Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Lead, again

Where does any of He has been a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) since childhood. ... In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to direct the election campaign in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh appear in the body of the article? The statements are in the lead but I cannot find them where they really do need to be. THe RSS part is contradicted by us saying in the body that "During his years in the RSS,, Modi came in touch ..." and this source, which we already cite, does not in fact say what our lead says regarding the campaign. And does it really matter who selected him, even if we knew? - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you were the one who shifted this thing to the lead from the body or something like that.-sarvajna (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that very much. I learned how lead sections work long before I got involved with Wikipedia. However, please can we deal with the actual problem? - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed part of this issue. The RSS bit remains unresolved. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibberish

I'm not sure that the "merchant of death" thing is warranted because it is probably just the usual political mud-slinging. However, the entirety of Modi made a speech at Mangrol in which he justified the extrajudicial killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, during the election campaign in response to Sonia Gandhi's speech calling him a "merchant of death",[43] and referred to Sohrabuddin's killing. needs rephrasing, if someone is up for it. The punctuation is wrong, the subject of Gandhi's claim is uncertain (Modi or Sheikh, and the last five words either shouldn't be there at all or have somehow remained after an earlier truncation. The whole thing is gibberish. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi's speech calling him a "merchant of death" is not inside the article & I believe it is noteworthy. It may be mud-slinging but I am unconformable deleting it.
"The whole thing is gibberish" - nope, your claim is though. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)}

Go ahead with the punctuation edit, Sitush you're good at it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(I fixed your indents). Trust me, it is gibberish. The comma doesn't help matters but is only a part of the problem. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a legitimate concern. Modi might be a merchant of death in Congress's eyes and they may be right. Who are we to decide what's gibberish and what's not; Sonia Gandhi is very very notable figure in Indian politics. Now you may get on with the punctuation. BTW, You're right about the comma. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If we are writing about Sohrabuddin Sheikh's encounter thing then we will have to mention about Sonia calling him merchant of death, he made the statement of Sheikh's encounter only after being called a merchant of death.--sarvajna (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The included citation does not say anywhere that Narendra Modi justified Sohrabuddin's death. Also, please remove the phrase "merchant of death" as quibbling between politicians is not relevant for the article. Similarly, it would not make sense if we were to insert "Italy ki beti" in the article on Sonia Gandhi. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, the recent change that you have made^[1] did not help at all. Can I ask you to step back from the page for 24 hours and concentrate on the talk page discussions instead? The aim of this exercise is not for the short-term victory, but a longer term resolution for a stable version. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How does During the election campaign, Modi justified the extrajudicial killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. sound? I have no idea why this is a significant point to make in the article but maybe there is some relevance because he has recently been criticised for an alleged u-turn regarding death sentencing. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that assumes that the source supports the statement. Nick says it does not, so we have yet another mangled "fact" here. Needs removing entirely or sourcing quickly. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your claim Nick. The section is about Modi's personality and image. Well, if he is seen as "Yamraj" or "Merchant of Death" within the Major Ruling Party of his country then I believe it should go in. It merits a mention. We should be neutral and objective. Stability should not be at the expense of neutrality. We have already stripped the article of many legitimate assertions this is unwarranted. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

NHRC

Our Times of India source for the 2010 SIT clearance of Modi is referring to a leaked "status report". I've no idea what a "status report" is but if it is an interim report and the source is using a leaked copy then probably it should not be mentioned. We do have sources for the later report of 2012.

However, the same ToI source mentions that the Supreme Court's creation of the SIT was because of concerns raised by the National Human Rights Commission of India regarding investigations. Where does the NHRC fit into things? I've read our article about the organisation and still have no real idea whether it is a neutral body of some repute, an advocacy body or what. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

God no, the NHRC are not even remotely reliable. They were set up by the government to counter actual human rights groups work. See Performance & legitimacy: national human rights institutions p62. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. If they were set up to counter the work of human rights' groups then why were they concerned about the reliability of investigations into the alleged breaches of human rights in Gujarat? Unless I've misunderstood you, they would surely have kept schtum? - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is currently paying their wages? And who is being blamed for HRV in Gujarat? There is a chance that since they were set up they decided to bite the hand that feeds them, and have become a proper human rights group. I am just going by what I read. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea who is paying their wages. By the tone of your question, I'd guess central government but our article says they are independent. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Government of India tightly controls the finances of the NHRC. The NHRC is currently required to report to the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”), the same governmental department responsible for immigration, communal harmony, the Armed Special Forces Act, assistance to victims of terrorist violence border management, and, most notably, internal security‐including police and other law and order officials" Peopleswatch Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I wonder who pays and appoints the Supreme Court judges! Hopefully, they have at least a semblance of the separation of powers that is supposed to exist in the UK. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There are adequate checks and balances provided in the Constitution of India to maintain the independence of the judiciary. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

In this edit,^[2] Sitush adds "[...] that occurred in 2002" at the end of the sentence. Is that necessary? The section is called "2002 Gujarat violence". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes because it is in a subsection relating to a report of 2012 and because while we have introduced the Godhra incident there is nothing but a link for the Gulberg one. It jumps out of the text with no context at all other than a main section heading. I'm happy to see the removal of the editorialisation that someone had added but we really are here to help our readers and not to cause them to jump around simply to discover the most basic of context. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mind, it would probably be better to say "... that occurred during the 2002 violence". It was a part of the whole palaver, not some entirely separate thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How many gulberg incidents do we have, 10-20??.--sarvajna (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. We have one article but whether there have been other incidents there is unknown to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources

There is no need to provide two sources for uncontroversial statements, such as that the BJP has governed Gujarat since 1995. It is just clutter and thus this edit is pointless. Does anyone here actually dispute that they have been in government since then? If not then please can we remove the chaff, ie: the source that does not even explicitly mention 1995. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"There is no need to provide two sources for uncontroversial statements" - There is no need to delete one of the two sources for that statement either. This is pointless. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

{Fixed your indents). You seem to be acting in a deliberately combative manner, Mrt. Should we add another 30 sources that say the same thing? Where do we stop? - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)}

Did I ask you to delete the DNA source? No. You did, did I object? No. Now I merge the two citations to form one ref which BTW is a solution to CITEKILL, you are criticising me for my combativeness? Wow! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, two or three sources are okay. Do we really need to drag this further? There are still many issues with the article that require discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. What purpose do multiple sources have for clearly uncontested statements of fact. It is ridiculous and it is poor writing. I can see why two or more sources might be required for points of controversy or in situations where we have a statement that is not supported entirely by one source, but to have multiple sources just for the hell of it is ludicrous. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree there, and come back to it at a later date. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We certainly could but I see no reason why we should leave it until a later date. Please don't quote WP:DEADLINE at me - I know what it says ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the rescue of the Pioneer source using Wayback, Nick. I use that place a lot but it is not working properly where I am at the moment. It does, however, mean we now have another pair of sources for an uncontroversial statement, unless someone is disputing that the SIT report cleared Modi. One or the other of those sources can be dropped :( - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What is Sitush's problem with 2 sources for any statement??

What is his deal? Two sources (bundled) behind one statement is unacceptable to Sitush? Why is he striping the article of legitimate sources? I mean what is his problem? What is he trying to achieve by stirring minuscule things up like this?
"clearly uncontested statements of fact." - it is only so far uncontested, this is an article about a very controversial figure in Indian politics, can you see the future now? huh? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be justifying the POV tag now but is anyone really going to say that the BJP has not been in government since 1995 in Gujarat? Honestly? We have a big references section and it is going to become much bigger: pruning unnecessary citations as we go along seems a pretty rational thing to do. No-one says that bundling cannot be done but if it isn't needed then why bother? It clutters the reader's view and it really clutters the edit window view, especially since we are using the {{cite}} templates. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

MrT and Sitush, I am sure we have more serious issues than this one on this page, can you both stop fighting about an extra ref? I do not think MrT justified the POV tag but I would prefer not to discuss it here or now. -sarvajna (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

TV9

What is the significance of Modi's comment relating to the INC's attitude to TV9? It looks to be just trivial politicking and what the INC do is entirely their affair. I can see why the ban might be mentioned in an article about the INC but not why it is mentioned here. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is trivial and should not be included. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I've worked out why it was inserted. There was some blocking of Tehelka on TV in Gujarat following the "sting" operation, that caused criticism and this is the counter to it. Since I assume that it was not Modi who arranged the blocking, there is no need to mention either that or this comment in the article. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone want to keep/develop this point or can I assume that there is consensus to remove it? - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Godhra train violence" or "Godhra train burning"?

We have introduced the Godhra incident as "Godhra train burning". We have already managed to denude the article of the legitimate explicit reference to the victims or the number of fatalities under the garb of "perceived excessiveness". Now, there is a big cloud of ambiguity concerning the main target of the Muslim mob (i.e. it's absolutely unclear whether the train was the target, or something else) and if we are to surmount this issue either of the following ways ought to be taken:

1. In this case there has to some sort of explicit clarification that along with the train, Hindu pilgrims, who were the real target, were murdered and that the train was just a collateral damage.
   or,
2. We may use piped links or redirects of the article and use "Godhra train violence" or "Godhra train carnage" as the text, esp since our text refers to the corollary riot as "2002 Gujarat violence", at least this much should be clear that violence begot the violence.

My position

1. "Differential usage in the media" matters not a damn after it was "established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage" (Nick's words in quote);
2. We have piped links available for exactly this purpose so that there has to be no compromise on part of precise description of a thing while linking to a target page that is, for some reason, not named that way.
3. In any case, I have provided multiple sources (I doubt majority of Indian sources fall into this category) to prove that even the so-called "emotive words" like "massacre / killings / carnage" are not uncommon when referring to this dreadful incident.
4. The wording used for referring to the 2002 riot does allude to violence, at least. There is no ambiguity about that. It doesn't refer to the incident in Gulberg as "2002 Gulberg house burning" or "2002 Gulberg destruction of property" even though houses were burnt, it refers to it as "Gulbarg Society massacre", hence it's only fair that we refer to triggering episode of this riot (the Godhra train carnage) as ″Godhra train violence″ not ″Godhra train burning″.

Kindly respond. PLEASE avoid subjective excuses to retain this ambiguous phrase, and I implore you to use common sense. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Note

When sitush wikified the "Gulberg massacre" he didn't object that it is "emotive". It is flagrant tendentious editing to me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have performed this well-intentioned edit to clarify a. what was burned, b. How did religion get involved and why Hindu - Muslims clashed in the first place after the "Godhra Train Burning", I referred to it as a "violent incident", this is legitimate and clearer without allusion to excessive detail. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Far from being tendentious editing, the wikification was consistent editing. As the summary said, the link matches the title of the article and if someone objects to that then they should go to that article and discuss a rename. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The current version (In 2002, widespread communal violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat after the violent incident near the Godhra railway station where some coaches of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burned by a muslim mob) seems appropriate. I have not read the whole article yet, so cannot compare the description of this with other violent incidents. But this is pretty succinct and informative.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Soham321's edits

I would like to know what was the need for this ? Modi has made serveral speeches, he has criticised many more, are we going to include such things now, I feel that it is undue to add such a thing to the article. Also it was not confrontation with the Election Commission, he did not lodge any complaint, he just criticised one man who was the head of EC. Recently he has started to reffer Rahul Gandhi as Mr. Golden Spoon so are we planning to start a section called Confrontation with Rahul Gandhi and write the whole speech like it is done by Soham321 ? -sarvajna (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

sarvajana you are mistaken and saying erroneous things now. Modi in fact did complain about the Election Commission. The complaint of the Modi govt was to the Supreme Court of India--to nullify the decision of the Election Commission to defer the 2002 Gujarat elections--but the Supreme Court in its wisdom took the side of the EC. Soham321 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It certainly seemed to be excessive. I was not aware of the DRN thread until the statements were added. If the point is included then there is probably a better way to say it. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

His previous edits where not neutral, but the best way to see if he is following NPOV is to look at his edits to this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We can inculde this under 2002 elections section where we can mention that the Guj govt wanted early elections and EC deferred it, there is no need for a whole speech of Modi to be present here. -sarvajna (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit but am still not happy with it. As sarvajna says, the placing seems wrong. I'm not at all sure of the relevance of the spat between Modi and Lynghdoe either - it seems to have been a storm in a tea-cup. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2002 election and Confrontation with Election Commission are two issues related to each other. The Modi-Lyngdoh spat can be inserted in just one or two lines in between (1) the resignation demands and (2) his resignation and subsequent recommendation for dissolution of house.-Mohit Singh (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section pending discussion on the talk page. Soham321 has a history of being warned on their talk page on several occasions by multiple editors. I have left them a note on their talk page as well – [3]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, Soham321 has removed the latest warning as well. - Mohit Singh (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Confrontation with Election Commission

In July 2002, nine months before its term was due to end, the Gujarat Assembly was dissolved by the Narendra Modi government which called for early elections despite the public opposition of the Election Commission to hold early polls in the state which had only a few months ago experienced communal violence. . The Election Commission, however, ruled out early elections in Gujarat. On August 20,2002, in a public meeting at Bodeli, near Vadodara, Narendra Modi targetted Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh. Modi claimed Lyngdoh is an "Italian" and insinuated that the reason the Election Commission had delayed holding the Gujarat assembly elections was because Lyngdoh was a Christian. Modi said: "Some journalists asked me recently, 'Has James Michael Lyngdoh come from Italy?' I said I don't have his janam patri. I will have to ask Rajiv Gandhi. Then the journalists said, 'Do they meet in church?' I replied, 'Maybe they do'. Narendra Modi was criticized by the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee for using "improper language" and making "indecorous insinuation". Lyngdoh had also hit back at Narendra Modi for attacking him on religious grounds saying it was "quite despicable" and "gossip of menials" by those who have not heard of atheism. A day after Vajapayee's rebuke, Modi claimed that the controversy with Lyngdoh was over following Vajpayee's "guidelines" but reiterated his demand for early assembly elections in Gujarat. In October 2002, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's order to defer assembly elections in Gujarat.

---

The above edit had been posted earlier by me after I had been through Dispute Resolution and been given the go ahead to include the edit in the page after giving more context to my edit which i did. I also gave more references. An important reference which I did not give in my edit (because i had *not* seen it at the time) is this one: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020824/asp/frontpage/story_1131718.asp From the telegraph article: At a rally near Vadodara on Tuesday, the Gujarat chief minister had referred to Lyngdoh’s religion, Christianity, and hinted at his alleged proximity to Congress president Sonia Gandhi.'

“Someone asked me, has Lyngdoh come from Italy. I said we would need to ask Rajiv Gandhi,” Modi had said at the rally. “Someone asked: ‘Is he a relation of Sonia Gandhi'’ I said they sometimes met in Church, so there must be ties between them.”

Modi also made it a point to repeatedly refer to the election commissioner by his full name — James Michael Lyngdoh.

Asked if Modi’s outbursts called for action, BJP spokesperson V.K. Malhotra said the party’s legal cell will examine the issue. “I have not seen what Modi or the Election Commission said. I will consult the party. The legal cell of the party will meet and decide,” he added.

However, senior party leader Murli Manohar Joshi disapproved of Modi’s language. “It does not behove Modi to make such remarks against a high constitutional authority,” the human resources development minister said in Nagpur.

Lyngdoh today described Modi’s outburst as “despicable” and asserted that such utterances would not affect the functioning of the commission. “These remarks reflected how cruel the polity is,” he said. “I don’t have any religion. I couldn’t care less.”

He added that religions have created all these problems. “It is despicable and it comes from gossip menials,” the poll panel chief told a television channel. Lyngdoh said he agreed with the views of his predecessor M.S. Gill that Governor’s rule should be imposed in states two months before they go to polls, subject to good choice of Governors.

In reply to a question, he said he did not think “it is competitive politics. I think the politics today is dirty, vitiated and tendentious.”

To another query on whether the commission was on firm legal ground on its decision to defer polls in Gujarat, he said “the more the criticism, the more I think it is the right decision”. Lyngdoh also dismissed speculation that the commission’s order on Gujarat was not unanimous. “I do not do karate on my colleagues,” the black belt holder said.

Commission officials who spoke to The Telegraph today not only charged Modi with trying to polarise voters along religious lines but also accused him of trying to drive a wedge between the three commissioners, the others being B.B. Tandon and T.S. Krishnamurthy. “It is a three-member commission, why only target Lyngdoh' He may be a Christian. The other two are Hindus who did not utter a single word of dissent. The full commission visited Gujarat and all the three recorded the same observations,” said an official who accompanied the team to the riot-scarred state.

---

I would also like to bring to the attention of WP admins this news report: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-09/news/35689601_1_apco-worldwide-vibrant-gujarat-niira-radia

---

I believe i have done my job of bringing this issue to WP admins and taking it to Dispute Resolution once. It is for the WP admins to decide now whether they wish to include the edit in the main article. My suggestion is that it should be included, although the WP admins can re-write the edit in whatever way they think appropriate since they have greater expertise in writing edits. A consensus is unlikely to emerge because the pro and anti Narendra Modi camps are completely polarized. Soham321 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

DRN is not a final judge of anything and certainly when it comes to India-related stuff it seems quite often to be the case (in my experience, anyway) that the thing is batted back to the article talk page for further discussion. The outcome at DRN was that something could go in but not the full monty. You seemed pretty much to insert what you had added prior to going to that forum. It seemed a bit much to me and to others who commented. Since I doubt any person currently involved with this article, other than you and Drmies, was aware of the DRN thread, it would perhaps have been better to point to it from here in the first place. Since that didn't happen, we have to work something out retrospectively on this talk page. I'm not even sure why you took it to DRN quite so quickly, but you did and this is the result.

I don't think it was right for Nick to remove the entire thing as he did a few hours ago: some of the worst excesses had already been trimmed and there was a discussion going on regarding what remained. But he decided to take some sort of policing role on POV grounds and I am not going to revert him. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In the Dispute Resolution the mediator asked me to provide greater context and background to the edit. By this i took it to mean he wanted me to provide more details (and not less details). The mediator had also said that he is taking a break of 2-3 days and may not be around for a while but will come back to the talk page to sort things out. Soham321 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Development in Gujarat?

Heres a source you can use: [4].128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Who funds Modis campaign on social media?[5]128.148.231.12 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Narendra Modi is no slouch in publicity. During the nearly 10-year reign, he has raised a formidable self-promotional network that spans every spectrum of the media. But by hard-selling Vibrant Gujarat, Apco is doing him a big service (it is said to charge nearly $25,000 a month as wages). Modi believes a large international audience, members who no doubt carry weight in policy matters back home, helps to burnish his credibility and image, given the cloud over the 2002 riots. But erasing the scars of 2002 is far from easy. Earlier this week, 25 US lawmakers urged the administration to continue to deny Modi entry. Yet, Modi would see great value in an organisation that has a great record in gathering important talking heads."128.148.231.12 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He hiring an ad agency to increase his popularity does not prove that the real development has not happened (how can some one making himself popular mean gujarat development is a hoax?). I think some reliable information if in terms of statistics can be brought out in comparison to other states it would help the argument you are making.Amit (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not making an argument I am providing information that can be used to expand the article.128.148.231.12 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - my mistake to quote that information as an argument, but the information is not relevant to the topic unless made in context - All i mean to say is that it is informative to know and probably to even add in his biography about how he advertises himself but doesn't seem relevant to gujarat development.

Well the piece by Nivedita Menon says that the development is mostly an advertisement scheme and that the actual figures show something else. The Article from Economic Times say that Modi have engaged a highly controversial public relations company to push the image of Gujarat as a development miracle. I'd say both is relevant.128.148.231.12 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RSS and BJP

Most non-Indian readers dont know what BJP or RSS are and are not helped by spelling out their names in Hindi. The lead does not describe either of the organizations' viewpoints and the lead gives no other information about Modis piolitical stance. It doesn't mention Hindu nationalism, Hindutva or Moditva (as his brand of Chauvinist anti-Muslim hindu-Nationalism is called by some according to this source[6] which is already used in the article). One can in fact read the Lead (which is supposed to summarize the article) and not know anything about Modis political stances. He is a politician isn't he? Presumably his politics matter.128.148.231.12 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding something about his political stance in form of statements he made is a good way to add information - but doing it in terms of POV of one writer or other politicians is soap boxing. My issue in using this citation is that this is a profile by an author and most of the actionable information seems outdated. We also want to remain in the limits of WP:LIBEL

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

.Amit (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not soapboxing or libel to add sourced information about his political stances. Every available source agrees that modi is a Hindu nationalist Hindutva politician. Also: Sign our comments.128.148.231.12 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources cannot define a persons characters or nature, but proven or reported actions can. We cannot call some person (just mentioning as an example) as a thief until he has stolen something and proved to be a thief (we cannot call a person a thief because some one said so - thats LIBEL and POV - if he was caught or punished for stealing then you mention it in the article saying the person was caught stealing or was jailed for stealing etc...). Terms such as hindutva are so non-specific in nature that it is tough to define and ends up being a POV - if you go to RSS they will say hindutva is great and nationalistic, congress will say it is religious, foreign countries have no idea about it and we as an editor will be blamed for LIBEL. Thats why I mentioned that statements or actions need to be mentioned as reference or citation - else this will just end up as non-referenced or improperly cited POV's and would go against us as an editor. Read the LIBEL page i referred before - it does make good points about what needs to go in a biography page.Amit (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling a conservative politician conservative or a hindu nationalism politician a hindu nationalist is not libel and of course it needs to go in their biographies. The libel policy does not apply and suggesting it does is ridiculous.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy as per libel restricts editors from putting defamatory material (though irony is that any kind of positive material is easily included :-)... because no one raise concerns for positive comments on their history but surely will do for negative ones :-)... hence we have to make a good faith effort in these cases.Amit (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The political stance of a politician is not defamatory, you are being obtuse.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Obtuse or not. The fact remains that your edits on the page were not really pointing to a political stance (they seemed frivolous), That's the reason I brought in the point about LIBEL and POV Amit (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a request for clarification of the meaning of his membership of RSS to the lead which was then removed by two editors with no justification and no participation in this discussion. That is what this section is about. My edits to the personality are discussed in the sections below and they are everything but frivolous.138.16.105.81 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The main RSS or BJP page needs to take care of it (take care of explaining RSS or BJP political agenda/stance - just tag with [] so that it takes readers to such pages as necessary if they wish to gather more information) as such terms cannot be explained in such cases as it will be unwanted elaboration in our part.Amit (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the Lead should be able to stand alone as a summary of the article. An article about a politician should obviously describe the politicians politics, at the very least giving a characterization of their parties that is accesible to readers of English who are not familiar with the stances of indian political parties. Your argument is frivolous.128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree to it. wiki reference should take care of it. if some one is interested they can always drill down into the wiki links. This is just biased talk... i don't see you considering edits on sonia gandhi page to elaborate congress party agenda? You seem biased towards this biography for political reasons which is surely a COI.

Yes obviously the only reason one would include critical information about a politician who has been accused of participation in genocide would be political bias in favor of Sonia Gandhi. You are quite a joker. Is he a politician or not? Does his politics not matter? If they do obviously they need to be mentioned. Also, sign your posts.68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also your argument fails, the article on Sonia Gandhi has a long "controversies" section. Surely she is not that much more controversial than Modi. She has never for example been accused of sectarian violence or denied a visa to another country. And she is not described as "controversial" in 90% of reliable sources as Modi is. COI? Where?68.9.182.96 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

controversies doesnt equal putting an elaborate explanation of what RSS or BJP political agenda is in Modi biography page...that was your original concern. thats wht sonia gandhi page is being compared too. not her controversies versus modi's controversies.... if there are controversies i wouldnt stop you from adding well cited content about his controversies and increase his list... that is not a concern here... Just because you say so doesn't make it a fact...Amit (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I didnt ask for an elaborate description of RSS or BJP - in fact any description or even a translation would be an improvement. Sonia Gandhi's page is in fact entirely irrelevant, since WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. If you want to compare you should compare with a good article or featured article. The article on Bill Clinton both describes his political stances in detail and his impeachment trial. The lead of G. W. Bush has two paragraphs about his policies and controversies. This article about a politician who has been accused of much worse crimes than either of these have nothing at all about either his politics or his controversies in the lead. It is not because I say so it is a fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. EVery edit I added was well sourced, obviously, because the sources are already used in the article.68.9.182.96 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have protected the page in light of the egregious BLP violations being added to the article and the frequent revert warring going on to try and protect the article from these BLP violations. When discussion has been held and a consensus has been reached on how to proceed, you know where to find me in order for the protection to be lifted. Nick (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So you protect the cherrypicking positive version lest someone should include critical information based on sources that Darkness shines consider unreliable? How mighty neutral of you.128.148.231.12 (talk (·ʍaunus·snunɐw·)) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, protection is never a comment on or validation of the current state of an article. Now please discuss the things that you wish to do and gain consensus. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why did he revert before protecting?128.148.231.12 (talk (·ʍaunus·snunɐw·)) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a different user to Sir Nicholas. I would expect a nice strikethrough on that comment, however, when I return. Nick (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that.128.148.231.12 (talk (·ʍaunus·snunɐw·)) 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Burned to death

Did the post-mortems shows that the kar sevaks were burned to death or would it be better for us just to say that they died? From general reading of fire incidents in the UK news etc, the most common cause of death is smoke inhalation. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Check the sources. They didn't just wake up and die, or did they? They were murdered (follow the court case and investigations) and people were locked up. What is your problem Sitush? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The death penalty was awarded to 11 convicts, while the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Why would they do that if there wasn't any murder and all the deaths were spontaneous. But if you want we can change burned to death to something more objective and elaborative.

″Fifteen children were among the dead. Several carriages were gutted and some victims were burned beyond recognition, officials said. ″ --BBC

I hope it helps. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that's just it. The cited sources do not say that they were burned to death, although one does mention post mortems. I pretty sure that it is very rare for people to die due to burning: even witches burned at the stake in Ye Olde England are thought to have died from shock and inhalation before the flames did their stuff. Anyway, I'm just asking here, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Burned beyond recognition" does not mean that they were "burned to death". - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that they were not burned to death. People got death penalty? What the heck is your point? They died of independent reasons other than Burning? Huh? You're being combative sitush. I personally feel we can include that "some victims were burned beyond recognition and several died" and let the readers decide. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the relevant sentence should probably say something like "... of the kar sevaks who had died in the train burning" unless we have something that says they were "burned to death". - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unacceptable, it seems as though you're trying to frame the fire as nature-caused, while the truth is that was a "mass-murder" that's the conclusion the "Court of law" reached. Use "murdered" or "massacred". Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "frame" it as anything. Stop with the accusations, please. Anything I say or ask here, you object: it is becoming some sort of reflex. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it is my fault now that you needlessly propose unacceptable things? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)These pilgrims were killed in the fire:

  The riots began in February 2002 when a train filled with Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob in a small Gujarat town. A fire erupted — it remains unclear whether it was arson — and 60 Hindus burned to death. In retaliation, Muslims were attacked across the state. Since that bloodletting, Modi has ruled over a state sharply divided along religious lines --Fox news

  The day before, a train filled with Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob in the nearby city of Godhra. A fire started, and at least 58 Hindus were burned to death. --NYT

These sources clearly use "burned to death"(my emphases). You want more? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

More:

• ″one year after the incident in which 59 people were burned to death. --BBC″

• ″The 31 men, all Muslims, were convicted earlier this month on charges of conspiracy and murder in connection with the 2002 burning of a train car in the Gujarati town of Godhra - 59 people burned to death in that incident. Most of them were Hindu pilgrims returning from the northern city, Ayodha - where, 10 years earlier, extreme Hindus had destroyed a mosque in a decades-long property dispute.″ --VOA News

  ″Fifty-eight persons were burned to death in the Sabarmati Express near Godhra on February 27, 2002.″ --rediff

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. Assuming the paragraph stays at all, given Nick's concerns, we need to use one of those sources. Preferably not FOX News, which is basically a rabble-rousing source. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The text on the Fox News report has been syndicated from Associated Press. If we are open to using partisan (and allegedly "academic") sources such as Economic and Political Weekly or Frontline Magazine, I wonder why there should be any concerns with Fox News proper. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Syndicated or mangled like some Indian news media do? We don't need to use it, so we should not. Why make life hard for ourselves given Fox's reputation. IIRC, it has been at RSN a few times. Given that this particular subject matter (ie: the events, not this article) has resulted in reaction from the more extreme verges of the right-wing, using a known right-wing etc source seems inappropriate. FWIW, I've recently raised some E&PW sources at RSN, although nothing to do with this article. Isn't Frontline published by The Hindu? - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, what the hell is wrong with you, you are just nitpicking here. Burned to death? Is this even a question, till now did you think that people died in earthquake and their body thrown in the burning train?? I am somehow feeling that your just making a mountain out of a mole hill on this article.--sarvajna (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I did explain why above, which is that I am pretty sure that the cause of death in most fires is smoke inhalation. But to add to that, well, the phrase "burned to death" is very emotive, just as "riddled with bullets" sounds different from "shot several times". I'm fine with it if that is what happened but otherwise would prefer a less emotive turn of phrase. In a weird way, it is a bit like someone writing that X "passed away" rather than that they died, although "passed away" is deemed to be a euphemism and IIRC is specifically mentioned at WP:WORDS. The phrase was all I wanted to clarify and nothing sinister was intended. I really do wonder if some of these nuances are getting lost in translation - and I really do not intend any offence when I say this. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"I did explain why above" - No Sitush, so far you have only tried to explain many, many of your extreme wishes. "burned to death" is not emotive. Objectively calling a spade as a spade is not emotive. You are nitpicking. You are unilaterally creating a big fuss out of this whole thing.
"I really do wonder if some of these nuances are getting lost in translation" - don't wonder. Keep you rhetoric to yourself. Like I said below, we may add something like the following if you want more clarity, "Kar sevaks (Hindu pilgrims) were killed when a radical Islamist mob deliberately set fire to the train after locking the doors from outside with the intention of killing the pilgrims", lest it seems that the train was the target, which was clearly not the case. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, others are agreeing at ANI and elsewhere that there seems to be a general comprehension problem here. I can try to make things more simple for you but you are going to have to think a bit more carefully about what is being said and indeed what you are saying. If we keep hitting issues where you are not understanding simple points of English phrasing etc then WP:CIR will get dragged up. I don't know where the line may lie but there is a line beyond which inability to understand is deemed to be disruptive, and I have seen it enforced on occasion. I don't want that to happen. Is there no way that you can treat me as someone trying to improve this article rather than some sort of adversary? I am trying here. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you not simply stop treating your detractors as inherently inferior editors and a bunch of incompetent boors and, for once, think of me as someone who sincerely believes the progress of the article is thwarted by your autocratic nitpicking, obfuscatory rationales and downright redundant, capricious cavilling about the niceties of expression, as opposed to spontaneously assuming bad faith on my part as well as others'? Did I say, "I see you as my adversary"? Did I? Did you think you can read my mind? :) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

Is there a better source that says that the decision to bring the corpses to Ahmedabad was criticized? Also, the "SIT found the decision to be justified" is simply speculation on the part of DNA on the basis of a leaked copy of the report prepared by SIT. Has this been verified? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I queried your second point a while ago but got nowhere with it. I've not looked for other sources regarding the criticism, alleged or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This ToI source seems to verify the DNA story and probably would be preferable to cite. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Burned to death" doesn't sound right. The correct expression, encyclopedically speaking that is, should be "were killed" or "died", perhaps along with "when a muslim mob set fire to a train". --regentspark (comment) 22:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you RP for choosing to get involved here. How many of the other articles about a well-established carnage refer to the deaths of victims as "they just happened to die", Man how long is this going to stay like this? "Burned to death" doesn't sound right to you? It certainly doesn't sound as a wrong assertion to me. Maybe I will again be vituperated for speaking my mind, but that is just the most succinct way to describe the event.
Yes, in any case we may change it to "Hindu pilgrims were killed when a radical Islamist muslim mob deliberately set fire to the train after locking the doors from outside with the intention of killing the pilgrims", anything short will make it seem that the train was the target, which was clearly not the case. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, the train was set on fire and many people died and that is what we should be saying. Do we know that the mob was 'radical'? Also, islamist specifically relates to militant islam (and, I note, links to Islamic terror) and should be used only if the mob was part of a militant movement of some sort (I don't know if it was or not). If not, use Muslim instead. I would also eschew the use of 'deliberately', 'intention', and the general wordiness of your formulation. The point that we should be making is that (1) Hindu pilgrims were targeted by a mob of muslims (2) Narendra Modi is alleged to - either through acts of commission or omission - orchestrated the revenge killing of muslims in Gujarat. That's about it. We have an entire article on the train burning and this is not the place to hack out who did what and why except where it relates directly to Modi. --regentspark (comment) 10:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, good point, RP , I concede that I can't prove whether they were technically islamists or not, but like you said, we need to highlight the key points and their follow-up. I agree with your points 1 and 2. Cheers! Thanks for your thorough reply. I have improved my proposed line accordingly, and I am willing to let go that bit about "the intention of killing the pilgrims" to cut down verbiage further but please understand that omitting it completely will not improve the article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead and the "controversial" Modi

I know this has been discussed to death but the "his administration has been criticized" does not conform to what's in the two sources provided. Both sources explicitly state that he has been criticized. The independent source says Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat and a member of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, stands accused of failing to stop (and even of facilitating) the murder of hundreds of Muslims in an orgy of shuddering violence that took place in his state in the spring of 2002, clearly directed at Modi with no mention of administration. The Forbes source says Modi is accused of turning a blind eye to anti-Muslim riots five years ago, in which around 2,000 people were killed--burned, hacked or shot during several days of violence, again clearly a criticism of Modi. Whether or not Modi was responsible for the killings, whether or not he turned a blind eye, he is controversial because many people apparently think he was personally responsible. That's one of the important drivers of his notability and, unfortunately, our article is not bringing that out very well. We need to fix this. Ideally the lead should start with "Narendra Modi is a controversial Indian politician and the Chief Minister ....", and we should clearly state the reasons for why he is controversial in the first para of the lead and not hide it at the bottom. There are many chief ministers with equally good credentials but Modi is different and we need to make that clear. --regentspark (comment) 12:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. There is far too much pussy-footing going on due to concerns about WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regentspark, there are no other articles that begin in the manner that you have described in your suggestion above. Moreover, there are no featured articles on even controversial politicians that allude to the fact that the subject was controversial at all. Perhaps we should stick to reporting factual information rather than opinion/editorial content. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to say "controversial" in the first sentence, fine, though I think it is warranted in this case. But we shouldn't be hiding his controversial nature behind "his administration" and shoving it at the end of the lead. It needs to be up there in the first couple of sentences and it should be clear that he is personally held responsible (that's why he is controversial). That's who Modi is - a controversial and polarizing figure in Indian politics and we need to make that clear. I've seen white washing before, but this is making him invisible. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rpk, that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. Reiterating myself, the sole objective on Wikipedia is to present factual and objective information, rather than assertions backed solely by opinion editorials. The fact that he is considered "controversial" can be included in a section on 'public image' or 'perception'. I would appreciate if you could provide examples of high quality articles where the lead section is worded in the manner that you are proposing. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point of a lead section is to summarise the article. So, if a significant point is made in the body then it should also be in the lead. That he is controversial is probably the most significant thing about him and has in the past led to diplomatic sanctions etc. It is not some trivial issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the accusations and allegations are not a trivial issue and therefore, a comprehensive lead section should describe that he has faced criticism for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat violence, and also the fact that he has been absolved by a Supreme Court appointed body of any role in the episodes of violence. Contrary to what Rpk has said above, Modi has not been "held responsible" for the violence, the Gujarat administration, his office and him, by extension, have been accused of inaction and/or condoning violence in some cases. No doubt, this is a real controversy and deserves a mention in the lead section, however with due regard to the fact that there are no charges brought against him and investigations subsequent of the violence have cleared his name. As an example, please see the article on Bill Clinton which cogently describes his impeachment and subsequent acquittal by the Senate, which received far greater media coverage and scrutiny worldwide, in a single sentence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's focus on one thing at a time because I don't want you and RK to deflect the main issue by trying to drag other stuff into this. The lead says "his administration has been criticized" which effectively separates Modi from the criticism. Whereas, both the sources clearly say that the criticism is directed at him. The correct statement is "He has been criticized". Whether or not these allegations are true is moot, because it is the allegations that make Modi what he is and trying to hide them is a disservice to our readers. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to propose? we can take it from there .-sarvajna (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if I follow your comment on dragging other stuff. You did leave a rather strong opinion on Modi's 'polarizing' nature above apart from insisting that a descriptive term such as "controversial" be inserted in the opening sentence of the lede. Hence I felt the necessity of reminding our editors as to how high-quality biographies are drafted on our project. The sources you quote above are primarily opinion editorials which say that he was accused of so and so. There were several accusations thrown around in the aftermath of the post-Godhra violence at individuals within the administration (most notably his home minister Gordhan Zadaphia, Ashok Bhatt and several others) and outside of it. Since this article is about the head of the government during the time of the violence, it is relevant to point out that it was the entire administration (and him, by extension) who were accused of 'not doing enough'. Please see this BBC report for an accurate description on where and how the criticism came about.^[7] More sources are available here – CNN,^[8] the Hindu,^[9], Time Magazine news report,^[10], Human Rights Watch (primary)^[11] etc. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, he is criticized, not his administration. Moving the criticism to the administration is unwarranted because the sources don't do that. See the two sources listed and see also ([12] Many Indians are still appalled over his alleged inaction or complicity in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which killed 1,000 people, most of them minority Muslims. (Note, I'll discuss "controversial" separately.) --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are making a reference to an opinion piece once again (and this time a blog post on NYT). There is no disagreement that there were accusations made out against him. However, the primary reason why he was criticized in the first place was because he was the head of the government, in his capacity as the chief minister, when the episodes of violence occurred. This picture is entirely recorded and reported in the news reports that I have linked you to which describe the fact that the opposition blamed the state government and not just one individual. That is objective and factual information recorded in high-quality sources. On the other hand, you have linked to several opinion editorials that accurately paint half the picture without telling the rest of the story. I reiterate, there is no denying that he was criticized, however he was criticized primarily because he was the chief minister and not because he was personally responsible for the violence himself. Hence, it is essential that this be recorded in the lead section accurately. As for the latest source that you have put forth, I hope you will note that a statement that begins with "Many Indians are still appalled [...]" is likely more of a rhetorical claim. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The figure 2000 is controversial, the official one for Muslim deaths is 790, so we cannot have an unqualified exaggerated figure. Also Modi is held responsible in his capacity as the chief executive of the government and not in his personal capacity. Nobody in his right mind claims that Modi was personally responsible for the many deaths. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, the sources clearly state that the allegations are directed at him, not at his administration. "His administration" is not mentioned in any source but both point their fingers clearly at him. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let us consider the article of Adolf Hitler, was he a controversial figure?,was he responsible for the death of Jews(more than 790 jews)? What does the Lead say there? I am not saying we need not make any reference to 2002, but let us take other GAs/FAs as an example -sarvajna (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The media has an adversarial perspective on Modi [13]. Whatever negative things the media says about Modi needs to be taken with a pound of salt. besides, his present image is not that controversial. We need not emphasize obsolete things, even if it be correct in your opinion. See This image of Modi — the triumphant technocrat — has overtaken that of Modi the Hindu ultra-nationalist.. I see no reason to write an obsolete article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Modi, period, not Modi today. However, for almost the entirety of his time in office he has been controversial and indeed he seems still to be. He is probably not the only politician to be so mired in controversy but it does define him and this article is about him, not some other person. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To be sure, William Jefferson Clinton was largely notable in India for Bill and Monica Lewinsky SMS jokes and still is, and probably remain so in the foreseeable future. So can you and I agree to keep our UK-centric and India-centric personal opinions and biases out of this? This is probably the n-th time you have made the same claim. It may or may not be true. Whether it is or not is not the point, the question is whether we can limit our discussions and ensuing arguments about Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practice? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am using the sources that have been in the article either now or in the past, all added by other people and I am willing to bet pretty much all added by people from or connected to India. There is no "may or may not be true" about the controversial nature and you surely cannot keep dismissing what are literally thousands of potential sources that make the statement: Indian, US, European, they all say it & the "x-centric personal opinions" that you think exist do not come into it. If this is not obvious then I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Furthermore, I have no interest at all in how some other politician is treated on Wikipedia: that issue is for those other articles.

I do hope that the next major issue here is not going to be someone wanting to see the Caravan source removing, if/when the Vinod Jose article is deleted. I can already see the argument that would be used, ie: op-ed by a non-notable journalist. This denial of op-eds has to stop, especially since there has been insistence on keeping one right at the top of the article, in the lead, because "it balances things out" (paraphrase). These arguments seem more and more like contrivances, although surely they are not? - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

will RP tell Sitush not to deflect the topic or is it me and Nick who get the special treatment--sarvajna (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not deflecting the topic because that has already been moved to a new section because of prior deflections. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Which one of your sources says – "He is probably not the only politician to be so mired in controversy but it does define him and this article is about him, not some other person."? It is this kind of commentary that I am talking about and unfortunately you are still unable to comprehend.

The Caravan source has to go regardless of whether the article on its author stays or not wherever exceptional claims have been made regarding the subject of the article. First off, the author is not an established journalist or a qualified ethnographer or a known expert on Narendra Modi. Secondly and more importantly, the piece is a BLP primary source, an investigative report and an opinion piece. Denial of op-eds has to stop? You need to re-acquaint yourself with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems more like wikilawyering and deflection rather than application of BLP in the spirit intended. It is perhaps no wonder that this article has been in such a mess for so long if this is what has been going on, but what the heck do I know about BLPs? As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to remove the Caravan source if you also remove the op-ed in the lead that makes claims about his economic achievements which have been contested by other op-eds. I see no reason why people should have it both ways here even though you think it should stay for reasons of balance. Whether "controversial" appears in the first sentence or the second sentence of the lead is not something I'm massively concerned about; that it should be buried almost as an aside - and now you seem to be suggesting that maybe it should not be in the lead at all - is just not on. Where do we take this next? - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, bearing in mind your suggestion that I needed to re-acquaint myself with WP:BLP, I've just looked at WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is a part that you specifically linked, and nowhere does it mention op-eds, investigative journalism etc and indeed it allows for the possibility of using blogs from recognised, reliable news sources of which, of course, RegentsPark has just cited several in the section below. What am I missing here? - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise caution in using primary sources." "Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." " Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs."

It appears to me that discussions and disputes can never come to an end with you around, you seem to have too much time on your hands, just not enough to review WP policies and guidelines by yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Um. Isn't there a phrase involving pots and kettles. Seems like an apt moment to bring that up. :) --regentspark (comment) 23:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That smiley, to me at least, doesn't seem to be enough for alleviating the redundant modicum of stridency, RP. Nick, so far, has not evinced the kind of pugnacity and obstinacy which Sitush, based on his provocative conjectures and his own subjective wishes, couldn't help displaying. Harping on unproven presuppositions and allegations about Modi's supposed role in Gujarat violence sans the mention of the fact that no incriminating evidence was found against him and that he has been proven innocent, is grossly biased. As Nick very sensibly said, "let the facts speak for themselves". Regardless of how many people reflect the opinion that Modi is controversial, it is still an opinion and hard to prove, but even then, nobody wants it deleted from the article, only the lead. We ought to just expurgate all the simplistic subjective and individual commentaries about his "controversial"-status from the lead, and mention only the well-founded facts concerning the Supreme Court inquiry about the role of Modi's administration as well as Modi personally during the 2002 Gujarat violence and that no charges have been brought against the either. Pardon my candor RP, Nick has been exceptionally composed with Sitush's garbled arguments behind irrational demands and oblique personal attacks. But you're equating him with Sitush, wow! What a way to requite his laborious drudgery here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T, I meant that as a bit of a joke. But, since you ask, it does seem to me that Nick has a very definitive idea of what the article should look like and is working very hard to see that it stays that way. By very hard, I mean replying at length to any and every suggestion that does not fit with his ideas, quoting at length from policies and guidelines, and accusing others of bad faith. If I hadn't had prior respect for Sir Nick, I would say that he is being borderline tendentious on this article. So, no, I'm not equating him with Sitush. --regentspark (comment) 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Another BIG assumption RP. I won't speak on behalf of Nick that's his job, but it does seem to me that you have a very definitive idea of how the article should look like also. Doesn't every involved editor here have an idea of how the article should look like but do they run around nitpicking over minuscule things? No. Maybe I do but certainly not Nick. His comments are very reasonable. And, no, Sitush's patent nitpicking is not helping the article. But that is not to say he can't change. That comment of yours about Nick's editing pattern was not really needed, RP. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am tenacious, sure, but if I'm wrong then I'll admit it. I despite your opinion , I am not entirely clueless about policy or incapable of reading it. "Exercise caution" does not mean "cannot use" and that is why I rejected the blanket opposition to such sources: it is not what the policy says. "Exceptional claims" would be valid except for the obvious fact that the claims are not exceptional but rather common. I think you have misinterpreted "investigative reports", which seems to me more likely to apply to the SIT investigation than to a journalist or academic, but I'll accept that is open to interpretation at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Anybody, and I mean anybody writes the word "controversial" regarding this BLP will be reverted unless I see decent sourcing for it, no attribution, no newspapers, only a decent academic source will do for such a contentious statement of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Threats DS? That's no way to conduct a good faith discussion :) But, don't worry, there are plenty of academic sources - not just the one from the Journal of Asian Studies I link to below and I'll list a few more when I get home (jstor access). --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You have Jstor access? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Doesn't everyone? It's easier at home but, yes, I have access to it from anywhere. Plus, I have to work to feed the RegentsPark kids! --regentspark (comment) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

RP we have to adhere to BLP rules, and "exceptional claims need exceptional sources", 2002 is 11 years old, can you cite a single instance in which Modi has been charged and proven guilty with regards to the 790 deaths he was allegedly responsible by any court in all these years? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits/Changes proposed by 128.148.231.12

I think the one IP has been proposing lot of changes which personally I don't feel are correct or relevant, but i feel this needs to be consolidated here and consensus as a whole needs to be made. Just because the IP is pushy doesnt make it correct. These proposed edits are leaning towards slanderAmit (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So let me see, it is not relevant to include mention of a politicians politics. It is not relevant to mention whether a poets poetry is considered good or bad by critics. But it is relevant to mention that they are a vegetarian, and an introvert. In fact it is slander to include critiques of any kind of a public person, even if they are repeated in multiple sources (sources that are apparently only "opinion pieces" when they are critical but objective reliable sources when they report something positive). Got any more jokes? i'd love to hear them. 68.9.182.96 (talk (·ʍaunus·snunɐw·)) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Contents of "Personality and image" section are independent of whats present in other section. Is he is vegetarian? Yes. Does that fit in personality section? Yes. Is the point valid in a biography? Yes. Do hell with whats written in other section. If you think those section need editing, do that. "POV" in other sections is not removed by deleting other valid section. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am curious about the vegetarian thing and also about the three staff.

• Do the dietary habits of a politician usually get mentioned? How are they relevant to anything? Do we mention it when a politician eats meat? Is it significant because Modi has changed his habits as, for example, might apply with an MP who admits to being an alcoholic, acknowledges that it affected his work and says he has gone on the wagon?
• A personal staff of three is three more than 99% of his constituency will likely have. In what way are they "personal" - cooks, cleaners etc or political secretaries? What is a common number of such staff across politicians in India?

Oh, and I still don't get the business suits thing, which seems to reflect more the writer's attitude to common modes of Indian dress. Since it will be lost in the noise, I'll say it again: if he turned up at meetings wearing swimming trunks then it would be odd and notable, but turning up wearing typical day-to-day attire is not. Most of us who have sufficient funds have a wardrobe to suit various occasions, be it work, social, weddings, funerals, job interviews etc., and we wear what we think is appropriate for the occasion. Big deal. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have mentioned it many times that he is Hindu and hence it wouldn't be extremely bizarre to mention that he is vegetarian. We have a list where scientists, actors, writers, politicians, philosophers and more are included in it. As for the staff, your questions would be addressed on talk pages of other biographies. We have nothing to do with how much staff Jethmalani or Mayawati employ over here. As to the dressing sense, do you know what majority of Indian politicians wear and what actually is a day-to-day attire? Have you seen Jayalalitha wear a gown? Or do you think she doesnt have enough funds for that? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SIT report

The SIT 2011 report did not exclupate Modi.[14]68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That link seems to be describing a "leaked" report prepared in 2010. Here are some more up-to-date and relevant links.[15][16]. Both are in the article itself.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Or read this severe peer-reviewed critique of the SIT.[17]68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I could not open that document. Besides, Jaffrelot has always come across as a hinduphobic writer to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And you are qualified to dismiss a tenured professor at one of the worlds foremost research institutions how?68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be the case that Hindutva supporters consider Jaffrelot to be Hindophobic. When someone believes in ideologies of the extreme left or right, it is generally the case that "if someone is not with us then they are against us".: there is commonly a kneejerk reaction rather than a willingness to consider something on its merits. Before someone yells at me, the aforementioned is not to suggest that OrangesRyellow is a supporter of Hindutva. Christophe Jaffrelot has written of Pakistan as well as India, is reliable and has been tested at numerous other articles relating to everything from history to modern society and, yes, to politics. He is a political scientist and thus of course spreads his knowledge across several inter-related disciplines. It is, however, entirely possible that an equally qualified political scientist takes a different view to Jaffrelot and, if so, then it would be reasonable to juxtapose those opinions.

We have to take the SIT report as the (current) end of the matter but the range of opinions that differ from it is considerable. My gut tells me that it is not over, especially given the widely-recognised slowness of the judicial system, and I'm still unsure whether the Supreme Court has actually said "we accept that report as being accurate" or has merely acknowledged receipt. The sources we were citing in the article of a week or so ago appeared to say no more than the latter. I think that the most we can say is that the SIT report cleared Modi personally and also his administration, although umpteen reliable sources think/thought differently. After all, SITs themselves have come in for a lot of criticism, including from the courts (no, we don't say that in the article!). - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know courts said that SIT did not find any evidence.-sarvajna (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I see it. They worded it carefully, didn't they? We need to do the same. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Or we can simply say

"The Supreme-Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which submitted a closure report on the probe into the Zakia Jafri petition levelling serious charges against Narendra Modi and 62 others in connection with the 2002 communal riots, has not found any evidence of the Chief Minister having promoted enmity among various communities on religious grounds."[18]

"They worded it carefully" - did someone approach you in your dreams and disclosed this to you? How clearer can it get than "no evidence was found against Modi"? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, only accusations and we need to make it crystal clear if we're to include "controversial" in the lead. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of the fact as to whether the gentleman quoted above is Hinduphobic or not, and completely disregarding Sitush's gut feelings and opinionated commentary on the Indian judicial system among other things (as should be pointedly done each time they induldge in such an exercise), the Special Investigative Team is a body appointed by the Supreme Court of India which has decided against charging the subject of the biography in a court of law due to lack of "substantial incriminating evidence" against him.^[19],[20] This means that he will not be charged in a lower court, much less the possibility of appeal to a higher court in the judicial system such as the Gujarat High Court or the Supreme Court of India. Whether the SIT inquiry was accused of being biased or not is not a concern of this specific article. Narendra Modi was not the only individual accused, there were 61 others within the Gujarat administration who were accused of wrongdoing, and the Supreme Court appointed the body to investigate the Gujarat administration and not a single person. Concerns that the Supreme Court appointed body may be biased (during a time when the Congress/UPA forms the federal government) should be mentioned in the article on 2002 Gujarat violence. Let me produce another example, a recently published opinion editorial in the New York Times accuses Barack Obama of waging a drone-war in Northern Pakistan and claims that he is responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians.^[21] Yet you will not find accusations of broken promises and destruction of hope in the biographical article even though this is not a first among articles which have accused him of doing the same. There is no dearth of accusations and the availability of a variety of opinions in the world of academics and journalism on any topic worth its salt. Wikipedia cannot entertain all of such opinions at all times, nor is there any requirement of refuting each and every statement made or action taken by an individual on a biographical article just because of the availability of sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's not a blog, and it's not facebook or twitter. More importantly, it is not a crystal ball which may get into speculation mode as to what may or may not happen in the future solely because of the availability of some sources. We are an encyclopedia, a conservative project that is run not on the gut feelings of our contributors, but on the clinical inclusion of hard and established factual information. We are not a paper encyclopedia either, so in case there is a substantive change in the nature of the culpability of the said individual, we can amend this article to objectively highlight the newly established facts. So I am afraid it is you, Sitush, who is attempting to cherry-pick sources and include them in this article by giving them undue weight and without due regard their reliability and obsolescence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That will do me, Nick, thanks. Now you've finished pontificating again, please seek a topic ban for me. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)whooa! Topic ban? I don't see where Nick mentioned a topic ban, do you? This was completely uncalled-for. I don't think it's a proper response. But who gives a darn about what I feel? :) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Deflection. I didn't say that he did seek a topic ban. However, his frequent insinuations and now his direct comment should cause him to do so. I'm not leaving this article unless one is in place, so I suggest that people put up or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was your comment that was irrelevant in the first place ("Nick [...]. Now you've finished pontificating"). Instead of addressing the concerns raised, you have made it a point to employ circular reasoning repeating your claims ad nauseam. Please do not ask other users to shut up. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't ask other users to shut up. I said "put up or shut up". If I am as much a problem as people are saying, then get something done about it. If you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is then you should keep the mouth closed. It is not an unreasonable point to make given that I am being directly and obliquely accused of all sorts of things here. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're just being overly pugnacious here Situ. Telling you to resist some of the many, many things which others see as detrimental to the progress of the article itself, is not same as saying you should be banned from the article. "Put up or shut up" seems perilously close to something like, as Yogesh Khandke rightly pointed out as your general attitude, "my way or highway". There is something in between ban and bad editing. You seem to be forgetting that. You repeatedly did some things (intentionally or not) to vex me, went off running to an admin (salvio) with a petty cause, started an ANI thread ignoring my attempt to seek your response, insinuated that I am forum-shopping on Jimbo's page, fairly overtly indicated that all of your detractors (including me) are incompetent editor and then you of all people accused me of being angry, solely pugnacious on this page as well as the ANI, not to mention your most incredible rant (hyperbole? :D ) of all that a BJP-party member saw you worthy of a death-threat (that too only after ostentatiously clarifying to you that he is a BJP party worker, how prudent!) and that you're worried for your well-being. You're something, you know that? That was only your behaviour towards others on the talk page, I have not even begun to delve into the plethora of flat-out unilateral edits you've bestowed upon this article. Before accusing your opponents implicitly or explicitly, learn to pay heed to them which you don't seem to be doing at all. Lastly, I would like to quote something you said to me here, "I don't know where the line may lie but there is a line beyond which inability to understand is deemed to be disruptive". It suits you more at the moment. Now, kindly don't presume that I am treating you as an "adversary" or that I am "angry" in any way. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm. It seems that my gut feeling may have some substance: the SC appear to have allowed an appeal wrt Jafri/Gulberg. And, btw, I'm not sure whether the SIT only looked at the Gulberg incident as your draft above says. I'm pretty sure our article said more than this at some point. I also can't fathom why lower courts do seem to have been involved in the process even after the matters had gone to the SC - again, our article did say at one point recently that something had been referred to a lower court by the SC. Eleven years on and this legal stuff is still floating around, seemingly unresolved. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I already wrote above, Hindustan Times:

"The Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Wednesday strongly contested the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri against its closure report giving clean chit to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and others in the 2002 post-Godhra riot case. [..]In a three-point rebuttal, the SIT, represented by its counsel RS Jamuar, sought to discard the very FIR filed by Zakia in 2006, claiming "the way it (FIR) has been drafted suggests that it's nothing but a piece of waste paper."(my emphasis)

"In comparison to the complaint as defined in Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC), this (the FIR) is not at all a complaint, it's a piece of waste paper to be thrown away, [..]It's a fiction or novel written by 4-5 persons and complainant Zakia has no knowledge about anything written in it," (my emphases)

—said SIT-representative R S Jamuar.^[22]

It's a political game (opposition-initiated? I don't know) to assassinate the character of Modi with ceaseless iterations of slanderous accusations after accusations against Modi and each everyone supporting Modi, can't you see? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is a political game or not. I can see that it might be but without evidence you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, ie: speculating. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you link to simply says that the Supreme Court has allowed her to file a fresh petition against the SIT closure report, and does not say that it is nullifying the closure report. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and that an appeal has been allowed should be noted. It means that the legal process is not complete, which otherwise appears to be the case given the way that you want this whole thing stated. It is nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL because the appeal has been allowed already. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The event does not have sufficient significance or weight to be included in the biographical article. It may be more pertinent for the article on 2002 Gujarat violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The biographical topic was exonerated and the exoneration was appealed. That is the stuff biographical articles are made of.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK and properly indent your comments. There has been no "exoneration". The Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team conducted an inquiry into accusations made against the Gujarat administration has found no "substantial incriminating evidence" against the subject of the biography, and hence they will not be bringing any charges against him. Zakia Jafri has filed an appeal against the SIT closure report, so that the investigation may be opened again. Due to WP:UNDUE, this is more suited for the article on 2002 Gujarat violence and does not have enough significance for inclusion this biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is directly relevant to this biography because Jafri is specifically accusing Modi of complicity, her charges were denied (which is an exoneration) and then appealed. There cannot be a neutral biography of a politician that does not describe ongoing legal proceedings relating to involvement in genocide.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your POV pushing is becoming frivolous harassment and soapboxing now. I think I will now ignore you unless you start saying constructive things.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You are funny. Why dont you repeat your accusations of harassment and soapboxing in the ANI thread dedicated to getting to the bottom of all my wrong doing. Here is a link 68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Something about Modi and editing wikipedia

Some editors here seem to be forgetting or distorting some of the basic policies for what we include in wikipedia. They are quite simple: we include information that is notable and verifiable. If there is contradicting viewpoints on a topic we portray all of them weighted according to their prominence. Now the following must be considered.

1. Narendra Modi is a member of the RSS and the BJP both of which are widely considered and described as Hindu Nationalist/Hindutva political organizations. This is notable and verifiable.
2. Narendra Modi has been openly critical and dismissive of Indian Muslims. This is notable and verifiable.
3. Narendra Modi has been accused by many parties of aiding and abetting the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002. This is notable and verifiable.
4. The SIT report absolved him of any responsibility in relation to the violence. This is notable and verifiable.
5. The SIT report has been criticized by academics as leaving out important testimonies and evidence. And its conclusion has been appealled. This is notable and verifiable.

All of this information needs to be in the article AND in the lead which per policy supposed to summarize the article. You can argue and nitpick all you want about whether he is innocent and whether those who accuse him are stupid or biased or opinionated, but in the end it doesn't matter a whit, because their biased and stupid opinions are notable and verifiable. So deal with it.138.16.114.174 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [yes, this is me Maunus again, I didn't realize this was a new IP]

What you claim as notable and verifiable is what others are not accepting as notable and verifiable... personally all you claim to be notable and verifiable is a bunch of conspiracy theories... just by opening a new section wouldnt make it true...Amit (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot in any meaningful way deny that there are many sources mentioning the accusations against him, nor that the accusations have been made. That amounts to denying reality. We all agree that they have been made and that sources say they have been made. The very fact that they are repeated in about 90% of the sources that talk about Modi and are not written by his own party members clearly show that they are notable. You simply cannot get out of this while following the rules for editing wikipedia.68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

IP (are you Maunus) only if wikipedia was your fiefdom, I wonder how you became even an admin,coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion .-sarvajna (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to try to make the claim that the fact that the likely next prime minister of India has been publicly accused of complicity in genocide by multiple sources and was cleared by the supreme court is not notable? Try to make a coherent argument for that. Seriously. I'd like to see what it would look like. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you exclude stuff either. Maunus is right. Modi is a controversial character with people holding diametrically opposite views of him - the good Modi and a bad Modi (not my phrasing so don't jump on me [23]) - and attempting to focus only on one view is a disservice to our readers. Attempting to do so through selective quoting of policies and guidelines is lousy service to our readers. --regentspark (comment) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have issues in adding controversies about the person in the page, but i surely have issues with the way it is put. An edit like this is what pulled me into this whole discussion. I would not stand for it and be it WP or any other place where i have a say i would stand against it. Till date I have not seen a meaningful proposed text from Maunus. All I have seen till now is a push towards painting this persons page negatively. Where is the neutral language or content which we are ready for? Is this the kind of edit you want to add to the page? Amit (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That edit was a demonstration the hypocrisy of how this page has been turned into a hagiography by a small segment of Modis fanclub who uses sources to cherrypick whatever information is convenient to them, while disregarding what they dont find convenient. The additions were sourced verbatim to the same sources that the Modi activists are using to source that he is a fantastic speaker and a pious karmayogi, and en glorious businessman. That is hypocrisy, it is against our policies and that edit and the ensuing editwar drew attention to that. No that is not necessarily how it should be put, but these editors oppose ANY mention of anything vaguely negative about this man who is described as controversial and problematic in 90% of the non-Indian sources. You may not have seen a "meaningful proposal" from me, but as you will note I am the only one in this discussion who actually presents high quality peer+reviewed sources in support of my argument. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, that edit seemed nothing but scandal mongering and incitation WP:NOTSCANDAL. Would you propose a text now? Lets read it at-least and see what you are expecting out of all this instead of going round the sun and aging like pluto - the page is protected - it gives you time to put things and propose a text.Amit (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

He wont. Just here for all jibber jabber. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what to do. Your credibility is below zero.128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, a personal attack again? if you do not have anything worth contriubting please stay away. -sarvajna (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The application of double-standards while writing this biographical article is a huge disservice to our readers. Writing this article like an advocacy or propaganda piece is a disservice to our readers. Several other examples of high-quality biographies of notable individuals have been quoted above on this page. Any argument that gives equal validity to a debunked conspiracy theory is not acceptable. See my comments below:

• "Narendra Modi is a member of the RSS and the BJP both of which are widely considered and described as Hindu Nationalist/Hindutva political organizations. This is notable and verifiable."

• There has been an extensive discussion on this talk page on why a biographical article should not include descriptive phrases with regard to the nature of the political organizations which the individuals are associated with. There are several other examples of biographical articles which do not include such descriptive phrases except link to them.

• "Narendra Modi has been openly critical and dismissive of Indian Muslims. This is notable and verifiable."

• This is neither notable nor verifiable. Is this a perception and/or an opinion? Possibly. And hence suitable for inclusion in a section on 'public image' provided that there is proper sourcing included.

• "Narendra Modi has been accused by many parties of aiding and abetting the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002. This is notable and verifiable."

• This is an allegation which has been widely reported in the media, however, no charges have been brought subsequent to an investigation. This is again specifically more suitable for a section on 'public image' that describes the nature of allegations and where they originated from. Encyclopedic ledes are written in a different manner than journalistic ledes.

• The SIT report absolved him of any responsibility in relation to the violence. This is notable and verifiable.

• False. The SIT report does not have any vested authority to "absolve" him of any crime. The SIT is an investigative body which was specially created by the Supreme Court in order to investigate the allegations against the Gujarat administration. The team consisted of police officials with expertise in gathering evidence and examination of witnesses. Upon the completion of their inquiry of the Gujarat administration, the SIT reported that there was "no substantial incriminating evidence" against the subject of the biography, and hence no charges were brought against him.

• The SIT report has been criticized by academics as leaving out important testimonies and evidence. And its conclusion has been appealled. This is notable and verifiable.

• This needs actual sourcing instead of Jaffrelot/EPW relying extensively on Tehelka, Times op-eds and speculative hand-waving to have such claims included in the body text of the article much less the lead section. Jaffrelot may be an expert on "Hindu nationalism' and its various theories and ideas, but that does not lend expertise on historical and factual information such as that determined through the due process of law. Criticism of the SIT investigation are better placed on the article on 2002 Gujarat violence itself or someone else will propose to include SIT's criticisms of its criticisms in this article. See my comments above.

I do not understand why Maunus/IP keeps creating new sections for the same discussion over and over again.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You have now demonstrated that you do not know what "notable" or "verifiable" means in Wikipedia. The "extensive discussion" you point to consists of you and your cohort repeating ad nauseam that you don't like it. I dont care whether you like it and neither does wikipedia, wikipedia cares about the fact that reliable sources report this. You also continue with your crusade against reliable academic sources. Your ridiculous statements about what it means to be an expert is just infuriating because it is so patently counter to everything wikipedia stands for. Jaffrelots articles are excellent sources and whether or not you dislike the sources they cite is entirely irrelevant. Yes there should be a section on public image AND that section MUST be summarized in the lead. You have even tried to change WP:LEAD just to fit your view of this this particular case, that is dishonest and absurd. Contrary to you I know how to write a Lead because I actually have a history of writing content. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the discussion on WT:LEAD which has been initiated to seek clarification on the current wording of the content guideline. Your manipulative campaign of defamation will not succeed on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the discussion I am referring to. Your manipulative campaign of using wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle for your political candidate will not succeed.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

@IP: You have now demonstrated that you do not know what "civility" or "collegiality" means in Wikipedia. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Ok. So we need to add the following:

1. In role in central politics section: He is appointed as the chief of the campaign; however, this led to some leaders in BJP getting dissatisfied. Advani', the prominent founder member, resigned.

2. In image section: Media has labelled him as controversial, divisive, business-friendly, and popular among middle class (and some other stuffs).

Do we agree here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Advani's resignation can be mentioned but stopping just there is not fair. He withdrew his resignation today. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that! Sorry. Yes, of course that should be mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If issue is 'balance of information', for each achievement of Narendra Modi each achievement of Rahul Gandhi should be included as per this source. I am neutral. neo (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying we should blank the page. (Just kidding!) --regentspark (comment) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You might find WP:SARCASM helpful. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dwai, it's not just the media that has labeled him controversial and divisive - scholarly work has too (see the many reference above). I'd prefer not to see this qualified as 'by the media'. I agree that the his role in central politics should be mentioned, particularly his the possibility of a PM Modi and also his role in the BJP. --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. 1. In central politics section: Modi was selected to head the poll campaign for 2014 parliamentary election, at the national level executive meeting of BJP on 10 June 2012. The party's senior leader and founding member L.K. Advani resigned from all his posts at the party following the selection, protesting against leaders who were "concerned with their personal agendas"; the resignation was described by The Times of India as "a protest against Narendra Modi's elevation as the chairman of the party's election committee". However, Advani withdrew his resignation at the urging of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

2.In image section: Modi has been labelled by the media and some articles in peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure. He enjoys a business-friendly image, and has been reported in the media to be popular among India's middle class.

Of note, we are not describing each and every controversy, or instances of divisiveness; this is just n the image section. Also, I have not added the sources for this in this discussion, as there are many, and will be added in the article. lease advise on content and prose improvement. --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

Mr Modi has been elevated as chief of BJP's 2014 poll campaign panel at Gova.

49.206.30.56 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources were given by another editor Neo. in the above section. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Seems that IP doesnt know that sources are required and Neo doesnt know the right template for requesting edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. The protection is in place because of edit warring relating to the balance of information in the article and not because of completeness and sourcing. We can't really add anything to this article without discussion. --regentspark (comment) 20:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You find this bit also as imbalance of information? Whats to discuss on this? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The question with this article is whether it is balanced or not. Adding any information, factual or not, cannot be done without consensus because that would shift the balance one way or another. (BTW, note that a patrolling admin cannot make content changes that don't have consensus. This article is basically dead in the water unless we can resolve some of the issues outlined above.) --regentspark (comment) 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that since everything is being contested, mostly by those who seemingly want to whitewash the article, it would be a brave admin who allows something through "on the nod". Even to an uninvolved person, it must be obvious that this article has been hijacked. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... !!!!! So now lets sit and ponder. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, please stop the continuous allegations of bad faith. They are quite unconstructive. Uninvolved administrators are sufficiently capable of determining who is pushing an agenda. This page requires dispute resolution/mediation. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If people stop acting in bad faith, I'll stop the allegations. From a UK newspaper yesterday:

BJP anoints controversial Modi India's main opposition party, the BJP, has said that Narendra Modi will oversee its 2014 election campaign, making him its likely prime ministerial candidate. Mr Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, has been widely condemned for failing to stop organised attacks in the state in 2012 that left more than 1,000, mostly Muslims, dead

And the main story begins "Narendra Modi, India's most polarising politician ... While he has never been charged, some of his ministers have been jailed and Mr Modi has been widely condemned for at the very least failing to stop the massacres. ... Many senior figures [in the BJP] believe his strident, authoritarian style and association with the 2002 killings will cost the party votes, especially among Muslims. Mr Advani was notable by his absence from the BJP's meeting in Goa where the decision was announced yesterday." etc. All stuff that people have been fighting tooth and nail to keep out of this article. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above: "his (Jaffrelot's) work is commonly used in "atrocity literature that flooded the western media in the aftermath of Gujarat (2002)".(Malhotra). Interestingly the figure "thousands massacred" has been toned down to the more realistic "1000 killed, mostly Muslim". Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to provide a platform for wild allegations from any quarter in a BLP. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I sense deflection again. What has Jaffrelot go to do with this story, which comes from a source that is also one of the links in the preceding section and quite clearly has been cherry-picked? - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

See what I mean? Making any change to this article is likely to be controversial - if I may use that word. :) --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Here it was a simple edit request which doesn't require a lot of discussion, Sitush you are the one who is trying to deflect the whole matter here, under the section "Role in central politics" it can be mentioned that he was made campaign committee head, whether he is controversial, a "male prostitute" or something else will not fall under that section and need not be discussed under this section.-sarvajna (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You miss my points. Firstly, NHN someone has been arguing recently that we cannot mention the prime ministerial stuff because Modi hasn't said it (basically, the line of argument NHN has used for just about everything here and that, like it or not, has made this article at present little more than a Modi vehicle). Secondly, the content is cherry-picked from the sources and if it is ok to mention the statement as given then it should be ok to mention all the "controversy" stuff etc that they refer to. Thus, the request does in fact require discussion. But since Jaffrelot is not mentioned in the source that I quote, I don't see the relevance of any comments regarding him. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has still said anything about he being a prime ministerial candidate. Campaign committee head is not PM candidate. Leaving that aside, what do you guys think should go in?
& YK, why do u have to bring that Jaffrelot here? Now Maunus will come and start his jibber jabber. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't want to get into a debate on who said what, why, when.All I am saying is that it need not be mentioned anything about prime ministerial stuff (I had opposed the PM thing I guess), he is not yet a PM candidate, the section "Role in central politics" should mention that he has been appointed as the head of campaign committee, other stuff that you are saying about polarizing, controversial and things will not be present in that section. -sarvajna (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trying to come back to this discussion. Yes, Modi's appointment as the chief of BJP's poll campaign needs to be mentioned. Why do we need discussion on that? At the same time, BBC article (or, other many other articles) clearly states Modi is a controversial/polarising figure, and condemnation for his role in the riot. So, now that we have such terms even in mainstream world media, what is the problem here mentioning those in the article? Although Sitush (and others) might have acted stubbornly in these long discussions, I cannot but agree that these terms should be definitely used, of course citing good references (like, BBC).--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm......!!!!! So now lets leave this campaign thing and discuss the "controversial" issue here as well. Dunno why sections were every invented? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my wordings were not clear. I meant to say why do we need to discuss the campaign thing at all? It is a plain simple fact, and should be added straight in the role in central politics section.--Dwaipayan(talk) 18:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dwai, getting back on track doesnt happen on this article. Now it will flow that ways and you will see huge essays on controversial, visa rejection, number of Muslims killed, khadi, tea serving, Kodnani, and what not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Anf also, controversial, divisive, business-friendly, loved by business people etc in perhaps the "image" section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a particular problem with the committee stuff being in the article. I do think that cherry-picking the sources is wrong, however. The ramifications of the position, and the fact that some within the BJP are unhappy about his role, needs to be mentioned. ... and that takes us straight back to the controversy/divisive stuff. And, by the way, some of those sources do use the "divisive" word that only a few days ago was being contested. These are news sources of good standing and if someone were to suggest, for example, that they are engaging in wild speculation & thus the ancillary points should be omitted then it would just be another example of us failing our readership.

Similarly, it needs to be made clear that the renewed diplomatic efforts are because of the prime ministerial issue + economics and not because the countries involved have suddenly decided that the 2002 allegations are without merit. They have gone out of their way to make a distinction, if you know how to read diplomatic language. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"I do think that cherry-picking the sources is wrong" - I agree. About the about the word "divisive", but if we are to include it at all, then we should sensibly define what he actually did that fuels disagreement. And the sources which make only a passing mention of the word shouldn't be cited to support the assertion of fact that "he is divisive", but these sources, making neglectful trivial mentions of the word, may be cited for something like "he is considered to be divisive" lest it seems that he enjoys being divisive or intentionally does it. We must not forget, he has many rivals, adversaries, both in and out of the BJP party, we must be careful. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha my point is that we cannot hang Modi until the courts do so, no matter what Western or Eastern media pronounce. If you wish I'd strike my comment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)