Talk:Narendra Modi

Sandbox

As a young man, he joined the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, a student organisation and was involved in the anti-corruption Nav Nirman Movement. After working as a full-time organiser for the organisation, he was later nominated as its representative in the Bharatiya Janata Party. He holds a master's degree in political science from Gujarat University.

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 [1]

·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, [2], 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."[3] [4][5][6][7][8] 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 .[9] 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? [10] [11] 128.148.231.12 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

There is an attempt to mis-interpret sources and word the lead. For example Independent[12] writes: " Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat and a member of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, stands accused of failing to stop (and even of facilitating) the murder of hundreds of Muslims in an orgy of shuddering violence that took place in his state in the spring of 2002. Locally, Mr Modi, who has always denied the claims, did not let the allegations get in his way. Concentrating on development issues and reaching out to industry and business leaders both from home and abroad, he was twice re-elected to the state's most senior position. But at a national level, it appeared there was reverberating unease about the man and his hard-line "Hindutva" philosophy. When he was brought out to campaign in the 2009 general election, his impact was lacklustre and his national ambitions appeared dashed. But last week's announcement by the court may have changed that. The court had been asked to hear allegations concerning the killing of up to 70 people at the Gulbarg Society apartments in Ahmedabad. By sending the case back to a lower, local tribunal and by declining to name Mr Modi, the court deflated much of the potential controversy." (emphasis mine) So Modi is reported to have been accused of complicity, and that the court rubbished the allegations, yet why does this BLP inform "he was accused of facilitating murder". Therefore that has been removed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Hindu-Muslim riots in which over three times more Muslims were killed than Hindus" is a rubbish looking statement(providing ratio) in the lead.Every body is talking about riots but nobody consider Godhra train incident who were responsible for the ignition.It is discourtesy that every nationalist in India has been labeled as "Hindu Extremist".It is clearly written in the article that 790 muslims and 254 Hindus are killed.They were simply riots ignited by Godhra Train Massacre.It is better we should focus about his acheivements and developement policies in the article..---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider that the earlier version didn't mention Hindu deaths at all, it just mentioned Hindu massacres of Muslims or to the effect. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the 254 Hindu deaths includes Godhra deaths? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK that is only the post Godhra count, I might be wrong. --sarvajna (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well at least this says 254 hindus perished in post-Godhra. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So if we add Godhra deaths, three times is reasonably accurate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving the actual numbers will make it clear, "three times more" sounds very vague.-sarvajna (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happier with three times since this lead is about Modi and not the violence, yet if anyone replaces it with those statistics, I wouldn't oppose. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz removed the reference to inadequate handling of 2002 violence by Modi's government, saying it is wp:SYNTH, the text in the article quoted reads "While the State looked on, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and 223 more people were reported as missing in over four weeks of rioting." I have paraphrased it as "...it did not adequately strive to control Hindu-Muslim riots in which over three times more Muslims were killed than Hindus..." how is it SYNTHESIS? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious that your changes were of the pov variety, whitewashing stuff. The stats bit is only a part of the issue. Now let's concentrate on improving the body and then return to the lead that is intended to summarise it. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Blatantly obvious... pov, whitewashing stuff", fine, now where is the evidence to back those allegations? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In the diff and your own history, including IIRC comments by others at ANI. You have frequently exhibited POV when it comes to RSS/BJP-related issues, right back at least as far as your involvement in the maps controversy that you and the BJP were involved in. In this instance, you are trying to reduce the weight of what is arguably the defining image of Modi internationally. But, regardless, we can deal with the lead after we've sorted out the body: the statement that you changed had been there for some time without objection and it is at least as factually accurate as your replacement. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

May we have evidence? Secondly is there a RS that says only "this" is the defining image of Modi internationally? Or is it someone's fancy? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say only this, I said this. There can only be one defining image and I think that the US visa situation is among the many indicators. Modi has done much that appears to have enhanced, for example, the economy in his state but until practically every major analysis of him stops mentioning the violence, well, it is the common denominator from sources. As for the rest, I am not getting drawn into your usual pedantry, some of which in this instance might well take me along the road of "outing" you - I am not falling for it. Please just accept that leads summarise bodies, that the article body is still undergoing a fair amount of work and that the present statement in the lead is not factually inaccurate. You have been fighting to exclude or minimise non-favourable statements in this article from the outset, quite often with your somewhat tortuous interpretation of policy. You can do much good on Wikipedia, Yogesh, but perhaps need to consider voluntarily adding politics to the ban. If nothing else, you appear to have misinterpreted Redtigerxyz edit summary, which referred to whether the source mentioned criticism rather than whether the source gave the ratio that you inserted. Maybe ping Redtigerxyz and see if they are prepared to elaborate? - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you have really lost it. In your desire to make YK look bad you are calling his edits as POV pushing, if you look at his edits he wrote that Modi administration failed to control the riots.I am not saying that it was correct or wrong but it was not some pro-Modi POV pushing even a child can say that.When he asks for evidence you go into the history, so you are using his history to justify your reverts today? --sarvajna (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The statistical detail is unnecessary in the lead and can give the appearance of fomenting Hindu-Muslim antipathy, which is a common ploy of the BJP's Hindu nationalist strategy and indeed was a claim in the controversy. Even if statistically correct (and those numbers appear not to be the only figures doing the rounds), it is best dealt with in the body. Yogesh and I can get along just fine, and have done, provided that he keeps away from issues relating to nationalism and colonialism. A similar situation arose with Zuggernaut, who was topic banned etc long before my involvement but persisted in nibbling at the edges. I could invoke Yogesh's topic ban here, since the riots are technically history, but I think that would be somewhat unfair.

Best to see if Redtigerxyz is prepared to comment further and, once again, the lead should reflect the body. Let's not put the cart before the horse. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I would never oppose the removal of the statistics from the lead although I had opposed YK's inclusion of "three time more" and supported the inclusion of actual numbers. I do not think that Wikipedia cares about Hindu-Muslim antipathy(if it really care then let us delete all the articles which would forment Hindu-Muslim antipathy and portray that India is a Utopia) , it is the fact that people were killed. How you came to the conclusion that mentioning the numbers in the body but not in lead would reduce the Hindu-Muslim antipathy is beyond me also the assuming that YK is trying to foster Hindu-Muslim antipathy(by writing something that even Modi would not be comfortable with) is a breach of WP:AGF. I still do not understand your accusation of whitewashing, he tried to include extra things not cover anything -sarvajna (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Perhaps even WP:PACT. Do you agree that the lead as currently worded is accurate? - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with the lead now, I did not see anything wrong with YK's version either just that I would have preferred numbers instead of "three times more"(oops now you would think that I am trying to foster Hindu-Muslim antipathy, how can one stop you from imagining crap ?). I would not liked to be dragged into you wikilawyering, if you reverted YK on the basis of WP:DUE, WP:LEAD it is ok, there was nothing POV in giving the statistics when you are already mentioning the event, you are only imagining stuff. with all due respect I must say you are ill equipped to comment on BJP’s strategy, leave aside the riots they are not even speaking about Ram temple these days and BJP would never want any direct links to riots. I would like to end this discussion from my end unless there is something about the article -sarvajna (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: As Sarvajna mentioned above, there is little that one can do about anyone who keeps tilting at windmills, you are misusing the talk page that should be used specifically to discuss how to improve the article. Please stick to the point. If there is wp:SYNTHESIS like Redtigerxyz said there was, kindly demonstrate how as I've asked Redtigerxyz to do the same. @Sarvajna, it is better if the lead which is a summary carries approximations like "over three times" and not exact figures, however if the consensus for statistics well so be it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference [13] only talks about "790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed" and US criticism. How does it support the prime reason for criticism being the specifics in the sentence? There are many "reasons" cited: anti-Muslim bias, deliberate inaction, negligent inaction etc. The last para was discussed at Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_2#POV_Lead_Section in 2012. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The text in the article quoted reads "While the State looked on, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and 223 more people were reported as missing in over four weeks of rioting." I have paraphrased it as "...it did not adequately strive to control Hindu-Muslim riots in which over three times more Muslims were killed than Hindus..." how is it SYNTHESIS? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Add the count in the main article. No objection. My objection is the particularly (prime reason of criticism) in the sentence, which the article does not say. Also "both within India and internationally" is not covered. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to present the offensive statement and then suggest what you would prefer pl. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Personality --> Early Life

Should we merge the content of personality to Early life section? Personality right now has only two to three sentences and while going through Nixon's article too I found that his traits were mentioned in Early life section only. I am ready to expand his personality section, but it would be more apt to have it in Early life. Your opinion please? Thanks. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How can "He wears business suits to business meetings" be a part of early life as it is a recent change in his personality. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming chaotic. It would be helpful if people could read the prior recent discussions on this page before diving in. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

is the the POV tag still required? --sarvajna (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, till concerns about the personality section are not addressed. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you wish to be added or removed from there, please present a draft. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For an article concerning such a controversial person, it is highly likely that the tag will always be required. Certainly, at least, until a couple of years after death. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was so controversial that her death was widely celebrated as the death of a witch.[14] Yet her article doesn't carry a POV tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to say that the tag is required till the death, is there any such policy? CK, can you let us know your concern about the personality section? Also I don't see any POV issues in that section so why a POV tag ? --sarvajna (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Whats POVy in the personality section?

Modi is a vegetarian[8] He is known for leading a frugal lifestyle. He has a personal staff of three. He is known to be a workaholic and an introvert.[9] He is a crowd puller as a speaker. Modi wears "business suits to business meetings".

Only possible line i see which you might be referring to as POV is the "crowd puller" one. Am i right? In that case, will presenting references of how many people attended his various speeches work? If we are able to prove that vast numbers were present in multiple of his programmes, can the line stay as a short one liner summary? (Maybe rephrased if need be. Will search and provide the numbers only if its going to be acceptable. Or else no point in bothering.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, see WP:OSE; Sarvajna, I didn't say it was policy. Strawmen, both. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush you can wikilawyer till the sun goes down. Quote a policy that states that a controversial person's article always carries a POV tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I never said that you were referring to some policy, I was only questioning your rationale behind your statement. I know very well that you have mastered all the policies and if there is no such policy to keep the tag till the person dies then let us list the POV issues that we see.Dharmadhyaksha you may be right but I am not sure. A quick search will show that huge crowds had gathered during his recent rallies in Kerala, Bangalore and other places. Let us wait for CKs response.-sarvajna (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Hindustan Times made album of his recent rallies and titled it "Crowd puller Modi". They also wrote in April 2013 that "Modi proves biggest crowd-puller for beleaguered BJP". The Hindu says "Modi, Waghela crowd-pullers" in 2002. In 2011, Deccan Herald reports "Vaghela no match for crowd-puller Modi". These are exact quotes. If need be, i can work on my above mentioned proposal of collecting figures also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Most big-name politicians pull big crowds - it goes with the territory, especially since many are party faithful & are roistered to attend. It would be like saying Justin Bieber is a crowd-puller - fans will do what fans will do. I really do not see the significance of it unless, for example, he also has a reputation as a demagogue (no idea if he does or not). - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all big-name politicians pull crowds. Sonia didn't. But i agree with your point on how territory matters. I was also thinking of revamping the section to call it as "Personality and image". Then you include stuff about his personality and what he is in the eyes of media, general public, other politicians (of his and other parties), etc. There we can include how he has been crowd puller in territories of Gujarat, Karnataka and other places. He also gets good amount of audience when he speaks of business. A 2K capacity auditorium had 7K people in Mumbai. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me but I am not clear on the territory thing, so if his rally in manipur would bring huge crowd would we add to that list? -sarvajna (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Something like that. We have to mention only those regions/states where he actually gathered crowd. For example if he doesnt get any in TN, we can't write he is a crowd puller in general in India. If you see the Sonia's article that i linked above, they also have been cautious by commenting only about Congress' condition in Karnataka and not overall India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that he has pulled crowd wherever he has gone (I have not seen any reports that say that he did not), may be we can keep it simple and say that he has pulled crowd at most of the places he visited, we can correct it later when he doesn't pull the crowd in future. -sarvajna (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers etc do not report non-news. While "Man bites dog" is news, "Dog bites man" is not. Reporting that a crowd did not turn up to listen to a senior politician is an extremely rare event. In fact, I cannot recall it ever happening. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the POV tag itself is concerned, I've just found and neutralised some more. Given that and the thread that has just started below, the tag would appear still to be valid. This thread can therefore be closed for at least another couple of months and, honestly, I suspect for a much longer time. Even the headers to this talk page indicate the possibility of pov. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• The POV tag continues to be necessary untill Ratnakar understands that the lead needs to summarize the content of the article AND give an overview of what makes Modi significant and controversial. This requires that the lead describe the allegations against him and the fact that they have not been substantiated. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

POV tag is not required just because you think that everything about the 2002 violence needs to be in the lead and the fact the allegations have not been substantiated gives a better reason why it should not be in lead. There is enough reference to the violence in the lead, we need not stuff everything in the lead. -sarvajna (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, there is a mention in the lead of the violence but no mention of why the violence has any relation to the topic of the article. That is just stupid and uninformative.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also POV tag is not for such content disputes, POV tag is required for neutrality.-sarvajna (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

POV tags are for POV disputes, and this is a POV dispute because you and a couple of other editors are chronically averse to mentioning anything vaguely critical of Modi in the leadin spite of the fact that it is mentioned in the article and in most of the reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this and wonder whether it might be better to pass the issue on to WP:BLPNB or whatever the heck the acronym is. I doubt that we are going to get any agreement here even if/when the other regulars appear, and as it is a BLP we do need to be careful. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I started a thread there about a month ago and it received no responses. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go to attract outside attention to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at BLPN -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. If it gets nowhere, as previously, then I think the RfC suggestion is the best course. We could try WP:DRN but I've found that venue to be not very useful for India-related stuff. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 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)

Sting Operation

Editor Manus is making some edits about the sting operation. First he says that the grammer is not correct which might be the case however now it looks like its just the critics are against the Sting operation and its only cricts who object to these sting operations. He goes one step forward in his mischief here by writing The tapes have been authenticated by the Central Bureau of Investigation...Nonetheless, critics have pointed out several inaccuracies in the statements. we need to understand that no one has objected that the tapes were not authentic, second the source doesn't say that critics have picked up loopholes in the sting operation, it is the fact the the statements made by people in the sting operation had inaccuracies. -sarvajna (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not about being against the sting operation it is about whether the statements in the recording are true or not. It makes no sense to say that the operation is put into question. Noone has "picked up loopholes in the sting operation" - bevause that is nonsencical: operations dont have loopholes - statements in the recordings resulting from the operation have inaccuracies. No one questions whether the operation happened, no one questions whether the people in the recordings actually said what they are recorded as saying, what is questioned is whether what they say is true. And only the people who do not believe that the statements about Modi are true are using the presence of other inaccuracies to cast doubt on the veracity of the statements about Modi.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, no one is questioning the operation, there are inaccuracies in the statements made by the people who were filmed, like I said you have given a whole new meaning with your edits. The fact is that there were inaccuracies in the statements made by the people who were filmed and enough reasons are given about why they were inaccurate. I hope you understand the concerns and correct accordingly. -sarvajna (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording I change said that "the operation was being questioned" which was why I changed it. Please do read what people write beforte you start making nonsense arguments wasting everybodys time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In your zeal to correct the grammer you have given a whole new meaning to what was written, it is not some critics who are questioning the inaccuracies. It is a fact that there were inaccurate statements made by people. That is all needas to be written not a big saga about the sting operation. -sarvajna (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There WAS no meaning to what was written. And you apparently dont understand what is written now, because it does not say that only critics are questioning the inaccuracies, it says that critics have pointed them out. I didnt put in the saga about the sting operation, obvioulsy some MOdi supporter thopught it was very important to write in detail the three inaccuracies that have been found in the tape instead of the actuall allegations against Modi. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have edited it, I feel that we do not need info about whether the Sting were authentic or not, there is no mention about the Sting being fake, also I have removed the stetement about SIT not considering the sting, this is only increase the length of the section as we will have to get into details about why the sting was not considered. Like Manus said which I very much agree there were inaccuracies in the statements made, the sting operation itself is not inaccrate. -sarvajna (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've not really looked into the underlying issue, although Maunus is definitely correct that the wording made little sense (there has been a lot of this recently). I've reverted you purely because you were weaseling. Perhaps you can find another way to phrase it? - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Deputed

We say "The RSS deputed Modi to the BJP in 1987", which is virtually a copyvio of the source, which also uses the "deputed" word. But what does it mean? According to the Oxford, it means "appoint", "instruct" or "delegate" in both [British & US English. Various thesauri give a whole range of synonyms, depending on context - eg: see this. I know that the RSS and BJP are closely connected and in a broad sense share a similarity with the IRA & Sinn Fein, but what sense of the word did the source mean here? Did the RSS appoint him to the BJP (sort of, parachute him in there); did they tell to him go; did they second him; or what? It is a dreadful choice of word and we are repeating it. Can we find a source that says the same thing but with greater precision? - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And who moved him to Delhi to be General Secretary? The RSS, state BJP or national BJP? There are holes all over this thing. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush good catch I must say, this is one of the reason why people who are not familiar with Indian politics and who do not take sentences for granted should review articles. RSS deputed Modi to BJP means that RSS backed Modi's entry into the BJP(second would be the word from the choices that you have given above but there would be no legal paperwork), it is the best way to gain significance in BJP. The national BJP appoited him a general secretary, the national BJP has powers to appoint general secretary, VPs etc. -sarvajna (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what peer reviews should be about, although it is not exactly what I am doing. However, I think that I've messed up my explanation. There are many definitions of "second" - examples are time, finishing position (in a race etc), support nomination (in an election etc) ... and "loan out". The last one is the one I meant (and is pronounced differently - sek-OND, with the emphasis on the last syllable) but I think you might mean the third one. Bloody confusing, is the English language! Are there sources that we can use to sort this out? I know that a lot of his pre-CM history is pretty vague and often contradictory. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking about the RSS supporting his nomination, like I said it would be impossible to get any RS which would say that RSS supported his nomination as RSS would not give it in written about the support. RSS do not own any person so they cannot loan out anyone, once you are part of BJP you loose all the official powers in RSS. Another close example can be Nitin Gadkari, who was a RSS nominee for the post of party president. -sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I may have opened a can of worms here/ Unless we can sort out some decent, unambiguous sourcing I suspect that we will have to remove the statement - I don't see much point in turning it into a quote when it is so vague. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can keep it simple by saying that Modi joined BJP in 1987, we cannot skip this part I assume. -sarvajna (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we cannot skip it but the RSS-BJP relationship might be considered significant and thus the manner of joining the BJP. I'm still fiddling with minor stuff but am checking the occasional source as I wander around. Phadnis does mention the joining but I'll see what else we have. Or someone can do the same. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This source suggest secondment (which is loaning someone). I tend to think that secondment is what happened because, as far as I can determine, he is still a member of the RSS even though perhaps not an official. We already use the source in the article. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is the same source that is already being used in the article.-sarvajna (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the source using "deputed" is a ToI one. I've long argued that the ToI has gone downhill with its standards of writing in recent years and this is a classic example of it. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I had seen the General Secretary source, so what do you propose? -sarvajna (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that until/if ever something better comes along, we would be best adding the Frontline citation to the "deputed" statement and changing the word from "deputed" to "seconded". Doing this (a) avoids copyvio of either source and (b) allows us to retain the sourced date. I'm not usually keen on having multiple cites for simple statements but right now I can see no alternative. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

sounds good for me. -sarvajna (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but I've forgotten how to link to the Wiktionary definition directly and our Secondment article is trying to take us there. We have a template, I think. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Template:Cue -
  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)
• 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)

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)

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: [15], [16] 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.

• [17]

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?

• [18]

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[19] 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, [20] 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] [21] 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

[22], [23], [24], [25] (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,[26] that resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.[27]	In, 2002, widespread communal violence involving clashes between Hindus and Muslims occurred in Guajart following the Godhra train burning[28] 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

[29] 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: [30]

"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."

[31]

"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)

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,[32] that resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.[33]

In, 2002, widespread communal violence involving clashes between Hindus and Muslims occurred in Guajart following the Godhra train burning[34]. 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)

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)

Sitush do not move/delete my comments without my consent

Sitush do not move my comments without my consent. [35], [36], [37] ..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."^[38]

The primary form of allegations made out against the Government of Gujarat were those of inaction. This report^[39] 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.^[40]
• 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)

Lead, again

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

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

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

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

Gibberish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrt, the recent change that you have made^[41] did not help at all. Can I ask you to step back from the page for 24 hours and concentrate on the talk page discussions instead? The aim of this exercise is not for the short-term victory, but a longer term resolution for a stable version. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Citing sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV9

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

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

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

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

Burned to death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHRC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

In this edit,^[42] Sitush adds "[...] that occurred in 2002" at the end of the sentence. Is that necessary? The section is called "2002 Gujarat violence". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My position

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

Soham321's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the section pending discussion on the talk page. Soham321 has a history of being warned on their talk page on several occasions by multiple editors. I have left them a note on their talk page as well – [43]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Lead and the "controversial" Modi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not sure if I follow your comment on dragging other stuff. You did leave a rather strong opinion on Modi's 'polarizing' nature above apart from insisting that a descriptive term such as "controversial" be inserted in the opening sentence of the lede. Hence I felt the necessity of reminding our editors as to how high-quality biographies are drafted on our project. The sources you quote above are primarily opinion editorials which say that he was accused of so and so. There were several accusations thrown around in the aftermath of the post-Godhra violence at individuals within the administration (most notably his home minister Gordhan Zadaphia, Ashok Bhatt and several others) and outside of it. Since this article is about the head of the government during the time of the violence, it is relevant to point out that it was the entire administration (and him, by extension) who were accused of 'not doing enough'. Please see this BBC report for an accurate description on where and how the criticism came about.^[44] More sources are available here – CNN,^[45] the Hindu,^[46], Time Magazine news report,^[47], Human Rights Watch (primary)^[48] etc. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, he is criticized, not his administration. Moving the criticism to the administration is unwarranted because the sources don't do that. See the two sources listed and see also ([49] Many Indians are still appalled over his alleged inaction or complicity in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which killed 1,000 people, most of them minority Muslims. (Note, I'll discuss "controversial" separately.) --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The media has an adversarial perspective on Modi [50]. Whatever negative things the media says about Modi needs to be taken with a pound of salt. besides, his present image is not that controversial. We need not emphasize obsolete things, even if it be correct in your opinion. See This image of Modi — the triumphant technocrat — has overtaken that of Modi the Hindu ultra-nationalist.. I see no reason to write an obsolete article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" [51]
• " Narendra Modi, the controversial leader of Gujarat’s government" [52]
• "Narendra Modi, the controversial chief minister of Gujarat" [53]
• "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" [54]
• Gujarat's controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi [55]
• "but the legacy of the Gujarat riots has also made him one of India’s most controversial and divisive politicians." [56]
• "the state’s controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi" [57]
• "Narendra Modi, arguably India’s most controversial major political figure" [58]
• "Gujarat’s controversial chief minister, Narendra Modi, unfurled his definition of secularism" [59]

--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:^[60]

"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. [61]: 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?"[62] - 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.^[63]

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.^[64] — 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.^[65][66] 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)

@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)

Confrontation with Election Commission

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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)

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. [67]
• This shows that the EC decided to delay the election [68]
• These say that Modi alleged a christian bias in delaying the election [69], [70]
• This shows the SC upholding the delay. [71]
• This shows that the EC considered Modi's remarks derogatory and considered taking action. [72]

--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)

Development in Gujarat?

Heres a source you can use: [73].128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Who funds Modis campaign on social media?[74]128.148.231.12 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

RSS and BJP

Most non-Indian readers dont know what BJP or RSS are and are not helped by spelling out their names in Hindi. The lead does not describe either of the organizations' viewpoints and the lead gives no other information about Modis piolitical stance. It doesn't mention Hindu nationalism, Hindutva or Moditva (as his brand of Chauvinist anti-Muslim hindu-Nationalism is called by some according to this source[75] which is already used in the article). One can in fact read the Lead (which is supposed to summarize the article) and not know anything about Modis political stances. He is a politician isn't he? Presumably his politics matter.128.148.231.12 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

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

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes obviously the only reason one would include critical information about a politician who has been accused of participation in genocide would be political bias in favor of Sonia Gandhi. You are quite a joker. Also, sign your posts.68.9.182.96 (talk) 19:25, 23 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.[76]" 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) 19:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Page Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits/Changes proposed by 128.148.231.12

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

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