Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Regarding this edit relating to pogrom

I'm a tad confused by User:Jyoti.mickey's edit here. He seems to be making the wording vague, rather than actually changing the content. I don't really care what the wording is as long as it is clear and concise. It strikes me that "criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence" is not particularly clear b/c I doesn't really explain what Modi is getting criticised for. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this message before my recent edit. The "pogrom" thing appeared in the last couple of days, Jyoti thought it was a bit strong and seems to have attempted to water it down. I've no particularl opinion about the wording except that it took us many weeks to come to some sort of agreement regarding the current wording in the lead and for that reason any substantive changes to it should be discussed first. Thus, in my edit I reinstated the paragraph as it was prior to the introduction of "wilful", "pogrom" etc, People need to accept that we're never going to have a lead section that pleases us all: the best we can hope for is one with which we can all live. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - re "the best we can hope for is one with which we can all live" - Ah yes. I've been in that kind of situation before ;-)

It seems to me, however, that the compromise wording arrived at is so vague and watered down that it's essentially meaningless and unhelpful for readers.

Can we think of a way to make it clearer? NickCT (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was quite strong and I reverted it to the last version, the same thing that Sitush did eventually. IMHO the incident cannot be addressed as pogrom unchallenged/unanimously and the title of the referenced article lends a phrase readily. I suppose if we put the 'wilful', 'pogrom' view in BLP in lead we may have to again consider giving his pov and SIT report also? Just a thought, I am not dead sure about it! Jyoti (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with pogrom? It is widly percieved as a pogrom, as attested to by multpile academic sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said it is wrong so I won't counter you on that! :-) My point is won't the pov of sources which would rather not call it so also have to be presented then? --Jyoti (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you have one which says it was not a pogrom. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some sources refer to it as a pogrom. That said, others do not and it is an emotive word in its common usage. It can be avoided simply by using the linked article's title.

@NickCT:, I'm sure that the lead can be improved, as per my comment in the RfC above, but I'd disagree that what we have is essentially meaningless and unhelpful. It is a disappointing lowest common denominator but not completely lacking in function. I'm not sure that now is the time to improve it because faffing around with the thing while an election campaign is going on is asking for trouble, especially given the history of this article even in less tumultuous real-life situations. I'm absolutely certain that I'm not the person to do it, when ever it happens: I always find someone else to kickstart the leads when I've written GAs etc because I find them awkward even for non-controversial topics. FWIW, this article may well be featuring in The Times of India soon - they've contacted me and I'm sure that they will have contacted others also: we're not driven by the opinion of a newspaper etc but any mention of it in a newspaper is likely to drive more viewers to it and more attempts to edit it, semi-protected or not. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jyoti, Darkness Shines - regarding the use of the word "pogrom" - Whether the word "pogrom" is used or not, strikes me as a slightly academic point. After glancing at the sources, it seems like the most common name for this incident was the "2002 Gujarat riots". I'm not sure how the article actually got name 2002 Gujarat violence is a little beyond me.

@Jyoti, Sitush - So how do you feel about the following potential wordings -

1)He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. Among other criticisms, his administration has frequently been accused of having willfully failed to act to prevent the anti-Muslim violence which took place during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

2)He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. Among other criticisms, his administration has frequently been accused of having failed to act to prevent the anti-Muslim violence which took place during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

3)He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. Among other criticism, his administration has been accused of not having acted to prevent the anti-Muslim violence which took place during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

If you do feel there are issues with these wordings, please let me know. I want to push on this because the current wording (i.e. "his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence.") seems terribly vague, an unbecoming of an article of this importance. It might not be "completely lacking in function", but it's pretty darn close. NickCT (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's probably called the broader "2002 Gujarat violence" because it includes the train burning (which wasn't a riot).—indopug (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

But the train burning is a separate incident from the riots, right? The train burning has it's own article (see Godhra train burning). I don't when we're saying "his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence." we're trying to say that Modi is being blamed for the train burning. He's being blamed for the subsequent riots. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Any of the above are fine with me. (1) seems to represent the sources most accurately (the commonly used phrase is complicity) but the others are acceptable, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi NickCT. I think you do have a point here, in my opinion you may put whichever of the three goes unopposed by others too (I can express only my pov). Besides, I have decided to stay off election`ing BLP pages for good! :-) Jyoti (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. Nick, it seems that you don't understand what you are reading. That is not because what you are reading is wrong but because you are separating issues that are in connected in reality. For example, the "burning" was followed by "riots" but one aspect of the "burning" was the removal of the bodies, which itself was an act that has been alleged to have caused riots. The involvement of Modi in the entire handling of the issues has at various times been questioned. There is no vagueness in the lead, only in your head: you're misunderstanding the lead almost out of choice, not necessity - probably because you have only been "glancing" at the cited sources and you've also not spent weeks looking at all the other sources that are available, many of which have been discussed here in the past. If there are problems with how the various other articles treat this then go fix those articles. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - Thanks for weighing in. I think we'll test consensus on this one. @User:Jyoti.mickey - You shouldn't "stay off" election'ing BLPs! Expressing your POV is helpful Jyoti. NickCT (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong place and the wrong time to test consensus. There is already an open RfC regarding something in the lead and in recent months practically every sentence of it has been "tested". You'll almost certainly need to create another for this but I do urge you to actually read about the subject before doing so because you seem to be misunderstanding things.

Our articles summarise/paraphrase sources and in the case of controversial subjects such as this that process often involves examining numerous sources that we do not actually cite. You'll see a lot of that in the talk page archives over the last year and, really, I don't think we need to rehash the debate every few weeks just because someone new to the thing takes an interest. Talk archives are there for a reason. There are so many sources over the last decade or so and practically nothing new is turning up now; that will likely only change if there are further developments in the legal ramifications from the 2002 events. If you want it simple, contribute to Simple Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - re "simple english" - lol. Man. You're funny. Mind if I call you Tushy?

Thanks again for the feedback. Re "rehash the debate every few weeks" - Other editors seem content to comment on the wording I've suggested. The only thing you seem to be able to offer is "Let's not talk about this". Unfortunately, "Let's not talk about this" will not suffice. Here are your two options, 1) constructively discuss the proposed rewordings, and see if we can jointly come to some consensus on a good version, 2) complain while consensus on this topic is measured and some solution is arrived at without you.

Is there a reason you are so defensive about the current wording? NickCT (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a bloody good reason why he is defensive about the wording; because he has spent ages trying to defend the article from the attacks of the Saffron cohorts as well as the radical fringe on the left. Every few weeks, a new editor thinks they have spotted something all the rest have missed, and try to change it. This is not to say the article is perfect, or even good; but if all these greenhorns were to read the archives first, everybody's lives would be a lot easier. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - Which "greenhorns" exactly? If you feel support for the current wording has been substantially demonstrated in a previous discussion, please link to that discussion. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of people call me Tushy. I'm not yet seeing any others editors commenting on the proposals other than the person that was already involved prior to you inserting yourself into the discussion. When you prove that you actually know what your are talking about regarding the matter at hand, I'll consider any proposal you make about it. right now, you know very little and you seem not to have read the voluminous past discussions about all of these issues.`You've come here with what seems to be an agenda to change the lead but it looks as if you haven't even read the bloody article. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - You don't see the "Any of the above are fine with me." and "in my opinion you may put whichever of the three goes unopposed" comments above? Did you ever see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?

re "prove that you actually know what your are talking about" - That's the wonderful thing about WP. I don't need to prove anything to you.

re "You've come here with what seems to be an agenda" - I have an agenda? I'm an uninvolved editor who happened to glance at some wording on a random article. My only agenda is to make things clear and concise. You on the other hand seem to have been on this page for a long time, and have a history of editing politically contentious India related articles. Who has the agenda exactly? NickCT (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just got home and had forgotten Vanamonde's comment. No, my main interest is caste articles and stuff relating to the British Raj, not political ones. Clearly, I am something else that you know little about.

That's the problem with people who jump into contentious stuff with bugger-all knowledge. The lead is supported by sources in the article body, while your proposals are not (mainly I think, because you know nowt). The lead and the article body have been discussed extensively over many months - you've just got to spend a couple of days reading the archives because those discussions meander over such a long period and so many threads.

I am not averse to seeing changes in the lead. In the RfC I've actually said as much: I think it skimps on stuff. What I am averse to is people proposing clueless changes at a particularly awkward time, especially since the lead has been settled for a while. Please also note that my involvement in past discussions about the lead was not that great: I was perfectly content to leave it to others who are better at that sort of thing, some of whom are on wikibreaks at the moment. Things can't stand still forever, sure, but you're not dealing with the output of idiots here. What has been achieved thus far has been a long, hard struggle and no-one is going to waltz in and get in changed without another long, hard struggle. My part in that struggle in so far as it related to the lead was actually pretty minimal. Working on India-related material is tough; working on politics-related stuff is tough: here, you've got a situation that conflates the two. I think you underestimate the enormity of the task because you've blinded yourself to what has gone on before. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is messy enough without anybody getting personal, leave off, for goodness sake. Sit, I don't see the harm in discussing it, because there are enough of us here to hold back any sudden radical changes. In this case, unlike above, Nick actually appears to have a point, and the change is not going to shift the POV very much. Why don't you comment on the wording? @ NickCT; you're being rather obtuse. The basic point both of us are making, is that users attempt to make changes without reading past discussion, and that this is very tiresome for regular editors of the page. Don't nitpick my wording to avoid that point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already addressed his phrasing: none of his proposals are actually any better at explaining the issue and some actually are worse because he misunderstands the relationship between the burning and the riots. It's not my fault if he keeps banging on about it without reading the necessary. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you there, he isn't mentioning the train burning at all, the addition is about what the criticism is for....Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Vanamonde93 - re "is that users attempt to make changes without reading past discussion," - Oh, I get your point. Do you get mine? Answering "read previous discussions", is not a sufficient answer to "Is this proposal ok?"

re "anybody getting personal, leave off, for goodness sake" - Yeah. I don't know why User:Sitush is getting so personal. He clearly feels very passionately about this. We should try to keep it WP:CIVIL.

re " he isn't mentioning the train burning at all" - Thank you.

@User:Sitush - re "No, my main interest is caste articles and stuff relating to the British Raj," - You're unbelievable. So, let's get this right. You've 1) been editting this article for years, but somehow consider yourself an uninvolved and neutral editor, 2) you edit article on the caste system and the British Rag but you don't think you edit articles which are potentially politically contentious?? Really??? Realy?

re "while your proposals are not " - I don't understand this. I'm not changing substantively changing the content of what's there. I'm simply rewording. Can you be specific about what you feel it is in my rewordings that would no longer be support by the references?

re "misunderstands the relationship between the burning and the riots" - The burning and the riots are related but seperate incidents. That's why we have an article for the riots (i.e 2002 Gujarat violence) and an article for the burning (i.e. Godhra train burning). Related but distinct events. None of the sources blame Modi for the Godhra train burning. They do blame him for the riots. You're having trouble seperating these two incidents in your mind. NickCT (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I SAID quit getting personal. Sitush never said he was uninvolved; he said he tried to keep the article neutral, which is what most decent editors try to do. Stick to the content. I agree that "read previous discussions", is not a sufficient answer, but neither of us ever claimed it was. We are saying it a prerequisite for discussion. By your somewhat acid tone, I am assuming you have now done so, and you can now understand where Sit is coming from. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm in a rush, sorry. Here's a crashc ourse - an op-ed that uses the "pogrom" word and validly demonstrate the this stuff is not merely post-burning. A member of the Hindutva RSS since the age of 8, propelled into the BJP, which is often (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) perceived as the political wing of the RSS - the man the inflammatory even before 2002 and there have been accusations regarding that aspect of his character since before the burning. He's certainly modified his public image since, mainly by placing a greater emphasis on economic issues, but there are good reason why the controversy will not die. It is because of the history that we cannot limit it to the post-burning riots. Things need to change but your proposals don't do it justice. Sure, we shouldn't use op-eds as sources but I guarantee you that the stuff said in this one regarding the "controversy" is reflected in other sources and in our past discussions. There is no point in tinkering with the lead and there is no way that we're going to get a decent debate restarted about the controversy while the elections are in progress: too many vested interests. Go to go - see you all tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - I'm really trying to understand your point here. You seem to be arguing that the 2002 Gujarat violence does not just refer to "the post-burning riots", and hence rewording to "the anti-Muslim violence which took place during the 2002 Gujarat riots" would be changing the meaning of the lead. Is that accurate?

Looking at the sentence "his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence."; can you, in a specific, clear and concise way point to what you think his administration has been criticised in addition to the "post-burning riots"? NickCT (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I am the major contributor. I first edited in mid-2012. That obscures the fact that most of my edits have been pretty trivial stuff, as exemplified in most of my edits since around the time that you turned up here. Fixing spellings, grammar, citation formats, twiddling with phrasing etc. There isn't an awful lot in it that, for example, compares to the substantive work of other people such as Darkness Shines. In substantive terms, most of my contributions have actually been in discussions on this page, not edits to the article. But you'd know that if you had read the discussions and actually looked at what I've done on the article. It is not my fault if you cannot do the research, either regarding myself or the subject matter.

1. All three of your proposals omit the human development issue, wrapping it up in "Among other criticisms" and also ignoring the balancing statement about the Gurajat Miracle. I know you want rid, but you're not doing it by the back door like this.
2. Neither he nor his administration have been accused of failing to act per se. They've been accused of not doing enough and failing to act in specific instances.
3. It isn't just that he/the administration didn't do certain things but that they *did* do certain things, eg: fomenting the pre-2002 atmosphere, moving the corpses as they did. Also, while no-one seems to agree whether the burning was deliberate or not, I vaguely recall sources that suggested the Muslims reacted to that fomenting by attacking the kar sevaks.
4. "Willfully" (sic) is redundant: it it was not deliberate then there is no valid accusation and it would be hard to justify inclusion in the article at all. The accusers claim that it was deliberate.
5. "Frequently" barely does the scope of criticism/accusations justice. They led to him being denied travel rights in Europe and the US for many years, for example (those privileges have recently been reinstated on diplomatic grounds: likely PM candidate, UK does a lot of business with Guajarat and Gujaratis form one of the populations of Indians in the UK). Actually, I think the UK government said that they form the largest such population but I'd need to check that.
6. He has been accused personally, not merely in a corporate sense. That the various investigations have not found him to be culpable has not stopped the accusations, which continue to this day and come from a wide range of reliable sources/notable people. Are you aware of how corrupt the politics are in India?
7. He has been accused of more than failing to act during the riots: the arguments include that his actions caused some of the riots.
8. All this and more cannot reasonably be dealt with while the campaign is going on - best to keep it bland for now.

Will that do you for now? I probably could say more but hopefully you can appreciate that you are not dealing with an idiot here. I've supported inclusion and removal of things that might be perceived as detrimental to Modi and favourable to him. I really do have no axe to grind. I've been accuxsed of being pro-BJP, pro-INC, pro-AAP, pro-Hindu, pro-Muslim, pro-this caste, pro-that caste, pro-India and pro-Pakistan - you name it, I've been accused of it. That is an almost-classic practical demonstration of neutrality and that WP:AN/S is tolerated might give you an idea of just how fed up some people are that I keep getting dragged in front of ANI etc on spurious grounds. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

re "I know you want rid, but you're not doing it by the back door like this." - This comment doesn't make sense. The "human development" thing is in a seperate line in the lead. To be clear, I'm only talking about replacing the sections beginning with "He is a controversial figure both" and ending with "surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence."

re "of failing to act per se" - What is the difference between "failing to act" and "failing to act in specific instances"!?! That seems like you're really picking at hairs. Whatever subtly is there is not going to be appreciated by readers.

re " administration didn't do certain things but that they *did*" - Ok. It seems like you're hung up on the "failed to act" language. Can we just find an alternative? How about "failed to prevent".

re ""Willfully" (sic) is redundant: it it " - We don't need to include "wilfully". You'll not that not all of my proposals included that word.

re "Frequently" - Ok. So remove frequently. We don't need that qualifier.

re "He has been accused personally" - Ok. So change the language to "he and his administration" or something. Is that better?

re " that his actions caused some of the riots." - Ok. Again, it seems we can capture that by changing the language slightly.

re "corrupt the politics are in India" - Somewhat. I have a couple friends who do some NGO work which focuses on corruption in India.

re "best to keep it bland for now." - It's NOT bland. It is vague to the point of being meaningless.

re "you are not dealing with an idiot here." - I never suggested this was the case. You did however.

re "axe to grind .... I've been accused of it." - I'm not accussing you of grinding an axe. I'm accussing you of support vague and unreadable text.

re "Will that do you for now?" - Relly Sitush. ALL of your objection seem like minor objections to particular language. It would really be helpful, instead of just sayin "we can't change during the election", you were to say, "I don't like the word "frequently" or the term "failed to act"". That's how positive collaboration works. NickCT (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You've still not read the article or sources, have you? No-one has claimed that he or his administration did nothing at all to prevent the violence: they were not complete bystanders, everywhere. The only reason the existing statements are vague to the point of being meaningless is because you're clueless about the subject matter and, indeed, what we actually say in the body and have discussed at great length. There isn't much I can do about that - it requires self-help. By the time we've incorporated all the modifications - removal of "wilfully", "frequently" etc, we'll be right back with the original statement, except for noting that the accusations are about him and his administration, not just the administration. I'm not going to be browbeaten by your opinion that the statement is vague when, in fact, you simply do not understand. Some competence is required. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush - I'm not sure you're really in position to comment on anyone else's competence.

re "meaningless is because you're clueless" - The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information to people who are clueless about a topic. If your argument is that people fail to understand some particular wording because they don't understand the topic, it's a bad argument.

You seem to have become a little emotionally distraught at this point. I think we'd best just seek opinions from others at this point. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm competent alright and I know an incompetent contributor when I see one. There will be hundreds of people who'll support that. You've demonstrated further incompetence by totally misunderstanding how Wikipedia works: a degree of competence is required, otherwise it is the blind leading the blind. You lack competence in this subject because you lack knowledge and seem to be unprepared to acquire it. I don't know where you have been editing before but you might be better off going back there unless you are prepared to do some reading, otherwise you are just creating a tuimesink here. In fact, you already have done. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you both take it down a couple of notches, please? To bring some sort of closure to this, I suggest the following, building on Nick's proposals above:

"He is a controversial figure both within India and Internationally. Among other criticisms, he and his administration have been accused of condoning, and of complicity in, the anti-Muslim violence that took place during the Gujarat riots of 2002."

I agree this is far from perfect; but it perhaps is less vague than the current version, and is based of of the sources from the article that I re-read. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That is better than the earlier crap. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 - re "I suggest the following, building on Nick's proposals above" - Thank you Vanamonde. I appreciate that you're trying to be constructive here. I will seek to follow your good example.

I'm good with your proposed wording. I really like your use of the word "condoning". It strikes me that that might be the right verbiage. Not sure I like "and of complicity in" for two reasons, 1) the language seems clunky, 2) I'm curious as to whether we can really find good RS which explicitly support the idea that Modi was actively complicit in the riots. That doesn't match my (albeit uninformed) understanding of the event, and it also strikes me as a much more serious charge that might raise WP:BLP flags.

@Sitush - Way to respond constructively buddy. If we can just remove "and complicity in" we'll have reached complete consensus. Then we can work together to make sure the lede is stable in future. NickCT (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the bit between the commas is clunky, but the concept of complicity needs to be mentioned, because it is very central in what the sources say. I think Sitush agrees with this, so we need to come up with a better way of saying it. I believe the BLP issue is taken care of in two ways; first, we are using a very large number of very good sources (Jaffrelot, Nussbaum, Brass, etc, etc), and second, we are only saying "has been accused of." How about this: "He is a controversial figure both within India and Internationally. Among other criticisms, he and his administration have been accused of condoning the 2002 Gujarat violence, as well as of complicity in the anti-Muslim violence that took place then." This is wordier, but perhaps clearer. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: - re "because it is very central in what the sources say." - Not that I doubt you here, but could provide a couple citations for this (i.e. citations that say Modi actively conspired to cause the riots)? I'd be interested to read them. re "we are only saying "has been accused of."" - That's reasonable. As long as he was "accused" by mainstream authoritative sources and not by fringe elements. "wordier, but perhaps clearer." - Yes. Wordier, but clearer. We're getting there. NickCT (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want sources I can get you a ton; here are some. Not all are from this article, but that is not necessary, those that are in the article cover every point.

These are just for starters. A search through any academic database, or even google scholar, will find several more. And this is not even looking at the newspapers and NGO reports, which of course we don't want to do for a BLP. Do you have further changes to propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I said your version is better than the three given by NickCT; I didn't agree to changing anything. Nick's versions, after amendments per my criticisms, would have more or less meant no change at all anyway & thus what a waste of time this has been. FWIW, the various investigations and criticisms etc have centred on specific events - I don't think they've suggested that all of the violent events were condoned etc. For the uninformed, U.P. has experienced communal violence for decades and, as the body of the article says, Modi/his administration did not idly sit by while it happened at this time. I'm wary of using the new proposal.

I'm not prepared to see anything change here without at least attempting to get input from those who were involved in similar past discussions, perhaps by pinging them. Especially since at least one of those currently involved now acknowledges that they are uninformed and yet has contributed about 50 per cent of this thread. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That is fine by me, I am not in a flaming hurry; I know you're referring to DS and Maunus for sure, would you mind pinging any others you know of? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Sit here. I see no need to change the wording at all. 17:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't referring to DS or Maunus and I've no idea why you'd think that I was. The list of past participants in the wording includes Yogesh Khandke, Zeeyanwiki, Rangilo Gujarati, Sarvajna, Redtigerxyz, Aurorion, AshLin, AroundTheGlobe, Kondicherry, Pectore, The Discoverer, RegentsPark and Gmbcsmb - that is just from two of the many threads in the last nine months or so and they are just the non-anons, one-time SPAs etc. Like I said, it has been discussed extensively. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought that because they had participated in discussions about the wording of the lead that I had also been involved in and you had, too, but that is unimportant. The point is, would it be worth pinging them all? You and DS are saying no. At this point I don't know how much more stamina I have for a long discussion either. NickCT, what do you think? Also Sitush, I don't quite understand your reference to UP up above...what does Modi have to do with Uttar Pradesh? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

UP was a typo, sorry. I'd been reading up on some stuff relating to that. Ian Jack wrote an interesting op-ed in The Guardian yesterday (see here) that says, inter alia, "accusations grew that Modi's government hadn't tried hard enough to restrain the rioters; it might even have encouraged them". That tallies with my understanding. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That is more or less my understanding as well; a source I have found helpful is this, which is not RS for the purposes of the article, but essentially summarizes the views of Paul Brass whose books we have used on related articles. If you attempted to summarize his views in one sentence, he would be accusing the entire government, Modi included, of complicity. Naturally, things are a tad bit more complicated than that, but we are limited by length; so what do you suggest? I am not in the least hung up on my wording; but I do feel that the current version doesn't mention either the nature of the criticism or the nature of the incidents, and so we could improve it slightly without having a wiki-war on our hands. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the complete nature of the incident can be explained in the lead, he might have been accused by numerous people but lets not forget that the investigations and the court have said that he is innocent. So why just highlight the accusations? I feel there is a lot of work that can be done in the body. Lead is just a summary anyway. -sarvajna (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey All, sorry for the delay in getting back. Here's what I see as the "current" iterations-

1)"He is a controversial figure both within India and Internationally. Among other criticisms, he and his administration have been accused of condoning, and of complicity in, the anti-Muslim violence that took place during the Gujarat riots of 2002."

2)"He is a controversial figure both within India and Internationally. Among other criticisms, he and his administration have been accused of condoning the anti-Muslim violence that took place during the Gujarat riots of 2002."

I'm still for pretty strongly for option 2, and I do feel that either of these options are considerably clearer than what we currently have. @Vanamonde93: - re "If you want sources I can get you a ton; here are some." - I'm having trouble seeing those links. Could you possibly resend? I still think we need really really good references if we want to include the ", and of complicity in," language. @Sitush: - re "The list of past participants in the wording includes Yogesh Khandke, Zeeyanwiki, Rangilo Gujarati, Sarvajna, Redtigerxyz, Aurorion, AshLin, AroundTheGlobe, Kondicherry, Pectore" - Great. We can include all those folks in and RfC or straw poll. NickCT (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: Yeah I might have goofed with those links, because there is no reflist template at the bottom as there would be in an article.

• Buncombe, Andrew (19 September 2011). "A rebirth dogged by controversy". The Independent. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe (July 2003). "Communal Riots in Gujarat: The State at Risk?" (PDF). Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics: 16. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
• Chris Ogden. 2012. A Lasting Legacy: The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance and India's Politics Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 42, Iss. 1, 2012
• Nussbaum, Martha C. (2009). Values and Violence: Intangible Aspects of Terrorism. Springer. p. 81. ISBN 978-90-481-3404-5.
• Ghassem-Fachand, Parvis (2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India (PDF). Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-15177-9.
• Pandey, Gyanendra (November 2005). Routine violence: nations, fragments, histories. Stanford University Press. pp. 187–188. ISBN 978-0-8047-5264-0.

Hopefully that works, formatting is not my strong point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: - Ok. Thanks. Give me a little time to work through these.

I've started on the independent piece. The only thing I can see which supports the idea that Modi actively participated (or was accused of having actively participated) in the event was " stands accused of failing to stop (and even of facilitating) the murder". It strikes me that use of parenthesis here is the author trying to note that the "faciliting" accusation is less substantial than the "failing to stop" allegation. Do you agree with that interpretation? If so, do you feel there are other sections of this article which support the idea that Modi played an active role in the event? NickCT (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that interpretation, no; I believe it means that fewer people have made the second accusation, which is not quite the same thing as being less substantial. I am aware of this difference, and I attempted to reflect it in my suggested text, but if it fell short we can try to make that more explicit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Hmmmm... It strikes me that if 1,000 people make accusation X and 2 people make accusation Y, then X is the more substantial accusation. But we're probably debating semantics here. Regardless, I think you hit the mark with your "if it fell short we can try to make that more explicit.". I do think it fell short. I'd feel more comfortable if the wording made it clear "that fewer people have made the second accusation". NickCT (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope the pair of you are enjoying your discussion because no-one else of late seems to be interested in making changes of the sort that you propose. In other words, you seem to be wasting your time. You can be as "comfortable" as you wish but nothing seems likely to cause a change in the consensus: the very fact that the pair of you are engaging in subjective semantics indicates the degree of pettiness, If you do end up proposing something via RfC I will almost certainly be questioning your competence, especially that of NickCT because he still doesn't seem to understand the subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I had come to a similar conclusion, which is why I had dropped the issue. Leave off the accusations of incompetence; I began editing this page only after spending a long time with the literature. There is a genuine problem there, and if our solutions were far from adequate, I didn't see anybody else suggesting anything. Regardless, I think this thread can be closed now. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Why is someone changing all the {{cite news}} to {{cite web}} and linking the names of all the publishers etc. It is bloody trivial and making it harder to track substantive changes. As the documentation for {{cite news}} makes clear, that template is for online news articles. I'm going to revert them all. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that it would be harmful. I've always used cite web and publisher as standard. You can leave me to reverse them if you want. Cowlibob (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it and I don't think it was just you. I've fixed a bunch of the things but have probably not caught them all. {{cite news}} is fine for online news media; "work" is used rather than "publisher" and "location" is not used for datelines (place of filing a story) but rather for location of the publisher. some of these issues have recently been re-examined at the talk page for CS1 citations but the outcome remains as it was before the re-examination, ie: status quo.

While linking the publisher is optional, in a large current affairs article like this it just adds overhead. We end up with a lot of overlinking that serves no useful purpose and generates a host of notifications for the creator of the linked article, letting them know the article was linked from this one. Italicising the names is also unnecessary: the templates apply the required italics, boldings etc as appropriate.

I'm nitpicking, I know, but it pisses me off sometimes when WP:CITEVAR is ignored and people just fiddle around, back and forth. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Hello all. From the article history, I know this is a controversial article so will try to be as fair as possible in what improvements I think could be done for the article. I'll be candid in that I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty of this article but will give the layperson's view on it so feel free to clarify things I may have misunderstood.

For the lead in: no need to specify the number of days in office, it's repeated in its own section later on just the fact he's longest-serving seems ok, give some context to the RSS membership perhaps include a summary of his early life and participation in the organisation from childhood. "The Hindu Nationalist" statement seems disingenous as what the media and scholars mean by that statement is different from what he said in the interview cited.

"He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally as his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence." How about "He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally as his administration has been criticised for their conduct after the Godhra train burning and the violence that followed." That seems fairer.

For the early life section: "itinerant" not a common everyday word maybe a wiki link or just change to nomadic. Possible rewording of 2nd paragraph of this section: "Modi's parents arranged his marriage as a child, in keeping with the traditions of the Ghanchi caste. He was engaged at the age of 13 to Jashodaben Chimanlal and the couple were married by the time he was 18. They spent very little time together and according to Modi's biographer Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, the marriage was never consummated. They were soon estranged when Modi decided to pursue a nomadic life. This marriage was only publicly recognised by Modi when filling in his nomination form for the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections having remained silent on the question of marriage in four previous election campaigns, and having claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt."

For early political career section, I was very confused by the 2nd paragraph. From first glance, in November 1995 he's promoted to National Secretary of BJP then again to General Secretary of BJP in May 1998. Then later in 1998 he's promoted to National Secretary again!? After looking at the sources cited I think the story is: "November 1995 he's promoted or rather shifted to become one of the National Secretaries of BJP(in charge of Haryana, Himachal etc.) ostensibly to make him leave Gujarat as he had irked Patel, the chief minister of that time. He however builds a powerbase and is promoted to a General Secretary/National Organising Secretary in BJP in May 1998". From this position he repairs divisions in the party by selecting Patel favouring people as specified in the paragraph. Here is the official BJP site which lists multiple general secretaries then multiple national secretaries with clear prominence given to general over national. http://www.bjp.org/organisation/office-bearers Thanks for reading. I look forward to constructive replies and hope that I'm being helpful. Cowlibob (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

All three of these have been discussed recently, In fact, the "controversial" one is still an active discussion above, although it seems unlikely to result in any changes because at least one of the major participants is approaching the issue arse over tip, trying to cause change before understanding the subject.

The issue of his Secretarial roles clearly still needs work but the tone of your proposal seems very loose. He was parachuted into the BJP by the RSS, according to some sources that surely are still in the article.

The consummation claim has been made by many more people than just one of his many biographers, eg: his brother has said it.

"Itinerant" is a perfectly common word, although I suspect "peripatetic" might be a better one because itinerant has associations with what are called "tramps" in the UK and (I think) "hobos" in the US. Whether these are synonymous with "nomadic" probably depends on context - I'm not fussed which is used and the reality is that no-one really knows what he was doing at the time because he has pretty much refused to comment on it, just as he did wrt his marriage until recently. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely my suggestion fixes that as it makes it less vague but I can understand that we can leave it until people have calmed down. I appreciate your efforts in this. Did you have a problem with clarifying the Hindu Nationalist statement and putting more stuff about his early life before the RSS membership in the lead?

I didn't mean for it to be taken word for word. Just pointing out what's confusing about it and providing a barebones framework of (National Secretary in 1995 --> General Secretary in 1998 --> actions as General Secretary) for someone more knowledgeable to put it right. Clearly, what I've written is too tabloid to be put in a wiki.

I was going by the article as it stands where it only states the biographer said it wasn't consummated with no other sources. Was there anything else wrong with rewording? I think it leads better to the next paragraph.

Whichever word is used, I'd like it to be wikilinked at the very at least for clarity. Cowlibob (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh.. Cowlibob please read this once. Thank you. Jim Carter ^(talk) 16:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Message received. I'll try to be more succinct in future.Cowlibob (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hindu Nationalist statement is disingenuous in my opinion. That said, I'm not sure that you'll get consensus to change it - I think it was part of the general massive discussions about the lead some months ago. The problem is, Modi was deliberately deflecting the accusation in the interview, as politicians often do: he has sort of brought this problem on himself when he could so much more easily have just said "No, I'm not a supporter of Hindutva but ..." Of course, he couldn't do that because he is a supporter of Hindutva. I'll have a think about the other stuff - got to go out shortly. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of days in office seems to be excessive detail for the lead, as you say. Again, I'm not sure that you'll get consensus to change even that! Returning to the consummation point, I actually think it is trivial and potentially unnecessarily offensive in a BLP: if Modi had said it himself then just maybe there would be a justification for inclusion but, to the best of my knowledge, it is only other people who have said it. I think I'm right in saying that non-consummation is a ground for nullification of marriage in some legal and religious systems but there seems to be no suggestion that the marriage has been annulled and so its only purpose here is some weird form of titillation. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the consummation point isn't needed.Cowlibob (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Election result prediction

I have removed that part from the article. That section was poor advertisement. Plus, some of those news media are "sold/biased" too. --Tito☸Dutta 16:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not predicting the result it says instead that "opinion polls conducted by news agencies and magazines in May 2013, Narendra Modi was declared the most popular choice for Prime Minister" (emphasis added). That is not saying he will become, it is saying the polls indicated those who partook want to seem hima s PMLihaas (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, trivia. You and I have had this discussion before, I think in relation to Aam Aadmi Party or some such. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is really great. Anything favorable to Modi is "poor advertisement". But anything critizing him is absolutely neutral, unbiased. News media are sold out as per some user above. Wasn't it sold out since 2002 when it was critizing Modi. And any proof or source that media is sold out?? Removing this article is blatant partisan117.207.198.99 (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Electrification

The weight given in this section to one Business Standard article is ridiculous. I have rewritten the paragraph, trimming that content, and adding stuff about the extent of electrification (since that is one of Modi's biggest claims to fame. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If you are referring to something that was just added then there was no consensus for the addition, so just remove it ad stick the diff here for consideration. If you are referring to something that has been around for a while then you have no consensus to support your view that the content was "ridiculous". You'll have to start a discussion and wait for a reasonable length of time, which in the case of an article such as this probably means at least a week. - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

Enough people know that this is an article about a controversial subject and that there is an election campaign underway. Now, more than ever before, changes to content really do need to be discussed first and then implemented if consensus is in favour of the change. Minor spelling, grammar, referencing issues are obviously exempt from such a requirement but, honestly, the amount of battling and tit-for-tat removals etc over the last 24 hours or so has been crazy. It's fine being bold but it gets silly in a situation like this, where the article has had a long history of content disputes and people have worked hard to attempt settlements.

For this reason, I've just reverted all of the recent back-and-forth. Feel free to reinstate the minor stuff - the "wikignoming" - but for anything else I would appreciate it if the issues were raised here first. Why do you think that, for example, I didn't remove the "consummation" statement even though I disagree with its inclusion? You'll see a thread about that above, if anyone has actually being paying attention. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I agree with you in principle, but the tit-for-tatting (which I was a participant in) was in only one section, and we appear to have reached consensus there. The other change I've already explained here, and several editors CEd my addition, indicating agreement with it....would you mind self-reverting, and only re-instating the removal that was contentious (namely the one about support/opposition to his candidacy)? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you'd rather not waste time picking over specific edits, I can do it, and you can double check. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give me a section link on this talk page that shows a discussion where consensus was achieved for the issue in question. I've no idea what CEd may mean but it counts for nothing: you've only got to look at the archives of this page to see how much discussion has gone on in the past and there is no need to play fast and loose with the policies now.

Like I said, some of your wikignoming was fine but I can't pick my way through the good and the bad. If you're changing content - even a couple of words - then you'll need to discuss. That's just the way it is when you get a very awkward article - being bold does not mean being reckless, and you don't achieve consensus by edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

CEd stands for Copy-Edited. Are you saying that If I revert you and re-instate the grammar edits, you will have no objections? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will object if you add/remove anything that is not clearly gnoming. There has been a lot more than just grammar corrections and I want to see the consensus that you allege for, say, this, this (which appears to be synthesis) and this (good style is always to explain the person's expertise). There are others, of course. I've not even bothered trying to spot whether you changed the electrification thing as you describe in the preceding section, but you have no consensus for that if you did it. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What you describe as synthesis was not me. Explaining an author's background might be "good style" but we don't do it anywhere else; Jaffrelot is a "political scientist," Sen, Panagariya and co are "economists," and so on. So I changed her title to "author." Finally, I changed the electrification thing as per WP:BRD, so if you're reverting it, then you should bloody well read it, which you say you have not done! Anyhow, I am going to reinstate the grammatical changes, which will involve a revert, so for heaven's sake wait until I finish that before doing anything. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was all you but if you are unable to see the distinction then you should not be contributing to the thing at all. You should know better than to deploy BRD when an article is as controversial as this.

I left it for six hours. Your reinstatement of "grammatical changes" did much more, eg: the article mentioned something about 12.9 per cent and that no longer appears; it didn't mention Bhagwati, who does now appear; it had some sources that appear now to have been removed; it didn't have some sources that appear now to have been added (at least one of those looks to be a replacement for an existing source). I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence of consensus that you say existed for such substantive changes. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, I had made more than 20 grammatical edits, and maybe 4 content changes. So, rather than reinstate 20 edits individually, I reverted your edit, and then removed my content changes in a subsequent edit. If you look at the most recent diff, you will see that I did exactly like I said I would. In your haste to safeguard NPOV, please don't assume I'm indulging in blatant double talk; I am not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The changes you are talking about are the content changes I initially introduced, then removed because you had issues, and have now posted below for discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that this particular misunderstanding has been sorted out; There are three more changes in this last revert that I saw as gnoming (and could broadly be construed as such) but which Sitush sees as problematic. This is just a heads up that i am removing, ie moving back to the "consensus" version, on those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Social Media controversy

In this section the allegations appears as if true and is Wikipedia's voice, although there is no primary source to prove it. The section appears as Wikipedia's voice , based on a single newspaper report without any substantial proof. The single source on which the accusations are made, mentions about Twitter only, but in the section, facebook too has been added. The section should be removed as it is propaganda of some users without any proof and adequate citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the section because I felt that it was really WP:undue. -sarvajna (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The section was again added to the page, which I have removed.--Mohit Singh (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edits; minor

Since Sitush clearly feels BRD does not apply to this article, I am proposing edits here, in two sections, minor and major. Please comment on all of them; if objections are not raised, I will insert them after some days.

1) From the early life section, remove the following sentence "That interest has influenced how he now projects himself in politics." as it is not supported by the given source, and none can be found.

2)In the early career section, replace

"Vaghela, who had threatened to break away from BJP in 1995, defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, Modi was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998. While selecting candidates for the 1998 state elections in Gujarat, Modi favored people who were loyal to Patel over those loyal to Vaghela, helping to put an end to the factional divisions within the party. His strategies were credited as being key to winning the 1998 elections."

with

After Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995, Modi was promoted to the post of General Secretary(Organisation) of the BJP in May 1998. While selecting candidates for the 1998 assembly elections in Gujarat, Modi selected supporters of Patel over those loyal to Vaghela, attempting to put an end to the factional divisions within the party. His strategies were credited as being key to winning the 1998 elections.

As being more grammatical, and more in line with the source.

3) Remove the details about Aditi Phadnis, and call her "author" or "commentator" or anything analogous. Currently, she is the only author whose backgroun we have described in such detail.

4) Remove the footer (not the caption!) from the picture of the Sardar Sarovar dam, because the source only talks about Solar power, which is irrelevant to the picture, and certainly does not support the statement as it currently stands. It can be mentioned in the text.

Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1) Support - it is present in the source attributed to a comment by Mukhopadhyay, nevertheless I don't think this sentence is needed.

2) Support - helps to clear up confusion of national and general secretary in this section

3) Support - Article as it stands has suitable attribution by wikilink of name.

4) Comment - Question of relevance of picture as solar power panels are planned to be over the canals and not the dam to my knowledge as part of Canal Solar Power Project. Agree that the statement about hydroelectric, wind and biofuels by Modi government is not supported by source. These sources may be helpful. [[1]] [[2]]

4) Comment - Alternative - keep current picture change caption to something about effect on irrigation of dam development. Cowlibob (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't add this but it is in fact supported by the source and there are numerous analyses of varying quality that reflect the theatrical bent - eg: [3], [4], [5]. Of course, it is well-known that he still retains a love of theatre. I've no objections to attributing the analysis to the person who said it.

2. No problem in principle because at least a couple of people have raised the issue of some confusion regarding National vs General Secretary. But it is still unclear due to issues of phrasing.

2.1 For example, "After Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995, Modi was was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998." is too many "afters" and making a connection between 1996 and 1998 is tricky. Try "Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995. Modi was promoted in ..." (Assuming that the Vaghela point remains relevant - when did he actually leave the party?)

2.2 "While selecting candidates for the 1998 assembly elections in Gujarat, Modi selected" is too many "select"s. Use "Modi favoured supporters of Patel over those loyal to Vaghela". And note that umpteen past discussions at MOS etc have determined that British English spellings more closely align with so-called "Indian English" than do US spellings, so it is indeed "favoured" rather than "favored". As far as I can make out, the source is not saying that Modi was the sole selector of candidates, btw.

3. I've no problem with simplifying the description of Phadnis but "author" is rubbish unless Phadnis is known primarily as a writer of fiction. Try "political commentator", since that is what Phadnis seems to be. Cowlibob, good style is always to explain the relevance of people whose opinion we cite; in the case of FAs (which is a standard that we should at least aspire to), it is a requirement.

4. I don't usually get involved with image-related stuff. Will go with whatever consensus emerges. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Phadnis as only "political commentator" or "political writer" with blue-link sounds good. Maybe she was described so much before i created an article on her. I do remember that i was the one who insisted on describing authors. Maybe not in this particular case, but on many Modi-related articles which were on fire last year. I vaguely remeber some undergrad student's opinion also been put in one of the article with named attribution. So yes, some description is must. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

2.1)Support - This wording is better. Vaghela left soon after losing 1996 LS elections, became chief minister and formed a new party with support from Congress and rebel MLAs according to the source and List of Chief Ministers of Gujarat.

2.2)Comment - How about: While on the selection committee for the 1998 assembly elections in Gujarat, Modi favoured supporters of Patel over those loyal to Vaghela, in an attempt to put an end to the factional divisions within the party.

3) Fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Modi was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998" is wrong. As I had discussed in a previous section, Modi was made so in 1995 and was appointed as a General Secretary which is a higher post in 1998. This should be changed.--Mohit Singh (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify 2.1): The proposed edit as I understand (which I support) would be: In November 1995, Modi was elected National Secretary of BJP and was transferred to New Delhi where he was assigned responsibility for the party's activities in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Vaghela defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, having previously threatened to do so in 1995. Modi was promoted to the post of General Secretary(Organisation) of the BJP in May 1998. So National vs. General confusion wouldn't be a problem.Cowlibob (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The only significant objections made here have been to the first change, about theatre. Ergo, I have not changed anything there (that might need a little more talk) but I have implemented the others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

International diplomacy To attract foreign investment modi visited Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong , South Korea, Switzerland and China etc. Yogibisu (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Education

• I just added a detail about Modi's education at DU. From the book "Narendra Modi: A Political Biography", we see that Modi was awarded an extramural degree, which is what in India is called a "correspondence degree". I am not sure about his Gujarat University degree. The reason this is relevant is because it shows that he didn't spend 4 years in Delhi to get the degree, and continued his work in Gujarat instead. This relates to the claim that people make that he has spent little time in Delhi. --Ninadism (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Early education: Narendra Modi had his childhood education at S.V.Virani high school, Rajkot Gujarat. He studied there uptil 7th grade. Later he moved to Surat for further education.

Manseta (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done please supply reliable source in support of this information. Tito☸Dutta 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

modi will be sworn in on 21st

Swearing in ceremony of the new prime minister will take place on 21st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.20.164 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

As of 2014-05-16, 1249h IST, the NDA led by Mr. Modi has been elected in a landslide, ensuring that Mr. Modi will be the 15th Prime Minister of India. Kindly alter the article to reflect the same. 182.57.240.77 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Already done. --RaviC (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

138.106.57.132 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

16 मई 2014 का केसरी रंग नरेंद्र मोदी दामोदरदास के संग बोलो नमो नमो नमो । जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द जय हिन्द | — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.114.166 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This is the English Wikipedia, and all requests must be in English.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ab ki bar Modi Sarkar!

Ab ki bar Modi Sarkar! [6] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have undone this edit[7], the stock market indices are an important barometer of a nation's mood, its reaction to the Modi election results is significant, every thing is sourced unlike claimed by deleting editor. Also if a separate reactions section is created, I'd be happy if what I've written is shifted there. Also a photograph is added. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted you again; the stock market is often volatile, especially during the election. I would remind you that it rose by 2100 points after the election in 2009, only to tank most of them the next day. At this point, it is only news. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This time the market jumped to an all time high, in 2009 it wasn't so. The reaction of stock markets is notable. Bring it back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Stock market reactions are not to be mentioned here. Harsh (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoaxes like Uttarakhand can be mentioned, market reactions to his victory cannot, why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

First, we do not present Uttarakhand as a mistake on Modi's part; it is shown as an allegation that was later refuted. And it was directed at him. The stock market is not, it might for instance be a reaction to some party gaining an absolute majority. It is also a very transient phenomenon. Sure, in 2009 it didn't reach an all time high; but the actual jump was far larger than this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The stock market is of course shifting sand, but its reaction to the victory, an all time high SENSEX is a single event and a verifiable fact, the reaction is to victory of the Modi led alliance, the allegations weren't refuted! they were withdrawn, yet Wikipedia carries such slander in a BLP, we cannot have OSE applied wrt one article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see why you are equating the two. The article states explicitly that the allegations were withdrawn. Perhaps it could do with some pruning, but the section itself is hardly POV. I am not saying this stock market event is trivial; I am saying virtually all stock market trends are trivial. Yes, this was a new all time high, but in a growing economy, new all time highs happen all the time. This was the third or fourth "all time high" this year; there will likely be several more. Ergo, it's not worth a mention.

RrS sources had drawn the connection (and its obvious), we don't pick and choose what we find as relevan. A bref mention here and details on the election page would sufficeLihaas (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Mr Modi is 15th prime minister. Please edit this Soumya cu (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. He isn't PM yet. MMS is still the PM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, when do we have your ladoos? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What ladoos? Despite the popular misconception, am not paid by BJP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ladoos, because you're going to eat one, khaye vo pach taya na khaya vo bhi, type. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Twit. This is English Wikipedia - you should know all about WP:TPG by now, Yogesh. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Minor(?) change

As of now, the content about Modi's rhetoric during the 2002 election campaign is in the "second term" section, which makes little sense. I suggest moving it to the "2002 assembly elections" subsection, which is just above. No content change; the source has been discussed to death and beyond about a year back. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you show me how the last few sentences of the 2002 assembly elections section would look with the insertion of the rhetoric element as you've suggested?Cowlibob (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am not particular about the form it is written in, but as of now I am visualising something like this:

"In the subsequent elections, the BJP, led by Modi, won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly. Anti-Muslim rhetoric formed a significant part of Modi's campaign." Followed by the same sources. The Second term sentence could stay the same, or that bit could be removed, I am comfortable with either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed edit pointed something else out for me. In the 2nd term section, it's mentioned Modi's emphasis shifted from Hindutva to economic development but there's no mention of Hindutva in the first term section.Cowlibob (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, no serious objections have been raised, so implementing this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're absolutely right, but that is a much larger scale problem to fix. If you want to take a stab at it, I would be happy to assist, but it will be a longer process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of changes seem to have happened without discussion at all and they're mostly bad. Expect a big revert when I catch up after my break. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: what is your objection now? I brought up five changes on the talk, described each, waited for a week, responded to comments, and only then implemented four them, and I did not make the change you objected to. All of this exactly as you suggested above. So you can hardly claim I didn't discuss them. If you're objecting to the changes made by other people, why on earth are you posting on this thread? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are clueless, Vanamonde, and have demonstrated it time and again with regard to this article. Stuff here should be implemented if you get consensus, not if no-one appears to object. That's why I haven't implemented some things that I have suggested in the past. You've got to allow for people coming and going and the sher exhaustion factor when the subject matter is as controversial as this is. Things are changing, of course, but if I ever do return properly, I'll be undoing much of what is referred to above ... and then you can await consensus to change. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

False date for oath taking ceremony?

Rajnath Singh clarified in a press conference today that the date of oath taking for Modi being 21 May is pure media speculation and no decision has been taken in this regard. He said the date for Modi's oath taking will only be decided on May 20 at a meeting of the party.[8]

Given this the article (as well as others on Wikipedia) should be edited accordingly to remove the speculative date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.141.136 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Read don't speculate, Wikipedia mentions reports of scheduled oath taking, that is a verifiable fact, mention of media reports. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with anon. The ref is explicit that the date is speculation. The lead read as though we are stating a fact, not media speculation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Unflattering portrait

Could we manage to reach a consensus on a finding a picture which doesn't have him with his mouth weirdly half-open?--Froglich (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's from his official flickr account. I would like though if somebody could colour the background. The white clashes with his hair and hampers clarity.—indopug (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Trimming

I went ahead and removed the governor spat as there was a consensus for it. If you wish to readd it, please consider informing me first. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

Please change the name Shankarsingh Vaghela to Shankarsinh Vaghela. It's Sinh in the name postfix, not Singh. Jayraj86 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - well almost - our article is actually Shankersinh Vaghela - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014

Modi was not India's first PM to be born after Independence. It was Rajiv Gandhi Vasthy (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done A cursory search shows that Rajiv Gandhi was born in 1944. If you believe otherwise, please find reliable sources to support your statement. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim rhetoric

@Lifelessboy:, the rediff.com source you added states that Modi made inflammatory comments; there is nothing there about "alleged" comments. Do not repeatedly add that caveat without sourcing. This issue has been discussed here a lot, so you should probably read the archives. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Investigation and clean chit

I have made certain changes on the page in relation to the Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Criminal) No. 1088 Of 2008 which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.1765 Of 2011 and further proceedings which finally resulted in a clean chit for Modi. In the earlier content, Raju Ramachandran’s views in relation to his report had been mentioned and date used was 7 May 2012. This was the period in between the first judgment was given by the Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad and the later judgment in December 2013, after a protest petition was filed by Zakia Jafri. It may be noted that Ramchandran’s views on Report came late because vide its earlier order, Supreme Court had asked to keep its report confidential. That is why ‘The Hindu’ has used the line “Though sources had earlier briefed The Hindu on the broad contents of the amicus' report, its text has only now been made public.” It was made public only after it was perused and a judgment was given by the Magistrate Court in Ahmedabad. Hence in this light, I have used the reference of Ramchandran’s report in the earlier part only as his views which became public at a later stage, where given in relation to as to what should be done by the magistrate. SC had kept it open to the SIT (refer judgment dated 12 September 2009) to obtain and look into the report of Ramachandran. SIT discarded his findings and then filed the closure report. Hence his findings in the report cannot be used, as was earlier, in reference that though Modi had received a clean chit, yet as per Ramachandran, he can be prosecuted. I also fail to understand that how this line "the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, observed on 7 May 2012 that Modi could be prosecuted for promoting enmity among’’ was used as in the referenced article there is no reference of 7 May 2012. Also, I have removed the discussion as to the “main contention” because the referenced article makes no such talk regarding any main contention. Be that as it may, the details of the Ramchandran’s report should not be discussed in detail as SIT’s report has also not been discussed and any attempt to discuss any or both shall unnecessarily make the article lengthy. However it can very well be discussed on the 2002 Gujarat riots page. Any different view is welcome and I shall be happy to address it.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see that there may be some problems in how Ramachandran's report has been presented, but you massively increased the amount of detail present in that section, making it hard to read, so I have reverted you for now. Please don't convert the section into legalese. If the date is a problem, then remove it; it is hardly necessary anyway. The primary criticism of the SIT is academic; Ramachandran's report, and Zakia Jaffri's petition, only deserve passing mention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but you cannot just revert an entire edit claiming it to be lengthy. Anyway, I have shortened the information as certain facts were repeated. I hope this satisfies your needs. The edit contained improvement of data which was just reverted even without an attempt to improce it.--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit filled the article with legal-speak; the revert was to let you correct that, rather than me changing your language. If you'd rather that I change it, I will go ahead and do so now. Your current version is an improvement in terms of detail, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already made the changes.--Mohit Singh (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been over the language a little bit; the only content change I made was to remove Modi's reaction, because he has commented on the proceedings many times, and it is difficult to establish notability for any particular statement of his. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the court judgement as a source in one case; since it is a primary source, it shouldn't be used in a situation where we have to summarize it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"designated" prime minister

Is this the right wording? In the U.S. we would call him the "prime minister elect" (if we had prime ministers). Designated seems weird, is this the word used because he wasn't elected directly? He's chosen by his party? This is a top view article so if there's better wording I think it would be good to clarify what is meant by "designated". Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Designated seems wrong. The term used is Prime minister-designate. The term is popular in Indian usage so should be used over Prime minister-elect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious as to who appointed "Martha Nussbaum" (aka ultra-left wing activist) as an authority in Indian politics and society. Shameless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamska (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)