Wikipedia

Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 3

< Talk:Narendra Modi
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Maunus in topic Polical stance?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

New section added / Citations needed for previous sections

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have added a {BLP sources} tag to point out the need for citations. I have not tried not to put too many citation needed tags so that the document does not look messy. I also had to add another section under Views and Opinions as it had just one particular view on Modi. The section contains no original research. I have noticed that many parts of the article have been subjected to Quote mining. For example the statement "Modi has also tried to turn his image from an Hindu Nationalist politician to an image of able administrator" has been quoted from a New York times article. The article states, "With a national profile clearly in mind, Mr. Modi has assiduously sought to reinvent himself from a scruffy mascot of Hindu nationalism to a decisive corporate-style administrator." With the initial part of the statement removed and a few words changed, it looks like Modi is a changed man. Some citations were incorrect too. I have also changed the contents of the section "Modi's position on terrorism". This part again was subject to Quote mining. This is because the author had changed the context to show that the acquisition of the surveillance equipment was entirely a state affair. I have changed some parts that were the author's original research with the exact statements given in the citation so that the section becomes less biased. I would like to hear from the author, if he/she has any justification for this. The last part of the section "Awards and recognitions", contains reference to an Award that has been given to Gujarat state after taking it away from Modi. Shouldn't that reference belong to some other section or page? The reference to another award above this, contains no citations at all. I hope the author provides some citations soon. I request my fellow Wikipedians to look at this article with more scepticism. --AlllllX (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As no sources are being provided for the numerous failed citation verifications and missing citations, these unsourced statements will have to be removed. I wonder why no wikipedian has yet made an attempt to discuss this problem. --Alex (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed most statements that were missing citations and were one sided --Alex (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

POV Lead Section

Latest comment: 11 years ago47 comments10 people in discussion

Narendra Modi is clearly a very controversial politician. Several reputed publications both in India and abroad have stated this multiple times. This needs to be in the lead, as is the case with many other controversial political leaders in Wikipedia. (Example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I had added a statement to this effect to the lead with multiple high-quality sources from the BBC, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, but the change was reverted by a user. I am re-adding the change, request anyone disputing this to discuss the issue here. Aurorion (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The allegations definitely need to be expanded in a later section, which seems not to be the case here, like the above section says. The statement added to the lead is only a brief sentence - even this could be expanded to a full paragraph. Aurorion (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The statement originally added said "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally, primarily for his alleged role in the 2002 riots in Gujarat." Based on feedback from another editor, the second part of the statement seems to be inappropriate for a BLP. Hence, proposing to rewrite this as a paragraph:

Aurorion (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Leave the POV out for the lead section. Use "controversial" instead of "highly controversial". No need to mention the US visa bit, such incidents are not given weight in the lead. Change "considerable support in his home state" to "considerable support in the country". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No need of visa matter. Also "considerable support in the country" will be an overstatement. He has considerable support in BJP supporters.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Though the riots needs to be put in the lead, " his alleged role" is wrong. It suggests an active role of promoting riots, which is not proved. Many accuse him of inaction and mismanagement of the riots. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any proposals? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that he has cleared by the SIT of the Supreme Court of not only any wrongdoing but also any mismanagement, is not including mention of the Godhra violence POV?. Please suggest & develop a wording here and ensure consensus on the wording here so that it is not only neutral and NPOV but also not UNDUE. AshLin (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The BBC profile reads: "He hit the headlines in 2002, when he was accused of failing to halt some of the worst religious violence India has ever seen." as the second sentence. The The Atlantic profile [1] is not the most neutral. It reads: "Under Modi, Gujarat has become an economic dynamo. But he also presided over India’s worst communal riots in decades, a 2002 slaughter that left almost 2,000 Muslims dead. Exploiting the insecurities and tensions stoked by India’s opening to the world, Modi has turned his state into a stronghold of Hindu extremism, shredding Gandhi’s vision of secular coexistence in the process." This NY Times[2] article talks about "A Divisive Indian Official Is Loved by Businesses". Three things are mentioned in all articles: his economic wonders, his huge support, the riots. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Modify proposal. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Iraq War has caused more divisions and strife across the world than the 2002 Gujarat violence. So why this special treatment to Modi? I object to this proposal. There are other well regarded sources which do not make such assertions and mention the 2002 Gujarat violence in the passing. Shouldn't that be considered? I suggest you start looking for more sources than focusing on those which suit your POV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nick, I don't understand your Iraq War reference - the WP page of George W. Bush mentions his controversial status in the lead, including the Iraq War. From the intro section of that page:
This is not "special treatment" to Modi: I posted 5 links above of WP BLPs of controversial people with info about their controversial nature in the lead of the article. I posted a couple more on your Talk page. In fact, leaving out this info from the lead of this page would be the special treatment, not the other way round. I think Redtigerxyz's proposal above should be included. There are more than enough very high quality references for this info posted above, and it would not be difficult to find more. Aurorion (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with the way Redtiger has presented his proposal. Here's my suggestion:

"Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. In 2002, the Modi administration received heated criticism from sections of the media after incidents of communal violence. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government."

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That Modi has support outside Gujarat, specially from the business community needs a mention as well - leaders of top business houses from the Tatas to the Ambanis to the Godrejs have all paid public complements and asked for a national role for him. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I object to the inclusion of the phrase "highly controversial" because the controversy surrounding Modi cannot be equated to the criticism Bush received as the President of the United States. The criticism that Modi received was at its peak in the year 2002. Yes, he did continue receiving criticism all along, however, that is not something which should be included in the WP:LEAD section. Would you please learn to differentiate between the body text and the lead section? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we position facts, and not sensational claims. Aroundtheglobe, can you make a proposal for change to incorporate the changes? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nick - Are you saying that calling Modi "highly controversial" is a sensational claim? The "highly controversial" status of Modi is not a "sensational claim", it is a fact. (As per a LOT of high quality sources: The likes of BBC, NYT, WSJ, Guardian, etc. are not in the business of publishing "sensational claims" - and they have all called different variations of "very controversial".) You could describe allegations of what he did or did not do in 2002 as non-factual "sensational claims", but not his "highly controversial" status. I am not arguing that all the unproven allegations against him should be included in the lead - just the facts: that he is very controversial (as reported by several high quality media reports given above) and that it is related to the 2002 riots. Therefore, I support Redtigerxyz's proposal including the "highly" part. Would love to hear more opinions on this for consensus.
Besides that, I prefer Redtigerxyz's proposal with or without the "highly" qualifier because it explains the reason for the "controversial" status of the subject in the same sentence rather than leaving it hanging and then saying he was criticized ten years ago by "sections of the media". Aurorion (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion and I disagree with it. Highly controversial is a subset of controversial. I don't see how that warrants mentioning "highly controversial" in the lead section. The reason why this portion was left out of the lead before is because the judicial set up in India has not convicted (or even indicted) him personally of any wrongdoing. There are far more reliable, independent, secondary sources which do not think of him as "highly controversial". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nick - I have given examples above from the BBC, NYT, WSJ, Time, LA Times, NDTV, The Guardian, The Independent calling Modi different versions of "highly controversial"/"one of the most controversial [...]"/"perhaps the most controversial [...]", etc. I could give more if you want. Do you have any good sources which claim Modi is "not controversial" or even "mildly controversial"/"moderately controversial"/etc.? I highly doubt it. :-) Anyway - it's clear that we disagree on this: but I reiterate my support for Redtigerxyz's proposal; let's see what others think of it. Even if that particular word (which you have made clear that you disagree with) is removed, I prefer his wording to yours because I think it is more direct and clear. Aurorion (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been monitoring this discussion, but was not able to comment, I think I agree with both of the proposals, and suggest that we should consider the common portion of both arguments and add the controversial part in the lead setion. Sir Nick, you said there are more reliable, independent, secondary sources right, please link them here so we can get the idea of what you are trying to convey. --19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)--kondi talk/contribs 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kondi, a simple Google search will show that the word "controversial" appears more widely than the phrase "highly controversial" – [3], [4]. This is after removing the word "highly" from the search parameters. The sources which Aurorian has quoted above are opinion pieces and cannot be used for sourcing in the lead section of any BLP. That is why I have asked Aurorian to review WP:UNDUE, and along with that he should also review WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:RSOPINION. This is policy. They have not bothered to do that, but instead chosen to continue with the trademark bright-eyed zeal of POVpushers. The question of controversy surrounding an individual is always relative – and in that sense, the position of George W. Bush, the former President of the United States cannot be compared to that of a Chief Minister of a state in India regardless of whether there are a few opinion pieces that speak otherwise. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Modified:

"In 2002, the Modi administration received heated criticism from sections of the media after incidents of communal violence" is problematic as:

  1. Gives impression that criticism only in 2002 and the storm has subsided. After so many years, the storm has not died
  2. "from sections of the media": What about his political rivals, "human right activists", "social workers", "minorities" ... ?

Why I chose "primarily related to"?

  1. It gives the reason of why is he controversial?
  2. It is neutral. It does say "inaction"/"mismanagement"/"active role", which "convict" him. Till now, no court of law has conclusively found Modi guilty. SIT recently gave him a clean chit and then again "sections of media" gave front pages of conspiracy theories, eg. Times of India in its title article questioned the report and asked why statements of two Supreme Court judges was ignored.

I am posting on WP India noticeboard, requesting comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It is not uncommon for public personalities anywhere to speak highly of other public personalities in speeches and public functions both attend. (An example from the U.S.) Such praises rarely make it to the media because it is so common. Some of these incidents in Modi's case (especially from political opponents) become newsworthy only because of the controversial nature of Modi. Sheila Dikshit and Anna Hazare wouldn't have to retract their statements if they had praised Arun Jaitely, for example. So I don't think a list of all people who ever said a good word about Modi should be included in the lead - but perhaps the "and is praised by business leaders" part can be changed to "has been praised by many public personalities" with a couple of these references? Aurorion (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Such praises rarely make it to the media because it is so common. Some of these incidents in Modi's case (especially from political opponents) become newsworthy only because of the controversial nature of Modi." – Is that your obiter dictum on the subject? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. I am sorry, I didn'tknow citations were required for every observation made in Talk pages. Aurorion (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well? Can someone please add at least the part we have agreed on? Redtigerxyz's version, without the "highly" part or other contentious issues. Aurorion (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Modi is a highly controversial personality and therefore the word highly should be added to the line. Also, he is controversial because of the Gujarat riots and his role in these riots is what many people know him for. The proof of this is that in a recent Time's top 100 personalities poll he was voted the most liked and the most unliked as well.
  • I agree. Modi is definitely a very controversial figure, there is hardly any commentary on him which does not mention that. A Washington Post story from yesterday rightly calls him "probably India's most complex and divisive figure". However, apparently there are people here who are strong believers in the "mildly-controversial" nature of Modi and hence oppose the use of a qualifier like "highly" with the word "controversial". If the omission of that qualifier is the price to pay to make this lead slightly less biased, so be it. Aurorion (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Aurorion, you have not attempted to constructively contribute to the discussion and instead inserted vague statements in the lead section of the article. I have reverted you. Please be advised that there are multiple editors who have actively participated in talk page discussions in the past. So it's best if you stick to building consensus rather than introducing unilateral edits into the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Nick, the edit I made was something which I believe was agreed to by most editors here. The "highly controversial" bit which you had a problem with was omitted out. There is a clear consensus here that this topic is something that needs to be added to the article, the only issue was wording. You cannot indefinitely block constructive edits to the article just because you don't like the information contained in them.Aurorion (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If you care to take a look above, you will find varying viewpoints among the participants with regard to what should go in and what should be kept out. Let me assure you that I don't have any intention of "blocking constructive edits" to the article because of my personal preferences any more than you do. Specifically, the insertions which you made a few minutes ago – "controversial figure both across India and internationally" (not factual) and "primary related to the 2002 riots" (vague) are problematic and have been pointed out to you earlier on this page. These issues must be resolved through discussion on the talk page rather than ignored to have your preferred choice of commentary prevail. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This page's current ratings: Trustworthy 1.0, Objective 1.0, Complete 1.5 (all from 350-450 ratings). Anyone who reads this page - of course except Modi's party members and supporters - can clearly see this page as it is now is extremely biased, and these ratings reflect that. It's difficult to improve things when some WP administrators actively push POV agendas. Aurorion (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest you start using your primary account if you ever expect to be taken seriously here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but are you accusing that this account is a sock puppet? That's a completely baseless, false accusation. You cannot accuse everyone who is against your biased POV to be a sock puppet. Aurorion (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is not a baseless assertion. You have less than 900 edits on this account and are already engaged in aggressive POV-pushing over other articles. Here is an example – [5] (removal of content with no edit summary; history). It is because of accounts like yours that the project is experiencing an exodus of constructive editors. Primary account blocked? No worries! Change your ISP, create another account and start all over again! And I am not "accusing everyone". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nick, you accusing me of "aggressive POV-pushing" is really like the pot calling the kettle black. The example you have quoted is completely taken out of context. (Is Unbiasedpov a sock puppet of yours?) Check the history of the article, I had made the same edits earlier with proper edit summaries, it was Unbiasedpov who reverted the content without explanation. (Besides, the content I reverted was very poorly structured and formatted, and not fit to be in an encyclopedic article.) And please stop accusing this account of being a sock puppet without any proof whatsoever. You could be accused of worse things without proof just as easily, let's not go down that road. Aurorion (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for helping me make my point more clearly understood. If I am accused of being an "administrator actively pushing POV agendas", it can be verified against my 15000+ contributions going back until 2006. In your case that is not possible, and yet you speak with the weight and authority of a user who has been around for more than a few years and with extensive contributions throughout. Do you now see the difference?
  • Anyway, I am interested in improving the language and the content on this article, it is clearly not well-written. And to implement that, I believe, it is more important to first improve the content in the body of the text rather than the lead section. The lead is simply a reflection of what the article constitutes taken altogether. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
(deindent) I think that a modified version of Nick's solution would accurately encapsulate the bimodal nature of public opinion surrounding Modi. I would suggest:

Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration received heated criticism from sections of the media surrounding incidents of communal violence. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government"

As a reasonable compromise that outlines the fact he is still controversial today for the events at Godhra.Pectoretalk 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

most important is that the biography should get rewritten as encyclopedic one covering almost everything in informative manner.--101.63.89.17 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: That's a good start, would be a good improvement over the current version. Aurorion (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose : It looks very biased. His administration received heated criticism from sections of the media surrounding incidents of communal violence need not be mentioned in the lead as it is already present in the article.--sarvajna (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Again reverted a non-neutral accusation of the Gujarat riots in lead. IMO, we need to put the Gujarat riots explicitly to stop this. He has received criticism from "activists" also, not only "sections of the media". I am adding "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration received heated criticism surrounding the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government." for now.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
--Redtigerxyz  Talk  04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the addition could be better, but I am fine with it for now. I don't think there is a reason for Discoverer to change "2002 Gujarat violence" to "2012 Gujarat communal violence" – if you want to change the name of an article, please discuss that on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we explicitly say 'communal violence'
Modified:
The Discoverer (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
By the extension of this logic, one might as well re-title it as : "2012 Gujarat Hindu-Muslim violence", since that would be more specific. "2002 Gujarat violence" is the most accurate and succinct way to put it. As I said above, if you desire to change the name of the article, please initiate discussion on the relevant talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:2002 Gujarat riots

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion

Nick have raised an objection to adding modi to Category:2002 Gujarat violence on the ground that it is an event. But WP:BLPCAT doesn't have any such rule. It only hinders one from adding a person to a faith without the person's own affirmation and to groups (like Criminals) which are defamatory. There exist umpteen number of categories for events which include people associated with it. For example Category:People of the Iraq War or Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots. I request Nick to put forward some valid objection citing the text of the concerned rule. Aravind V R (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have included our discussion on your talk page over here. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
From User talk:Aravind V R#Narendra Modi

Hi, just letting you know that I have reverted your addition of Category:2002 Gujarat riots to the above-mentioned article since the category refers to an event or series of incidents which happened in the past, while the page Narendra Modi is a biography of an individual. Hence the category does not qualify for inclusion on that page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no such rule against including a biography to category of an event. You can search and find any number of such instances in wiki. For instance Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots -- Aravind V R (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:BLPCAT. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that I hadn't read this? The limitation is mainly against "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified" and adding under groups such as Criminals which are defamatory. This particular category is concerned with an event and every person associated with it are included (even the then DGP Sreekumar). Aravind V R (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you need to go and have a look again. This category does not pertain to the notability of the individual concerned. He is notable as the chief minister of Gujarat and not because of the incidents of violence in the state. There have been no convictions or rulings with reference to his alleged involvement in the incidents of violence either.
A general principle on Wikipedia is that policy and guideline pages are intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive and therefore they must be read in context.
"Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." (emphasis mine)
For instance, the biography of George W. Bush does not include categories with references to Iraq War, or for that matter, the biography of Indira Gandhi does not contain category references to 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. Please use caution while editing biographies of living people. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let us discuss it here. (Just saw the long discussion above). The first thing you should understand/accept is that the Gujarat riots is all what modi is notable for (in the national level). I might not have even seen his face if not for his (alleged) role in the riots. Certainly haven't heard of his name before the riots.
Regarding the 1984 riots, rajiv gandhi is included in the category under whose regime the riots happened. bush has been included in List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that is such a long list and bush's article has been already overcategorized.
I agree that till he has been convicted, he should not be added to any defamatory category. But this one is just about the event. Even the then DGP Sreekumar has been added to the list. Aravind V R (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Your rationale is unconvincing. A Chief Minister of a state of India would become notable due to the very reason that he holds the office. This biography's primary qualification for notability is the fact that he is the longest-serving chief minister of the state, and not 2002 Gujarat violence. DGP Sreehari is primarily notable for being an individual associated with 2002 Gujarat violence and its aftermath. The use of Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots is not justifiable on Rajiv Gandhi biography page. Also, there is no rule against "overcategorization" on Wikipedia, the practice is to liberally apply common sense. What you may have heard or what you have known is not critical. The project does not run by personal opinions and knowledge of its users but by precedent and policy. Please do not restore the category until you have built consensus on this page. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, Modi's role in the Gujarat riots is as important as his Chief Ministership and his Prime Ministerial ambitions. Being the Chief Minister of a state, he might never get convicted, but that does not erase his connection with the riots.1 2 Adding the category would not outright defame him, but one cannot deny that he was an important player in the events that unfolded. The Discoverer (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Discoverer, what you have said above is original research. We go by facts and not personal opinion. Wikipedia is not an instrument for personal or political advocacy. Please stick to the facts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The mere fact that you didn't bother to remove rajiv from the anti-Sikh riots category but did remove modi from 2002 Gujarat riots and also your insistence of naming it "violence" rather than a "riot" like 1984 expose your lack of neutral POV.
modi is certainly not famous (or infamous) for being longest serving cm of Gujarat but for the riots. Who knows the longest serving CM of Rajasthan, Assam or UP for that matter (outside those respective states)?
Modi should be included in the category just like rajiv and bush should be in 1984 and Iraq war respectively. FYI, there are guidelines regarding overcategorization. But since the category is important I have just added it to bush's page. Let us see what happens. He is a bigger hatemonger and probably would have a larger group of fan-boys "controlling" his article.
Regarding consensus I think it is you who have to prove it in your favor since I see only a few in this page going out of their way defending modi. Aravind V R (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit on George W. Bush as it was disruptive. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a battleground and further disruptive editing may result in revocation of your editing privileges. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know you had problem with adding that category to Bush's page (but still ok with rajiv being added!!). Ok then we shall wait for the opinion of others. And was that "revocation of privilege" a threat? Please don't get that silly and emotional. Just put your arguments to carry on the discussion. Aravind V R (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my opinion. I have stated above that it is inappropriate to place the Anti-Sikh riots category on the Rajiv Gandhi biography. Please go ahead and remove it yourself. When any user disrupts Wikipedia to illustrate a point, they are generally issued a warning as a courtesy before an uninvolved administrator examines the situation for administrative action. There was nothing emotional about the warning issued to you. Your conduct on this page is not constructive as is demonstrated through your comments above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Please see WP:BLPCAT. Unless the requirements of our BLP policies are met, the category shouldn't be added here. If you have a problem with the policy or interpretations, then please take to WP:BLPN, but do not add the category unless the requirements listed out in our policy are met. It doesn't matter what individual editors think on reasons for it not being met, we are not here to speculate. —SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why adding the Gujarat riots category to Modi does not satisfy WP:BLPCAT. I'm paraphrasing BLPCAT, categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources ; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.. Take a look at Modi's profile on the BBC here, a source you would assume to have NPOV. It's lead speaks about three things: His chief ministership, prime ministerial ambitions, and his role in the Gujarat riots. The Discoverer (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Rather than lamenting about Nick not removing a category in another article you can be bold and remove it, Modi or any other CMs/ PMs are known for the post they held, if there were scams in their period you don't add a category of corruption if that exsists in the article. Unless they are convicted. --sarvajna (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This is just about being associated with the incident. Everyone in the news regarding the incident should be added. Aravind V R (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
In my simple humble opinion, Category:2002 Gujarat violence can only be added to the various articles primarily related to the violence like the one of Ehsan Jafri, who was burnt to death during the violence. The notability of Narendra Modi comes forward for his role as CM of Gujarat, and his alleged involvement in any event doesn't justifies to add a category. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This page is included in Category:Chief Ministers of Gujarat as well. So even if his fame is due to chiefministership, it is a non-issue here. What Nick says is that there is some rule which prohibits adding biographical articles to categories related to events even though he was so far unable to cite any. WP:BLPCAT clearly state a person can be added to a category for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources. Aravind V R (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, Modi is not natable for the 2002 violence but for being a cheif minister and this is what Nick was saying. Hope you got the point. --sarvajna (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No. If he he is notable than any other CM in India, it is squarely for the riots.Aravind V R (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you continue to misrepresent my position on this subject. I refer you to my comment from a few hours ago – [6]. The incident does not form the primary reason why the subject of the article is notable. Narendra Modi became the chief minister of the state in 2001 and he happened to be in office during the time period when the incidents of violence occurred. There have been allegations made by notable individuals, however the courts have consistently absolved him or his government of any wrongdoing. So I am not sure why you are unable to comprehend what I have stated on your talk page and above – the 2002 Gujarat violence incidents are not relevant to the notability of the subject. Notability is established through fixed criteria which are stated and available here – WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. I have also pointed out similar pages on notable politicians whose biography pages do not contain category references to incidents and events initiated, operated or concluded either by them or their governments. Irrespective of what you know or have known about Narendra Modi, his notability was established long before 2002 Gujarat violence occurred. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it supports inclusion of encyclopedic facts. The biography page on George W. Bush is a high-quality good article, which has been reviewed and vetted by users with significantly higher amount of editing experience than yourself. If you are interested in political advocacy, I would recommend that you start a blog and write your thoughts down there. For now, the consensus is clearly in favour of non-inclusion of the category. The users who have commented alongside me are experienced users of the projects with thousands of mainspace and projectspace edits. Please take some time to review our policies, guidelines and general practices to avoid unnecessary confrontation with other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been a lot of CMs in India. But he was the CM while the second biggest massacre of an Indian community happened in Gujarat. The incident of thousands of Indians loosing their lives is far more important than this individual. In any international news, he figures only due to his alleged role in the riot. So he is notable for this important incident that happened (whether primarily or secondarily or whatever).
What I do not understand is that even if his prime notability is of being a CM what prevents adding him to another category for which he is notable? Is there any limit on categories that can be added? I didn't ask to remove the Category Category:Chief Ministers of Gujarat but to also include Category:2002 Gujarat riots to his page.
Again, I didn't understand why you moved the Category:2002 Gujarat riots to Category:2002 Gujarat violence. If this is not a riot then what is? How the incident in 1984 can be called as a riot? Aravind V R (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But he was the CM while the second biggest massacre of an Indian community happened in Gujarat. This is not a valid statement at all. The same can be said about Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh violence right? AS for moving the category, I believe that the move was to include both the riots and other related events. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"King of Social Media"

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

The current version of the page has the following statement in the lead:

Modi has 600,000 followers on Twitter and is hailed as King of Social Media by the media.

The first part of the sentence is factual and can be easily verified, but the second part is subjective. The single citation given for this is an article in Oneindia.in. Should such a non-factual, hyperbolic statement be included on the basis of this one citation? Especially in the lead? User:WBRSin apparently feels very strongly that it should. But I disagree:

1. I disagree with WBRSin that OneIndia.in is a credible enough source for such a hyperbolic statement. If it was, then Emraan Hashmi's WP page should call him the king of the bedroom, Rajnikanth as the king of Indian cinema, Yousaf Gillani as the king of contradictions, and Emma Bunton the queen of cruelty. OneIndia.in is not a major media organization, it is an online news portal which can at best be classified as an amateur news blog.

2. A Google search shows that there are just ~450 hits matching "Narendra Modi" and "king of social media". Most of the results are from social media and blogs, not a single major news source to be found.

3. Another section above shows my edit request to add a sentence to the lead saying that Narendra Modi is a controversial figure: despite quoting multiple credible sources (BBC, NYT, Reuters, The Guardian, Time NDTV and The Hindu among others) this change was not done for several months. Now, a single amateur blog source is enough citation for an extraordinary hyperbolic statement? Aurorion (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

King of Social media is a silly comment,It is true that Modi is having a lot of followers on twitter and is very active on other Social notworking sites like facebook but is that so important to add in this article. "King of Social Media" is not at all required. IMO we can also remove the fact about how many followers Modi has on twitter. --sarvajna (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the source is verifable it should be included. regarding the other epithets if you feel necessary to add them feel free to do so at their respective wiki pages.

And dont be jealous your proposed edit took a long time to be added, although adding "controversial" tag to a person was unfair to begin with, all politicans are controversial, i dont see you going around adding that tag to people like jyoti basu and his party who were involved in massacres during their reign. See the Marichjhapi massacre WBRSin (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Relax not everything that is verifiable should be added to the page and lets not discuss the controversial thing here. Please understand that adding King of Social media would be Undue here. Modi has not achieved any bechmark even on twitter. He is not having highest number of followers on twitter. May be you can wait till the tag of "King of Social Media" is used very regularly in the media not just one news blog. --sarvajna (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Well its worthwhile to mention the facts, not everyone has 600,000 twitter followers. If mentioning that is Undue then how about removing the controversial tag that is unfairly attached to his name. Why is he being singled out for such tags? WBRSin (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The controversial thing was discussed some time back, you can start a new discussion to remove it. Please refer the previous discussion and you can add new points if you want. To be honest even I am not in favor of having that tag in the article as I feel it is in violation of Wikipedia:BLP. But consensus does matter on Wikipedia. So you can drop the "King of Social Media" for sometime till either everyone arrives at consensus or the phrase is used very regularly in media. I believe Modi is doing some video conference on google+ which is hosted by Ajay Devgan, if that is covered by major News papers and if they call him “King of Social media” you can add it here easily.--sarvajna (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to adding the number of Twitter followers in the article: that piece of info is a fact. However, adding an epithet like "king of bedroom" or "king of contradictions" or "king of <X>" or "queen of <Y>" based on a single dubious citation is a different matter. Especially when there are just ~450 pages in the whole of internet using it, and not a single major media source. If there were 450 million hits on the web including articles in the BBC, New York Times, Time, etc. then such a hyperbolic statement would be warranted, but not just yet. Aurorion (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So wanna pick and choose epithets that suit your agenda. You were desperate to add the negative controversial tag but find the positive King of Social Media as "hyperbole". Seems your hate agenda is exposed, you want to tarnish the good name of narendra modi and push your POV. Just goes to show how some political opponents of modi are using wikipedia to launch attacks on him after they were voted out by the electrorate. If you are gonna delete king of social media then the hyperbole controversial should be deleted too, no double standards can be allowed on this matter. WBRSin (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please... The "controversial" discussion is a separate one, don't want to discuss that here. Please start another section for that if you wish. As for accusing me of POV, being someone who called the person in question "king of <X>" based on a single amateur news blog, it's really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And please don't accuse everyone who opposes your edits of being online personas of Rahul Gandhi or whoever you think are the "political opponents of modi". Aurorion (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I held a mirror to your face, if the reflection is ugly dont blame me. The controversial and king of social media are both refering to the same person, I dont see how you can canvass for a negative tag while repeatedly deleting the positive one, to be fair you need to either include them both or delete both of them. If you cant be neutral then quit editing this page. WBRSin (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please stop your repeated personal attacks. The "controversial" discussion is long over; even though it was initially proposed by me several other people discussed it at length before the paragraph currently in the article was added. If you want it removed, please start a separate discussion; I am not going to discuss that here anymore. The problem with the "King of <X>" is the quality of the citation. It is just not a good enough citation for such a hyperbole. Like I mentioned above, there are ONLY 450 hits on Google from the whole of internet for such a claim. If you search online for "King of Social Media" you get 189,000 hits, but just 0.2% of that calls Narendra Modi that. (If you search for "Justin Beiber" and "King of "Social Media", you get 54,000 hits: more than a 100 times the results for Modi.) Your claim is just not well-supported enough to be included in this encyclopedia article. You could say "Oneindia.in calls Narendra Modi the King of Social Media". But definitely not that he is called that "by the media", based on 450 results on the internet, not a single one of them from a reputed news media source. Aurorion (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop feigning attacks. and nothing is "long over" buddy. Your desperation in adding negative attritubes to the subject dismisses your claim of neutrality. If you want to add "Oneindia.in calls Narendra Modi the King of Social Media" then go ahead add that, but i find it unfair when the controversial word is not preceded with the list of publications that label him thus. WBRSin (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga has the highest fan following in Twitter.but NOTHING about twitter is mentioned in her introduction. Narendramodi doesn't even come in the top 10 WHY should TWITTER be even mentioned in his introduction???Naveed (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are free to update lady gaga's page. Modi has the largest followers on twitter for an Indian politician and that is an important fact. I see some people here are desperate to paint a negative picture of him while purging any positive attributes or achievements of his. WBRSin (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 failure in Himachal Pradesh

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He went to another state and campaigned to no avail, but this is not notable because he wasn't successful? Hcobb (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it even sourced? Are there sources available? - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A few reverts/edits being discussed

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

There have been a few reverts/ edits lately they are being discussed here.

Conflict with governor

This article is about a person who has been Chief Minister for twelve years and has been elected to serve another five, are administrative disagreements with the governor of enough weight to have a separate sub-section? My opinion is that the sub-section is undue and so it was removed by me, my removal has been reverted, I request other editors to weigh the issue and do the necessary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

For example do the conflicts have the same weight as the Gujarat violence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, since per the above section you are proposing to revamp the violence section, any comparison is going to be like trying to hit a moving target. - Sitush (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is dynamic, we deal with the present and not with the proposed future. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You miss my point. You are proposing to trim the violence section and you are querying the weight of the governor section by comparing it to the violence one. Unless I am misunderstanding you completely, you are creating a sort of circular argument. - Sitush (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
An administrative disagreement is completely UNDUE, was he removed by the Governer, did Modi stab or slap her? Such incidents are common in parliamentary democracies. The governer is a Congress politician and appointee, the Congress is in opposition in Gujarat. It is no news that they have disagreements, it would have been notable if they went along well. There is nothing circular about the argument. I contend the riots should have less details and this incident be removed. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Google+ hangout

Hangout is a term used by Google[7] why is it unencyclopaedic? The present title "Use of social media" is unnecessarily vague, while the discussion is related to the hangout. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. However, Twitter etc are now mentioned also under the same heading. - Sitush (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The tweet is in relation to the hangout. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, as is the specific YouTube thing. The point is - and I think it was made in an earlier thread here - Modi has become a master of using social networking to communicate his message. It isn't just the Hangout and the section heading should reflect this. Personally, I think there should be a bit more about the general usage and a bit less about a one-time event but, regardless of that, it is my understanding that he is streets ahead of most Indian politicians when it comes to harnessing these technologies. Am I wrong? - Sitush (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sitush it is not about who is right or wrong, we have a sub-section that deals with a specific event, I am unhappy with the extrapolation of that event into a general statement, that the title makes, without necessary supporting information being provided. Do you have sources that inform " he is a master... at harnessing" we'll then write so and then we can keep the sub-title, with the hangout as the sub-sub-title. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I only spent a minute and found this. - Sitush (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
And this is an interesting analysis. The Hangout is nothing new, clearly. - Sitush (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
My point is: put information that would then justify the present sub- section title, in its present condition the title isn't justified. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course the present title is justified. You just appear to want a more specific heading: it is the hair-splitting thing. If we broaden the content, as I surely will, then we likely still won't see that heading appear. The thing has arisen from a merge result at AfD and it needs to be put into context. I seem to recall that there were several subsections at one point and that you removed them. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
One swallow doesn't make a summer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Modi's marriage

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Long time ago it was discussed that the news about Modi's wife should not be added to the article. The diff are [8] and [9]. I was reverted by Sitush here who had asked for diffs which I had provided on my talk page. I thought it would be best to bring it here.--sarvajna (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I have been tardy in responding and I got caught up in some drama. I said that I'll be staying off India topics pretty much until tomorrow. Revert me if you wish and we'll pick it up then. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will be reverting it as of now as it is a BLP. We can go ahead with the discussion here.--sarvajna (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

"Why is Narendra Modi silent about his wife's name? Digvijay Singh" pls fill this Q. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.255.102 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No negetive aspects of the modi goverment has been included in this article. This article has has no mention of the fake encounter cases after the gujrat riots, the BAN of Modi in USA, controvery arround the gujrat lokayukta. Naveed (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

He was banned from the USA? - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see he was denied a diplomatic visa, which is now covered in the article. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He is a great personality. Please put up a better picture of this great man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.193.234 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

This article is about a 62 year old person who has been the chief minister of one of India's most prosperous states for eleven years, and polls predict another term for him. India is a democratic country, thus his being in power reflects popular consensus. Repeated mention of controversial incidents makes the article lopsided, without doubt I do not argue about the reliability of the sources, I argue that the weight various incidents are given in his article make it un-encyclopaedic. We ought to have a debate on what is of enduring importance as far as an encyclopaedia goes in terms of his personal and public life and then include it in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, Gujarat violence section is the biggest section in this article. I feel its undue also is it not violation of BLP? He is not convicted of anything and I don't think there is any police complaint. Let us know the opinion of others. --sarvajna (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE states that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Now going through the article, criticism sections have been covered very well with reliable sources I must say, but at the same time the awards and recognition section is smaller than Gujarat violence. So yes if one can trace the awards and recognition with reliable sources, even those should be mentioned there. Also yes he is not convicted in the violence, but his position in government made him the central point for the entire violence, thus this article also has got plenty of mentions of him and violence with reliable sources though. But yes I completely agree with you, his recognition should also be visible in this article. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sarvagya, the space provided to 2002 Gujrat violence needs to reduced. I'll present a draft when I find time to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
What the heck?? Why does any section have to be pruned? There's no length limit on the article is there? ALWAYS add more to the other side, don't edit out! Frankly, the language in the entire article seems far from neutral, and is supportive of Modi. Yes, he has a lot of popularity. But that's among SOME Indians. There are others -not just INC, and some MSM, but the general public who are equally strong in their opposition to him. The article doesn't reflect that at all. 220.224.246.97 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What has his age and popularity got to do with anything? - Sitush (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
He has played a long innings (age), is that all we have to write about his years in politics and in office? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Well, what else has he been involved with? And what did you mean about the popularity? What is the relevance of the "democratic country" truism etc? Balance does not necessarily equate to pruning negative stuff: it could equally well be achieved by adding positive stuff. I accept that we do have a main article for the violence and so something could probably give a bit but I also think that the issue is central to understanding quite a lot of what went on subsequently, perhaps even including his re-elections, his entry bans and his move away from obvious caste-centric politics. I understand that he is being touted as a possible PM in 2014? - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
(1) I wish to prune in a neutral way, per BLP guidelines, a strawman is being created when it is alleged that it is only negatives that have been sought to be removed. (2) Modi is an elected representative, a four term CM, his actions represent the consensus of the represented, it is wrong to accord too much credit or put too much blame on him as an individual. (3) Were the riots a central issue in Gujarat 2012? Or was it development, Modi claimed that he made it possible, the opposition Congress presented the shallowness of Modi's claim? They used photographs of starving Sri Lankan babies, as evidence of lopsided development in Gujarat. (4) Did Keshubhai resign or was he removed? Yogesh Khandke (talk)

January/February changes

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Many of the changes made to this article in January/February are just not acceptable and will soon be reverted or modified. Please do not sanitise just because you favour the man, and please bear in mind that sections exist to organise an article. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific ? --sarvajna (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
When I have time, yes. One glaring example is the emerging section containing Modi quotes; It is not conventional, it is potential undue weight, it disrupts the flow of the article etc. I'm not saying that the quotes are unworthy of inclusion - I've not delved into the sources yet - but the placement is all wrong. Just as we deprecate "trivia" sections, so too we are generally not keen on "quotes" sections. And the style is wrong also: see WP:MOSQUOTE for why we should be using {{quote}} and not {{cquote}}.

Some other stuff is more serious but I need to thoroughly check contribution histories first because it may involve a trip to a noticeboard re: user behaviour, especially of the Hindutva variety. I'm playing catch-up at the moment so some delays and delving around are inevitable, sorry. - 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

[3]

101.62.53.21 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify the request. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


I have added a section in controversy about Mr.narendra Modi's marriage. I also cited the article from the OpenMagazine 2009. Can I know if this particular section doesn't violate any of the wikipedia policies. This particular controversy of his life is always a heated discussion. Hence his marital life isn't mentioned in the Personal Life category.

I have reverted you for now. There has been past discussion, per Talk:Narendra_Modi#Modi.27s_marriage, and I think that the issue needs to be revisited here before any possible appearance in the article. In addition, your contribution appeared to contain original research in the bit that was not sourced to the magazine. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The source is no idiotic gossip column. Its a well known magazine. And the paragraph I wrote clearly mentions the ambiguity in the issue. Isn't marital status of a person a part of his bio-page? Can you please either state him as a life long bachelor in the personal life section or mention the controversy around the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.39.133 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

International diplomacy

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should we have the recent visit of US Congresspersons mentioned?[10] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Congressmen represent the official government line in the US then perhaps yes as a counterpoint to his earlier problems concerning visas etc; otherwise, no because it would be akin to implying that, for example, the visits of George Galloway (a British political oddball) to various extremist regimes somehow represents the UK government position regarding those regimes. A Congressman from, say, Oregon has no authority regarding either US domestic or foreign policy and is entitled to meet whomever he or she chooses & make whatever press statements he or she wishes. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The visit is not as official as the "visa" decision for sure. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OBC

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

Editors have used this source to write that Narendra Modi is from a other backward class, to be honest I do not have any issue with that but I as far as I know there is a policy that the subject atleast people who are still not dead need to identify themself with some cast and till then we cannot write that X is either a OBC or something else, correct me if I am wrong. If we cannot use this source to write that he is from OBC we also cannot write He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination . I and Sitush were having a discussion on his talk page as he had written he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so. This is perfect if we consider the source but I objected with its placement. I feel this cannot be included in the personal life section, the only other section which I think is suitable is "2012 Elections". However we just cannot pick up this one thing about 2012 election, we may need to cover more about his manifesto and other things.--sarvajna (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of misplacement, "demolition of many illegal Hindu temples" doesn't fit in personality section. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed it, I do feel that it needs to be mentioned somewhere atleast for balance because the biggest sections of this article is about 2012 riots, sometimes I feel that this article need to be re-written. --sarvajna (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It definitely has to stay in the article. But that has nothing do with his personality. Thanks for removing from there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I do wish people would use their noodle. If something is in the wrong place then move it, don't just delete it. If you do the latter then it gives the appearance that you are attempting to censor. Modi is an arch-manipulator - most prominent politicians are - but there is no need for us to join in. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Other Backward Class as Sitush rightly pointed out isn't about caste. Muslims, Jains, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs everyone is included if his community is backward in terms of development. There is another parameter that applies and that is income: No family whose income is above Rs. 4,50000 per year (about USD 700 per month) can have its members claim OBC status. It therefore is ridiculous to make statements like "Modi belongs to the OBC" based on election time news reports that suggest that "Modi's going to bat for the OBCs". I suggest it be taken off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources that I have seen, which include people like Christophe Jaffrelot, say that he is from an OBC family and that the BJP etc have or plan to exploit his OBC connection. I have no idea what Modi earns nor what (if any) financial qualification criteria there may be but politicians appealing deliberately or by inference to their background when seeking votes is a common tactic around the world. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
So are we ok to include it if it is not self identified? --sarvajna (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IMO all that allows us to write is, "Jaffrelot alleges that BJP plans to exploit his OBC connection", that is not the same as painting him with a colour he himself may not associate with. Has he bracketed himself as a OBC as Mundhe or Bhujbal[11] have? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot remember the context in which Jaffrelot refers to it, but "alleges" is always the wrong choice of word when dealing with the output of an academic with considerable subject experience. We would have to say "says". However, the tactic of using the OBC connection came from newspaper reports and interviews. I don;t have time to track them down again right now but if, for example, the tactical comment came from someone senior in Modi's party it would probably merit inclusion. Framing it neutrally is the tricky bit and that is what I was trying to do when the content was deleted (someone else had added it initially and they had put it in the lead section, which was clearly undue). Anyway, I've got enough reading on other stuff to do, so you'll have to dig around yourselves. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
All I know is that Modi has not yet sold himself as an OBC leader, so is anyone claims otherwise the sources have to be more matter of fact than the present ones as far as I am concerned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sitush was using two sources one was this one, no where it says that Modi has identified himself with OBC, yes you may be right about the tactics but that doesn't merit an inclusion in his personal life section saying He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class ..... he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so.--sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
In the Hindustan Times summit of 2007, Modi had claimed that his family did not have a caste. The video is available here (relevant part begins at 6:40). I am translating his reply to a question on "Why politics is based on religion, caste and gender, and not ability?" from Hindi to the best of my ability:

I have been born into a family which has no caste, from which no one has ever participated in politics. I am an exceptional case who does not have a Jāti, Biraderi etc. I have been born into an ordinary rural family and no one in my home is a graduate.

Unless he has explicitly changed his position on this since 2007, IMO we shouldn't mention his caste or even the fact that he is an OBC leader in the section on personal life. That being said, his and BJP's tactics of milking the OBC vote can be mentioned in a separate paragraph/section on electoral strategy. And while opinion pieces, editorial commentary etc. need to be attributed, "alleges" would not be an appropriate substitute for "says". Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is uncontroversial that BJP has been "milking" the OBC vote using Modi, then we need not have "alleges", but we need evidence for that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If your are explicitly attributing a statement to a particular author, like in the Jaffrelot example above, it is absolutely clear that the statement is only the author's opinion/analysis and not a statement of fact. Substituting "says" with "alleges" is unnecessary. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is a negative, minority view, then? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's a minority view then WP:DUE applies. If the author who holds the view has known (read reliably sourced) conflict of interest then that can be mentioned as a descriptor. For instance, Manish Tewari, spokesperson of Congress, said....Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
"Though Modi is from an OBC caste, he is well in tune with the upper caste ethos, largely because of his RSS training. Moreover, he projects himself as an ascetic fully devoted to the cause of the people, a 'Karmayogi', like so many pracharaks. ..." And more about his position as at 2010 here. As I said, I was trying to develop the content when it was removed; as I've also said, removing something completely just because it is in the wrong place borders on being censorship, however well-intentioned. You may find more in this, which I downloaded from JSTOR. I'll try to take a proper look at the issue but no promises. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jaffrelot says Modi belongs to an OBC caste, Modi refuses to identify with any caste per CW's video. Doesn't Modi prevail per Wikipedia rules? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Access not available to the epw article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Well Sitush has said more than once that his content was removed, this is what he had written He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination - he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so (emphasis mine). Sitush was/is one of those person who actually supported self identification of caste but when it comes to the article of Modi, Jaffrelot is enough. Unless I am misreading anything here --sarvajna (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You are. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Here Sarvajna is misreading you, at another place I am the culprit. There may be others too. We need to start a category: Editors who misread Sitush. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Polical stance?

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

It seems completely ridiculous to have a biography of a leading politician without once mentioning his political views or the type of party he is a member of. The page links to the parties and movements that he is affiliated with, but without giving a description of their political stances, and only using their indian names. The average reader has no way to judge form the leade whether he is a moderate, a libertarian, a communist or a Hindu Nationalist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a section of his political views, you are most welcome. That would be very different from what you tried to do. You added undue weightage. What kind of party the BJP is and the political views of L.K Advani can be mentioned in the respective articles. --sarvajna (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not undue weight to mention the stance of a political party that most readers are unlikely to be familiar with, it is in fact a logical necessity if an encyclopedia means to inform their readers. It is completely nonsensical not to mention it - readers come here to understand what kind of a politician he is and what he stands for. The Lead HAS to include his political standpoint and that of the BJP. And the lead has to summarize the article and give a general overview of the topic. Modi is notable for his politics and currently the lead does not describe them at all. The descriptions of the parties that I supplied were sourced and taken directly from the articles on those parties. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not the problem of the source, it is the problem of the weightage, the description of the party will be in the page of that party. People will click that link if they want to know more about the party. As I said you can have a new section called Political Views and put things there if you want to write about Modi's political views. Lead mentions his political affiliations and that is more than enough.--sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No it is not. We have a politician described as controversial with not a single clue as to what is controversial about his politics, or even what they are at all - that is ridiculous.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was checking the article of Margaret Thatcher I do not see the lead mentioning her political views, you can note that it is a good article. --sarvajna (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Try to read it again. The definition is: "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was a British Conservative Party politician." ..."As Prime Minister, she implemented conservative policies that have come to be known as Thatcherism."..."Her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the privatisation of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess you read it wrong, "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was a British Conservative Party politician." It is the name of the party. (In any case I do not see that, all I see in the first line is Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was a British politician, the longest-serving (1979–1990) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of the 20th century, and the only woman to have held the post ) Yes you are right about the second thing. I was wrong, may be we can add the political philosophy of Modi in the lead.However that would not mean writing what kind of party the BJP is, the views of RSS and Advani. Also in your previous edit you gave the translated name in place of the real name, now the article says He has been a member of the National Patriotic Organization (RSS) since childhood, having an interest in politics since adolescence. He holds a master's degree in political science. In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Indian People's Party (BJP) Give the translation in a bracket --sarvajna (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You are very funny Rtnakar. I inserted those bolded phrases myself. Before we had only the Hindi names which are meaningless for most English speaking readers. And we still dont describe what Indian Peoples Partys political platform is, the British Conservative Party has their platform in their name the BJP doesnt.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You did not understand my last concern, there is not party called Indian People's Party even if there is one Modi is not a member of it, ditto about RSS. We need to mention the real names, translation if any should be mentioned in the brackets. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. we do not have the article of BJP titled Indian People's Party. I am sorry to say this is plain common sense. --sarvajna (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Then put the translations in brackets, instead of removing it. Right now the article gives NO INFORMATION about his political standpoints at all for people who don't understand hindi or are already familiar with indian politics. That is not commonsense, but verges on wilfully misleading the reader.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ratnakar. The names of the organizations that the subject of the biography is affiliated with are accurately reflected in their native names. This is an international encyclopedia, which, though written in English, is written with the perspective of accurately reflecting verifiable and reliable sources. For instance, the article on the parliament of Japan is entitled "National Diet", rather than "National Parliament (Japan)". Similarly, the article on Barack Obama does not mention that he is affiliated with the 'left-liberal Democratic Party'. That would be a wide and grossly inaccurate generalization. The term "conservative" has very different meanings in different countries. In the erstwhile Soviet Union, it would be a reference to communist ideas, and in the United States it refers to an ideology completely opposed to communism.

Also, please stop bullying other users with aggressive comments on the talk page. Wikipedia appreciates constructive and respectful engagement with other members of the community. They are all volunteers who are putting in their valuable free time in the service of Wikipedia (as I hope you are), and showing some basic courtesy will go a long way in your effort to improve this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

such as your very respectful and courteous reversion of a goodfaith edit using twinkle and without adding an editsummary, and your subsequent very respectful comment on my talkpage requiring me to discuss every edit on the talkpage before I am allowed to edit? If that is your idea of respectful dialogue then I think I am able to play that game.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/business/global/09modi.html
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14971095
  3. ^ Wharton management deliberating on allowing Modi to speak : The American Bazaar
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_3&oldid=1137035000"