Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Substantiation

To substantiate means to prove, to verify, to add substance to. We say It found her claims to be unsubstantiated because ... she took four years to file a complaint. The length of time involved has no connection to substantiation, even if there were a statute of limitations. One could substantiate something but not pursue action as a consequence of that, or one might not be able to substantiate something because the elapsed time has caused evidence to be lost etc. But length of time has no direct co-relation to substantiation. So, are the SIT and their legal advisers linguistically-challenged or (much more likely) did they say something else? - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Zakia's claims could not be proven not just because she took four years but there are other reasons as well which are present in the article. SIT made those observations because in the very first FIR filed by Zakia she did not accuse Modi but infact she had claimed that police officers protected her and others from gulbarg society immediately after the violence but she filed a complaint against Modi only after 4 years which raised doubts.( I will have to put some efforts to find the source to her first FIR but I do not think that it is required here).-sarvajna (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I am aware that there are other reasons (hence the "..." in my quote above). Nonetheless, the time element is given as one of the reasons why the claims were "unsubstantiated" and this simply cannot be so. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, I am not sure whether SIT used the word unsubstantiated or whether it was other sources which used it when summarizing the whole thing. I would not oppose removal of the sentence(unless someone has good points about why it should be present) she took four years to file a complaint or modifying it to mean that SIT had doubts because she delayed in filing a complaint.-sarvajna (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let's see what others think or can turn up in the way of verification. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Role in BJP

If Modi is Chief Minister does that also make him titular leader of the BJP in the state? In the UK, the Prime Minister has always to the best of my knowledge been the leader of the governing party. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope the leader/president of a party can be different. Example Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister but Sonia Gandhi is the congress president. Likewise even in states the CM need not be the president. -sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the preisdent of a party in India synonymous with being "leader". It is not in most European countries and, in fact, "president" is generally more an honorary title that an executive title. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

President of the party is an executive title, he has the powers to decide on who should contest election and others like suspending people, accepting resignation of party members etc. The term leader might differ in its meanings. The leader of opposition is some kind of executive post but not exactly however a leader of the party is simply a senior person in the party ( not strictly, a leader can be even a new person with huge following also). -sarvajna (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Who is Modi's leader then? Presumably it is that person who really wields the power, a bit like a puppet-master? - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked it, R. C. Faldu is the state BJP president, legally speaking he would be Modi's boss when it comes to the state BJP affairs but Faldu will not have any say in running the government as Modi would be the boss in govt affairs. Again legally speaking Faldu will have the last word in party affairs but Modi is far more powerful and will have a major say in party affairs. I don't think any decision would be taken without Modi's consent. -sarvajna (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I see: the party and the government have a sort of distance although probably not a ringfenced one. So, who authorised the 2002 bandh that was called by the VHP and BJP? I'm struggling to work this out and it seems potentially to be a conflict of interest if a governing party calls a bandh because it is stoking tension. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any advance on this? It is a mystery to me. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Saw your message now, government doesn't authorized bundhs, it is the state BJP. Just to make it clear to you any party can call for a bandh and every party does that to oppose one thing or other. -sarvajna (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing {{NPOV}}

I have removed the {{NPOV}} notice from the article as, obviously, only the neutrality of some of the the sub-sections is disputed not the whole article. Kondi (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So, why didn't you tag the subsections? Since so much is causing dispute over so many sections, and since examples of WP:WEA & WP:PEA are still being found, surely it makes more sense to have a single tag rather than littering the article with several of them? I am reinstating. This thread should probably be continued in the section that already exists for POV issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the sections is the lead. The tag should be reinstated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that Sitush and Maunus review WP:NPOVD. Adding tags such as this one should be the last resort and NPOV tags should not be misused. I have noticed a few instances of biased editing and POV pushing on the article and the talk page and would like to ask other editors of this page to review the recent changes made. There are no egregious problems with the page, so don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you review it yourself. It says that the tag can be removed in absence of ongoing discussion of which there is plenty here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rsrikanth here. Some editors have been particularly aggressive with their editing style and have reverted edits of several editors without making an attempt to discuss. We must get biographical articles right and that is policy. In case of any doubt, the issue must be discussed on the talk page first and only then changes are to be made. There are several editors ganging up on the page in order to include and retain material that is irrelevant and slanted towards the negative for a Wikipedia biography page. I believe this dispute will have to be escalated to an RfC shortly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That is false and ridiculous - the article and most other Hindu nationalism related articles are complete propaganda not worthy of an encyclopedia. When I came here the article was a hagiography, clearly caused by the several povpushing editors "ganging up to keep any critique of Modi out of the article and particularly the lead. And it is they who have been editwarring and who are now pushing for unilateral removal of the npov tag. Yes, an RfC with broad community involvement will be necessary, and perhaps even an arbcom.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, your style of aggressive editing is not welcome on the encyclopedia. You have continued to edit war on several occasions in the past while leaving rude messages for users who do not agree with you. I have initiated a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard for admin intervention. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol. You are funny.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the earlier discussion or the numerous points where myself and Sarvajna have been trying to sort out phrasing and stuff that might in fact be to Modi's " advantage" (ie: positive). In fact, you haven't done much that I can see for weeks & you allowed clear weaseling to stand. The RfC issue is already mentioned above - it would seem that you have not realised that, either. Perhaps you have been away for a while. If the lead is at BLPN then there is a major POV problem of some sort or another, and you'll note that I have sat on the fence throughout that particular problem: don't go accusing me of "ganging-up", which appears to be what you are saying given your additional comments on my talk page. This article still needs a lot of work and it would be better for all of us if we got on with it, as I am doing in small spurts every few days. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

<snip from my talk page> I suggest that you read the discussions on Talk:Narendra Modi, which include links to the thread at WP:BLPN. If you do not consider that to be a POV concern then you are clearly demonstrating your own POV regarding the subject of the article. Me? I have not opted for or against the BLPN issue, although I have been fixing other POV matters on that article during the last few days. We can do with less Modi-apparatchik type of edits and more useful discussion. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I have gone thru the talk page discussion. I find the usage of the POV tags rather distasteful, especially in the manner it has been used on Narendra Modi for an extended duration. There are no serious outstanding issues on that article that cannot be resolved by the way of discussion on the talk page. Please see the guide on NPOV tags once again (here's the link: WP:NPOVD) where it states clearly that these tags are to be used only as a last resort. Right now, I can only find you stressing over and over again that this tag ought to be a permanent feature because the person himself is so controversial that this dispute will never be resolved. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, Till date, I have only seen you cutting down on every section except the one on 2002 Gujarat violence which appears to be growing with each day. Now that you have labelled my editing as apparatchik-like, what is your advice on writing biographical articles? Should we use Adolph Hitler as a standard? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I have barely touched the 2002 section of late, and certainly not in comparison to work elsewhere on the article. As for cutting down, well, I can't be bothered aggregating the character count of my edits but if people cannot write decent English then I fix it; if people misquote sources then I fix it; if people think it important to this article note that an actor was filming his upcoming movie then, yes, I remove it as not important. Just look at my edits of the last few days and the number of threads I have opened on this talk page about various issues. Whether all this increases or decreases the length of the article is trivial. People really need to pay more attention before they start accusing me of things, including misreading things that I have said, such as on your talk page. I did not say that you were an apparatchik. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There had been a discussion above about the tag and Sitush was also involved, before Maunus started adding non worthy things to the lead the only reason that we found to have the tag was the sentence of Modi being a crowd puller, I would not give much importance to what Maunus says, while accusing others or being pro-Modi he forgot that he has clearly exposed himself as some anti-Modi person. It is very clear from the way he worded the part of Sting operation section twisting the facts given in the source itself.-sarvajna (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Google crash

We say The chat was schedule to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response. The source cited itself says that the crash was "reportedly", which seems like rather lazy journalism but, worse, The Indian Express source cited later in the section just calls it a "technical glitch". Did Google+ really crash? Was it due to "the response"? Do we have a source that actually says so? - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And was it 18 questions or 14? Is this discrepancy because the latter source was referring to only one "session"? - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked around and could find nothing to support the crash other than someone reporting that it had "reportedly" crashed ... Therefore, I adjusted the statement and have now done so once more following a mass reversal of my original edits that intended also to improve the phrasing etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Governor vs Modi

I have not bothered checking sources etc yet and I know that the phrasing is poor, but was this removal really valid? If the accusations of "parallel government" have any substance, for example, then it is surely relevant? How do these governor/chief minister relationships usually work? What are their respective roles? - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! My apologies: someone reinstated it. Time to take a break, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat in short; President : Prime Minister :: Governor : Chief Minister. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic development in Gujarat

Has the alleged improved economic environment in Gujarat been directly due to Modi's policies or could it be seen as largely a "natural" consequence? This article seems to put the dampers on things to some extent. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gujarat is not a Utopia, the poverty, malnourishment has created a lot of buzz recently especially due to some controversial interview that the recently gave. Overall Gujarat has done lot better than other states in India. I can go into specifics if you want. -sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure - Utopia doesn't exist and never will. What I am concerned about is whether we are correctly weighting things regarding the economy: as it stands, our article seems to infer that Modi has done much to enhance it but the link that I give appears to cast some doubt on that. I've no idea whether that source is even-handed or not - it seems to be putting down Modi on a few points, including the significance of him appearing on the cover of Time magazine. Similarly, other sources talk about the improved diplomatic relations since late 2012 being due to concerns in the UK/Europe etc that Modi will one day become PM rather than because they accept that he has not violated human rights etc re: 2002 (a sort of "better the devil you know" argument, I think). This is such a tricky article. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really understand your concern here, are you saying that the work done by his administration should not be attributed to him? If that is not the concern then I would say the article rightly states that Modi is responsible for the development work. Well if Modi inherited good state I would say that his predecessors also inherited the same good state so why are there better figures now?. The article doesn't say that Modi inhireted garbage and converted it into a gulistan(garden). He used the resources properly and made things work like electricity in all villages, making sure every girl child goes to school etc these were not present in Gujarat and still unknown in other parts of country, if there are some shortcomings, those shortcomings are present all over India.Coming to the point of improved diplomatic relations, your reasons might be right.-sarvajna (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I worry that our article implies some economic transformation due to Modi's policies when the Firstpost article I linked puts a somewhat different spin on things. And I use the word "spin" advisedly: there is a lot of it going on, both for and against the man, both in our article and in sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's best not to analyze the chequered development record of Gujarat as a whole or to use op–eds or an aggregation of op–eds, particularly from Firstpost, as our source. Gujarat's successful water conservation and renewable energy policy (not in article) are attributed to him (and sometimes to Keshubhai Patel) by sources. We can easily include them here, but we should also include say... malnutrition caused by Gujarat government's defective policy of encouraging cash crops (just an example), if the sources blame Modi for it. As long as we are able to divide the economic development into parts and include the positive aspects as well criticism of Modi's initiatives we should be alright. Due to RL concerns (I am on a wikibreak) I might not be able to comment on this thread again. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One difficulty with Modi is that is difficult to find sources that do not editorialise to some degree or another. For example, His policies are credited with creating the environment for the high economic growth in Gujarat. is currently stated in the lead and is sourced to ... an op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is also the crux of several sources (mostly op-eds) put together, same as the assertion that casts him as 'controversial'. I am happy that the article clearly mentions that it is the policies of the Modi administration that are credited with creating an environment for high economic growth rather than saying that the administration itself is credited for high economic growth. Other information on the 'chequered' nature of the development process can be inserted with regard to WP:DUE backed with established factual information rather than opinion pieces that in conflict with other opinion pieces. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

... which is precisely why we should probably remove this opinion piece. It is in conflict with the Firstpost source I mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

so do you want to remove the sentences of economic development from the lead or just the reference? and why? -sarvajna (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world, we should need no citations in lead sections because the section summarises the article and thus the sourcing is done in the body - WP:LEAD. However, that particular statement is from an op-ed and is contradicted by another op-ed that is not referenced anywhere. It is clearly true that someone - probably more - has credited the Modi administration but it is also true that someone else - and probably more - has critiqued this. Balance would dictate that we show both or none, and since we do need to refer to those economic policies (we say that the emphasis shifted from Hindutva to them post-2002), it looks like we'll somehow have to show both "sides", whether from op-eds or elsewhere. It is easy to think things out at a policy-based, hypothetical level, as Nick has done, but I think that you and I are both aware that the theory and the practice of how we do it are very different kettles of fish. I was basically pointing out a potential fallacy in Nick's theoretical analysis. He seems not to have read/been able to read the source I linked above otherwise he would likely have spotted the difficulty even with talking of "environment".

I am not at all sure how we can resolve this issue practically without reliance on op-eds. I wonder if there are any papers in academic economic journals that touch on this & somehow manage to do it in a rounded manner? And I don't mean Economics and Political Weekly, which is hosted at JSTOR but more often than not comprises a succession of op-eds. Right now, I'm still checking existing sources vs. statements. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can try to check the government figures but they would be primary source not sure how much help, would the TIME magazine help or we can take a lot of news report and summarize the whole thing. Also his supporters praise him for economic development and that is why he is popular among his supporters while his opponents have 2002 and have found loop holes in his supporter's theory. I feel that we should compare this BLP with other BLPs, may be we can get some idea -sarvajna (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think figures taken straight from the government are going to help - aside from being primary, if they are anything like those of the UK then they are subject to a lot of manipulation! 2002 and the economy are completely separate facets, as far as I can see. Looking over some BLPs that have FA status might be a good thing - you're aware that I tend to spend most of my time on non-BLP stuff, so I've not got a tremendous familiarity with them. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You should probably get to the point you are trying to make quickly. An analysis of opinion editorials on the Narendra Modi administration presented in another opinion editorial published by the Firstpost doesn't really hold any weight. There are several non-partisan and independent sources available that highlight how the state of Gujarat has forged ahead in terms of economic development under the administration. It is similarly expected that there will be articles published in the mainstream media that question such progress. You will be able to find a stream of criticism aimed against him for more or less everything he does. Same is true for other public and prominent individuals in the world whose (featured or good) biographical articles we should probably be using as a standard for writing other biographical articles on individuals involved in politics such as – Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and even Adolf Hitler (though there is no comparison here). You will find that all of these individuals have been controversial at some point in their political career or are still controversial. Yet you will not find refutation of each and every policy opinion that they may have expressed or every action that they may have taken. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a conservative project that only aims to put factual information in front of its readers allowing them to decide what to make of the subject of the articles. With regard to the point about shifting focus from Hindutva to economic development is pure speculation presented by Phadnis in his opinion editorial over which the article places UNDUE reliance with the source being used five times representing opinions as factual information or making exceptional claims without corroboration from other sources. Same is the case with the Caravan opinion piece by Vinod Jose (who is not a qualified ethnographer or an established journalist by any means) who utilizes a plethora of unnamed sources in his article. A couple of examples on this point: The Barack Obama administration and the President himself have been criticized for their economic policies and actions by the conservative and libertarian spectrums in the US media, however these criticisms do not find their way into the article. Similarly, the featured article on Adolf Hitler does not dwell on how controversial the individual was, but rather describe their actions and ideas in a succinct and coherent manner backed only by sources that have a reputation for being objective on the subject, and you should note that there is no dearth of sources – academic or otherwise – on the subject of the article. You still need to read the archives on the discussion page to understand how the point about 'economic development' came about in the lead section. This was done in order to balance out the insertion on the 'controversial' nature of his administration which some overzealous editors had insisted upon in the past. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I should probably do: you cannot read my mind. And you are yet again ignoring what has gone on in the recent past - Jose, for example, has been discussed, largely without my input. I am trying to improve this article and have so far managed to do so without adding a single source to it. You, on the other hand, were suggesting that one op-ed should stay while another should not, which is incredibly inconsistent. Does this get to the point quickly enough for you? - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you got what Nick is trying to say, we are all colaborating. If you consider all the discussion on the talk page you can see that I hardly added anything to the article while you did everything, it is just a discussion. I am completly in agreement with what Nick has said above, the thing about Modi being credited with economic development was to balance the statement of Modi being controversial. There would always be two kinds of argument over whatever Modi does, if we look at the article of George W Bush you can see that there is mention of what measures he has taken when he was in power, do we see mention about torture of POW, or about the conspiracy theory of 9/11 ? -sarvajna (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jose may have been discussed in the past, but that does not mean that the chapter cannot be opened again. His work is largely an opinion editorial but at the same time it is also an investigate report (and by definition, a primary source), which disqualifies it for use on this article. The opinion piece also makes exceptional claims and relies on several unnamed sources and is written by an author is is neither an established journalist or an expert on the life of Narendra Modi.

You are misrepresenting my views and not for the first time. The biographical article may rely on sources that are established and prominent publications including TIME magazine and other national and regional media sources. However, it will be up to us editors to determine which are the most prominent and objective sources on the subject. The rationale behind the addition of 'economic development' was that it would balance the 'controversy' portion made in the same paragraph. Now you are proposing that the portion on economic development should be balanced further by adding critical views of other commentators. That is not very ingenious.

As proposed above, we should be mainly concerned about presenting factual and objective information about the subject of the article rather than riddling the whole biography with commentaries from every other journalist in the country simply because they were featured in Firstpost or the Times of India. There are several examples that can be drawn from featured articles on politicians around the world as I have demonstrated above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add Jose. He was discussed less than a month ago. If you want to list all the sources that you would prefer to see removed then that's fine by me - I've added none, although I've raised a few here. However, if op-eds are not suitable then they are not suitable, period, not merely unsuitable when it suits someone. Yes, it is our role to be neutral but not to contrive neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Serving soldiers in 1965

Sitush, you have added a clarification needed tag for the line "During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations." through this edit. Your reasons is "reason=serve in what capacity? this comes straight from his own website & is typically vague". I don't understand this. Isn't serving in any sense concise enough for a biography. He clearly wasn't doing heart transplants or such huge things. Or else those would have been mentioned somewhere by now. Can't it be deduced that maybe he was doing small things like giving blankets and water. What more clarification is needed? We have FAs here which have such vague sentences and they are present there because they are backed by source and the notion that nothing can be done of something that's not available. How do you imagine this tag can be removed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be easy to fix, hence I tagged it there rather than raising it here. My suspicion is "serve tea", whereas "serve" alone sounds almost like a military role. In any event, we need to move away from using the bio on Modi's website for pretty much anything other than date of birth etc. It is rarely a good idea to use WP:SPS, although they do have their place on BLPs for basic personal info. Is the sentence really significant anyway? - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Enough quibbling already, it didn't say "he served as a soldier"; it said "he served the soldiers" and it is clear enough.
"We need to move away from using the bio on Modi's website for pretty much anything other than date of birth etc." - Why? Wikipedia allows self-published and questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves. Now, you haven't yet proved that this claim on his website is "unduly self-serving" and there is a "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". You didn't provide a source that criticizes the page in those terms as opposed to blowing it out of proportion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Further: [1], [2] These secondary sources claim the same thing. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it is self-serving. In the context of the Hindu nationalism that he espouses, doing his patriotic duty as a child looks good on his website. Your sources are not reliable, imo, but if you must use them then please do so rather than use his own bio. I'd rather see them in this article than more links to his self-promotion. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Most sources that appear in Google seem to use exactly the same phrasing as his website, which is probably not a surprise, Howeverm I wonder if this interview is related to the same thing (search for "railway"). And this one refers to feeding them. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, you can use the primary source in addition to the NDTV source to corroborate the assertion. This is by no means an 'unduly self-serving' or an exceptional claim. I would be careful with using Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay as a source given that he does not have credentials of an established journalist, and the publisher of the book from which the excerpt is quoted from is a no-name company. You can choose to ignore irrelevant commentary around what is self-serving or what is not. When writing about somebody's personal life, it is best to use sources where they have been quoted directly rather than articles that make sweeping claims without explaining the source of their information. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I really do not think that you understand this, Nick. You seem to be a BLP specialist from things that you have said here and I understand the concerns about negative information etc, but I really, really do not think that you understand the subject, the context or indeed the nature of the people (including me) who are involved with this article. I agree that using primary + secondary is ok in principle, but it should also be unnecessary. There is no need to cite a primary if a secondary exists.

However, I am wondering whether we should be sending pretty much every source on this article for review at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. Your definitions do not match mine and I think that the difference maybe because you are concentratiny on the BLP side and I am concentrating on the RS side. Sure, BLP is likely to be a trump card but I'd like to test this case for numerous sources here. For example, the NDTV source that I linked and you agree can be used does not in fact support the statement and may not even relate to the point that Modi makes in his own bio. I linked it because of the "I wonder" ... there is no certainty at all. But perhaps I am nitpicking. What I do see is other people discussing and you making what appear to be pronouncements. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "But perhaps I am nitpicking" - no it seems like you're badgering. You're the one who said "in any event, we need to move away from using the bio on Modi's website for pretty much anything other than date of birth etc.", that was an unconditional claim and I didn't agree with it then. Now you changed your stance from prejudicial avoidance to conditional avoidance. You say, "there is no need to cite a primary if a secondary exists." - by the same logic there is no need to specifically delete primary sources either, esp. since it is clear that the assertion is supported by secondary sources. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• You have completely misread what I say and you seem to misunderstand other aspects: we try to avoid primary sources and we try to avoid over-sourcing. If the secondary source is up to the job then we use it. Happen I think the secondaries that you mention are merely copying stuff over from here, from his website etc but in any event, things have moved on and we really, really should not be driving links to a primary source any more than is absolutely necessary. It certainly is not necessary in this instance. Why do you think that it is? - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why are you so eager to delete that link? CITEKILL doesn't say we should avoid PRIMARY SOURCES at any cost. It seems odd. BTW the citation is not causing any clutter; it is hardly a real contravention of WP:CITEKILL. There are many assertions in the article with 2-3 citations appended behind them, you don't seem to bothered about them at all. Suddenly this line has got your attention, what's going on? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I never said that citekill even mentioned primary sources, nor did I say anything regarding multiple citations elsewhere. Nor is it by any means the only thing that has got my attention. Try reading what is actually said by me, try reading the numerous contributions I have made and try reading the rest of this talk page, where I have raised all sorts of other points that have varying degrees of significance. This sentence has no more "suddenly ... got [my] attention" than anything else. Rome was not built in a day. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok got it, now we have secondary source let us not use that primary source for that sentence not delete the prmiary source altogether. Let us stop commenting at this thread here as the dispute seems to have ended.-sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that my original point was a dispute. It was a query about what was meant by the word "serve" that I tagged in the article and Dharmadhyaksha raised here. The use of the word alone is still vague but a dispute arose regarding an ancillary point relating to use of primary sources. I'm pretty sure that "serve food and drink" is what is meant but I am not so sure that the secondary sources that have so far been found adequately verify this. It is the sort vague statement that would be pounced upon by a decent GA or FA review, so please can we try to resolve the thing. As a last resort, it could be removed but then people would accuse me of being POV-y. I stress that I am happy enough for it to stay if we can sort out what the heck he served and that as things stand we could as well mean that he served them as a male prostitute as a boot cleaner.

It is a situation rather like the peculiar "business suits for business meetings", which I think is still meaningless to most readers even now it has been turned into a quote. If we can't determine with certainty what the source means because the source itself is unclear then we should not be referring to it. And if we can determine then we should. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is taking it to FA. And for GA, such points are not raised. Even if raised are not necessarily to be cleared. Forget those stupid standards of Wikipedia. One dictionary meaning of serve is to provide service. If we would have known what kinda service it was, we would have written it. If we don't know, we cant possible make someone write it somewhere and then use it. Even those called GAs and FAs are written with material that is available. We cannot produce stuff ourselves. Its sufficient to have this current statement as it is with the reference now added. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. This one quotes him as saying he served tea and snacks but he is referring to the Indo-China war of 1962, not the Indo-Pakistan one of 1965. Would it make any difference if we swapped one war for another? - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And one more thing. Please don't raise such silly points. Your doubts should be reasonable; or else people will simply go on raising any sorts of points. Curiosity can be dangerous. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the Outlook source above refers to both 1962 and 1965. That looks to be the solution. Dharma, why the heck could it be dangerous? Is a BJP hit squad being sent to find me or what? - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's more like it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably a wrong word. But what i meant was a danger to Wikipedia and its quality and not to its editors. If people start tagging each and everything that they are curious about, no article can ever be written. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, your way of invoking "BJP" party in everything (even when the other person is not talking about BJP) as in BJP run Wikipedia, BJP death squad reeks of a possible conflict of Interest on your part. I am finding this very strange. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dharma, if we can be precise then we should be so. There is a lot that is being or has been discussed here that has not been tagged and, as I said, I tagged that one as likely to be a quick fix - it probably would have been if we hadn't taken a walk down some by-ways :( Mrt, please slow down: I have had death threats for doing things on Wikipedia before, the "run by" comment was in response to an illogical point and the BJP is affiliated with a known militant organisation. I have a right to be concerned for my safety and if you do not like it then take me to ANI now but, please, I suggest you stop with the antagonism because I don't think you intend any more than that. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As said before, he clearly wasn't doing any huge tasks. There was no need of precision here. Would you also demand geocode of his birthplace? Would you also demand what snack and what type of tea was he serving? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot understand that the statement was vague then perhaps there is some linguistic subtlety involved. Whatever, we have got it sorted out & he has gained another bit of patriotic service in the cause of his country. Why raise hypotheticals? The tag is resolved using the Outlook source that I first raised around 24 hours ago but which everyone else seemed to be ignoring until the last few minutes. Consider the outcome as one that makes an old man (me) content, if that's a way for you to comprehend it. We oldies appreciate some indulgence from time to time <g> - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, your conduct over various discussions over this page was really good but you have gone back on your old attitude, saying that there is a BJP death squad, and its affiliated organizations are militant. It is really, really cheap behavior, were you threatened by BJP in past? was there any bomb blast in your neighborhood which was planned by the so called militant organizations? -sarvajna (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have been threatened by someone who claimed to be from the BJP, and I've also been threatened by other people who have disliked things done or said on Wikipedia. No, the only bomb blast was by another militant organisation and was quite some years ago. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It still sounds stupid to speculate about a BJP death squad because some bloke who claimed that he is from BJP threatened you. --sarvajna (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion; and I am entitled to my well-being. It turns out that it was bad phrasing, which is fine but I didn't know that at the time and if some people are out to get me then I'd rather have forewarning. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your well being and opinion, it would be great if you keep your opinion to yourself. -sarvajna (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mine was a question, not an opinion. Now can we drop this, please? It is not advancing article development in the slightest. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird quote

Can someone please explain In 2003, when Narendra Modi was asked about the conflict of his dreams for Gujarat's future with international criticism of his past activities, Modi said,[44] "Yet, no one has asked this question to the USA after 9/11. Delhi is developing fast – no one has asked this question to Delhi after 1984. If it does not matter to Delhi and USA, why should it matter to Gujarat?" It is certainly what the Times of India source says but Modi seems to be comparing apples with oranges, not to mention the problem that he has never held government office in the US or Delhi & so his dreams for those places or past activities in them are ... well, you tell me! Unless it makes sense, there is not much point in including it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

He isn't comparing apples and oranges. According to him, after 9/11, no one asked US president if the bright future dreams that he dreamt of/promised of are going to be affected by the terrorism. Similarly, after various attacks in Delhi, it's CM was also not questioned if Delhi would see any further development or not. So why are such questions being raised only for Gujarat?
In other words, Modi wants to say that if US and Delhi were not hindered in their progress because of terrorism, Gujarat also will not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what is being said. The ToI asked whether international criticism of him (not the fact that violence occurred) would affect his dreams. His reply makes no sense and in fact makes him look a bit odd because it makes no sense. I understand your point but that is your own interpretation. Unfortunately, he was responding to a question asked by ToI, so it isn't possible to look up another source. - Sitush (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Then its even simpler. Modi means that criticism on him doesn't stop him from dreaming and working to make his Gujarat dream come true. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It kind of makes sense, the US has obviously gotten a lot of flak for their actions since 9/11, Iraq ans extraordinary rendition being foremost in my mind. So I assume what he means is that the US has carried on regardless, and so will he. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush's arbitrary and clever reversal of valid edits

Sitush is unilaterally reverting my edits with vague (or is it cunning?) and arbitrary rationales. From what I have seen from Sitush, I am more than sceptical about Sitush's prejudice against Modi.

• [3]

Here he says we need an ″independent″ source without explaining how is the current source unacceptable. This source was already discussed and found to be acceptable. This is no extraordinary claim. "Served in what capacity?", how is that a ground for deletion of the claim altogether?

• [4]

He says it is an op-ed and extending the quote is excessive usage(←a highly subjective word) of Quote.

Where does it say it is an OP-ED? In any case he is being hypocritical. He is the one who didn't hesitate to use the same source and extend a quote which in itself was a POINTy edit to say the least.

• Not only that, he recently frowned upon me, said he was "worried", because of an edit in which I explained the Godhra Train Massacre (I put the numbers of the dead Hindu pilgrims and women and children which were missing from the article). Along with his general attitude towards BJP and Modi, it cannot be anymore clearer than this that he is prejudiced in some eerie way.

• One other thing he tends to make multiple small edits instead of just one which makes it even harder for the watchers to find where he reverted someone. In light of all this should he be banned from editing the article? I don't think he is ever going to stop. All of his edits should be painstakingly reviewed.

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Update

Sitush is already trying to WP:ADMINSHOP → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mrt3366_at_Narendra_Modi Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush doesn't have a prejudice against anyone. He does have a prejudice against editors abusing Wikipedia to further their own political causes. Why don't you propose a topic ban against Sitush (or me) on WP:ANI? Let's see how fast you get laughed out of court, or blocked for disruption and blatant, unfounded personal attacks. Try it: put your money where your mouth is. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you think I am going to fall for your bait? I know you too well sir. It is highly disheartening to see you stoop to this stage where you deem it fit to overtly bait an editor. I recognize this truculent diction also. Who is exhibiting "pugnacity" now? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

POV

• This edit[5] by MrT3366 is extreme and unabashed povpushing that cannot be allowed in the article. It is basically turning the article into a platform for inciting new communalist riots. I am reinserting the pov tag again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would that incite any communal riots? -sarvajna (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have restored the POV tag given their is obviously a POV issue. Please do not remove it until such a time as these issues are dealt with, per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is of course how the tag is supposed to work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time that the sentences mentioned in the above diffs were included,He still lampoons the urban, English-speaking elite, but he is also honing his English skills is directly out of the source, it is a copy vio not a POV, Modi is seen as the “protector” by the Hindu supporters, albeit Sonia Gandhi once called him "a merchant of death." is not a POV at all, even if it is, it doesn't warrent a POV tag because these things were added for the first time and if you see there is a discussion started by me.-sarvajna (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter when the content was added, and it does not matter if you think it is not warranted, another editor feels it is and as such he added it, and policy is quite clear that it should stay until the dispute is over. You can self revert, or I can do it for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well what if the reasons are not correct? Some editor would think that the tag should be on the article forever because the person is controversial, should we agree with him? This is a content dispute not a POV. Also what was POV in that? .-sarvajna (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ratnakar, you just dont get what POV is. POV is a kind of content dispute, in which someone sees content as being biased. And the tag works so that when an editor places it it stays in place untill there is a consensus that it is not necessary. Revert yourself, or I will report you for edit warring. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, the message above the template states The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort(emphasis mine).-sarvajna (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I have been doing for three weeks at this point. Reinsert the tag or I will report you for editwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not have control over what you do, what you have been doing since past few days is trying to add your own POV into the lead and use the tag as a badge of shame. When un-involved editors told you that you did not seem to care. To advance your cause your started a RfC, put the notice on different projects with colourful words. Now MrT's recent edits seems to have given you a reason to add POV tag back, I have already started a discussion on the page to discuss the edits which you think were POV, however you are not interested in those discussion but you just want to have the POV tag on the top of article. -sarvajna (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

IN fact what I want is that the article conform to WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. No "uninvolved" editor apart from Darkness Shines have intervened here. Just the hindu nationalist propaganda team lead by Yogesh and yourself. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see Kondi and RShrikant were active here, also MrT came here after the RfC if I am not wrong and Yogesh has not edited the article for a very long long time, you are just imagining stuff.-sarvajna (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"it is a copy vio not a POV" what copy vio I added it under quote. I am out of here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I agree the tag should be allowed to stay as long as there is disagreement on talk page. I agree that the article is non neutral. It is clearly been written with a bias against the subject. For example, the lead mentions criticism etc. before achievements. Moreover, there are no counterpoints to the criticism in the lead. In an unbiased article, achievements should precede criticism and criticism should be balanced by some counterpoints. The article is already heavily biased as it is and Maunus should stop trying to make it more biased by crying "Hindu nationalist" etc.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC) And Maunus, instead of calling other people idiots, etc. and indulging in other polemics, perhaps you may want to read Wikipedia:Lead fixation.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So be it, I don't think that the tag would ever be removed from this page now.-sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the probable intent. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I insist that it should stay as long as this article remains an attack page on Modi.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The intent is that the article should become neutral. I have already indicated some POV problems, and I can also list many more points to show that the article is biased against the subject. I do not think we should have this kind of hostile attitude towards the subjects of BLPs.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions

• Addition of sentences where it is mentioned that Modi served flood victims, this sentence is attributed to bio which many feel that it shoyuld not be used, there was a discussion that using his bio was not a problem and we can use secondary sources when we have one. However my opinion is that we can leave out this sentence.
• MrT expanded the section of 2002 violence which added the details of the Godhra train burning, I do not see much problem with mention of numbers here because there is a mention of numbers of post godhra riots, we can agree whether to have any numbers or not. Just having a long detail about post godhra and not much details of godhra would be wrong. IMO we need to cut down the size of the whole section, he is not found guilty in the courts so there is no need to expand this section.
• This edit was really not required. However I would like to know MrT's logic behind this edit. -sarvajna (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers are relevant it puts perspective into things. But I agree with the position that we should either avoid numbers or we shouldn't but there should not be any bias in this regard.
"However my opinion is that we can leave out this sentence." - I don't think there is any policy-based reason which necessitates the removal of the fact that Modi served flood victims.
Now about your third point, firstly see the edit summary. Secondly the whole quote ("business suits to business meetings, instead of homespun tunics....") is needless, I think. But when Sitush added the portion instead of homespun tunics, [6] I thought then we should provide the whole point. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, "Modi is seen as the “protector” by the Hindu supporters, albeit Sonia Gandhi once called him "a merchant of death." " --doesn't the source support it? How is it my POV then? I asked Sitush to clarify why is it that he thinks it is a POV, he didn't. As it seems everything I add becomes a POV just because I am adding it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to do biasing here but the info is well supported by source."Sonia Gandhi once called him "a merchant of death" doesn't mean he is.Requirement or not is yet to be decided.Not a POV although.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies's exclusion of sourced material

[Header changed by Mrt3366 after Nick's suggestion] [7] He reverted sourced material by reeling off platitudes, "three tidbits. a. not every little bit is notable b. this article is way too hagiographical c. don't use his own autobio as a source d. so he had a tea stall--so what?" --But he didn't explain how do they merit deletion. If I am not met with a decent response that explicates these edits inside a reasonable time frame I will reinstate these changes.

Secondary sources for Modi's service during 1967 flood

[8], [9], [10], [11] (Modi joined in the service of the flood-affected people in 1967)

My position

1. As Nick said somewhere, "there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for something non-controversial that is not unduly self-serving."
2. The claim "while a teenager, Modi ran a tea stall with his brother around a bus terminus" was sourced. If Drmies comes and argues it doesn't merit a mention I flatly disagree because if the reliable sources deemed it as a significant enough info for publishing we should follow the sources, not Drmies.
3. Same goes for "Modi volunteered to serve food to soldiers in transit at railway stations during both the Indo-China War of 1962 and the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965." I am fairly sure these assertions are as significant as any other in the article.
4. With this edit he again imposes his arbitrary opinion that only "one of these is enough", albeit I am not taking any major issues with this edit, it may be that he is correct in this.
5. In this edit he actually argues I "[set] a mob of 2000 muslims against women and children". What the heck? I set the mob against women and children? I just described a real life event as reported by numerous reliable sources and I think editing that part out is censorship unwarranted.
   He says I am POV editing because I added just a few of the important and well-published details of the Godhra Train Massacre.
   Numbers put perspective into things, we can either avoid adding numbers altogether or we may just allow them but to say that number of deaths of Muslims and Hindus in the riot ensuing the Godhra Train Massacre is fine but at the same time even one line about the number of deaths in the Godhra Train Massacre is unacceptable, is a gross violation of neutrality.

I am just one person, if other people don't find these worrying, then I will leave this article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For gods sake, he ran a tea stall, who cares? How is that even noteworthy? He handed out sandwiches, again how is that noteworthy? He volunteered to help out with a flood, again how is it noteworthy? Without knowing what he actually did other than saying he volunteered what is the point of it? Godhra Train Massacre, we have internal links for a reason, so other articles do not become filled up with stuff that belongs in other articles. All Drimes has done is remove fluff. He also removed some nasty stuff, I do not see you bitching about that, I am now either going to bed, work or the pub. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? Who cares? I, for one, care. We don't operate on such questions, if we did, many of the articles won't exist. The threshold is verifiability. It's a relevant info about the subject and verifiable. That's all that matters. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To fail to see anything wrong in phrases like "...the massacre against 200 Muslims ...", but becoming aghast at "a mob of 2000 muslims against women and children" is a clear display of Hinduphobic bias.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I share the same opinion as Mrt3366. This seems to be an attempt to make a controversial article a highly controversial article for no reason. As of the Godhra incident, they incident was a major event in Indian politics and giving some details of it is surely not WP:UNDUE. We don't want the readers to think that the whole riot started just because of the death of 1-2 people. As of DS' concerns, I believe that the childhood occupation of any person is worth to be mentioned in his article. Also all of his biographies, shown by Indian media, discuss all these things in detail. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Who says I failed to see that? Who says I saw that in the first place? Bias--my ass. Edit out the massacre thing if it's wrong too. Mr. T., I don't think you know what censorship is--I don't think you even know what decent article writing is. The threshold is not "what's possibly verified": an editor's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. And no, Vibhijain, a childhood job is not of any kind of relevance, unless it's proven to be of relevance by in-depth discussion of the topic, not by a casual, one-sentence mention. Mr. T., Right now one of your political opponents (because it is clear that you do have a political investment here) has dragged me to DR because I removed a bunch of non-noteworthy stuff against your man. So, that should be clear evidence of anti-Hinduphobic bias, no? Darkness, it's not hard to be an equal-opportunity offender in the politics of the subcontinent. Enjoy your pint. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"I don't think you even know what decent article writing is" - keep it on. You don't think a lot of things. Stop thinking. Pay heed to others. You cannot gut it unilaterally.
"an editor's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff." - what are you talking about? Wheat chaff, who decides what is wheat and what is chaff? You? I will not be harangued on what the job of an editor is by an editor who is censoring valid material that is indispensable to neutrality. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies I disagree with your point that the tea stall thing is not worth to mention. It is a part of various facts known about Modi's childhood. This is a good page to use as a source for them.

1. "During Indo-Pak war of 1965, Modi, as a 15 year old boy, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at the railway stations. Similarly, in 1967 at an age of 17 years, he served the flood affected people of Gujarat."
2. "Modi was born in an OBC family of grocers."
3. "Modi wanted to become a sanyasi when he was a child. In fact, he was always fascinated with Sadhus, different forms of worship and meditation."
4. "He visited many places including Ramkrishna Ashram of Belur in West Bengal. Finally, he reached Himalayas and wandered aimlessly and stayed with unknown but yogic Sadhus for months."
5. "After two years of wandering in Himalayas without money and with two pairs of clothes, he suddenly decided to give up ‘Sanyas’ life and returned home."
6. "After returning from Himalayas, Modi ran a tea stall with his brother at the State Transport Office in Ahmedabad. Modi sold tea for many years." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies. Actually, I do not think any of those two phrases is problematic. You and others seem to see problems there because both phrases can be seen as being communally divisive. But, WP is an uncensored encyclopedia and it is of no concern to us (from WP POV) whether something is communally divisive/communally harmonius/ politically correct, etc. If it serves to let the reader be in a more informed position, it should be in. I think deleting any of those phrases is blatant censorship due to "communally divisive" concerns.

Who says I failed to see that? Who says I saw that in the first place? The first sentence suggests that you did not fail to see it, and the next sentence suggests that you did fail to see it. It seems a bit unlikely to me that you could not fail, and fail, at the same time. Whatever. Do you not read an article before you edit it? Anyhow, both Sitush and RP have also taken exception to the second phrase, but failed to see anything wrong with the first one. Did they also not read it, despite being around this article for long. If they did read it, but took exception only at the first phrase, is it not evidence of Hinduphobia on their part? If you argue that you are not Hinduphobic because you did not see the first phrase, but fail to see Hinduphobia in people who did see the first phrase, and took exception only to the second, would that not be hypocrisy/illogical on your part? Let us see you crack this one Drmies.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am lost here, Mango. What phrases am I alleged to have seen, taken exception to or not been concerned about? - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Freudian slip there: I was, of course, addressing OrangesRyellow. That's how confused I am with the recent back and forths :( - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies says, "And no, Vibhijain, a childhood job is not of any kind of relevance, unless it's proven to be of relevance by in-depth discussion of the topic, not by a casual, one-sentence mention." - well you're talking about Criteria that are applied to subjects wanting to have separate article. Nobody is trying to create childhood job of Modi. Hence they don't need to be covered in-depth. The fact that they are covered at all should suffice. Drmies, you of all people should know that the notability standards applied to article content are usually much lower than those applied to the subject of an article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Strawman: I didn't suggest that someone suggested we write that article. I am well aware of the guidelines--and I know a thing or two about article writing. It seems that you have no standard for exclusion, which would make every tidbit worthy of inclusion. I disagree. But then, I'm a writer, not a politician or a PR person. Above, "censorship" is yelled (I think that was removed from the subject heading?), but what I am proposing is good editorial practice. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The information is trivial, as I've said before. And, yes, we do have to be selective in what we include - we are not an indisciminate collection of facts. Now, if multiple sources discussed how serving tea and buns directly influenced his political philosophy then it might be a different situation but as things stand it is no more significant than that (non-notable) l'il old me delivered newspapers as a boy. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• May I suggest that we all calm down and participate in the discussion in a rational manner? Mrt, making a reference to censorship does not bode well for what you are trying to achieve. It is important that we participate in this discussion in a civil environment and for that everyone needs to participate in a collaborative spirit. Vibhi, with regard to 'OBC family of grocers', do you have a source available where the subject self-identifies himself as belonging to a particular caste? If yes, then that piece of information may be included in the section about his personal or early life. If not, then it should ideally be kept out. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• I support inclusion of flood-relief work, railway station work in both wars and the tea-stall info. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Nick I don't think that Modi ever tried to gain votes by terming himself as OBC in speeches, but the BJP believes that he can be used as a OBC leader in near future. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Even I support the inclusion of "flood-relief work, railway station work in both wars and the tea-stall info" , they are some details known to us about his childhood .-sarvajna (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• The fact about Himalayas is the most important one. Modi has himself talked about this many times. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

One more dispute I see is that the numbers mentioned in the violence section, sometime back there was some other discussion about not to mention the numbers in the lead, now there is a dispute about not mentioning the numbers of dead in godhra train burning. I do not understand the logic, why should we skip the numbers of godhra tain burning but mention the number of dead post train burning. Also godhra train burning is considred a trigger event for post godhra violence, when we can have so much details about post godhra why not a bit more detail about godhra incident?IMO we need to have minimum mention about both the events. -sarvajna (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! And Mr.T's one liner is the sufficient minimum mention. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should add the following things regarding the riots:

1. The numbers of dead people, both in Godhra and post-Godhra
2. The clean chit of the SIT to Modi (in detail)
3. The attacks on Modi regarding the riots (in detail, but the ones given by major Politicians)
4. The clarifications given by Modi, like his statement in the SC and the interview he gave to Siddiqui. (in detail) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the riot section is already bloated enough, we need to reduce that section. There was violence, Modi was accused, he got clean chit by supreme court. Political opponents will always target him, I think that would be too much to add. There is a separate article for the violence, there is no need to add a lot of things here. -sarvajna (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your point is also valid. We can go by it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ratnakar.Kulkarni. Undue importance is being given the the section on the violence. As per policy, we do not sensationalise stuff. The judiciary gave him a clean chit, the media reported it. That's it. Our job is to state that with the media reports as a source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange, but I agree with Ratnakar as well. This article should focus on what matters, and here that's not the violence but its aftereffects. The newspapers will have reported a lot, and repeated a lot of detail, but we should address the subject, not excessively detail the events that led to the accusations. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not strange at all. I've been trying to avoid this section but it needs work. It has been a problem for months, if not years. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been bold and pruned the more egregious stuff. I can see room for further trimming but will need to read the sources because there is some confusion regarding whether we are referring to one SIT or several. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion of numbers is less informative

Before	After	Note
In February 2002 following Godhra Train Massacre where 58 Hindu pilgrims including 25 women and 15 children were burnt to death in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train by a radical Islamist mob of around 2000 Muslims("Fifty-eight killed in attack on Sabarmati Express". Rediff. 27 February 2002. Retrieved 11 May 2013.), there was widespread communal violence in Gujarat,[12] that resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.[13]	In, 2002, widespread communal violence involving clashes between Hindus and Muslims occurred in Guajart following the Godhra train burning[14] Many people were killed	Exclusion of numbers is less informative than what it was before and in fact misleading. There is no reason why Sitush and Drmies, get to exclude these info. Many people were killed, how many? It was changed from massacre (which it was) to train burning (seems as though only the train got burnt)? I mean what the heck is this? Is this bias or what?

This is becoming too much. If Sitush and/or one of his supporters don't explain his edits I am going to reinstate the info. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My suspicion is that our Godhra train burning article is so-named because "massacre" is emotive. However, feel free to go to that article and start a renaming discussion. If it succeeds then, obviously, we can rename the link here. I don't see the need for the numbers but in any event several other people also thought that the section as a whole was too much information and thus, as one of my edit summaries said and I noted above, I have been bold and attempted to trim the thing. Now stop accusing and insinuating that I have some sort of bias here, please. Do it again and I will find an admin who is prepared to block you. The accusations against me have gone on for long enough and the only person in this discussion who has been showing evident POV is you. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it is not misleading. It is a massacre and should be described as such or at least in a more precise fashion (make it more descriptive). It was not only a train burning for Gods sake. calling it a "train burning" is misleading.

BTW, you're not being BOLD you're being reckless, don't be RECKLESS SITUSH. Discuss BEFORE EDITING/EXCLUDING/ADDING anything to this extremely controversial article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Discuss etc, says the person who has waded in here making controversial additions etc and warred to keep them. I've given you my rationale: now either respond to it with something that might at least vaguely be based on policy or desist from the shouting etc. Shouting is not "discussion": it is bullying and rude. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Now stop accusing and insinuating that I have some sort of bias here, please." - you're behaving as an obsessively tendentious editor Sitush. You don't discuss you unilaterally revert legitimate edits with arbitrary reasoning. Hence, WP:SPADE, and I don't know about others but assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. You assert "BJP is affiliated with a known militant organisation". You think BJP is trying to harm you, come on. How can you even say that you're not Biased? But I will focus on your editing from now on, and kindly don't edit without PRIOR discussion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"so-named because "massacre" is emotive"-- you mean like:

• Boyd massacre
• Pyle's Massacre
• Gnadenhutten massacre
• Peterloo Massacre

?Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing positioning of this. In response, I can assure you that the Peterloo affair is commonly called a "massacre". I have no idea with regard to the others. If you think that the Godhra affair is commonly called a massacre then go to that article and invoke WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That applies to article title Sitush, not content that is tasked with precisely describing events. I wasn't asking for a move. Hence your argument false on its face. Don't argue needlessly. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) D'un? That's why I said go there and invoke it. Until then, your desire to use "massacre" here looks emotive and given the various edit summaries, including the one that was taken to ANI, quite possibly is. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your application was wrong to begin with. Why would I need to move a page to describe that event in another page? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it because you seem to be getting more and more worked-up about this subject and arranging a rename of the core article, with consensus, would reduce the likelihood of someone thinking that your emotions are causing you to select POV words here to describe the event. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I will. I hope you don't really believe that "[my] emotions are causing [me] to select POV words here to describe the event." Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush back at it

[15] Here siush reverted the following:

The chat was scheduled to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response.(source Dinakaran, R. (1 September 2012). "Modi chats live on Google Plus Hangout". Business Line. Chennai. Retrieved 3 September 2012.)

(My emphasis)

The source says:

It was all over Twitter and Facebook. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi would be answering questions - live - through Google Plus’ Hangout. The time was 8 p.m (August 31, Friday).

But by the time the event began, it was well over 8.45 p.m. The reason, the response was so much that Google Plus reportedly crashed.

He thinks it is a PR stunt. Based on what, you may ask? Because the source used "reportedly" and apparently that makes the whole thing a stunt from Modi. In any case, the content also claim it was a reported crash. Now others will argue that Sitush is fair and reasonable, albeit I don't understand why he gets to be the judge of what's PR and what's not. I am a little confused. I encourage others to comment here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is getting too much. I have reverted the edits. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to revert me then at least take some care. You made a right hash (excuse the pun) of that one. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Update

Obviously he didn't search for other sources: [16]

"Narendra Modi's live chat through Google+ Hangout attracted a huge traffic of netizens, which led to crash of the Google+ server for a few minutes."

[17]

"Modi’s online chat leads to server crash"

maybe these are also stunts. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the Zeenews source. However, I rarely ever bother with Zeenews as a source because it is generally pretty poor. I opened a section about this some days ago (see above) and got no responses. There is a reason why quality news sources such as The Hindu use qualifiers such as "reportedly" rather than breathless, often mangled prose. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do, by the way, agree that the Hangout should be mentioned in this article, primarily because it was a "first". But let's not make too much of it because as at least one op-ed has pointed out (and should be pretty obvious to most participating here), Yet, given the low levels of Internet penetration in India, this will have an impact only on the margins of politics." - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush STOP your edit warring. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gosh! Sitush! This is getting too much. You nibbling every word and then assuming stuff out of them and then removing content. Should we delete this article? Will that make you happy? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

God Damn it! Faizan just reverted my above-mentioned edits (with three sources). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

2002 election section

We say in the section covering the 2002 election that the DMK and TDP were "allies of BJP". The sources do not seem to mention the DMK but do mention the AIADMK, saying Jayalalitha was keen to move towards the BJP-led national government. Being keen does not make her or the AIADMK an ally and in fact she seems to have been suggesting that Modi should be relieved of his office. I can find nothing in the cited sources that say the TDP were allies, although they are mentioned &, again, their leader seems to be suggesting that it would have been best if Modi had left office. Am I reading the sources - this and this - correctly? - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My office network doesn't alow me to check most of the sources, but just for you information TDP and DMK were allies of BJP in the NDA governement, TDP provided an outside support and was not part of the governemnt while DMK was part of the governement. However AIADMK is considered a natural ally but Jayalalitha was not part of the governemnt, not even an ally. Will try to get sources.-sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No rush! The statement has been there for some time and it is only because I am beginning to check a few sources that I noticed the thing is not in fact supported & there may be some confusion between DMK and AIADMK. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted this slightly to reflect the AIADMK position but we still need a source for the DMK's calls for resignation. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush do not move/delete my comments without my consent

Sitush do not move my comments without my consent. [18], [19], [20] ..You're mocking me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot easily get your consent because you have banned me from your talk page. I am mocking no-one - please stop with all these various personalised claims of motive. I assure you that they are unfounded. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Then that means you shouldn't move my comments yourself better ask somebody else to talk with me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Which, as you know, is what I had done just before you opened this thread. Are we finished now? Good luck with your request on Jimbo's page, btw, where you have more or less criticised someone for insinuation by linking to this article and yet asked someone else, who appears more favourable to your position, to comment here. If that is not another instance of manipulation then I do not know what is. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't like the fact that he (Arc de ciel) was commenting about edits at "Narendra Modi" there, that is why told him to keep the discussion focused on the question asked by me instead of that diff placed by Anthony (red herring?). What invitation? I didn't particularly agreed with any of those comments. Only that it may seem my edit has issues. You're again trying to insinuate something I didn't even intend to do. You are constantly mocking me by various means. Stop it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, I don't see where Sitush is mocking you; what I see, however, is a person who's become way too emotionally invested in this issue – I understand why you'd feel strongly about the Godhra train massacre and it's entirely reasonable, but that may interfere with creating a neutral encyclopaedia. I believe you really should step back now and let cooler heads take over... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I will step back, kindly ask Sitush to stop commenting about me, rather than my claims. And ask him not to move or in any way manipulate my comments. I am stepping back. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, your inability to follow convention has just completely messed up the indenting/flow again in the section below. Fix it, please. Feel free to re-indent my replies as appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindly Specify which comment you're referring to. Don't move my comments unilaterally. I don't see anybody else complain about that. It's you and your arbitrary and inane reasons to mock me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this, huh? Why did you post your comments over my edit? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As previously, no-one is mocking you. I'm finding it quite difficult to understand a lot of your comments: they often make little sense and I'm unsure whether it is a problem with logic, with knowledge or just with the language.

Re-formatting now might be difficult because you have done it again and there are umpteen edit conflicts also. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's your intellectual incompetence, or unwillingness to listen. If you are unable to do anything about then forget it. It is useless to discuss these trivial things (indentation, chronology, etc) here.. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're the who was constantly nagging about how messing up the chronology is problematic. And now you're commenting over others post. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence of bias in numbers and expression

The article still says (emphasis mine):

″A survivor of the massacre against 200 Muslims who had taken refuge in the home of Ehsan Jafri,″

″Modi's decision to bring bodies of the 59 kar sevaks who had been burned to death in Godhra to Ahmedabad had been criticised for inflaming the violence″

Now that there is a slim consensus slowly emerging against mentioning numbers of fatalities in general, what to do about these figures? It is also referring to the violence as "massacre" against Muslims, but the Godhra episode is referred to as "train burning" even though the Hindu Pilgrims were burned. If these numbers are allowed in and not seen as "excessive" then I am going to restore the other figures.

″In 2007, the magazine Tehelka published covert video recordings by an investigative journalist showing many prominent Hindu leaders and politicians boasting of their involvement in the killings and the complicity of Narendra Modi in the violence.[21][22] Critics have pointed out several inaccuracies in the statements, which they argue detract from its validity as evidence against Modi. The Supreme Court Special Investigation Team did not admit the Tehelka recordings as evidence.[22]″

As Nick said above somewhere, "[The] portion about Tehelka's expose on Babu Bajrangi is irrelevant for the article as the allegations contained in the tapes against the subject of the article have not been entertained in any court of law as evidence against the subject. The commentary is more suitable for the article on Babu Bajrangi himself."

P.S.Now before somebody accuses me of being biased or angry I would like to clarify that I don't wish to be attacked. Let me also point out that focusing on content is more conducive. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I pruned the section, I acknowledged that it was an incomplete pruning and I was concentrating on the bits that people generally were arguing over at the time. I've also said that the B version of the opening paragraph needs some tweaks. Neither what I did nor what remains constitutes bias on my part. What I did was an attempt to appease the various "sides" in a discussion that was going on and on and on, that was turning more heated and resulting in the massive escalation of edit warring that has featured since your arrival here. Any accusations of bias relate to stuff that happened before I began pruning: that is when the info was added.

Now, allowing for the fact that the Godhra figures will be in the Godhra article and are not directly connected to Modi, it makes sense to remove them. I have no problem with removing the "59" figure either, although that is unlikely to be in the Godhra article (I haven't looked - one crappy, POV-ridden, poorly written and poorly constructed article is enough for me to deal with at the moment). Similarly, I'm content if the 200 figure is removed, and the rubbish about delays at Hangout that you keep inserting, and indeed an awful lot of other detail that you have favoured keeping.

I also have no problem with amending most of the content concerning the alleged policies of Modi because one person does not make a government or, at least, not in a democracy. Prove that those are Modi's doing and not his government's: is he a dictator or is he primus inter pares? - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am getting confused you pruned it? In this edit (last and only edit after my comments at 08:01 UTC so far) you didn't edit the section at all. You changed "Modi ran a tea stall with his brother around a bus terminus where he used to serve buns and cups of tea to consumers." to "Modi ran a tea stall with his brother around a bus terminus." with another arbitrary summary "redundant and dreadful writing". What are you talking about? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What do tea stalls sell? Mops and buckets? Who do they sell their wares to? People who do not want to use/consume them? Bloody awful phrasing, that was. And the sentence is still structured incorrectly now: if it exists at all, which I doubt should be the case, then it should say something like "Modi and his borther ran a tea stall at a bus terminus." - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, have you checked any other BLPs ? The policy of a government is attributed to the head of the government, is Obama a dictator? have you checked his article? is obama a one person who makes a government? I can give you more examples. -sarvajna (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)POV-ridden article? Yeah, sure!
"the rubbish about delays at Hangout that you keep inserting" - What gives you the authority to label this as rubbish? You mean your opinion that it is "rubbish" is more important than what the RSs are saying?
It is rather dismissive of you to derogatorily label anything you don't like. It would be more helpful if you resist the temptation to label other things arbitrarily. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. I am merely speculating. I'm not all that bothered about what other articles say and am happy if policies are associated with a particular person. I guess in the long run we should be having articles along the lines of Narendra Modi and Government of Gujarat, 2002-2007 etc (and the same for other countries, states etc) but I doubt it will ever happen. What I am more concerned with here is the repetitive accusations of bias against Modi and implicitly against me. We are attempting incrementally to improve this dreadful thing and the key word is "incrementally". As I've said before somewhere here, Rome was not built in a day. I've done more to improve this article recently than perhaps anyone other than CorrectKnowledge and Mrt3366 is just not getting it. Just look at the number of so-called sourced but nonetheless factually incorrect statements that have been fixed. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"No. I am merely speculating." - Just don't. Your speculations are useless here unless they are supported by RSes. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} Eh? I am speculating that stuff about Modi should be distinct from stuff about his government. What has that got to do with RS? - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush you said, "Neither what I did nor what remains constitutes bias on my part. " - you're judging yourself, there might be some COI. :) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite alright to exclude 'buns and tea' out of the early life section. This biography article is primarily about Narendra Modi and not his administration. We will find that there are news stories and articles that will ascribe responsibility for the action of the entire government on to Narendra Modi himself for their own reasons, however, as Wikipedia editors we cannot use these particular sources to do the same. For instance, the article on Barack Obama does not discuss drone attacks in Pakistan or the operations at the Guantanamo Bay for which the US administration has been at the receiving end of heavy criticism. Obama, furthermore, has been accused of being a homosexual, Muslim and a non-US citizen by birth, however these conspiracy theories, even though they have received mainstream media coverage have not found their way into his biography. The key is to keep false, unverifiable or speculative information out and objectively verifiable details in. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, what about the numbers and usage of the word "massacre" esp. when we are still downplaying the Godhra incident as merely train burning, Nick? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, including numbers and every other minute details around the incident is not suitable for a biographical article. These details are more suited for the page on 2002 Gujarat violence and Godhra train burning. At the same time, the wording of the text should not remain vague, which is why I would be uncomfortable using the text proposed in section B of the RfC above. I appreciate the proposal made by Drmies and would like to suggest the following modifications:

"In 2002, widespread communal violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat after the deadly Godhra train burning; the Gujarat administration was accused by the opposition and sections of the media of taking insufficient action against the violence, and even condoning it in some cases."^[21]

The primary form of allegations made out against the Government of Gujarat were those of inaction. This report^[22] in the Hindu documents that the Army was called into the state by Thursday, 29 February 2002 and the troops were deployed in Ahmedabad by Friday, 1 March 2002.

I would recommend using the title of the article, which is Godhra train burning, rather than Godhra Train Massacre as the first version is neutral and objective. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"I would recommend using the title of the article, which is Godhra train burning, rather than Godhra Train Massacre as the first version is neutral and objective." --The first version is objective and neutral? Are you kidding me? Framing Massacre as Train Burning is not objective nor is it neutral to those who died. Come on, Nick! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is lack of consensus among authoritative sources as to the titling of the subject and therefore the current version is most suitable. However, if you continue to disagree, you can make a proposal on Talk:Godhra train burning. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

per WP:COMMONNAME we should about deliberate ambiguity and train burning is ambiguous. Forget about linking, focus on the wording of the content of this article. In any case, we have piped links exactly for this reason. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I think that the current title is neutral is because the incident was primarily one that involved "train burning" even though it was later established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage. The article, in itself, details the facts, and this ensures that the reader is able to make up their own mind and opinions based on the content provided in the article backed by authoritative and reliable sources. For a detailed explanation see WP:POVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"[...] though it was later established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage" - then that means it is indeed a carnage or murder and not merely a train burning incident. Why should we then knowingly omit this part of people being killed from the text? Why? Nick, at least you should admit the ambiguity that phrase fosters. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Extrapolating this will also justify renaming 2002 Gujarat violence to 2002 Gujarat carnage or worse, 2002 Gujarat pogrom. There are no objective definitions for these terms, and there is substantive evidence as to the differential usage in the media. Hence, it is best to retain status quo. However, if you do not agree, please feel free to propose renaming the article on Talk:Godhra train burning. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how "differential usage in the media" matters a damn after it was "established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage", kindly elaborate. By the way, I have provided multiple sources to prove that words like "massacre/killings/carnage" are not uncommon when referring to this dreadful incident.. Now I am not inclined to propose a move in that talk because I could care less about the name of that article, 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. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Extrapolating this will also justify renaming 2002 Gujarat violence to 2002 Gujarat carnage or worse" - well it does allude to violence, at least. There is no ambiguity about that. It doesn't refer to the incident as "2002 Gujarat house burning" or "2002 Gujarat destruction of property", how can you deny that the ambiguity in the case of "Godhra Train Burning" extremely misleading? Yes, we may include something like Godhra Train violence. Is that agreeable? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MrT, I agree with your recent revision, IMO we should stay away from numbers and details unless it has something very specif to do with the subject.-sarvajna (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I do not understand this at all. As with Drmies' effort, it is nearer to where we should be but it is perhaps not ideal.

• As yet, there is no clear consensus for it
• I think there may be an issue in referring to the "opposition and sections of the media". Unless you point is that anyone who criticised etc is by definition "the opposition" - which is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - I'm not sure that it is correct. Plus, some of the BJP's allies (TDP, allegedly also the DMK) and sympathsisers (AIADMK) also criticised and demanded the he resign.
• As with Drmies' suggestion, I am concerned about the subjective stressing caused by the use of the word "even", but that is a point regarding which I can offer any constructive improvement, sorry
• Modi was personally accused, I think. There were accusations laid directly against him, albeit rebutted by the SIT, and so to limit the wording to "the administration" seems odd. And if it was the administration only then arguably it is not relevant to this BLP. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously what is wrong? It is his administration,he is/was head of that administration.-sarvajna (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your thoughts regarding my other points, sarvajna. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

• I agree. There is no clear consensus yet. We are all working towards that direction.
• It is essential to highlight who made the accusations as well, which was primarily the opposition parties, some news media organizations such as TV channels and newspapers through opinion editorials. I am open to suggestions if you have better wording to replace this. However, it is inadvisable to simply let "he was accused [...]" hang from thin air.
• I am agreeable to Drmies' proposal as to the use of the word "even". The primary form of accusations were over alleged inaction of the government, and then there were those who claimed that the state machinery was complicit. These allegations have been unsubstantiated and proven groundless through subsequent investigations mounted by independent bodies. See also, an Economist article that reflects this in a similar manner.^[23]
• The allegations were made against the state government as a whole, not just the head of the state government. Yes, this is largely relevant for the article on the state government itself, however should also have proportional representation in the biographical article of the head of the state government in line with practice on Wikipedia.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changing such a controversial paragraph when there is no consensus & an open RfC doesn't seem a great idea unless the thing was actually a violation of BLP. The Jafri affair was specifically an allegation against Modi. So too, I think, was the kar sevak bodies issue. Both of these were subject to SIT investigation, which indicates a degree of concern even though he was found not to be at fault. I do not see how you can say that the accusations came "primarily" from the opposition parties and some of the media, nor that the media's contribution to that was solely op-eds. I was not suggesting that we should leave an accusation dangling but rather than your summary seems possibly to be incomplete. When the BJP's own allies were calling for his head and he did eventually resign, that seems to be a bit more than just opposition and media. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have made that edit in good faith, based on the proposal made by Drmies above. The RfC was initiated because a few users (including yourself, if I am not mistaken), who thought it would be a good idea to start revert-warring over the details. I have no such intentions.
• There are several other allegations made against Narendra Modi, either directly/personally or towards his administration, and many without a shred of substantiation. This is something that senior office holders often have to deal with. Please see my example from the Barack Obama biography above regarding allegations surrounding the US president on his sexuality, religion and birth status. In this specific case, the source itself states that no charges have been brought in a court yet. Therefore, the content is entirely unsuitable for inclusion.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• With that logic, surely we may as well delete the entire section because none of it has been proven? And diddums to the mention of diplomatic boycotts etc also because they too are based on a legally-exonerated series of claims regarding what happened. I wasn't saying that we should reinstate the Jafri etc stuff, merely that the sentence in the opening paragraph should reflect that Modi was personally accused as well as accusations being levelled at his administration. Thus, something like "Modi and his administration were ..." Simple, non? And while it takes two to war, so far I seem to be the only one initiating discussions about things directly related to content before a war starts - give me some credit, please, for not acting foolishly: I have been adopting this course of action for weeks now. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Nick's edit. He is right.
  "Changing such a controversial paragraph when there is no consensus & an open RfC doesn't seem a great idea unless the thing was actually a violation of BLP. " - I believe you're referring to the RFC I started, well to clarify the RFC isn't about the whole section. It was about a single line of that section and there is a consensus emerging albeit not it's not unanimous. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that he changed the line mentioned in option B of the RfC. Still, I'm glad that you seem now come round to omitting those figures. Since you were the proposer, you may soon be able to bring an early end to the RfC per Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending RfCs. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• The refusal of a diplomatic visa and the revocation of the B1/B2 visa by the United States is a different matter. The purpose of the section is to succinctly explain the main events as they happened without littering them with arbitrary and unsubstantiated testimonies and accusations made against the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, you've linked to such things just by having that paragraph. The entire series of allegations were arbitrary and unsubstantiated, as per the SIT conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Replacing Patel

Is it not significant that Modi is the first RSS parachak to become CM, that he became so despite never having contested an election, that he had to contest one within 6 months of appointment and that Gujarat has been perceived as the BJP's "political 'laboratory'""? All from this, which we already cite. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds significant, especially he becoming CM despite never having contested an election. That can go in Early activism and politics. -sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, given that I appear now to be accused of "ganging up" and bullying etc for a certain POV, I'd better not add it just in case it infringes one POV or another. I'm happy if you are happy to do it but right now we have someone hovering around who has the power to block me if I do it. One of the reasons why I have gone so long on India-related articles without being blocked is because I know where the limits are and, when in doubt, I ask on talk pages etc. At the moment, even though I have asked, I am not comfortable with making that edit. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you still favour inclusion of this info, sarvajna? - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Atleast the fact that he became a CM despite never having contested an election can be included.-sarvajna (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The pracharak point has no value? Do we know when the election was held, where and what the result was (he won, obviously). Did someone have to resign their seat so that he could be elected? All of this could probably be fitted in a single sentence. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A protest against hagiography

The main article contains the words: His policies are credited with creating the environment for the high economic growth in Gujarat.

To add balance to the article, i changed the sentence to this: His policies are credited with creating the environment for the high economic growth in Gujarat by some, though others have questioned the Gujarat model of development on the ground that development in the state is lopsided and social development indicators in the state remain poor. My edit was quickly removed.

The explanation is: Modi's fans and Modi himself like to take a lot of credit for the so called 'Gujarat model of development' but it must be understood that there are many critics of this model who claim it is inherently flawed and provides for highly lop-sided and uneven growth. I gave a reference to a Frontline article criticizing the Gujarat model of development in my edit (see above) which is available for viewing at:

http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?type=static&page=flonnet&rdurl=fl3004/stories/20130308300404300.htm

Here is a second reference to a Hindu article which makes a similar argument:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-man-who-would-rule-india/article4390286.ece

There is no possible way in which a WP article can contain whole hearted praise for the Gujarat model of development if it is to be called a biography of Modi, and not his hagiography. Compare also the two articles criticizing the Gujarat model of development (which are not at present in the WP article on Modi) with the one praising Modi's model of development which finds mention in his WP biography. The criticism articles are scholarly, well researched, factual. The one praising Modi's model is high on rhetoric and almost completely devoid of well researched facts.

In my opinion the time has come for WP admins to take a firm stand on the PR spin machinery that seems determined not to allow any valid criticism of Narendra Modi and his ideas to be present on the wikipedia page of his biography. If they wait for a consensus to emerge they can wait forever because it will never emerge. Modi will never be acceptable to a large section of Indians, who genuinely believe in secularism; just as Modi will always be the mascot for another section of Indians. This being the case i urge WP admins to decide on their own about these edits and about the WP Modi page in general and then put them in the main article if they believe that would be justified. Soham321 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies is an admin; RegentsPark is an admin; Nick/Sir Nicholas is an admin. Other admins should be aware of the general ruckus that is going on here. However, please note that admins who are involved in discussions and in editing the article cannot usually take administrative actions. If they did then they would have a potential conflict of interest. For the purposes of content development they have neither more no less tools at their disposal than any other contributor of good standing. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of what was done to Church of S websites on WP? I am just pointing out the possibility of the system being gamed in a way similar to how Church of S had tried to do. Soham321 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soham321, given the history of this article, you might want to suggest very specific changes (one at a time!). --regentspark (comment) 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And that is exactly what i am trying to do. The first thing i wanted to do was to include Modi's clash with the Election Commission (including with Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh) shortly after the Gujarat riots of 2002 and shortly before the 2002 Gujarat elections were held. I explained in detail why i wanted this edit to be included at two different forums (the Dispute Resolution page and also the talk page of Drmies). The second thing i wanted to do was to include criticism of the Gujarat model of development for which Mr Modi likes to take full credit, and for which in fact he is glorified by his supporters. I have already given two articles well researched and scholarly articles in well respected publications which are critical of the Gujarat model of development (by which is meant the economic policies of Mr Modi of if you wish to be more particular, the economic policies of the Gujarat govt which is headed by Mr Modi) and i just wanted the criticism to be present to balance out the praise of Gujarat model of development. I have no objection if more references praising the Gujarat model of development are given but it is puzzling to me to see the level of intolerance in the WP page of Mr Modi for anything remotely critical of Mr Modi. It fuels suspicion that the system is being gamed (in a way similar to how Church of S had tried to do) particularly since we know Mr Modi has paid a large sum of money to a well known lobbying firm to maintain his public image:http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-09/news/35689601_1_apco-worldwide-vibrant-gujarat-niira-radia Soham321 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to make two sections below to discuss each of these. --regentspark (comment) 21:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I made one but am not sure about the second. The body of the article is where the criticism should go but it doesn't actually say that he is credited with being a high growth sort of guy. Rather, it outlines various economic policies and their effects. My suggestion is that you look at the Third Term section and suggest specific places where alternative views can be incorporated. --regentspark (comment) 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence under consideration in Mr Modi's biography on WP is this one: "His policies are credited with creating the environment for the high economic growth in Gujarat." So he is in fact being touted as a 'high growth sort of guy' which according to his critics is false tom tomming because it ignores the actual state of affairs. Here are the views of a critic of Mr Modi which was published in the respected Indian newspaper 'The Hindu' which is the largest selling newspaper in South India: Mr. Modi has claimed that he has developed Gujarat. It is therefore necessary to consider the meaning of ‘development’. To my mind development can have only one meaning, and that is raising the standard of living of the masses. Giving concessions to big industrial houses, and offering them cheap land and cheap electricity can hardly be called development if it does not raise the standard of living of the masses. Today, 48 per cent of Gujarati children are malnourished, which is a higher rate of malnourishment than the national average. In Gujarat, there is a high infant mortality rate, high women’s maternity death rate, and 57 per cent poverty rate in tribal areas, and among Scheduled Castes/Backward Castes. As stated by Ramachandra Guha in his recent article in The Hindu (“The man who would rule India”, February 8) environmental degradation is rising, educational standards are falling, and malnutrition among children is abnormally high. More than a third of adult men in Gujarat have a body mass index of less than 18.5 — the seventh worst in the country. A UNDP report in 2010 has placed Gujarat after eight other Indian States in multiple dimensions of development: health, education, income levels, etc. Business leaders no doubt claim that Mr. Modi has created a business friendly environment in Gujarat, but are businessmen the only people in India? Soham321 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is a biography on Narendra Modi and hence will be written in a manner that conforms with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. This specifically means that not every claim that he has made has to be refuted by "alternate views" on this page. Not every charge and every piece of criticism against him has to be recorded on this page. I have pointed out several examples of high quality articles on other politicians – Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Margaret Thatcher etc – who have courted criticism from different quarters over the course of their political careers, however, the editors on these pages did not find it pertinent to record every opinion made out in op-eds published in news papers, magazines and elsewhere. Let us stick to information such as policies that he may have implemented and actions that he has taken while in government to be featured under a section such as the "Third term". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. This is not just any statement, it is a very important statement. Whether the Gujarat model of development, for which Narendra Modi tries to take credit and for which he is glorified by his supporters , actually works or not in practice is a crucial point. Any one sided claim about the Gujarat model of development has to be rectified or if rectification is proving to be unattainable taken to Dispute Resolution. Soham321 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This sentence in the main article of Narendra Modi cannot be allowed to stand in isolation particularly since the reference given is also an OP-Ed which is high on rhetoric and not on well researched facts. Soham321 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful while indenting your comments. I agree that the text has likely been sourced from an opinion editorial, and so is the assertion that he is a controversial individual. Both should ideally be removed as simply being point of opinions. The rationale behind retaining the current form of text in question is that it balances out the point about the 'controversy' and the criticism directed at his administration. Also, you will need to cite specific policies and guidelines to back up the claims that you are making on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment to offer about the "controversial" part other than to say that it should be there since he has polarized everyone in India for him or against him and every Indian knows this. But to claim that a positive review of his econmic model in an OP-Ed article balances out his description as a a "controversial" figure is comparing apples and oranges. Soham321 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Some analytical sources

• Christophe Jaffrelot. 2008. Gujarat: The Meaning of Modi's Victory. Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 43, No. 15 (Apr. 12 - 18, 2008), pp. 12-17
• Nikita Sud. 2009. Cracks in the Facade: The Gujarat BJP and Elections 2009 Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 44, No. 28 (Jul. 11 - 17, 2009), pp. 15-19
• Neil Gray. 2008. Hindutva, Modi, and The Tehelka Tapes The Communal Threat to Indian Secularism. VARIANT 32 | SUMMER 2008 [24]

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't the doomsday prophets been proved wrong by Modi's fourth term? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the papers, then comment.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on their dates, pre-fourth term, I've read Neil Gray, he repeats the lies that has been completely trashed, such as "In some cases, pregnant women had their bellies cut open and their fetuses pulled out and hacked or burned before the women were killed". Now what? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you were to actually show that this is a lie instead of just once more asking me to accept your bald statements as a highertruth than peer reviewed articles then you would be easier to take seriously. And wasn't this in fact one of the precise crimes to which a Hindu activist confesses on the Tehelka tapes? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The unfortunate case of "Kausarbano, [25], Uday Mahurkar writes: "more evidence is surfacing that the human rights lobby had, in many cases, spun macabre stories of rape and brutal killings by tutoring witnesses before the SC. In the process, it might have played a significant role in misleading the SC to suit its political objectives against Modi and his government..." Can we use Gray who uses a discredited false story?" (please read the entire article for details regarding Kausarbano) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A peer reviwed scholarly article is not dicredited by a subsequent political puffpiece in a news paper. Get real. Also the artickle doesn't say she wasn't brutally killed it says that there is doubt about which of the three people accused did it, and the exact details of her mutilation. You are obfuscating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is a sad display of ignorance. I'm sorry to say so. Mahurkar is reporting facts, that according to the courts, "the Kausarbano story is false". "the court dismissed the prosecution theory as "totally false" that Bajrangi had slit open the womb of a pregnant woman Kausar Bano with a sword and put the foetus on the tip."[26] [27][28][29][30][31] Competence and diligence is one feature of good editing that is missing here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A sad display of ignorance? Really? You guve an opinion piece as the only source to discredit that story and my failure to buy that is a sad piece of ignorance. meanwhile you have been spewing ignorant bullshit so high oj this talkpage that we're all knee deep. I am not going to respond further to any comment of yours, you have proven yourself to be below all standards of reason and decency.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• A string of citations does make one speechless. It is easier to have an opinion, it is easier to abuse, it is difficult to be objective and well informed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The lady died of shock, per the doctor who performed her post mortem .[32] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Maunus, what says you now?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What caused the shock? [33] [34] 128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

2002 spat with Election Commission

Assuming that the sources are reliable, I think what Soham321 is trying to add can best be added in brief form in the 2002 elections section. One possibility: after the sentence Modi submitted his resignation and the state Assembly was dissolved. and before the results sentence, we include the following: When the election commission ruled out early elections in Gujarat because it was too soon after the riots, Modi is said to have alleged the the commission was biased because its head was a Christian. (Note: I'm not advocating its addition, just compacting Soham's suggestion.) As an aside, and this is a question for Soham, were the elections delayed? What was the outcome of all this on the timetable of the elections? --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the last sentence of the edit i had posted: "In October 2002, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's order to defer assembly elections in Gujarat" for which i had again given two different references from respected Indian publications (Times of India and The Hindu). The Modi govt. had appealed the decision of the Election Commission to defer the Gujarat assembly elections in the Supreme Court and the court had upheld the decision of the Election Commission. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So what actually happened. Did Modi's government continue till sometime later? The riots were in February. When did Modi call for elections and when were they actually held? --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a source in there that explains some of this - see here. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. So, riots in February 2002. Assembly dissolved in July 2002. We know the elections were held in 2002 so, if the election commission delayed them it couldn't have been for very long. Unfortunately, none of Soham32's references seem accessible. --regentspark (comment) 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For seeing the actual references, click here and go to the section 'Confrontation with Election Commission': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=556158515&oldid=556061117 Soham321 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Modi had recommended the assembly to be dissolved in July. His recommendation was accepted by the Governor of the state (who was from his own party). In almost every reputed publication i have read (and the articles are all present online) the move has been deemed 'controversial' since it was several months before the term of the Gujarat assembly finished and also because it was shortly after the Gujarat riots. (Further, the decision of the Election Commission to defer the elections in Gujarat were welcomed by many political parties in India including the Congress and the CPM.) Incidentally although the burning of the train took place in February, the riots and preventive arrests related to the riots continued throughout March and April, and in May the well known counter-insurgency specialist KPS Gill was appointed a special advisor to Narendra Modi indicating that the problem had not subsided completely even by then. The Government in the center was led by Mr Modi's party at the time. The Prime Minister was Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the Home Minister was LK Advani. Vajpayee was keen to dismiss Mr Modi, but Advani and the hardliners in the party came to the rescue of Mr Modi and saved him from almost certain fall from grace. Mr Vajpayee had advised Mr Modi in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots to follow Raj dharma (the duty of kings) by which was interpreted that he wanted Mr Modi to act in a non-partisan manner. The 2002 Gujarat elections were held in December. One other piece of information that seems to be missing is the strong condemnation of Mr Modi by sitting and retired Supreme Court judges some of who claim he had direct involvement in organizing the riots. Soham321 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soham, could you list your references? I can't seem to access any of the ones in the extract above. --regentspark (comment) 22:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For seeing the actual references, click here and go to the section 'Confrontation with Election Commission': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=556158515&oldid=556061117 Soham321 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The complete set of links (to my sources/references) that i had used in my edit:

http://hindu.com/2002/09/03/stories/2002090305670100.htm http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-10-28/india/27317593_1_constitution-bench-gujarat-polls-assembly http://hindu.com/2002/08/26/stories/2002082604310100.htm http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=14086 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-08-24/india/27319645_1_gujarat-chief-minister-james-michael-lyngdoh-improper-language http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?217399 http://hindu.com/2002/08/17/stories/2002081704870100.htm http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=12875 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2002-07-19/news/27337221_1_gujarat-cabinet-polls-gujarat-assembly Soham321 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

An important reference on this issue which i did not give in the edit (because i had not seen it) but gave earlier in the talk page: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020824/asp/frontpage/story_1131718.asp Soham321 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Another relevant article on this issue: http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1918/19180120.htm Soham321 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I looked at the sources and it does seem to me that the material should be incorporated in the 2002 Gujarat Elections section, though I'd suggest not more than two sentences. Details can go in a "Controversy" section in the main election article. Sources:

• This shows the assembly was dissolved and the dissolution was controversial. [35]
• This shows that the EC decided to delay the election [36]
• These say that Modi alleged a christian bias in delaying the election [37], [38]
• This shows the SC upholding the delay. [39]
• This shows that the EC considered Modi's remarks derogatory and considered taking action. [40]

--regentspark (comment) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

regentspark suggested to put the details in the main article on the 2002 elections but Soham321 has put it on the James Michael Lyngdoh page here though it had already been sufficiently discussed in the immediately preceding section. This is a situation now that this controversy has used the equal space as has been taken Work as Election Commissioner. I request the user to put the section in the election page and undo the edit on Lyngdoh's page.- Mohit Singh (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That Narendra Modi 'alleged a Christian bias delaying the election' is original synthesis based on what was said. That Narendra Modi made anti-Christian comments is the opinion of the news reporters or their organization. The event itself is sufficiently notable for inclusion and should be represented as objectively verifiable information without using contentious labels (see WP:TERRORIST) such as "controversial" simply based on news reports. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with Nick, i would just like to say that: 1. Lyngdoh had defended himself and responded to Modi's public criticism of him and considered taking legal action, 2. Prime Minister Vajpayee and Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi (both from Mr Modi's party) had publicly criticized Modi. For this to happen, Modi must have done something wrong (or at least perceived to be wrong by his critics) for which he was receiving criticism. Soham321 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the above opinion prima facie appears to be biased. Secondly, PM pointed out at both Modi and EC and this was to resolve the situation which ultimately led Modi to say that the situation was solved. But I too stick with Nearly Headless NickNearly Headless Nick. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are writing a biography and not a what happened in the entire life of Modi. - Mohit Singh (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mohit, we are writing a biographical article and it is up to us to choose what to exclude or include in the article. The 2002 elections were apparently marked by a controversy involving Modi so we should include some reference to that controversy. --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No RP you know that the majority of the content included in this article is actually not entirely up to us (with some exceptions of course). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not up to me, that's for sure :) --regentspark (comment) 15:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested text

Modi submitted his resignation and the state Assembly was dissolved with the intention of holding elections in July 2002. However, the election commission ruled against early elections on the basis that it was too soon after the riots and that there was insufficient stability to compile electoral rolls. A controversy ensued when Modi made remarks about the chief election commissioner that appeared to imply that the elections were delayed by the commissioner because he was a Christian. Modi later withdrew his remarks and the elections were held in December 2002. In the resultant elections the BJP, led by Modi, won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly.

• Comment:What was the controvesy here? the war of the words? Just like I agreed above, I think we need to mention about the incidents not who said what, I would rather suggest something like Modi submitted his resignation and the state Assembly was dissolved with the intention of holding elections in July 2002. However, the election commission ruled against early elections on the basis that it was too soon after the riots and that there was insufficient stability to compile electoral rolls.The Gujarat goverment then approached supreme court which ruled in favor of the election commission. The elections were held in December 2002 and in the resultant elections the BJP, led by Modi, won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly. -sarvajna (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This text by sarvajana makes more context in terms of what happened rather on who said what and who thought what it was. If Modi's comments (especially that comment being religious) are so crucial in his biography I will recommend adding a line like, "Modi made a controversial religious comment against the then election commissioner" why even go into quoting details - has any one a citation of the actual comment? I am reading this article where modi's comments are present against lyngdoh - Nothing about christianity or his religion - though he has made a statement which is surely controversial.Amit (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Though Christianity was central to Modi's remarks, if you'd rather not say that then how about: Modi submitted his resignation and the state Assembly was dissolved with the intention of holding elections in July 2002. However, the election commission ruled against early elections on the basis that it was too soon after the riots and that there was insufficient stability to compile electoral rolls. Modi made a controversial comment implying that the election commissioners decision was motivated by his religion. Modi later withdrew his remarks and the elections were held in December 2002. In the resultant elections the BJP, led by Modi, won 127 seats in the 182-member assembly. Amit, would that work for you? --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RP,Christianity was not central to Modi's remarks, Modi just answered Christian centric questions, Modi did not make a comment implying that the election commissioners decision was motivated by his religion, please read this again.-sarvajna (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RK, not only is that a primary source (verbatim speech), the article clearly labels it as 'extracts'. These [41], [42] two secondary sources clearly state that Modi implied that the commissioners decision was motivated by his religion. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Additional reference: Ruparelia, Sanjay. "Rethinking Institutional Theories of Political Moderation: The Case of Hindu Nationalism in India, 1996-2004", Comparative Politics, Vol. 38, No. 3, April 2006, pp. 317-336.[43] For instance, the chief minister dismissed the censures of the chief election commissioner, James Michael Lyndogh, as anti-Hindu. Modi alleged that Lyndogh's Christian name showed his political sympathies for the Italian-born Congress party leader, Sonia Gandhi. --regentspark (comment) 21:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

References

RFC: Neutrality of article and lead

This rfc asks two questions. 1. is the article currently neutral? 2. Should the lead include mention of the accusations against Modi personally (not just his administration) in relation to the 2002 Gujarat violence?

Specifically: The body of the article describes that Modi has been accused of aiding and abetting a genocidal massacre, of inciting riots, of corruption, of making disparaging remarks against Muslims, and that he has been denied a US Visa under an act "which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or "directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for the visa". It also describes that the SIT report has not found the accusations to be substantiated, although they did not consider the testimonies of the accusers. None of this is currently mentioned in the lead. [WP:LEAD]] says that the lead should be a stand-alone summary of the entire article, the lead should include all notable information from the body of the article. So the question is: are these accusations notable although they have not been upheld in court?

1. 1. not currently neutral 2. Yes include mention The accusations are highly notable, occur in dozens of reliable sources, and occupy a prominent part in the body of the article, for which reason per WP:LEAD they should also be mentioned in the lead which is supposed to provide a full overview of the most important aspects of the subject. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

These discussion in the section above is not over whether the biography page is neutral or not but whether the use of {{POV}} template is justifiable on this article. By extension of Maunus's logic, all pages that are perceived by them or their friends as non-neutral deserve to have that template slapped on the top of the page. This is unbecoming behaviour from an editor of Wikipedia, and I hope neutral third parties will take note of this fact. I would also like to highlight that Maunus has gone ahead and hastily slapped a notice on several community discussion pages soliciting comments over a dispute on "Indian Hindu nationalist politician Narendra Modi" probably with the hope of attracting trolls who are naturally drawn to these buzz words. A list of these pages, which also includes the Wikipolitics page on Pakistan(?), is made available below:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics (Not sure why this is relevant for this article?)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gujarat
• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Any article that is deemed to be non-neutral by a consensus of editors should have the npov tag of course. That is what the tag is for. It is a warning to readers and a suggestion to editors that they neutralize the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What are people supposed to do here, read the whole article, check all the sources and then come to conclusion whether the article is neutral or not? This is ridiculous. About the wording in the lead there is a discussion going on at BLPN. -sarvajna (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous? That is what any reasonable editor does anytime they read an article. If that seems ridiculous to you then maybe you shouldnt be editing here at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors here are spending a lot of time in Editing articles, they are not paid so excepting them to spend their time for your inadventurous quest is unresonalble, you think there are issues, list them so that they would know the issues. This is a RFC, your are requesting people to comment on issues not review the whole article-sarvajna (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly common to request input on neutrality. You dont have to comment if you dont have time. I am sure others will .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) -
  Comment: Both the body of the article and its lead are as neutral as it can get, which is to say that {{POV}} is not required. It is not a dispute; it is a case of I don't like it.
  Elaboration: Nom asks "Should the lead include mention of the accusations against Modi personally?"
  Ans: I see in 2007, the magazine Tehelka published covert video recordings by an investigative journalist showing many prominent Hindu leaders and politicians boasting of their involvement in the killings and the complicity of Narendra Modi in the violence. But critics have pointed out several inaccuracies in the statements, which they argue detract from its validity as evidence against Modi. The Supreme Court Special Investigation Team did not admit the Tehelka recordings as evidence. That report is, at best, spurious. I like Nick's perspective on this, perception of bias is not intrinsically a valid basis to tag a page with {{POV}}, especially when the page is about as prominent a figure as Narendra Modi. One may as well want to call him all sorts of names but that is no reason to tag the article with a {{POV}}. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has 9 main section. Are all those or majority of those POV according to Maunus? If not, i consider adding a POV tag on top itself a POV.
  Its a simple thing; add POV tag and explain why; add clarification needed tag and explain why. Up in the discussion above i and sarvajna had to sit and keep guessing why the POV must have been added. Are the POV-adders finally settled on all points they consider as POV? In case they are, please enlist those points here. There is no point in asking all editors on Wikipedia to come and read and research and find possible POV points. We don't want irrelevant guys to come and comment that lakh shouldn't be used but million and billions should be used. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Now that Maunus has changed the question or say added things to the question, I would like to know whether this would be an end to his addition or whether this RfC will be forced to kept open with his additional statements, I would like to ask maunus to first read what a genocide actually means also we should not forget that we are not here to fight cases, the SIT was not constituted by Modi's government but by the highest court of the country has not found any evidence against him. When the court says something we accept it but not speculate on why courts said something. Like I have said on the talk page we should also compare this article with other BLP which are GA/FA. -sarvajna (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Because Modi is the most well known Hindu politician he is singled out for unfair treatment. As such, I see that editors are removing any good points, like that he is lauded for the economic progress in Gujarat or that he helped in floods, and at the same time they would like that most of article smears him with often exagerrated allegations regarding the Gujarat riots or his views on terrorism. In this regard, we should maybe compare the article with George W. Bush, who is also a very controversial figure in American politics. Also the same user who has previously argued against the use of a highly reliable source, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, in the Aurangzeb article, now wants to include all kind of partisan and biased sources in a BLP article, on which there are stricter rules for primary and secondary sources (and that article also does not mention any (of his much greater and attributable) violence in the lead, or even the article. There are also indications that on wikipedia BLP articles of Hindus are disproportionally singled out for smearing them with unfair personal attacks. --MarcbelaD (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Note: I have removed the bold addition of {{POV}} and let the RFC come to a conclusion. We must take into account that he is running for office and we have to be extra cautious before tagging it with {{POV}} laxly. RFCs should not be used to postpone reversals of undiscussed bold edits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is complete nonsense and just reinforces the notion that this article is intended as favourably as possible to serve Modi's PR and image. Since when did the BJP get to run Wikipedia? I know they have campaigned against Wikipedia's depictions before now, and on one occasion at least it involved someone who has contributed to this thing, but this is a ridiculous rationale. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! BJP is running Wikipedia? I always thought America runs wikipedia. Maunus here thinks that Modi's rejection of US visa is lead-worthy. Isn't that an American POV? We barely have three lines in the article about that visa. One of which is a quote of rules of visa authority. If thats lead worthy, Modi's multiple visits to China and the fact about release of 13 traders should also be mentioned. If US visa is so noteworthy then EU's boycott and later withdrawal should also be mentioned. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if anything that should mean that it is more important that it is clear to the reader if there is any bias in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Its the way of doing things. You AFD an article, you state why. You add "clarification needed" and you state why. You propose merger, you state why. Here, until yesterday, you were just talking vague stuff. And the tag had been added many days even before that. I would call that as a bias towards this particular article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are being an idiot. I have describe on this page in excruciating detail why I added the tag. And I have said exactly what I put in the addition to the RfC at least four times on this page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

grand show of civility Maunus, you have really run out of valid points.-sarvajna (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and what election is he running for? He was re-elected in late 2012, wasn't he? - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T wants to point to the fact that Modi is likely PM candidate from BJP in elections that are less than a year ahead in future. A year sounds long time period. But the fact that media has been treating him as a likely candidate is good enough for us to be careful before putting random labels. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

When I raised the Prime Minister issue a few weeks back, I was told that it should not be mentioned because Modi has stayed silent on the matter. Now I'm apparently being told that we can't do stuff because he is a likely candidate. Talk about moving goalposts ... - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone still wants to add the Prime Minister thing to the body of the article, PM or no PM we should always be extra cautious with BLPs. It should not hurt if the consensus goes against you. -sarvajna (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point, which is that the PM thing has been used in two different contexts: firstly, its inclusion was denied because although widely-speculated, Modi has not commented; fair enough, but now something cannot be done because it is "likely". I am well aware of what BLP says but the logical fallacies ... - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Yes, if anything that should mean that it is more important that it is clear to the reader if there is any bias in the article." - stop attacking straw man. I didn't say, "we should avoid tagging the article even if there is any bias." I didn't freaking say that, okay?

  Just because there is a slim chance of the lead or body being non-neutral doesn't mean that they are in fact non-neutral. Just because you perceive it as non-neutral doesn't mean you should be allowed to unilaterally tag a page of a politician before the community arrives at a consensus on the issue. If this were an acceptable pattern of editing then every controversial article would have been perennially tagged with neutrality issues.
  The POV tag is at best vague and you never properly explicated why it is that you think it is not neutral. You tag the whole article as being biased - it begs the question, how? You assert the lead doesn't mention the accusations against Modi personally, that's why it is not neutral. Well, that's your opinion. Besides, it mentions very clearly the criticisms against Modi's administration, that's what makes Modi notable in the first place.
  Personal accusations are too unfounded as well as too numerous to be covered in the lead (not to forget he is a living Politician). The report you perhaps want included in the lead actually didn't prove Modi guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it wasn't even accepted as evidence. Why should we mention it in the lead then? Random accusations are best suited in the body not the lead. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also you should fight in the court of law if some evidence was not accepted, Wikipedia can hardly do anything about that. -sarvajna (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maunus, you think the lead is POV, then please submit your version of lead here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Personality section

The personality section currently uses a number of sources that all provide both laudatory and critical information about Modi. The section however cherry picks the former and excludes the latter. When I tried adding the critical information contained in the same sources used to sourced the positive information I was "warned" for presenting unsourced information by some sloppy administrators who apparently didnt bother to actually check the sources, but rather just revert-warred. They should probably have their tools removed. Now, if the sources are reliable then they should be used balancedly and not by cherry picking information that is pleasant to Modis fans. If they are not reliable then they shouldnt be used at all. So which is it?128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you check the source before editing the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did, how could I have found the information I included without checking the sources first? Luck? All the sources include the information I added. You however obviously did not check the sources before reverting without an edit summary. And judging from this comment you still havent checked them. Sloppy editing much? 128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section based on your claim that it is based on unreliable sources.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange, as the source you used to write his poetry is rubbish does not say that, that was the first source I checked and then reverted you due to it. Opinion pieces may not be used for contentious statements of fact, that is BLP policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that doesn't exactly gt you off the hook for sloppiness then since the first line in the article is "What's with Hindutva leaders and their poetry? Why is it such rubbish? It is a two-pipe problem for Sherlock Holmes, but let's examine it because Narendra Modi fancies himself as a poet.[44]" The entire premise of the article is to criticize his poetry as substandard. So now we can't include negative reviews in books about authors because they are by necessity opinion pieces. We should start changing all our articles on authors to say simple "X writes books in Y language".128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Absolutely nowhere in the opinion piece does it say this guy poetry is rubbish, to say that it does from the first line is OR, to use an opinion piece for contentious statements of fact is a BLP violation, see bottom of article. "(Aakar Patel is a writer and a columnist. The views expressed are personal.)" Sloppy editing much? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hah, so no you are moving into sophistry. also no place in the "opinion piece" does it say that this guy writes poetry in Gujarati which it is currently used to source. It does say that "he fancies himself a poet" so maybe that is what the article should say. Also literary critics generally write "opinion pieces", and claiming that including negative criticism of an author's work is a BLP violation is so hysterically absurd that it is funny. By the way the IP and this IP is me, User:Maunus, editing logged out.68.9.182.96 (talk (·ʍaunus·snunɐw·)) 19:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I already knew you were the same IP, that much was obvious, and as you are snunɐw then you already know all about BLP and not to use opinions for contentious statements of fact, so why did you? Was this just you little joke? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You also know I am not an admin, so what was with that? And I am pretty sure you already know about 3RR, so why the edit war? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought you mistakenly thought you were an admin now. And you were the one who was editwarring giving bogus reasons for reverting (when you bothered to give an editsummary), making your claims basically invalid. And there is no problem BLP problem whatsoever with the edits I inserted they are all supported by scores of reliable sources. I did mean to expose the extreme degree of double standards and pro-Modi bias governing this article and most of its habitual contributors, in which I succeeded. Your argument about not using opinion pieces for contentious facts is simply wrong and shows you dont understand either our neutrality or BLP policies. 68.9.182.96 (talk(·ʍaunus·snunɐw·)) 19:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No other living politician with a comparable degree of contentiousness (having been publicly accused of aiding and abetting genocide, having been denied visa to several foreign countries, having been the object of Supreme Court Investigations, strong nationalist and fundamentalist viewpoints, being described having some degree of involvement in sectarian violence in almost every single reliable source that mentions him etc.) is being treated with a similar degree of reverence. Might it be because this particular politician is supported by a large and well paid staff of propagandists?68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia reliable sources are soooo.... reliable, why does not the world start jailing and hanging people based on what "reliable sources" say. It seem this page is home to quite a few Modi haters. Is is possible that some evil Hinduphobic entity may have recruited a gang of character assassins to vilify Modi?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)All you have proved is you do not know the policies. From WP:BLPSOURCES "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:RSOPINION "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" So I was following policy, which you blithely ignored. As for your belief of my "pro-Modi bias" I seem to recall reverting in your favour on this article recently, I also seem to recall my support of Sitush edits. Up until a few days ago I had not even heard of this guy, nor about his very bad poetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By that interpretation of BLP policy it would be impossible to write a critical article of any contentious politician, or a bad poet. And I was not alluding to you as one of the likely hired propagandists, I know you mostly spend your edits in other contentious areas.68.9.182.96 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I would be a piss poor propagandist, I am currently looking for sources about his crappy poetry Do the riots and killings constitute a genocide BTW? Shall look for a source on that as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Many sources describe the 2002 riots as a genocide or a pogrom, also peer reviewed ones such as the ones I have presented by Jaffrelot, and Modi as one of the "orchestrators"". But given that in social sciences pretty much any source can be dismissed as the "opinion"of its author I don't see how you can expect to find any admissible sources at all.68.9.182.96 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(out)(ec)I posted to your talk page about that, you also appear to have been warned for making personal attacks on this talk page? I seem to have missed those. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That was a bogus warning. I called Yogesh out on his POV pushing and he warned me. I would repeat that claim and it would stand up in court. It is a comment about visible editing behavior. But yes I have made personal attacks. I dont receive messages when you post to my talkpage because I can't log in.68.9.182.96 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No point pointing at others. You have been blocked a few times for uncivil behaviour. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have and if I hang around the likes of you much longer chances are I will be again.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I think that is the reason why he is now editing from an IP and not using his user is. -sarvajna (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction. Only one (the latest one) was for PA. Rest are self blocks, etc. I have the impression he/she sees himself/herself as some kind of self-righteous crusader/activist.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No! 7th May 2011 was for "preempting incivil behavior at multiple takpages". Self blocking doesn't really change the fact that personal attacks are being made. You see, confessing to murder doesn't make the corpse alive. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And about Modi's poetry; the ref used at the bottom says "(Aakar Patel is a writer and a columnist. The views expressed are personal.)" If the author himself doesn't consider his criticism of poetry as notably enough and hence writes such a note at bottom, we can not do that either. The article can only be used to cite that Modi writes poems in Gujarati. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it can be used to comment on his poetry per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV And once the article is unlocked I shall do just that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How will you attribute it? This Patel has no known credibility to judge literature. If we are commenting on poetry, some poet or some established critic's commentary can only be noted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversial

It's not just opinion editorials that consider Modi controversial and polarizing or divisive. News reports often refer to him as 'controversial' and sometimes describe him as polarizing and divisive. I recognize Nick feels we shouldn't be putting opinion into an article but, when the opinion is widespread, we should be doing just that. If I may take the liberty of reminding him, high quality biographies don't ignore the elephant in the room. Some quotes:

• "Narendra Modi, a deeply polarizing Indian politician" [45]
• " Narendra Modi, the controversial leader of Gujarat’s government" [46]
• "Narendra Modi, the controversial chief minister of Gujarat" [47]
• "Gujarat's divisive leader poised to win third term in crucial election" "chief minister of the state and India's most divisive and controversial politician" [48]
• Gujarat's controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi [49]
• "but the legacy of the Gujarat riots has also made him one of India’s most controversial and divisive politicians." [50]
• "the state’s controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi" [51]
• "Narendra Modi, arguably India’s most controversial major political figure" [52]
• "Gujarat’s controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi, unfurled his definition of secularism" [53]

--regentspark (comment) 17:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Rpk. I will refer you to a recent comment which I made in the section above:^[54]

"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'."

As you can see, I do not think, for a moment that the assertion that Narendra Modi is a controversial figure in Indian politics should be excluded from the article at all. I do believe, however, as Wikipedia editors, it is not out job to reveal to our readers what India's most acclaimed journalists think about Narendra Modi, but to simply refer them to objectively verifiable information as is the practice on biographies of other living politicians and political figures that I have mentioned on numerous occasions above. The lead section is the summation of the body text and should mention significant controversies, if any. In this case, the 2002 Gujarat violence does deserve a mention but without the additional flavouring of controversial-ness that the subject of the biography has been accused of. Prominent examples on ENWP: Barack Obama#Cultural and political image and Bill Clinton#Public image. The latter is a good example for when an individual accused of wrongdoing unproven in a court of law or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings applicable as per local laws or international covenants.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Facts" is a rather big word Sir Nick. For example, it appears to be a fact that Modi is considered to be a controversial figure. That, I should think, is both verifiable and objective and, contrary to your repeated assertions, not merely backed by opinion editorials. When someone is called controversial often enough, he is controversial. (For academic sources, of which there appear to be plenty, cf. [55]: controversial Chief Minister Narendra Modi, a prominent leader of the Hindu ....) --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, rpk, when you say that "Modi is considered to be a controversial figure." That is in line with what I have said above. However, it is also a point of opinion. For example, the article on Osama bin Laden does not say anywhere in the lead section that he was a "terrorist", however it does mention that he was on the FBI's list of "Most Wanted Terrorists". Unless Modi happens to consistently figure on such a list produced by the CIA on the "World's Most Controversial Politicians", I do not see why we should be introducing a matter of opinion in to the lead section. :) The part about the controversial and polarizing nature of the subject can be made out succinctly in a section on public image. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a generally accepted opinion, Sir Nick. Which makes it noteworthy. Sort of like the opinion inherent in "His policies are credited with creating the environment for the high economic growth in Gujarat". --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think both should be shown the door from the lede. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the source for the second one is, um, interesting (to say the least). Methinks whosoever added that didn't actually read the source itself! But, I disagree with you that they should be excluded. Both statements are important parts of the Modi story and both should be in the lead. He is a controversial figure and he is also recognized as a catalyst for growth. Perhaps both are incorrect. who knows, but they are both important aspects of the man. --regentspark (comment) 19:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

he still has an option of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, even after you give all the examples he can still say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So RP, you consider that I am deflecting the main issue but you would not like to comment on what I have said in the above section? I asked you to consider Adolf Hitler's article.-sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Forget it RK. I meant WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, of which Adolf is an example. But, let's not get bogged down by accusations and recriminations and I'll accept that your queries are in good faith and are with no intention to deflect anything. --regentspark (comment) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)While I admire your comments above, I believe Nick's got a valid point and it would be better if we discussed it in the section above where most of the discussion progressed. Take Barack Obama for example, we don't start off by asserting that his religious orientation has been a subject of controversy, albeit it is true and notable enough to have its own article. If I am not wrong, the claim that Obama is the "Antichrist" is not even in the body of the article. Same goes for Modi, the derogatory monikers that have been bestowed on him for various reasons and justifications for his controversial image like he is known as "Merchant of Death", "Yamraj", etc should be transferred to public image section, same goes for needless praises he received. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to delete anything RP, we are merely asking you put it in the right section (which is unlikely to be the lead). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I propose the following in the lead: Modi is considered to be a controversial figure in India because of allegations related to his handling of the 2002 Gujarat violence. We shouldn't overstate things, and I agree with that view, but we shouldn't them either. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Modi is an innocent man. Writing at the beginning of the article Modi is considered to be a controversial figure in India because of allegations related to his handling of the 2002 Gujarat violence is same as projecting him to be a convict, or at least as an accused. He is not. Not anymore. Usually, a person is innocent until proven guilty. I see no reason to treat a person as guilty/accused after he has been proven innocent. To do so is nonsensical is not sensible, to say the least.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're making too big a deal of this OrangesRyellow. Controversial merely means that people have diametrically opposite opinions about him, not that he's guilty or innocent of anything. As all the references above show, Modi is the quintessential example of controversial! --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rpk, please know that I value your inputs on this page. There is no denying that he is controversial, but so are several other politicians. But we are Wikipedia, and what I cannot comprehend is why you would think that a point of opinion such as this one deserves a place in the lead section? The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frankly more suited for AfD-style discussions, not when other high-quality articles have been cited above as examples. Since neither you nor I are established authorities on determining the controversial-ness of this subject, can we at least agree on the point that the term "controversial" itself can convey the meanings in varying degrees? Why is it that other editors on pages cited above have refrained from using such an adjective on high-quality biographies respectively in their lead sections? The content guideline on lead section of biographies of living persons states:

"When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." (emphasis mine)

Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, being considered controversial is not in itself a controversy so your quote is misplaced. The "controversial Modi" is a statement of fact that is well supported by references so it's not a question of your opinion or mine or about your expertise or mine. I'm at a bit of a loss why you don't see that or are unable to comprehend that the existence of a plethora of sources on something makes it quite noteworthy. Nor do I understand why, when the allegations of complicity in the riots are specifically directed at him, you instead retarget them toward an anonymous "administration". We owe it to our readers to explain who Modi is and how he fits into the political landscape of India, using what reliable sources tell us, weighing different characteristics so that the lead presents a succinct picture of the individual. A lead that chooses to inform our readers that Modi has a degree in political science but leaves him or her in the dark about the passions that he arouses in India is, in my opinion, a complete disservice to our readers. --regentspark (comment) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSINTRO which states the following:

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning").

The Manual of Style guideline on the lead section specifically asks editors to avoid peacock terms in the lead section and by extension contentious labels such as "controversial".

The discussion on allegations of inaction/condoning the violence have been made against the entire Gujarat administration and that is a fact well-documented. Please appreciate that opinion editorials are often written in a rhetorical manner without due regard to factual information. There are numerous, reliable and secondary sources in form of news reports(as highlighted in other discussions on this page) that establish that the inquiry was in fact mounted on the entire Gujarat adminitration.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, "controversial" is justified here because it is supported by multiple sources. The MoS says that when using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. Modi being described as "controversial" is not a fringe viewpoint: NYT, BBC, The Guardian, LA Times, WPost, etc. are the mainstream, this is a mainstream viewpoint. The current version satisfied the MoS because it gives multiple reliable sources, and gives readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Aurorion (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream view point is undeniable, however it is a point of opinion ("view point"?) not an objective fact. The viewpoint can be incorporated in a section on 'Public image' as is done with several other biographies of prominent individuals such as Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rather than describing Bill Clinton or his actions as controversial, the lead section refers to the controversy itself and clinically puts forth established factual information to the reader. Additionally, please see the reference to WP:MOSINTRO above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@regentspark. Projecting an innocent man as a convict/accused is no big deal? Is it the norm on Wikipedia? Not that I agree to using "controversial", but it is non neutral to talk about any controversy/criticism/allegation about his supposed role in Gujarat violence without mentioning in the same sentence, or the very next sentence, that he has been proven innocent. This is one of the reasons why this article is an attack page to my eyes.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@RP: You say, "being considered controversial is not in itself a controversy"? What is this? Are you kidding me? RP, come on, it seems you're patently playing with words. Furthermore, regardless of how many people reflect the opinion that Modi is controversial, it is still an amorphous opinion whose neutrality or factuality is not easily vindicable. We should only include hard-facts in the lead as opposed to commentaries (both positive and negative). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think such a long discussion itself is evidence to the controversial nature of Modi? :) A large number of mainstream media sources such as NYT, BBC, WPost, Guardian, etc. call him "controversial". Lede sections need not just contain "hard facts": for example, the current version says Modi was a key strategist for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns: is it any more a "hard fact" that Modi was a "key strategist"? What defines whether someone is a "key strategist" or a "non-key strategist"? Was "key strategist" the name of an official post, that can be verified via reliable sources?

I am not saying I oppose this label of a "key strategist" in the elections: but that is just a common description too, just as "controversial" is. And I am sure there are far more sources that call Modi "controversial" than those that support him being called a "key strategist" in elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurorion (talk • contribs) 08:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Don't you think such a long discussion itself is evidence to the controversial nature of Modi?"[56] - kindly read Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Wikipedia articles, let alone discussions, can't serve as sources to support any content. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Captain Obvious. Clearly you missed the smiley after that sentence. I guess we will just have to take the dozens of media sources that call Modi "controversial", as the reliable sources for this one. Aurorion (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Current version

Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence.

Proposed version

• A body appointed by the Supreme Court conducted an inquiry to determine the role of the Modi administration during the 2002 Gujarat violence, but no charges have been brought against him.

OR

• A Supreme Court appointed body conducted an inquiry to determine the role of the Modi administration during the 2002 Gujarat violence, but no charges have been brought against him.

This is similar to what has been made out in the biographical article on Bill Clinton. Rather than describing Clinton or his actions as controversial, the lead section has been drafted in a manner that clinically puts forth established factual information to the reader. Please note that in this particular case, a Supreme Court appointed body which recently concluded its investigation has stated that there will be no charges brought against him as there exists no substantive and incriminating evidence against him. See Wall Street Journal source.^[57]

According to WP:BLPCRIME, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The content guideline on WP:LEAD states: "[...] Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads." "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." (emphasis mine)

According to WP:MOSINTRO:

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning").

The Manual of Style guideline on the lead section specifically asks editors to avoid peacock terms in the lead section and by extension contentious labels such as "controversial". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support That is a statement of facts, what Wikipedia should be. It is pregnant in that it carries the message that since the court had to declare him not guilty Wikipedia informs that he was accused of crimes. That should add the necessary balance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support The second version looks good A Supreme Court appointed body conducted an inquiry to determine the role of the Modi.. -sarvajna (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Full support We ought to just expurgate all the subjective commentaries and amorphous allusions to his "controversialness" 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. The legitimacy of the vague allusions to "controversial-ness" of Modi has already been extensively diminished in value after the court acquitted Modi. Nevertheless, I am expecting some contumacy against this sound proposal to revive the neutrality. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: Modi being controversial is not an opinion. It is a fact that he is called controversial (also divisive, polarizing, etc.) as mentioned by others above by secondary sources, especially those based outside India. In an earlier discussion on the subject, I had posted dozens of high quality secondary sources describing Modi as "controversial". It is a statement of fact that Modi is controversial. Moreover, "controversial" does not imply guilt. If the proposal is to add to the current version, rather than replace it, I do not have a problem with it - but I don't think it is necessary. Aurorion (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support: A section of the media or public may feel Modi is controversial, no disputing that. However there is a whole different section of people that do not agree with such a statement. Wikipedia is neutral, one of our five basic pillars. If we take sides in the lede section of such an important article, it cannot be considered neutral. No doubt we need to mention both sides of the story, but that can be done in the body (say in the public image section) but by making such a statement in the lede would be incorrect imo. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Neither: fix the body of the article first. The string "controvers" appears nowhere in the body of the article. The four items cited next to the claim that breaks MOS on the lede appear nowhere else in the article. Fill the body of the article first with WEIGHTY material before playing slap fightings about the lede. Also one line mentions aren't WEIGHTY. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• 'Comment. I've been saying for weeks that the body needs fixing first and have pretty much limited my work on the lead to issues involving citations that are/were there. However, for what it is worth, the proposed replacement is both grammatically and factually incorrect. But the copious spraying of whitewash here will doubtless continue. Has anyone actually considered that wonderful essay at WP:IAR and, specifically, the WP:COMMONSENSE section? Without a decent dose of common sense, this article is going to be a massive dis-service to its readers and quite possibly will verge on being promotional of its subject by default. Clever? - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support This would be a major move towards making the article NPOV compliant.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support We need to be neutral. This article is going places, but none seem neutral. Same reasoning as Nick and AroundTheGlobe. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

• @Aurorion's "strong oppose" above: I reiterate what I said above, "regardless of how many people reflect the opinion that Modi is controversial, it is still an amorphous opinion whose neutrality or factuality is not easily vindicable."
  The word "controversial" has a touch of uncertainty associated with it and it can be perceived differently by different people, that is why it is not a precise description of the censures Modi received. This vague "controversial-ness" of Modi has already been diminished in value after the court acquitted Modi. Besides, the claim that he is controversial begs multiple pertinent questions (i.e. what did Modi do to create the controversy? to which, the body appointed by the Supreme Court answers: Nothing). OTOH the proposed sentence is water-tight and provable. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Controversial" is not amorphous. It just means what the dictionary meaning of the word says. It is a description used for him by a large number of reliable sources. WP has other articles, including WP:GAs like George W. Bush, that includes "controversial-ness" in the lede. The multiple pertinent questions are sufficiently answered by the subsequent sentences, however, like Fifelfoo opines, probably there should be an expanded section in the body of the article explaining this in detail. The "precise description of the censures" Modi received can be included in the body. And by the way, as far as I know, no court has "acquitted" Modi - as no charges have been brought against him. However, that is not a necessary criterion for someone to be "controversial". Aurorion (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The charges have not being brought precisely because the Supreme Court appointed body has reported that there is "no substantial incriminating evidence" against him.^[58] — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but again, that is irrelevant. Proven (or unproven, for that matter) guilt is not a necessary criterion for a person to be controversial. Aurorion (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: From WP:TERRORIST: When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. Is is NOT a fringe viewpoint that Modi is "controversial". It is a mainstream viewpoint.

Check the previous discussion here: Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_2#POV_Lead_Section] on the subject. I have provided sources from BBC, Time, The Guardian, The Independent, NY Times, WSJ, CNN, Reuters, NDTV, LA Times, The Atlantic, etc. there that call Modi "controversial". All mainstream sources. Not just "a section of the media", but pretty much any mainstream media source you can think of.

Sir Nick quotes the examples of Clintons to support omitting controversies in the lead. However, there are several other BLPs of politicians that include controversies in the lede. 5 examples: George W. Bush, Danny Williams, Bal Thackeray, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. George W. Bush's article, which by the way is a WP:GA, says internationally, he was a highly controversial figure and that he received increasingly heated criticism from across the political spectrum. So, clearly, it is not against WP policies to call controversial politicians controversial in the lead. Aurorion (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, none of which are featured articles. No featured article refers to any person with a contentious, content-less label such as "controversial" in the lead section. See Gough Whitlam as an example. Have you read WP:MOSINTRO? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the observation, but George W. Bush is a WP:GA. Just because no featured article refers to any person with that label, does not mean that we cannot use those labels for others. Does WP:MOSINTRO talk about "controversial"? "Controversial" is not a peacock term. Is your extension to "contentious terms" based on your own judgement? Aurorion (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• And just in case, here is an excerpt from a featured article, Yasser Arafat: Arafat remains a highly controversial figure whose legacy has been widely disputed. Aurorion (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another example Neville Chamberlain: Chamberlain's reputation remains controversial among historians. There are several other FA bios of politicians and other people which include references to specific controversies in the lede: examples - Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Michael Jackson, etc. Aurorion (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. The principle is that WP:MOSINTRO equally applies to contentious labels as much as it does to peacock terms. Yes, I have no issues making references to specific controversies (in this case 2002 Gujarat violence), rather than slapping a contentious label in the lead section to describe an individual. The term 'controversial' is a scare word and a contentious label that conveys different meanings under different contexts and to different people. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is not a "scare word", it is a justified adjective. I don't understand how it "conveys different meanings under different contexts and to different people": it is a simple English word with a clear dictionary meaning, that the subject is marked by controversy. As specified in WP:TERRORIST, it is explained why, in the next sentence. Crystal clear, to anyone who understands English. Your argument is that the word "controversial" should not be in the lede of biographies. Do you think the lead sections of featured articles on Yasser Arafat and Neville Chamberlain, and the GA on George W. Bush are all against WP:MOS? After all, we can't have different rules for different articles. Aurorion (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how many proponents of Flat-earth theory there are left in the world, it will always remain a fringe view point because the evidence is missing.
Number of subscribers to a claim doesn't take precedence over the sheer lack of evidence and the baselessness of that particular factual claim. Read what I wrote below for more. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the meaning of "fringe", just like you do not understand the meaning of "controversial". If most scientists in the world thought the flat-earth theory was correct, that would be the mainstream theory. Check out Fringe theory: They may represent possible future breakthroughs, or they could fade into obscurity. Anyway, I digress. To repeat what I said earlier: being "controversial" is totally different from being "guilty": please see the dictionary meanings if you do not understand the meanings. The only evidence to being "controversial" is a controversy itself, proven guilt is not a necessary criterion. And controversies need not always be based in truth, that is also an erroneous assumption. Aurorion (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have replied here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is no issue with the use of the term "controversial" being used to describe the subject in a section such as 'public image' (which is what WP:LABEL is discussing), however MOS:INTRO advises against its use in the lead section itself. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry Nick, but I do not agree. MOS:INTRO is not clear about this. It says to avoid peacock terms, but not contentious labels like "controversial". The extension which you claim is dubious. And in any case, there are a large number of Featured Articles and Good Articles which have been reviewed, discussed, and optimized, which contain similar statements in the lede. Since you are an administrator, could you do something to amend MOS:INTRO to make this clearer? In which case, we can modify this article, as well as others, such as Yasser Arafat and George W. Bush, to remove "controversial" from the ledes. Until then, I believe you are stretching the rules just to push your viewpoint here. If it is okay for Featured Articles and GAs (like that of Bush) to have statements about "controversial-ness", there is no reason it should be different for Narendra Modi, which this is backed up by so many sources. Aurorion (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have raised this issue on WP:BLPN and will discuss the MoS guideline further on WT:LEAD. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sir Nick. :) I think this is the way to go, clearer rules will help. Aurorion (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Aurorio: "justified adjective" - who is better suited to decide what is justified? You? or the Court? I reiterate, "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."
  According to some maybe, he is a "controversial", "polarizing" character but what do they exactly imply? What was the basis for such controversy in the first place? Answer: His alleged involvement in the 2002 Gujarat Violence, well it's an allegation that has been nullified in a court and that means the basis for controversy is not only unfounded but also subjective conjectures, speculations and presuppositions.
  It couldn't be clearer than this. EU once closed its doors and now they are open to Modi. Then where is the legitimacy of the controversy?? Then again no one here is advocating for the removal of the claim altogether, only for shifting it to the Public Image section. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not me. BBC, Time, The Guardian, The Independent, NY Times, WSJ, CNN, Reuters, NDTV, LA Times, The Atlantic, etc. Has any court ruled that Modi is "not controversial"? According to multiple, reliable secondary sources in the media, he is "controversial" and "polarizing". What do they imply?? They do not imply anything other than that he is "controversial" and "polarizing". (Which mean the dictionary meanings of these words.) I think you are getting confused between being "controversial" and being "guilty" of a crime. To reiterate, being "controversial" does NOT mean that a person is guilty. Conversely, being innocent of any particular crime, or even any crime in general, does not mean that a person has to be non-controversial. Being controversial and being guilty of a crime are two entirely different things. Modi, or Yasser Arafat, or Neville Chamberlain, or George W. Bush may not be guilty of any crime: but that does not mean that these are not controversial personalities. Aurorion (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"I think you are getting confused between being "controversial" and being "guilty" of a crime." -- it implies validity of accusations in this case (it implies that he actually did something to fuel a controversy), no I am getting confused because the basis for controversy is nullified and yet his so-called controversial status is still being drummed into the lede of the article. I think only the water-tight facts should go in the lede, as opposed to how some journalists perceive Modi. Chamberlaine's controversy was a tad different from what Modi had to face. Modi's name was dragged on to court where he was exonerated from all allegations (i.e. that he actually did not do anything to create a controversy), 2002 Gujarat violence was a criminal act which saw the judgement from an established court, don't compare Chamberlaine and Modi, Chamberlain was controversial among historians (Churchill and such).
Controversy is an umbrella term and not every controversy has a refutable basis. This one had. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, would unproven claims, or conspiracy theories, or pseudohistory fall in the category of Fringe theories? Number of subscribers doesn't take precedence over the sheer lack of evidence and the baselessness of these assertions of fact. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, your assumption is incorrect: it does not imply validity of any accusations. It is a "water-tight fact" that Modi is a controversial figure, or in other words, that there are controversies about him. Modi was not exonerated of anything: again, he was never charged in the first place, so he was not found guilty or not guilty of anything. But again, this does not diminish the controversy. You repeatedly insisting that controversies around Modi are unjustified (or whatever you are insisting) does not make it any less true that there are controversies in the first place. There is a lot of evidence that there are controversies: there are more than sufficient reliable sources that describe Modi as controversial. The question is whether this should be in the lede. Sir Nick has initiated a discussion on WP:BLPN whether biographies can contain terms such as "controversial" in the lede. Once this is settled, we can use that as a guideline. Aurorion (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Take care while commenting, your above-post (unintentionally perhaps) pierced through my signature.
  No, I am not leaving anything up to assumptions. Your comments suggest that you don't even know what is being referred to as "controversy" here. What is the controversy here, can you tell me?
  He was not charged because the report by the body appointed by Supreme Court concluded that there is "no substantial incriminating evidence" against him.^[59][60] The way you place your arguments, it seems as though you're blindly ignoring my previous comments.
  "there are more than sufficient reliable sources that describe Modi as controversial"- yeah, mostly op-eds and blogs, since it's inherently a matter of perspective. That's why I am not sure how an ambiguous and empty label like "controversial" is due in the lede of a BLP, and that too of a politician. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oops sorry, my bad about the signature. I don't want to get into a debate about what is the controversy here; all that matters is that the controversy exists. I understand what you are trying to say here, again and again: that Modi has not been found guilty of any crime. However, it seems that you are the one who is blindly ignoring my comments. Controversy is NOT equal to guilt; and guilt is not a necessary condition for controversy. Perhaps this is a case of WP:CIR. A lot of things are inherently a matter of perspective, but some are universally held: like for example that Modi is controversial. "Mostly op-eds and blogs" is grossly incorrect: again, I have posted reliable secondary sources from reputed news sources from around the world which support this perspective. (If you want more, I can gladly give more. And more. And more.) "Controversial" is NOT ambiguous or empty. And as I said before, plenty of Featured Articles and Good Articles contain such statements in the lede. It is not because George W. Bush or Yasser Arafat or Neville Chamberlain were found guilty of crimes that they are controversial personalities: all three FAs/GAs contain similar statements in the lede. If those articles can have such statements, then so can this. We cannot have different rules for different cases: a better understanding of MOS:INTRO will help. Aurorion (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)"I don't want to get into a debate about what is the controversy" - maybe it's because you don't know what that controversy is to begin with. WP:LABEL says, "When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about."(My emphases)
  "all that matters is that the controversy exists." - based on what? What is the basis now? Should we not ponder upon the validity of the basis for the "controversy"? I dare say, every politician has faced censures for some of the decisions they took during their incumbency. IMO every politician has a set of supporters and detractors. That doesn't mean every politician is "controversial" now, does it? Particularly in Modi's case the court itself has invalidated the basis for controversy. Now who cares if Modi is still prejudicially or instinctively seen as a controversial figure? I certainly don't.
  That is precisely why I have been asserting that this empty and imprecise label (i.e. Controversial) is not actually due in the lede. Let the facts speak for themselves. Let us say Modi was accused of X and the court reached the conclusion Y. The controversiality ascribed to Modi is based on a perception of his image and personality, not Modi's actions esp. since the court found no evidence of Modi's involvement in the 2002 violence. Hence, it should go to the Public image section. Pay heed to what Nick is trying to convey. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Every politician is not described as "controversial" by just about every news media organization in the world. The court did not invalidate the "basis of controversy", again, no charges were made because the investigation team did not find enough evidence to bring criminal charges against Modi. "who cares if Modi is still prejudicially or instinctively seen as a controversial figure?" Let's see: BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Reuters, AFP, etc. - just about every reputed media organization in the world. If you don't agree with the mainstream consensus, too bad. No courts ever found anything wrong with George W. Bush declaring war on Iraq: but that doesn't matter, he is still controversial, and his WP article calling him controversial is a GA. Aurorion (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a better alternate: "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence. However, no formal charges have ever been brought against Modi personally." This provides both the facts: that Modi is a controversial figure, but that he has never been charged with any crime. Aurorion (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It would not be a better alternate. After all this discussion you reach this conclusion? Wow! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: RP will have to comment here as he started this section also please stop considering yourself as the only neutral person around. Whitewash? oh ya, writing that an innocent person is innocent is whitewash? -sarvajna (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RP does not have to comment anywhere, not even if ArbCom were to request it. I do not claim to be the only neutral - diff, please. I have no problem with saying that the SIT gave Modi and also his administration a "clean chit" and that a Supreme Court judge has acknowledged receipt of their report (which seems to be what our sources say at present). None of this detracts from the fact that the guy was and remains controversial: this needs to be reflected. Similarly, despite claims of policy prohibition, we should be reflecting the numerous references that he is considered to be a potential prime ministerial candidate; we should be reflecting the numerous references to his past and present position wrt Muslims (he appears to have changed his position); and we should really get to grips with a point I raised a while ago, ie: conflating the man and his administration is causing problems for this article and perhaps we need to set up articles for 2002-2007 Government of Gujarat, 2007-2012 Government of Gujarat etc. WE have arguments that Modi and his government are synonymous on the one hand and then arguments making the opposite claim, seemingly at random and based on entirely subjective interpretation of sources. We are not supposed to interpret & if we have to then the source is poor. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well RP started this discussion, I wanted to know if he is ready to first work on the body and then take up the lead later so you need not answer on his behalf. You never said that you are the only neutral person but you implied that by saying that other editors here are trying to whitewash the article, you said/implied that,not just here but also on your talk page. Like I said before if you look at the other BLPs you will note that the policies that were introduced during a person's regime are included in their articles. If you want to create a different article which would go into detail on what the governemnt did during that period you are free to do so. -sarvajna (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry RK. Didn't see this. Since it's pretty much established that Modi is a controversial chap, we might as well wait to see the outcome of Sir Nick's question on the MOS talk page. No sense in carrying on parallel discussions. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindly tell me what is/was the controversy about?

Some people tend to forcefully impose, "all that matters is that the controversy exists." - but it begs the question, "based on what?" What is the basis now? We should ponder upon the validity of the basis for the "controversy". To do that we must clarify what the controversy is. In some earlier section, Sitush created a big fuss out of the claim that "Modi served the soldiers" by asking "in what capacity?" (eventually that line got excised even though multiple sources supported the claim), now I believe the issue of almost instinctive and forceful declaration that Modi is controversial is far more dubious than that "serving soldiers" assertion. If we are to include the word "controversial" in the lede as a part of an assertion of fact, then we must clarify what Modi personally did to fuel the controversy (since it is the lede of his biography). Before doing that, however, we must painstakingly review the legitimacy of the basis of the controversy. He is a prominent politician and many have vested interest in putting Modi in bad light. We need to be extra cautious. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

---

• The controversy is around the 2002 violence, as the article currently says. We should NOT "painstakingly review the legitimacy of the basis of the controversy", WP is not the place for Original Research. He may or may not be a prominent politician, but that is irrelevant in this regard. There are a LARGE number of reliable secondary sources that call him controversial, that is enough to include a statement that he is a "controversial figure". The wording of the justification to be included is a separate issue.

The controversies around 2002 violence that have followed Modi would not be invalidated just because an investigation team found no evidence to bring criminal charges against him. If this was the case, then all the news organizations in the world would not continue calling him "controversial". The controversies are not just whether the Modi administration had any criminal culpability in organizing or encouraging the riots, they go far beyond that. A couple of secondary sources:

• An Economist article from April 2013: Police and politicians ignored or actively directed the massacres. Subsequent investigations by state bodies were feeble, but out-of-state judicial efforts also failed to find evidence to convict Mr Modi. Others did fall, however. Last year an ex-minister of his, Maya Kodnani, was jailed for 28 years for directing murderous mobs.
• A Time article from March 2013: Modi and his administration were accused of standing idly by as the carnage was perpetrated — an allegation that he and other officials have steadfastly denied.

No court ever absolved Modi or pronounced him innocent. No charges were brought against him, because investigation teams never found any evidence that Modi committed any crimes related to the 2002 violence - but controversies do not end there. Accusations against Modi are not just that his administration actively supported the violence: but also that his administration "stood idly" (as the Time article says), or that his administration did not do enough to prevent the violence.

Also, just because the legal system of a country did not find evidence of criminal culpability against a person, that does NOT mean that all controversies against the person would be null and void. For example, no courts ever found George W. Bush guilty of breaking any laws while waging Iraq War: but that does not mean that there are no controversies around Bush related to the war. The WP article which is a GA mentions these controversies in the lede. Same for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Yasser Arafat. Internationally, there are enough controversies about these people even if the judicial systems of their own countries never found them guilty of any crimes. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, even if Indian courts had pronounced Modi innocent of all alleged crimes (this is not the case), that would not mean that we should ignore what is said about him universally in global mainstream media sources. Aurorion (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see the hidden message requesting the responders to comment below?
"No court ever absolved Modi or pronounced him innocent." - For the umpteenth time, he was not charged because no incriminating evidence was found against him (ask Nick for more sources)^{[61],[62],[63],[64]}. Can you not comprehend simple English?
Modi and his administration were accused - precisely these accusations were proved to be unfounded. And these findings must not be suppressed per Nick's comments above. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hindustan Times:

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)

The accusations are unfounded, and thus the whole "controversy" thing should be shown the door from the lede. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Only putting a value-laden label i.e. Controversial without giving enough info as to what the controversy is/was about is a blatant violation of WP:LABEL. The whole "controversial" garble that is associated with Modi even though the supreme court-appointed team concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that Narendra Modi had wilfully allowed any violence ^[65], is Congress's political mudslinging against Modi.^[66]

• "that is enough to include a statement that he is a "controversial figure"." - that is enough to include the statement in the body (preferably, in "Public image" section), not the lede. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You can keep on insisting again and again that the accusations are unfounded; but as long as reliable secondary sources call Modi controversial, as far as WP standards are concerned, he is. It is not a violation of WP:LABEL if supported by reliable, published sources, and in this case, there are more than enough. If you have a problem with that, please take it up with all the reputed media and academic sources that keep calling Modi "controversial".

Whether "controversial" can be included in the lede or not is a policy issue, which hopefully will be resolved via the discussions on the appropriate pages. Right now, the rules are unclear, and there are plenty of Featured Articles and Good Articles which have similar statements in the lede. Hence, this deserves to be in the lede. - Aurorion (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"The whole "controversial" garble that is associated with Modi even though the supreme court-appointed team concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that Narendra Modi had wilfully allowed any violence, is Congress's political mudslinging against Modi." Do you mean to say that just about every news media organization (and academic sources) that call Modi "controversial" are doing it because of the "Congress's political mudslinging"? That is just your Original Research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a political party website. If you want to push any agenda for or against a political party, this is not the place. Unless you have enough reliable sources saying that Modi is "not controversial" (again, keep in mind that controversial is not same as guilty), or something else that negates the weight of the overwhelming number of reliable secondary sources that describe Modi as "controversial", you are wasting your time here. - Aurorion (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, Aurorion is right in saying that it's more of a MOS:INTRO and WP:WEIGHT issue. The fact that he has been called "controversial" in widely available sources (academic or otherwise) is not in dispute as far as I am concerned. The term itself does not imply any wrongdoing. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO You've either not read my contentions or misconstrued them, I am saying, in absence of any content to establish proper context, the adjective "Controversial" acts only as a value-laden label. Am I wrong in saying that we ought to give enough info as to what the controversy is/was about? (cf. WP:LABEL) And I thought, in this particular case, you and I are on the same side of the argument? If not, then what are you hoping to achieve? Hell yes, it's a WP:WEIGHT issue but it's also a "label". The implicative and sensationalist descriptor "controversial" is not due in the lead unless it's proven to be of high-relevance by in-depth explication of the basis of controversy in reliable source, not by a casual, rhetorical use of the word. (Remember Modi served the soldiers thread?) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of content to explain context, in reliable secondary sources. You dismiss them because according to you, "no incriminating evidence was found against him". However, again, even though "no incriminating evidence was found against him" by certain investigation teams to bring criminal charges, that does not mean that controversies about the 2002 violence cease to exist. "Controversial" is hardly "sensationalist", and like Nick says, it does not imply any wrong-doing. But secondary sources around the world continue to consider Modi "controversial". You may argue that it is not fair - but fortunately or unfortunately, that is the fact. Check out other Featured Articles and Good Articles of biographies that contain this "controversial" adjective. They don't provide any more "in-depth explication" than what this article already contains. The lede need not contain an essay with in-depth explanations, just a sentence is enough as is the current case. The body can have more information, based on the large number of reliable secondary sources that cover the matter.

The question of whether as a policy WP intros should have such descriptors can be discussed and clarified elsewhere by a larger, more competent audience: and if the outcome is that they should not, then we will omit it from this article, and the other articles including FAs/GAs should also be amended to reflect this. - - Aurorion (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"There is plenty of content to explain context" - then good we must explain whether Modi himself actually did something to create the controversy or is he the victim of it? Thank you.
If we are to include anything about the controversy at all, we should say something like, "There have been controversies surrounding Modi because of ...." It would be more neutral. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest something like: Modi is considered to be a controversial figure both in India as well as internationally because of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots. I think that's reasonable and succinct. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, he is not internationally "controversial". Most of the coverage on him is limited to national media. Secondly, "involvement" suggests culpability in the incidents of violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Um. Perhaps you missed this but his visa to the US was revoked, he was boycotted by the UK, and the reaction was not exactly favorable when the boycott was revoked.(cf. this). We can replace "involvement" with "alleged involvement", that would be more accurate. Thanks for catching that one. --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The UK, since then, has gone back on the boycott, and there is nothing in the reported comments of James Bevan that suggests unfavourability. The US State Department has issued a statement saying that they are willing to reconsider a fresh visa application. Suggesting that he is controversial internationally is original research. See also WP:ALLEGED. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he receives visas in the future he was still denied one several times and is hence by definition a controversial politician internationally as well as nationally.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll find you a reference for internationally if you like but have little time today (I think some of the many references above say internationally if someone is willing to check). But do note that the very presence of a boycott makes him controversial. Also, this phrasing may be better Modi is considered to be a controversial figure both in India as well as internationally because of allegations of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are some sources about another international contoversy, when Modi was first invited and then uninvited from speaking at UPenn's Wharton college. [67][68][69][70]68.9.182.96 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 68.9. I assume that since we now have sources we're good to go with this text?--regentspark (comment) 18:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. But the article is fully protected, and I doubt Modi's fanclub will let you. Any source that say anything critical about Modi are by definition unreliable if we are to trust their arguments.68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The proposed content by RP is fine and has my support. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording seems fine to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Modi haters, stop living in the past. Despite strong support for Mr. Modi from the Gujarati-American community, the United States has not issued Mr. Modi a visa, and a planned video address at a Wharton business school conference was canceled this month, a reflection of lingering questions over the role he may have played in the 2002 riots that left hundreds dead, mostly Muslims. Those questions have been answered and the situation has been transformed by Modi coming out clean. You only expose yourself as biased eds by trying to blame him for things he has been proven innocent of doing and by trying to suppress his innocence. Your refs are obsolete.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• D'uh? Have you actually read the proposition? It doesn't refer to any specifics but merely to the fact that he is controversial. Of which the very link you give is evidence. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I know. That ref is also obsolete for the "controversial" claim. It has been overtaken by this development [71][72]. You guys are trying to project an innocent man as guilty/accused. Cannot be done on any article, much less, in a BLP.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been "overtaken" by any "developments". That "development" just says that some investigation team has cleared Modi of certain specific criminal charges. It does not eliminate all controversies. Even after the "developments" you speak of, there are plenty of reliable secondary sources which call Modi "controversial". Here are two from this month, from International sources: [73], [74] - it will be easy to find more, better references.

You say that we are "trying to project an innocent man as guilty/accused": but again, please do not equate controversy with guilt. There are plenty of people (Yasser Arafat, Neville Chamberlain, George W. Bush, etc.) who are "innocent" as far as the law is concerned, but still are "controversial" as per Wikipedia. The usage of the word "controversial" does NOT imply guilt in those cases, and it does not imply it in this case either. - Aurorion (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal of RP since "...because of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots" implies he was involved in the riot to begin with, no evidence for that. RP, are you deliberately doing it? They were only based on allegations.
  And I propose "There have been controversies surrounding Modi because of the allegations of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots for which no evidence could be found by the SIT."
  Modi is himself the victim, unless he is proven guilty of course, of ruthless attempts to assassinate his character. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The second version ("Modi is considered to be a controversial figure both in India as well as internationally because of allegations of his involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots.") looks good to me. But is it significantly better than the current version?

"Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence." I think a slight rewording, with the addition of a disclaimer mentioning that no formal charges have been brought against him, would be better: "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence, however, no formal charges have been brought against him."

This excludes "involvement" altogether and hence I think is more mildly phrased. Mr. T's suggestion "for which no evidence could be found by the SIT" is limited in its scope because the SIT was just one of several investigation teams that have investigated the 2002 violence. Moreover, it gives no context to the SIT. I think "no formal charges have been brought against him" is better because it is expanded in scope and mentions explicitly that Modi has never been charged for any criminal acts surrounding the 2002 riots.

"Internationally" should be included (as it is included in the current version) because there are more than enough number of reliable references from international sources that refer to Modi as "controversial". Aurorion (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on WT:LEAD as to whether the term "controversial" is suitable for MOS:INTRO. We should wait until that discussion yields third-party opinions. We may additionally consider initiating an RfC on WT:LEAD. Furthermore, since the controversy that is relevant to his noteworthiness is only related to the incident during 2002 Gujarat violence, there is no reason to include an assertion that he is controversial internationally simply because some articles published by international news organizations refer to him as controversial. There was a controversy at Wharton due to him being dis-invited subsequent to them extending an invitation does not confer personal controversial-ness at an international level. George W. Bush and Yasser Arafat were far more controversial for their actions not only in the United States and Palestinian territories respectively, but in several different parts of the world. There is no comparison. From MOS:INTRO: "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning")." The subject of the biography is not noteworthy for the controversy at Wharton. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have to say this but the Wharton incident is an example, not the be-all, end-all. And "controversial" is not a peacock term - the argument should probably be whether or not it is a weasel term. Furthermore, the controversy surrounding Modi is not restricted to "the incident during 2002 Gujarat violence" (presumably a reference to Gulberg) but rather to the generality of events at that time. He is also controversial for his claims regarding economic policy, BTW, but I think that one might only really apply inside India. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where to write this as the whole page is a mess, just wanted to inform everyone that there are some comments by an uninvolved editor at BLPN, one more point Sitush controversy surrounding Modi is because of 2002 violence, Wharton/Visa are all because of the allegations against him. -sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic reference re "Controversial" (FWIW)

• Saez, Lawrence The BJP’s Faltering Mandate and the Morphology of Nuclear War, Asian Survey, Vol 43, No. 1, pages 186-197, February 2003.[75] “In terms of regional leadership, the BJP can only count on Gujarat’s controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi, as its most recognizable re- gional figure at the national level.
• Sud, Nikita “Secularism and the Gujarat State: 1960–2005” Modern Asian Studies 42, 6 (2008) pp.1251–128, CambridgeUniversityPress. “the extremist BJP Chief Minister Narendra Modi asserted that local Muslims had burnt the train compartment in collaboration with Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence Agency” [76]
• Sengupta, Mitu "Anna Hazare and the Idea of Gandhi", The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 71, No. 3, August 2012, pp 593-601. [77]. controversial Chief Minister Narendra Modi, a prominent leader of the Hindu

--regentspark (comment) 22:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dozens more of peer reviewed academic sources that use that description could be added with a short google search. The number of news sources that use it is of course much much larger.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

For the convenience of any uninvolved editor who makes it across this page I here take the opportunity to provide a list of academic publications describing various aspects of Modi, his politics and his administration.

• Edward Luce. 2010 [2006]. In Spite of the Gods: The Rise of Modern India. Anchor Books.[78]
• Christophe Jaffrelot. 2008. Gujarat: The Meaning of Modi's Victory. Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 43, No. 15 (Apr. 12 - 18, 2008), pp. 12-17
• Christophe Jaffrelot. 2012. Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims? The Supreme Court, the SIT, the Police and the State Judiciary. Economic & Political Weekly february 25, 2012 vol xlvii no 8[79]
• Christophe jaffrelot. 2008. Le Gujarat de Narendra Modi : les leçons d’une victoire électorale. Critique internationale

2008/3 - n° 40. pp. 9 - 25. [80]

• Nikita Sud. 2009. Cracks in the Facade: The Gujarat BJP and Elections 2009 Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 44, No. 28 (Jul. 11 - 17, 2009), pp. 15-19
• Neil Gray. 2008. Hindutva, Modi, and The Tehelka Tapes The Communal Threat to Indian Secularism. VARIANT 32 | SUMMER 2008 [81]
• Nalin Mehta. 2006. Modi and the Camera: The Politics of Television in the 2002 Gujarat Riots. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Volume 29, Issue 3, 2006 [82]
• Anuja Jain. 2010.‘Beaming it live’: 24-hour television news, the spectator and the spectacle of the 2002 Gujarat carnage. South Asian Popular Culture Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010 [83]).
• Nalin Mehta. 2010. Ashis Nandy vs. the state of Gujarat: authoritarian developmentalism, democracy and the politics of Narendra Modi. South Asian History and Culture Volume 1, Issue 4 [84]
• Palary Kanungo & adnan Farooqui. 2008. Tracking Moditva: An Analysis of the 2007 Gujarat Elections. Campaign. History and Sociology of South Asia December 2008 vol. 2 no. 2 222-245. [85]
• Britta Ohm. 2011. FORGETTING TO REMEMBER: THE PRIVATISATION OF THE PUBLIC, THE ECONOMISATION OF HINDUTVA AND THE MEDIALISATION OF GENOCIDE [86] in South Asian Media Cultures: Audiences, Representations, Contexts. edited by Shakuntala Banaji. Anthem Press. [87]
• Ghassem-Fachandi, P. (2010), Ahimsa, identification and sacrifice in the Gujarat pogrom. Social Anthropology, 18: 155–175.[88]
• Anand, D. (2007), Anxious Sexualities: Masculinity, Nationalism and Violence. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9: 257–269.[89]
• Raheel Dhattiwala and Michael Biggs. 2011. Explaining Spatial Variation in Hindu-Muslim Violence in Gujarat, 2002. Sociology Working Papers. Paper Number 2011-06. [90]
• [91]
• [92].68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't really about sources, it's about the way people have been phrasing some very controversial statements. BLP policy requires coverage to be impartial, balanced, fair, neutral and above all, proportional. One statement that isn't in any way suitable is "He also writes poems in Gujarati which have been described as "rubbish"." - that's not how we cover that, we would say something like He writes poems in Gujarati, some of which received a poor critical response [ref1][ref2].

Sign your posts. Yes it is about sources, because the article currently use lowquality sources from news media, which pro-Modi editors then use to argue that the sources are only reliable for whatever statements they find it reasonable to include, but unreliable for other purposes. The reason sources are important is that sources determine what neutral is. Neutral is not to include only good, or equal amounts of good and bad. Neutral is to include the critical and positive information weighed according to their prominence in the sources. Now, reliable, peer-reviewed academic sources, which are the highest quality sources we have, are overwhelmingly critical of Modi. And they cannot be dismissed as "inaccurate" based on some RSS blog that contradicts them, or as "political mouthpieces" or "opinion pieces" because THAT IS NOT HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. We report what reliable sources say whether or not we agree with it. And reliable sources are sources written by specialists and published in highly reviewed journals.68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a great job ip has done. Yes, in such controversial cases, the peer reviewed journals should be considered as much better source than regular media publications. In addition, in text attribution (according to xyz in abc journal, ...) will be needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Modi has been given a clean chit by the SIT. The situation has been transformed by this development. Obsolete sources are useless.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The issues here are largely about sources. One problem, as I've just noted in the preceding section, is to what extent the SIT report constitutes a game-changer. It certainly does not alter what Modi said, for example, nor does it alter the academic analyses of his attitudes and policies: they just differ from the SIT's opinion. The wider issue with this article is the cherry-picking of sources and, in particular, of those that are alleged to mix comment with investigation: almost everything that might be construed as negative seems to be shouted down as commentary, while the non-negative from the same sources is admitted. It stinks and we should be able to do better than this. We desperately need uninvolved eyes here. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Are we going to call Modi guilty because that is what many journals say that" or "Are we going to consider Modi an innocent because no court of law has found him guilty". Even if there was no SIT, the fact is that no courts found him guilty. -sarvajna (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Apart from being obsolete sources and much of their content being rhetorical in nature, some of these articles have been composed by doctoral students and such as research projects, having no real expertise on the said subject. We cannot entertain opinions of such authors on a biographical article without giving WP:UNDUE weight. Reiterating myself, to effectively author a biography, we need to stick to clinically writing established and factual information about the subject of the article as has been done on several other high quality biographical articles of politicians around the world. Opinions of prominent individuals – academicians and journalists – can be included with WP:DUE regard in a section on 'public image' (see Barack Obama#Cultural and political image, Bill Clinton#Public image). Frankly, I'm quite exasperated with the continuous POVpushing going on this page and the possibility of a conflict of interest given the affiliations of some of the editors on this page who appear to have adopted a different set of standards for writing biographical articles on individuals affiliated with political organizations they do not agree with. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarvajna, I'm not saying that we should call Modi guilty or innocent. We just present what has happened. Nick,.I rather think you will find that the exasperation is mutual. Perhaps you need to name names instead of making vague accusations. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"We just present what has happened." - what has happened, Sitush, is Modi has been absolved by the Supreme-court appointed team because no evidence was found against him. That's what has really happened. Congress didn't like it so they are trying to stoke the controversy further. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to think that I do not know that the SIT consider him and his administration to be absolved of responsibility. I do and I accept that is what the SIT think. It doesn't mean that we should necessarily ignore what others think. Cue NHN, pontificating umpteen BLP-related reasons. We are going round in circles here, so probably no need to bother: take it as read that I know what you will refer to.- Sitush (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

When sources are saying baseless, wrong things, we do need to ignore them. Their claims are baseless, wrong, therefore their conclusions are also wrong. Such sources should be ignored. We do not need the article to say wrong things and reflect wrong conclusions.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You fail to understand the basic principle of wikipedia: it is the sources that determine what is baseless and wrong. Your personal knowledge and opinion is 110% irrelevant. Find sources contradicting these sources, written by experts with comparable or better credentials, and published in comparable or better academic journals. Then you have a case. The SIT report is a primary source, which does not have any direct bearing on how the article should be written, unless as it is summarized and analyzed by scholars and reporters. Some scholars and reporters (e.g. Jaffrelot 2012) severely criticizes the report and the way it was elaborated basically considering its results invalid manipulation. That is something that needs to go in the article.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am one of a kind, but I believe the credibility of a report by Supreme court-appointed investigative team, with almost limitless access to germane information, whose primary task was to investigate Modi's role in the riots and ensuing controversy, is much, much more than opinions of Modi's opponents, clairvoyants (we're fortunate enough to have some of those around ;) ) and conspiracy theorists. Some of you may think I am weird, I know. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Having access to testimonies is not really relevant when testimonies from witnesses AND confessions of pertetrators are systematically excluded from revisions...68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claim, do you have any solid proof that "confessions of perpetrators are systematically excluded from revisions"? If no then don't fling accusations around. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP address above is an unrepentant POVpusher. No one is quoting directly from the SIT report(s). The sources used are from several secondary and reliable news organizations which have reported on the findings of the Special Investigative Team (a Supreme Court appointed body). That is "110%" acceptable on Wikipedia. What is not acceptable on Wikipdia are theses published by doctoral students or unsubstantiated opinions of authors who have no expertise on the subject. This is a biographical article, and not an article about the 2002 Gujarat violence. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have not produced a single source of comparable quality to any of the ones I have just presented, and you wouldnt recognize an "expert" (or a reliable source) if he jumped from behind a bush and bit you in the ass. You are the worst kind of threat to wikipedia: an administrator who will wilfully abuse and misrepresent our policies and lie and slander honest editors while doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick (NHN, not the other one), you seem to have ignored the Jaffrelot point. Or is that covered by a response in another section? I don't always think Maunus is handling things well here but, again, if you have a problem with POV pushing then go report it. These blanket accusations against people who disagree with how you think the article should be presented need to stop. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

He has not been ignored. Please see what has been stated above. Most of these articles have been published by PhD students and the remaining are by individuals who are not established experts on the subject. Jaffrelot's professed expertise is in "Hindu nationalism", not specifically Narendra Modi. More importantly, he is not a recognized expert on this person. He is a "political scientist" and a columnist in newspapers. Is there anything in particular from his works that you would like to propose for inclusion? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Which papers have been published by PhD students? The one in sociology working papers of course. Which others? Do you seriously think it is possible to get a PhD in Narendra Modi? (the closest one might get to that is the Journalist Edward Luce who has interviewed Modi several times one on one) In any case PhD students ARE experts, and YOU are anobody on the internet and have no qualiications whatsoever to think you can dismiss anyone who gets a paper published in a peerreviewed journal. Thinking so is a subvention of wikipedias most foundational principles: NOR, RS and V.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK WP eds regularly dismiss and select papers published on peer-reviewed journals at article talk pages and RSN and various other venues.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, Jaffrelot is a political scientist whose "specialism" is India and Pakistan, as opposed to, say, the UK or Germany. His output has been used for articles discussing the development of caste associations etc, not just Hindu nationalism. However, even if you choose to narrow the scope then it still applies to Modi because he discusses Modi and Modi is/was apparently a member of the RSS, which I'm pretty sure most people would consider to be a Hindutva organisation. If you will now only accept sources that are experts on Modi then this is going to be a very short article. Like, a paragraph.- Sitush (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several academicians who have a professed expertise on South Asia, and that does not automatically accord them any form of authority on specific individuals. Instead of going around in circles, can you propose what you would like to be included in the article? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

By definition anyone who publishes work about Modi in an academic peer-reviewed journal is an expert on Modi. It is not possible to my knowledge to be an academic expert in a single individual in anytother way. There are no departyments of Modi studies, no professorships in Narendra Modi, and noone who writes doctoral dissertations about Modi. Your argument is absurd, and would allow no one but Modi himself as possible source fort the article, which in fact I do suspect is your entire objective with your extreme tendentious misrepresentation of policy.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This very subject has been discussed above where it has been demonstrated that the matter-of-factly opinions presented in the papers that you cite above have been proven false by a Supreme Court appointed investigative body. Now regardless of policy, you may be of the opinion that Jaffrelot's positions still deserve inclusion, but that does not happen on a biographical article. You are probably looking for a page such as 2002 Gujarat violence which discusses every aspect of the topic. Now I suggest that you speak in specific terms as to what you would like to be included in the biography. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You havent read a single one of the papers. And none of the central critical claims have been tried in courts, and the SIT excluded them from their investigations. And that needs to be in this article, because it is notable, and it is notable because it is published in dozens of reliable sources. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I think that you may be confused. Your diff points to a discussion where Jaffrelot's 2008 article appears but I think Maunus/IP is referring to his 2012 one, linked near the top of this section. Or is it me who is confused? - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP cannot take sides, really. We have to cogently present the views of the journal articles (with in text attribution), and also, obviously, the court verdicts. Yes, PhD students' articles, if those are peer reviewed, would be reliable enough source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush has been asked to propose what they intend to include in this article from one or more of these sources. They have not done so yet. Dissertations published as a part of course requirements for completion of a PhD and which are publicly available may be used as a source in this article. The reliability of a source often depends on context. Some of the material linked above is outdated and in contradiction with the inquiry report published by a Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team which is the prevailing and acceptable source on the subject. It is well accepted that Wikipedia does not take sides in a dispute, however it is not an instrument to give equal validity to theories and claims which have been debunked through a judicial investigation by a Supreme Court appointed body. We will have more clarity on what may be included and what cannot be once there is a proposal so it may be contextually analyzed. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the report of the Supreme Court-appointed Amicus Curiae? This was also an official judicial investigation report ordered by the Supreme Court, independent of the SIT report. The Amicus Curiae's report disagrees with many findings of the SIT report, as widely published in the media. If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court accepted both reports, and directed the Trial Court to take decisions based on the reports. Isn't the Amicus Curiae report as legally valid as the SIT report? - Aurorion (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please present sources that say that the amicus curiae was appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct a parallel judicial investigation? The report prepared by the amicus curiae is a legal opinion which says that the subject of the biography can still be prosecuted under specific sections of the IPC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see this Deccan Herald article: The court has only returned to a trial court in Ahmedabad, the complaint, the evidence collected by a Special investigation Team (SIT) appointed by it and the views of an amicus curiae, again appointed by the court, on the SIT’s findings. ... The apex court had ordered the special investigation and then an independent review by an amicus curiae. (emphasis added by me) Other reports: 1, 2, 3. All say that the Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme court to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and submit a separate report to the SC. - Aurorion (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion for a different section. The articles clearly state that the amicus curiae was appointed to prepare an independent [amicus] brief of their own assessment of the investigation conducted by the SIT. Their disagreement is generally with the manner in which the SIT conducted the investigation and specifically with their rejection of Sanjiv Bhatt's testimony as unreliable. In their brief (and not judicial investigation report), they have disagreed with the SC appointed SIT on points of evidence. This is better suited for inclusion on the article on 2002 Gujarat violence rather than this specific biographical article due to WP:WEIGHT concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

All legal proceedings and documents that may have an impact on the the subject of this article are relevant for this article.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if they have a negative impact?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I disagree that the Amicus Curiae's mandate was just to provide an assessment of the "investigation". As this article says, the Supreme Court appointed the Amicus Curiae to provide an independent assessment of the evidence: The court gave power to Ramchandran to analyse the report, comments and statements of the witnesses and, if required, interact with them to give an "objective" assessment of the evidence. From another source: The order said “the copies of the report, along with the comments of the Chairman, be given to the amicus curiae, who shall analyse them in the light of evidence, statements of witnesses, and have his independent assessment of the entire evidence which has come on record.” The Amicus Curiae did not assess just the investigation, but provided an independent assessment of the entire underlying evidence too, and submitted a separate report to the SC. I think that the observations of the Amicus Curiae related to Narendra Modi's role deserves to be in this article, especially if the findings in the SIT report are included. This is not a minority view, this is also an "official", "judicial" report sanctioned and submitted to the Supreme Court, and is covered widely by reliable sources. But yes, perhaps this is a discussion for a different section, but I wanted to talk about this here because you mentioned the SIT report in an earlier comment. - Aurorion (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response but Sitush has been asked to propose what they intend to include in this article from one or more of these sources is plain wrong. I was not asked, although you did respond to someone else. And I really am getting fed up of your baseless accusations regarding motive. You should know better given your admin status - much more of this and I'll be seeking a review of that. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay chill! Why not propose now? Lets get going that way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He has been asked specifically.^[93] Can you clarify what baseless accusations you are referring to in the statement above? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I've not been able to follow the discussion closely, BLP rules clearly state when a person is considered guilty and that is only when the courts convict him, no court has convicted Modi, on the other hand he has been exonerated of various accusations. Quoting sources that predate court judgments are like indulging in flagging a dead horse. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not what BLP says. It does not say that if someone is tried and acquitted we cannot mention the trial. It says that we have to mention the acquittal, not that we cannot mention the trial, the accusations, the evidence presented by the defense and prosecution, or the ongoing appeal. We can and should mention all that - while noting that he has been acquitted. That is how objectivity and neutrality works.128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The likes of Jaffrelot have been severely criticised by Rajiv Malhotra for their anti-India bias, I'll provide a quote as soon as I lay my hands on his book. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"the likes of Jaffrelot"...You mean academic with actual credentials? Malhotra is a pseudoscientist prpmoting Hindu versions of "creation science". He has no authority to criticize anyone at all, least of all a professor at a major university.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Back your claims regarding Malhotra with sources, funny isn't it that Malhotra who supports academic programmes with millions of dollars and has two books published by reputed publishers to his credit cannot criticize Jaffrelot, but an IP can criticize Malhotra! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IP is Maunus. New tricks YK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could back your claims with sources first? We have yet to see whether he has ever in fact mentioned Jaffrelot. My guess is that he hasn't and that you are just bluffing and obfuscating.128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rajiv Malhotra, Aravindan Neelakandan. Breaking India - Western Intervention in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines Page 328 - 331 . I will quote few sentences Jaffrelot consistently portrays Hinduism and Hindu Social leaders including Mahatma Gandhi, as caste-biased..... later he gives example of how erroneous the example of Jaffrelot was, there are few more paras dedicated to Jaffrelot.-sarvajna (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, so he did write it. That doesnt change the fact that he is a pseudoscientists with no academic credentials, and that his critique has no bearings for Jaffrelots academic credibility. The critique could go in the article about Jaffrelot, but here it is basically irrelevant.68.9.182.96 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So now you have a new argument, how about backing your claims about Malhotra with sources like YK said above. It would be helpful if you start making some constructive comment rather than writing statements which are not goign to help the article in any way -sarvajna (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a not a new argument, it was the first argument I made regarding Malhotra. Malhotra has studied physics, but apparently never achieved a degree. A multimillionaire he funds Hindu studies at different universities, but is not himself a scholar. 198.7.241.250 (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

IP kindly come up with sources to back your allegations reg. Malhotra i.e (a) he is a college drop out (b) he is a "creationist". Regarding Jaffrelot (a) he contends that CJ uses "convoluted ways to invent racism in the Hindu polity. (c) he works with CAP the planning unit of the French foreign ministry (d) he looks down on "Sanskritisation" (e) he values anyone who distances himself from Hindu society (e) he is one of those (so I wrote "the likes of CJ) who is well placed in policy making institutes of Europe who engender divisiveness in India and encourage such thoughts (f) he considers each "patriotic" Indian to harbour "racist" and "fascist" tendencies (g)his work is commonly used in "atrocity literature that flooded the western media in the aftermath of Gujarat (2002)." All in all he considers CJ a biased source when it comes to Gujarat which makes his (RM's) views pertinent to this discussion. Now IP you have to provide evidence that RM is a bad source when it comes to this debate. (All the above from Breaking India, the source Sarvajna has quoted above.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot prove that Malhotra doesn't have a degree, seeing that it is impossible t prove a negative, but maybe you can show me wrong? His wikipedia biography and other biographies I have been able to find says "he studied physics", not that he received a degree. His own biography sketch on his website also claims no academic title[94].Malhotra does not just criticize Jaffrelot he criticizes the entire scientific establishment, and he does so from a Hindu religious point of view, not from a basis of academic knowledge. His claim that Jaffrelot is biased is as worthless as your own claim of the same.128.148.231.12 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

YK, on the one hand we have a "multi-millionaire, author, philanthropist" and on the other hand "a political scientist specializing in South Asia". I'm sorry, but the second one is far more acceptable as a source than the first. Merely being wealthy does not a scholar make. If Malhotra makes good points about atrocity literature and western media, then it should be easy to find academic sources that make the same point. I think the onus is on you to show that Malhotra's statements are valid ones by finding academic peer reviewed sources that either support what he says or cite his book. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a ad hominem attack on Malhotra, some how being wealthy is bad? A source that one agrees with would seem more acceptable. Breaking India was written in 2011 after many stories were exposed as lies such as the foetus canard[95] and the allegations from victims that their misery peddled for profit by those who claimed to help them.[96] and the exoneration of Modi, I'm surprised that more importance is given to "scholars" than to court judgments in determining Modi's guilt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

YK, one of the pillars of wikipedia is that we work with material that can be verified by reliable sources. Peer reviewed academic sources are considered reliable. Books written by wealthy individuals with no academic credentials and without peer review are not. Once again, if his material is good, then doubtless you can find good quality peer reviewed sources that quote or use his material. You may agree with Malhotra and disagree with Jaffrelot but we can't really go about building a serious encyclopedia that basis its material on your opinions (or that of any individual editor). --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are making absurd claims and nonsequitur arguments all over the place. Being wealthy is not bad, but it doesn't give you expertise to make academic judgments. And pointing out that he has no such expertise is not an ad hominem argument, any more than your absurd attempt to discredit all academics writing on India and Modi (except perhaps Koenrad Elst, I am guessing) 128.148.231.12 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am quite perplexed over the lack of any specific propositions with regard to the said expert on this biographical article. Why is this discussion being unnecessarily prolonged with no visible outcome? Being an established "political scientist" may confer expertise with regard to political theories and ideas, but does not establish authority over historical facts, which are determined through the due process of law – investigation and subsequent adjudication in a court of law. Apart from being obsolete, the article is hardly scholarly and makes speculative claims relying entirely on opinion editorials published in Tehelka and the Times of India. Furthermore, EPW is a known left-wing journal with a not so solid reputation for fact checking, publication and promotion of far left viewpoints. This is a questionable source at best for the article which should not be used to support exceptional claims, if any. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

EPW is just a collection of op-eds, not just nick's opinion.-sarvajna (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

EPW is a refereed academic journal. Academic journals do not "fact check" they have peer review. You guys really havent a clue about how research works. It is a classic POVPUSHing strategy to try to dismiss respectable journals or entire fields of science that happens to be uncomfortable as "opinion". EPW has a clear demarcation between opinion pieces (that are still possible to cite with attribution) and research articles. You will not get through with this game.138.16.114.174 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Jaffrelot's article "Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims? The Supreme Court, the SIT, the Police and the State Judiciary" published in 2012 is using Tehelka as reference. The Tehelka reports that came out in 2007 were proved bogus just after their release. The SIT report also declared them so. But still late after this all was out Jaffrelot is using it as reference in 2012 in his so-called-peer-reviewed essay. Interesting that is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is all this discussion over something which investigators and law officials have refuted? Anything that was not proved in a court of law will remain as POV and this whole farce will be a WP:POVPUSH. No editor in this discussion is a neutral reliable certified expert to call any other renowned expert who is famous as non-reliable... Call it a spade only if it is a spade Amit (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Another absurd argument that fails to get the question. The issue is that the article needs to mention the fact that he has been accused because that is notable and verifiable whether or not the accusations were upheld in court.138.16.114.174 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Absurd by your claim... what you have been doing is putting good faith edits and more neutral language in a BLP page in the back burner. Any incident will have critics and if they are notable or verifiable is always a question...

I know most of my co-editors here are operating with way more information than I have access to, but still I would like to spell-out the facts of the matter here as I see them:

1. No charges have been brought against Modi by the Supreme-court appointed team because no evidence was found against him.
2. Indian National Congress party is all for framing Modi as guilty regardless of what the Supreme court appointed team says in its report. Mr Advani said in his 60 years of political life he has not known any of his colleague “so consistently, so viciously maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi”.
3. As expected the SIT-report has been questioned. And SIT-representative R. S. Jamuar said in response to the much-touted "appeal":^[97] "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)
4. The authorities found Tehelka report to be dubious. Sensationalist claims do get shared between news sources, and are often printed in hundreds of papers but that doesn't make them true, does it? The whole thing and it's validity is pivoted upon the veracity of the claims of one man Ashish Khetan (who performed the sting operation). Wikipedia should avoid scandal-mongering. The conspicuous and flagrant incongruity of the claims detract from its validity as evidence^[98][99] Chandan Mitra, described the timing of the Tehelka report's release as being "so transparently pegged to the Gujarat assembly polls that even breast-beating secular fundamentalists found it hard to defend."^[100]

this forces me wonder who is behind all this, could it be a political game to assassinate Modi's reputation before elections?

These are the well-established facts as of now. So let's not get carried away and start treading on the domain of speculations, conjectures and opinions. Lest we forget we are writing a BLP, Mr. N. Modi is still alive. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment RegentsPark as admin I request you as admin to rein in this abusive IP who wrote above "You are making absurd claims and nonsequitur arguments... ...any more than your absurd attempt..." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also whatever MRT3366 has written above supports Malhotra's comments that CJ and others indulged in creating "atrocity literature" that was lapped up by those willing and happy to denigrate Modi, I BLP policies do not allow us to collaborate in such a campaign. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: (2002 violence) What would the section ideally contain?

Which version should the section on 2002 violence contain from the following, A/B?

A

B

In February 2002 following Godhra Train Massacre where 58 Hindu pilgrims including 25 women and 15 children were burnt to death in a fire inside the Sabarmati Express train by a radical Islamist mob of around 2000 Muslims("Fifty-eight killed in attack on Sabarmati Express". Rediff. 27 February 2002. Retrieved 11 May 2013.), there was widespread communal violence in Gujarat,[101] that resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.[102]

In, 2002, widespread communal violence involving clashes between Hindus and Muslims occurred in Guajart following the Godhra train burning[103]. Many people were killed...[18][19][20]

Please comment below. Bear in mind that wikipedia articles avoid deliberate imprecision. Thank you all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, my perspective has changed on the use of numbers. I would have withdrawn it earlier but it skipped my mind. I believe we have a lot of other issues to deal with. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: could you link the policy that refers to the "deliberate imprecision" notion that you mention (I realise that you may have paraphrased)? Please could could you also explain what is deliberately imprecise in option B. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You are asking that? You were pulling out your tonsils and demanding what exactly Modi "served". And now you are pro for this deliberate imprecise statement B? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The key word that I am seeking clarification on is "deliberate" and the context in which that applies. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, there is no policy that Mr. T. can cite. If I had to close this RfC--and I've closed quite a few of them--I'd be tempted to say that the comment invalidates the entire thing. To balance it out, I'll add that Wikipedia articles should avoid including excessive, unrelated detail, but the damage is already done. Dharma, you can yell that B is deliberately imprecise, but one might as well say that A is also, since it doesn't include the names and family histories and castes of the victims. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a policy that dictates us to avoid deliberately placed imprecise words? duh!! Because it is called common sense. One line description of the event that led to strident censure of Modi government and Modi personally is directly related to the subject. Nobody is asking to include a whole essay about it, just one descriptive line, how the hell can that be seen as ″excessive″ is what I don't get. Besides, it was a Massacre / Murder / Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading. And in any case we are talking about Godhra Train Massacre that means it is relevant here and I agree, but instead of calling things as they are we're covering it with deliberate vague assertions. Why? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think that there was such a policy and I was very concerned about the statement. However, I thought it best to inquire just in case there is some obscure policy somewhere that I had missed. Thanks for clarifying. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So should we settle on calling this as double standards by you? Serving tea or snacks or water or whatever was very upsetting for you but now a vague term like "many" is okay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dharmadhyaksha, the "serve" issue was different. It was initially sourced only to a primary SPS, ie: Modi's website and the vaguity was apparent. One can serve in numerous ways but by adding a couple of words that can be resolved. I gave examples of possibilities as wide as shoe cleaning, food and male prostitution. And the vaguity made it self-serving. In this current instance, we are not using an SPS and the word "many", for example, can only mean one thing. I wonder if Modi even refers to the violence in his biography? - he does make various claims for his achievements while in office but I have a feeling that he will not mention the violence because it is not to his advantage to do so. His website biography spans seven different pages and is slow to load here so I am not checking it again, but I cannot recall seeing a mention when I did read through it all.

Mrt3366, I agree that "Godhra train burning" is open to interpretation but I have explained a way to resolve that, ie: invoke WP:COMMONNAME, including for the capitalisation or otherwise of "massacre". It would probably be best to check sources published outside of the subcontinent because of the religious tensions. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, now this "vaguity" makes it even worse, misleading. You're deliberately choosing a version that contains more ambiguous language and less precise information, Why? You are imposing your judgement. You hate Modi, and that's the truth. You're unnecessarily creating fuss about this. Let others comment and decide for themselves. If you want to discuss, discuss anywhere else, not here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I am supposed to discuss this section of this article anywhere except on the talk page for this article? That's a new concept, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you're supposed to discuss this section of this article anywhere except this RFC-thread. This is not a "request for discussion", let others comment and this discussion may influence the outcome or, worse, make people avoid this altogether. Don't put words in my mouth. You can continue discussion above. which was the original section about these edits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I understand you now. But I disgree. I've just done a quick GNews search for "godhra train", deliberately omitting "burning", "massacre" and similar. These are the top results shown in the UK, excluding an irrelevant story about a girl who was attacked in a complete separate incident

• The Hindu - "Naroda-Patiya massacre" and "Godhra train burning"
• Times of India - "Naroda-Patiya massacre" and "Godhra train carnage"
• Times of India - "Godhra train burning"
• Indian Express - "Godhra train carnage"
• BBC - "train fire" and "Naroda-Patiya massacre"
• Zee News (not a source I care for) - "Godhra train burning"
• NDTV - "Godhra train burning" and "Gulberg Society massacre"
• Hindustan Times - "Godhra train fire"

Is this any use, here or elsewhere? - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Read

1. There is a reason why we have redirects and Piped links. If you disagree then I couldn't care less.
2. WP:COMMONNAME is for article title and they can't be forcefully applied to article contnent. Godhra Train burning is not only imprecise, it is deceptive.

You forgot to add:
(my emphasis)

BBC : Godhra train massacre

Asianews: Godhra train massacre

DAWN: Godhra Train carnage

Zee news: Godhra train carnage

The Hindu Godhra Train carnage

Business-standard: Godhra train carnage

Oneindia news: Godhra train carnage

Rediff: Godhra Train carnage

TOI : Godhra Train carnage

DNAINDIA: Godhra Train carnage

Hindu business line : Godhra Train carnage

Indiatvnews: Godhra Train carnage

deccan herald : Godhra train carnage

Dailypioneer: Godhra train carnage

Indianexpress: Godhra train carnage

India Today: Godhra train carnage, who the hell is talking about "patiya"-thing? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (multiple) I did not forget to add anything. I said that the results were as seen in the UK and that I searched for "godhra train", deliberately omitting any subsequent term. I agree that if I search for "godhra train carnage" then, not surprisingly, I will get hits for things mentioning "carnage" also. I was also not passing comment but rather asking a question, ie: does this help? - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

UK ??????? Why the heck would we exclude the reliable sources from the country where the event took place, i.e. India? It will be biased editing. Do the people from UK search for Indian papers while referring to one of their own massacres? That would be hypocrisy. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. It was a Massacre / Murder / Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading, hence per WP:COMMONNAME We should avoid "Godhra train burning". Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, I am struggling to cope with all these comments being added in succession. To address just one of your points, you have misunderstood why I mentioned the UK. Google shows different results depending on one's location - eg: see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks & the essay linked therein - and thus that can affect impressions. I searched for "godhra train" using Google News in the UK; I did not search for "godhra train UK". As you can see from my results, all but one of the top results listed were in fact sources based in India. That does not mean that you will see the same top results (ie: first page of results) where ever you may be. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support B: Best and neutral. A demonises Islam altogether and that's what most of them want. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You're one heck of a neutral commenter, Abhishek. Pardon me for asking this but is that your real name? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! We have already seen how neutral you are! And about my real name, that's none of your business! — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of a question is that? Mr. T., you can start an RfC, but poisoning the well is never a good idea. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support A Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: For any relevant discussion (my comments, etc) on this see above. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a Request for Comment - you can't really say "see the above"! - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

He can. Thats how one should avoid repeatedly saying same stuff. Maunus claims same stuff that "he has said everything". I dont remember you pinpointing him there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I neither know nor particularly care what Maunus does. I can't spot where this so-called policy is mentioned and I would like to take a look at it so that I can consider Mrt's prescriptive declaration at the head of this RfC in context. It is not an unreasonable request, surely? - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC is as simple as it can be. A or B. Why does anyone's prespective have to be appended to it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Mrt3366 includes the statement that Bear in mind that wikipedia articles avoid deliberate imprecision. Thank you all. within the RfC notice. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So? Thats all he wants to say. Why are you insisting on him to speak more? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he seems to be claiming to be citing policy and I'm not sure what policy that is. Can you imagine, as an extreme example, being taken to court and found guilty by a jury when neither you nor the jury know what law you have been charged with? - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You are asking what policy says we have to avoid deliberate ambiguous and misleading terms? It is called common sense if you want more go ahead and ask any other more experienced editor, they might be able to help you out with policies and stuff. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support something like B. Shorter is better--I don't see how the numbers are relevant to the supposed response or lack of response by the subject of this article. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Shorter is better" - following the pattern of Sitush, which policy says that? "Shorter" in this case means exclusion of legitimate info i.e. minimum description in one line of the gruesome event and its aftermath to provide some context for the reader. I don't think a "complete" article would eschew the information as to what really happened that Modi had to face immense heat for it, "many were killed", begs the question, how many? Don't forget that we do allow for offline reading and distribution of our content (in pdf format where a reader may want to enlighten himself about Modi without being able to visit other pages or go into excessive details of Godhra Train Massacre). If one guy reads the criticism section and doesn't know what exactly is Mr. Modi and his administration being criticised for or accused of, then it leaves the reader in a confused state or quite possibly in a deceived state.
It is not complete. Keep in mind that we don't create articles that are inherently dependent on other articles because then that article will not be called "complete". I am imploring others to move towards the more informative version of this article, move towards completion. Lay-out the fact as they actually are.
Also, Censoring material just because some think it demonises xyz entity, is not the way forward.
But I am not much hopeful about this, I understand we are not yet ready for clear description of terrifying events. It is not how an encyclopaedia should work. (cf. WP:CENSOR, WP:OFFENSE, WP:IDL, etc) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support B as being closer to where we need to end up. Perhaps it needs the odd tweak but A is far, far too much information for this article. The need to be precise that is mentioned by Mrt3366 in the opening comment of the RfC is a red herring. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: subsequent to my above, Drmies has come up with a suggestion below that deals with the tweaks to which I referred. I'm happy with that version except for the word "even". I'm not sure how to say it better but using "even" seems to be a sort of subjective emphasis. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support A Because Wikipedia is not censored. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support B. I don't like either of them very much, but I like B better. A is incendiary and drowning in too much detail. B is vague, but it avoids the pitfalls of A. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And you would rather choose vague terms and absence of detail than clear description of a terrifying event? Is this for real? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am more inclined to support section B as Wikipedia articles should avoid including excessive, unrelated details as pointed out by Drmies above. However, to remove factual information on the basis that it is "incendiary" or "anti-Islam" or "anti-Muslim" is not an acceptable rationale. The phrase – "Many people were killed [...]" – is imprecise. Extending the discussion further, the portion about Tehelka's expose on Babu Bajrangi is irrelevant for the article as the allegations contained in the tapes against the subject of the article have not been entertained in any court of law as evidence against the subject. The commentary is more suitable for the article on Babu Bajrangi himself. This discussion is connected to the present RfC as the point behind the current discussion is to remove speculative details and information surrounding the person and to include objective facts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

diff In this ^ nick changed the original wording of the RFC which has been partially reverted. Sorry for any inconvenience to Nick and others. Mrt3366 12:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This is really getting a bit stupid. B is rejected by some because it is too vague. Well, it's vague, "Many people were killed", because that's how Mr. T. wrote up the RfC--in a way that would push people towards A. That's why this RfC is in many ways invalid from the get-go: B isn't a very viable option, which is why I said "something like B", not B. "Many people were killed" should be cut as well. Bare-bones facts is all that is needed here: the fewer the better. After all, the massacre/carnage/violence is wikilinked right there. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The words in "B" came from me. I noted here that I'd made a bold attempt to get nearer to what I saw as the consensus, while acknowledging that it was imperfect. My actual edits removing stuff from that section were here. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The diff is this. With an edit summary: "again, being bold: I'm hoping that this appeases the various views expressed on the talk page"
"what I saw as the consensus," - what does that mean? Was there a consensus established? If yes, then where? If you mean you'd made a bold attempt to get nearer to what you wished the consensus were, then I think this line is futile. AFAIK, there was not consensus to exclude any sourced info. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just drop it, Mrt. It is water under the bridge. I was merely pointing out Drmies' misunderstanding in an attempt to avoid you getting all worked-up again. The fact is, you stuck the thing as an option in this RfC, so here we are now. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, Sitush. And I see that you tried to work in a kind of compromise. If it were up to me, I'd leave out that phrase altogether, to produce something like

In 2002, widespread communal violence erupted between Hindus and Muslims in Guajart after the deadly Godhra train burning; the Modi administration was accused of insufficient action after the violence and even suspected of encouraging it.

Shorter is better, as I said somewhere above (producing another angered response from Mr. T.), because that's good article writing. As it happens, I've been teaching writing for almost twenty years and I've written some fairly decent stuff here on Wikipedia, so I think I know a little bit about it. Encyclopedic writing is by definition writing a summary of the available information; to which extent it is summarized is a matter of editorial judgment. This artice is not about the violence, as I said before--it's about Modi's reaction to it and possible responsibility for it. That's where the focus ought to be; too much detail detracts from it. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I am not angry and was not angry when I replied to you earlier. The troubling thing is that you've introduced a huge lump of vaguity.
"the Modi administration was accused of insufficient action after the violence" - begs the question in what way? And we're asked to knowingly hide the well-known facts. Why? People got burned and then communal violence took ~1,000 lives. That would be something worthy of a mention, it is a significant piece of info that you're omitting Drmies, but nobody apparently notices that and it is what saddens me. I will defer to a consensus. I have done my job by making a way for it. Again, it was a Massacre / Murder / Killing inside a train, not merely incineration of a train compartment. To say it was Godhra Train Burning is very misleading. WP:COMMONNAME encourages us to avoid ambiguous terms. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

a. "knowingly hide the well-known facts" is nonsense--you're yelling CENSORSHIP where there ain't none. Pretending that editorial decisions are the result of bias is the hallmark of POV editing. b. I'm not omitting nothing. I'll say one more time, since apparently this isn't getting through to you, that this article is about a politician, not about the violence. Duh. Finally, take your issue with the name of the article someplace else; this is a different article. I think that this latest diatribe sufficiently demonstrates that you are incapable of neutrality here. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Drmies has said, as well as the reasoning behind it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Finally, take your issue with the name of the article someplace else; this is a different article." - Sitush asked me repeatedly to invoke WP:COMMONNAME, but you didn't complain against him. Now I follow his pattern you're actually dictating me to take it someplace else.
"'knowingly hide the well-known facts' - is nonsense" - No Drmies it is not nonsense. I am not yelling anything nor am I pretending now. What are you, a hall-mark specialist of some sort? Can you read minds now? I couldn't care less about what you believe I am doing. Let us both focus on the content rather than each-other!
"I'm not omitting nothing" - again you're wrong (well, you're technically right if you consider that double negative yields a positive), you are trying to omit certain facts but under the auspices of "consensus". And that is not a bad thing per se. My view is that you cannot simultaneously mention the Godhra Massacre and omit minimum description of what that was. Now people differ on the definition of "excessive". Like I said, I would defer to whatever the consensus is.
And Ninja don't take this the wrong way, but why bother with a meta-comment, when you've nothing to add to the argument. You've already voted, haven't you? You like it, good, but so what? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. T., you claim to be the mindreader here, not me--you said I "knowingly hide" some facts. I thought I was leaving them out based on editorial judgment, but apparently you know my mind better than I do. No, I'm not doing anything "under the auspices of 'consensus'"; we have no consensus here, as far as I can see. My aegis is editorial judgment. I've said that half a dozen times by now--I don't know how you could have missed it. And don't get cutesey with pointing out a double negative: I know what I'm saying. Then again, you know my mind...maybe you know what my next move is. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fair to say that we know for certain that that was a mass-murder and we are trying everything in our capacity to swiftly excise that germane fact from the article. Hence, using "knowingly hide" is a manifestation of deductive reasoning, logical syllogism and not mind-reading. Which you are doing by accusing me of pretence and other things which I didn't even express. Let's not squabble any more over our views on each other, it is not going to lead us anywhere better than this. If you think I am POV editor, what can I say? You're entitled to your view just as I am to mine. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I did not like B because like many editors said here "many were killed" is too vague. I did not like A as well because there is too much detail about the violence, there is a separate article for the violence, my version would be A minus the details, something like In February 2002 following Godhra Train Massacre there was widespread communal violence in Gujarat.I also agree with Nick about those Tehalka tapes--sarvajna (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Prefer B though I do feel that including the fact that the train contained Hindu pilgrims is germane. A is too wordy and, since this article is about Modi, the Godhra incident is included only because it was a trigger for the subsequent killings of muslims. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"a trigger for the subsequent killings of muslims." -- about 300 Hindus were killed too, isn't it? It's not one-sided, even though the article is heavily skewed in the direction of Muslims' deaths. It actually doesn't mention the fact that why the riot was caused in the first place. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Modi not about the train burning. The allegations against Modi are that he was responsible for the killings of Muslims during the riots that followed the train burning. It is not our role to exculpate his actions in some way, neither is it our place to attempt to make some sort of moral equivalency argument here by presenting numbers or even to present this as some sort of Hindu Muslim conflict with casualty figure on 'both sides'. Like I say below, all that matters is that the train burning was the trigger for the riots that Modi did or did not control. Anything else about the train burning should go in the train burning article.--regentspark (comment) 10:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not our role to exculpate his actions in some way, ... Yes, it is. This is a BLP, and if we present allegations and ignore to present exculpatory points, even when we know about them, it is a clear display of our hostile attitude towards this subject. Since this is a BLP, it is imperative that we present exculpatory points in this article regardless of whether we present it elsewhere or not.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support B: It is more encyclopaedic (in terms of Wikipedia) because it summarises the details that should be provided in the main Godhra train burning article. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

Please add a section of "Further reading" or of any suitable name above the "References" section with following information.

• Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay (2013). Narendra Modi : The Man, The Times. Westland. ISBN 9382618473.
• Kingshuk Nag (2013). The NaMo Story: A Political Life. Lotus Collection. ISBN 8174369384.
• M. V. Kamath; Kalindi Randeri (2009). Narendra Modi: The Architect of a Modern State. Rupa & Company. ISBN 8129114682.
• Pravin N. Sheth (2007). Images of Transformation: Gujarat and Narendra Modi. Team Spirit (India). ISBN 8178970430.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The discussion here may have a bearing on whether or not to enact this request. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see a consensus to enact this request at this time due to the objections raised in the thread Sitush linked to. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting to see that some admin finally paid attention after Sitush commented on it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Maunus' suggestion for Lead

(a)Narendra Damodardas Modi (pronunciation^ⓘ; born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India.

(b)Modi is a key figure in the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was a central strategist in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns. (c)In 2001 he became Chief Minister of Gujarat for the first time, being promoted to the office upon the resignation of his predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, following the defeat of BJP in by-elections. (d)Since childhood, Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindutva paramilitary organization. (e)He holds a master's degree in political science.

(f)During his first term the 2002 Gujarat violence took place. (g)Modi's personal decision to bring the bodies of burned Hindu pilgrims from the Godhra train burning to Ahmedabad was criticized as contributing to the onset of the following riots. (h)Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to protect its Muslim population during the riots. (i)These events contributed to making Modi a polarizing figure. (j)Subsequent reports by the Supreme court have found no reason to fault Modi in relation to the 2002 events, although one minister of his administration has been convicted.

(k)As a result of Modi's business friendly policies, during his tenure the state of Gujarat has seen a high index of economic development, and the state has been branded as "Vibrant Gujarat". (l)The combination of liberal economic policy and strong Hindu nationalism, Hindutva, that Modi has made his trademark has been dubbed by some as "Moditva". (m)In July 2007, he became the longest-serving Chief Minister in Gujarat's history when he had been in power for 2,063 days continuously. (n)Under his leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2012 State Assembly Elections and he was chosen to serve for a fourth term as chief minister. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·snunɐw· 21:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)]

---

When was this decided that the current lead needed an overhaul????

When was this decided that the current lead needed to be re-written? Why does Maunus get to create redundant spiral discussions about subjects that are already dealt with in detail previously? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Nick above wrote, "I do not understand why Maunus/IP keeps creating new sections for the same discussion over and over again." Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, moreover writing the lead before the work on the body is completed makes no sense, Maunus/IP proposed this Lead when asked by Amit to make some proposal, Maunus was just writing long essay like comments which were leading us no where. -sarvajna (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr.T, something is better than nothing. Maunus would have posted huge sections irrespective of what we do or don't and attacked editors. See the above section for example. This way when we atleast have a proposal, we have a way to go and a possible way to reduce attacks. Ideally, yes the article should be edited before the lead. But Maunus has had problem only with the lead since beginning. Since long back he only wanted to have the US visa rejection in lead. I am happy he did not propose that not-so-important thing now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Maunus would have posted huge sections irrespective of what we do or don't and attacked editors." - for that we have a number of things we can do. For one, we don't have to pander to his whimsical demands. Where are the uninvolved admins? I mean what the heck is going on? The page is taking longer than usual to load because of this bulge. This sort of refusal to get the point, is disruptive. Also there is no response from WT:LEAD as to the need for using the word "controversial". Till then I don't think using "controversial" in the lead is a good idea, especially when Nick's proposal got a good many "support" votes. We must work on the body first, then we can make a summary. This article has become a POV-hellhole in recent times. Thank heavens it's fully protected! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, what's up with all the accusations?? In case of any other controversial Politician, do we leave unfounded accusations and nullified allegations in the lead? No. Why is Modi article an exception to the rule of thumb? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed lead

I have numbered all sentences proposed by Maunus. Lets take this point by point and discuss and agree on whats to be written. Simplest way would be support each line or oppose each line in their respective sections. In case of no consensus, please carry on with a discussion in those sections itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally you do not modify other peoples posts on the talkpage like that. Especially not without requesting permission first. I am not convinced this is the best way of discussing the lead proposal.But lets see.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We have seen your way of discussion and that hasn't helped so far in getting any consensus. So lets have some structure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am telling you politely to respect the guideline for talkpage posts in the future. Now I am repeating that advice. You do not modify or edit others posts. You will find walls of text on this talkpage, but I have not written them.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(a)

• "Narendra Damodardas Modi" should be changed to "Narendra Modi" as he is not popular with his middle name. The middle name can be mentioned in infobox. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not have much issue with this, it is written as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on the page of Mahatma Gandhi, similiarly on other articles. -sarvajna (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a major issue. Either is okay actually. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Most articles on persons include middle names and titles in bold in the lead definition. The title is the common name but the definition uses the full name.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No conflict here either i suppose Amit (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(b)

(c)

"Promoted" to chief minister, what was he, dy-chief minister? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This points to the fact that he was not elected but appointed.138.16.122.94 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus]

We will just use the words "replaced" kesubhai patel, The electorate doesn't specifically elect a "chief minister" they elect a MLA - the chief minister is always elected/selected by the party Amit (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fully agree with Amit. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(d)

Calls RSS "a Hindutva paramilitary organization" - what warrants this derogatory descriptor? Where is the irrefutable proof that RSS is a paramilitary organization? Are they banned? Maunus is an unrepentant POV-pusher. What he has suggested actually renders all previous toilsome discussions futile. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• If by "this derogatory descriptor" you meant "paramilitary" - the WP article on RSS includes this descriptor in the opening sentence. Please note that paramilitary does not imply "banned". - Aurorion (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Take care of your indentation. Where does that "if" come from? In no uncertain terms have I written my perspective. I will deal later with the WP article on RSS, but first thing first RSS maybe a lot of things, people may say a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true. The proposal doesn't frame it as an allegation as in "RSS which is alleged to be a Hindutva paramilitary organization", it claims it as a statement of fact as though there were cases and bans against RSS which proved the RSS is a paramilitary organization. It hasn't happened yet and I, for one, care about the validity of claims some throw around. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also Yogesh wrote below, "RSS is as much para-military as the Salvation Army is an army." Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(e)

(f)

The wording doesn't look optimal to me. How about "The 2002 Gujarat violence occurred during Modi's first term as CM."? Aurorion (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole section of f-g-h-i should be summarized more say something like - "2002 Gujarat violence was a controversial event during his tenure for which his administration has been criticized and scrutinized. Members of his administration and party have been prosecuted and in one case convicted, So far, no official criminal charges have been filed against Modi himself." (Stole some words from aurorion text from (j)). Other things should probably be put in some detail section. I don't know how neutral this sounds but i guess i am just trying to summarize this section Amit (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal doesnt work either in terms of language or in terms of information. The reason the 2002 violence is relevant to this article is because Modi himself has been accused and investigated and cleared, not just because his administration has been "scrutinized". It is misleading the reader not to mention what it is that he has been criticized for.68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Your proposal doesnt work either in terms of language or in terms of information." - We're talking about the lead, not the body. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How does this line merit a separate mention in the lead?

What has this got left to do with Modi especially since that no charges have been brought against Modi by the Supreme-court appointed team and that no evidence was found against him??? Why is this repeated and undue allusions to the accusations that have been found baseless in court of law? Why??? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(g)

"Modi's personal decision to bring the bodies of burned Hindu pilgrims from the Godhra train burning to Ahmedabad was criticized as contributing to the onset of the following riots." ← How does this line merit an additional mention when the lines '′h, i, j'′ are present?? Should we leave some criticism for the body or just take this lead as a platform to crucify Modi??? Good job maunus! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The process has been probed into and found to be justified. But there is no mention of that. ″there was no evidence to prove that the Chief Minister had sent the bodies of the 2002 Godhra victims to Ahmedabad with a view to parading them before the public.″ If the sentence is to be placed in the lead at all, this should not be suppressed.^[104][105] Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(h)

• The line "Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to protect its Muslim population during the riots." should be changed to ----> "Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to prevent riots." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? Many of the accusations are specifically about failing to protect or even aiding violence against the muslim population.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide those many references which talk about failure to protect Muslims alone and not people/property and all in general. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How about all of the sources I provided in the section above, from Luce and Jaffrelot to Ohm and Mehta. The accusations is generally that they did not order the police to help muslims, or that they ordered them to help the Hindu mobs by giving them access to election registers to specifically target muslim homes and businesses.68.9.182.96 (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Modi's administration" is an ambiguous term. Administration here could mean as a noun or as a verb. Some other phrasing should be proposed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"administration" can never be a verb, it is only a noun. I think you mean that it could mean his government or his way of administrating it.68.9.182.96 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thats what i meant. Two meaning. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

″To his detractors, Modi will always be the man who stoked the sectarian tensions that made the 2002 riots possible.″[106] This makes it very clear. It is the riot in general. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(i)

Typical Maunus - strong hindutva ;) LOL... is hindutva like sulphuric acid? concentrated and diluted :P Though i have no issues with the word hindutva, i dislike the word "hindu nationalism" in this context - the party portfolio doesn't say that and we mentioning it here would just scream POV. Amit (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I was considering "extreme" put thought that some might find the word "strong" to have more of a positive connotation. BJP is a hindu nationalist party according to all reliable sources and according to the wikipedia article on the party. It is not a POV term, but simply what the combination of Hinduism and Indian nationalism is called.68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand what hindu nationalism means but except for some biased texts (and wiki BJP page where the citations are not clear) I don't see this anywhere else... We should go with the official stance of the party is what i would say, but open for discussion Amit (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• permanent link Sources n 2, n 3, n 4 are not up-to-date and doesn't use the word "polarizing". Reuters says ″Modi has been accused of encouraging Hindu-Muslim riots in 2002″, it is not framed as an assertion of fact, and since its out-dated it doesn't have the latest fact there were no evidence against Modi to link him to the riots. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(j)

• "although one minister" §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he is referring to Maya Kodnani, she was not a minister when she was convicted nor during the 2002 violence. -sarvajna (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Right! She wasn't minister or MLA in 2002. So she is irrelevant here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant that someone had orchestrated and participated in a massacre, and was subsequently made a minister in Modi's administration. Especially when the Chief minister had himself faces similar charges.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence! It wasn't proven that she was guilty when she was sworn. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to presume innocence when someone is in fact convicted. Do you think we wouldn't include if a minister of education appointed by Barack Obama's turned out to be a mass murderer? You don't think people would consider that saying something about his judgment? Especially if he was himself accused for complicity in the same murders?128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For example this news report[107] on her conviction mentions Modi three times, so obviously it is relevant to his administration.128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Laws of India, and hopefully of all world, presume innocence. She was considered innocent while she was sworn as MLA. If she was elected by people, there was no reason even with the President to stop her from being an MLA. There is no connection here with Modi, both as person and as CM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If there was "no connection with Modi", then news media would not mention Modi in reports about her. There are several connections: (a) she was a member of his party, elected to the legislature, (b) she was appointed as a minister by Modi, after the violence (with full knowledge of the allegations against her), so she was by all accounts a senior leader of the party. So this is relevant. But I think a better wording is something like "other members of his administration and party have been prosecuted, and at least one convicted". -Aurorion (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

She was elected to the legislature by people. She was appointed as a minister not alone by Modi. If i file an ANI or SPI against you, your account doesnt get blocked automatically unless you are proven guilty. Same here! Kodnani was assumed to be innocent by law. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

She was a member of Modi's party. She was appointed as a minister in the Modi administration: Modi heads the government, and is directly responsible for ministerial appointments. I don't dispute that she was assumed innocent until proven guilty: but all I am saying is that this is notable and relevant here - almost every news report covering Kodnani's conviction mentions the connection to Modi. Since the content here is about criticism of the Modi administration regarding the riots, the conviction of someone so closely related to the administration is relevant. - Aurorion (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you agree that she was presumed innocent, then thats that. Why does it need to be mentioned in lead of some other person who is neither responsible for her acts nor solely responsible for her appointment? And if its regarding his administration during the riots then you should note that she was not even elected then and had nothing to with that particular administration. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, she was an elected BJP MLA during the time of the riots. But yes, you are right that she was not a minister then, she was appointed as a minister after the riots. The wording should not imply otherwise. - Aurorion (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, my mistake! She was an MLA during the riots but not minister and thereby had no connection with Modi's administration during the riots. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Let us keep away from guilt by association, if Maya Kodnani who was a MLA during the riots or a Minister later or a non Minister later is convicted, it has nothing to do with Modi.-sarvajna (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Subsequent reports by the Supreme court have found no reason to fault Modi..." - this is incorrect, incomplete and misleading. Firstly, as far as I know, the Supreme Court has not publish any reports. There was an official report submitted to the SC by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the court, which did find no reason to fault Modi. However, there was also another official report submitted to the SC by an Amicus Curiae, again appointed by the court, which was based on an independent assessment of all evidence, and which opined that there was enough evidence for the filing of official charges against Modi. So, it should be amended to something like A Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court to look into allegations related to the 2002 violence found no evidence of criminal wrong-doings against Modi. However, another report by an Amicus Curiae appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence differed with the SIT findings and recommended that Modi be prosecuted. So far, no official criminal charges have been filed against Modi, though other members of his administration and party have been prosecuted, and in some cases, convicted. I believe this presents a more complete picture. - Aurorion (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  The reportdoesn't say prosecute, but investigate, i think there is a difference. though the wordings other than that seem unbiased enough to be used (not for lead but for the details section).Amit (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link to the report, Amit. You are right, the report does not recommend prosecution, just lists the points of disagreement with the SIT report, and gives opinion that some offences can be made out against Modi. So in my suggestion above, that particular sentence should be amended to omit the "recommended that Modi be prosecuted" part. - Aurorion (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all the report of amicus curie is not legally binding But these expressions of excitement and anguish do not have much basis at this point of time as the amicus curiae report in itself do not have any legal teeth. It is the discretion of the court whether to admit an amicus brief (typically a shorter version of the report) or whether to act on an amicus report. As of now, the only report admitted by the court is that of the SIT which basically exonerates Modi of any wrong doings. also the report of amicus curie was part of the closure report filed by the SIT and SIT rejected the findings of amicus curiae . It would be misleading to write about amicus curiae report, that too in the lead. -sarvajna (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "legally binding"? The report of the SIT is also not "legally binding" - as in, the SIT cannot act on it, and the findings themselves do not have any legal authority. The SIT is just an investigation team appointed by the Supreme Court, and its report is just an investigation report, submitted to the Supreme Court. This is the same for the Amicus Curiae report: the Court appointed the Amicus Curiae to analyze the SIT investigation, and in addition, also go beyond that and conduct an independent assessment assessment of the entire evidence. It was always up to the court to decide whether to actually act on any portion of these reports. The Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme Court, and not by the SIT. The news report which says "SIT rejects" means SIT disagrees with the report - the usage is similar to reports saying "the BJP rejects the report" - it is the Supreme Court which the Amicus Curiae submitted the report to. The Supreme Court accepted both the reports (the full SIT report, including the independent assessment by the Amicus Curiae), and forwarded them to the magisterial court which was looking into the violence.

Including only the information about the SIT report would be misleading, since another official judicial report commissioned by the Supreme Court contradicted the findings of the SIT. The Amicus Curiae report should also be mentioned to provide a complete perspective. - Aurorion (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "legally binding" Well if you have read the source I provide you would know what I meant, the DNA column doesn't say that the court accepted the Amicus Curiae report, look at the source I provide also the Amicus Curiae report was part of the closure report of SIT submitted in the Ahmedabad metropolitan court. Amicus curiae is not a investigation authority like SIT, they just commented on the SIT report.Giving point-by-point answers to all observations made by the amicus curiae after investigating the charges, as directed by the Supreme Court, the SIT said: “The offences under the aforesaid sections of law are not made out against Mr. Modi.” I am giving you the source again so that you read it.[108].-sarvajna (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I did read the sources you provided, but still do not understand what you meant by "legally binding". You are right that the Amicus Curiae report is not "legally binding" - but the SIT report is not, either. It is just an investigation report based on which the court would take decisions. Investigation reports are not judicial judgements in themselves. Neither the SIT nor the Amicus Curiae is a judicial authority in that sense with the power of final judgement.

The Amicus Curiae was ordered by the Supreme Court to analyze and examine the SIT report: but as the source which I provided above says, its mandate was expanded by the SC to conduct an independent assessment of the entire evidence. So the Amicus Curiae did not just "comment on the SIT report" as you say.

After the Amicus Curiae submitted his report, the SC gave an opportunity to the SIT to revisit their own assessment and prepare a final report. The SIT stuck by their earlier stance, and disagreed with the Amicus Curiae.

But this does not mean that the Amicus Curiae report is rendered invalid. It was an official report ordered by, and submitted to, the Supreme Court. The Amicus Curiae's report disagreed with the SIT's findings, and the SIT later disagreed with the Amicus Curiae's. This doesn't mean either report ceases to exist or is cancelled.

I cannot find any sources saying that the Supreme Court rejected the Amicus Curiae report. The IBN report saying "as of now the only report admitted by the court is that of the SIT" (emphasis added) is probably outdated. In this this interview, the Amicus Curiae who submitted the report, Raju Ramachandran, says that the SIT is "required to place [his] report before the trial court". The DNA column says "the SIT and amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran later submitted their final reports before the Supreme Court and the court sent the matter to the magisterial court with instructions to decide on the whole matter." And the Hindu article you provided says that the Amicus Curiae report was included as part of the SIT closure report. If you have any sources which say that the Supreme Court (as opposed to the SIT "rejecting" claims in the Amicus Curiae report) rejected the Amicus Curiae report, please provide.

The Amicus Curiae report, being an official report ordered by the Supreme Court, is as relevant to this discussion as is the SIT report. Presenting only one side of this is misleading, I believe both sides need to be presented. - Aurorion (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aurorion kindly make your comments brief if possible, that would be very helpful. Your arguments are hollow and they do absolutely nothing other than consume a colossal amount of space. Read what Dharmadhyaksha is saying. You're not refuting his contentions, rather vehemently attacking strawman. You're synthesizing various sources to reach conclusion that is patently false. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And what is the conclusion that you think I am reaching, that is patently false? - Aurorion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)“Point-by-point answers to all observations made by the amicus curiae after investigating the charges” were given, as directed by the Supreme Court, the SIT said: “The offences under the aforesaid sections of law are not made out against Mr. Modi.”

The SIT also dismissed two “fax messages”, as “false and fabricated documents”, which were “claimed to have been sent by the suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who was then Deputy Commissioner in the State intelligence branch, to the Chief Minister and Minister of State for Home Gordhan Jhadafiya, with copies to the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner, the State police control room and others, alerting them about the developing communal situation.”^[109] (My emphasis) Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr T, if I dismiss your arguments, and provide "point-by-point answers" to all your points, and argue something against what you are saying, does it mean that we should automatically ignore all your arguments and points? You are quoting from the SIT report, which disagrees with the Amicus Curiae report. How does the SIT's observations affect the AC report? The Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme Court, not the SIT. Just because the SIT disagrees with the AC report doesn't mean that the AC report is nullified. - Aurorion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will try to keep my reply short, I never said that Amicus Curiae's report was rejected, the reports or the closure reports given to the magisterial court included the SIT and the Amicus Curiae, the court did observe that SIT gave Modi a clean chit(closure report also consisted of Amicus Curiae), can you provide any source where the courts made similar observations regarding just the Amicus Curiae report? Did any courts made observation regarding the Amicus Curiae's report and said that it should be considered instead of SIT or anything like that?. -sarvajna (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

saravajna, all I am saying is that the Amicus Curiae report is also an official report ordered by, and submitted to, the Supreme Court of India. It was widely covered by reliable sources, and there is no evidence that it was rejected or cancelled by any judicial authority. Just because the SIT disagreed with the Amicus Curiae, or it provided rebuttals to the AC's findings, the report cannot be ignored. I think the AC report is notable and relevant to this article, and hence deserves to be mentioned. Why do you say it would be "misleading" to write about it? Please explain. - Aurorion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aurorion, amicus curiae report does not have sufficient weight since it's not a parallel or independent re-investigation, but a review of evidence gathered by SIT and possible re-examination of witnesses.The SIT report is the culmination of a police investigation, where police are specialists in the process of gathering evidence the amicus brief is a legal opinion hence does not have the weight.Like I said above, the AC's report was not submitted to the lower courts independently, it was part of the closure report filed by the SIT, the AC report might have found the loop holes but the closure report which also included the AC report criticized the AC report. You say that there is no evidence that it was rejected but similarly can you give me any evidence where it is shown that it was accepted independently(where the court made observations) but not as a part of SIT closure report?.-sarvajna (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree that the AC report does not have "sufficient weight" since it's not a "re-investigation". I think any official report ordered by and submitted to the top court in the country carries a lot of weight. You are right that the AC report was not submitted to the lower court independently: but it was submitted to the Supreme Court independently by the AC, and there it was considered an independent and separate document. The Supreme Court did accept the AC report, and made observations and deliberated on it - please see this source. Note that the SC refers to the AC report as a separate independent report in its statements quoted in the source. The Supreme Court later ordered the SIT to submit a final report to the lower court and include the AC report as part of it: it was only in the lower courts where the AC report was attached as part of the SIT closure report. In my opinion, this does not diminish the status of the AC report as an official report commissioned by the Supreme Court. After all, the weight of the SIT report is not because it submitted a report to a lower court, it's primarily because it was appointed by the Supreme Court - the same is the case with the Amicus Curiae report. - Aurorion (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aurorion, you might be already knowing it, the SIT report and the AC report were both given to the SC, SC sent both back to the lower court. Now let us consider the source that you provided, the SC asked SIT to to examine the observations of the amicus curiae and if you see the other sources I provided above, it is mentioned that the SIT did examine and rejected the observations of the AC. Now it hardly matters what you consider, the AC report has been rendered useless with the closure report. Incorrect official reports need not be mentioned here. -sarvajna (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"the AC report has been rendered useless with the closure report": I strongly disagree with this statement. Official legal reports like this do not get "rendered useless" just because another report comes out later with different conclusions. If it was "rendered useless", why was it included in the closure report in the first place? It was included so that the trial court can examine it too when pronouncing its verdicts. Has any court (the Supreme Court, or the trial courts) ruled that the Amicus Curiae report has been "rendered useless", or is "incorrect"? Has any court ruled that the Amicus Curiae report is "cancelled"? The SIT is just an investigation team, it has no judicial authority to "render useless" any report. It can only argue in courts against the Amicus Curiae report, as it has done according to many media reports.

Also, has any court declared a final verdict on the SIT closure report? In January of this year, the Supreme Court restrained the trial court from giving a final verdict on the matter. As far as I know, neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court has yet given a final ruling on the matter - please correct me if I am wrong. Hence, the SIT closure report - and the Amicus Curiae report - are still sub-judice, the courts are yet to give a final verdict on the conclusions in the SIT report or the Amicus Curiae report.

Even after the court gives a ruling on the matter, and even if it is in favor of the SIT's observations, in my opinion the Amicus Curiae brief does not become obsolete. It would still be relevant and notable enough to warrant a mention in this article. But that's a discussion for later. - Aurorion (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, Aurorion. This has been said several times previously: a judge has acknowledged receipt of the SIT report but I can find no ruling on it and I can find no ruling on the AC one either. Acknowledgement of receipt and even publication of contents does not constitute judicial acceptance of the contents. Well, not to my knowledge anyway. This is why we have to word things very carefully and we should not assume that the SIT outcome is the be-all and end-all of this matter. Indeed, the SIT is now having to protest a petition that has been judicially allowed in the Jafri matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aurorion, I said that the AC report have been rendered useless as the closure report by SIT has rejected the ACs objections,it has become useless after the closure report. Yes, you are correct no final orders have been passed by any courts but courts did say that "According to SIT, no offence has been established", the courts did not say anything about the AC report, Sitush, you might know this, Zakia asked for another investigation from another body but she did not ask for the consideration of the AC report. The final report of the SIT which included the AC report has given Modi a clean chit, there is no other official report which says that Modi is guilty or anything like that, so there is no need to mention of AC report separately as it is part of SIT report. We will have to consider him innocent till proven guilty not the other way.-sarvajna (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"there is no need to mention of AC report separately as it is part of SIT report": Sorry, but I disagree with this. Even though the AC report was submitted to trial court only along with the SIT report, it was originally submitted to the Supreme Court - and there it was submitted as a separate, independent report. The Supreme Court itself ordered the Amicus Curiae to submit a report. I think that makes it a separate "official report" in its own right. I am not saying that we should consider Modi guilty - nobody should be considered guilty unless convicted by a court of law: however, I think that if the SIT report is mentioned as a Supreme Court-ordered report, the AC report should also be mentioned to provide the complete point of view. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not,the fact is that AC report was not submitted as an independent report in the metropolitan court, you know that very well, you also know that SC asked SIT to examine AC's observation which they did, till SC or some other court says that SIT's observation are wrong we need not mention it.Again, please I know very well that SC ordered AC to submit a report, please do not repeat it again.But you also know that SC asked SIT to examine AC's report which they did, why do you only stress what SC did in the beginning, why not what happened later?Later SIT rejected ACs report.As I said before SIT closure report consisted of the AC report and SIT report gave clean chit to Modi, that is what we need to write, AC's report was not submitted as an independent report. We have those source, all we need to mention that SIT gave him a clean chit, your insistence to mention the AC report in spite of all the sources which clearly says that AC report was rejected makes no sense.-sarvajna (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

sarvajna, I know that the AC report was not submitted as an independent report in the metropolitan court: but again, the fact that it was submitted as a separate independent report in the Supreme Court is relevant. We should mention all the facts. We can also mention that the Supreme Court directed the SIT to study the AC report and submit a final closure report along with the AC report in the trial court, and that the final closure report dismissed the AC's findings. Please note that the AC report has not been "rejected" by any competent judicial authority yet: the SIT's "rejection" just means disagreement and is legally irrelevant. (Same as the BJP's rejection of the AC report.) We should present all the facts, and not just one outdated version of it. So we should mention that the AC report submitted to the Supreme Court disagreed with the SIT's findings; but that the final closure report filed by the SIT in the trial court found no evidence to support filing criminal charges against Modi. We should also mention that the courts are yet to give a final verdict on the matter. - Aurorion (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Aurorion, thanks for your response.We are discussing about the lead here, the final status as of now is that the SIT rejected the AC's observation. When we write that Modi got clean chit, it should be mentioned that the investigating team gave him a clean chit in its closure report(which also had AC report). BJPs rejection has no weight what so ever here, probably BJP would reject anything that would go against Modi.All the details you mentioned above can go into the article of SIT and a wikilink can be provided. -sarvajna (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "although one minister of his administration has been convicted." - It doesn't warrant a mention in the lead because the lead is about Narendra Modi, not Maya Kodnani's biography, her conviction virtually has nothing to do with Narendra Modi, albeit some in the opposition are in the business of connecting distant dots and winging theories arbitrarily. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thats discussed at the start of this section j. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(k)

(l)

(m)

No issues hereAmit (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this sentence is needed here. There is no need for going in so details in lead section. Simply add a line at the end; after (n) something like Since 2001 having served four terms, he is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. All those days can go in the appropriate sections below. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree Dharma, but only in one condition that other redundant, conjectural stuff, that is there with the sole purpose to demonize a living politician, Modi, also gets excised from the lead along with it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(n)

No issues here eitherAmit (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• This line can be removed if the line (m) is changed as per my comment above. That way we merge his all four terms in single line. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Other additions proposed

Preferred version of the lead

Editing all those sections is a pain. So have put my preferred version here. The accusations against him have made him controversial, that he was accused is a fact, I don't think we need to put rebuttals in the lead. Also RSS is as much para-military as the Salvation Army is an army.

Narendra Damodardas Modi ( pronunciation (help·info); born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India. Modi belongs to the BJP. Modi has been a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh since his childhood. He first became Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2001 and has been in office since then having served four terms making him the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat.

During his first term the 2002 Gujarat violence took place. Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to protect its Muslim citizens during the riots. These events contributed to making Modi a controversial politician.

The state of Gujarat has seen a high index of economic development. as a result of Modi's business friendly policies and responsible administration.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ratnakar's version of the lead

Narendra Damodardas Modi ( pronunciation (help·info); born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India.
Modi is a key figure in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and was a central strategist in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns.In 2001 he became Chief Minister of Gujarat for the first time, being appainted to the office upon the resignation of his predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, following the defeat of BJP in by-elections.Since childhood, Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).He holds a master's degree in political science.
Modi's administration was also widely criticized for not doing enough to contain the 2002 Gujarat Violence,Subsequent reports by the Supreme court have found no reason to fault Modi in relation to the 2002 events.
As a result of Modi's business friendly policies, during his tenure the state of Gujarat has seen a high index of economic development, and the state has been branded as "Vibrant Gujarat". Having served four consecutive terms since 2001, he is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. Under his leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2012 State Assembly Elections and he was chosen to serve for a fourth term as chief minister.
Hindu Nationalist, para military can be found in the related articles of the BJP and RSS. We need to summarize the lead so I trimmed the whole thing about violence occured and also Maya Kodnani is not even mentioned in the body of the article, it is useless to mention about her in the lead. I am not sure about Moditva being added to the lead, I do not see that it can be fit anywhere in the body, I think we need to write about his economic policies and the fact that Gujarat has seen high index of economic development in the body.Also we are writing the lead here, the details about 2002 violence can be mentioned in that section.-sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366's version

Narendra Damodardas Modi (pronunciation^ⓘ; born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India. Modi was a key strategist for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the successful 1995 and 1998 Gujarat state election campaigns. He first became chief minister of Gujarat in October 2001, after the resignation of his predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, following the defeat of BJP in by-elections. Having served four consecutive terms since 2001, he is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. Under his leadership, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2012 State Assembly Elections and he was chosen to serve for a fourth term as chief minister. Modi is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Modi's business friendly policies have been accredited for the high index of economic development in Gujarat and the state has been branded as "Vibrant Gujarat". Modi has been at the centre of an enduring controversy following the accusations of both his involvement and connivance towards the rioters during 2002 Gujarat violence. However, the Supreme Court of India appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) reported to the court in December 2010 that they did not find any evidence to vindicate the accusation of Modi's involvement in the riots and subsequently no charges were brought against him.

[Suggestions about minor re-arrangements are all welcome]

References

RegentsPark version

I think all the above versions say too much for a lead. I'd prefer something simple and straight forward as below. Details are best left to the body.

Narendra Damodardas Modi' (pronunciation^ⓘ; born 17 September 1950) is the 14th and current Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in western India. Having served four consecutive terms since 2001 Modi, a member of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, is the longest serving Chief Minister of Gujarat. Modi is also a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right wing Hindu organization.

Modi is considered to be a pro-business leader and his policies are credited with the economic success of his state. However, his decisions following the Godhra train burning and continuing allegations relating to his role in the anti-Muslim 2002 Gujarat riots have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India. An influential figure in the BJP, Modi is a possible candidate for Prime Minister of India if his party wins the next general election.

Comments on RP's proposal

• ″I think all the above versions say too much for a lead″ - for the record, I don't.
• ″his decisions following the Godhra train burning [..] have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India.″ — Modi's decisions following the Godhra train burning did not automatically render him controversial; the controversy was triggered and stoked by the persistent accusation that there was "a conspiracy" in "a closed door meeting" to incite people to perpetrate violent acts of vengeance.

• ^[110]SIT counsel R S Jamuar said, "There is no truth behind complainant's claims that a conspiracy was hatched in a closed door meeting, between CM and other political leaders, held at Godhra circuit house on February 27, 2002 to handover dead bodies to VHP and send it to Ahmedabad," he added that "the bodies had to be brought to Ahmedabad, since many of them belonged to this district". Also that "decision was taken with consensus", it wasn't Modi's decision. Besides, "no substantive evidence has been found"[111] to support that he ever took the decision unilaterally. Thus, I believe my way of presenting the pertinent facts about his controversial-ness is more accurate. Let's put all the germane info in the body. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party" —— I don't support the "nationalist"-label instead of the descriptor major opposition party. BTW The Bharatiya Janata Party designates its official ideology and central philosophy to be "integral humanism"^[112]. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Mrt, as I've said before, Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots. But because a hefty chunk of the population continues to believe that he did. Sitting or standing reports have nothing to do with his being controversial. Getting into detailed reasons as to why he is controversial and whether he did or did not do bad things is not the purpose of the lead. The BJP is a nationalist party according to Wikipedia where the label seems to be well supported by references. We use reliable secondary sources to describe things, not party manifestos so saying "BJP, an integral humanist party" is completely out of the question. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots" - yes, thank you for acknowledging it. But your version frames "his decisions following the Godhra train burning" as the very reasons that "have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India." We should not lay it as an assertion in that way. We should make it crystal clear that Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots but the personal vilification and accusations he faced. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: (a)We don't need the qualifiers "nationalist" for BJP and "right wing Hindu organisation" for the RSS (b)We don't need "anti-Muslim" as a qualifier "Gujarat 2002". (c)I support MRT's statement that Modi is controversial not for what he did or didn't but for what the media/ and atrocity entrepreneurs trumpeted what he did, non of which has been proved in the court of law. Regarding "divisive" we should be careful in taking cognizance of the ground realities that Muslims see Modi as a harbinger of prosperity and a large majority amongst them voted for him in the 2012 elections. (Source: Kishwar and Uday Mahurkar (India Today)) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: A small lead section will end up giving undue weight to the "controversy" rather than the individual himself. The lead section should ideally be four paragraphs succinctly describing the life and work of an individual and "prominent controversies, if any" (see WP:LEAD). The addition of qualifiers is not justified in line with the manner other high quality articles have been consistently drafted. We don't see "right-wing" and "nationalist" appearing on other biographical pages. Also while, Modi is "considered" to be a pro-business leader, but certain "anti-Muslim" incidents "have made him controversial and divisive" is hardly NPOV even when we ignore the rather clever addition of one more subjective term "divisive" on the top of "controversial". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know about that. Both Marine Le Pen and her dad are identified as nationalist and right wing (and they do look "consistently drafted"). So is Udo Voight. If an organization is right wing or nationalist, what exactly is wrong with saying that? --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• regentspark proposes "However, his decisions following the Godhra train burning and continuing allegations relating to his role in the anti-Muslim 2002 Gujarat riots have made him a controversial and divisive figure in India.", but argues, "Modi is controversial not because of what he did or did not do during the riots. " The absurd and self-contradictory nature of his position is breathtaking. Besides that, this proposal is blatantly trying to smear Modi with the 2002 riots handle without making any effort to balance the allegation with SIT clean chit. To be neutral, it will have to mantion the SIT clean chit to Modi, and mention things like [113][114]. Trying to add negative material/allegations, without adding any counter, even when it is available, is a violation of NPOV. Moreover, BLPs are supposed to be written conservatively. But here, regentspark seems to be having an agenda of smearing Modi, and suppressing any counter related to the 2002 riots allegations. This proposal is extremely non neutral and particularly unsuitable for a BLP.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  I believe you're having comprehension difficulties. My position is entirely consistent. --regentspark (comment) 18:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the versions of Ratnakar and Mrt3366 are good enough......however, I feel that the rise of modi into the national politics needs a mention in the lead.also it shoiuld be mentioned that he enjoys super majority in home and also in the youth of the country....Maunus version seems to be completely pro-congress version and calling RSS a paramilitary organisations is completely unacceptable Strike Σagle 05:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The description "paramilitary" comes straight of the RSS wikipedia article where it is sourced. Also nothing "pro-congress" about it, being critical of Modi does not equate to being in favor of the congress party - in this case it just follows the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regentspark version seems clearly the most neutral and clear, neither promotional nor convicting him out of hand for the unproven accusations. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• ʍaunus version as first choice, RP's as first after further deliberation, ʍaunus version as second. this needs to be added to RP version however. Recovered files show Modi complicit in Gujarat pogrom Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  DS, there is going to be evidence that he deliberately incited people with his decisions following the train burning and that he supported the rioters. There will also be evidence that he was cleared of all personal involvement. That's why he is controversial and that's why we should leave details of either his culpability or innocence out of the lead and keep them in the body. If we start bringing one side or the other into the lead, we're going to have to include everything. This showed this but then there is that that showed that and however nonetheless etc. No place for that sort of thing in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 20:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but given the size of the article should there not be three paragraphs in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a bit short. We could move the last sentence into the next para adding stuff about his victory in 2007 and throw in his pol. sci degree if necessary (though that is mere fluff). My main concern is the attempt to establish guilt and innocence in the lead - he's too complicated for that. --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that, leave all the guilt stuff to the body then. If you add stuff re his 07 victory I have a line which needs to be added. I will change my vote to support your version as being most neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regent Park's version is the best one, not going to too much detail in the lead, and at the same time providing all necessary info.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think regentspark's lead falls somewhat short of the purpose of the lead to function as a stand alone summary of the article. I agree its fairly close to neutral, but it also isn't very informative at all. I would want to flesh it out a little to at least three full paragraphs.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Cautious support for RP proposal. I'd quibble some of the grammar but that is minor stuff. Please bear in mind that leads need to summarise articles and we really are putting the cart before the horse here. As the article (hopefully) gets fixed then we can probably justify an increased lead length. I am actually very tired of looking at the article in the state that I last saw it but I rather think that we do not mention the potential prime minister issue anywhere in the body. If so, then we need to sort that out asap if this proposal is to do its job. Various people had raised objections to including that info and, hey, that puts us back where I started: if it ain't in the body then it should not be in the lead. Of course, my opinion is that it should be in the body. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that there is a cart/horse issue here but I also think that that will work well for this article given the level of bickering that we're seeing. Sometimes the summary in the lead can point the way to what to include in the article. --regentspark (comment) 01:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• For length and style we might look at an article like Paul Kagame another controversial, living politician who has been involved in genocidal events, and whose article is in fact a Good Article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RP's version, provided, (a) we stick to, for now, a shortish lead and (b) the prime ministerial thing, as of now, is not included. This can be included once he is formally announce to be so. The BBC article and many others could provide support to contentious terms (controversial, nationalist etc). When mainstream world media, at current time, are using these terms, why do we fight?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 9 June 2013

With the Bhartiya Janta Party winning all the 4 seats in the Assembly by-elections its tally in the House has gone up from 115 to 119. This should be included. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.25.138 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

During BJP's national executive meet at Goa on 09 June 2013 Narendra modi has been appointed as BJP's chief of election campaign committee for general elections to be held in 2014. I request admins to make this edit here as per these [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] sources. Pls note, there are hundreds of reliable sources but unnecessary to mention all. Thanks. neo (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why this fact is not being included? I am reading below to include 'controversial' word for Modi. That word already exist in lead. No need to repeat that. neo (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)