This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I have added a {BLP sources} tag to point out the need for citations. I have not tried not to put too many citation needed tags so that the document does not look messy. I also had to add another section under Views and Opinions as it had just one particular view on Modi. The section contains no original research. I have noticed that many parts of the article have been subjected to Quote mining. For example the statement "Modi has also tried to turn his image from an Hindu Nationalist politician to an image of able administrator" has been quoted from a New York times article. The article states, "With a national profile clearly in mind, Mr. Modi has assiduously sought to reinvent himself from a scruffy mascot of Hindu nationalism to a decisive corporate-style administrator." With the initial part of the statement removed and a few words changed, it looks like Modi is a changed man. Some citations were incorrect too. I have also changed the contents of the section "Modi's position on terrorism". This part again was subject to Quote mining. This is because the author had changed the context to show that the acquisition of the surveillance equipment was entirely a state affair. I have changed some parts that were the author's original research with the exact statements given in the citation so that the section becomes less biased. I would like to hear from the author, if he/she has any justification for this. The last part of the section "Awards and recognitions", contains reference to an Award that has been given to Gujarat state after taking it away from Modi. Shouldn't that reference belong to some other section or page? The reference to another award above this, contains no citations at all. I hope the author provides some citations soon. I request my fellow Wikipedians to look at this article with more scepticism. -- AlllllX ( talk) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As no sources are being provided for the numerous failed citation verifications and missing citations, these unsourced statements will have to be removed. I wonder why no wikipedian has yet made an attempt to discuss this problem. -- Alex ( talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed most statements that were missing citations and were one sided -- Alex ( talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Narendra Modi is clearly a very controversial politician. Several reputed publications both in India and abroad have stated this multiple times. This needs to be in the lead, as is the case with many other controversial political leaders in Wikipedia. (Example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I had added a statement to this effect to the lead with multiple high-quality sources from the BBC, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, but the change was reverted by a user. I am re-adding the change, request anyone disputing this to discuss the issue here. Aurorion ( talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | Modi is a highly controversial and divisive figure both within India and internationally. He was denied a visa by the United States in 2005 on grounds of religious intolerance. [1] However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government. [2] | ” |
Aurorion ( talk) 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | Modi is a highly controversial figure both within India and internationally, primarily related to the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, which happened under his rule. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and in BJP supporters across India, and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government. | ” |
Modify proposal. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism from across the political spectrum. In 2005, the Bush Administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. Following this and other controversies, as well as the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections. In December 2007, the United States entered its longest post–World War II recession, prompting the Bush Administration to enact multiple economic programs intended to preserve the country's financial system. Though Bush was popular in the U.S. for much of his first term, his popularity declined sharply during his second. He was a highly controversial figure internationally, with public protests occurring even during visits to close allies, such as the United Kingdom. | ” |
There are multiple issues with the way Redtiger has presented his proposal. Here's my suggestion:
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Modified:
“ | Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally, primarily related to the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, which happened under his rule. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and in BJP supporters across India. He is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government and is praised by business leaders. | ” |
"In 2002, the Modi administration received heated criticism from sections of the media after incidents of communal violence" is problematic as:
Why I chose "primarily related to"?
I am posting on WP India noticeboard, requesting comments. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Aurorion, you have not attempted to constructively contribute to the discussion and instead inserted vague statements in the lead section of the article. I have reverted you. Please be advised that there are multiple editors who have actively participated in talk page discussions in the past. So it's best if you stick to building consensus rather than introducing unilateral edits into the article. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration received heated criticism from sections of the media surrounding incidents of communal violence. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government"
As a reasonable compromise that outlines the fact he is still controversial today for the events at Godhra. Pectore talk 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration received heated criticism surrounding the 2002 Gujarat communal violence. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government. | ” |
Nick have raised an objection to adding modi to Category:2002 Gujarat violence on the ground that it is an event. But WP:BLPCAT doesn't have any such rule. It only hinders one from adding a person to a faith without the person's own affirmation and to groups (like Criminals) which are defamatory. There exist umpteen number of categories for events which include people associated with it. For example Category:People of the Iraq War or Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots. I request Nick to put forward some valid objection citing the text of the concerned rule. Aravind V R ( talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that I have reverted your addition of Category:2002 Gujarat riots to the above-mentioned article since the category refers to an event or series of incidents which happened in the past, while the page Narendra Modi is a biography of an individual. Hence the category does not qualify for inclusion on that page. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent my opinion. I have stated above that it is inappropriate to place the Anti-Sikh riots category on the Rajiv Gandhi biography. Please go ahead and remove it yourself. When any user disrupts Wikipedia to illustrate a point, they are generally issued a warning as a courtesy before an uninvolved administrator examines the situation for administrative action. There was nothing emotional about the warning issued to you. Your conduct on this page is not constructive as is demonstrated through your comments above. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 10:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
But he was the CM while the second biggest massacre of an Indian community happened in Gujarat. This is not a valid statement at all. The same can be said about Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh violence right? AS for moving the category, I believe that the move was to include both the riots and other related events. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The current version of the page has the following statement in the lead:
Modi has 600,000 followers on Twitter and is hailed as King of Social Media by the media.
The first part of the sentence is factual and can be easily verified, but the second part is subjective. The single citation given for this is an article in Oneindia.in. Should such a non-factual, hyperbolic statement be included on the basis of this one citation? Especially in the lead? User:WBRSin apparently feels very strongly that it should. But I disagree:
1. I disagree with WBRSin that OneIndia.in is a credible enough source for such a hyperbolic statement. If it was, then Emraan Hashmi's WP page should call him the king of the bedroom, Rajnikanth as the king of Indian cinema, Yousaf Gillani as the king of contradictions, and Emma Bunton the queen of cruelty. OneIndia.in is not a major media organization, it is an online news portal which can at best be classified as an amateur news blog.
2. A Google search shows that there are just ~450 hits matching "Narendra Modi" and "king of social media". Most of the results are from social media and blogs, not a single major news source to be found.
3. Another section above shows my edit request to add a sentence to the lead saying that Narendra Modi is a controversial figure: despite quoting multiple credible sources (BBC, NYT, Reuters, The Guardian, Time NDTV and The Hindu among others) this change was not done for several months. Now, a single amateur blog source is enough citation for an extraordinary hyperbolic statement? Aurorion ( talk) 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
And dont be jealous your proposed edit took a long time to be added, although adding "controversial" tag to a person was unfair to begin with, all politicans are controversial, i dont see you going around adding that tag to people like jyoti basu and his party who were involved in massacres during their reign. See the Marichjhapi massacre WBRSin ( talk) 11:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Lady Gaga has the highest fan following in Twitter.but NOTHING about twitter is mentioned in her introduction. Narendramodi doesn't even come in the top 10 WHY should TWITTER be even mentioned in his introduction??? Naveed ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
He went to another state and campaigned to no avail, but this is not notable because he wasn't successful? Hcobb ( talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There have been a few reverts/ edits lately they are being discussed here.
This article is about a person who has been Chief Minister for twelve years and has been elected to serve another five, are administrative disagreements with the governor of enough weight to have a separate sub-section? My opinion is that the sub-section is undue and so it was removed by me, my removal has been reverted, I request other editors to weigh the issue and do the necessary. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hangout is a term used by Google [7] why is it unencyclopaedic? The present title "Use of social media" is unnecessarily vague, while the discussion is related to the hangout. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Long time ago it was discussed that the news about Modi's wife should not be added to the article. The diff are [8] and [9]. I was reverted by Sitush here who had asked for diffs which I had provided on my talk page. I thought it would be best to bring it here.-- sarvajna ( talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"Why is Narendra Modi silent about his wife's name? Digvijay Singh" pls fill this Q. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.255.102 ( talk) 14:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
No negetive aspects of the modi goverment has been included in this article. This article has has no mention of the fake encounter cases after the gujrat riots, the BAN of Modi in USA, controvery arround the gujrat lokayukta. Naveed ( talk) 08:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
He is a great personality. Please put up a better picture of this great man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.193.234 ( talk) 12:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a 62 year old person who has been the chief minister of one of India's most prosperous states for eleven years, and polls predict another term for him. India is a democratic country, thus his being in power reflects popular consensus. Repeated mention of controversial incidents makes the article lopsided, without doubt I do not argue about the reliability of the sources, I argue that the weight various incidents are given in his article make it un-encyclopaedic. We ought to have a debate on what is of enduring importance as far as an encyclopaedia goes in terms of his personal and public life and then include it in the article. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Many of the changes made to this article in January/February are just not acceptable and will soon be reverted or modified. Please do not sanitise just because you favour the man, and please bear in mind that sections exist to organise an article. - Sitush ( talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Some other stuff is more serious but I need to thoroughly check contribution histories first because it may involve a trip to a noticeboard re: user behaviour, especially of the Hindutva variety. I'm playing catch-up at the moment so some delays and delving around are inevitable, sorry. - 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
101.62.53.21 ( talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a section in controversy about Mr.narendra Modi's marriage. I also cited the article from the OpenMagazine 2009. Can I know if this particular section doesn't violate any of the wikipedia policies. This particular controversy of his life is always a heated discussion. Hence his marital life isn't mentioned in the Personal Life category.
Should we have the recent visit of US Congresspersons mentioned? [10] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Editors have used this source to write that Narendra Modi is from a other backward class, to be honest I do not have any issue with that but I as far as I know there is a policy that the subject atleast people who are still not dead need to identify themself with some cast and till then we cannot write that X is either a OBC or something else, correct me if I am wrong. If we cannot use this source to write that he is from OBC we also cannot write He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination . I and Sitush were having a discussion on his talk page as he had written he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so. This is perfect if we consider the source but I objected with its placement. I feel this cannot be included in the personal life section, the only other section which I think is suitable is "2012 Elections". However we just cannot pick up this one thing about 2012 election, we may need to cover more about his manifesto and other things.-- sarvajna ( talk) 09:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Other Backward Class as Sitush rightly pointed out isn't about caste. Muslims, Jains, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs everyone is included if his community is backward in terms of development. There is another parameter that applies and that is income: No family whose income is above Rs. 4,50000 per year (about USD 700 per month) can have its members claim OBC status. It therefore is ridiculous to make statements like "Modi belongs to the OBC" based on election time news reports that suggest that "Modi's going to bat for the OBCs". I suggest it be taken off. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)IMO all that allows us to write is, "Jaffrelot alleges that BJP plans to exploit his OBC connection", that is not the same as painting him with a colour he himself may not associate with. Has he bracketed himself as a OBC as Mundhe or Bhujbal [11] have? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been born into a family which has no caste, from which no one has ever participated in politics. I am an exceptional case who does not have a Jāti, Biraderi etc. I have been born into an ordinary rural family and no one in my home is a graduate.
Jaffrelot says Modi belongs to an OBC caste, Modi refuses to identify with any caste per CW's video. Doesn't Modi prevail per Wikipedia rules? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems completely ridiculous to have a biography of a leading politician without once mentioning his political views or the type of party he is a member of. The page links to the parties and movements that he is affiliated with, but without giving a description of their political stances, and only using their indian names. The average reader has no way to judge form the leade whether he is a moderate, a libertarian, a communist or a Hindu Nationalist. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess you read it wrong, "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was a British Conservative Party politician." It is the name of the party. (In any case I do not see that, all I see in the first line is Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was a British politician, the longest-serving (1979–1990) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of the 20th century, and the only woman to have held the post ) Yes you are right about the second thing. I was wrong, may be we can add the political philosophy of Modi in the lead.However that would not mean writing what kind of party the BJP is, the views of RSS and Advani. Also in your previous edit you gave the translated name in place of the real name, now the article says He has been a member of the National Patriotic Organization (RSS) since childhood, having an interest in politics since adolescence. He holds a master's degree in political science. In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Indian People's Party (BJP) Give the translation in a bracket -- sarvajna ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Ratnakar. The names of the organizations that the subject of the biography is affiliated with are accurately reflected in their native names. This is an international encyclopedia, which, though written in English, is written with the perspective of accurately reflecting verifiable and reliable sources. For instance, the article on the parliament of Japan is entitled " National Diet", rather than "National Parliament (Japan)". Similarly, the article on Barack Obama does not mention that he is affiliated with the 'left-liberal Democratic Party'. That would be a wide and grossly inaccurate generalization. The term "conservative" has very different meanings in different countries. In the erstwhile Soviet Union, it would be a reference to communist ideas, and in the United States it refers to an ideology completely opposed to communism.
Also, please stop bullying other users with aggressive comments on the talk page. Wikipedia appreciates constructive and respectful engagement with other members of the community. They are all volunteers who are putting in their valuable free time in the service of Wikipedia (as I hope you are), and showing some basic courtesy will go a long way in your effort to improve this article. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 16:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I have added a {BLP sources} tag to point out the need for citations. I have not tried not to put too many citation needed tags so that the document does not look messy. I also had to add another section under Views and Opinions as it had just one particular view on Modi. The section contains no original research. I have noticed that many parts of the article have been subjected to Quote mining. For example the statement "Modi has also tried to turn his image from an Hindu Nationalist politician to an image of able administrator" has been quoted from a New York times article. The article states, "With a national profile clearly in mind, Mr. Modi has assiduously sought to reinvent himself from a scruffy mascot of Hindu nationalism to a decisive corporate-style administrator." With the initial part of the statement removed and a few words changed, it looks like Modi is a changed man. Some citations were incorrect too. I have also changed the contents of the section "Modi's position on terrorism". This part again was subject to Quote mining. This is because the author had changed the context to show that the acquisition of the surveillance equipment was entirely a state affair. I have changed some parts that were the author's original research with the exact statements given in the citation so that the section becomes less biased. I would like to hear from the author, if he/she has any justification for this. The last part of the section "Awards and recognitions", contains reference to an Award that has been given to Gujarat state after taking it away from Modi. Shouldn't that reference belong to some other section or page? The reference to another award above this, contains no citations at all. I hope the author provides some citations soon. I request my fellow Wikipedians to look at this article with more scepticism. -- AlllllX ( talk) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As no sources are being provided for the numerous failed citation verifications and missing citations, these unsourced statements will have to be removed. I wonder why no wikipedian has yet made an attempt to discuss this problem. -- Alex ( talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed most statements that were missing citations and were one sided -- Alex ( talk) 17:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Narendra Modi is clearly a very controversial politician. Several reputed publications both in India and abroad have stated this multiple times. This needs to be in the lead, as is the case with many other controversial political leaders in Wikipedia. (Example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I had added a statement to this effect to the lead with multiple high-quality sources from the BBC, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, but the change was reverted by a user. I am re-adding the change, request anyone disputing this to discuss the issue here. Aurorion ( talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | Modi is a highly controversial and divisive figure both within India and internationally. He was denied a visa by the United States in 2005 on grounds of religious intolerance. [1] However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government. [2] | ” |
Aurorion ( talk) 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | Modi is a highly controversial figure both within India and internationally, primarily related to the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, which happened under his rule. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and in BJP supporters across India, and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government. | ” |
Modify proposal. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism from across the political spectrum. In 2005, the Bush Administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. Following this and other controversies, as well as the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections. In December 2007, the United States entered its longest post–World War II recession, prompting the Bush Administration to enact multiple economic programs intended to preserve the country's financial system. Though Bush was popular in the U.S. for much of his first term, his popularity declined sharply during his second. He was a highly controversial figure internationally, with public protests occurring even during visits to close allies, such as the United Kingdom. | ” |
There are multiple issues with the way Redtiger has presented his proposal. Here's my suggestion:
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Modified:
“ | Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally, primarily related to the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, which happened under his rule. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and in BJP supporters across India. He is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government and is praised by business leaders. | ” |
"In 2002, the Modi administration received heated criticism from sections of the media after incidents of communal violence" is problematic as:
Why I chose "primarily related to"?
I am posting on WP India noticeboard, requesting comments. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Aurorion, you have not attempted to constructively contribute to the discussion and instead inserted vague statements in the lead section of the article. I have reverted you. Please be advised that there are multiple editors who have actively participated in talk page discussions in the past. So it's best if you stick to building consensus rather than introducing unilateral edits into the article. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration received heated criticism from sections of the media surrounding incidents of communal violence. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government"
As a reasonable compromise that outlines the fact he is still controversial today for the events at Godhra. Pectore talk 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration received heated criticism surrounding the 2002 Gujarat communal violence. However, he enjoys considerable support in his home state and is credited with the high economic growth in Gujarat under his government. | ” |
Nick have raised an objection to adding modi to Category:2002 Gujarat violence on the ground that it is an event. But WP:BLPCAT doesn't have any such rule. It only hinders one from adding a person to a faith without the person's own affirmation and to groups (like Criminals) which are defamatory. There exist umpteen number of categories for events which include people associated with it. For example Category:People of the Iraq War or Category:1984 anti-Sikh riots. I request Nick to put forward some valid objection citing the text of the concerned rule. Aravind V R ( talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that I have reverted your addition of Category:2002 Gujarat riots to the above-mentioned article since the category refers to an event or series of incidents which happened in the past, while the page Narendra Modi is a biography of an individual. Hence the category does not qualify for inclusion on that page. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent my opinion. I have stated above that it is inappropriate to place the Anti-Sikh riots category on the Rajiv Gandhi biography. Please go ahead and remove it yourself. When any user disrupts Wikipedia to illustrate a point, they are generally issued a warning as a courtesy before an uninvolved administrator examines the situation for administrative action. There was nothing emotional about the warning issued to you. Your conduct on this page is not constructive as is demonstrated through your comments above. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 10:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
But he was the CM while the second biggest massacre of an Indian community happened in Gujarat. This is not a valid statement at all. The same can be said about Indira Gandhi and the anti-Sikh violence right? AS for moving the category, I believe that the move was to include both the riots and other related events. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The current version of the page has the following statement in the lead:
Modi has 600,000 followers on Twitter and is hailed as King of Social Media by the media.
The first part of the sentence is factual and can be easily verified, but the second part is subjective. The single citation given for this is an article in Oneindia.in. Should such a non-factual, hyperbolic statement be included on the basis of this one citation? Especially in the lead? User:WBRSin apparently feels very strongly that it should. But I disagree:
1. I disagree with WBRSin that OneIndia.in is a credible enough source for such a hyperbolic statement. If it was, then Emraan Hashmi's WP page should call him the king of the bedroom, Rajnikanth as the king of Indian cinema, Yousaf Gillani as the king of contradictions, and Emma Bunton the queen of cruelty. OneIndia.in is not a major media organization, it is an online news portal which can at best be classified as an amateur news blog.
2. A Google search shows that there are just ~450 hits matching "Narendra Modi" and "king of social media". Most of the results are from social media and blogs, not a single major news source to be found.
3. Another section above shows my edit request to add a sentence to the lead saying that Narendra Modi is a controversial figure: despite quoting multiple credible sources (BBC, NYT, Reuters, The Guardian, Time NDTV and The Hindu among others) this change was not done for several months. Now, a single amateur blog source is enough citation for an extraordinary hyperbolic statement? Aurorion ( talk) 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
And dont be jealous your proposed edit took a long time to be added, although adding "controversial" tag to a person was unfair to begin with, all politicans are controversial, i dont see you going around adding that tag to people like jyoti basu and his party who were involved in massacres during their reign. See the Marichjhapi massacre WBRSin ( talk) 11:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Lady Gaga has the highest fan following in Twitter.but NOTHING about twitter is mentioned in her introduction. Narendramodi doesn't even come in the top 10 WHY should TWITTER be even mentioned in his introduction??? Naveed ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
He went to another state and campaigned to no avail, but this is not notable because he wasn't successful? Hcobb ( talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There have been a few reverts/ edits lately they are being discussed here.
This article is about a person who has been Chief Minister for twelve years and has been elected to serve another five, are administrative disagreements with the governor of enough weight to have a separate sub-section? My opinion is that the sub-section is undue and so it was removed by me, my removal has been reverted, I request other editors to weigh the issue and do the necessary. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hangout is a term used by Google [7] why is it unencyclopaedic? The present title "Use of social media" is unnecessarily vague, while the discussion is related to the hangout. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Long time ago it was discussed that the news about Modi's wife should not be added to the article. The diff are [8] and [9]. I was reverted by Sitush here who had asked for diffs which I had provided on my talk page. I thought it would be best to bring it here.-- sarvajna ( talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"Why is Narendra Modi silent about his wife's name? Digvijay Singh" pls fill this Q. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.255.102 ( talk) 14:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
No negetive aspects of the modi goverment has been included in this article. This article has has no mention of the fake encounter cases after the gujrat riots, the BAN of Modi in USA, controvery arround the gujrat lokayukta. Naveed ( talk) 08:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
He is a great personality. Please put up a better picture of this great man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.193.234 ( talk) 12:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a 62 year old person who has been the chief minister of one of India's most prosperous states for eleven years, and polls predict another term for him. India is a democratic country, thus his being in power reflects popular consensus. Repeated mention of controversial incidents makes the article lopsided, without doubt I do not argue about the reliability of the sources, I argue that the weight various incidents are given in his article make it un-encyclopaedic. We ought to have a debate on what is of enduring importance as far as an encyclopaedia goes in terms of his personal and public life and then include it in the article. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Many of the changes made to this article in January/February are just not acceptable and will soon be reverted or modified. Please do not sanitise just because you favour the man, and please bear in mind that sections exist to organise an article. - Sitush ( talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Some other stuff is more serious but I need to thoroughly check contribution histories first because it may involve a trip to a noticeboard re: user behaviour, especially of the Hindutva variety. I'm playing catch-up at the moment so some delays and delving around are inevitable, sorry. - 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
101.62.53.21 ( talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a section in controversy about Mr.narendra Modi's marriage. I also cited the article from the OpenMagazine 2009. Can I know if this particular section doesn't violate any of the wikipedia policies. This particular controversy of his life is always a heated discussion. Hence his marital life isn't mentioned in the Personal Life category.
Should we have the recent visit of US Congresspersons mentioned? [10] Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Editors have used this source to write that Narendra Modi is from a other backward class, to be honest I do not have any issue with that but I as far as I know there is a policy that the subject atleast people who are still not dead need to identify themself with some cast and till then we cannot write that X is either a OBC or something else, correct me if I am wrong. If we cannot use this source to write that he is from OBC we also cannot write He has claimed that his family were designated as an Other Backward Class in India's system for achieving positive discrimination . I and Sitush were having a discussion on his talk page as he had written he had shunned identifying a familial position in the caste system until 2012 when it became politically expedient to do so. This is perfect if we consider the source but I objected with its placement. I feel this cannot be included in the personal life section, the only other section which I think is suitable is "2012 Elections". However we just cannot pick up this one thing about 2012 election, we may need to cover more about his manifesto and other things.-- sarvajna ( talk) 09:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Other Backward Class as Sitush rightly pointed out isn't about caste. Muslims, Jains, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs everyone is included if his community is backward in terms of development. There is another parameter that applies and that is income: No family whose income is above Rs. 4,50000 per year (about USD 700 per month) can have its members claim OBC status. It therefore is ridiculous to make statements like "Modi belongs to the OBC" based on election time news reports that suggest that "Modi's going to bat for the OBCs". I suggest it be taken off. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)IMO all that allows us to write is, "Jaffrelot alleges that BJP plans to exploit his OBC connection", that is not the same as painting him with a colour he himself may not associate with. Has he bracketed himself as a OBC as Mundhe or Bhujbal [11] have? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been born into a family which has no caste, from which no one has ever participated in politics. I am an exceptional case who does not have a Jāti, Biraderi etc. I have been born into an ordinary rural family and no one in my home is a graduate.
Jaffrelot says Modi belongs to an OBC caste, Modi refuses to identify with any caste per CW's video. Doesn't Modi prevail per Wikipedia rules? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems completely ridiculous to have a biography of a leading politician without once mentioning his political views or the type of party he is a member of. The page links to the parties and movements that he is affiliated with, but without giving a description of their political stances, and only using their indian names. The average reader has no way to judge form the leade whether he is a moderate, a libertarian, a communist or a Hindu Nationalist. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess you read it wrong, "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts, 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013) was a British Conservative Party politician." It is the name of the party. (In any case I do not see that, all I see in the first line is Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was a British politician, the longest-serving (1979–1990) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of the 20th century, and the only woman to have held the post ) Yes you are right about the second thing. I was wrong, may be we can add the political philosophy of Modi in the lead.However that would not mean writing what kind of party the BJP is, the views of RSS and Advani. Also in your previous edit you gave the translated name in place of the real name, now the article says He has been a member of the National Patriotic Organization (RSS) since childhood, having an interest in politics since adolescence. He holds a master's degree in political science. In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Indian People's Party (BJP) Give the translation in a bracket -- sarvajna ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Ratnakar. The names of the organizations that the subject of the biography is affiliated with are accurately reflected in their native names. This is an international encyclopedia, which, though written in English, is written with the perspective of accurately reflecting verifiable and reliable sources. For instance, the article on the parliament of Japan is entitled " National Diet", rather than "National Parliament (Japan)". Similarly, the article on Barack Obama does not mention that he is affiliated with the 'left-liberal Democratic Party'. That would be a wide and grossly inaccurate generalization. The term "conservative" has very different meanings in different countries. In the erstwhile Soviet Union, it would be a reference to communist ideas, and in the United States it refers to an ideology completely opposed to communism.
Also, please stop bullying other users with aggressive comments on the talk page. Wikipedia appreciates constructive and respectful engagement with other members of the community. They are all volunteers who are putting in their valuable free time in the service of Wikipedia (as I hope you are), and showing some basic courtesy will go a long way in your effort to improve this article. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 16:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)