matter, it is quite impossible to state with precision the number of labor laws in any country; in one so large as India is, with an overlapping system of state and federal laws, it is quite impossible. I suggest you turn your energies elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The topic is not the number of laws of the country, but the no. of laws passed by modi govt. for that particular sentence. The statement is ambiguous, clarity should be brought into the sentence, another possible approach could be getting rid of the word many. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

"The plann was to achieve these aims in five years" - This sentence has a typo - plann. It should be plan. 67.160.96.155 (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

I have just remove the further reading section from the article. The items there are not scholarly sources, except for two, which are not very directly related to Modi. Additionally, very many of those have a very distinct POV about Modi; a couple are near hagiographic, another is harshly critical, yet another approaches the topic with a single minded agenda of showing that Modi was not in fact hostile to Muslims: and that one is essentially an SPS to boot. Finally, the collection of publishers does not inspire confidence. Perhaps at some point in the future there will be enough solid works written about Modi that are not used in the article, and can therefore be placed in the further reading; but given that the section is not a required one, this seems the best outcome here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the edit. Here is the list.

• Sardesai, Rajdeep. 2014: The Election that Changed India (2014)
• Sridharan, Eswaran. Behind Modi's Victory. Journal of Democracy (2014) 24#4 pp: 20–33. Online
• Fernandes, Vivian (2014). Modi: Leadership, governance and Performance. Orient Publishing. ASIN B00JUIMUBA.
• Kamath, M. V.; Randeri, Kalindi (2013). The Man of the Moment: Narendra Modi. Vikas. ISBN 978-93-259-6838-7.
• Kishwar, Madhu Purnima (2014). Modi, Muslims and Media: Voices from Narendra Modi's Gujarat. Manushi Publications. ISBN 978-81-929352-0-1.
• Mahurkar, Uday (2014). Centrestage: Inside the Narendra Modi Model of Governanace. Random House India. ASIN B00JR3PQ64.
• Mitta, Manoj (2014). The Fiction of Fact-Finding: Modi & Godhra. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 978-93-5029-187-0.
• Nag, Kingshuk (2013). The NaMo Story – A Political Life. Roli Books. ISBN 978-81-7436-938-3.
• Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2008). The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03059-6.

I think that Vanamonde93's rationale for removing these seems reasonable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Native name

Narendra Modi is currently the Prime Minister of India, so per WP:INDICSCRIPT can the Gujarati script be removed ?South Indian Geek (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

INDICSCRIPT applies to the lead, but as far as I know, current consensus is that it does not apply to the infobox; particularly when there is an obvious and logical native language name. Modi being the prime minister has nothing to do with it. He is from Gujarat, so his name is in Gujarati. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

revertion of my edits

@Vanamonde93: Please could you tell me why you reverted the edits which I made .I didnt do anything wrong did I?FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Forceradical: Your edits were not wrong, but they did not add very much. The term "pracharak" is not an English term, and so when a precise translation is available, that is preferable in the lede. The word "absolute" before "majority" is simply redundant, and is the sort of excess verbiage newspapers are always throwing around. "majority" means "more than half". "Absolute majority" mean....exactly the same thing. So the extra word serves no purpose. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:As far as pracharak goes it is already used in the article I just wanted to add it to the top." he stopped working for his uncle and became a full-time pracharak (campaigner) for the RSS,[40] working under Inamdar.[44] Shortly before the war, Modi took part in a non-violent protest".The word "absolute"...... well may be your right.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Forceradical: I know it's in the article: that is the place for relevant detail. The lede is a broad overview, a summary, and so this is unnecessary. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok.Get you.Thanks! FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that he was a pracharak, now an ordinary member. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Could you have a look at this link to my Sand box .I have compiled a small section which I want to add to this article but in view of the last problem I am slightly nervous about adding it.06:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)FORCE RADICAL (talk)

@Forceradical: It's a good thing you brought this up, because the same problem is here as well. Some of that criticism and praise is already in the lede. Some of it is in the body of the article, and is not appropriate for the lede. I'd suggest you take a look at the GA review for this article, where a lot of these details were discussed. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

→→

Avirkm (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done No request. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)