Wikipedia:Peer review/K. R. Narayanan/archive1

K. R. Narayanan

The FAC nomination for this article failed to reach a consensus and more than one user voting at FAC suggested that the article be listed for peer review.-Pournami (Listed for PR: 12:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)) The first part of PR-initial reviews by RJ and Nirav

summary of suggestions/concerns

let me list suggestions/queries relating to content so far to be addressed: (this is meant as a checklist for Italo; pls look into/reply to)

• try to integrate dates into sentences rather than adding them as an afterthought (should this be done?)
• image copyright status: needs to be addressed satisfactorily prior to a 2nd fa candidacy (if that happens)(ok, so we'll worry abt this and abt final copyedit later)
• lead: not enough : being rewritten
• citation: will recheck for any missing citations.
• specific concerns:

regarding POV

• Are Descriptions of "high distinction" POV ?
• Are "Opinions and Assessment of the presidency, issues with BJP and other stuff" "written in a neutral tone with adequate supply of references and facts."?
• There is no information in the article on KR Narayanan's critics and opponents, both past and present. What are their opinons on his presidency and his career in the IFS?
• There are only a couple of instances of criticism of his policies in the article, and both are terminated quite abruptly without elaboration. I find it hard to believe that Narayanan, as a senior member in India's political circles, did not have his policies criticized or questioned and that most criticisms had caste-ist undertones. You will need to research and elaborate on that.
• His issues with the BJP towards the end of his tenure; criticisms of his presidency, etc should be discussed. Racial, caste-based criticisms need not be incorporated, but it should be noted in the article that he was frequently the target political adversaries because of his minority status.
• I don't see much criticism of Narayanan's actions/speeches. What is critics assessment of his actions, his bid for re-election, his decision on Bihar President's rule? What was the BJP's rationale - you include Narayanan's personal criticism of the BJP, and the BJP's backtracking on Narayanan's nomination. It paints an unnecessarily bad pic of the BJP. This is also for many people, an inherent POV becoz there is no accomodation for Narayanan's critics.You must include an alternate assessment of Narayanan wherever.
• but please try to inculcate any data on whether he failed at some of his objectives, of the BJP's rationale, of his shortcomings/assets in relation to other Presidents.
• Its important to talk about the Bihar President's Rule issue, the communal riots, etc. a bit more.

reqiring Rewrite/clarify/better citation

• there are many sentences that seem to glowingly discuss Narayanan's actions and legacy. President Narayanan's identification of problems of the Dalit community, of their oppresion, need direct citation.
• I'm referring to the passage in "Concerns for Social and Economic justice and Communal tolerance" - "President Narayanan spoke on various occasions..." I think you need to elucidate the issues better - one gets the impression that adivasis and Dalits are in a miserable situation in India. If you say "oppression," "displacement," link to articles that describe the topics, or to sources. Re-write the section to explain better
• asking you to be direct, succint in writing about it and giving sources.
• Narayanan's personal assertions, in his speeches and private thoughts, need to be supplemented with outside views and facts.

-quoting comments by others, Pournami

Another round of editing, after that maybe invite a few more ppl to PR (God, this is getting nowhere, more hard work, more time than expected, all for what?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pournami (talk • contribs)

And there have been suggestions to remove/reorganize sub-sections.--Sahodaran 10:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sahodaran...I truly understand your frustration, but trust me — there's light at the end of the tunnel. With all the points/suggestions incorporated, this article will be ready for FAC. Many of the points summarized above can be tackled through one or two sources. Given that Presidency in India is ceremonial at best, it is hard to find criticism of policies, etc that can be directly attributed to an Indian President. This can be defended during FAC. If something is not there, it's not there, we cannot be expected to invent sources just to satisfy NPOV. However, let us try to find whatever we can on the criticisms issue and incorporate that into the article. I will go through and copyedit for POV this afternoon. Hopefully this should ease some of your frustration with regards to the direction of this article. Thanks AreJay 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

AreJay,thanks a lot for your support,but seems that question to God was written by Pournami and she forgot to sign it.I dont think that this is getting nowhere,AAMOF I am enjoying all of it..:).Thank you once again!!--Sahodaran 03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Italo's responses to suggestions so far

Thanks, AreJay and Rama's Arrow, for your help and the nice comments and suggestions. I have some constraints on my time at present, hence I was not available as I would have liked to be. Pournami and Sahodaran have compiled a summary, which agrees with my own independent summary, so I think it is accurate.

• Bias: I feel this is the chief concern expressed in the reviews, and I think this should be resolved first: Please read through the following explanations/suggestions:

(1) 'high distinction' : I feel this is fair. I am not aware that any one disputes that KRN's diplomatic career was distinguished. Chandrabhan Prasad's and Gopalkrishna Gandhi's obits, Hindu editorial, Manmohan Singh's condolence message, all support this claim, I feel (They can be cited if needed). That KRN was posted to China and the USA (the second after calling him back from retirement) also supports this assertion (even without going into the details of his achievements there); these are arguably the most difficult ambassador positions in the IFS (and I think no one else has been assigned to both posts). KRN was retained as Ambassador to China under Morarji Desai too, so there seems to been no partisanship in his high postings. If you feel this asseertion has been disputed by some, then we can consider removing the claim, or attributing it to sources. The details of his diplomatic career lack context in this article, I feel, and are perhaps better suited to the article on Sino-Indian relations; also, I don't have any hard references to discuss them.

(2) Opinions and assessment of Presidency : In my edits, I have thought it best to put in only facts, and to leave the readers to form their own opinions. I don't feel a comprehensive assessment has been attempted in the article. If there are specific points of concern, please continue with more detailed remarks. I have been particularly concerned to avoid biased language myself. I have also tried to attribute all the controversial/biased statements included. If you feel there is more to be done, please make specific suggestions and help.

(3) 'independent and assertive' : I feel this is not a biased phrase. In any case, that was not the intention; what is attempted is to summarise the nature of his actions in a factual manner. KRN was indeed independent and assertive, I think (as his actions described in the article reveal); what could be a matter of dispute, I think, is whether he was right or wrong to be so. It is also mentioned that other Presidents had not followed the same course generally. However, no opinion has been given about which course is right. When writing a lead summarising his presidency, something of this nature has to be said, I feel. I have attempted to state it in a neutral manner; if you feel it should be improved/changed, do make more specific suggestions.

(4) 'proved invaluable' : The additions suggested have been made.

(5) Criticism in the IFS: I did not come across any professional criticism.

(6) Criticism of the Presidency: This is very difficult to come by, as Rama's Arrow remarked, especially if one wants to include relevant criticism by relevant attributable sources. There are several plausible reasons, I think:

(a) Presidency has generally been considered a sinecure, and not much of public interest. (KRN was different, but it was not easy to change the notion of the Preseident in public discourse so soon.)

(b) The President is not a politician or policy-maker per se, but somewhat a consitutional trustee and guide of the political system, with a clearly circumscribed role to play; so the usual canons of political criticism fail. In particular, criticisms of his actions need reference to subtle constitutional points.

As far as I understand, most criticisms were fuelled by partisan considerations, by politicians who had felt KRN had not acceded to their wishes. In fact, criticism by politicians is suspect for this very reason.

Scholarly criticism by commentators have tended to give KRN good reviews. They have noted only a few points against Narayanan:

(a) He was excessively concerned about some judicial appointments (reference to K. G. Balakrishnan's appointment).

(b) His speech while receiving Clinton departed from the Government line; this was improper.

(Both by A. G. Noorani, in his assessment of KRN, already in the references).

I did not include this because these issues were discussed only in passing in the article until recently. I think these can be included as fair criticism now, where these events are now dealt with.

In relation with other Presidents, it is mentioned in the article that other Presidents has followed different procedures for appointing a PM. This shows a divergence of opinion. Perhaps this is not an evident criticism as the article stands now; so I suggest the following:

When KRN departed from this line, N. S. Reddy had died, and S. D. Sharma was already in ill-health and not involved in any public issues. R. Venkataraman had, however, been in good health. RV had stated that each President should decide for himself how to exercise their discretion. However, he stood by his own procedure, and stated that KRN should have invited Sonia Gandhi (second largest party) after the Vajpayee government had been voted out. It can perhaps help to cite this and say that RV had expressed dissent.

On other issues, scholarly criticism is lacking.

(a) KRN's 2000 Republic day speech can be considered as being against market policies. The Editorial by the Indian Express seems to reflect some of the views of critics, and could be included as a criticism. (I had not been able to locate this link before. Since we now have it thanks to Pournami, there is no difficulty.) It is also likely that the Government line was different on this matter.

(b) KRN's refusal to impose President's rule was criticised in both instances; however, it was interested parties, Mulayam Singh and L. K. Advani, who voiced this; they claimed they disagreed with KRN's reading of law in the matter, but did not go into the details. (These can be verified from the referenced reports on these issues.) Commentators did not fault KRN on these decisions, as far as I could see.

(c) KRN's speeches against Presidential form of governance and stability-oriented changes in the constitution were not taken well by the Vajpayee government. Commentators tended to see the President as fulfilling his role as a guardian of the constitution. Vajpayee sought to hush up the divergence that had surfaced, by clarifying that the basic structure would not be tampered with.

(d) Communal riots: The allegations made by KRN are important (and have been communicated to the Commission investigating the riots). I think it should be included in KRN's article. Vajpayee did not comment on the allegations. It does make the discussion one-sided, but I don't see what could be done about this.

(e) The BJP's opinion on KRN has not been voiced in an attributable form. Throughout his Presidency, the BJP refrained from explicit criticism of KRN, probably because of political etiquette. However, when discussions were on to find a successor, the BJP still did not break their silence. In the report titled `Elusive consensus' (references) this is detailed out. They claimed to oppose KRN's second term because of a precedent of no President having got it (Rajendra Prasad had a second term though). They also pointed to his ill health. However, the report says that privately speaking, senior leaders (under anonymity) admitted the main reason to be that KRN was not in tune with the BJP ideology. KRN in his interview seems to point to the same reason (This can be attributed, but is KRN's opinion of the BJP's reasons). Mulayam Singh's opinion is reported to be influenced by his dissent on the question of President's rule. That the BJP strongly objected to a second term for KRN is however, not in doubt, and is evidenced by the elaborate manoeuvres they carried out in the candidature stage. (This has been discussed in the article, neutrally, I think.)

As rightly pointed out, there is a gap in the discussion here. That the BJP denied KRN a second term is evident, but the reasons are not [in a scholarly fashion]. I hope from the above that there is a difficulty in writing about this in the article, unless one does original research. What I feel can be done to address this (without original research) is the following: Include references to Mulayam Singh's and Advani's opinions [not elaborated by them in detail, as far as I understood; point out this fact clearly] (in the section on President's rule), discuss briefly the nature of the disagreement with the Vajpayee government on basic structure (in the golden jubilee section), and discuss the anonymous quotes from the report in the Demission of office section. I think, with all the criticisms at the appropriate places, and this report at the demission of office section, the reader can deduce the nature of the tension between KRN and the BJP. Is this all right, and/or is there anything more/something else that you want to suggest?

• Sectioning/Abridgement

(1) Participation in the elections: I think it should be part of KRN's biography; it is a notable event, and is mentioned pointedly in many obits, including Hindu's editorial. (Of course, a mention of this can be made in the article on Presidents as well.)

(2) Exercise of Presidential discretion: These are the most critical duties of a President, and should be here. (Again, a mention of KRN's innovations could be made in the article on Presidents.)

(3) Speeches: They are an important of KRN's work as a President. He was articulated his vision and concerns on various questions, and Presidents have been considered as educators of the citizenry on appropriate topics. Since they are separated off in a clearly marked section, I don't see how it could bog a reader down. It certainly gives a comprehensive understanding of KRN as a President and as a human being. I think this section should stay.

(4) 'Origins/Education', etc.: I think these sections deal with clearly distinct topics, and the titles clearly describe what the sections contain (I feel Early life is relatively vague compared to Origins/Education). Should they really be merged? Also the sections presently give different aspects of his career and life. I understand these may not be usual, but I don't see any convincing reason why this organisation is bad. (In my planned lead, the third paragraph will give a brief description of his life, so the section titles should be even more comprehensible then.)

(5) Gujral's quote: It clearly describes how KRN's elevation as President means to the ideals of Indian Republic, of the freedom struggle, and to the backwards classes of the country. This an important point that needs to be discussed in the article on KRN, in any case. Since this quote from a memorable occasion succinctly captures all that, I really think it should stay. (It can also be used in the article on Presidents.)

(6) Presidency: This section is long, but I think it is justifiable. The sub-section titles, I feel, clearly describe various important facets. I don't think merging them would improve anything. I feel the section can be made more accessible by including a lead paragraph in the Presidency section, summarising the various events/issues; this would make the titles of the sub-sections clearer, and help guide the reader. From reading the guidelines on summary style, I feel the size of the text itself (and not that devoted to referencing/citing) should be considered in deciding on condensing the article; I feel the size of the article is more due to elaborate citations rather than lengthy paragraphs, and that the text size itself is justifiable.

• Lead: Have thought out a lead. But would like to settle the previous points before submitting a final version.

• Citations:

(1) Nehru's request: Citation has been provided. (However, I feel this is not a controversial statement, and need not be cited explicitly. Biographies cover such things adequately.)

(2) Dalit affairs: The citation had been omitted by mistake, and has been put in. Thanks.

(3) 'pained and anguished' : Cited.

(4) Please continue to check for citations which might be required.

• Personal life: Nothing much to remark upon, other than what is already in the article, as far as I know.

• Images:

(1) Government images: I don't know how the legal situation of these images (five) can be ascertained, any more than what is already stated in the explanations in these images. If you feel there is some way we can do more on this, please advise.

(2) Image of Clinton and KRN: Yes, I think one of those images is nice to put in. (RJ: would you want to do it yourself, as I don't know exactly why they are free images.)

(3) FU images: Of the five images in this category, I think the rationale for the images of KRN voting, of KRN at WSF, and of KRN with Annan, can be strengthened sufficiently (as per RJ's suggestions). We shall work on it after the preceding issues are cleared.

(4) While images are not necessary at all, I feel some of those images are nice to keep, if possible.

• Copyediting:

(1) Malayalam text of name: Yes. Will do.

(2) Sentences beginning with 'He' : Yes. Will do towards the end of this process.

(3) Combining paragraphs: Will look at the article and try to do this wherever I feel it is advisable.

(4) Years/Dates in sentences: I feel this adds unnecessary length to the article, and complicates the structure of some sentences which already have much to say about other things. Dates are given throughout the article as an aid to placing things in context, but I feel they should indeed be looked at as an afterthought; that is why they are placed in parentheses in the present version.

Please let me know if I have omitted addressing any concerns. Also, RJ, could you please indicate where you felt a discussion of critical views had been cut off abruptly, if I have not mentioned them in the bias responses already?

Thank you once again.

Italo 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

P. S.: As I was posting this, I noticed RJ's recent edit. I think I agree.

Comment: I am glad that there is a good understanding of what needs to be accomplished before we push this for FAC. I have done some copyediting to some of the earlier sections of the article. More will be on its way. With regards to Italo's comments vis-a-vis the "independent and assertive" phrase in the lead, I do not think we should be including this since it will invite objections during the process. Their question will be, you say Narayanan was considered independent and assertive; considered independent and assertive by whom?? Keep in mind that we need to present statements that are indisputable, and I'm not sure how strongly we will be able to defend the above phrase. AreJay 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation - there's a need for citation on the comment that Nehru said KR was the best diplomat. Rama's Arrow 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well,that too is already there,please see 1.This is it.--Sahodaran 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work thus far. I haven't read through the article in as much detail as I would like to have, but this is much better. I will review the article again and copyedit the article. Here are some suggestions -- the image of the President's wife - please delete it. It looks out of place and it's copyright tag is questionable (see Rama's Arrow's comments re Government of India images). Also can someone go through the article and create stubs for all the red links? It shouldn't take too long, IMO, and there aren't too many red links in the first place. Thanks AreJay 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

red-link stubs: half-done, some more to go. -Pournami

New Cleanup (3/15)

I have begun copyediting the article and here are some common themes that I have observed wrt the segments that I have reviewed. I am yet to read through the last three segments of the article:

1. Sentence Structure: There is an excessive use of parentheses and semi-colons. This lends a choppy structure to the article makes it very difficult to read and follow the thought process. Please replace all parentheses and semi-colons.

Also, the article uses a lot of ornate vocabulary and round about sentences. Sentences should be kept simple and to the point. Elaborate words will tend to confuse readers.

2. POV: Here are some POV statements that I have found thus far:

1. 1. "Narayanan had the singular honour of being the President.." why the phrase "singular honor"? He may have been the leader of the country during the golden jubilee, but the use of this phrase is unencyclopedic. Please remove and/or rephrase.
   2. "Address to the nation from the ramparts of the Red fort on the golden jubilee of Indian independence" What is the purpose of such a large excerpt from Gujaral's speech? If

the idea is to highlight his complements to Narayanan, please select the one or two sentences that directly relate to him and/or paraphrase the context of the speech.

1. 1. "Narayanan sought to correct what was a long-standing practice "...I changed correct to change. After all, who's to say what is correct and what is not?
   2. "President K. R. Narayanan's address to the nation...is a landmark.." References must be cited for this (I have added a {{citationneeded}} to it). Please specify a source that asserts that Narayanan was the first President to broach this topic on Republic Day.
   3. "and pointed out the wisdom of reposing faith in the common men and women of India as a whole, rather than in some elite section of society." Wisdom of reposing faith? Again, needs to be paraphrased to avoid POV.
   4. "and have set an important precedent concerning federalism and the rights of state governments." This sentence needs to be qualified with additional information. I don't quite understand what the sentence's intended purpose/meaning is.
   5. "This caused a problem in accountability, as the Lok Sabha had been dissolved and a caretaker government was in office." If a caretaker government was in office why was there a problem of "accountability"? Please explain/expand.

I will review the remaining three segments sometime tomorrow and provide my thoughts. Thanks AreJay 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:-

1. Of course,whatever that can be improved should be improved.But it is tough to get away with the parentheses with years inside,as it has already been argued here.

Comment: For the sections that I copyedited yesterday, I cleaned up some of this. But there's many instances of parentheses and semi colons in the rest of the article. I userstand this is still work-in-progress. I just wanted that to be highlighted. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. It is of course a "singular honour"; the fact that he was the president at the golden jubilee,the fact that he delivered the midnight speech at the central hall reminiscent of the tryst with destiny distinguishes him from other presidents and this should be mentioned in the article.But if the words need be rephrased,it may be done.

Comment: I'm sure it was a singular honor. But it is not for us to opine. This must be paraphrased. Singular honor is a phrase that will invite needless objections, because it is subjective. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. It is not only meant as a compliment to KRN,it is something higher than that.It efficiently captures the importance of having someone like KRN as president.And the occation in which it has been said is really,really important,perhaps the most important occation we have;the PM's annual address at Red Fort,and this was even more important 'cuz the golden jubilee.I just want to quote Italo here

      It clearly describes how KRN's elevation as President means to the ideals of Indian Republic, of the freedom struggle, and to the backwards classes of the country. This an important point that needs to be discussed in the article on KRN, in any case. Since this quote from a memorable occasion succinctly captures all that, I really think it should stay.

Comment: My comment here was not that it should be removed. I didn't see why such a huge part of Gujaral's speech was directly quoted. This must be paraphrased. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. It is not about correctness from a philosophical/subjective/relative p.o.v but about whether it is correct as per constitution.Objective rules on "Who all can vote?" has been laid out in the constitution,and the president too falls in this category.So the president is correct as per constitution if he chooses to vote.

Comment: then the qualifyer "per the rights bestowed to citizens by the Indian constitution" needs to be added if we're going to use the word "correct". AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Quoting P. Sainath-

      When K.R. Narayanan addressed the nation on the eve of Republic Day, he handed down a scathing analysis of what has gone wrong with the country in recent years. Coming from a person holding the nation's highest office, it was not merely unusual but unprecedented.[1]

      Ammu Joseph-"President's unprecedented and unconventional commentary on the state of the nation"[2].Harish Khare reporting the event in The Hindu-"Perhaps never before has an occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan spoken with such candour and poignancy about the state of social and political affairs"[3].Hope these are sufficient.There was unanimity in the media that his address was unprecedented,and hence there is no controversy here,and hence no need of a citation,IMHO.UpdateThe required citations have been added.--Sahodaran 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
   2. It is "he pointed out".He certainly *pointed that out*,he provided arguements for that;it is tough to get a one sentence,specific quote from this that explains everything,but here is one.

      This act of faith by the founding fathers meant that the governance of this vast country was not to be left in the hands of an elite class but the people as a whole.

   3. It means that we have a federal system of government,with well laid out rules,which should be honoured.The centre should not encroach upon the rights and authority given to the states by the constitution.Here are the details.So there is no factual defect.And the current sentence is enough I feel,but that might be because I am somewhat familiar with the whole thing.

Comment Ok. This can be added as a qualification to the statement in the article. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. It is a caretaker govt.,not an elected govt.The the Lok Sabha had been dissolved,and thus a caretaker govt. is not accountable to the democratic process.

Comment: Isn't a caretaker government the same as an interim government? How is an interim government not accountable to the democratic process?? There may be a valid explaination for this, but that needs to be added to the corresponding statement in the article. AreJay 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:-Parliament is the supreme body as per constitution,every major decision of the government must get a consent from the parliament after proper deliberations,it is *accountable* to the parliament.When the parliament is dissolved,this cannot be done.--Sahodaran 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: Okay, it makes sense now. Please summarize the verbiage above and include it in your sentence. AreJay 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope its ok now.Abt federalism,I dont know what more to add.--Sahodaran 05:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope I've provided valid arguements.We can go ahead with the respective edits in the cases where objections have been cleared,and I am willing to clarify further on the rest.Thanks. --Sahodaran 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Having studied at St. John's High School, Koothatukulam from 1936-36, . Fix the year. Tintin (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Sahodaran 05:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

• Lead needs to be shortened and tightened. We need citations for things like Indira Gandhi "requesting" him to join politics (also, KRN saying so doesn't make it a fact) and NDA refusing to support him the second time (AFAICT, it did not do so publicly, lots of rumours circulated in the press etc.). Other presidents have also had uneasy relationships with the governments of the day - Rajendra Prasad with Nehru, Radhakrishnan with Indira Gandhi (rather, it was in the reverse direction here), Zail Singh with Rajiv Gandhi etc. R. Venkatraman was the first President to return a bill, the postal bill, if I am not mistaken. That is more important than, say, voting in an election, imo. Each of the presidents would have broken some convention or the other - we should be neutral in assessing the impact. For example, the current president has broken several taboos by interacting with people more freely and undertaking serious diplomatic visits. I am sorry if I seem to be meandering, but KRN's achievements must be placed in his context - poverty, untouchability etc. in the lead rather than portray him as the best or only assertive president. What needs to be stressed and what is more interesting is how he made it in life despite hardships in life, not what he did in the position of president. Just as people ask why Zail Singh did not resign from his post if he was opposed to Operation Bluestar as he claimed, people also ask what prevented KRN from resigning due to his differences with inaction on Gujarat riots. I understand that these are difficult, tricky and probably even POV-ish questions to answer, but I believe that we should also have the critics' views finding some place even in the lead. --Gurubrahma 06:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.NDA refusing to support him the second time-Elusive consensus,The political dynamics.And he was a President who defied stereotype;

KOCHERIL RAMAN NARAYANAN inherited the presidential office at a time the Head of State was firmly imprinted in the public perception as a "rubber stamp" figure. The occupant of the Rashtrapati Bhavan unfailingly acted on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, rarely if at all went public with his opinion. It was unthinkable that the first citizen could admit to a political vision that was at variance with that of the government of the day. President Narayanan defied the stereotype, pushing the envelope in areas that were previously unexplored but without ever becoming activist in a way that would have undermined his constitutional role. In his own words, he was "not an executive President but a working President, and working within four corners of the Constitution."

I dont know if someone will dispute this fact; not even the BJP.And isnt setting *official precedents*(like what to do if things are so and so), with scholarly and sound reasonings based on the constitution that blunts critics different from meeting more people and visiting more schools? I agree that the lead has to go a long way.And he not only "made it in life despite hardships in life" but also did a lot of unprecedented,important things.But I'll try to stress the first part too.And about your edit;"Narayanan is considered" has been changed to "was considered";he *is still being considered so* is a fact,even after his death,isnt it?--Sahodaran 08:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• lead length; perhaps can be adjusted/worked on. will happen gradually, i guess.
• IG "request": If we require citation, we can have one of KRN saying so.

1. I won't force any reader to believe that "It is a fact because KRN said so". (Call me an unfairly biased KRN fan. If I were just passing by this articcle instead of writing it, "KRN said so" would be all the attestation I would demand for *this* specific instance: of IG requesting him)
2. We can have other citations, each of which are either based on taking KRN's words to be true, or (I hate to admit,) plagiarised from this article at the time of KRN's demise to write obits.
3. The point is, please understand the difficulty of finding an appropriater citation than KRN's own words:

• Indian newspaper archives online aren't available beyond more than 10 years back. So we can't track a news report from long ago saying, "IG asks..."
• Non online sources are even more difficulter to obtain

So, you might ask, why not just remove the part about IG requesting? Here, the chief point perhaps isn't made so well in the article: perhaps needs to be explained with adequate citation that KRN was primarily interested in academic/journalistic career only and took up other assignments upon request of leaders he respected, and these leaders made these requests not as part of allowing concessions to dalits, but bercause they were impressed by his work, and were convinced he was the appropriate man for the job.

• NDA non support: i hope the above links are sufficient.-Pournami

The point is, you cannot have op-ed pieces claiming something as fact. You can definitely say that "The Hindu" observed or a section of media regerded him as etc. SInce IG is dead, we have no way of knowing if she really requested him. You cannot say IG requested him in the light of evidence available, a better way of saying it is "KRN indicated in an interview that he wanted to continue life in academics but that he changed his decision after IG requested him" or some such thing. That is the difference between a FA and an ordinary article. "was considered" and "is considered" - I am ok either way, but the former is the right way of expression as it refers to that period. For emphasis, you can say "was considered" and "is still considered", though. My stress is not on having citations for everything but represent everything the way it is. --Gurubrahma 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• "It was Nehru's daughter, prime minister Indira Gandhi, who brought the nominally-retired KR Narayanan into the political sphere.[..]she persuaded him to stand for the lower house of the Indian parliament, the Lok Sabha."The BBC Obit."Narayanan entered politics at the request of then-prime minister Indira Gandhi"The Rediff Obit.Will these do?--Sahodaran 11:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Should do, good work!! It is important to have cited quotes such as these if you want it to get FA status. --Gurubrahma 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sahodaran and Pournami, you might want to go through the article and locate any similar WP:WEASEL words and address them with appropriate citations and/or change the sentence to reflect differences b/w fact and opinon. I agree with Gurubrahma, that's the difference between a good article and an FA article. AreJay 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel terms

the only two instances i found in the article were the ones already discussed. these are:

• In India, where the office of the President is largely ceremonial without executive powers, Narayanan was regarded as an independent and assertive President who set several precedents and enlarged the scope of the highest constitutional office.
• President K. R. Narayanan's address to the nation ^[1] on the golden jubilee of the Indian Republic (26 January 2000) is considered a landmark^[2]: it was the first time^[3] a President attempted to analyse, with due concern for growing disparities, the several ways in which the country had failed^[4] to provide economic justice to the Indian people, particularly the rural and agrarian population; he also stated that discontent was breeding and frustrations erupting in violence among the deprived sections of society.

1. K. R. Narayanan: Address to the nation on the golden jubilee of the Republic, 26 Jan. 2000. Retrieved 24 Feb. 2006.
2. V. Venkatesan: "A wake-up call", Frontline 17 (3), 5-18 Feb. 2000. Retrieved 17 Mar. 2006.
3. Ammu Joseph: "Areas of darkness", Humanscape, April 2000
4. P. Sainath:"Iron in the soul, decay in the brain", Frontline 17 (3), 5-18 Feb. 2000. Retrieved 17 Mar. 2006.

i'll fix them myself, sometime; i know i'm slightly guilty in this regard, i had something to do with the introduction of these weasel words. as for the rest of the article; i didn't find any other such usages.

fact and opinion

then there are a few places where the adjective "important" comes in; someone might say the "importance" accorded is only thewiki-writer's subjective judgement; it's not the case as i see it; the word "important" is used to perhaps highlight the importance of the situation to an international audience, not necessarily familiar with the workings of indian parliament/presidency---Pournami 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• The description of the meeting between Narayanan and Karunakaran in 1991 sounds rather one-sided in portraying Karunakaran unambigously as a villian, because it comes directly from an interview with KRN. Will it be possible to add an opinion from a neutral source (which would be tough, it being Kerala politics !) about this issue. Tintin (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)