Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Caste in the lead

Regardless of sourcing for Modi's caste, which has been discussed to death here over the years, it is inappropriate to mention it in the lead section. There is nothing about it that is of significance, except in the minds of people obsessed with this artificial construct - unlike, say, an activist in the Dalit movement. It is mentioned in the body and has been for a long time. Hence my removal of the (malformatted) recent addition. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Modi is a mass OBC leader and the OBC face of the BJP with a huge following amongst other backward castes, which also serves BJP's poll strategy and makes absolute sense to have it in the main part of the article. I DO NOT agree with Sitush's views that its an artificial construct, caste is a government policy of India to dole out reservations and Modi has been flip flopping on the aspect of enforcing promotions based on caste based reservations, In India people don't caste their vote but vote their caste. No doubt CASTE is the most important aspect of Indian life and Wikipedia has so many baseless articles on Castes, where Sitush is a regular contributor where he incites hatred and keeps inflaming peoples passions. Everyone can check his deliberate commissions and omissions on caste based articles and talk pages. There are many editors who regularly complain against user Sitush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.228.46 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I feel there are some issues with sources, will get back with the full details (yes I decided to suddenly become active ) -sarvajna (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Honorific in infobox

Rattans added "the honorable MP" as a title in the infobox. There are fields for this. Forceradical removed it.

Is it not preferable to list a person's title in the infobox? Why should this not be added? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No because that's not really an official title like MBE Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes without consensus

@Vanamonde93: made controversial lead changes[1] earlier without gaining consensus. And edits are rather clearly BLP violation, because they spread the false notion that Modi's administration is still considered to have been complicit in 2002 Gujarat riots. Scholarly consensus is now that Modi/Government was "accused" or "alleged"[2][3][4] and that they were cleared by court[5][6][7] Other than that Vanamonde93 had also changed "reducing bureaucracy" to "encourages efficiency in the bureaucracy", despite the source saying otherwise. I am not seeing any discussion in archives for these edits. I am seeing for edits from January though, that were made to reach GA status, but not for these from Vovember. Capitals00 (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: The content you removed here is patently not a BLP vio because it is thoroughly sourced. The consensus for the content in question was established through lengthy discussions; the lead needs to accurately summarize the body, which is what my edits did. The article has been through a GA review by Midnightblueowl, who has written more biographies of major political figures than any other Wikipedian I know of. The content in question does not say Modi was complicit; it says his government was considered to be. If you cannot tell the difference between these statements, that is your problem, not mine. Finally, you have breached the 1RR restriction on this page: self-revert, or expect to find yourself at AN3. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Yes I did acknowledged the GA status, but I haven't seen discussion for this lead edit from November mentioned anywhere on talk page or GA disucssion. I have restored the material that is not coming under this dispute (foreign direct investment, twitter followers). Back to complicity issue, you can see that this is causing confusion, can we change the word "considered" to "alleged"? Capitals00 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Sorry, you do not get to game 1RR because material is in dispute: it is precisely because material is in dispute that the 1RR restriction exists in the first place. Self-revert to the last stable version, ie this version, and I'd be perfectly willing to discuss specific wording issues. My warning about AN3 still stands, as you are still in violation. Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Here are what I see as the broad strokes in the picture, supported by basically all the scholarly sources in the article: 1) Modi was accused of complicity; 2) A supreme court investigation found insufficient evidence against Modi; 3) The Gujarat government has been described as complicit by a number of scholars; 4) Individuals of the government have been prosecuted, and in one prominent case, sentenced, for participating in the riots. Points 1, 2, and 3 are made in the lead. Point 4 is made in the body, but not in the lead. All of the points here are sourced. Which ones do you take issue with? Vanamonde (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Now here are the issues:-

(1) [8] There should be no problem with this edit.

(2) "His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, or otherwise criticised for its handling of it, although a court found no evidence to prosecute Modi. His policies as chief minister, credited with encouraging economic growth, have received praise. His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state.{{efn|Sources stating that Modi has failed to improve human development indices in Gujarat." 'It should be changed to:" His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state and its handling of 2002 Gujarat riots." Reasons are given above. Or it should be "administration was alleged".

(3)"tried to raise foreign direct investment in the Indian economy, increased spending on infrastructure, and reduced spending on healthcare and social welfare programmes. Modi has attempted to improve efficiency in the bureaucracy, and centralised power through the abolition of the planning commission. He has begun a high-profile sanitation campaign, and weakened or abolished environmental and labour laws." 'It should be changed to: "focused on reforming and modernising India's infrastructure and government, reducing bureaucracy, increasing foreign direct investment, improving national standards of health and sanitation and improving foreign relations." Because the source state as these things happened, than they are in process. I also provided a latest source for the heavy increase in foreign investment.[9]

(4) Linking smart cities to Smart Cities Mission. For more accuracy.

(5) Updating Twitter follower count, it is 30 million as of June 2017. I had also provided source of Washington Post.[10] Capitals00 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

To take your points in order:

1) That is a completely unhelpful edit, because the fact that he is the MP for Varanasi is already in the first paragraph of the lead. It is totally redundant. 2) Why? You simply say it "should." The version I have written is supported by reliable sources; a whole lot of reliable sources. The majority of scholarly sources on the subject consider the government complicit. Per WP:DUE, we need to give this view weight; we cannot reduce it to "allegedly" simply because you don't like it. If you want to change this, you need to bring sources of equal weight that dispute this narrative; and by equal weight I mean scholarly sources, not newspaper Op-Eds. 3) This is messier. "reforming and modernising" are peacock terms that mean nothing. I'd be okay with changing "improve efficiency in the bureaucracy" to "reducing bureacracy"; that is also supported by the source. "increasing foreign direct investment" is not okay, because Modi cannot increase private investment. He can encourage it; he can incentivize it; but he cannot increase it. You don't seem to have provided any reasons for the other changes, which are replacing more specific things with vague phrases. 4) Assuming you want to link to it in the body, go ahead. 5) That's fine. Vanamonde (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External Link additions

@Anandmoorti: WP:ELNO specifically forbids the use of search aggregates in the external links, and I'm afraid all of the links you just added fall into this category. Can you please self-revert? Vanamonde (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Alright, but then how come search aggregates are provided in articles such as Barack Obama, Donald Trump or David Cameron. Please check those article.--Anandmoorti (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anandmoorti: The fact is a good many of those are not search results, but are actually profiles of a sort created by those websites, or in some cases lists of works. Those links that are search aggregates should be removed, but that's an issue to be raised there. Vanamonde (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright.--Anandmoorti (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Community GA reassessment

Narendra Modi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Modi/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page

Result: Continued Listing as GA. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been frequently watching articles of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, that are written much better than this article, they are rated at C class. I am surprised this article qualified as GA. Article has tons of issues, raised entire last year[11] and even recent times, but I am writing down how it fails GA criteria.

Fails #2, because the article has BLP violation, on lead it claims or at least tries to push Modi to be complicit of 2002 Gujarat riots, despite the whole claim is a dead horse following the clearance. Allegations (especially refuted) should be never on lead and if they should be on the article, sources need to report the events after the acquittal, in place of pushing less accepted thoughts. However this article with the sentences such as "His administration has been considered complicit", "is generally considered by scholars to have been complicit",(giving 3 sources all dating years before he was acquitted of all charges) with such wording it treats the allegations as obvious convictions. Genuine issues with BLP have been raised before on talk page, but ignored.[12]

Some good examples would be, that we don't see mention of Obama's alleged illegal warring in Libya on Barack Obama,[13] we don't see Putin's alleged role in the bombing of Moscow building. Even the article of Kim Jong-un is less negative. So why we are seeing similar claims on the article of Narendra Modi?

Fails #3 because it still gives minimal or no details about his output of last 3 years as prime minister, although it provides a huge section for 2002 Gujarat riots, which could've been reduced to 3 sentences without requiring a section. The lack of details about his relationship with other countries, encouragement in sports,[14][15] is also missing, more could be provided.

Fails #4 lacks neutrality; like we can see, other than that the lead is unnecessarily balanced to the extent that it is too repetitive (mentioning Hindu nationalism identity twice as well as "2002 Gujarat riots") the last part of the lead is itself childish, with its claim that Modi is "controversial", because every politician even mayor happens to be controversial. Large amount of content has been also forked from 2002 Gujarat riots to the section Narendra Modi#2002 Gujarat riots. Article has trivial material like criticism for "half-sleeved kurta", which is not even encyclopedic.

Fails #5 its not stable; few examples of edit warring[16][17][18][19] can be found and content dispute still continues, with editors other than me, finding genuine problems with the sourcing.[20][21][22]

I would say that this article really lacks even basic requirements of B-class, let alone GA. I would be one of the editors posting on the talk page, but first the GA rating would need to be removed as GA rating itself serves as justification for not removing/modifying the content. Lorstaking (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• This "reassessment" is quite absurd, and shows only that this user has not read the relevant policies. The article does not say Modi was complicit in the riots. It says scholars consider his government to be. If readers are unable to distinguish between "Narendra Modi" and "the government headed by Narendra Modi" that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. Modi has not been acquitted. He has not been acquitted, because he was never tried for any crime. He was investigated by a supreme court committee. The committee found insufficient evidence against him. This fact is mentioned in the lead, quite appropriately. What Wikipedia says about Obama and Putin is quite irrelevant here, and should be raised on those talk pages. The notion that the riots are given undue weight is once again absurd. The riots are given three paragraphs, despite the huge coverage they receive in scholarly sources: see [23]. In contrast, his Prime Ministership is given 27 paragraphs. Indeed, the section about his prime ministership was so long that folks asked for it to be trimmed. I do not even understand most of the other complaints about neutrality. The complaint about "controversial" is, once again, quite misguided; many major political figures are controversial, and if sources describe them as such, then so must we. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe we need to go by the common standards of writing articles and it is relevant to look at other articles. Since multiple editors had raised concerns over the sentences, it had to be resolved rather than keeping on mainspace. And if you want to preserve the preferred sentences, then don't expect having better rating. If article doesn't say Modi was complicit, why it even mention his role? He wasn't acquitted? It is still WP:UNDUE, it rather reads as the article has been designed to claim him as complicit because he was the Chief Minister of the state government at the time and he has been largely singled out in the entire riots. If you are saying that he hadn't been tried for any crime it makes even more WP:UNDUE to mention the entire riots in the article. The lead is providing undue weight to allegations. Yes every politician is controversial and it is childish to mention that on the lead or entire article, and here, it has been mentioned that Modi is controversial but after repeating the already mentioned subjects. Lorstaking (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Due weight is not based on what editors like, or how many editors like something. It is based on coverage in reliable sources. For example, of the 9000-odd scholarly sources that mention Narendra Modi, approximately 2000 also mention the riots. The numbers are even higher for the sources that cover this in detail. Thus, per WP:DUE, the weight given to the riots is very very low. If you want to change this, you need to demonstrate that there are things in sources of equal weight that are not being covered in the article. Otherwise, this just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support stripping of good article status. As per all the points noted. I had brought this page on Biography of living persons noticeboards a few years ago[24] because of source misrepresentations, but not much has changed in fact worsened when it comes to WP:NPOV. The comparison of the lead is somewhat worse than what it used to be years ago, despite Narendra Modi is himself highly applauded internationally for his efforts.[25][26][27][28] However this article continues to paint a negative image of him. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Can we give much weight to the opinion and cherry-picked sources of someone who socked using multiple accounts and has/had a very distinct pro-Hindutva agenda? I think not. You're entitled to your opinion, yes, but it should count for little in any neutral assessment 0f any article related to Indian politics. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - For all the reasons described.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. No substantive evidence has been provided that the article violated WP:DUE. No concrete suggestions for improvements have been made that have any basis in policy. And I do not often play this card, but the fact is that the inexperience of some of these folks with the GA process in showing: whereas Midnightblueowl, who reviewed this, for instance, has a hundred GAs and nearly as many GA reviews; and I have 20 of each myself. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delist Yes there are huge amount of BLP, NPOV violations. I was one of the users who raised issues on talk page[29] but I was met with dissatisfaction even after providing much better sources than what this article has. Controversial edits were made without consensus days before GA started. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose: I was the editor who reviewed this at GAN and, after a lengthy discussion with Vanamonde (which entailed a range of prose changes), the article was passed as a Good Article. I am not thoroughly convinced by Lorstaking's argument that it fails the GA criteria. Rather, this looks to me as if it is more of a content dispute and an editor potentially using GAR as a means of pushing a POV. There is of course a pro-Modi lobby here at Wikipedia as in the real world and I am wondering if this attempt to have the article change may have more to do with concealing criticism of Modi than genuinely adhering to Good Article criteria (if I am wrong on that, I apologise, but I think we need to bear it in mind as a possibility). Editors have raised comparisons with articles like those on Putin and Kim Jong In, although both of these articles are in a fairly sorry state (the Obama article is rated FA but frankly it shouldn't be and will probably be delisted soon). It would be better to hold the Modi article up against other FA-rated political biographies like Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khruschev, and Nelson Mandela. How does it stack up against those in its coverage of controversies? Unless very clear evidence can be presented that this article misrepresents the Reliable Sources then I would suggest dropping this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: You are comparing biographies of dead people with a BLP, is there some difference? 2 of them being communist dictators and one of them being someone who had been jailed for 27 years. All I find no more than one negative sentence on Nelson Mandela, Nikita Krushchev and Vladimir Lenin on lead, while Narendra Modi's article lead is smaller and contains 3 negative sentences. Also I am not seeing any content forking on these 3 articles either. So your comparison with this articles is largely uncomfortable. Yes there are issues with sourcing like it has been already mentioned, "giving 3 sources all dating years before he was acquitted of all charges", that's how POV pushing has been done of this article. How come one cannot provide the sources for those claims that came much after the court verdict? Obviously because such source would differed the preferred POV. Issues have been well raised on talk page entire time if you haven't observed, if you really want to compare the article, then try doing so with other Indian political leader GA, Mayawati, you will find this article's quality is actually bad. Capitals00 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think that this is primarily a content issue that could be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. For instance, why wasn't this raised as a Talk Page section first? (Or was it?). For me, GAR just seems like the wrong place to be raising these issues at this stage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I had raised few issues,[30] but they hadn't been answered appropriately and in fact I was told by this same user that article is GA that's why information should stick. You have asked above if this article has misrepresented sources, I find a bunch of misrepresentation on lead itself.

• "His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state" cites [31] but nothing like this can be found there. And the other source it cites is [32], which the other user with access had already confirmed that there is no use of "criticise" in entire document.
• "His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots" is using sources[33](from 2007) that doesn't even mention Narendra Modi, while other one doesn't use the word "complicit" or anything same[34], it only says "accused of failing to stop" which is far from any complicity.
• None of the sources claim that he is controversial nationally and internationally both. Sources must cite it exactly otherwise it is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. [35][36] only states the controversy regarding 2002 Gujarat riots, none of the sources tell that he is controversial for his "Hindu nationalist beliefs", and "cited as evidence of an exclusionary social agenda" is not supported by any sources.

And that's with the lead alone, I would be finding more misrepresentation of sources, but for now this seems enough alone to maintain that article is in really bad shape. Capitals00 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

These "objections" are mostly hot air. I responded to Capitals00's points on the talk page. I supported two of his five proposed changes, and explained the problems with three others. He neglected to respond; that is not really my issue. As with Lorstaking above, it would appear that Capitals00 is unable to tell the difference between Modi and the government run by him. Thus, the sources in question need to discuss his government, which they do. He also seems to want to see the exact sentence from the article in the source, which of course is impossible, because that would be a copyright violation. The article is largely based on scholarly sources; replacing them with media sources, which you folks seek to do, would definitely make it worse. The Shani source most certainly mentions Modi, and directly states that the rioters had help from the authorities. On page 169. Have you even read that page, Capitals00? I thought not. I have yet to hear a substantive objection to anything in this article. Pankaj, this is not a vote; supporting complaints of no substance does you no credit, and does not help your cause. If you folks had kept track of the GA review, you would have seen that Midnightblueowl actually raised substantive issues, and that I acted on most of them. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you have used a partisan source from 2007 to make a problematic claim doesn't adhere to NPOV. How about use a source that comments on the clearance? Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The "clearance" is just one aspect of the issue and has been dealt with time and again. For all the news stories that report it, you'll find a bunch of academic/clearly independent sources etc that continue to raise the issues. You need to appreciate that the media in India tends to be particularly slavish to both politicians and the legal system. We usually need to look elsewhere for genuine analysis: even a couple of non-Indian sources from reliable publishers would trump an entire months' reporting. We give more weight to some sources than others for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support removing GA for reasons stated above. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nominators reasoning is invalid. Looking at each point:

1. Doesn't fail #2. The body of the article clearly contains many scholarly sources on the complicity of the Modi administration in the 2002 riots. The nominator raises the "acquittal" argument which has been much discussed and, to summarize, Wikipedia gives more weight to scholarly sources and less weight to government commissions or court judgements.
2. Doesn't fail #3. At least not per nominators arguments. The lack of details about his relationship with other countries, encouragement in sports,[14][15] is also missing, more could be provided - these are WP:CRUFT and I'd say that the article would fail GA status if they were included!
3. Doesn't fail #4. "Controversial" is well documented (and much discussed on these talk pages). I'm surprised (or perhaps not) that it is being raised again.
4. Doesn't fail #5. Yes, there is edit warring but the content is reasonably stable. Edit warring occurs because various POV editors raise points similar to what the nominator is raising but they haven't been getting much traction. There is no reason why an article on a controversial subject cannot be a good article despite the presence of POV pushers as long as they are kept at bay. In a sense, the fact that the nomination is merely reiterating the various issues that keep getting raised on the talk page but never get anywhere shows that the article is actually quite stable!
5. As I state above, the issues raised by the nominator all are content issues that have been raised multiple times on the talk page but have not gone anywhere because they either want to remove information well backed up by reliable sources or add information from less reliable or primary sources. When you find that your content choices are not getting traction, the traditional way to deal with that is through dispute resolution. Not by seeking to demote the article. We have a well referenced and comprehensive article and that makes this a "good" article.--regentspark (comment) 14:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that many editors raised concerns with the edits but their concerns were totally ignored. So we are claiming him to be complicit in the disguise of his state? That's WP:UNDUE and doesn't deserve anywhere entire article, because there are enough academic sources that have commented on his clearance, and I had provided them on the talk page but I am not seeing them to be included, instead we are seeing sources that were published years before the clearance. Most of the negative content is clearly not "well documented" like I have highlighted out above. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that many editors raised concerns but that their concerns were shown to be invalid. A good example is the "clearance" issue you've repeatedly raised on this talk page. As has been explained (e.g. here), we give more weight to scholarly sources and "clearances" don't mean much (though, of course, they can be mentioned). "Controversial" is another much discussed example. So, no, nothing is being ignored. Rather, the changes sought by you and others are not making their way into the article because, again as I say above, the things you want removed are well supported by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Much has been already discussed here or there, I would point out that one needs to see Barack Obama#Foreign policy, an FA article, that details his activities and relationships with other countries, we can't find same for Modi. And all of the sources used in the foreign policy section of Narendra Modi are one year older. Article is lacking updates. Lorstaking (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You should then be listing what specific updates you're seeking on foreign policy etc. I'm trying to assume good faith here but it does seem odd that your very first edit to the talk page is a GA reassessment. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• By initiating this discussion I was only telling that the article fails GA criteria and if editors are ready to work on it they should, but it seems that while most editors oppose the current article, not everyone is ready to work on it. After seeing more of these comments, it becomes concerning that article includes is contrary to WP:BLP, contains misrepresentation of sources, non-neutral content and WP:OR. It can be assured that the article is no where near the quality of C-Class articles such as Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, either. But I think we are going around in circles, it is better to seek community opinion for the GA now. Lorstaking (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - RegentsPark has analysed the issues well. Modi has a troubled past, and it would seem that his fans would like it to disppear. As far as the facts are concerned, Modi has never been investigated, charged or acquitted. He was only "questioned". The Special Investigation Team has determined that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him, which was accepted by the Supreme Court. This makes no difference whatsoever to the scholarly assessments of Modi's conduct, which we report faithfully. The objections being repeatedly made on the talk page as well as here basically leads me to the conclusion that all this business needs to be covered in much more detail than done at present. I will be happy to work on that. This really makes no difference to the GA status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose-This reads more like a content dispute than that of a reassessment of GA criteria. As summed up by other editors above the article does not fail GA in fact the changes suggested in the review would certainly fail this article.It must be remembered that the article serves to report what ever is the opinion of reliable sources and not what is considered to be the truth--⮘RADICAL SODA^(FORCE)⮚ 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose what appears to be primarily a political rather than quality-based reassessment. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support This article doesn't meet WP:NPOV and portrays an overwhelmingly negative tone. It needs substantial copy-editing in order to meet GA status. --RaviC (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't checked who the author of this article is. I hope they won't mind my saying that the article has a much bigger problem than one of meeting or not meeting certain WP criteria. The article has no narrative, no affect. It has been drained of all life blood. It reads like a list of events in a person's life. You might as well rename it Modi sutra and park it at FLC. Is the author really interested in writing this? If so, forget about GA, FA, ..., go read a bunch of books on Modi. Then reread them. Then put away all your books away and write. I mean this sincerely. And, if you are not interested in writing it, then why are you? Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • PS. Thinking this over. It might be that the author is trying too hard to tread a narrow, circumspect, path, given Modi's detractors and supporters, given the lack of any scholarly work on his life, Modi's own tendency to be highly secretive. If that is the case, then perhaps the author should wait until such scholarship etc appears. There have to be backstories. A person can't just announce at age 62 that he has a wife, whom he married as a teenager and later deserted citing high principles, and it all happened in an emotional vacuum for both parties. A 17-year-old boy of very modest means in 1967, couldn't just run away from home, turn up in all kinds of exotic Himalayan locations, return home two, or was it three, years later with no tangible recollection of these trips in the memories of others, nor explanation of how he was able to afford them. By listing these events in a highly cautious, non-judgmental, tone, the article appears to give credence to them. This in turn makes the article less credible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As you well know, F&f, Wikipedia articles are not "written". They accumulate mass over time and periodically cleaned up. I doubt if there is anybody with an NPOV frame of mind who is seriously interested in "writing" an article on Modi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look at the comments. I didn't realize that people are thinking the article is too critical of Modi. My sense is that by using circumspect language it is too easy on him. As for as GA criteria are concerned, it certainly meets them. So, I oppose removing it from GA status, but generally wanted to tell the authors to rewrite it with some verve, when they eventually submit it for FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for coming by. This topic is so contentious that making any changes to it is fraught with difficulty; and if that were not enough, there is a string of people who come by wanting to turn it into a hagiography, and another (less common) set who want to add the odd insulting statement. Keeping the article on the straight and narrow between these is inevitably going to make it rather dry, and very circumspect in tone. Does it go too easy on Modi? That's a complicated question. Scholarly sources are, on the whole, more critical of him than this article. The print media has a mixture of attitudes; and the visual media, from what I have heard, is rather more supportive of him. What that tends to mean is that anybody trying to move the article from being based on media sources to scholarly sources is going to run into the same cluelessness that is being trotted out on this page. Hence the circumspect tone. If you want to help move it towards a more balanced outlook, you are more than welcome. With respect to your initial point, though, I'm not sure I agree it's a problem. For a contemporary political figure, providing narrative of any kind is a questionable enterprise, because really we do not know how history will see his figure; and so we need to be a lot more wary using heavy editorial voice than in an article on, say, an 18th century figure on whom most scholarship is already in. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per OP. Note that this article qualifies for WP:BLP. Crawford88 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• The OP has made no policy-based arguments, and therefore a comment that only says "per OP" should carry no weight whatsoever. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seeing as this article would fall under the aegis of WP:BLP and clearly violates the Balance guideline "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content", there is no justification whatsoever for conferring GA status upon it. Karodimal (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: As of this posting, this editor has made exactly three edits to Wikipedia to pages besides this one. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment : I feel the article is fairly neutral and to achieve this has both affirming and denying sentences in single sentence! could be night mare to read, definitely not a GA Material. since with lot of PR companies constantly working and he is still active public figure which is going to be constantly updated would really not prefer to keep it as GA --Shrikanthv (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't read the article for a while (I'll make the effort soon) but many of delisting supporters above are familiar to me from past discussions here and elsewhere regarding issues related to what might be called right-wing politics in India. Such people continually try to massage criticism out of articles/promote image-enhancing stuff. Most of the arguments above are old issues, discussed time and again with the same people - just check the archives and consider whether we really want articles such as this to be written by people with a clear political agenda.

Fowler's point regarding general prose/structure etc, by the way, would be valid if this were a candidate for FA but it is not and it is highly unlikely ever to be. That it does take on the appearance of a list in places is entirely because of the aforesaid supporters, as a trawl through the history over the last few years would demonstrate. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting I've read the article now and it appears to meet the GA criteria. The objections are mostly from new-ish accounts and the usual pro-Modi suspects who have pretty consistently wanted to glorify the man. The article could be improved, sure, and I have no doubt that there will be new academic sources etc as time goes on, but it satisfies the criteria and that is all that matters in this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Fails Point 4 is true. Just now corrected a major update error was true 6 yearsa go is not true now Washington Post clearly tells he was denied us visa but now Modi made a historic address to Congress and BBC ,Guardian and Telegraph also tell he has risen from Pariah to world leader.He was contraversial before he became PM is true but not now after he became the Prime minister he is world leader today.His image has made 100% U turn after 2014.BBC Pariah to friend: Narendra Modi and the US come full circle

  Telegraph From pariah to 'rock star' world leader: Narendra Modi prepares to visit Britain

  Washington Post Once banned from the U.S., India’s Modi set for historic address to Congress

  Guardian Narendra Modi: from international pariah to the G20's political rock starChantrises (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  As I pointed out on the article talk page, the articles linked by you consistently indicate that Modi is still controversial. It seems to me that many users don't understand the meaning of the word controversial. Look it up: Giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement; subject to (heated) discussion or debate; contentious, questionable; disputed[37] No one can argue with a straight face that this doesn't fit Modi. There is nothing wrong with being controversial, all it means is that opinions differ on the person. A rock star can, for example, be controversial. Academic papers are often controversial. Heck, the effect of humans on the climate is controversial. Of all the points about Modi, love him or hate him, the statement that he is controversial is perhaps the most accurate. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

Naidu.v (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done--regentspark (comment) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I have edited the lead, it was talking about his ideology and Gujarat riots for 2nd time at the end of the lead. It needs not to repeat stuff, hence I replace it with his approval ratings that show a balanced view about him. Orientls (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

about yoga teacher

sir with due respect and humble submission this is to bring to your kind and enlightened attention that,the yoga teachers who were worked as contractual in all kendriya vidyalaya.They were worked on temporary basis and there is no certainity on thier job, kindly see the above matter and do the needful action from your end.

THANK YOU (contractual yoga teacher) (WEST BENGAL) MOB; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.118.134 (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed your personal details because this is not a place for such things. MPS1992 (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

122.248.18.6 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Demonetisation

The recent RBI report appears to have been scathing regarding the effects of the demonetisation exercise. Or is that just the way the writer has interpreted it here? - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify the above comment. My point is that the article currently seems to imply that the program was a success because of various percentage improvements relating to tax returns etc. But that wasn't the purpose and, according to my link, it did not succeed in the sense that was indeed the purpose. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That is pretty much what the bank is saying, yes. And it's a news story which is still being featured in multiple sources, so at some point it should go in this article. Vanamonde (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think there may be stuff to be gleaned from this BBC summary also, although perhaps not much of it could be used directly because it may seem a bit op-edish. The issue of his portrayal by major news media in India, in particular. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that source before, I'll take a look at it. Bit busy at the moment, though. Vanamonde (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

"repeated again" to "repeated" to avoid repetition. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017

Thakurajitsingh (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

3 years journey and led to super hero of indian history

 Not done - unsourced, unclear PoV - Arjayay (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated Modi

BBC ,Telegraph ,Washington Post and Guardian all speak in same voice say he has moved Pariah status to rock star status.old Ref were before he became PM .Now it has changed.He was denied US visa Once banned from the U.S., India’s Modi set for historic address to Congress as per Wahsington Post HE NO LONGER REMAIN CONTROVERISAL ONLY WAS CONTROVERISAL BEFORE HE BECAME PM

BBC Pariah to friend: Narendra Modi and the US come full circle Telegraph From pariah to 'rock star' world leader: Narendra Modi prepares to visit Britain Washington Post Once banned from the U.S., India’s Modi set for historic address to Congress Guardian Narendra Modi: from international pariah to the G20's political rock starChantrises (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• um. From your linked articles. But controversy will attend his every move in Australia, Mr Modi’s British visit will not be without controversy. Not to mention this linked article from the washington post one: U.S. senators attack India’s human rights record before Modi’s Capitol Hill address. Controversial still, me thinks. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I do think that while Chantrises may not be totally accepted, his edits can be modified to consider a compromised version. Capitals00 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the statement earlier links relate to before he became the prime minister. Modi is seen as a figure of controversy over his Hindu nationalist beliefs and his role during the 2002 Gujarat riots as per NPOV hopefully this should be fine .Every World leader faces protesters over human rights that does not make him controversial.the term internally is clearly disputed now it was earlier true.Chantrises (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Folks seeking to modify these statements would do well to read up on past discussions in the talk page archives, and also to read the dictionary definition of "controversial". Oh, and read the source material, too. The scholarly material in particular. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My edits

Not very surprised to see the team work here, I just made one more edit about the APCO. The article stated that Modi used APCO in 2002 election which is wrong. Event the source doesn't say that. Removed the fiction, hope the person who would revert will have some courtesy to reply here. I am sure there are more such misinterpretation of the facts and source here. -sarvajna (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Have removed an invalid ref -sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Have made a small edit here, just trying to clarify had Modi has been kept saying. Either the apology thing should not be here or should be stated in whole and not make it biased. -sarvajna (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Chronology issue, I am not sure what does the section "second term" consists, technically his second term was from 2002-2007 and third from 2007 to 12. At the end of the section it says that BJP won 122 seats in the assembly election which is also wrong as the reference talks about the by-polls where BJP increased the tally from 117 to 122. So it should say BJP won 117 in the assembly elections. -15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The section Defence policy says The Modi government issued a notification allowing Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist illegal immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh to legalise their residency in India there is no notification but a proposal to make the amendments to a law which has not been passed but waiting for JPC confirmation. I do not have access to the source but if the source says that there is a notification/law then I feel the source is wrong and should not be used. -sarvajna (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Emblem of India in side bar.

The use of Emblem of India should not be at the bottom of the Template talk:Narendra Modi sidebar, but it should be on the top.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 18:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

narendra modi is indias 15 prime minister but its written 14 its wrong as on wikipedia another place its written 15nth prime minister of india narendra modi

• Comment: this is weird as List of Prime Ministers of India seems to say he is 16th. Not sure what is going on but it looks like we need some clarification somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree it needs clarifying - Modi is the 14th person to become Prime Minister, but, as Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee were both PM twice, his is the 16th Prime Ministerial term of office.
Not sure how that can be worded succinctly - suggestions welcome - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we should go by the ordering in the List of Prime Ministers of India. Which would make him the 16th. That's also the way Presidents of the US are listed (not that we should necessarily follow WP:OTHERSTUFF!). --regentspark (comment) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Relabelled him as 16th PM, as per the above discussion, and since the 16th in the first line links to the List of Prime Ministers of India which shows him in that position.
Returning to the original request, the only 15th I can see is "15th most powerful person in the world 2014" which we will not change. - Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Narendra Modi should be marked as 14th Prime Minister of India and not the 16th Prime minister. Manmohan Singh's Page says 13th Prime Minister of India and I.K. Gujral as 12th Prime Minister of India. In between I.K. Gujral and Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was Prime minister but his page still says 10th Prime Minister of India as Mr. Vajpayee became Prime Minister for the first time after P.V Narsimha Rao. As for justification given above for President of the United States is not relevant here as all the Presidents of the United States have served in continuous terms. In case of Prime minister of India this is not the case. List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom does not mention any number for the Prime Ministers. My opinion is to change this as 14th Prime Minister of India. Pratty (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Citations supporting Narendra Modi as 14th Prime Minister of India - Pratty (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

106.66.57.33 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Ivecos (t) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

This article is not doing justice, it is written as a critic not as a fair article. The person who written may be belong to the opposition or may be by the person who dont like BJP. Raj2480 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Raj2480: The edit request template is for suggesting specific changes to the article, in the format of "change X to Y". It isn't necessary to use the edit request template to make a general comment about the article. Regarding that, please indicate which specific information you feel is unfair or biased. Please note that articles on Wikipedia contain information found in independent reliable sources. If that information is not being written accurately, please indicate which changes you want. However, you can't turn the article around and make it friendly to Mr. Modi. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Weight

Why is 2002 riots covered twice in lede. How is that more important than anything and everything else in this article? Also worth noting is the absolute silence on foreign policy of Narendra Modi in lede. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The third lede paragraph is about his chief ministership; the fourth covers, among other things, his image and legacy. The riots are associated with both these items. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Mahurkar source

I'm seriously concerned about giving this source any weight. The author's views on Modi's policies is not in itself a reason for concern. But, the tone of the forward is essentially hagiographic, suggesting that the book is much the same. Vanamonde (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does not look great. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not clear which source and what content/context we are talking about here. --G (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gbohoadgwwian: The source in question is this one. Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is it there when it is not used in the article, it is confusing. It is recent work, is that the reason for including it? --G (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It was cited at the time by a Modi fanatic who in my opinion should be topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

who in my opinion should be topic banned ---right. I have no doubts how supportive that comment was of POV, censorship and ignorance. I guess you should apply for adminship. You qualify for that cent percent. User:Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You have displayed a long-term inability to source well regarding anything to do with Modi, and you have pursued a clearly political agenda regarding him for a long time. In fact, I think you're probably due a topic ban from Indian politics, period. I may well pursue this over the weekend. Will let you know. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That particular addition was probably not needed, there are so many articles around Modi, not everything needs mention. Nevertheless the source for it was made a non-contentious claim. It is no good judging a book by its cover, we are less burdened by not doing so. --G (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Intent of 'a' court

This is in context of this revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&type=revision&diff=837226151&oldid=837174003

I believe it should be court, was there any other court that superseded and pronounced a different verdict? The 'a' there hints like there were other courts with different verdict. --G (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely does not suggest that. We say "a court" rather than "court" because, as with most democracies, India has multiple courts that are not required to agree with each other. There is no monolithic "court". Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

^^ What Vanamonde said ^^. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about high court, supreme court and such thing? I guess every country will have it. Courts don't have to disagree with each other. When there is an appeal to a higher court, it may give a revised verdict, but at any given point of time there will be only one verdict of the judiciary, not multiple. And they do not make comments in passing. 'court' usually signify the judiciary system, rather than a particular court, in which case we also have the option of telling Goa High Court if we want to be specific. We can mention the court if we want to do that but the intent here looks like the judiciary rather than court of place a or place b, if there were contradictory verdict by higher court that actually needs mention. --G (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with G's analysis above. The local court or courts are a part of the judicial system and represent the Indian judiciary as a whole. Also, the current version is a misrepresentation of the sources: it is the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) that found no evidence to indict Narendra Modi or the Modi administration, which would form the basis for the prosecution proceedings, and not the court itself. The court simply stated that the SIT had found no evidence to indict Narendra Modi or senior officials in his administration. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what you people are arguing about but, looking at the diff above, one never says "although court found". It should always be either "a court found" or "several courts found". At least in the English language. Additionally, shouldn't it read "although a court found that there was insufficient evidence"? Judgements are rarely a categorical no. --regentspark (comment) 12:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Examples at oxford or webster use "court" rather than "a court". I think it is acceptable usage. In given context 'court' represents judiciary (the court). On google, "the court found no evidence" phrase has 256000 hits and "a court found no evidence" has 4 results of which this article is one. We can also go by the suggestion of Nearly Headless Nick. G (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You're misreading the examples. Every reference is preceded either by a "the", or "a", or the preposition "to". One can say "Although Tom found ..." but cannot write "Although person found". You need an article before "court" in this context. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with mentioning either the specific court or the SIT (both details were omitted when I rewrote the lead, to keep it brief). I am not okay with just "court". It reads wrong, period. Vanamonde (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am also okay with Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) like Nearly Headless Nick suggests. G (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

He left home after graduating from school -------- Please replace school with college Anshulkush (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent updates to healthcare section

I had made small update to this section, one example, It was reverted in these two edits: [38] [39] Because previous years are reported, this half a sentence only brings the article up-to-date. The lancet article has mistakes and its budgetary data is contradicted in other sources. Similarly this edit was reverted here. Business Today had this report. And repeating same thing in consecutive sentence is not good writing. G (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say healthcare budget increased in 2016, 2017, 2018. Some lower quality sources report different percentage but none report decrease. The 2015 percentage reported by Lancet is unreliable and contradicted in other sources, given that the article had other mistakes too, it is a medical journal not very reliable for political or budget analysis. --G (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

When media sources are contradicting each other, the solution is to find higher quality sources. The Lancet is a medical journal (and is often considered the premier medical journal); it is thus an excellent source for analysis of health policy. If we wish to remove that source and/or add contradictory information, we need other sources of equal weight. Similarly, for your "updated" numbers, adding random media sources will not work. You need to demonstrate that there is consistent support for a certain figure when you add it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be editing in a hurry. The source for 15% decrease actually stated that it increased marginally. Lancet is not more reliable than Business Today or Economic Times for Budget. Lancet can have mistake like I demonstrated about the political commentary on Harsha Vardhan. --G (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me retry the few things I am feeling needs change: 25% is in Lancet (written as 'almost quarter'), it is 20% in Business Today which I think is reliable for budget. 15% decrease in Lancet is different in Economic Times (tells of increase) which, again, I think is more reliable for budget. I have less trust on Lancet for budget or political notes, evidently because it did make mistake in reporting a fairly easily verifiable statement. The summary about 2016 is similar to the third sentence, almost exactly same repeated. I think it is plausibly acceptable to not mention number, it is not a strict necessity. There were other research paper that analyzed health care differently from Lancet but I didn't pursue them (they were less focused on politics than Lancet though), because this article is more BLP than Healthcare. --G (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BMJ concurs with Business Today on 20%, Lancet is demonstrably wrong here too. --G (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, you're throwing some numbers around without describing what you are referring to. I can guess, but I'd rather not; so let me make some general points.

"this article is more BLP than Healthcare" Yes, absolutely; and I'm not sure you, or several of the other folks here, understand this point. As a BLP, this should not be a blow-by-blow account of Modi's government; it should document substantive policy, as determined by reliable sources. The media is going to cover each and every action of the government on a daily basis. As such, media sources are terrible for determining due weight; we should instead focus on scholarly sources, and rely on media sources only for things which obviously deserve inclusion, but are absent from more reliable sources.

For instance, in a growing economy, virtually every portion of the budget will be hiked every year. Therefore, that the health budget increased for three years means nothing. Similarly, every new government announces new initiatives and schemes. More often than not these are repackaged versions of previous programs. What is worthy of inclusion (Up to a point; we have too much policy detail anyway) is the substance of these changes. At the moment, the only substantive points are the following: a universal health insurance scheme, the sanitation program, slashing the health budget initially (highly unusual, that), and a shift in emphasis from public to private healthcare. All the points, of course, require a little more fleshing out than I've given them here. Virtually all else is trivia. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I never questioned due weight, I am telling, with reliable reference, that the Lancet data is wrong, we should correct it. I pointed very specifically and you know what you have reverted me twice for, I gave links above, here it is a third time when I self-reverted. --G (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't going to fly. You've removed the Lancet source, and the sentence about a 15% reduction, several times. You have yet to correct it. Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please review this edit, maybe this tells you exactly what I am saying. --G (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

References should be at the end of the sentence unless there's a specific reason to place them elsewhere, but otherwise, that's fine. Vanamonde (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I think I was able to convey my point clearly by the edit. The second remark was about sourcing 15% to the Lancet article when 1. The Lancet article has been shown to have got two mistakes already. 2. Economic Times is a highly reliable source for budget, also contradicts it. Please understand I am not talking about weight here but I am saying that the data needs to be corrected. --G (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Totally forgot this. Hi Vanamonde93 can you look at my comment? --Gian (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts? --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gbohoadgwwian: I do apologize. I am busy for the next 24-48 hours, but will take a look after that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I finally got around to looking at this. Taking a few steps back, it seems to me the best way to go forward is to drop the budget numbers altogether, and to drop mentions of any policies that we don't also provide analysis for. The Lancet source is still a heavyweight source; let's just use it for analysis. Newspapers, as I've said elsewhere, are really bad for this sort of thing because they write in-the-moment, without historical perspective, and so might be okay for factual details but are terrible for the big picture. Vanamonde (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this particular Lancet article is not so reliable. There are three factual mistakes already. It is by a non-specialist journalist on contract in a tone that reeks of political commentary. Even if other sources are reporting in-the-moment they got their facts right. I would not overlook the mistakes selectively and still use this source. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Lancet is going to trump newspapers every time. It also far more likely to issue corrections in the event that it does get something wrong. But, as was said near the top of this thread, this article is supposed to be about the man, not his government's policies. Please note that Modi is not a dictator and any policies will be the outcome of internal discussions etc rather than all springing from his own mind. I think we're losing sight of this. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From where are you getting "non-specialist journalist"? The Lancet has stringent editorial oversight, after all; it doesn't publish any old thing. And I'm still not seeing blatant errors; the decrease in the budget does not seem to have a consensus figure elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC) (Added post-ec) I agree that we may be getting bogged down in details. I rewrote this in 2016, when the Modi government was relatively new and a lot of the sources were focusing on policy details. Two years down the line we can probably prune this a good bit, and add some bigger-picture material. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Narendra Damodardas Modi (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Add another category to this article

Narendra Modi was Pracharak of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Hence, the category "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh pracharaks" should be added.

Nealhooper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nealhooper:, That category is already added in the article, see the bottom category section on the article main page.. Also see he is listed in [40] --Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: Thanks

Extended-Confirmed Protection Request

I would like to put forward my request of granting this article extended protection, as this is about Sri Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister and the head-of-government of the world's fastest growing economy. Plus, the article is also a good article. Other articles about other leaders of republics, such as P.O.T.U.S. Donald Trump, already have extended protection.
Regards,
AnotherHomoSapein (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. We don't grant protection based on the nature of the article but rather on the nature of the editing that goes on in the article. I don't see any serious vandalism or blp issues with this article (presumably that's why D.T.s article is protected) that makes extended confirmed protection necessary. --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Good article" classification

Not sure why this article has been rated a "good article."

It is filled with grammatical errors, unverified and biased information, and a lack of adequate citations.

Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to clean up the grammatical errors. If you think the information is biased, you should point to specific pieces that are, in your opinion, biased. Other editors can then try to address the problem. FYI, WP:Good article criteria. --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist

@Daredevil83:. The source describes Modi, not the RSS, as a Hindu nationalist. But your edit summaries (both of them) imply that the source is describing the RSS as a hindu nationalist organization and we're making the leap to Modi being one. If you want to remove "Hindu nationalist" because you think it is unnecessary, then you should address that directly with your reasons. Perhaps here? Misleading edit summaries are never a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 13:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite aside from the misleading edit-summary; "Hindu nationalist" is likely the most common descriptor applied to Modi's ideology in reliable sources (and I've read a fair few of those). There's absolutely no basis to remove it. Vanamonde (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RTI Reports

As per RTI there is no official record of Narendra Modi being a tea seller nor graduated from Delhi university Please update the same accordingly. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

That's a bit of an overstatement, Akhiljaxxn. The news stories say the government has no record of Modi being a tea-seller. So what? We have reliable sources saying he was a tea-seller, and no one has really contested the substance of this. Vanamonde (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding some information from Forbes

I want to add the information from Forbes, i.e. Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People and Modi is in #9 position.

--RamgarhDaily (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This information is already in the article. If there is additional information that needs to be added, please make a new request with specific details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

until 2001, rising to the rank of General Secretary. after a lot of hard work. School Wiki Group Leader (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:PEACOCK. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Mother/no bribes/sin/impact on Modi

This content is inappropriate for a number of reasons. It's completely ungrammatical, it is saying in Wikipedia's voice something which at best can be attributed to Modi, and by its nature it's basically a sound byte, which we decided to remove from this article quite a while back; the discussion is in the talk page archives. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You can correct the grammar yourself. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: You are obligated to reach consensus here, per WP:BRD. You haven't answered my other objections, which are more serious. You need to self-revert and discuss the content here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, the info is not encyclopedic in nature and annot be verified by third party sources. Additionally, I have reservations against using Times Now since I feel that it's reportage is a bit right winged biased  << FR ^(mobileUndo) 05:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Lets consider that the reverts are in good faith! I am happy that at least some discussion has started here. I request other editors to kindly opine. Thanks in advance. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted you again. The grammar is the least of the issues there, as Vanamonde notes above. And, frankly, it sounds like legend-building, similar to the story of Washington and the tree. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to add following information which is well referenced but it is being removed.

Modi's mother, Heeraben told him never to accept the bribe and commit this sin. This had great impact on Modi.

References

Abhijeet Safai, three experienced editors gave their opinion regarding this above, including me. For what it is worth, I I will add that just because something is published is not a reason to include it. We have to be wary of how we deal with extraordinary claims. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no issues if one thinks that it is extraordinary claim! I am a researcher and I know that extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. But I am just interested to know how we define extraordinary claim here. Kindly do share about it as you would get time. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Under the PM's name in the info box, it lists two persons under 'President' heading. There is only one President, the first name on the list is the former President, left office in 2017.

 Not done - Modi came to office in 2014 when Pranab Mukherjee was president, and is still in office under Ram Nath Kovind, so he has served under 2 presidents, and the infobox is correct - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

I am going to change entire passage Modidon (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC) search

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
Please request your change 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) 12:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Trimming and revising the Prime Minister section

This section was written a couple of years ago. Since then, a few of the Modi government's activities, such as the GST and the demonetization, have received considerably more attention in reliable sources, while others, such as the Smart Cities initiative, made a splash when announced, but are barely mentioned in recent sources. The section is also too long (and I take some responsibility for that, although there has been a persistent tendency to add WP:CRUFT to this page). Over the next few weeks, I intend to both trim this to address issues of recentism, and to update some of the material. If anyone has any issues with my changes, I am happy to discuss them here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a full paragraph on what all was reduced in a single budget. However, as per WP:COMMONSENSE, that reduction must have been accompanied with transfer of allocation to other areas which find no mention. Further what about other budgets, why's only 1 budget important and not others? There are 3 lines on opposition from certain unions and no line on support from international organisations. Also, there's no mention of ease of doing business ranking and fiscal deficit. Does this qualify neutral representation norms? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Also please consider if mention of changing budget presentation date and merger of railway budget qualify your standards of notability as they were major changes to budget procedure. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't finished with the section. I reworked the material about GDP growth to encompass all the years we have data for, and I intend to do the same for the specific budgetary allocations. The Labour law is too minor to describe every specific reaction. Even the labour union criticism wouldn't have received the press it did, had it not been from a BJP ally. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, I've not been following the in's and out's but why does a reduction in a budget imply a reallocation? I don't see why governments can't just decide not to spend. In fact, many worldwide have done just that at various times. I don't want to drag this out but I'm not seeing why it is common sense. Perhaps that is because I lack it? - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Complete?

Its been almost 2 months. Is your intiative complete Vanamonde93? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 15:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I'm afraid not; RL intervened. I hope to work more on this in the coming weeks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request for Extended-Confirmed protection

Please change the name of Modi's wife from Jashodaben to Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi, her full name. It feels better. Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Electoral Performances and Positions Held

Someone removed the edits, it is important to have the information of prime minister's own electoral performances in the past. There is no vandalism and it just gives brief information quickly on a wikitable to see when and where he contested with the results . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesenwriter (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Such information would perhaps be useful, but only if accompanied by additional detail (the numerical results of each election, for instance). The table you added was completely redundant; the elected positions Modi held are already listed in the infobox. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay , thanks for the feedback. I will work on the numerical results (Votes he got and the margin details) . Is that okay ?--Lesenwriter (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That would certainly be better; I'm not 100% convinced it's necessary, because many of the margins of victory are already in the article. If we could move them into a compact table, though, it wouldn't be the worst thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Honorable

Why The Honorable cannot be used as prefix since 2016? Prime Minister of India clearly states the formal style is The Honorable. All the prime ministers before have been named with it! Manthara (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Add UAE awards PM Narendra Modi with highest civilian honor for boosting ties in "Honors & Awards" section Source http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/uae-awards-pm-narendra-modi-with-highest-civilian-honour-for-boosting-ties/ar-BBVBGh7?ocid=ientp Raj wip (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done MrClog (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bharatiya Janata Party (icon).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lotos flower symbol.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Modi and Amit Shah

Some people(including german) related modi and amit shah with modi and magni(son of thor). Egyptian Kratos (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Some relate them as Ram (Amit Shah) and Hanuman (Modi) 141.58.16.125 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusing

I did not understand the sentence under 2002 Riots that says "Modi has not offered an apology for the riots and has stated that he should be rather punished and not forgiven if he is guilty."

Either it needs more context or rewriting because it doesn't read well or make sense without more information or context.

I agree. I've removed it for the time being. --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A section on stupidities

A section should be added on the stupidities said by Narendra Modi.

1. The cloud-radar remark.
2. Remark that he used e-mails and digital cameras in late eighties, when an average Indian was still unaware of something called water closet existed.
3. Remark that gravitational waves would be renamed "Narendra Modi waves"

And a lot more he said on history. The section could even be created as a separate article as it would be very long to mention everything. 141.58.17.170 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. The cloud-radar remark.- Military radars use high frequency for accurate pinpointing of the target. Higher the frequency, higher the chance it is susceptible to attenuation by humidity and rainfall.
2. Remark that gravitational waves would be renamed "Narendra Modi waves"- reference provided is wrong, the ref provided was: . Cite proper sources, I couldn't find any source claiming he said that. rationalwikiuser 18:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rationalrogu (talk • contribs)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

The predecessor is mentioned as incumbent however the predecessor is Dr. Manmohan Singh who held the post before Narendra Modi was sworn in on 26 May 2014. TropicOfCancer06 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done MrClog (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please edit that PM Modi has now held the office as the 15th PM since 30th May 2019. Shiv2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiv2004 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple problems with the wording and sources

1. Born to a Gujarati family in Vadnagar, Modi helped his father sell tea as a child, and has said he later ran his own stall. - No source provided here, there is proper source in the later section. Should be cited here as well. Also could be changed to later ran a tea stall with his brother.
2. Modi left home after finishing high-school in part due to an arranged marriage to Jashodaben Chimanlal, which he abandoned, and publicly acknowledged only many decades later- source not provided here, there is a proper source mentioned later, should be cited here as well.
3. and weakened or abolished environmental and labour laws. should be changed to criticised to have weakened environmental laws at behest of his office. - source :  ; The claim that he has weakened or abolished labour laws was made by his opponent with no reference or source provided hence can't be used.

Please read WP:CITEKILL, WP:YESPOV, and WP:DUE, which will help you understand why those changes are unnecessary and not appropriate. Also, please sign any posts you make on a talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Update his profile from being 14th PM of India to 15th as he has been reelected to office. User8573 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation for His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state

was looking at the citations for the statement.His administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty, and education indices in the state.[c] and the sources I believe there are some better sources for this like this. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/Gujarat-Myth-and-reality/articleshow/14032015.cms @RkoC — Preceding unsigned comment added by RkoC (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We generally prefer scholarly sources to news sources, when the former are available; see WP:RS. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Owner Of Ship Seized By Iran Writes To PM Modi To Intervene, Save Crew

All India Indo-Asian News Service The British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero was seized by Iran while passing through the Hormuz Strait. It was done in retaliation, after Iran's own tanker Grace 1 was detained by Britain in the Strait of Gibraltar. British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero was seized by Iran while passing through the Hormuz Strait

New Delhi: The owner of British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero, which was seized by Iran on July 19 with 23 crew, including 18 Indians on board, has appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to personally intervene to seek the release of the vessel. In a letter to the prime minister, Stena Bulk's chief executive and president Erik Hanell, said since the ship was seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards while passing through the Hormuz Strait, the crew members, - 18 Indian, three Russian, one Filipino and one Latvian - have been detained on the vessel at anchor off Bandar Abbas.

Mr Hanell said while the seafarers are proud professionals, "they are becoming increasingly concerned about their fate and their families, increasingly worried about the continued detention of their loved ones, particularly as they are guilty of no crime".

He said that Stena Impero and the crew acted in a professional manner and broke no rules or regulations whether local or international. "Despite our repeated requests for access to the vessel, so far this has not been permitted for evidence gathering."

He added that the ship has no involvement in geo-political matters, nor wishes to have any.

He thanked the prime minister for the visit by Indian Embassy officials in Tehran to the vessel in Bandra Abbas to meet the crew.

"However, before the situation with those on board and with their families becomes more distressing, I would request you to personally intervene and ask for the release of the crew back to their families, who anxiously await their safe return."

Advertisement Earlier, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said the Indian embassy in Tehran is in "constant contact" with the Iranian authorities for the release and repatriation of the 18 Indian crew members on board Stena Impero.

The ship was seized by Iran in retaliation after its own tanker Grace 1 was detained by Britain in the Strait of Gibraltar. Osama Razi (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So what? We're not a news website and, if anything, this would be about Iran-India relations, not Modi. I am tempted to revert or collapse this and would have no objection if someone does. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly add a section on rise of antiscience and pseudoscience

Kindly add a section on rise of antiscience and pseudoscience in the dynasty of this ruller and its party. 2405:204:4313:D858:B1C4:B00D:32F2:5146 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2019

A minor change, I'm requesting for File:Narendra Modi being conferred on the Highest Civilian Honour of Afghanistan (Amir Amanullah Khan Award) by the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, in Herat, Afghanistan.jpg image to be put on the right align side in the Awards and recognition section. --ChandC (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC) ChandC (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The photo is just two people shaking hands. It may not be illustrative enough for an Awards section. Please discuss to obtain consensus first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

Please change Ganchi(X) to Gandhi(Y) in Personal Life section. In accordance with Ghanchi tradition,... Mohitm15 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources for your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add a criticism section including decline in education

Particularly higher education is highly polarised; the state run universities are "bloodless". There is incredible cut in research seats and research funding. 2405:204:4313:D858:B1C4:B00D:32F2:5146 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree too. A crticism section must be added. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

While any article should not exclude relevant, well-sourced (especially important in WP:BLP:s) criticism in WP:PROPORTION, separate criticism sections are often a bad idea, they tend to become shit-magnets. Relevant critiicsm should be included in the appropriate section or sub-article, for example criticism of his foreign policy goes in that section or, if that is to much detail for this article, Foreign policy of the Narendra Modi government. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad english usage -- please correct

Please change:

He was the third of six children born to Damodardas Mulchand Modi (c. 1915–1989) and Hiraben Modi (born c. 1920).

to

He is the third of..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.151.123 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

Rachyrachy828 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I edit some valuable thing about their great personality Rachyrachy828 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Updates required

The elections section mentions three paras about elections 2014 and nothing about 2019. Also recent development in Kashmir and the two strikes need proper mention. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason for that is simple; there is substantive scholarly analysis of the 2014 elections in a way that there still isn't for the 2019 elections. The bare bones are there. If you find substantive sources that are not plagued by RECENTISM or POV issues, go ahead and add them. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a little atleast about 201 elections. The page is incomplete in this regard Jamailfaroukh (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

Hi, can someone remove "nationality" and "citizenship" parameter from the Infobox of the article as the person was born and brought-up in India moreover he hasn't taken any other country's citizenship. It sounds bit chauvinistic or jingoistic by putting those parameters. You can check Boris Johnson, Donald Trump or Angela Merkel none of the articles have these parameters in the infobox. Another point there are too many awards mentioned in the Infobox, some of them are as quite irrelevant or unimportant. Notable awards such as Nobel Prize / Bharat Ratna can be mentioned while the rest can be scraped.--Isak.lund (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: did not remove the infobox parameters (per your user talk, not restating here), but did streamline awards= by anchoring it to the same section in article body. --Nemoschool (talk to me) 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nemoschool: Why have you kept "citizenship" parameter when he is born and brought-up in India moreover he hasn't taken any other country's citizenship. "Nationality" parameter too should be removed. It is utter foolish to keep these two parameters especially when he is head of a state. Check other high profile WP:BLP articles eg. Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron or Shinzō Abe or Xi Jinping. @Fowler&fowler: please help us.Thanks--Isak.lund (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

False claims made should be another Wiki article or a section of this article? Trump's false claims are collected in a separate Wiki page.

Request to change picture

The US flag is really distracting and should not be the first thing to see behind the Prime Minister of India. It's a good pic though.-Abhinavsiddharth321 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Are there other candidate pictures? --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  17:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

Hey there, can someone please update the article's "Health and sanitation" or "Hindutva" section with Modi's views on ancient Indian reproductive genetics and plastic surgery? Thanks.

Sources: [41], [42], [43]

3hunna (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The key word here is "specific". Giving us sources is great but we can't read your mind and determine exactly what in those sources is supposed to be added. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for concerned lead section

The latter part of lead section have tried hard to put the man in question in negative light as much as possible without highlights the actual achievements. Mere opinions doesn't kill democracy. Lead section doesn't looks like NPOV by any means.

What he has done by bringing electricity to almost all of the villages plus connect masses with banks and transparency in credit system should be there. I will provide sources very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.174.122 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong terminology

Could In 2018 he was the third most followed head of the state on Twitter be changed to In 2018 he was the third most followed world leader on Twitter? The source referenced uses the term ‘world leader’ and Modi is a head of government, not head of state anyways. Friendly neighbourhood platypus (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor Friendly neighbourhood platypus:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Date of photograph

The caption under Modi's picture says "Modi in 2019", when the picture was taken in 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePickeringtonian (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Student

Hello sir U v thakur 00 (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Birthdate Descrepancy

The Birthdate written here is Controversial, and cant said accurate and is https://m.telegraphindia.com/india/pm-caught-in-birth-date-row/cid/1515911 Saifullah.vguj (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing of word

The word controversial politician should be removed. Arjunuws (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Arjunuws, I totally agree! This propaganda piece is a sack of junk. --Akb20 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

I think the honorific prefix of His Excellency should be added above Modi's name. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The convention on Wikipedia is not to do that. --regentspark (comment) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Josharaujo1115 You can see the Manual of Style for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

India-China border dispute

It might be a good idea to mention the ongoing border dispute in Ladakh between India and China, as well as the infrastructure buildup pursued by Modi on India's side of the border. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be listed as another failure from Narendra Modi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.111.230.22 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline is, in my opinion, entirely redundant to the lead, and does not belong in the article. No consensus for its use has been established here, so pinging other major authors of this page for their views. @Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Sitush, RegentsPark, MohitSingh, Wikidushyant, Sparkume, and Amitrochates: your views would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that a timeline should not be in the article. Not only because it is redundant but also because we would need reliable sourcing for the inclusion of each event in the timeline. A source that not only says an event was important but that it was also a defining moment. Otherwise, the timeline is just another example of WP:OR. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have also sent the template to TfD. These are somewhat separate discussions (does this article need a timeline, vs should such a timeline exist) but it's probably worth mentioning here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Late to this party but I agree: not needed, not useful, not even compliant. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Mohit Singh (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge Indian general election in Prime Minister

The Indian general election is totally correlated with his premiership and mostly includes about election results. Hence they should be merged. Manasbose (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you link to the article you refer to? --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to Narendra Modi#Indian general elections be merged with Narendra Modi#Prime Minister. Hope I cleared the confusion. Manasbose (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There's a number of sources discussing the election, and Modi's strategy during it; and Modi was not prime minister during the election, Manmohan Singh was. That's how elections work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Hindu nationalist beliefs" should be removed

Prime Minister Modi is not Hindu Nationalist. He includes all cultures and minorities of India. Who ever wrote this propaganda is definetely not neutral because he/she is pointing out flaws against the Prime Minister. He/she is extremely biased and he/she should write his/her opinions in some other forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akb20 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The content is reliably sourced. (By the way, your use of the Shift key on your keyboard requires serious attention.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. "ReLiAbLy SoUrCeD." Half the articles in this propaganda page are BIASED. The editors made sure to pick articles that are attacking Prime Minister Modi. A lot of these articles are coming from Pakistan and China: the 2 countries that dislike India the most. Make sure to put articles that are actually COMING from India. People who write this article have a lack of knowledge.

Do you mention that Modi is favourable by 80% of the Indian population and won a landslide in 2019? NO Do you mention that Modi includes all minorities? NO. Do you mention that Modi celebrates all holidays of all religions? NO.See, this just proves that the writers of this article have a negative attitude to the Prime Minister. You only like to point out the "bad stuff" of his administration.

I am considering reporting this stupid article for its bias and lack of knowledge. Please reply at your convenience :) -- Akb20 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Akb20

"Reporting" to whom, exactly? Remember that legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:M Imtiaz, what are you going to do about my request for this article? Do you not have a strong argument? --Akb20 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

 Not done@Akb20: go right ahead in reporting this article for being "biased" -- despite coverage in reliable sources and you actually not pin-pointing what exactly needs to be changed and adequately explaining why. Also, feel free to report yourself for your incivility to other users (as demonstrated here and elsewhere) -- or don't, because either way, if you continue to behave this way: your time on Wikipedia as an editor will be short. You've mentioned that this article doesn't reflect on the "favourable" ratings of Modi; go have a read of → Narendra_Modi#Approval_ratings. Secondly, re his election win in 2019: that's discussed in the article multiple times, again, will just require you to read. Thirdly, re the minorities: you've not articulated how or why this needs to be addressed. So my sincere suggestion would be that you pin-point what needs to be changed/improved (so we can all fix the issue) — or that you stop wasting your time and everyone else's. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar, there are a few changes needed to improve this so-called "article." One, I suggest you put the approval ratings in the summary section. That way, new people who read the article will have a positive image of Modi and continue to read more (remember, most read the summary first). Two, his election win should also be included in the summary section.

Let me just say one thing before I sign off, you are (Redacted). --Akb20 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

@Akb20: "new people who read the article will have a positive image of Modi" I'm sorry, but that most certainly is not what we do on Wikipedia. Please read our policy on always observing a neutral point of view. We're not here to promote the subject of the article -- you can do that on social media, a forum, or in some other capacity, just not on Wikipedia. I can't emphasise the latter point to you enough. The lead section of the article is supposed to summarise key points of the article; his opinion polling is clearly not a key point. His election winnings are already mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article lead. I acknowledge you're currently on a block, but when you return please be civil — it's really unnecessary to attack other editors, especially when all they want to do is help. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar:, these editors did not want to help! They are extremely biased! All I did was give my suggestions on an article. It's extremely sad to see that some Wikipedians don't like to accept feedback/criticism. You can block me, I don't care! I don't have time for stubborn Wikipedians.

Also, you DID NOT summarise the "key points" of the article. These people only make sure to mention the negatives of Prime Minister Modi's administration. If you do want to summarise the key points, make sure to be neutral and keep a balance of positives and negatives.

User: Kautilya3 said to me "By the way, your use of the Shift key on your keyboard requires serious attention." That's a personal attack. Why are you not blocking him? This just proves your bias and arrogance.

--Akb20 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Akb20

@Akb20: Kautilya3's comment was not a personal attack (I don't see how it could possibly be construed as one). The lead accurately summarises the key points of the article, you just don't like it. Your last comment contained a personal attack against me, so at this point I'm discontinuing this conversation with you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• For those interested, it turns out that Akb20 is a sock of a blocked "vandalism-only" account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar:, why are you bullying Akb20? He just wants to help improve the article. And yes, this article is somewhat biased. Not going to lie. PUNJABI CHIEF (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@PUNJABI CHIEF: he's also an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. With your first edit on Wikipedia being to conveniently defend him and his personal attacks, I'd be curious to know whether you both are the same person. Also, never confuse "bullying" with taking to task someone over their uncivil conduct. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@MelbourneStar:, are you kidding me? This is the first article I stumbled on. I decided to check this talk page because I had no idea how talk pages work. I never expected to see such harassment and disrespect to a person who wants to put in his suggestions. It's so sad that it's my first time here and I had to see garbage behaviour from you. PUNJABI CHIEF (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@PUNJABI CHIEF: very sad indeed. Not only did I not "harass" or "disrespect" the person you speak of, but the person you speak of has been blocked for said harassment and abusing multiple accounts. If you can't substantiate your claims about my editing here, can't discuss the subject of the article (it's an article's talk page after all) — I'll open a discussion here about your behaviour. Your first edit was to make unfounded accusations against another editor, the least you could do is back them up. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

2409:4053:613:EE53:FDC0:BE5A:DACE:6128 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing 'caste' to 'jati'

In the 'Early life and education' section, I propose to update the line "Also in Narendra Modi's childhood, in a custom traditional to his caste, his family arranged a betrothal to a girl,..." to "Also in Narendra Modi's childhood, in a custom traditional to his jāti, his family arranged a betrothal to a girl,..."

Reason being the cited sources don't use the term 'caste' they use 'community'. Hence, 'jāti' is correct description, not 'caste' - which is a colonial Eurocentric terminology, perspective and understanding of Indian systems and traditions.

Also, since article clearly declares it is in Indian English. Therefore, there should be no objection about it not being a word in English. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done ~ Amkgp 💬 18:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Amkgp, Please provide reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Child Marriage

The article today reads and I quote: Modi left home after finishing high-school in part due to an arranged marriage to Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi, which he abandoned and publicly acknowledged only many decades later. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&oldid=968122014

Per NDTV (https://archive.is/w9Yu3), the marriage is said to have consummated at age 17, which qualifies it as Child marriage. I am proposing to change the article to reflect that. I feel, given the nature of the claim, this change is subject to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and so I want to check with editors here. My stance is, it is apt to mention child marriage in the article.

Thoughts? -Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Murtaza.aliakbar:, I am not able to found any statement in the ref that you provided that suggests that the marriage was consummated, which makes this claim baseless. Please complete the research next time before making such misleading claim.

On the other hand, I found several reliable sources suggesting the opposite:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/west/story/narendra-modi-marriage-jashodaben-188381-2014-04-10
2. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/140410/nation-current-affairs/article/narendra-modi-declares-himself-married-man
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/04/10/why-did-narendra-modi-keep-his-wife-secret-for-almost-50-years/
4. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-secret-wife-of-narendra-modi-and-what-she-tells-us-about-the-man-who-might-become-indias-next-pm-9254883.html Zoodino (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zoodino: Thanks.

> which makes this claim baseless.

No it doesn't. The marriage wasn't consummated, okay, let us agree on that; but it is still qualifies as child marriage since Jashoda was barely 17? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess there's no qualms about this. Making changes per WP:BOLD, to solicit more discussion if nothing else. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Murtaza.aliakbar: Do you have sources explicitly describing this as a child marriage? If not, using that term isn't appropriate. Arguing that it must be child marriage because Jashoda was 17 is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde: Thanks. I do not think attributable facts are original research. A marriage before 18 is generally agreed upon as Child marriage. That's literally the first line on the Wikipedia page on it, which goes Child marriage is a marriage or similar union, formal or informal, between an adult and a child under a certain age, typically age eighteen.

As for sources: https://www.livemint.com/Politics/F9qalnEojrmMdMXcaxZH2H/Narendra-Modis-inlaws-laud-his-acceptance-of-marriage-afte.html

“Growing up in rural Gujarat, Narendra and Jashoda were engaged as children in a ceremony arranged by their parents," according to Ashok Modi, one of Jashoda’s two brothers. They married a month before Jashoda’s 17th birthday in a traditional Hindu Vedic ceremony on 10 May 1968, he said, recalling the date from memory.

Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

here's another one: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10758070/India-election-2014-Narendra-Modi-reveals-he-is-married.html

Narendra Modi's family confirms for the first time he has a wife and says the BJP leader was forced into a child marriage at 17 years old.

Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no, the term carries POV connotations, and cannot be used unless reliable sources explicitly apply it here. The Telegraph source is the only one that's acceptable, as far as I can see. You will need more, to address the concern that this is undue weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde. Though marriage with a minor is, by definition, child marriage, we should only say so if reliable sources also say so. If reliable sources predominantly say "arranged marriage", then so should we. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde: and @RegentsPark: Thanks. Here's why I don't agree:

How can an attributable fact be classified as undue weight? I'd appreciate if you could elaborate with examples because the policy, WP:DUE doesn't explicitly say anything about this. The threshold for child marriage at age 18 isn't a minority viewpoint.

Wrt majority sources putting it as "arranged marriage": This child marriage was arranged, but, presence of one thing isn't absence of another here, just that, one thing is more apt than another, especially given wikipedia aims to be neutral and not deal in weasel words like "teenage/arranged marriage". I must point out, almost all reliable sources mention the age and most mention underage marriage.

Here's another source that mentions "Modi's unfortunate child marriage": https://books.google.co.in/books?id=fejOBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA24

This is beyond undue weight in my honest opinion. And demonstrably multiple sources explicitly mention the term child marriage and multiple sources mention the "underage" bride and/or weasel word it "teenage marriage".

That said, I get your concerns, only that, given the above, I'm not able to specifically agree why stating Modi's marriage as child marriage violates NPOV or DUE (even though I suspected it would: see my first post); if anything it emphasizes DUE and NPOV. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate involving examples; the fact is that "Modi had a child marriage" is a controversial assertion, and therefore requires sources to support it. That's how NPOV works. The publisher of your second source looks extremely suspect. I would object to the use of that source for absolutely anything in this article. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: "the fact is that "Modi had a child marriage" is a controversial assertion" <- this is an assertion that's baseless. I've sourced telegraph that explicitly mentions 'child marriage'. Here are some more sources that took me literally 5 minutes to unearth:

For the uninitiated, Modi was forced to marry by his parents when he was a teenager, keeping with the old tradition of child marriage.

Later on, Modi's brother, Somabhai Modi released a statement saying that the arranged child marriage was forced by his family adding that Modi left the marriage after it was solemnized.

And, straight from the horse's mouthpiece:

“He quit the family and left the house at an early age. His child-marriage with Jashodaben remained a mere formality,” wrote Somabhai (in his statement, which was circulated by the BJP).

Brother clarifies: Modi was married as a child, walked away to serve country

"I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate involving examples" You're not getting in to a debate, but helping me understand your concerns through an informed discussion. I am requesting because I genuinely care and believe in the editorial spirit of Wikipedia.

References

"Indian trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Indian trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Trump of India" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump of India. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Trump of India until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

Remove the New Delhi Riot section 112.79.110.73 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Background" section for elections

Speculation about a politician becoming prime minister is hardly an uncommon thing. Unless it's referred to by reliable sources writing substantially after the fact, such speculation falls foul of NOTNEWS, and does not belong in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue, even if there are RS writing about the past election runup now, why do we need that in this article? Who cares what, for instance, Raj Thackeray, had to say about Modiji then. Every politician and their grandmother had something to say about Modiji. Why include that non-sense? WP:BALASPS is very clear about this. Maybe @Manasbose: has something to say. - hako9 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I believe giving a background is very much needed. In the CM section there is already a brief description how modi became CM choice of the party. But for PM it just starts with Modi was announced PM candidate. No background is given. He was definitely a notable politician in 2013. But that doesn't answers why many senior officials of the party were avoided and Modi was chosen? India does not have any internal party primaries. And Modi was also opposed by many (even long time alliances broke due to that). And about notability of endorsements, Raj Thackeray is a opposition leader of BJP, hence I believe his statement was significant. And one more thing, I also plan to add some opinion polls about Modi in that segment.@Vanamonde93 and Hako9: Manasbose (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And if anyone finds some of the sentences not notable enough that's ok. But a background is very much needed. Manasbose (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The background you added does not conform to WP:DUE or WP:SYNTH. Modi has been a major political figure for nearly twenty years now. Business people and other politicians have been producing soundbytes about him for at least that long. They are generally undue weight in the article, because they are reported on when they are said and never mentioned afterwards. If you wish to write a background section for his electoral history, at the very least you need to base it on sources looking retrospectively. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please consider for inclusion

Can this image of Modi from the Ram Mandir bhoomi puja on 5 August 2020 be included? - File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi performing Bhoomi Pujan at ‘Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on August 05, 2020.jpg DTM (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Include in Hindutva sub section with a brief detail about the event. Manasbose (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Image in Infobox

We should come to a consensus on what image should be used in the Infobox to avoid edit wars. Manasbose (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I nominate File:Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, in New Delhi on August 08, 2019 (cropped).jpg. Manasbose (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel, Sdg100, and Showbiz826: you might want to comment on this. Manasbose (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

* File:Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, in New Delhi on August 08, 2019 (cropped).jpg on Narendra Modi

* File:Shri Narendra Modi.jpg on Prime Minister of India

I will recommend File:Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, in New Delhi on August 08, 2019 (cropped).jpg for article Narendra Modi and File:Shri Narendra Modi.jpg for article Prime Minister of India. The file being pushed by Sdg100 is yet to be reviewed any reviewer. Further, any wikipedia policy doesn't mandate us to keep official portraits on articles. Licensed image without any copyvio in public domain in highest available resolution is what I recommend. The photo I and Manasbose back for Narendra Modi is recent, covers him upto his body, having camera at inclination and not opposite to face, hence provides an entire profile of his face and looks better. Meanwhile the one given by Sdg100 is a straight standstill mirror image that won't even allow to recognise the character in other expressions. For Prime Minister of India, File:Shri Narendra Modi.jpg is strongly backed from me given its nice resolution and Indian flag in background (for representative of Indian republic). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I recommend File:PM Narendra Modi.jpg for both Narendra Modi and Prime Minister of India pages because this is the official portrait of him. Sdg100 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I recommend File:PM Narendra Modi.jpg for both Narendra Modi and Prime Minister of India pages because the image is very good and this is the official portrait and can be used anywhere easily. Sdg100 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We were not using copyrighted portraits earlier either, and those were much better than this one with just front elevation plus no background. I don't find any Wikipedia policy necessitating use of official portraits. You should stop reverting to an unreviewed file. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

CC-by-SA photos are best, avoids copyright.--Hippeus (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest a mug shot (passport style) portrait for the Modi article. It is customary (imo) to use a straight passport style photograph for the infobox and, both the ones nominated by Akg, are sideways shots. If you can find a straight shot that is cc-by-sa, that would probably be better. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As told before, I back so for profile for face. Still there are many other images available than this unreviewed file if concensus tilts in favour of a photo with front elevation of face. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• We should not be using a copyrighted photo when so many free-use images are available. I don't see how a copyrighted portrait of Modi would qualify for an WP:NFUR in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for the image to be applied on the page.

I request to use the file File:PM Narendra Modi.jpg in this page because this is the official portrait of the Prime Minister of India. Apart from that, this image is also used in the Prime Minister of India page. Sdg100 (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Gujrat Riots

@RegentsPark what kind of stupidity is this? You have reinstated these lines "It was considered that his government was complicit with the riots" while supreme court and other agencies did not find any evidence. Why are you trying to keep false information? ManojAvadhani (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@ManojAvadhani: If reliable sources consider him complicit in the riots, then we say just that. Court rulings can be mentioned (and, clearly, they are in this case) but we stick to reliable secondary sources for our main points. Please read up on WP:RS. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@RegentaPark Is what you are doing not against contempt of court? Who ever writes filth will that become reliable source? So you are ready to tarnish image of a person who has got astounding mandate of people of India twice because your "reliable source" says so? ManojAvadhani (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@ManojAvadhani: Please read WP:RS, as RegentsPark asked you to, and also read WP:DUE, which is very relevant here. Please also remember that making legal threats is not permitted on Wikipedia, and if you didn't intend to imply a threat of legal action, you should choose your words more carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

President order

My edit was reverted despite providing proper details not sure why Mods don't take time to read and mull over it. Anyways, all the previous prime minister and president profile has their counterpart listed inorder of office held. So, in case of current PM the order should be Pranab Mukherjee and then Ram Nath Kovind and after 2022 whoever holds the office not the other way around. Shashpant (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shashpant, I reverted them because I was not sure if that was the preferred way to order them. However, it does seem like most other pages order them chronologically. Maybe someone else can help us clarify this. Prolix 💬 09:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A chronological order would make sense to me, if only because if we do it some other way without explaining why, readers may well assume it's chronological. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Vanamonde93. I'll make the change Prolix 💬 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Narendra modi image

Hello Freinds I recently update photo of modi From 2013 event but a user revert it kindly dont revert such friendly changes, I am re adding that photo please dont do that its ok to have photo of few years back, Hope u all agree with me. Aristocratic 536 (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 photo is a better photo, clearer and better colour balance, besides just being more recent.--Hippeus (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

AhadChattha (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There are some things I want to add e.g some of his new achievements and overall give an update to the data.

Yours Sincerely, Ahad Chattha

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to be specific about what you want added. Alternatively, you can make the changes yourself when you account becomes autoconfirmed, which usually happens after your account is at least four days old and you have made 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal of peer-reviewed research – Whitewashing

The editor "HalfdanRagnarsson" indiscriminately removed a number of peer-reviewed studies and other expert assessments that point to the undisputed democratic backsliding that has occurred in India under Modi's leadership. The removal is nothing short of whitewashing, and the content should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Added link to the removal. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Now, now, calm! First off, it is not "undisputed". It is undisputed that Orban's Hungary has backslid, it is undisputed that Erdogan's Turkey has backslid, but there is no such consensus on India. What you cited were a lot of conjectures, studies and claims supporting the theory that Modi's India is experiencing democratic backsliding. Of course, you may reinsert them as a claim - but not a fact. Words matter - this is the world's largest encyclopedia. Happy editing! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to dispute that democratic backsliding has occurred, you need to present reliable sources to that end. As it stands, you've removed peer-reviewed academic studies, expert assessments and data by relevant bodies (such as the V-Dem Institute), which all say that democratic backsliding has occurred. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Now, that may be a problem. You won't find publications saying "Boris Johnson is not authoritarian" just because a guardian article (or, for that matter, well-sourced content like this [44]) says he is. Of course, I will be happy if what you ask for is satisfied by another editor. So that's about it - I guess I've said everything I had to say on this. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That's one random op-ed and it doesn't even say Johnson is an authoritarian. I presented multiple peer-reviewed studies, expert assessments, and an expert authority on democracy (the V-Dem Institute dataset). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant question is how many studies have examined democratic institutions in India during Modi's tenure, and what they have to say about it. If there are very many contradicting the findings of the ones in dispute here, then they may constitute undue weight, but I'm not seeing evidence of that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP about a person over a long period, due weight has to be considered otherwise this will become a novel. This is a highly edited topic also, no surprise that new sections keep coming. I see a source from 2007 also used to make a point about 2014-2020? Several academicians have written about improved elections (which is self-evident from increasing voter turnout percentage), improved women's participation in elections in recent times. (2018) Deepening Democracy in India: The Role of Women Parliamentarians and Their Challenges. In: Ahmed N. (eds) Women in Governing Institutions in South Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. (2016) Democracy and human development: recent legislation in India. Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute. The democratic institutions in India, the election commission, the judiciary, the parliament hasn't lost credibility. Research with numeric data is superior to opinions with feelers. We should have a consensus here on how much of it is due weight, and how to present it following the neutrality aspect. It could add value to an existing section if done right. Cheers! Jaydayal (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What do those sources have to say about the Modi administration specifically? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Vanamonde93. This material seems (extremely) well-sourced, appropriate weight, and encyclopedic, and the phrasing is appropriate. Obviously, the issue of democracy in India is a complex one, but I see no reason why we should omit descriptions of well-sourced expert assessments. Neutrality^talk 23:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Snooganssnoogans, if the content is well sourced and phrased right, it should definitely be placed on the page. We should also try to find well sourced information that democratic backsliding has not occured, just to be safe and not have undue weight. Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: I appreciate what you're trying to do with your most recent edit, but please be careful to avoid false balance problems; in-text attribution for this content is likely justified; but attributing it to unspecified "critics" isn't; if the authors are scholars (I haven't verified this yet) that's likely what should be used; or possibly just "described as" as a qualifier, similar to what's been done above with the Godhra riots content in the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the cited sources are critics (e.g. op-eds by Modi's opponents). The sources are all academic, except I think one Economist article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chariotrider555, I can't see any of citations provided here verifying

Critics have stated that under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding.

even remotely except an article from V-Dem. His administration has took an approach to pursue a centralised structure power or has a relatively more autocratic regime in nature is somewhat best what is verifiable but nothing on "Democratic backsliding". I don't see how we could include the term for attribute when it isn't even utilised in any significant number of sources. This article is GA and depends on quality scholarly sources for such claims. We should not lower the article's quality. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Democratic backsliding is a decline in democracy, which all the cited sources support either explicitly or through synonymous wording. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, any unverifiable content only deteriorates quality of the article. Backsliding has been the attribute of mere a handful of cases for a very good reason and can't be introduced just because of personal tendencies. Democratic backsliding includes actual dysfunctional state of democratic machinery of a state. Again, if there is situation that nearly or most of or even a significant number of sources use word "Democratic backsliding" or Republic of India is no longer mentioned as a democracy prevalently. Unless there is so, the content serves no purpose except debauching of the article and here we don't even have enough sources to give it even a mention in article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You're engaging in original research. Democratic backsliding does not necessarily entail "Republic of India is no longer mentioned as a democracy". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Original research Not by a long shot. I'm mere responding to "they still criticise". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Aman Kumar Goel: Your first comment is a little concerning, because there's several inaccuracies in it. First, the article you point to isn't by V-Dem, it's in the journal Democratization; it uses data from V-Dem, but that website is simply hosting the paper. Second, the other source from Democratization explicitly uses the term "democratic backsliding" as well; did you read it? Third, the other sources are still criticizing the Modi administration's effect on India's democratic institutions. You seem to argue that because they do not use a specific term, they do not belong in the article, whereas really they ought to be integrated into a paragraph about the more general topic. We need to evaluate the material about the Modi administration and democracy, and decide what that paragraph looks like. Erasing those sources completely isn't an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

My view: I agree with Vanamonde93 that the "critics" should be named if the content is to be added. Moreover, I encourage adding the views opposite to the views of these "critics" to maintain neutrality. Furthermore, please don't create a separate section about this in accordance with WP:CSECTION. Try to add the content within existing sections. Also, "democratic backsliding" is a bit too strong phrase, so I encourage a more neutral-sounding substitute for it.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That's...not quite what I said, but I actually agree that a section is a bad idea; we have a section about governance; this is very much on topic there. Incidentally, that and other sections could use some heavy pruning; they're reading like a list of initiatives at the moment, and it's easy to fill the article with that sort of stuff, but given that we're trying to reduce an (at present) six-year administration to a few paragraphs, only the most noteworthy things, ie those that are mentioned in scholarly sources or retrospective analyses, are worth mention. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad that I didn't read out second source. Yet the issue with the prevalence of use of term remains. Although, the centralisation of power and a more authoritarian approach to issues remains a characteristic of his administration and is supported by nearly all sources, is ought to be added as it is. Further making a new section especially for it again is vanity as governance section serves purpose even now IMO. WP:NPOV is paramount and such sections about his initiatives or criticism only makes it a anti or pro Modi PoV piece. Issue remains with whether it is needed in lead or not. I don't find it necessary but don't have any problem with it either if it quotes what most sources say as it is. For the good of article, governance section should be groomed, trimmed, expanded and rewritten to summarise his premiership like an expanded lead. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The governance section should absolutely not summarize his premiership; we do not need a second summary. Governance is about governance. Effects on democratic institutions fits well. Also, you need to be more specific by what you mean when you say "supported by nearly all sources"; of course all sources about Modi aren't going to mention this, just as they aren't going to mention demonetization, or the Time PotY, or anything else. The question is about sources discussing governance during his premiership. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

By summary, I meant that we we could skip some point to point news what's incorporated there. As for Democratic backsliding, it wasn't an administrative action like demonetisation but a scholastic term for characteristic. It widely may include rampant corruption and essentially election frauds etc.. If there is a widespread concensus for it terming transition as "Democratic backsliding" which is not there at the moment, term would be considered. For sure the authoritarian lead culture and centralised power etc. find sufficient covered for inclusion. So, unless it can be verified that they refer same as "Democratic backsliding", the term remains nothing more than a critical metaphor. I'm afraid that inclusion of every randomly used term just for sake of being critical, would further push article into a "cry baby" piece than a good one with actual assessments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

AKG, please read the linked scholarly sources, and other material about governance under Modi. They are not discussing corruption and election fraud; they are discussing centralization of power and erosion of democratic institutions, which is also what the sources using the term "backsliding" discuss. This does not mean the term must be used, but if you think the sources are not all making the same point, you need to read them more carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I as have told earlier, the nature of his regime which has centralised power or authoritarian nature is being discussed straight away by sources are quite safe to add. Term "Backsliding" should be based upon prevalence and as even that topic would include a broad approach on all aspects. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Path forward

Is there a path forward here or should I put this to a RfC? In my view, it's not acceptable to attribute these as studies as "critics", so I wouldn't agree with that as a compromise. Some editors above say that the backsliding description is contested, but haven't provided any evidence to that end, so to exclude the studies on a NPOV-basis seems unsubstantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, if no evidence exists that democratic backsliding hasn't occurred, then it should be kept in the article. Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Godhra Riots

Hello The Article still Says that Modi alleged involvement in Gujarat riots,Well he got Clean chit from Supreme Court 2 times And once during NDA Govt So how on Earth U can accuse Him of Such Invlovement Is beyond Me, Kindly remove this allege involvement word its highly Misguiding. Thanks. Samboy 01681 (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No Response Yet ??? Samboy 01681 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That content appears to be well sourced and the "clean chit" is also mentioned in the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark Ok, So If thats the Case why in The lead its says Narendra Modi Allged Invovlement In Godhra Riots ??????? It shouldn't be mention the lead as it made Article Controversial Indicating that Modi has a Role To Play In Gujarat Riots Which is wrong indeed Its a request to discuss About It Or He got Clean Chit So Please dont Mention So Called Allged Invovlement We should mention Like this That He was alleged by Left wingers to Play a part in Godhra Riots however he got Clean chit from Supreme court. Its a request Mate. Samboy 01681 (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The exact statement is "His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots,[a] or otherwise criticised for its handling of it. A Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against Modi personally." Reliable sources consider him complicit but the Supreme Court hasn't found evidence. I cannot think of a better way to state this. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking to Post a link from Relaible sites like OpIndia but it was removed saying it is in blacklist.Samboy 01681 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Samboy 01681, it's blacklisted because it's anything BUT a reliable source. Ravensfire (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You can upload this to reliable website — Preceding unsigned comment added by SARFARAZ SAMIN 123 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi celebrating Diwali with the jawans of the Indian Army at Longewala in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan on November 14, 2020 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Democratic backsliding under Modi

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

Consensus is that democratic backsliding should be included, and should not be attributed to critics. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

1. Should the article include text on "democratic backsliding" under Modi's tenure as Prime Minister? 2. If yes, should it be written in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding") rather than be attributed to "critics" (e.g. "critics say India has experienced democratic backsliding under Modi's tenure")? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources for "democratic backsliding"

References

Survey

• Yes to both. The text is sourced to high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed research and the V-Dem Institute's measures of democracy. The subject of democracy under Modi has been a notable part of his premiership, as reflected in RS coverage. Content on the subject has long-term encyclopedic value. If attribution is needed, it should at the very least be attributed to "political scientists" or "experts" rather than "critics" because the scholarly works that are cited are not by critics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes It should be included and be attributed to "scholars have noted that India has experienced democratic backsliding" or "experts have noted that...". Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both. This is extensively covered in the academic literature and high-quality journalistic sources, so it must be included in order to make the article appropriately comprehensive. "Critics have..." language should not be included because it is inappropriate/inaccurate: as the cited sources reflect, the discussion of democratic backsliding covers from scholars and experts, not mere political critics. Neutrality^talk 23:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on 1, No to 2 - I have nothing to say about it being included or not. However, if it is to be included, then it must be attributed to critics. Yes, they are high-quality sources, but they are high-quality sources that are critical of him. "Critics have..." language would certainly fit well here. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both per Snooganssnoogans - Idealigic (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both widely reported in a variety academic and expert analysis. No question about it really. Bacondrum (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative support for both per Neutrality, but I have a fairly strong preference for avoiding the jargon-ish term "backsliding" and instead saying in plainer language what that means. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both. Striking the right balance on Neutrality is always tricky with current events, but on this matter there is widespread agreement among sources from across the political spectrum. --Tserton (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2021 (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.