Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

• Archive 1

Any criticism on Narendra Modi is easily removed as 'vandalism'. There are guys swarming and immediately removing content. But, why ? Even though I added a verifiable source from Tehelka Article, as soon as I edit it, the next minute the Users are removing it. Does WikiPedia acts for the interest of Narendra Modi ? Please, clarify. Because, any constructive criticism or allegations against Modi are immediatly removed citing 'Personal Analysis', even though they carry good references. Narendra Modi is NOT to be criticised even on the Internet ? Wikipedia works for Hindus ? Brahmins have infiltrated the Wikipedia ? Is Wikipedia filled with anti-Dalitism. Contributions by the Dalit Users are easily marked and removed systematically. I'm totally lost. Kindly, respond to this post. -unsigned by anon 202.133.50.50

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The tone of your addition cannot be considered unbiased. Nasnema  Chat  09:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrival of Tata Nano plant to Gujarat

Modi took personal interests and was successful to bring Tata Nano plant in Gujarat by taking lead over contender states like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand. (Check out http://www.financialexpress.com/news/gujarat-leads-big-race-for-small-car/369530/) This plant brought investment of Rs. 2000 crore and huge employment opportunities in Gujarat. Tata praised Modi for his speedy allocation of about 1,100 acres of centrally located land. (Please Check http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nano-gets-new-home-gujarat-signs-mou-with-t/370395/ & http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/oct/07slde1.htm)

We can add this point in "Gujarat Development".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetgaurang (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Praise

Why does the article have a section on praise but none for criticism? That lends bias to the article. I suggest merging the praise section with the awards and recognition section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.141.16 (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Many Sections on this page read like a paid advertisement of Narendra Modi rather than a factoid. Many of the praises being heaped are more POV pushing than based on fact. And many are just plain untrue.

There is for example a claim made that Modi is a bachelor but also the "only bachelor CM of the state!". This, as is well known since 2009, is patently untrue. The existence of Jashodaben Modi and her relationship with narendra Modi is now a proven fact. However there seems to be a clear attempt by some vandals to delete references made to these aspects of Narendra Modi's personal life.

There is also no mention made of his partnership with Shankersingh Vaghela, a partnership that established the party in Gujarat. However a reading of the article today makes it appear as if Narendra Modi has been alone in that endeavour of establishing the BJP foothold in Gujarat State. Again edits made to reflect these (with references provided to media links) are being REPEATEDLY removed by some indivuduals. This is not just POV pushing, but blatant vandalism. --Ashlonerider (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Development Policies

Sri Narendra Modi's main development policies ARE attracting FDI in creating world-class infrastructure, building SEZ for export generation (and of course tax generation for Gujarat Government and Indian Government). So therefore these multi-multi billion dollar investments deserve to be on his page since he's the only one holding biennial summits to attract and retain FDI and Indian Investments.

Jai HindTri400 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, they should be included as factual, neutral information, without giving undue weighting in comparision to other issues. Also, you should really have a look at WP:NPOV. Recurring dreams 08:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. As has been already pointed out, the Development Policies section should not be taken up by a 2007 fair, its a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. If these problems become intractable, I think I'll call for a third opinion. Recurring dreams 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a third opinion, mine, and I think that WP:UNDUE covers it nicely. Hornplease 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Visa Controversy

I have not removed any material from this section as claim in the edit summaries (if so it was accidental, but it doesn't seem to be the case looking through the edits). However there does seem to be some discussion about this section. Please let's discuss it on the talk page rather than through edit summaries. Recurring dreams 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The words on the experts view as to who lobbied for Narendra Modi to be denied a US visa was deleted without reason. Tri400 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which edit? As to the naming of the section, the text deals with visas to a number of countries, "Visa Controversy" is more inclusive and succinct. Recurring dreams 12:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Hornplease edited again what Tri400 was complaining about without discussing it here. You removed the part that says the Dalit network lobbied for the denial of the visa and left a summary of ((→Visa Controversy - cleanup, rm single, unbalanced opinion). I'm not entirely sure that it is valid who lobbied for the visa denial, but then again, I don't know much about Gujarat politics. I think if that is an important issue, it be left in the article as long it as a caveat that the allegations are just that and there isn't proof (assuming there isn't any). Akubhai 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went and read the source for the lobbying claim. Is this place reputable? He doesn't site any sources or references, all claims are "reportedly". Sounds kind of like gossip to me. Akubhai 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a Delhi-based thinktank; this is some sort of working paper, it isnt produced with any kind of peer-review; and the paper itself is full of 'reportedlys' and what not, as you note, and is frankly not representative of most of the coverage, which focused on criticism of Modi in the US Congress. Hence removed, under WP:UNDUE. Hornplease 15:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd fall under WP:UNDUE, but it could fall under the unreliable sources (don't feel like looking up the policy title). Are there any other sources that support that claim Tri400? Akubhai 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Achievements

Is this about Modi or about the state? If the implication (like the article suggests) is that Modi's policies have contributed to the earning of the award, then the reference to the award should be moved under the policies section since either way Modi was not awarded the honor. Akubhai 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

An award is an award, not a policy. Of course it is a result of Sri Narendra Modi being business friendly, having low corruption and having low crime. Tri400 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the award was given to the state not to Modi.Akubhai 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete References

It looks that during a couple of edits, some references have been deleted inadvertantly, be careful about that. Obviously, if a reference isn't valid, delete it and replace it with a {{fact}}. Just be careful when editing the page. Akubhai 15:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC) It is his humbleness that this honour he credited to the state and all the time he sent to take honous to the sachive and other departmantal heads, but after all he is the main backbone behind all these achievements. satish soni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.88.165 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

There seems to be an editor determined to mould the article to his biases. I will try to incorporate the material you keep adding, but will revert if they are not added as per WP:NPOV. Recurring dreams 07:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition

Removed the following two from text:

• In 2005, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation's internal economics thinktank ranked Gujarat first in the country for economic freedom (Already mentioned in the main body, not really an award for the subject of the article)
• Narendra Modi is recognized as an excellent speaker and in 2005 at the National Development Concil meeting, he spoke without using paper notes. He was by far the best speaker of all the Cheif Ministers. (This is not a formal award or recognition) Recurring dreams 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

it is also blatantly POV Akubhai 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now again anti-Modi anti-BJP and anti-India, because some communists keep trying to dishonor one of the greatest politicians in this country's history by de-recognizing his skills and policies. Tri400 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Policies and Development

This issue has cropped up again; I reverted the restructure of the policies and development paragraph. There shouldn't be a whole paragraph on the Gujarat Global Investors Summits: even the current material is pushing WP:UNDUE. Recurring dreams 07:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do so, because Narendra Modi attracting $102 billion in investment is worth only 2 short paragraphs as it is nothing for a rich country like India. Communist states like Bengal and Kerala attract 10x more Investments. Infact, Narendra Modi attracts less investment every year than Pondicherry does in just 1 month. (NOT) Tri400 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not spoil this space by writing completly wrong facts. I had personally checked comparision of all Indian states. Gujarat is well ahead of this Bengal, Kerala, Ponicherry. You are supposed to put facts over here with links backing your claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetgaurang--Gogs (talk • contribs) 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Who cares?Bakaman 21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Great attitude from Bakasuprman, its just what we need to help India go from a poor country with a huge chunk of the worlds poor people to a rich country. (NOT) Tri400 17:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of us surprisingly are not from India, and dont care whether Dispur or Trivandrum receives more money. It doesnt even factor into this article.Bakaman 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why are u editing this page then? Tri400 01:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is neither a comparison of the FDI into various regions, nor is it a critical analysis of Mr. Modi. I'm really interested in knowing, where it states one must be from India and care about Dispur and Trivandrum receiving more money to edit the Narendra Modi page on Wikipedia. Vishnuchakra 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of links

I fail to see why links to his upbringing, a neutral description of views on Modi, and a section on the Godhra train burning are consistently being removed. Of course, if one wants to portray Modi as a modern day Hitler, its made easier when only a description of the violence and leftist gafflegab remains on the article.Bakaman 00:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are forcefully trying to portray him as a modern-day Gandhi. Everyone knows he is the nemesis of Gandhi. Every human rights organization says that Modi sat over the massacres. Please show some moral courage by allowing others to present neutral views too. Besides, you are adding links to nowhere, ghost links. While other sites are Using popups.--TomCat111 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Modi is no Gandhi. There is and was only one Gandhi. Everyone, in your definition, is Osama bin Laden, members of the NLFT and Brinda Karat, perhaps. The ghost links were removed in my edits.Bakaman 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

modi was rejected visa by usa because of lobbying of some religous organisations.we know every body tehelka is puppet of one political party which sstrongly opposes BJP.every body knows the credibility of investigations are conducted in india under political influence including CBI.Why not Mr.Rajiv Gandhi was called killer of massacres when 3000 sikh people were brutally killed in capital of india? every body knows the propagation of conspiracy against Mr.mody by national media.no credibility of news of our national media who are puppets of so called secular parties.why can't media see Mr.mody in other way through development and increasing standards of living for our people? poverty is ours main enemy,it does know any religion.ours humble request to so called secular parties please help the people of india to come out of poverty than wasting their enery for getting vote banks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.185.137 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

tehelka

Tehelka is quite biased and has been criticized, and a mention of criticism of the commie rag needs to be present for NPOV. I suspect Relata refero (talk · contribs) is the new avatar of Hornplease (talk · contribs).Bakaman 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV nowhere supposes that every reliable source needs to be discussed on each occasion it is mentioned. The liberal bias of the Times is not mentioned every time it is sourced; nor that of the Guardian. In addition, of the several stories I have read reporting on the recent news, those discussing Tehelka's motivation are a vanishingly small minority. (This is not surprising, as most people do not assume that the motivation for this sort of scooping is anything other than selling newspapers.) Putting anything of the sort in would thus violate NPOV, unless Modi himself has responded, in which case it can be put in as relevant to his biography.

About your second statement, I have edited several times before with different though not concurrent accounts, but to confirm or deny your supposition would render my decision to do so somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? Besides, that is not relevant to an article talkpage. Relata refero 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tehelka mrerly publicizes allegations, and there are many responses to it. WP:BLP notes that a disproportionate space should not be given to critics, and this article (in your version?) violates this in a grotesque fashion. The BJP's response to it is notable, and in fact required under BLP. As for doubtfully sourced, Think tanks and mainstream papers do not fall under the defnition of that. Tehelka is a doubtful source.Bakaman 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please make a claim as to why this is disproportionate, citing reliable sources. The full quote from the policy you cite is "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." If you feel that the current mention of the recent tapes represents a minority of the reports on the issue, please substantiate that.

The response by a spokesman of the political party to which Narendar Modi belongs is not required by policy as far as I can tell. In any case, the response, which as far as I can see consists of a suggestion that the timing of the release is politically motivated, hardly seems relevant to either Modi's biography or the allegations per se, and is not mentioned in most of the sources.

About your claim that Tehelka is a doubtful source, I do not have an opinion, but it seems clear that the tapes themselves have received wide coverage in the mainstream press in India, so we do not need to source it to Tehelka in particular, making the concern moot. Relata refero 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please substantiate that the page does not give disproportionate room to critics. On the page of a similarly controversial politician, M_Karunanidhi#Controversies does not eat up the majority of the page as it does here. Most of this page is devoted to criticism/controversy serving as criticism, overwhelming the biography, a clear violation of BLP.

All news reports also gave the BJP's response making it quite notable in this regard. Reports have also been made that this specific report was assisted by the congress party [1], so criticism of this is both neutral and conservative, as required by BLP. Reliable sources, criticizing a source of questionable reliability will always have precedence and note on a page generating this much controversy.

Whatever your previous identity, your agenda is quite clear, the inflation of the criticism section, and an unbalanced page serving as a soapbox for leftist conspiracy theory are the goal.Bakaman 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove or trim the section on the visa denial, if you feel that that is overly critical of Modi. Of the section on the Gujarat violence, I see that one paragraph has a neutral rendition of facts that can hardly be called critical, one paragraph mentions both criticisms of his government and the fact that cases have been dismissed, one paragraph - the smallest - mentions the recent newsreports, and one mentions political opposition and the fact that Modi won an election immediately thereafter, which is difficult to define as criticism. How precisely is this disproportionate? Each discussion is taken to its logical conclusion, which in most cases is indicating that cases have been dismissed or elections have been won, which is hardly that of a section devoted to criticism.

"Reliable sources, criticizing a source of questionable reliability will always have precedence and note on a page generating this much controversy." I not only do not see this anywhere in poliucy or guidelines, I fail to see mention of this strange CIA accusation in most of the articles that actually discuss the issue. Google news suggests 130 articles for tehelka modi, but 9 for tehelka modi cia. As I said, if you wish to include the BJP spokesman's claims that the timing was politically motivated, you will have to make a case for it being relevant to a bio of Narendar Modi, which I fail to see it as being. If you wish to make a claim that the spokesman also said that it was just boasting and that the law will take its course, please make a similar case for relevance. Finally, if you wish to make the claim that the tapes did not implicate Modi personally, I am personally sympathetic, but please find several reliable sources indicating as much, as most RSes take the opposite view for some reason.

Finally, I see no criticism section, as I stated above. Please do not accuse me of an agenda here; I couldn't care less what this article looked like as long as it was readable, respectful of a living person, moderately accurate and not sourced to random websites. I doubt if shortly before an election anyone will come to WP expecting the whole truth about the man, so WP's reputation - which is my main agenda - might not be on the line here. (Similar processes are at work in Australia-related articles right now.) Relata refero 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(incidentally, the criticism section in the article you quote has more words as a proportion of the total article than both the sections that you erroneously call critical here.) Relata refero 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(de indent)The page is not being written according to your planned out vision. If you cannot made a very real and obvious extrapolation from WP:RS stating that reliable sources are always more appropriate than unreliable sources, it indicates a very myopic and unintelligent analysis of the policy.

A conservative and neutral discussion of controversy is necessary to meet WP:BLP. Deleting criticism of an obviously partisan report is neither conservative nor neutral, ergo it doesn't meet BLP guidelines. You "failing to see" this and that is immaterial. Its merely you failing to look into the issue in a neutral and holistic manner, not any fault of mine or the sources.

What you really "fail to see" is that the page does not serve as your personal soapbox. I am under no obligation to "make a case for relevance" when sources like The Hindu, Times of India, and The Pioneer have done so for me. If they printed it, its probably relevant. The sources discuss it dispassionately. The only sources that took these allegations as gospel were the CPIM rags and a couple Indian Muslim papers.

The Gujarat Riots section is criticism. Calling someone a facilitator of genocide or something along those lines is criticism since its an attack on Modi, this is a common sense, somewhat obvious observation.Bakaman 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Point by point: I have no 'vision' for this page, as I already stated; (ii) The fact that reliable sources are preferable to unreliable sources is undeniable, and doesn't affect my argument or yours (iii) I don't think calling me myopic and unintelligent is helpful or civil (iv)I don't see that that neutrally reporting a controversy about that part of report X that according to reliable sources affects person Y requires us to mention all details about report X, which is why I asked for an argument about relevance (v) The report is not obviously biased, and, even if it was, I would require several non-partisan sources telling me it was in order to accept it (vi)I don't think calling me neutral and non-holistic (?) is helpful or civil (vii) I never said anything was the fault of either you or the sources (vi) I don't saying that a page I just expressed relative disinterest is one I wish to use as a soapbox is either helpful or civil (viii) The vast majority of article on the recent tapes, as I mentioned, report merely on their content (ix) None of the newspapers you mention have made a case for why the party's response - that the Tehelka is inspired by the CIA - is in the least relevant to Narendar Modi (x) "If they have printed it, it is probably relevant", no, not unless they say it is, otherwise the football scores would be relevant (xi) All sources discussed it dispassionately, and if you feel the article uses excessively passionate language, suggest an alternative (xii) I fail to see any part of the article or the riots section that mentions the word genocide or accuses Modi of any facilitation of genocide, and if such a claim were made, it should be removed unless backed up by the most extraordinary of sources (xiii) You have not replied to my detailed breakdown of the riots section or explained how it is that you feel that a very balanced section about this event that is very relevant to Modi's first term and re-election is criticism. Relata refero 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(i) The fact that reliable sources > unreliable sources is very germane to this discussion as you have soapboxed for the politically motivated Tehelka report while whitewashing criticism from legitimate sources which are much more reliable (ii) The tehelka "sting" is quite notable and does deserve its own subsection, considering that it has been discussed in media (iii) NPOV requires neutrality and since the tehelka report has been criticized (iv) a proper summary of the merits of the report must be placed since tehelka is not anywhere near official (v) the sources do not need to tell you anything, since wikipedia is obviously not your personal repository, see WP:OWN (vi) More than one respected journalist has criticized the Tehelka report, its just that Mitra phrased in the most interesting fashion (vii) If you were expressing disinterest, certainly three undiscussed reverts phrased with gratuitous patronizing give any tabula rasa the wrong impression (vii) Since you fail to read the articles, I dont necessarily see any veracity to vapid statements about relevancy above, especially in terms of football (viii) a criticism/allegation that an expose targeting one man is politically motivated is relevant to the man (ix) especially in talking about the veridicality or farcicality of such a report (x) genocide is a figure of speech, people that read Tehelka generally call it a genocide (xi) controversy/criticism go hand in hand, especially when talking about how the lawyers of terrorists pity butchers while ignoring the rights of a generally peaceful populace (xii) You are still violating BLP by vandalizing the page, by publishing allegations as fact even as mainstream sources use terms such as claim, and gloss over the sensationalized drama put out by tehelka, Osama, and friends. (xiii) whining about civility only cements allegations that you are Hornplease (talk · contribs), which is now patently obvious.Bakaman 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(i)Only reliable sources are being quoted, Tehelka itself is not being quoted; the RSes determined that the sting was reliable, so we don't need to concern ourselves with it (ii)Accusing me of soapboxing and whitewashing is neither helpful nor civil (iii) The sting is not notable enough for its own subsection, whether or not it has been "discussed in media" as you put it in a charmingly inarticulate manner; many things are "discussed in media" but do not deserve their own section (iv) There is no need for a "summary of the merits" of the report anywhere in any policy, merely what reliable sources consider most notable and relevant to Modi about it (v) In order to justify calling the report obviously biased, you would need to back it up with RSes, your word alone is not enough, and thus your quoting WP:OWN is strangely ironic (vi) IF more than one journalist criticised it, I am not surprised, but I fail to see how such criticism that it is motivated is relevant to this article unless Modi himself has said it or Modi is mentioned in the majority of such criticism (vii) If you felt patronized by my edit comments, I apologise, but I assumed that there was random editorialising occurring such as I had observed this page attracts (viii) "a criticism/allegation that an expose targeting one man is politically motivated is relevant to the man" not unless you can provide enough sources making that point that it can be demonstrated that it represented a significant minority view (ix) especially if the criticism deals with the motivation rather than the 'veridicality' of the report (x) "genocide is a figure of speech, people that read Tehelka generally call it a genocide", possibly, but they're not editing this page currently, so I will assume you have no further objections to make about the even-handedness of the section in question (xi) I am not sure what you mean when you talk about the lawyers of terrorists, my point remains that you have to make a case that the sections are even-handed (xii) If you believe the section on the report is improperly worded, I have already asked you to suggest an alternative, preferably one that does not call this newsmagazine a friend of Osama, as that would appear faintly ridiculous (xiii) I do not believe that you think that anyone would not be offended by your tone, and if you persist in believing I am someone's sockpuppet, please file an suitable report. Relata refero 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot of the stuff that Tehelka publishes, if posted on WP would be considered a violation of WP:BLP. So be careful of the tone that is used. 71.250.156.200 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if I agree, which I may not, I think we can avoid linking Tehelka directly. Relata refero 07:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please speak plainly. 71.250.156.200 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A few points

1. The India Today article as far as I can see doesn't explicitly back up the statements in the lead. Can we please have an excerpt of the actual wording on this talkpage so we can discuss the best way in which to paraphrase it?
2. While Tehelka was certainly sensationalist, I don't know whether it was speculative, and it hardly affects the fact that it was notable. I have, however, a great deal of sympathy for the remark that it doesn't belong in with the judicial probes. Can Sarvagna suggest a refactoring of that section that would be approved? (Note, per WP:BLP/N, even if other ethical aspects of the Tehelka investigation have been criticised, it is not necessary for us to discuss them if they do not impact the notability relevant to Modi.In other words, stings are poor journalism, but notable sources don't have anything to say about the relevance of that to Modi and hence this article.) Relata refero 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
3. The SAAG 'link' links to a non-peer-reviewed working paper by a college student. I don't think that meets WP:RS. Removed.Relata refero 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
4. The recent removal of all references to riots in the lead appears to be a direct violation of WP:LEAD. Can someone suggest a reason why it is not? -- Relata refero (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From the India Today article: Face of Discord

Unacceptable as it may be to his anguished critics, he has become the latest poster boy of the counter-establishment and a veritable hero for many in Gujarat. He has even acquired a new label-Chhote Sardar-and been anointed inheritor to the mantle of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Iron Man who was independent India's first home minister. Without any fanfare, prominent Hindu religious leaders-including the heads of prominent Hindu orders-have conducted pujas for his well-being and proffered words of encouragement. The venerable Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Jayendra Saraswati, has even given him a public certificate: "Modi is doing his best to restore normalcy." "Some people," rues Bal Apte, BJP Rajya Sabha member and acknowledged guru of the party's Young Turks, "simply want Gujarat to simmer. Therefore, the present peace and measures for peace are ignored." — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful, though I don't know how that supported the statements in the lead at the time. I'm happy to note in the lead that he is popular in Gujarat in the manner in which the IT article suggests, though I'd like a straightforward news article rather than an opinion column to paraphrase about his role in the Gujarat economy. -- Relata refero (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is from a news article. Can we get back to using our primary accounts, please? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the above extract about the economy. As I said, I am more than willing to note in the lead that he is popular in Gujarat in the manner in which the above news article suggests. Relata refero (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Aditi Phadnis on Business Standard:

"n the last one month alone, FIRs for stealing power have been filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) against 10 persons in Surat and four in Mehsana, most of them industrialists. The GEB unearthed 578 cases of power theft worth Rs 2.4 crore in July this year. It is filing cases merrily. Over the years, in part because of this crackdown, aggregate technical and commercial losses in Surat are down to 8 per cent. They are 30 per cent in Delhi.

"The fact is that the VHP used to traditionally play the role of facilitator in Gujarat, serving as an interface between the government and industry. Modi knew these tactics only too well and let the VHP know its services were not needed any more. Modi has not spared the tender mercies of the RSS either. Relief work in the Gujarat floods last year was not entrusted to RSS cadres. Instead activists of an NGO, the Swadhyay Parivar, were given the relief materials."

"During a rath yatra in Bhavnagar last year, the district administration did not allow a procession to proceed with the weapons of Ram and Hanuman. Among those who sat in protest against the government move were well-known RSS supporters Haribhai Kordaliya, former BJP OBC cell chairman, and former state BJP chief Rajendrasinh Rana. The yatra could proceed only after they had sat on dharna for four hours."

"Even those who didn't go there know Bhuj was levelled after the earthquake in 2001. Go to Bhuj now. New roads, a new town, new houses"

"Earlier this month, Modi laid the foundations of a finance city, a technology park and an integrated township in Gandhinagar. IL&FS signedseveral memoranda with investors like Kotak Mahindra (committed to developing 300 acres of land), Chest Core (to design 2 million square feet space), Punj Lloyd (set to design 1 million square feet built-up space), and Fairwood Associates (to deal with 1 million square foot area). This follows commitments worth Rs 660,000 crore in January 2007 at the Vibrant Gujarat Investor's summit."

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tehelka

Tehelka is a registered media organization under Indian law and thus its stories can be quoted just like any other media outlets stories can be quoted and referenced. The Pioneer is another newspaper that is run by a BJP MP, and its, very biased articles are used to reference zillions of articles on Wikipedia. If they can be used as a source, then so can Tehelka. I think its important to show the Tehelka investigations into Modi because a sting operation conducted raised questions on Mr.Modi. It is upto the courts to decide on the validity of tapes, but the fact that the tapes exist and they show a certain side of Modi is irrefutable. --Ashlonerider (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP articles should be edited with extra care and there simply is no room for mudslinging by other means. Also when we have the high courts and supreme courts commenting on the matter, Tehelka counts for squat. Especially when it is at odds with what the courts say. If and when the Honorable Judge deems the Tehelka tapes worthy of being examined, examines them and pronounces his verdict, we will add his verdict into the article. Until then, sit tight and hang in there. This isnt the evening tabloid or a two-bit Tehelka for us to propagate hearsay and slander people. Sarvagnya 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tehelka sting operations cannot be treated as relevant for this article for 1) There have been strong and valid claims made against their validity, 2) the admissibility of such evidence in a court of law is always challenged 3) it is highly irrelevant in the this article, since the comments were not made by the subject himself, but some members of the Bajrang Dal. Inclusion of material with such dubious authenticity and its libellous nature is forbidden under WP:BLP. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I strongly object to the word 'mudslinging' and 'slander' and suggest you withdraw them.
2. About the relationship between the Tehelka report and judicial investigation, I think you misunderstand how we judge notability. Nobody claims that all discussions of controversial subjects have to be ruled upon by a court of law. Relevance and notability are determined by reliable sources, not by the courts.
3. I do not see any "strong and valid claims against their validity", merely against their intention, ethics, and motivation. (i.e., that it was intended to influence electoral results, that it was as unethical as all such stings, and that it was motivated by a desire to help the opposition party.) None of these are claims against their validity, and are irrelevant.
4. The admissibility of such evidence in a court of law is nothing we need to concern ourselves about, as we are not a court of law, and we have different rules for inclusion of such material.
5. The fact that the focus of the original tapes was on recording the purported statements of members of the Bajrang Dal does not change the fact that the focus of a large proportion of the reporting and discussion in reliable sources was the supposed light it shed on Modi himself, and is thus relevant to this article.
6. Material of "dubious authenticity" is, according to BLP, judged as dubious only if reliable sources have not discussed it. In this case a vast number of reliable sources have discussed the claims, and they are thus not of dubious authenticity by our standards.
7. There's also no response to my concerns about WP:LEAD. -- Relata refero (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of your points just rehash the same thing. So I wont bother countering each of them. Suffice to say, on BLP articles we err on ths side of caution. Conspiracy theories and petty intrigues are 'discussed' in RS sources all the time. Doesnt mean they all become encyclopedic. Nowhere is it said or implied that everything that appears in a RS source ought to be on wikipedia. That simply isnt the way WP:RS works or was meant to work. As for Tehelka, the charges concerning its political motivation and journalistic ethics are pretty serious and damage their credibility(atleast for purposes of an encyclopedia) greatly. So till we have a reliable neutral entity like a judge or a court comment on the matter, we dont take things into our own hands. Period. Sarvagnya 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear to not know what you're talking about, either about RS or about credibility, or about "conspiracy theories". Please deal with each point as far as you are able or I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on. For starters, can you point to a single other article on WP that applies this absurd (a-judge-must-pronounce-standard? (I thought not.) "Erring on the side of caution" doesn't mean we exclude every whiff of controversy when the individual is generally notable precisely for being controversial. Unless you have some real argument to make, with reference to policy and precedent rather than invective, this is going back in. Relata refero (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya's points are expressly based on the spirit of the policy, unlike your pettifoggery. The criticism of Modi you place on this page is politically motivated, hornplease. Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is really untopical, considering that Modi has never been tried in court for any "crimes". Tehelka is not an RS, not credible, and is a political shock machine. If the tehelka libelrag goes in, so too does all the criticism that comes with it. I can understand that you are perturbed by the fact that wikipolicy basically undermines all your supposed contentions for why we should slander Modi. WP:BLP is paramount in this arena.Bakaman 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that almost every sentence in that statement is incorrect. Modi being tried in court is irrelevant to notability. As long as the allegations originally in tehelka are quoted extensively without discussion of tehelka's "criticism", introducing that criticism is a violation of our core policies. Many, many reliable sources have discussed the Tehlka sting as it applies to Modi; a vanishingly small minority of those sources, if any, have discussed Tehelka in the manner you have. Simply put, neither of you polite gentlemen have a single bit of policy to back you up. (One can usually tell when somebody rambles on about "spirit of the policy".) Oh, and for the last time, if you continue to assume, in the face of evidence which I provided you, that you know something of my identity, I am afraid I will have to do something about it. Relata refero (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the great Tehelka is not going in for any sting operations in West Bengal?? I just wonder why they are targeting only BJP as if all corruption is in that party alone. What about other parties like so called Congress and leftist Parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vu3ktb (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is bizarre. If a public figure is accused in the mainstream media of something major, then it's notable and must be reported in Wikipedia. WP:BLP is not intended as a tool with which to write hagiographies. We must of course attribute all accusations properly. --Delirium (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The accusations are pretty controversial and unsurprisingly the sting does not cover the subject himself making any comments to compromise his position. Coverage of this kind is incidental, and not really relevant or substantial for the future. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't make that judgment. It has been covered a great deal in mainstream, non-tabloid sources. Relata refero (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Modi was criticized by Tehelka and "implicated", but the sources now (as Nick indicated) have moved on. This article from the International Herald tribune was the only article on modi caught by google news, and Tehelka vis-a-vis Fernandez gets more coverage than vis-a-vis Modi, even if the latter arguably could have had the larger effect. The inclusion of Tehelka's politically motivated jabs was hotly contested, and many users have spoken out against the sole inclusion of the accusations as gospel truth, one that as indicated above violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.Bakaman 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tehelka should certainly be in Fernandes' article as well.
• The accusations should not be included as gospel truth, but as notable accusations. They were the most reported Modi-related story in the two years leading up to the recent elections.
• Naturally the sources have moved on. They are newspapers. We are not.
• I see no relevance of WP:BLP, or of WP:UNDUE. The authenticity of the Hindu, the TOI and such papers is not under dispute; and, as pointed out, this received more coverage than anything else for years, so it hardly violates NPOV. Relata refero (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, no objections, then? Relata refero (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been covered a great deal in mainstream, non-tabloid sources. - Everything that makes it to the national press doesnt automatically become encyclopedic... not to mention that wikipedia's content is governed by wikipedia's own policies; not by those of the 'mainstream' press or of the tabloids. Sarvagnya 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And our policies mandate the inclusion of notable information about an individual convered in mainstream non-tabloid policies. Read them again. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Material covered in tabloids does not belong in the article, and since you removed the prominent criticisms of the tabloid material, sarvagnya can hardly agree with your conclusion that any sort of "policy" supports this kind of defamation.Bakaman 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Which tabloids are in the article? Relata refero (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tehelka, and any mention of Tehelka's "findings" must be followed by a qualification of Tehelka. The report was widely criticized, and since the consensus and policy are against including the slander in the article, it will be promptly removed.Bakaman 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was it widely criticised? I don't see any wide criticism of the content of the reports in the linked reliable sources. If you mean there were three op-eds criticisng the timing, putting them in is undue weight. If Modi had a statement on it, we can put that in. I can't find it, though. Relata refero (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was criticized by not numerous op-eds, and it was also criticized (Both content and timing) by members of the Shiv Sena, BJP, Indian National Congress (go figure), and the RSS. The report itself was highly contentious, however a simple google news search shows that very little actually stuck to the wall, in comparison to actual government reports concerning the situation.Bakaman 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no direct criticism of content, I see no evidence that the criticism of content was such that introducing it would not violate NPOV, I see no reason why criticism of timing would be relevant, and I have no idea what "stuck to the wall" means. It was widely covered, it was the single most important Modi-related story of the last year leading up to elections, and I can't imagine why you'd want to keep it out. Also, do read WP:LIBEL for a change. Wikilinking something is no substitute for actual application of the policy. And I have seen nothing in the last couple of remarks that are not a series of increasingly wild assertions. Relata refero (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth a couple of recent London Times articles mention this "sting" as part of their explanation as to why Modi is a rather controversial figure. London Times essentially takes it at face value. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is now sourced to the Times, the Economist, the Washington Post, the Times of India, the Telegraph, the Herald-Tribune, Reuters, the AP, and heaven knows what else, all of which attest to the importance of this episode to Modi's bio, and none of which contain any "criticism" of the "tabloid" that broke it. I really think that anything further on this subject would be new heights (depths? directions?) of tendentiousness. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Magrol Speech

I would request the wiki community to include a section on speech habits of Mr. Narendra Modi. I realize that certain facts may not be facts till they have the support of accredited source. However, I am using proper sources but get admonished by good user community. I do not desire to slander Mr. Modi but presenting facts about his speech is important as it reflects his personality. I can provide video footage as a source of the speech, if needed. recordfreenow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordfreenow (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the policy

I realize that we all want to make certain comments. I do to. However, after reading the policy [WP:BLP], I realize that I will need to take extreme caution about making any positive or negative comments. So let us do our research. I am sure that if we put our efforts and resources together, the true biography of Mr. Modi would be exposed/made public. As the policy say, "Do no intentional harm". We need to follow the policy and implement it for every positive or negative comment. If you want to learn, read the biographies of other living person's such as Manmohan Singh, George Bush, even Bin Laden. You will notice that these have been written with a LOT of objectivity. Initially, I also wrote emotionally but now stand corrected. I still have an opinion but submit that to objectivity and will propose cleaning to remove other poorly sourced and propoganda items. Let's co-operate. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speech quotes

Would it be alright with the community if we were to have a Quotation section and include some quotations from Mr. Modi's speeches?Recordfreenow (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not received a response, I take that as an acceptance to include speech quotes.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a quotation farm. Please desist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations provide a distinct understanding of the individual. The need would be not to "mis-quote" and editors would need to take the needed precautions. Please indicate your thought process. I do not believe this violates the WP:BLP. Also, the section of position of terrorism is already a quotation. Remember we are not supposed to have single sided agendas!! Recordfreenow (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-write Social reforms

Either someone (including me) need to re-write the social reforms or we need to take it out. The section needs to be about Modi. The center of each section needs to be Modi. So don't write about Gujarat government but rather about his governance. You get the point. I will make an attempt but since I have not done research on the Social reform, I am not fully capable. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitiveness with no proof

Please discuss such changes on the talk page of the article before making them. Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cant write on your page seems.. So Mr. Headless Nick, where on earth my edits are not neutral when there is a clear indication that in the version that you want us to read there is a hiding of the fact that:

a) The people who got burnt "alive" as the article says were not mere Hindus who were travelling on a family trip. Those killed were coming back from participating in a communally sensitive event in Ayodhya organised by Modi's party.

b) The final reports of the enquiry committee is still to be out and there have been at least two enquiries that have not come up with a comprehensive reason as to whether the fire started from within (through the stoves being used by the Activists) or out of the train

c) Your wordings are too final and unsupported by any facts that "Muslim fundamentalists burnt the Hindus alive", You use an Israel based Think Tank's report to support your point of view when clearly there are loads of artlicles published by Indian papers that speak the truth.

The modus operandi of a group of writers in Indian articles is clearly to tag team together to exhaust the other POV's. Someone needs to look into the people who blank out the sourced stuff from the Indian Right wing parties pages on Wikipedia.You all are a CANCER Samarpan11 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do elaborate on these wild conspiracy theories. Also the BJP is really run by Yahudi's, and India is Dar ul' Harb. Whatever has been written is both sourced and verifiable.Bakaman 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you man, it's all one big Hindu-Zionist conspiracy. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Described by no less than the New York Times as a "Hindu Supremacist"

New York Times article in question. While this point (like any point) can be argued, it might be the basis for a section on whether or not he can be considered a Hindu Supremacist, what that even means, and (if he is) whether it should be even considered a pejorative. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Modi is a magnet for adjectives, due to his rather polarizing nature. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is any more relevant to his notability than the numerous other adjectives used to describe him.Bakaman 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, pointing to a reliable source like The New York Times or the number of similar sources that use that adjective should be more than sufficient. --Bobak (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ermm, I don't really agree with that, but by the standards of Ahmedijinad and anti-semitism, I suppose it should go in there. Unless someone has objection's they'd care to outline here. Relata refero (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

who is to decide what adjective is "suitable" for inclusion and what should be excluded? We need a neutral way to figure that out and it cannot be left subjective? A widely reputed media house like the NYT is a surely a respectable enough source to quote from?

--Ashlonerider (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The NY times article in question is a commentary by a single journalist Somini Sengupta who, incidentally, has been described as a terrorist apologist in Pragati Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.4.149 (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Longest serving CM in Gujarat History

I added that he is the longest serving CM in Gujarat's history. I am putting it back on the page. Tri400 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Modi not denied visa in 2008

How can any person be denied a visa when he didnot apply for one?

It is true that his visa was cancelled, but Modi did not re-apply for a visa in 2008.

The information given in the "Denied entry to United States" is incorrect and has to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Premkumaranne (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he did not apply for a visa in 2008. He has been invited to attend a meet in New Jersey but there is no proof or reference to indicate that he has really applied for visa again in 2008. In a press statement issued on July 8, 2008, USCIRF chair Felice D. Gaer said there had been no changes that would warrant a policy reversal. The reference cited for this point is not valid at all. Some please look at the references 35 and 36, they don't contain any content.

Please remove the statement 'He was again denied a visa to the United States in August 2008 for his human and religious rights violations.' unless some one can provide a proof here. Please look at this news page, http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055791300.htm Btarun (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a clear proof that Narendra Modi didn't apply for a visa in 2008. On 17 Jun 2008,

• Sunil Nayak, the president of the Association of Indian Americans of North America (AIANA), has said "Unless the US consulate gives a surety that it will grant Modi the visa, he will not apply."
• Chandru Bhambhra, president of the Friends of Overseas BJP (FOBJP) and a close confidante, said: "Modi told me some months ago that he was not going to apply for a US visa."

Please look at this article, Will Narendra Modi get US visa this time? Btarun (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the change I made was not reflected properly?

I made the following changes but it spoiled the real output shown on the content page. Any ways, I undid my changes, and hence, the content page is as it was previously. But I should appreciate a help from somebody who knows why the following changes spoiled the infobox on the content page.

Thanks in advance

{{Infobox Indian politician |name = Narendra Modi |image = Narendramodi.jpg |order = 14th |office = Chief Minister of Gujarat |term_start = [October 7]][[2001] |term_end = |birth_date = 17 September 1950 |birth_place = Vadnagar, Mehsana district, Gujarat, India |residence = Gandhinagar, Gujarat |death_date = |death_place = |constituency = Maninagar |salary = |term = |order = Chief Minister of Gujarat |predecessor = Keshubhai Patel |successor = Incumbent |party = Bharatiya Janata Party |spouse = none |children = none |religion = Hindu |email = cm@gujaratindia.com |footnotes = |date= 08 March || year = 2009 | |source = http://www.gujaratassembly.gov.in/chiefminister.htm Government of Gujarat }}

Dineshjk (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

listing of events ..

I saw the summary of the 2002 Gujarat Violence. I think that the article doesn't present the correct picture and throws an incorrect picture of the events. As i see the article today, it is showcased as

In February 2002, while Narendra Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, violence broke out across the state claiming around 1000 lives...The root cause of riots was attributed to the Godhra Train Burning incident in which 58 Hindu Kar Sevaks were burnt alive by a Muslim mob[21] in a train carriage.

The para isn't written in the order of the events. The correct way of representing it is ...

In February 2002, communal tension was flared up when 58 Hindu Kar Sevaks were burnt alive by a Muslim mob[21] in a train carraige during the Godhra Train Burning incident. The subsequent violence claimed around 1000 lives. Independent estimates... Muslims who had to flee their homes for refugee camps due to riots.[20] The Banerjee committee ...

The re-organization of sentences ensure that events are described in the correct order rather than by attribution. -192.8.222.82 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from action and reaction theory, I think this the sentence is factually incorrect..The courts have still to rule who set the train carriage on fire ..and two enquiry commissions have been contradictory about implicating a M*slim mob in that incident, the fire could have been caused by the stoves carried by the Kar Sevaks in the train to cook. Simbelton (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotation regarding Gujarat violence

I have been researching the Gujarat riots of 2002, and I added a line to the section on Modi and his role during the violence. The quotation I added and its commentary by Edward Luce are from page 159 of the book "In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India". I am not familiar with coding for citations in wikipedia, so I did not add the citation, rather I typed out the source. If someone could add a citation I would appreciate that. Regarding the content, I believe that it should not be reverted because it was a key statement as the riots began. The source information is on this page. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spite-Gods-Strange-Modern-India/dp/0316729817

- I did not sign my above post, Virsingh (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting link, however unless this represents some academic consensus or adds to Modi's biography (which it does not) there is no reason to keep this "information" on the page.Pectore^talk 01:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as the quote is definitely notable given Modi's role & especially given the rampant prime ministerial speculation, I have restored the quote. Sturunner (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only is there no citation of the quote provided by either of you, but there are reports that this quote was completely misattributed. Either way, there is no need for a criticism section, as criticism of Modi should be (and is) found throughout the article.Pectore^talk 01:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pov edit"

In this edit Sturunner (talk · contribs) claims my previous edit was a "POV-edit". I could make the same asinine generalization about his or her edit, but lets see the facts of my edit.

1. Removed a non-RS source - Narendra Modi Newslib is a blog, and blogs do not meet WP:RS and this piece of biased trash comes far from meeting WP:BLP
2. Removed a mention of a marginally notable article - The Tehelka article was widely criticized, but as another user stated above, barely merited much media attention after the first two weeks. However, since Stunrunner seemed to be angered by the removal of this article, I took the liberty of adding the critical acclaim of the Tehelka "journalism". WP:BLP is strict on the use of attack literature, as the link may create thoughts that Modi was culpable from a superficial reading of the article
3. Formatted a link to an article rather critical of Modi - Quite logical right? I now provided the user easier access to the article which notes alleged wrongdoings of Mr. Modi, but of course in "POV-land", this can be written off as pro-Modi bias.

My POV is neutral societal discourse, as demonstrated by strict adherence to policy in this matter.Pectore^talk 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing mention of 2002

In May 2009, User:Sparkume deleted most of the information concerning Modi's involvement in the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat. We need to be constantly on the lookout for this kind of POVandalism on this page. Sparkume, if you'd like to explain why you think your changes were justified or how they improved the article, please do so on this Talk page. --Alex S (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your edit Alex (and commend you on it), but if you insist on calling the 2002 riots where nearly a third of the victims were Hindus (of Muslim instigated violence) a "massacre of Muslims", your claims of "POVandalism" are untenable at best and rather derogatory at worst. I will make a rather large edit soon to reinstate information I have added in the last two months. However, thank you for explaining your edit, as you can see from above, discussion on this page is generally futile.Pectore^talk 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I find your comments troubling. You refer to the 2002 killings as "Muslim instigated violence" as if the victims were somehow involved in the Godhra train burning, when of course the victims of 2002 were innocent Indian citizens and had nothing to do with Godhra. Also, I encourage you to read Jyoti Punwani's article on "The Carnage at Godhra," which details that the first instigation occurred when kar sevak activists aboard the train beat Muslim vendors at the station, ordered them to say "Jay Shri Ram," stole from them and harassed Muslim women. This in no way excuses or justifies the burning of the Sabarmati Express, of course, but it does signficiantly complicate (forgive me for phrasing it this way) the "they started it" argument. As for your claim that a third of the riot victims were Hindu, this takes official figures at their face value. Most other sources agree that these figures massively understate the number of Muslim victims. --Alex S (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jyoti Punwani's credibility has big question mark as she justifies the killing of 50-60 Hindus by a mere conflict at railway station. Even this conflict is not confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetgaurang (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I may have been rather unclear, and I apologize for that. The death of the Hindus was a consequence of Muslim instigated violence (and I am not talking about the Godhra train burning, this was during the riots). Obviously Muslims weren't killing themselves and both sides were culpable in the riots, though not to the same degree. On another note, the "complicated" argument is complicated further by the fact that Ghanchi Muslims (the perpetrators of the burning) are known to be a zealous and wild bunch with a history of massacring Hindus. Either way I think this discussion is rather irrelevant, since this should be about Modi and his alleged role in the riots. We do not seem to disagree on the content necessary to improve this page, so I think we should leave it at that.Pectore^talk 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, Pictore, If you people think that my edits were biased then please specifically tell me what you think should be modified and I will do that.

• Please don't delete whole article blindly. I talked with lot of people who belongs to Gujarat and after verifiying the truth I added the data.
• I started working on wiki just 3 months back I read lot of books and articles went to different places in India and collected information about the truth. I saw there are people who are intentionally manipulating the facts related to India in Media/wiki.
• I have seen most of India news paper and TV channel are working in completely biased way against few parties. This is my own experience which I felt in last 3 months. I always supports the truth. If you can not meet anyone who belongs to Gujarat then please try to watch some videos on narendra modi on you tube. There are few fabricated videos also.
• On social reform please suggest me how I can improve? Initially I collected all the facts and also verified from few people who belongs to Gujarat and then wrote in a manner which looks modi government did this reforms. Then few wiki user objected that it is written in POV manner. Then I modified it and wrote in a way which looks like Gujarat govt did all these reforms. As an India I would like to mention this reforms because regarding these reforms every Indian should know. This will help in boosting confidence of Indian that in India things can change.
• I am not modi supporter. I just supports anything which is TRUE. I hate false propaganda.
• Please in this talk page mention your all objections. I will discuss and will make the changes which are completely unbiased.
• If you people are really supports TRUTH then please discuss on my talk page. I can give you long list of evidences which I found myself in these three months regarding how Indian media are manipulating facts to show bad image of Modi/BJP/Hindu/India etc. Sparkume (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sparkume, I merely reverted your edit because it took out 3000 bytes of data with no explanation on the talk page. It also appeared to me to be an attempt at whitewashing the controversy surrounding Modi. I do not doubt your assertion that Indian media is biased (as all South Asian papers take a left-leaning line) but you need to make sure you info comes from Reliable sources. On Social Improvement, again use RS's, cite them correctly, and no one will be justified in reverting your edits. If you have a long list of evidences, don't hesitate to email it to me (too much clutter on this talk page otherwise), and then we can discuss on here what is an RS and what is not. Thank you for taking the time to discuss on the talk page.Pectore^talk 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 visa

I have removed this statement a number of times for a couple reasons:

1. Narendra Modi newslib is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination.
2. He never applied for a visa in 2008 [2] so no "[[3] denial]" occurred.

Pectore^talk 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

pls stop removing true, properly sourced, relevant material

just because you don't like it or its' implications. The truth is not "anti-India." The truth is the way to make India better. Sturunner (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks user mdabdul. I am proud that your are fighting against anti-Indian propaganda which some wiki users are carrying. User Sturunner if you have some patience of 2-3 days then please stop revering my and other users edits done in many months. I am already in talk with User Pictore. I am sending him list of media biasing references and we are already in discussion. In this talk page I will put all facts which we will discuss. User mdadbul I also request you to stop reverting anything on this article till I am finishing this debate Sparkume (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Sparkume & Pectore, I agree. I have the reverted last hatchet done minutes before your post job by mdabdul & did some copy editing. As soon as I can, I will consider moving some of the detail to the 2002 Gujarat Violence page. I'll also consider a separate article on human rights in Gujarat, since that seems to be the ultimate bone of contention.

Sturunner (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by user:Mdabdul that deleted all mention of the criticism Modi received for his handling of the Gujarat violence. Some of it was sourced to the The Economist (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10251282), which is a reputable source. If criticism of this sort appears in reputable news sources, it must be represented per NPOV. Other parts of the edit I reverted were sourced and may well have had merit, and I'd invite Mdabdul to restore them, but please leave the well-sourced criticism in the article. Thank you. --JN466 11:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please understand the format of this article before making changes. People are making changes like some Kid without knowing wikipedia guideline for writing articles. Reverting the whole article in the sake of Gujarat Violence is completely wrong. If you want to mention anything related to Gujarat violence or Godhara train burning there is a link for separate article. Please put you stuffs on that link. Second Jayen466 read the article in the economist link which you have provided. This article is not mentioning some news but it is mentioning writer views. If it is mentioning some dated news then please put but please don't put someone point of view. Faarooqabdullah (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone removes all trace of material covering a notable controversy, cited to The Economist and the New York Times, without giving any explanation other than "anti-India POV", then this does not fill me with confidence in that editor's judgment. Modi is currently under investigation by the Supreme Court for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy against muslims; surely that rates a mention in his biography? Can you give me any good reason why these accusations should not feature in this article, if they are featured in India's press, and in newspapers all over the world? --JN466 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN

Please see the thread atWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Narendra_Modi. Thank you. --JN466 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw it; now I am here. I will try to help make this article less PoVish.Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I ended up posting at WP:ANI/3RR as well a few minutes ago, following the latest revert. JN466 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits by Mdnet are clearly not NPOV

Modi's alleged involvement is what the investigations are about. WP should report on the investigations, not draw arguable conclusions about disputed events. I don't have time now to fix it. Sturunner (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

rvt his edits as they are unreferenced,a ref has been removed by MD --Notedgrant (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

biographies of living persons says criticism is allowed  someone should added this

http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/reports/2005/cag.02mar2005.modi.pdf

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=14119 http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/19guj.htm http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/Violence-wont-matter-to-Gujarat-Modi/articleshow/137933.cms 130.216.172.254 (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)130.216.172.254 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Azgarkhan, 29 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Dear Sir,

Although I have so much content to add to this article, but for now I need edit permission to edit spellings/grammar mistakes etc.

Azgar Khan (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a specific change you wish made, you can readd {{editsemiprotected}} here, giving the text you want changed or inserted and the change. Otherwise, you can either make a request to become confirmed (able to edit semiprotected pages) here or simply wait to become automatically confirmed, which you will be after four days and ten edits. Please keep in mind the Biographies of living persons policy. Thank you. Intelligentsium 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad grammar and doesn't say what scholars or whose perspectives - "As a result of these yojna's Gujarat became number one state in India in various perspective. Many scholar and India Inc leaders suggested that if Gujarat model will be applied in all states in India then India can easily become a developed nation." 74.232.43.45 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Shahnvaibhav, 25 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} href for the link RSS is incorrect. It should point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh

Shahnvaibhav (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Algebraist 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

narendra modi's mother tongue

is narendra modi a native gujarati speaker? I've never heard him speak Gujarati (or English for that matter), he always seems to speak Hindi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.56 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This shows he is a native Gujarati speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yojana?

The article says: "As a Chief Minister, Modi concretely put to practice his envisaged Gujarat by means of various yojana." Then it goes on to describe those various yojanas. But it never tells me what a yojana is. Can someone, who actually knows what a yojana is, please put it in there? Like maybe ammend the first sentence to read "As a Chief Minister, Modi concretely put to practice his envisaged Gujarat by means of various yojana, or { explanation }." --OldManInACoffeeCan (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yojana is a sanskrit word explained in Wikipedia here to be understood in the article as 'plan' or 'planning'. Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

personal Life

The fact that Narendra Modi was married and had a wife, Jashodaben Modi, who was abandoned by Narendra Modi is now an established fact.

However someone is repeatedly going in and removing these references which have been established with clear references to links in the media. This is clearly vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I assumed the links were fake, but thanks for bringing that to my attention and to the talk page.Pectore^talk 05:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Parts of the text in 'Personal life' are directly taken from Narendra Modi's own website. There it reads: "Born on 17th September, 1950 at Vadnagar, a small town in Mehsana district of North Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi grew up in a culture that instilled in him the values of generosity, benevolence and social service. During the Indo-Pak war in the mid sixties, even as a young boy, he volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations. In 1967, he served the flood affected people of Gujarat. [...] He started with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a socio-cultural organization with a focus on social and cultural development of India and imbibed the spirit of selflessness, social responsibility, dedication and nationalism." Needless to say, his self-portrayal is the worst possible source to be copied without quotation or considered valid for an encyclopedic article. Yetanotherkontributor (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've added a cleanup tag; there are just way too many unsourced claims. In addition, although several of these statements have been removed, there are too many NPOV statements here that praise Modi in a non-encyclopedic way. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to "clean up", could you please point at specific statements that need clean up? What exactly do you think is needed? References or language checks? Thanks Nshuks7 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wife

I removed the para. If she is indeed his wife, doubtless some mainstream sources can be found. However, as written and given the nature of the sources, this violates WP:BLP. In particular: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Outlook and Open magazine which covered this story and which are referenced here, can hardly be considered as "unreliable" sources: both these magazines have been referenced for numerous articles across and can broadly be considered reliable. Section may be removed ONLY if the Outlook and open magazine articles on his wife are proven to be false.

Restoring section in full. Ashlonerider (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Restoring section in full.

Outlook doesn't appear to be referenced here but 'Open the magazine' and 'hinduonnet' are, neither of which appear to be reliable. There are also blp considerations that need to be addressed. I'm going to revert your reinsertion of the text, per WP:BRD and suggest that you first gain consensus that (a) inclusion of the existence of this 'wife' is blp compliant and (b) the sources are reliable. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 16:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm. guess some references to outlook have been edited out. In any case, hinduonnet i sthe online website for the frontline magazine and newspapers of the hindu group: a credible newssource.

Open Magazine is a new but large weekly magazine published out of india and can also be considered credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This needs better sourcing to be included, the Hindu piece is an op-ed that is weak for contentious BLP material, Open, I'm not sure about the reliability, but all the article does is parroting the claims of the person, no fact checking at all. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of the sources look reliable to me. And the added text only states that this women claims to be his wife. The Hindu publishing something alone should be reliable enough for that. And OPEN magazine, while maybe not wildly high-profile certainly looks very shiny and professional, and it appears to be published by a large organisation - I think you guys are being more than a little over-protective. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a sustained attempt to reword this article and edit out references to Jashodaben Modi and narendra modi's personal life. FRom a look at the contributions of the 2 people indulging in this, it seems they are intent on POV pushing.

I would call for a lock on this article as well as the article on Jashodaben Modi to prevent further vandalism.

Ashlonerider (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going a little far. I agree that there are the sources to include this but BLP concerns do have to be taken seriously. There is no need to assume bad faith here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

the section has already been re-worded based on an earlier discussion. I dont see any reason to remove the references to Jashodaben Modi since they have been backed up with references. The reference to either party is not made in a derogatory manner, but in a matter of fact manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Aslonerider, BLP considerations outweigh references. I'd also like to point out that Hindu online and a new online magazine are not enough to establish the claims of one individual. Since Modi says he is unmarried, we need to be particularly careful with presenting information to the contrary and this sort of titillating detail should be added with care. Please note that under WP:BRD, once your additions are removed, you should not continue to re-insert that information unless you have consensus to do so and I suggest you seek that consensus on this talk page without continually re-adding the text. I'm also removing the bachelor statement from the article because it has no value whatsover. Regards. Please also note that I'm ignoring your not in good faith claims of vandalism and use of improper templates on my talk page. I suggest you approach this with the proper spirit of good faith and assume that we are all here for the betterment of the encyclopedia, rather than for making Modi look better or worse. A constructive attitude goes a long way. --rgpk (comment) 13:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@rgpk: This article is not meant to be either a critique or propaganda piece of Narendra Modi. Therefore it would be incorrect to drop all references to him having a wife especially when journalists have proved the existence of the said individual with marriage records to back up those claims.

The whole basis for removing the references to Modis wife was the credibility angle of the media houses. It has since been proven that the Hindu Group*(in existence since 1878 with circulation in millions) and the OPEN magazine are both credible sources who have carried the story as have numerous English and Gujarati language TV channels.

Repeated removal of content while a discussion is going on on the talk page, especially in a situation where the article and sections are clearly backed up by references to reputed media house constitutes vandalism and thus it was not improper to use them on your talk page. Indulging in edit wars instead of resolving the issue ont he talk page is also innappropriate. Therefore I would urge you to desist from repeated vandalism of the Narendra Modi article and try to reach a consensus. A constructive attitude goes a long way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@RegentsPark OPEN magazine is in print as well. Personally I suggest going for a WP:3O. In the meantime the content should not be included in te article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BLPN is the right place for this if both the sources are reliable. I'll post a note there. --rgpk (comment) 14:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Note posted here. --rgpk (comment) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very neutrally worded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

At first rgpk's contention was that OPEN magazine and hinduonnet were not RELIABLE sources. Then it shifted to it not being enough and about the article being "sensationalized". I mean who gets to judge that? rgpk has been indulging in an edit war to get the references removed as well as in the linked article to Jashodaben Modi.

And if we are to remove references to his wife because of a dispute, then it would be appropriate to remove the reference made to him being a bachelor. Because that part is disputed and there is no evidence to prove that he is a bachelor. There is however one lady in a village who has been proven to be his wife.

I would ask that the line saying that he is the only "bachelor Chief Minister" be removed forthwith.

The original section clearly documented articles published in the mainstream media: not sidey magazines but reputed media houses like the Hindu. I would vote for it to be bought back.

Ashlonerider (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I had removed the bachelor claim but it seems I didn't. With your permission, I'll remove that statement since the article is protected and you can't. Also, please note that my primary concern has always been the BLP issue as I pointed out on blpn here. --rgpk (comment) 15:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a mischief to put so much focus in Narendra Modi's wife when say in Indira Gandhis page the estrangement to her late husband is not so much talked about. Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One does not have to prove themselves as a bachelor. No marriage with Modi was ever registered. HOW can you say that it was proven that Jashodaben is his wife just because she says it. There is no proof. No wedding pictures, no witnesses, no marriage certificate. If Modi accepts it and quotes that he was married, then you can add the statement. You cannot say that he was married because some writer speculates that Modi was married to some woman named Jashodaben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaishbaby08x (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference about Modi being an atheist

The TOI refers to Karunanidhi (CM of Tamilnadu) as atheist and NOT Modi. That even Karunanidhi is a pseudo atheist is a different story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramnath61 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Made it neutral. removed objectivity tag

I have made the article neutral. Added new sections as well. Unfortunately the riots are always going to reflect on Modi and his administration so the references can't be removed because they allege Modi's involvement. Modi has not been cleared of the allegations and is under investigation so they have to be kept. Riots are central to who Modi and his government so they deserve a larger section.The article now looks decent. Removed praises made by industrialists as they violate NPOV. Some references glorified Modi using his own speech so removed them as well. If vandalism occurs lets lock this article. Lets hope my hard work is sustained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.89.62 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete rollback

User VipinHari with rollback rights and another user 122.160.29.14 has completely removed all major information from this page without any reason. I nominate their changes as vandalism. Their changes make the article which was pretty decent before their edits completely meaningless.

I suggest we revert back to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&oldid=451349269

Please do not tag for speedy deletion when all that was required was to revert back to an earlier revision. Also note that it was not VipinHari who removed the content, it was an IP before him. —SpacemanSpiff 11:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial GDP growth

I have read through the citation and was unable to find the reference that shows that Gujarat had the highest GDP growth rate among all other Indian states during Modi's first tenure. Please enlighten me if I am missing something. --AlllllX (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the link as no explanation was provided. Waited for 30 days. --Alex (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The citation given to support this statement does say that the growth was stagnant before Modi's tenure. However the citation contradicts two other citations of equal importance. One is from the Times Of India and the other is from the Gujarat Online website. --AlllllX (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the dubious link as no explanation was given. Waited for 30 days. --Alex (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete information

This article has incomplete information about the subject. Any attempt to add or correct previous information is deleted within minutes. Seems like there is a very well-organized governmental effort behind this page that means to promote its own agendas. The points I made were backed by reports on BBC as I had referenced them extensively. If nothing, Modi's role in Gujarat riots should be mentioned in the Lead paragraph. The Wikipedia experiment, at least in the political realm, has failed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.174.110 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment but everything need not be mentioned in the lead, there has been enough written in the later sections.Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, but no thanks, because a very crucial information about Modi's role in Gujarat riots has been deliberately omitted from the Lead section. You have also failed to mention that he is a very controversial personality. The Lead section reads like an advertisement rather than a factual profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.174.110 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. Please see the discussion some of us have been having on a similar issue in the section "POV Lead Section". I agree that the lead needs to be modified, but consensus has to be reached for the same. Aurorion (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)