Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Image change request

I'm requesting for a image change because the old version is outdated and the new version seems more legit to me, as of like a official potrait.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksh.andronexus (talk • contribs)

 Already done.Jiggyziz^Talk✍️ 04:29, 25 September 2021 (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:

• Narendra Modi 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended protect access

Hi , requesting extended protected access. Thanks in anticipation. DavidWood11 (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

DaxServer Do you have the capacity to deny this request? If yes, what is your capacity? DavidWood11 (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. As said on your talk page, please request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed for additional rights to your account to edit this page. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

WHY CANNOT WE EDIT THIS PAGE 103.211.132.56 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. This article is protected so users need to be extended-confirmed, meaning 500 edits and 30 days after registration. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2021 (2)

103.211.132.56 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see protection logs of the page. Also, please DO NOT put an edit request. You can simply post your queries on the talk page. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

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.

Clear consensus for option B. Most editors supporting this option cite that this is how it is covered in quality reliable sources, and that Wikipedia should follow such sources (which is basically what NPOV says and V requires). The arguments for the other side are distinctly in the minority, and seem to be from mostly one person; and are not convincing in light of NPOV (which also says that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them") or other policy requirements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Requesting comments:

• Opton A: Whether article Narendra Modi should mention his marriage as "child marriage" ?
• Option B: or should article present it just as the two persons (i.e. Mr. & Mrs Modi) marrying at the age 18 and 17 ?

Thanks for your inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Note :Above RfC questions emanate from on going discussion @ Talk:Narendra Modi#Child marriage?, discussion on similar/ related topic may be found @ this talk page archives too

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment:@Fowler&fowler:To best of my knowledge, In Indian legal perspective 'age of consent' and 'age of marriage' are distinct concepts. 'Age of consent' primarily discusses about 'age of sexual consent' and in Indian history both laws are differently updated. Check refs in article 'Child marriage in India' it will show age of marriage for men applicable in was 1968 was 18 to best of my knowledge and understanding.

Even if one had 'age of consent for sex' they 'did not have 'age of marriage'. Both concepts used to work interdependently pl. don't be confused, and study more.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I shall invite substantial contributors to Child marriage in India to this RfC. I suppose that should not be a problem.

Seems large content contributors to Child marriage in India are retired or not very active still discussion invitation is given @ talk pages of small but some content contributors Users , Raymond3023,Capitals00,LovSLif,SepaAntan . Let us see if some one amongst them know similarity/dif between the two terms

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Child marriage in India article stated ...Child marriage was outlawed in 1929, under Indian law. However, in the British colonial times, the legal minimum age of marriage was set at 14 for girls and 18 for boys....After independence and adoption of Indian constitution in 1950, the child marriage act has undergone several revisions. The minimum legal age for marriage, since 1978, has been 18 for women and 21 for men. So while doing research for this article I did confirm Indian legal literature strongly indicates that age of marriage 18 for men since even before Indian Independence. May be will search more for RS but one thing is certain age of consent and age of marriage are different things and you also study a little more on your own since law is vast thing. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and Bluerasberry: For example here is a case State Of Gujarat vs Patel Jivraj Khimji And Ors. on 27 January, 1966, before Gujrat High Court, which has some other legal technicalities but state of Gujarat has sued accused just because bridegroom was under 18. (If minimum age was 18 in 1964-1966 then certainly in 1968 it was 18) Your own searched ref too accepts 18 was the minimum age.

When Narendra Modi's date of birth is very clearly 17 Sept 1950 add 18 years he turns 18 on 17 Sept 1968. If his marriage would have happened after 17 September 1968 then he is 18 and adult but even a day before legally he is not 18 not adult for legal marriage. Now we have 2 sources saying his marriage happened in May 1968 then how do we keep insisting he was 18+ and adult on day of marriage irrespective of casual attitude of claimed to be reliable source falsely claiming he was 18, most most probable truth he was not. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Modi was 18 and he calls that child marriage There are many sources describing Modi's marriage but among all the sources, I see two sides. There is the side that Modi's communication team supports, which calls this child marriage but also which knows the date of the marriage chooses to not report it. There is the other side which are reporters and journalists who ask simple obvious questions, like when was the marriage and what are its details. These sources report dates and ages over a range, but I see the consensus on the interpretation that Modi was 18. A good phrasing could be that "Journalists report that Modi was age 18 at the time of the marriage, and Modi's supporters describe his experience as a child marriage." Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) This discussion seems to be unfocused and possibly a bait with the future possibility of hounding people. I have refactored all my comments in the RfC, which seems to have been conducted without clarity and possibly in bad faith. Please do not restore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I also value less for supporter detractor differentiation but a point remains, What are Wikipedia rules for category of sources generally considered reliable but furthering inaccurate narrative casually in certain cases? Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:

1) To best of my guess you did not go through Talk:Narendra Modi#Child marriage? , Talk:Narendra Modi#My opinion. I have mentioned my doubt whether marital discords deserve mention in lead of the article, and since things are not partially clear enough suggested to limit discussion of Child marriage in note section itself.

2) I also mentioned Narendra Modi irrespective of his later power @ the time of his marriage he seems to be under duress and victim of circumastances so facts should not be misrepresented like he was perpetrator. Where is any hounding in this position?

3) I regret your jumping the conclusion, I can understand misunderstanding but not the baseless accusations. I request help me understand how any stating of fact and opinion can become bad faith on it's own just because that does not match one's own expectation. If not me some one else will find and present the facts today or tomorrow. For any discussion one need to be open enough to face any refs and positions presented.

4) For any political personality biography some kind of disagreements are bound to remain, that need not make any one nervous from expressing one's own position with context.

5) I do sincerely wish and request to approach issue in open minded manner We need inputs and comments even if those would not necessarily match with each others.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B: Stick to sources, in the entire discussion above including the ref desk, not a single independent source was provided which verifies their date of marriage. We instead have independent secondary sources which clearly state that Modi was 18 at marriage and Jashodaben was 17. There is community consensus that The Washington Post (RSP entry) and The New York Times (RSP entry) are high quality reliable journalistic sources. It is not our job to investigate the matter ourselves, derive an age of marriage, state that it was a child marriage based on that and conclude that the sources are unreliable. The essay on verifiability, not truth is probably the most relevant here. Imo, it is not partiularly relevant to us what Modi's public relations may nor may not want either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no need for independent sources to claim a marriage between a 17 year old and anyone else really (regardless of age) is a child marriage. That isn't WP:SYN. Regarding your constant rhetoric of persisting with what NYT and WaPo have covered, WaPo terms Jashodaben, "a child bride". So, I guess, you're then okay with child bride? Besides, The Straits Times, an independent publication already termed the union a child marriage. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Stating that Modi was in a child marriage implies that he was the child in the marriage which isn't what the WaPo article is saying. I'm persisting with them because they are high quality sources currently present in the article. The term may be preferred by Modi, his party and his relatives which is reproduced in one or two independent sources but the predominance of reliable sources don't appear to use it. I'd also prefer avoiding a rehash of the same argument we have already had above, which necessitated this RfC in the first place. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You really skipped the point, but to reiterate: WaPo terms Jashodaben a child bride in her marriage to Narendrabhai. I guess you agree to that much, and we can put that up in the article, then. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Have I said so? How Jashodaben alone is described, is not the point of this RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your stance that WaPo is the source for this (despite other independent, reliable sources), which also terms Jashodaben a child bride, gives it away. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose(Edit:The RFC question was tweaked, this is effectively oppose option A). I was randomly selected by bot[1] to this RFC. First I checked all the top Google hits for "Narendra Modi" "child marriage" and exactly none of them described Modi's marriage as a child marriage, so it does not appear to be prominent characterization. Then I dug through the article history. I found that neither the newest batch of refs nor the previous batch of refs adequate to support the statement. Then I dug through the talk section above, as well as the archived discussion. Most of the argument amounted to prohibited Original research or Synthesis, although I did find various additional sources cited. These presumably represent the best sourcing that the advocate-side could dig up. The sources virtually all failed for one reason or another. Either the author explicitly put "child" in quotes, or the author used wording which the reader may-or-may-not interpret as child marriage, or the author used explicit attribution to avoid saying "child marriage" in their own words. Among the "better" sources that actually do call it child marriage is a Think Tank (Cato) - there's a currently open Village Pump policy debate whether Think Tanks are permissible in BLPs at all.[2] One (India.com) says child marriage with Jashodaben at the age of 13, which grossly botches the age of marriage in the very sentence that calls it a child marriage. This sentence is manifestly not reliable for this claim. Then there's the TheHindu.com apparently deciding it's a good idea to invite a politician of a competing party(!) to write a book review of Modi's biography. Setting aside the WHAT-THE-FUCK factor, if that is what the book says then why cite the review rather than the book itself? Among everything I was able to find, I found only one or maybe two good refs. The Straights Times is the best, and I lost track of a second source that may also have been valid. However it's clear to me that there is massive coverage of Modi and that Reliable Sources almost invariably avoid calling it a child marriage. My impression is that they may be deliberately avoiding saying that. The fact that one or two viable sources exist may make it sourcable, but that also makes it a fringe characterization among Reliable Sources. That is especially significant under WP:BLP policy, and especially in the lead. Our job is to summarize what Reliable Sources say, and this phrasing is not an accurate reflection of how Reliable Sources normally cover this. We should say it was an arranged marriage, state the age(s), and that he left. The body may go into more detail, which might include a quote attributed to Modi's relative or representative, which might include the phrase. Alsee (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alsee: I don't have expertise in helping out in advance level dispute resolution. Thanks for taking out time to study and give your comment. Specially I appreciate your opinion The body may go into more detail, which might include a quote attributed to Modi's relative or representative, which might include the phrase..

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, and thanks for your comment. Disputes here sometimes get rather unpleasant. I think the most important advice I can give, the thing that surprises and causes trouble for most people, is to avoid arguing that something is true. That doesn't work here. We exclude truth-argument because there are too many topics where truth arguments never end - flat earthers being the classic example. If most science textbooks say the moon is made of cheese, Wikipedia will accurately summarize "the moon is made of cheese". Wikipedia is primarily about the sources, knocking down bad or weak sources, and summarizing the sources that remain standing. Alsee (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B - typically the words "child marriage" invokes the notion that the "child" (or "children" if it's a child-child marriage) is an actual child (and no, no matter what some legal definitions say, a 17 year old is not a child; a minor in must jurisdictions, yea, but a minor is not the same thing as a child). More, portraying a marriage between a 17 and 18 year old as an adult-child marriage is particularly egregious; portraying it as a child-child marriage would not be nearly as uncalled for (by some reckonings under 21 can be considered a child), but even that would be absurd. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

typically the words "child marriage" invokes the notion that the "child" I am sorry, but neutrality doesn't care about euphemisms. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. By definition, child marriage is what it really is, and Jashodaben was Narendrabhai's child bride (as is the case in most child marriages where usually the women are below age). Calling it anything else (teenage marriage) is WP:WEASEL. As Bookku pointed out, it must also be clear that Narendrabhai was both a victim of child marriage and responsible for abandoning it. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option B Follow what the reliables sources say. ~ HAL333 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You may have misread the Talk: At least two reliable sources presented here do call it child marriage and BJP maintains it was child marriage as do the family of both the bride and the groom, whilst WaPo terms Jashodaben a child bride. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar "following what sources say" does not mean including the most-extreme version ever presented by any source. It means reasonably summarizing what most (or at least many) of the sources say. There are a very large number of sources writing about Modi and it appears that almost none of them directly call it a "child marriage" themselves. It looks like they have actively decided not to say it. They generally report that it was an arranged marriage, report the ages, and report that they immediately parted ways. We will report the same. I could be mistaken, but I doubt many people are going to blame Modi. (Or at least not many people, other than politically-motivated individuals who were already seeking any excuses to blame him for everything). Alsee (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Alsee most-extreme? A marriage between an under-aged teenager and an adult is child marriage, an accepted definition of the term (that is, it isn't "most-extreme" to term it so, which some sources do). Besides, one doesn't really need sources statements of facts and must be conscious about biases even in reliable sources. Re: They generally report... "They" also generally term Jashodaben a child bride and the marriage a child marriage (as pointed out in at least three independent, reliable sources in discussions above). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B The ages should be presented as it is and omit from calling it child marriage. Sea Ane (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sea Ane Why though? Doesn't "omit from calling it child marriage" violate neutral point of view? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar if you review this RFC you'll find that approximately everyone is against calling it child marriage ourselves. The reason your arguments aren't working is because you're attempting to argue Truth and Facts. As I often explain to people, such arguments do not work on Wikipedia. They carry no weight. NPOV means we try to accurately summarize what the majority of Reliable Sources say. If most science texts say the moon is made of cheese, then Wikipedia will say the moon is made of cheese. Calling it child marriage would violate NPOV because it does not accurately reflect the bulk of sources, it appears that the large majority of sources actively do not call it that. Alsee (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Other editors being against it, I am afraid, is akin to false consensus. Neutrality doesn't require consensus in the first place, especially when select sources are ignored in favour of other sources (A book on Narendrabhai is qualifies as significant work on the subject but is ignored just because it suits the narrative of the nay-sayers, here in this discussion). Besides, there exists other sources that term it child marriage, as Bookku pointed out in their third-opinion. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B keeping the phrasing that is currently in the article. It appears that there is confusion over Modi's age at the time of his marriage and it is unclear as to whether this was a technical child marriage or not. A bare recitation of facts is probably the best (and the current text does that very well). --RegentsPark (comment) 00:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You may want to re-read the discussion again: Modi's age has zero bearing on whether it was a child marriage or not, as Jashodaben was, by all accounts, an under-age teenager at the time of their marriage. A child marriage is a formal or informal union between anyone who's 17 or younger and anyone else at whatever age. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not clear what the definition of child marriage (according to Indian law) was at that time of the marriage. Given that the available information is murky, it is best to stick to the bare facts and not try to draw our own conclusions. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What explains that despite Islamic rule in tribal Arabia in 6th century permitting "child marriage" (per modern-day definition), Wikipedia's neutral voice and consensus is to term Muhammad's union with Aisha a child marriage in all those articles (note the tone, wikilinks, and categories)? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B, as I see no evidencescant evidence that this marriage is referred to anywhere as a child marriage. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Amended; even if a handful of sources are using this term, it is fairly obviously not in general use. The original research presented below is neither here nor there. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Straits Times, Headlines Today, and other wp:r sources pointed in extensive discussions above. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B, per Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark. My general understanding of this issue from recently reading the literature is the following. They married in 1968 when he was 18 and she was 17 (per Washington Post and NY Times; third-party sources are preferred in these instances of controversy in India).
  • (Annie Gowen (25 January 2015), "Abandoned as a child bride, wife of Narendra Modi hopes he calls", The Washington Post, The wife, Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi, is a retired teacher who lives in a small town in Modi's home state of Gujarat ... Narendra Modi, the son of a man who sold tea in a railway station, comes from a lower caste called Ghanchi. He and his wife were promised to each other as young adolescents in keeping with the traditions of their community. They were then married in a small ceremony when she was 17 and he was 18. )
• (cont.) The definition of child marriage in India in 1968 was 18 for men and 15 for women/girls : a marriage in which the bride (female) was under 15 or the groom (male) under 18. (clarified Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC))
  • (See: Graner, Elvira (2020), "Governing Child Marriage in India: The Protracted Reform Process", in Samita Sen, Anindita Ghosh (ed.), Love, Labour and Law: Early and Child Marriage in India, SAGE Publishing, p. 63, ISBN 978-93-81345-60-3, In 1929, the Indian Legislative Assembly passed the Child Marriage Restraint Act. While the Act initially set the marriage age at 14 for girls, two amendments in 1949 and 1978, first increased the age to 15 and later onto 18. Samita Sen, one of the editors, incidentally, took over as the Vere Harmsworth Professor of Imperial and Naval History at Cambridge in 2018 after Christopher Bayly's death.)
• (cont.) Theirs was thus not a child marriage. However, he did abandon his bride (per Washington Post and NY Times). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I find some inadvertent jumping to the conclusions on your part but good part seems you are open enough to reresearch and reconsider the facts. I have no issues if we vote for 'Moon is made of cheese' but that shall fail to achive objectivity.

Now the matter of fact is Graner Elvira is just only discussing age of marriage of women. So as I earlier pointed out Jashodaben was legally of marriagable age then in 1968 there is no dispute about it. You research again age of marriage for men in 1968 was 18. I request reresearch and reconsideration.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia's neutral voice terms Muhammad's marriage (which happened way before the modern Universe agreed on a definition of child marriage) with Aisha (and many other such marriages among the Royals in medevial Europe) a child marriage. Also, as noted elsewhere, Narendrabhai's age has no bearing on use of the term child marriage as by all accounts, Jashodaben was 17 or younger, making her a child bride (Indian laws / religious laws / traditions / euphemisms nothwithstanding). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Being married as a child per the definition of a child ca. 2021 has nothing to do with the notion of child marriage, which has depended throughout history upon the existing laws about child marriage if any. In Prophet Muhammad's instance, there may or may not have been such a preexisting law, but in India there was one in 1968. It was The Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, amended in 1949. Mrs. Modi might have been a child per Indian law at the time of marriage, i.e. below the legal age of majority, but her marriage to Mr. Modi was not a child marriage under the same Indian law, which would have required her to be under 15. The definition of child marriage in India from the time of the first British concerns (and later those of Hindu social reformers) has been always written from the point of view of the bride, her physical age for bearing children, and its abuse. The scholarly literature has always had that as its major concern. Thus Anandi Gopal Joshi, one of the first western-trained female physicians in India and Rukhmabai, one of the first Indian-trained female physicians, both had child marriages per the scholarly literature, in the latter instance, it led to the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891. Mrs. Modi's was not a child marriage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We could certainly say (as Annie Gowen does in the title of the WaPo article) that Mrs. Modi was a child bride, but her marriage was not a child marriage in the way in which the term is used in Indian law or the vast scholarly literature about early marriage and gender inequality in India. There is a distinction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

1. In Muhammad's case, indeed what is termed as "child marriage" was allowed by Islamic law and a norm even in pre-Islamic tribal Arabia. So let there be no doubt... "may or may not have been such a prexisting law". There indeed was such a law (in fact, whatever Muhammad practised in his lifetime are laws unto themself) and Wikipedia's neutral voice indeed does label it a child marriage.

2. Indian views and laws on child marriage are hardly neutral given India is home to a large number of child rights violations including under-age marriages. Systemic bias be damned. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that there was a definition of "child marriage" in Arabia at the time of Prophet Muhammad's marriage, though his marriage may have been legal under the preexisting law. In India, there was after 1929, The Child Marriage Restraint Act. In 1968, after an amendment to the Act in 1949, a marriage in which the girl was under 15 constituted a "child marriage." Accordingly, Mrs. Modi's marriage was not a child marriage. Saying this is unrelated to discounting gender inequality in India which you seem to be implying. The lead of the India page, whose author I am, says explicitly, " Among the socio-economic challenges India faces are gender inequality, child malnutrition, and ..." A much more glaring instance of gender inequality in the Modis' marriage is that of the groom abandoning his bride and forcing her to live a life of celibacy. He acknowledged her existence after 46 years of not only paying no attention to her but explicitly denying that he was married. This would be unthinkable in any modern liberal democracy. Even after acknowledging her existence, she has remained estranged but not by her choice, only his. If you care at all about gender inequality in India, which you seem to be talking up, marital desertion is where you should be focusing your energies in this instance. This is as far as I go in engaging you. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the point I made above: Wikipedia's neutral voice does not care about Indian PoV / Islam PoV in this context (where these PoVs are NOT warranted at all as amply demonstrated by articles on Muhammad). The lead of the India page, whose author I am... Please, no. Also, thanks for your comments, I appreciate your inputs and commend the immeasurable effort you put in into other articles. I am sorry you feel you are being trolled and baited into making controversial assertions. I can assure you, that wasn't and isn't the intention with this seemingly irreconcilable RfC. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You are doing nothing but repeating yourself, nothing but WP:OR, defining child marriage to be marriage undertaken in which either party is below the 2021 age of majority, and arrogating to yourself the neutral voice of WP. But "child" has not always meant below 18; it still does not in most contexts.

• The OED, the dictionary of last resort for British and Commonwealth English defines a child to be: "A young person of either sex, usually one below the age of puberty; a boy or girl."

• It also has an entry for compounds with "child," (General attributive, with the sense ‘of or relating to children’, ‘child's’, ‘children's’)

• including "child marriage," with attested examples of use: 1933 Lancet 22 Apr. 886/2 Legislation for the prevention of child marriage [in India]." (i.e. the Child Marriage Restraint Act mentioned above.) and "2008 D. H. Gray Muslim Women on Move iv. 78 This marriage was contracted before the Prophet received revelations concerning marriage, though there are no explicit verses in the Qur'an proscribing child marriage." which shows more nuance than your off-handed dismissal of the prophet.

Other examples of "child" compounds are:

• "child spirit: 1841 Tait's Edinb. Mag. Nov. 684/1 As they alight, the Earth, now new-born child-spirit, advances to them."
• "child mind: 2006 M. Thomson Psychol. Subj. iv. 133 Such accounts are invariably those of adults looking back: the adult's view of the child mind,"
• "child word: 1947 Mod. Lang. Rev. 42 354 The transition from the child-word to the conventional word."
• "child voice: 1843 M. Howitt Love & Money iv. 48 The carol-singers went of an evening from house to house, singing, in their pleasant child voices."
• "child suffering: 2003 Internat. Rev. Educ. 49 207 Even in relatively prosperous countries, there is increasing awareness of child suffering and unhappiness."
• "child slavery: 1833 Age 28 Apr. 134/3 When will an ‘Anti-Infant Slavery Association’ be established, for promoting the ‘immediate abolition’ of child-slavery in the British factories?"

In other words, as in the OED, Child marriage in India and elsewhere has always applied to real children, often girls between the ages of nine and 14, not a man of 18 and a girl of 17. Holding the latter up to be a shining example of child marriage is an insult, a low blow, to the millions of pre-puberty females in India who are emotionally and physically traumatized when they enter a child marriage. The RfC, for which you seem to have become the most avid promoter of option A, is unanimously going for option B. Eleven days after it began, eight editors support option B; only you support Option A. It is time to give up the repetition. Also, you have failed to utter a peep about marital desertion. 21:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Updated with examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Very healthy discussion taking place. One of the thing I am still not clear why following sources are not being considered reliable enough?

• Marino, Andy (6 April 2014). "The Early Years". Narendra Modi: A Political Biography. India: HarperCollins Publishers: ?. ISBN 9789351362180
• Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019. - marriage related info.
• McLeod, John. Modern India. United States, ABC-CLIO, 2019.ISBN: 9781440852893

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Indian sources are unreliable for controversial topics in South Asia. The first, published, weeks before his election, is therefore not RS. Besides, Ian Hall suggests that Marino's reading of history which aligns with Modi's own should be treated with scepticism. ABC-CLIO is not reliable either. They allowed verbatim copying of my Indian famine articles in one of their books; such is their oversight. See here See in particular user:Doc James's remarks about ABC-CLIO not being a serious publisher. As for Ian Hall, he mentions child marriage nowhere. His main point seems to be that relatives and supporters have turned the event of the marriage murky and all estimates about age are roundabout. I am intrigued that you have thus far showed nothing but a prediliction for implicitly promoting option A. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring sources that don't fit one's narrative is exactly what neutral point of view warns against; which the editors engaging in this RfC refuse to accept. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

But "child" has not always meant below 18; it still does not in most contexts. In the context of marriage, it very much is valid for UNICEF to define union of humans aged 17 or below as child marriage, as they speak from a position of having done extensive research to deem it so: Child marriage robs girls of their childhood and threatens their lives and health. Girls who marry before 18 are more likely to experience domestic violence and less likely to remain in school. They have worse economic and health outcomes than their unmarried peers, which are eventually passed down to their own children, further straining a country’s capacity to provide quality health and education services.^{[unicef https://archive.is/MCvXr]} It isn't fringe nor is it low-blow or an insult to term that Narendrabhai and Jashodaben were a victim of child marriage. It isn't original research as ample sources have been unearthed, and that's before considering the fact that Narendrabhai, his relatives, his party are comfortable for telling it as it is, that is it was a child marriage. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: My stance being the one of minority has no bearing on consensus, as consensus is not driven by a vote, while the challenged material has been amply demonstrated to comply with Wikipedia's policies (I am sorry, but random lawerying by throwing around wp:or / wp:r / wp:due without any basis does not count). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't preach the horrors of child marriage and randomly quote from UNICEF. I have just NPOV'd some of your and others' edits to Child marriage in India, which were implying again and again in a section that child marriages in India are a reaction to rape and assaults by invader, mainly Muslims. In fact, they have been a feature of Hinduism since the late Vedic age, especially since the inter-imperial age (between the Mauryas and the Guptas). It went hand in hand with the subordination of women in Hinduism and the preservation of property for the male descendants. It had nothing to do with invaders. Please read the ancient history section of the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a random quote from UNICEF, but of a definition that UNICEF uses extensively in all their communiques on child marriage.

Re: edits on Child marriage in India: My edits in the origin section were only copy-edits. I did not add or remove content. Thanks for providing editorial oversight. I did think the PoV was anti-Muslim, but I didn't engage in deletion, because... Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line for this entire RfC is this. The Child Marriage issue is a red herring for someone who is 17 or 18. They had an arranged marriage. The arrangement was not to the groom's liking. Rather than opposing the marriage before the event, he essentially walked out of the marriage after the event. Whether or not the marriage was consummated is another red herring. The bigger problem is marital desertion by the groom. It is not uncommon among Hindus in rural and small-town India. If counted as the end of a marriage, it balances percentage-wise the divorce rate among Muslims, which the Hindu nationalists like to harp about. I suspect the red herrings exist in order to ignore the desertion issue which forced a young woman to live her life in celibacy, married but unacknowledged to be so. What a sad plight has been hers. Only in an abysmally patriarchal society could this happen. The rest of the story about wandering the Himalayas is fluff. No hard evidence has appeared. No witnesses among the Garhwalis, Kumaonis of the groom's sojourns. Murkiness everywhere. The red herrings also exist to recast the desertion as a young man's protest against society's unjust norms (of "child" marriage). The subsequent leading of a blameless life of "renunciation," whether in the Himalayas or elsewhere, which has always been at a premium in Hinduism, serves the same purpose: it is as if the supposed renunciation by the groom makes up for the injustice heaped on the bride. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and thus my suggestion as captured in discussions above:

It seems to me that Bookku agrees inclusion of the term child marriage doesn't violate neither the spirit nor the letter of reliable sources / original research / non-neutral point of view policies *iff* the context is aptly set; viz. Narendrabhai was as much a victim of child marriage as Jashodaben; Jashodaben was a victim of an abandoned marriage.

I agree with Bookku's assessment that wording surrounding child marriage must not make it seem like Narendrabhai was the guilty party instead of being a victim of it: "...walked away from a child marriage arranged by his parents, abandoning his wife, Jashodaben, a fact he acknowledged decades later." or "...was forced to marry by his parents when he was a teenager; however, he soon left home, abandoning his child bride, Jashodaben, which he only acknowledged decades later." or "Modi, a victim of child marriage, abandoned his wife Jashodaben shortly thereafter, and left home." capture context comfortably (imo). Of course, the sentence formation could be simpler or clearer or...

Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your POV constitutes a denigration of girls and women. In contrast, Indian law to its credit has always favored only the female contracting party in the marriage. The reply is already there in an academic source from which I quote:

Sivasubramanian, Sriranjini (2019), "Rukma Bai's case and beyond ... repurcussions of child marriage and legal implications of conjugal rights on women in India", in M. Thilakavathy, R.K. Maya (ed.), FACETS OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, MJP Publisher, pp. 387–378, The present Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi was married off at the age of 18 while his spouse Jasodha Ben was 17. Both were technically of marriageable age under the then prevailing domestic law relating to the minimum age for marriage.(Footnote 745: In 1978, the law was amended to make it more effective and raise the minimum age of marriage by three years i.e. from 15 to 18 in the case of girls and from 18 to 21 years in the case of boys. The amended law came to be known as the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.) Three years after marriage Modi and his wife separated. It is to the credit of Jasodha Ben that she chose to revert to her studies, became a school teacher, and now lives off her pension for she has not received any financial support from her husband in all her years of separation! The moot point is can men be absolved of their legal duty to protect their spouse and claim they did so because their marriage was merely arranged by their family? Can one ascribe the blame for abandonment as the 'repercussion of a child marriage'?(Footnote 746: The Prohibition of Child marriage Act, 2006 has salutary provisions in this regard ... Provisions for maintenance and residence to female contracting party to child marriage. (1) ... the district court may also make an interim or final order directing the male contracting party to the child marriage ... or his parent or guardian... to pay maintenance to the female contracting party until her remarriage.)

So, was it a child marriage or was it not? If it was as you have consistently held, where is the maintenance? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the circular logic round-about going on here. There's no "my PoV". Selectively unearthing sources (all Indian so far) is what's npov and biased here. I haven't seen one valid retort to why Indian PoV matters at all in this context. And please stop insinuating things like Your POV constitutes a denigration of girls and women and putting words into my mouth. The edits suggested are an attempt to capture context. If you think a better wording is possible, why not suggest that, and see if we can both agree? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is very simple, in child marriage, according to Indian law, maintenance needs to be provided to the female that has contracted the marriage by the male or the parents or guardian of the male. You and your cohort have gone on ad nauseam about this being child marriage. Well, where is the maintenance? Unless, of course, you are claiming that the trauma to the male was of such extreme consequence that it justified the complete neglect of the female, forcing her to live in a state of pseudo-widowhood? Please speak to the issue. This is not a matter of reaching a compromise about wording. Of course, your point of view as being advocated in your posts constitutes a belittling of the importance of girls and women, which even the Indian law does not engage in from the earliest times of British social intervention: Sati Regulation Act, 1829, Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, Age of Consent Act, 1891. It is nothing but a form of misogyny which I'm sure some WP rule or guideline anathematizes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why was this RfC not advertised in other Wikigroups, most pertinently Women in Red? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Since this RfC is in danger of being monopolized by a minority of editors I am inviting other editors to weigh in. They have posted on the Talk:India page in the last year. They are hardly in my camp ideologically. This invitation, therefore, does not constitute canvassing or whatever else it is WP frowns on. This invitation also does not constitute any pressure for them to weigh in or indeed even acknowledge the invitation. @Joshua Jonathan: @LearnIndology:, @Kautilya3:, @Johnbod:, @Bazza 7:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @DaxServer:, @EMsmile:, @Moxy:, @Usedtobecool:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, @ImaginesTigers:, @力:, @Buidhe:, @Femkemilene:, @HaryanaMayil:, @Catchpoke:, user:SandyGeorgia, @Paine Ellsworth: @Jonathansammy:, @Dineshswamiin:, @Aman.kumar.goel:, @पाटलिपुत्र:. I am also pinging some others who may have appeared on Talk:India as a result of previous invitations of mine, but they have shown integrity on WP: @Drmies:, @Valereee:, @Doug Weller:, @DrKay: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Narendra Modi, incidentally, is the prime minister of India. He was married in an arranged marriage when he was around 18 and his bride around 17. Shortly after the marriage, he left his wife (and his natal home to which she had come to live in the usual Indian joint family). She eventually, returned to her natal home, got an education, and became a primary school teacher. He eventually became a politician and for the next 46 years stated in all public pronouncements that he was a bachelor. In 2014, shortly before the Indian election that swept him to power, driven perhaps by greater media attention, he stated in the pre-election forms that he had been married since 1968. His wife has continued to live with her natal family, estranged from him. She has had no contact with him, nor has she visited the Prime Minister's house. Those are the bare background facts of this RfC. I shall now bow out of the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: We all are here to present facts as we come across. You will find we have respectfully welcomed your inputs and expect the same from you to avoid unnecessary insinuations with wordings like 'cohort'. As I stated earlier being open to revisit facts is good thing in you but initially you seem to visit facts in hurry and jump to the concusions in haste. For example

"...driven perhaps by greater media attention, he stated in the pre-election forms that he had been married since 1968.." You can reresearch it more, most probablly conclusion in this is not perfect enough since putting in the facts in electoral form became mandatory so he did put the facts.

The many claimed to be reliable sources seems rounding of Narendra Modi's age from around 18 to 18 without researching the primary source. Tomoorrow or day after tomorrow after some weeks / months or years Narendra Modi's date of marriage quoted in primary sources will come up for discussion in more reliable sources. Today if most wants to claim 'moon is made of cheese' we will go by majority for a while but in future at some point of time community will come across the same issue again from some other editors for sure.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

By Indian law, in child marriage, maintenance needs to be paid to the female contracting party by the male and in the instance of the male being a minor, it needs to be paid by the parents or guardians of the male. The law is asymmetrical, favoring the female. No maintenance was paid. Forget the business about rounding of ages and obsessive attention to whether he was a few months over 18 or under 18. In the age of great attention to gender inequality, with the existence of a United Nations index related purely to gender inequality in which India performers abysmally low, how are you two editors going on ad nauseam about defending the male over a technicality? Even if I were to agree to your claim that some primary source as yet unearthed may show that he was indeed shy of his 18th birthday, there is the matter of the letter of the law and the spirit. She got a raw deal. She is still getting a raw deal. You too editors can think of nothing but how he might have been a few months shy of his 18th birthday and how as a result of being traumatized he stands absolved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

May I request that I not be pinged after this? Nothing new seems to be emerging in the arguments of my interlocutors. That is precisely the reason I have requested other editors to weigh in. I really have no interest in continuing the argument myself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Fowler&fowler Heeding to your request I am not pinging you this time but reply still needs to be addressed to you only, since you have not paying any heed to our request to avoid personal insinuations.

What the heck uncalled for accusation in this your digressing statement means? "...how are you two editors going on ad nauseam about defending the male over a technicality?.."

i) My personal record on women's rights related articles on Wikipedia is impeccable; and with substantial contribution I do not have any reasons to take any un called for lessons on women's rights from all & sundry, specially there is no direct relation with topic of this RfC.

2) Just research previous discussion of mine Talk:Narendra Modi#My opinion I have included criticism over the same point "...opponents criticized him for not carrying forward his marital responsibilities properly..." You mention that with ref. What is the point in accusing fellow Wikipedians?

3) Since you digressed fro main subject, pl. do understand that accuracy of Whether Narendra Modi was 18 or under age becomes much more important.

4) If he was under 18 financial responsibility of a bride in a joint family transfers to Karta of his family not on Narndra Modi alone so responsibility and criticism needs to go over to the family not Narendra Modi alone

5) If wife is earning but husband is not earning then taking care of non earning spouse is on earning spouse so un til Narendra Modi became chief Minister taking care of his finances was responsibility of his wife Jashodaben. So critics as of the day without taking this point in to account are criticizing Narendra Modi then if refs are available include criticism in the article but avoid passing your own uncalled for judgement with limited knowledge, Wikipedia talk pages are certainly not for that. Since you digressed then research properly so next time it will help taking note of sources in proper context without personally blaming other Wikipedia users .

5) If a child marriage has taken place then on becoming 18 one can legally renounce & divorce marriage. Understand in Narendra Modi's case he was not highly educated then but his guru was an advocate. So it's unlikely that he was entirely unaware of legal nitty-gritty and that seems to reflect that he has opposed the marriage vehemently and left home before turning 18.

6) In then prevalent south Asian and his communities cultural milieu a divorcee woman is looked down upon and more over Jashodaben seems to have wanted to remain loyal and wait for restitution of conjugal rights without applying for divorce even when Narendra Modi offered divorce is her personal problem. So again include criticism of Narendra Modi but take note of his side too adequately where sources are available.

7) Where reliable refs are available, include criticism of Narendra Modi for believed to be unfulfilled marital responsibilities but let international reader have a chance to understand perspective of renunciation in South Asian traditions since time of Gautam Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi's celibacy on one hand millions of Indian freedom fighters going to jail not caring for familial considerations many of them might be equally due for similar criticism. Post independence era huge number of Indian communist leadership survived on their wives earnings. There are multiple human dimensions Wikipedians need to be aware of and take due encyclopedic note in neutral manner wherever refs are available and notable.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B - It is simple and clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad there is clarity. Bereft of any further explanation of how or why, the rest of us are left to tread murky waters. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Can you please comment why? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Because I agree with the very lengthy arguments set out by others above. There is a section for comments below - really it would have been better if detailed arguments were there, as is typical in Rfcs. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of those arguments have been refuted, and haven't received any reply. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option B LearnIndology (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: Requesting your comment. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option B As pointed out by Alsee and others, going with option A amounts to WP:SYNTH.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't WP:SYN or WP:OR when there exist verifiable sources that exactly say those things. Those are, imo, baseless allegations and, honestly, a case of gaming the system. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option B as the majority of the reliable sources actively didn't describe it as child marriage. An EFN might be setup to describe whys and nots, that would say the majority of the sources didn't describe it as such and possibly the laws at the time. -- DaxServer (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I wasn't paying much attention to age when I was reviewing the discussions here and the sources, but I got the impression that sources may conflict on whether Modi was 17 or 18 at the time. I leave it to local editors to sort that out. This RFC shouldn't be interpreted as taking a position on age, despite the mention of age in option B. Alsee (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Please read my "third-party" list on the Modis' marriage in a section below. As had been stated by many editors, including several admins, on the talk pages of the pages referenced in my introduction to the list, third-party sources are preferred, especially in controversial articles on South-Asia-related topics, because their authors are not involved in the controversies, and are able to view them with greater objectivity. They are also less susceptible to be coerced or forcibly persuaded in a particular way by the primary parties of the controversy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Just for record

• How any age of any person on date of marriage can be established without establishing date of marriage? How so ever so called reliable sources make any tall claims or stand on their heads.
• Ketaki Gokhale and Arvind Chaturvedi are the only two journalist who investigate for and mention date of marriage; in spite both of them reach different close persons who attended marriage month marriage seems to tally to May 1968.
• Among online available sources 3 proper investigative authors / journalists seem to have reached near people who attended marriage, the first Andy Marino could get in touch with Narendra Modi; second Ketaki Gokhale could approach brother of the wife and made him remember date of marriage; where as another journalist Arvind Chaturvedi ends up with close acquaintance who attended the marriage and they too confirm date of marriage in 'May 1968'

	Investigative journalists	Article / Book	Gets access to	cited information
	Arvind Chaturvedi	Chaturvedi, Arvind. The Real Modi: The Man Who Would be Prime Minister. India, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020.	2 acquaintance families who attended the marriage, Family of Shardaben Shymaldas Madhavlal Modi	who inform that marriage took place around 20 May 1968
	Ketaki Gokhale	Live mint article	Ashok Modi, one of Jashodabens’s two brothers.	married a month before Jashoda’s 17th birthday in a traditional Hindu Vedic ceremony on 10 May 1968,
	Andy Marino	Narendra Modi: A Political Biography. India, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2014.	Narendra Modi	Engagement happened when he was 3. Concurs unmentioned observers opinion that it was a child marriage.

• Why account of Ashok Modi seems genuine ? Since he remembers the date of marriage in correlation to sister's birth date
• Why Account of Shardaben Shymaldas Madhavlal Modi seems genuine ? They even remember mode of transport and the feast given at marriage venue.
• Account of Ashok Modi and Shardaben Shymaldas Madhavlal Modi are taken by different journalist still tally in case of the month of marriage so month of marriage seem genuine.
• There is minor mistake in Andy Marino's account unaware of legal aspects as stood on 1968 so he mentions Narendra Modi had to leave marriage before his wife turned 18. Rather the fact was Narendra Modi's guru Lakshmanrao Inamdar was an advocate to whom he used discuss every personal detail so it's not likely that Narendra Modi would do a mistake on this he had to leave marriage before he himself turned 18 that what he did albeit without doing legal paper work of divorce and that explains correction made by journalist Dwaipayan Bose in his article in News 18 while referring Andy Marino's book he corrects him by saying Narendra Modi had to turn 18.
• And that is why Andy Marino' makes a mention that Narendra Modi had constitutional right to renounce his child marriage as matter of his human rights.
• So called other reliable sources which seem to have remained casual in approach by rounding off the age of Narendra Modi on date of marriage which risks to fall flat in times to come since they did not have access to proper primary source investigation, or did not take date of marriage into account.
• Presumption of mentioning only age is neutral seems fallacious in this particular case since showing Narendra Modi's age 18 at the time of marriage indirectly qualifies him for irresponsible adult behavior. This moon made of cheese is based on repetitive and presumed reliable sources which never investigate age in relation to date of marriage.
• Most of claimed to be reliable sources are western sources relying only on politically critical sources from India so their reporting is all the time neutral is less likely to stand the logic.

• This seems like a classic case of over(superstitious) reliance by fellow Wikipedians on supposedly reliable sources ending up with justifying 'flat earth' and 'moon made of cheese'.

• Primary reports of who traveled earth and moon being rejected? , a hyped brands of high rise building being constructed without solid foundation is bound to fall down some day.
• Last but not least, most users in the above discussion are not likely to have visited a well referenced book Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019. - marriage related info.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As for your last reference, Andy Marino's biography, Amy Kazmin, the South Asia bureau chief of the Financial Times, has written a review: "India's elections: Narendra Modi's mystery biographer," Financial Times, April 1, 2014. Says Kamin:

A new book, Narendra Modi, A Political Biography, by a little-known British writer, Andy Marino, is attracting plenty of attention – and questions about how an author with no known prior connection to India won an entrée to such a normally inaccessible figure. ... The book itself, published by HarperCollins India and distributed by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party to foreign journalists this week, gives few answers. ... The breathless narrative – which begins with the author speeding, with the chief minister, towards a helipad braving the threat of an attack by agents of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence – gives no back-story as to how a London-based writer with a PhD in English literature and limited experience of India, found himself there. ... The early chapters of the book – dealing with Modi’s youth – are basically a grown-up version of Bal Narendra, or Young Narendra, a comic book recently published to demonstrate how the BJP leader was displaying innate leadership skills even as a young boy. Like the comic book, Marino’s biography recounts a heroic swim by Modi in the crocodile-infested lake, and how the future politician diligently found ways to improve the efficiency of how his mother did her household chores. The writer’s first book, published in 1997, was Herschel: The Boy who Started World War II, about a Polish-German-Jewish boy who assassinated a German diplomat in 1938. ... Summing up, Kirkus Reviews calls the book a “padded, somewhat superficial biography that, from its subtitle on, makes highly-inflated claims about its subject.” Much the same may perhaps be said about Marino’s biography of the man who would be India’s prime minister.

As I've already stated above, Ian Hall (another of your references) suggests that Marino's reading of history which aligns with Modi's own should be treated with skepticism. Elsewhere, Hall says, "He was still a 'radical', as Andy Marino's laudatory biography put it, but he aimed at administrative, not social revolution" (see Hall, Ian (2019). "India's 2019 General Election: National Security and the Rise of the Watchmen". The Round Table. 108 (5): 507–519. doi:10.1080/00358533.2019.1658360. ISSN 0035-8533.). I have already quoted the world's best newspapers below. There is scant mention of child marriage. There is overwhelming mention of desertion or abandonment by the groom of his wife. There is mention of the patriarchy in Hindu India where men desert women and place them in a state for pseudo widowhood. (See Die Welt, published in Berlin, Germany: "Three years after the wedding, she shyly told a journalist, her husband told her that she would be better off living her own life. Since then she has lived like many Asian women - pressed into a role that she did not want, without her own color. An unloved woman.") I have no idea who you are, what you are attempting to do here. Your edits on Wikipedia, however, most attempt to highlight the poor state of women's rights in Pakistan, and seemingly relentlessly.

PS The votes thus far: The RfC began on July 10, 2021. Next week it will be one month, the usual time for closing. Thus far two editors, Bookku (the nominator) and Murtaza.aliakbar have voted for option A. (Added later: Bookku has not voted for option A, but he has make many posts effectively opposing those who supported option B.) 10 editors (Tayi Arajakate, Firejuggler86, Hall333, Sea Ane, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, Johnbod, and LearnIndology) have voted for option B. One editor Alsee has opposed option A (without voting), and another, Blueraspberry wrote this on the age issue (without voting):

I see two sides. There is the side that Modi's communication team supports, which calls this child marriage but also which knows the date of the marriage chooses to not report it. There is the other side which are reporters and journalists who ask simple obvious questions, like when was the marriage and what are its details. These sources report dates and ages over a range, but I see the consensus on the interpretation that Modi was 18.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Combining two posts, and updating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:

Please do not put words in my mouth, I have facilitated discussion and not voted in it, my opinion is altogether in different tangent not given in RfC option but mentioned in previous discussion, I wish you have been paying better attention to nuances.

1) As I made polite respectful requests to avoid personal accusations at least couple of times, (intentions bordering doxing too may not be most appropriate one) herewith I humbly do repeat respectful requests to avoid personal accusations once again.

2) I have already in one of previous remarks itself conceded that majority opinion is not on my side means is on your side and most most probably result of this RfC for this time is going to be on your side. I have already conceded I do not have requisite expertise in handling advance level disputes. In such cases usually where majority is not on whose side needs to be afraid, like wise other user in this debate is afraid discussing the topic repeatedly but still he is not personalizing the issue. What is making you so afraid to personalize the issue I am not aware but humbly pray don't be afraid and avoid resorting to personal accusations that unnecessarily digress from the main topic. May be I am writing again and again but I am weak in effective expression, If any other experienced user reading this may guide you to avoid personal accusations better.

3) I respect you and other Wikipedians as a fellow Wikipedian without getting bothered or discriminating about your or anyone else background and subject contributions.

4) I am a liberal democrat and just a student of South Asian studies and any one need not know or need not presume than what do I declare on my own or else it is against spirit of Wikipedia community values. May be some other experienced user explains you this more effectively.

5) Here on this talk page I have included criticism of Narendra Modi too as much I included his side so is not that neutral enough? Even though I being a liberal democrat many of my personal opinions are not likely to match with that of Narendra Modi or his political party I keep all my personal opinions outside Wikipedia and support spirit of WP:BLP values as I understand them.

6) As far as reference sources are concerned personally I believe to take all sides of the coin on the board as long as third party reference exists with rational presentation without discriminating sources depending on platforms. Here I do not match with majoritarian view and I am humbly aware Wikipedia majority thinks otherwise I do respect opinion of Wikipedia majority but just do take freedom to put my different opinion on record just for record purposes. Whether having different opinion than that of prevailing majority is a crime? When 99.99 percent majority is on single side why some one holds majority views need to be afraid of less than 0.01 percent minority view?

7) @ WIR previously I appealed fellow women editors saying just not to focus on biography articles, focusing on only one type is like virtual idolatry. Similarly I have covered specific incidence En masse public molestation and sexual violence against women in India, I have added My body my choice related feminist information from India, I have worked on feminist article My body my choice, I had initiated one traditional Muslim women related article but unfortunately other wikipedians decided to delete it. On Muslim conservative side I have worked on article Islamic advice literature. In case of honorifix issue when some Muslims felt that Wikipedia does not make equal treatment I made case fro their side. For me it is just question of standing with Wikipedias neutral in my own way and capacity.

8) If I have written for rights of Pakistani women then I have received barnstar from fellow Pakistani Wikipedians. Even where users did not agree with me those users come to wish me on my talk page various festivals and appreciate my neutral point of view, respect me in good faith.

9) When I criticized non inclusion of certain aspects in Pakistan COVID article fellow Pakistani Wikipedian included without complaining that I am targeting Pakistan or some thing, another user debated in one redirection related aspect but did not put any personal aspersions.Because they know some of my points have some thoughtful pondering whether they agree or do not agree.

10) What is your problem if I write on articles like Me too movements including that of Pakistan. When I write Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones Draft:sexual politics those are not Pakistan or India centric or Draft:Civil life in conflict zones and Draft:Irrational beliefs are not limited to women.

11) All my writings on Wikipedia are always with some reference. When any one deletes my writing I do not indulge in any edit war, I do include all views irrespective of those are liberal or conservative.

12) As I have earlier pointed out our fellow user Fowler&fowler has habit jumping the conclusion and personal accusations in unnecessary haste. This is all unfortunate digression from main topic but I do not know any other ways to respond to unfair defamation by fellow Wikipedian.

Despite writing so much to put up my side I am not sure if my response is effective or convincing enough. I hope and request well meaning fellow wikipedians will help me out of this avoidable situation.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Please also read Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. You might not have voted formally, but you have effectively opposed many among those supporting option B. Regardless I have corrected my characterization, and I apologize for the error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My list of expansion is too big to be very happy in getting engrossed in any fruitless talk page discussions. If at all I get free from my research and article expansion, I will come to you to seek mentoring on how to target misrepresent and continue on insinuations :) Matter of fact is other than you I did not engage with any one else to oppose, and most times I opposed your uncalled for insinuations. I welcomed your opinions and others opinion even if different from mine. Although I had one more option in my mind just I played along with opinion I did not agree, so how it is opposing too much or opposing every one? through out above discussion I avoided my third option opinion which was likely to be as per spirit of WP:BLP and includes criticism on Modi too, but let me put it now just to keep record strait, I am not asking this to be included or expecting any favorable opinions as said it is just for record and information.

My favored option was Version 3 (Suggested as 3rd opinion giver) ::'....In search for life of renunciation he (Narendra Modi) left his home some time after his matriculation, then came back but again left his home, in between he got married in spite of not fulfilling his own legal age requirements under family pressure but distanced himself almost immediately without annulling the marriage in formal manner. During his national level political campaigns of 2014s he portrayed himself as a person sans allurements of material life being person without active family life where as his political opponents criticized him for not carrying forward his marital responsibilities properly then how would he fulfill national responsibilities....'

Please help me to help you by not passing any personal insinuations any more which will make to defend myself once again and you will unnecessarily feel 'opposed'. take care and happy Wikipedia editing

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Please don't spout and then shunt garbage, i.e. engage in relentless WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. When someone engages in POV promotion, couched in no matter how much fake politeness, at a certain point it becomes WP:DISRUPTION. Please stand warned. ARBCOM has placed South Asia (which is rife with such POV promotion) under discretionary sanctions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I wrote RfC proposal in consultation with another user, and RfC statement does not include my PoV. Discussion is unnecessarily getting stretched due to continued one after other insinuations from your side and I am ending up replying them and seem to getting in a trap. If some one does not want to have good faith I can't help. I have not, I was not and I am not interested in breaking any of Wikipedia policies. My intention was pure helping out a healthy conversation, I intended to helping out in a dispute not getting engrossed in a dispute. You are experienced user here, I can not debate with you more so I quit from this discussion. Please avoid carrying forward this discussion and avoid pinging or replying, any ways result of this RfC is mostly from your side so I do not think you would have any reason to get disappointed. Let us stop here let some one close RfC, article statement is any ways in a way you all wish. So no reason for more debate. Wish you happy editing.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 05:57, 5 August 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

I want to change the image of the honourable Prime Minister Of India Shri Narendra Modi Ji's image 2401:4900:4C61:F11C:A262:A1DB:FE59:DA69 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

In section 'Environmental policy' correct from "Expand the energy capacity not coming from fossil fuels to 500GW by the tear 2030." to "Expand the energy capacity not coming from fossil fuels to 500GW by the year 2030." Alwaysshrek (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - hako9 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

103.107.92.194 (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You can try Wikipedia:Requested articles Cannolis (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Let us agree that the picture in the infobox ...

... be the last official picture put out by the Indian prime minister. I have reinstated the last, taken in November 2020 and issued by his office on January 1, 2021. The picture does not have any background. It is neutral; it does not have the bells and whistles of state which might give him an unfair advantage in articles such as Next Indian general election. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I prefer File:Narendra Modi 2021 (cropped).jpg. niko3818 (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the one brought up by niko3818. It is more recent than the official photograph, is more representative of how he looks at present and we shouldn't be relying solely on official ones. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

Grammar correction: Remove 'an' from the below statement after 'lower house' -

as well as a majority in both terms in the Indian lower house an of parliament, with his party being in majority position in upper house as well. Delvinlobo (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Child marriage?

Murtaza.aliakbar, sigh, you do need consensus for your additions (read WP:ONUS). Per the archived discussion you linked, Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 16 § Child Marriage, you argued that the article should say that he had a child marriage. That doesn't appear to have convinced anyone else in the discussion, in other words you failed to arrive at a consensus for your addition.

Regarding your edit now, months later from that discussion. You have used four citations, the first one, an article in the Livemint quotes Nirmala Sitharaman, a party member of his. The second and the third one are articles from the Press Trust of India and Business Line respectively, which are about the same thing and quote his brother making the claim. None of these sources themselves support the qualifier you want to add. Party members or relatives aren't reliable sources. The only one which does support your addition is a human interest piece without any byline in the Free Press Journal, which isn't even about Modi. It doesn't supersede the NYT or WaPo pieces present in the article.

Please also refrain from accusing others on first sight just because they reverted you once. It is what actual POV Pushers do, and it isn't even civil. I would recommend self reverting your addition, instead of edit warring over it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. And thanks for your comment, Tayi Arajakate. Let's look at the objections:

1. The (now archived) talk page topic, imo, illustrates that the then involved editors did not / could not demonstrably refute claims to add child marriage.

2. wp:onus and wp:consensus? wp:npov is amply demonstrated and there doesn't seem to be any obvious violation of wp:rs and wp:v.

3. I added the qualifier "child marriage" immediately following that discussion on the talk page. It was revered recently with the claim that it wasn't NPOV (ironically, without any discussion): ref.

4. One or two quotes explicitly mention "child marriage" (see the livemint ref) or accept Narendra Modi was married at "tender age" (wp:weasel for child) from, 1. Jashodaben's brother, 2. Narendrabhai's brother, 3. N Sitharaman, an official BJP spokesperson. Please don't single out random facts about a reference and dismiss them trivially (The Hindu, Livemint quoting a BJP spokesperson, PTI quoting Narendrabhai's brother are as wp:r as it gets, imo of course). Besides, the definition of child marriage is a marriage of any involved person below the age of 18. An attributable fact like that doesn't even require refs (wp:blue) yet I was forced to add those (see this user talk page entry), and now you wanted it gone because those sources aren't wp:rs... This cyclical reasoning (content really does not require refs => content removed because no refs; add choice quotes => content removed because refs don't hold up to wp:r) is tough for me to break out of.

5. Reliable, published, independent sources don't compete with each other, they must augment each other, for the sake of wp:npov.

Re: uncivil behaviour from me: That's rich, but valid. Though, it must be clear now that you may have been mistaken wrt how child marriage came to be included in the article in the first place, and the current struggle to have it removed on grounds of whatever policies that can be cited. tbf (though you're in-the-right in calling it out), "no by-line" is the best wp:letter I've come across. I might have to remember to use it myself. :) Thanks again. Appreciate your inputs. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, it doesn't comply with npov, no. It's straight up misleading, he was married at 18 whereas child marriages implies a much younger age. I hope you realise that people like party members or relatives aren't independent or for the matter reliable, and when reliable sources quote them it doesn't mean they endorse their assertions. Those aren't random facts, its the source of the claim in the citations. What letter, that doesn't even make sense in this context? Standards of editorial oversight vary between articles, checking if there's a by-line, what the article is about, in what context or section it is published in are all part of determing if something is an RS.

In the previous discussion you clearly don't have consensus, the only thing you have is your own assertion that you are correct so apparently consensus or onus doesn't apply to you? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that: Jashodaben was 17, even if Narendrabhai was 18. Let's see what Wikipedia says about Child marriage: Child marriage is a marriage or similar union, formal or informal, between a child and an adult or another child under a certain age, typically age eighteen. Here's The Hindu making the matter clear: The highest rate of child marriage is in Bangladesh (where two out of every three girls marry before age 18), followed by India, Nepal and Afghanistan. Your definition of child marriage as implying "a much younger age", is just that: Yours. So, that answers "npov". If it is the "verbal statements" you have trouble with (even though published by reliable sources, even though spoken in an official capacity), then here are some more refs (some even have by-lines). I should add more refs to the note, I guess. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't provide a definition of child marriage, I stated it was misleading. Deriving a definition from other sources and then using that to justify its inclusion without reliable sources directly and explicitly supporting it, is original research.

Bloating the article with references which are inadequate doesn't help your case. In the new sources, two of them are essentially negative book reviews, one of them is just inaccurate and claims he was married at 13 while others are about Jashodaben and state that she had a child marriage. It's almost like Modi was married to a child and Jashodaben was the child, no? Although that would be misleading as well since the age difference is hardly there. The appropriate thing to do is to provide their specific ages which is what the article had, without any euphemisms.

Anyways I am going to remove your addition since the onus is on you to achieve consensus for your addition, take it to the NPOV or BLP noticeboard if you have to. You should have done that a long time ago to begin with. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:PUSH and the WP:GAME. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no, gaming would be trying to claim that you don't need consensus because your addition apparently complies with policy. Take it to arbcom or administrator's noticeboard if you have a problem with me, instead of throwing frivolous accusations when someone opposes your argument. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

3OEs, here's the diff: Modi left home after his child marriage to Jashodaben Chamanlal. Modi left home at age 18 soon after his marriage to Jashodaben Chamanlal The dispute here is, whether:

1. Cited sources are reliable: That is, are official written statement / interviews from Narendra Modi's political party (FinancialExpress Telegraph) and its spokesperson (Livemint.com), statements by siblings of both husband and wife (as reported by The Hindu), from a book that's "negative" about Narendra Modi (review on news18 / The Hindu), independent media (The Straits Times, Free Press Journal (India), Press Trust of India), non-profits (theconversation.com, cato.org) reliable?
2. Word neutrality: Using the term "child marriage" (explicitly mentioned in several sources cited above) vs using "teenage marriage" / "married at a tender age", "married when he was 18, and she was 17" or some variants thereof.
3. Sentence synthesis: Whether claiming "child marriage" is really synthesizing meaning out of a marriage between a 18 year old and a 17 year old, because it indicates "marriage between someone much much younger than 17" (that is, if we agree per wp:blue sources aren't required to term such an arrangement, a child marriage). International Center for Research on Women's definition notwithstanding: Referred to as early or child marriage — a marriage or union in which one partner is under the age of 18 —the practice disproportionately impacts girls.

Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There are inaccuracies in your representation of sources. The Press Trust of India article is not an example of independent media but that of a statement by a sibling. The Conversation article uses the term child under quotation marks, quoting from the source; "Information about Modi’s wife, Jashodaben, came to the fore during the election and though it may have been an arranged “child” marriage, the way in which he abandoned her raises concerns about ingrained patriarchal attitudes." This doesn't raise confidence that we should use the term here.

The Free Press Journal article is about social media reactions on women's days, has no byline and is posted under a section called "viral". This is a human interest piece which don't have the same standards of oversight as rigorous journalistic pieces. The cato.org article is an editorial which shouldn't be used directly for statements of fact. See WP:NEWSORG. All that is left after that is The Straits Times article and the book which are independent and don't appear to be unreliable.

I also don't support using "teenage marriage" or 'married at a tender age". Just, "married when he was 18, and she was 17" which is currently cited in the article to a New York Times piece and a Washington Post piece. It's also the most descriptive uneditorialised form. Your change would introduce an ambiguous and likely misleading term, suggesting that he was a child who ran away. If you read The Conversation piece, this implication is explicitly contested. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your inputs. I am genuinely seeking a third-opinion here. Also All that is left after that is The Straits Times article and the book which are independent and don't appear to be unreliable. "don't appear to be unreliable"? Thanks for your agreement. But if you meant, "don't appear to be reliable", then let's wait for a 3O? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Murtaza.aliakbar and Tayi Arajakate:

Greetings, Came across third opinion request. Frankly I do not have any Phd in Wikipedia rule book but would not mind helping out a bit at this primary stage with my analytical skills. Up til now I have experience of one successful third opinion. Either of you do not agree you can escalate it to next DRN stage. Please let me know if both of you are okay to know my opinion. Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not: I don't think you need to ask anyone's permission. Go right ahead. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose although, I would prefer an RfC if it comes to that. This page has a lot more participants than us two, which may not make DRN the best venue. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I do not consider equipped for next stages of dispute resolution and also that many disputes go to next stages, I suggest give a best chance to 3o process in good faith. Thanks and regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read arguments from both very briefly in this section, I will read WP:3O again and also above arguments from both of you in detail in couple of hours. Thanks for patience from both of you. Rgds.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended content for 3O
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Taking notes: My primary understanding of dispute Article lead, II para 2'd sentence Version 1: "...Modi left home at age 18 soon after his marriage to Jashodaben Chamanlal, which he publicly acknowledged many decades later...." Version 2:"...Modi left home after his child marriage to Jashodaben Chamanlal,..." Not directly related with above dispute but there seems to be some Wikipedian confusion Whether her premarriage name was 'Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi' or 'Jashodaben Chamanlal Modi', any one knows? Aspects not known Both of theirs birthday information is coming from Birth certificates or School admission record. (Note school admission records in India pre 21's century were not reliable enough.) As per this live Mint news source Date marriage was 10th May 1968 Date of marriage being given by her brother that to clearly mentioning difference between her birth date so likely to be fairly reliable. What were legal minimum age of consent and minimum age of marriage in India in general and State of Gujrat in particular in the year 1968 . Age of consent matters less since till recently age of consent for girls was 16 (but I suppose it is now 18 since SCI judgement) Details about above from authorised biography of Narendra Modi We will get to know some of above detail over a period of time, as and when authorised biographies become available. Specific date of birth of Birth days made available in the articles Jashodaben Modi Narendra Modi 17 September 1950 Jashodaben Modi January 1952 (Specific date seems not likely to available so let us assume 15 Jan for calculation purposes to minimise plausible error. Date or month of marriage not available in both the articles and only year 1968, month of marriage might affect perceptions marginally. Can some one help with RSource about date of marriage. Till then shall calculate age as of 1 Jan 1968, 1 July 1968, 31 Dec 1968 I am using https://www.calculator.net/age-calculator.html for online age calculation. Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019. Date of marriage→? 1 Jan 1968 10 May 1968 1 July 1968 31 Dec 1968 Date of Birth↓ J. Modi June 1951 working backward as per mint ref attributed to her brother (Assuming 10 June for calculations) 16 years 11 months N. Modi 17 September 1950 17 years 3 months 15 days 17 years 7 months 23 days 17 years 9 months 14 days 18 years 3 months 14 days J. Modi January 1952 (as per WP article) (Assuming 15 Jan for calculations) 15 years 11 months 17 days 17 years 3 months 26 days 16 years 5 months 17 days 16 years 11 months 16 days This is not comment just a partial note in between, Pl. bear with me I will take few more notes before giving my opinion Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Just keeping informed I am still actively working on; I am still actively working on it by taking source by source notes at my sandbox which I will present here once ready. News18 quote from Andy Marino speaks of "The clan plan was to ensure a limited period of co-habitation when he would turn 18..- a trigger that caused Modi to pack up and leave." What does that mean is not clear enough, does that mean minimum period of cohabitation or maximum period of co habitation and what for? not clear from sentence hence we will need to crosscheck from book itself hence some more wait. I will be seeking relevant chapter about early years from book 'Narendra Modi, A Political Biography', Andy Marino from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_109#The Early Years of Narendra Modi this may take some time but checking from better source will help things better. Thanks for your continued patience.Rgds Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

He and his wife were betrothed in early childhood, but the marriage took place on the cusp of adulthood. He then abandoned his bride. Whatever were his reasons, they can't be chalked to a protest against child marriage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"the marriage took place on the cusp of adulthood" is wp:weasel for child marriage. With each new editor, it seems we are moving from one strange justification to another to simply avoid the mention of the word "child marriage" when the man's own brother, and the man's own political party, and allegedly the man himself admits being a victim of Much earlier, Modi had told his RSS gurus that he had married as a child, a fact that could have come in the way of him becoming a pracharak.^ref Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course, it's everyone else who is being strange and whatnot. You don't appear to even have a basic grasp of sourcing policy, as in what people say about themselves and what people associated with them say are not the most authoritative sources for statements of fact and can't be added without attribution. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• At marriage- Modi age 18, Jashodaben age 17 I set up the article for Jashodaben and read all the English language sources I could find from the mid 2010s. Missing information in the sources includes 1) date of the marriage and 2) Jashodaben's date of birth. The Open article is one of several that says Jashodaben was 18 at the time of marriage. In several interviews, like for example Indian Express, Jashodaben herself said that she was 17 at the time of marriage. The Washington Post reviewed available sources in 2014 and reported that Modi was 18, and Jashodaben was 17, so anyone can cite that source as one perspective. Obviously there is a some problem with reporting the date of marriage and Jashodaben's birthday because this is basic information that every journalist would like to report if they were covering this story. Of the hundreds of journalists who have written about this marriage none of them know these dates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion

@Murtaza.aliakbar and Tayi Arajakate:

Since two more users joined the above discussion Talk:Narendra Modi#Child marriage? I wish to present my opinion distinctly hence separate subsection. Since WP:3O request,(Other than couple of paywalls) I browsed through many diverse ref sources regarding marriage of Narendra & Jashodaben Modi.

I worked on detail reasoning of my opinion in my sandbox pl. feel free to ask for details of rational if need be, but here as of now I prefer to keep it brief suggestion how a sentence ideally go like as below IMHO.:

'....In search for life of renunciation he (Narendra Modi) left his home some time after his matriculation, then came back but again left his home, in between he got married in spite of not fulfilling his own legal age requirements under family pressure but distanced himself almost immediately without annulling the marriage in formal manner. During his national level political campaigns of 2014s he portrayed himself as a person sans allurements of material life being person without active family life where as his political opponents criticized him for not carrying forward his marital responsibilities properly then how would he fulfill national responsibilities....'

I am of opinion generally divorce related details of biographies are part of personal life section of the article but I am not sure of including divorce related details in lead itself, while I am not totally against of including in the lead itself.

Brief rational:

• Since N.Modi did not make clear time line of his leaving home before & after marriage seems to have created simplistic misconception in the minds of media and supporting as well as opponent that Narendra Modi left home only after his marriage and that is leading Wikipedia users to include mention of his marriage and leaving home in the article lead itself. Fact is more complicated, he left his home first time before marriage itself, then came back married under duress succumbing to family pressure, but once again left home without consuming the marriage without divorcing formally. Taking this aspect into account above sentence if formed.
• Irrespective of later political power, at the time of marriage he is victim of duress from family and cultural pressure from community. So though the marriage is child marriage family and community and larger society is due for criticism and not Modi himself. But there is political criticism he did not carry out his marital responsibilities deserves mention as part of balanced approach that is second thought in the way above suggested sentence is formed.

As I said feel free to ask for rational further. Both of you can agree further or move on further for next stages of dispute resolution

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive research. It is a shame it isn't binding, but we'll see. I think I can agree when you say some feel "child marriage" is considered slight on Narendrabhai's person, whilst the truth is, Narendrabhai is a victim along with his "child" bride, Jashodaben, who's also a victim of an abandoned marriage, but that only follows from the societal pressure Narendrabhai was put under and not because of him, though of course a blame could be very well placed on Narendrabhai benefiting because of patriarchy prevalent in the Indian society. A human interest piece ought to capture that information, and I don't see how it is non-neutral. Which leads me to...

What is your opinion on

1. Reliability of sources (I believe Livemint and TheStraitsTimes plenty qualify as WP:R even if not the others).
2. Neutrality of the word "child marriage" itself vs "married on the cusp of adulthood" as one editor put it.
3. Allegations that terming it a "child marriage" when at least one involved party was for certain below the age of 18 as original research, despite wide-spread, near-unanimous acceptance of the term's definition. Because if it isn't original research, there's no need to cite sources using the term "child marriage". Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage of terminology

@Murtaza.aliakbar: Greetings,

Modern discourse on appropriate age of marriage is actually multi-disciplinary primarily lead by medical sciences, rest of associated discourse coming from fields of psychology, education, economic viability, concerns of population control and supported by social awareness campaigns of civil society, supported and revised by law.

Medically speaking 18 to 28 is most ideal age for healthy human reproduction, as much age of woman is less than 18 that much chance of infant mortalitymaternal mortality increases besides social and psychological maturity is attained usually by 18 (though sexual maturity may be attained by 16 by many), so medical sciences , law and civil society tends to categories all below 18 as Child marriage and in that context term child marriage is certainly most appropriate.

In cultural milieu marriages may happen in different stages and law might operate matching ways or differently and communities might accept progressive laws immediately at other times progress may be slow.

Like in many other South Asian communities in Modi's community in 20th century probably it was 3 stage affair exchange of promise among parents when children are still toddlers, engagement when they get physically matured and marriage some time later per convenience. While in some other communities even toddler marriages take place.

As you rightly say, when we criticize child marriages there is no need of using politically right terms or weasel words. Same time generalized term 'Child marriage' dose not provide complete picture whether it was a toddler marriage, marriage on menstruation, marriage of adolescent and again female-male age difference. In Modi's case it amounts to be marriage of adolescents.

Some funny consideration on side note: take one more similar imagined scenario into account; In India presently minimum age of marriage of women is 18 where as for men it is 21. Now suppose a marriage of 19 year old woman and 20 year old man happens, though illegal as per Indian law, whether we will right it as child marriage ? In such cases we need to mention they were adults but breached child marriage act ?

Again how the information is presented matters, I will give examples here

The official statement of N. Modi's brother Som Modi went like, "..' To (parents) Narendra was like any other child...", quoting him only one of the media headline goes "..Brother clarifies: Modi was married as a child, walked away to serve country .."; Now you put word toddler @ place of child and read same headline "..Brother clarifies: Modi was married as a toddler, walked away to serve country .." Now it will sound funny :) and misleading. While when other media house reports, "...For the uninitiated, Modi was forced to marry by his parents when he was a teenager, keeping with the old tradition of child marriage. However, he soon walked out of the marriage..." does not sound as much misleading since both things are mentioned it amounted to be 'child marriage' second is 'teenager' i.e. 'adolescent' are the most perfect word for age of 16/17.

Besides I will prefer, "..walked away out of the family life abandoning his wife from child marriage' rather than just "...Modi left home after his child marriage"

Thanks & warm rgds

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Credence of sourced content

@Murtaza.aliakbar:

While I do agree that preferably a source should have and editorial process of crosscheck still some how my thoughts are at variance with rest of Wikipedia community on differentiation of which platform to be considered reliable. I do focus on credence of sourced content rather than focusing on platform. For example most news sources mention Narendra Modi's age as 18 at the time of marriage but mostly that is not accurate for purpose of calculation of Child marriage. Most news sources do not take into account what was legal age of marriage in 1968. So what is the point having a famous platform which actually has not analysed and presented information properly? Usually I will prefer to take all the information on board from all possible sources (Other than own original research of Wikipedians) saying Source A says so and source B says so and gradually improve content as better sources become available. Now that is totally contrary to usual Wikipedia exclusivist opinions. If sources are saying N. Modi was 18 at the time of marriage I will mention that plus also mention that position is inaccurate if exact date of marriage is considered he had not attained 18.

Any ways while doing my research on the topic I found following to be of credence.

• Narendra Modi's brothers staement: “We come from a simple, poor family, which was influenced by orthodox traditions of caste. Due to poverty and backwardness, the prevalence of education was limited in our family…. To our parents, Narendrabhai was like any other child. So, in such an orthodox social context, our parents got Narendrabhai to marry Jashodaben at a tender age,”
• Jashodaben's brother's statement on date of marriage 10th May 1968 and that happened a month before her date of birth live mint ref
• Marino, Andy (6 April 2014). "The Early Years". Narendra Modi: A Political Biography. India: HarperCollins Publishers: ?. ISBN 9789351362180
• Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019. - marriage related info.
• Financial express article is written by 2 lady journalists
• I will update for few more

• about straittimes no issues taking their opinions on board but like other most news media including western media they have not done any special investigation in to age of marriage of Modis nor took any effort to find out exact date of marriage.

You will find most news outlets just repeating same info of other news outlets without effort, and funny thing is few of those sources simply translated parents calling N. Modi as child to Child marriage (though legally speaking it was really a child marriage).

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Please do not modify it.

Follow-up from 3O

Tayi_Arajakate and other involved editors:

A substantial body of research has been presented to us by an uninvolved, independent editor Bookku, whose opinions have been marked in green boxes above. It seems to me that Bookku agrees inclusion of the term child marriage doesn't violate neither the spirit nor the letter of reliable sources / original research / non-neutral point of view policies *iff* the context is aptly set; viz.

1. Narendrabhai was as much a victim of child marriage as Jashodaben;
2. Jashodaben was a victim of an abandoned marriage. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bookku's assessment that wording surrounding child marriage must not make it seem like Narendrabhai was the guilty party instead of being a victim of it: ...walked away from a child marriage arranged by his parents, abandoning his wife, Jashodaben, a fact he acknowledged decades later. or ...was forced to marry by his parents when he was a teenager; however, he soon left home, abandoning his child bride, Jashodaben, which he only acknowledged decades later. or Modi, a victim of child marriage, abandoned his wife Jashodaben shortly thereafter, and left home. capture context comfortably (imo). Of course, the sentence formation could be simpler or clearer or... Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, it's hard to decipher what Booku is actually saying, a lot of it goes into tangents. They have also attempted to calculate their ages at marriages by combining different sources, using their own judgement on which sources are credible for specific dates and then applying a legalistic definition after the calculations. There is no confidence in secondary sources over such dates. This is original research 101. Modi's age being 17 at marriage and Jashodaben being 16 is not something explicitly stated in any of the sources, I can't really take this seriously. That said they have used two more sources, Hall 2019 and Marino 2014 which don't appear to be open access so I'm not entirely sure either.

Anyways I've hatted the preliminary material and preserved the green box for your conversation with them. Regarding the dispute itself, I'm still against ascribing guilt or victimhood or both and just stating facts which are directly verifiable as is present in the article at present. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate:

It is tricky situation many so called reliable news sources are not accurate enough. If we use calculator and come to conclusion then that amounts synthesis kind of original research as per longstanding Wikipedia community culture. I did anticipate the objection raised by you that I am using online calculator to come up exact likely ages of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Modi.

And that is why I gave a specific paragraph which does not discuss marriage year specifics in the sentence itself but we discuss that in note only.

Secondly, In real sense, their marriage was child marriage or not is secondary for Modi's critics. Basically Modi's opponents wanted to make issue that he did not take proper care of his wife and reference are available for their related criticism.

So avoid mention of age @ of marriage in main sentences. Discuss note how you want separately. that may help reduce the dispute. That is how my opinion is.

Your response is not clear whether you accept Modi's marriage date from mint article given by Jashodaben's brother or not. Secondly though due to paywall you can not read Marino 2014 but News18 article sentence itself clearly indicates he did not turn 18. (Hall 2019' relevant pages regarding marriage are available on google books preview (atleast I could viewthem)). And still I requested information @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 July 8#Narendra Modi age @ the time of marriage.

Give two days to see if any help full info comes from Humanities ref desk, and there after go for RfC as you wanted so other editors may help you both in finding out appropriate solution.

Thanks and best wishes to both of you

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, the date of marriage is provided by a non-independent source so I don't, Livemint just quotes him. I don't think the News18 extract makes it particularly clear either, it says he left his village when he was 17 to skip cohabitation, which seems to imply that the marriage didn't proceed beyond the initial betrothal? It would also be helpful if you could link the preview of Hall 2019.

And alright, I'll wait for the Humanities ref desk and start an RfC if needed. Thank you for providing the 3O. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: I am not sure of one more thing whether you paid attention, Narendra Modi had left home for renunciation before marriage itself some time after his 10th standard when he was 17. Even his official biography mentions wandering without correlating to marriage then why all the sources including Wikipedians are bent upon to co relate his leaving home to marriage only, he had left home before itself came back and left again. Why we are missing on this aspect, I do not understand.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose if he left home once at 17 but then returned, it's not particularly noteworthy. That said, it could be included in the early life section, if it is documented in an independent reliable source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Discussion @ Humanities ref board produced one additional source for Date of marriage which refers to the date provided by Modi's acquaintances which just differs just by 10 days. Jashodaben's brother Ashok Modi says 10th May 1968 other acquaintances remember 20th May 1968; But May 1968 Seems to be most likely month and year.

As discussed earlier calculator & law says Any marriage date before 17 September 1968 Narendra Modi will be legally and medically considered minor and the marriage child marriage.

So I do not know what is Wikipedia rules are where other claimed/ considered to be reliable sources are casual and not accurate in their reporting about age. So as you rightly said RfC is the best option. I am starting next sub-section for formulating neutral question for RfC both of you can fine tune RfC questions written by me and add neutral questions in your mind.

Thanks to both of you for all the healthy discussion and co operation up til now and best wishes for the next stage.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Formulation of neutral questions for RfC

Following questions are just initiation feel free to fine tune them or add more questions.

• This RfC emanates from on going discussion @ Talk:Narendra Modi#Child marriage?

1) Whether and if yes how to mention Narendra Modi's distancing away from family life?

2) If yes what part should be mentioned in Narendra Modi#Early life and education and what part should be mentioned in the lead?

3) Should Narendra' Modi's marriage be described as child marriage or not in Narendra Modi#Early life and education and/ or article lead?

4) Whether critical opinions from reliable sources about abandoning wife deserves mention in Narendra Modi#Early life and education and/ or article lead?

5) Which sources to be considered reliable and which should not? for above Question 3 & 4

6) Two following alternate sentences in lead were in dispute, a third opinion was sought & provided as part of WP:3O but no consensus arrived so Whether to, and if yes which sentence can be adopted for lead among following or you suggest some fine tuning in any of them or you suggest an entirely different one?

Article lead, II para 2'd sentence Version 1: "...Modi left home at age 18 soon after his marriage to Jashodaben Chamanlal, which he publicly acknowledged many decades later...."

Version 2:"...Modi left home after his child marriage to Jashodaben Chamanlal,..."

Not directly related with above dispute but there seems to be some Wikipedian confusion Whether her premarriage name was 'Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi' or 'Jashodaben Chamanlal Modi', any one knows?

Version 3 (Suggested by 3rd opinion giver) ::'....In search for life of renunciation he (Narendra Modi) left his home some time after his matriculation, then came back but again left his home, in between he got married in spite of not fulfilling his own legal age requirements under family pressure but distanced himself almost immediately without annulling the marriage in formal manner. During his national level political campaigns of 2014s he portrayed himself as a person sans allurements of material life being person without active family life where as his political opponents criticized him for not carrying forward his marital responsibilities properly then how would he fulfill national responsibilities....'

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, RfCs should constitute a simple question. Imo, the questions is whether the article should refer to his marriage as "child marriage" or should it present the age of the two people (18 and 17), arguments for or against it can be presented in the discussion of the RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I think you are right, I will start RfC as you suggested in next subsection.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Please check for following RfC subsection heading (and fine tune the question) Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Once RfC subsection heading is fine tuned I shall inform of RfC @ the following

• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Talk:Jashodaben Modi
• Top (and active) substantial content adding editors of the articles Narendra Modi & Jashodaben Modi & their talk pages

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

'Democratic Backsliding'

This section is extremely biased. The sources are also not prominent. Should be removed as soon as possible.
Kpddg (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

keep--it represents the consensus of reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep, per Rjensen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is determined by proportionally representing "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," not on the opinions of editors about whether something biased or not. The section is compliant with the policy. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Two of the sources are potentially biased. Freedom House doesn't have a transparent system when it comes to their work and has been funded by the US government. The New York Times is funded by George Soros who openly and explicitly has been against Modi. Flag Mechanic (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added two implacably scholarly sources (with generous quotes) one of whom considers Freedom House to be too charitable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice finds - thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on moving some content from one part of the article to another

The last paragraph of the introduction doesn't seem with the rest of the introduction, as it is about his premiership. Would it be a good idea if it was moved to relevant sections of the article about his premiership? Flag Mechanic (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No, see our lead of Donald Trump for a comparison. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Rss.

Rss is not paramilitary organization 124.253.23.131 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear @124.253.23.131:, Thank you for your post. Wikipedia considers scholarly sources to be best. They seem to support "paramilitary" for the RSS. See here. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Modi, Kashi and the saffron hate

Modi's whole-day televised jamboree in Kashi is essentially turning into an inauguration of a Hindu Rashtra. At least that is how the Hindu fanatics are seeing it.

There was a three-day Dharma Sansad in Haridwar, where unprecedent hate was spewed.

• https://thewire.in/communalism/hindutva-leaders-dharma-sansad-muslim-genocide
• https://thewire.in/communalism/yati-narsinghanand-dharam-sansad-haridwar

And, also, the video of a Hindu Klux Klan has surfaced:

• https://twitter.com/cjwerleman/status/1473375120068513795

Stuff is happening very very fast now. The sight of an Indian prime minister spending a whole day Hindu puja on national television is a clear and present signal. Its impact is immeasurable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

He is using the teleprompter to read strings of sentences in the local dialects. I wonder if Indian viewers of the TV footage (in which the teleprompters are discretely edited out as usual) are aware of this use of technology. But he is looking tired and much slower than he was in his halcyon days in 2014. Indian voters in the past have shown sound judgment and I wonder if this might be overkill in an audience that might be more discriminating than his media advisors have assessed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hindu Klux Klan's name is apparently Hindu Yuva Vahini. It was founded by Yogi Adityanath according to its wikipage. The man administering the oath is Suresh Chavhanke, the editor-in-chief of Sudarshan News. (The Wire, The Quint). This is obviously a Hindutva breakout. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking to NDTV, Prabodhanand was nonchalant today. "I am not ashamed of what I have said. I am not afraid of police. I stand by my statement," he said. [3] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

An FIR has been finally lodged by Uttarakhand Police - the sole named person is a certain Muslim honcho who was trying to get into BJP since long and had converted to Hinduism, about two weeks back. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So would you call mughals a hitlers that destroys 40,00 hindu temples and kill hindus just because they're not Muslims, Stop writes that klux klan you can't compare both of that 21aryan (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)