Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

NPOV

The article as it is now is not Neutral as it does not give any hint of the fact that Modi and the party he represents is on the Right Wing of indian politics, nor much less give a explanation, analysis or critique of the viewpoints of the Hindu Nationalist Right. This is is mentioned in a huge amount of sources that need to be represented in the article. The Gujarat violence is mentioned vaguely without in any way describing how Modis involvement has been criticized. It says that he has refused to apologize, but gives no hint about what he has been asked to apologize about. It doesn't mention the rather substantial evidence that exists for his involvement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what is wrong with the article. We would all appreciate if you could provide your input on the talk page first as to how you would like to specifically address each and every issue on the article. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I am specific enough here, and I am pointing this out on the talk page, and no I dont need to do that before editing the article. And who exactly are the "we" you are talkng about? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Modi represents BJP, it is made very clear in the very first line. You can check the article of Rahul Gandhi or Manmohan Singh or may be Atal Bihar Vajpayee, we do not write anything of that kind which you are saying. What kind of party the BJP is or its agenda should be part of BJP's article not this article. This is not some forum to discuss the critical viewpoints of Hindu Nationalists. Have you even read the article?? 2002 Riots is one of the biggest section in the whole article. A lot has been covered and not to forget he was exonerated by the law and as a matter of fact the section of 2002 Riots needs some culling. Again wikipedia is not a forum to discuss 2002 riots.--sarvajna (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to discuss the riots, and I am not using this page as a forum - please stop wikilawyering and address the substance of my concerns. I am pointing out what is abundantly clear - namely that this page has a couple of owners who wants to keep mention of actual descriptions of politics out of the biography of a politician who is running for office, and who are using spurious argumentation to do so. I have referred this issue to the NPOV note board to request outside comments. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns in my comment, I just checked you comment on NPOVNB. I do not see any specific concerns made by you there as well just some general thing. I am removing the NPOV tag. There is no ownership problems here, only your edits did not make any sense.Proper explanation was provided to you. --sarvajna (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are umpteen POV issues with this article and there have been for some time. Some are mentioned in prior discussions, some are visible at various user talk pages (not ideal, I know). This article has been "softened up" over the last few months. Sure, it was not particularly good in the first place but I for one had made attempts some months ago to tidy things, to sort out citations, to remove undue content and add under-represented content, etc. I left it alone for a bit, came back and the thing had begun a process practically of being sanitised. We know Modi is clever with PR and with the use of IT: don't let us allow him or his supporters to manipulate Wikipedia to suit those ends, please. The man has a very chequered history but is considered to be a possible future head of India and is positioning himself as such. We need to cover all aspects of the person with equal weight and neutraliy etc. For example, there have been several recent removals of perfectly valid, sourced content where the objection has been really regarding placement - if something is in the wrong place then move it, amend it to suit if necessary but don't delete it. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, everyone has their biases and political affiliations. Let us not bring that into discussion, lest you want others to question your motivations. It is possible to edit this article in a manner that complies with Wikipedia's NPOV requirements. If you think this article has been "sanitized", please feel free to specifically address the most important issues on the article over here so we can consensually find a solution for improving this biography. The end result should be an encyclopedic article, not something found in a tabloid. Thanks, — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is rapidly becoming a tabloid. If anyone wants to question my motivations then feel free: as an atheist, apolitical, non-Indian, I really do not have much to play for here, do I? I've never even heard Modi speak or read a speech by him, nor indeed have I ever seen him in a video/on film. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion was not ended by me but because of your lack of participation, the rational behind deletion was very much explained, I am not sure what what you mean when you say that the article was sanitised, you need to be more specific about it. If there are any POV issues then they are the excessive importance given to 2002 riots which I do not see you making any mention. Keep your personal opinion about Modi with yourself. --sarvajna (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment above, Sitush. I understand your concerns too (just saw your email). On the other hand, I also agree that there is UNDUE weight being given to certain sections such as "2002 Gujarat violence" and "Google+ hangout", and issues such as these have to be addressed thoughtfully. I think it is possible for us all to work together to write an NPOV article by working together. We can, hopefully, start off with the section on his early life and work on expanding it. We can move on to the other sections later on. We can always use other well-written articles on politicians as a reference for our work on this page (e.g. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush etc.). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, start at the top; leave the lead until last because that is intended to summarise the article. When we get to the Gujarat section, stuff is going to hit the fan because it is far and away the thing that Modi is most known for, like it or not - as one of the sources says, many of his enemies compare him to Hitler and other such characters. But let's do the easy stuff first ... and the Early life section is very poorly written. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely portions where a broader viewpoint is necessary for NPOV to be maintained. For eg: the Sadbhavana Mission was widely seen to be Modi projecting himself as a prime-ministerial candidate, yet what we have here is propaganda: "a three-day fast aimed at strengthening the atmosphere of peace, unity, and harmony in the state". There's also the fact that we have happily printed here his dubious claim that because of his diplomacy, "Chinese Government released 13 diamond traders from India jailed by the Shenzhen Customs".

Yet strangely, there's little about his achievements in governance and development, which is the main thing he and his fans are proud of. On the other hand, excessive importance is given to his comments in combating terrorism.—indopug (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is biased....Under awards section there is mention about the times magazine and the authour made a violation of the neutrality by just including His leadership was described as being strong and businesslike; one that could guide India towards honesty and efficiency where as the original issue features Modi, with the caption: "Modi means business but can he lead India? Also the original article describes Modi as a "controversial, ambitious and shrewd politician". The source which is mentioned in wiki itslf says soShivramkrishnareddy (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that is why the article wears the "controversy" remark on its sleeve. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

It appears that we will have to decide which image is more suitable to be in the infobox. Currently, we have two free versions of the image available with us and I have linked to them below. I think the previous image with the Swami Vivekananda background is more suitable since it is available in a higher resolution and was taken while he was speaking in a public place. The current image, on the other hand, is of low quality, taken indoors with another individual in the background. I recommend that the previous image be restored.

• 
• 

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree --sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Vivekananda image also has the Swami in the background. :) I moved to the body of the article as it can be used to show that SV was his inspiration.

But you're right about the current infobox image being of low quality. I think the best solution is to trim ABD 0165 into a portrait crop. In the article body, we can use the uncropped version.—indopug (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Beware of subliminal influences, which is what happens when Vivekananda is shown. ABD is dreadfully washed-out on my screen but, hey, maybe my eyesight is getting a bad as my hearing. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The practice on Wikipedia is to allow the subject of BLPs to be represented in the best possible manner in pictorial representations. This is easily applicable to BLPs on US politicians since their images are available in the public domain on a government website. e.g. File:Rand Paul, official portrait, 112th Congress alternate.jpg (notice the flags in the background) or File:Garyjohnsonphoto - modified.jpg (where his campaign manager submitted the image). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the practice is. I am also aware of WP:POV. Sticking an image of Modi with Swami Vivekananda in the background, particularly when elections are coming up, is a subliminal reference. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indopug, if the washed-out version can be cropped then that resolves the Vivekananda issue (although it will still be washed-out). However, we do not use images twice in the same article and thus the suggestion of using an uncropped version in the body seems wrong to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to images and Wikipedia does not concern itself with elections. For now, I think, we agree that the current image is not suitable. The proposed image (ABD) was taken in a public place where the subject of the article was fully expecting himself to be photographed with the specific background. This should be sufficient rationale for us to accept the image as is, and wait until we have a better image available for use with us. We can also consider writing to his office to see if they can present us with a shot of their preference. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, of which images form a part. And where did you get the idea that I agree that the current image is not suitable? Or were you referring to the consensus when you said "we"? - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have presented you with examples, yet you are pointing me to a non-existent Wikipedia decree against use of "subliminal" messaging in pictures. Perhaps you should consider that the reason why the article is in the current situation is because of biased editing on both sides, rather than simply being the case with your opponents? There are three people above saying that the current image is of low quality, with Indopug additionally suggesting cropping the proposed image. That makes 3-1. In any case, I reiterate, NPOV does not apply to images, and subjects of biographies are given leeway in being represented in the best possible manner, which is why even though there are several high resolution and good quality and free images available for so many US politicians, the ones that are used are those determined by their offices. We do not have the luxury in our case, however, we do have an image available with us of the subject with a preferred background of their choice. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

May be it is POV because Sitush thinks that it is, well I wonder who is showing WP:OWN attitude here. --sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have opponents here - how many times do I have to say that I have no investment in this. I am merely saying that there is a subliminal message there and we should avoid it if we can: "beware" is not the same as "do not use it". If you were referring to consensus then that's fine; if you were referring to me then it is not - I think that it is a washed-out image. I have no idea what other images may be available for Modi - as I implied earlier, I've never seen the man except in this article.- Sitush (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I tell a lie: I've seen photos of him in the sources that are used but, of course, they are copyrighted so I've paid no attention. I really wouldn't recognise him if he walked past me in the street. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is any message to be honest I never thought about that until now let there be one, it is a good quality pic. --sarvajna (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No surprise there, then. That is why I used the word subliminal. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the image until a better version can be found. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall a facility somewhere for requesting images. Or was that just the tag that can be put near the top of article talk pages? - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was just the template for article pages. I will write to his office and see if they respond with a few relevant images for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cropped the ABD image in the infobox into a portrait (you might need to purge your cache to see the new version), because the point of an infobox image is to easily identify the subject. In the article body I've added a different image of Modi with Vivekananda in the background. I hope this addresses all concerns.—indopug (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Do not crop images. Upload a separate one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fixed.—indopug (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Indopug, that is not what was agreed and you couldn't just add photos on your will by giving underline notes without proper source. Please remove the second photo as you are trying to convey subliminal message there and we should avoid it if we canShivramkrishnareddy (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Personality sub-section

What is the point of He is a crowd puller as a speaker. Modi wears "business suits to business meetings". There may be some useful information in the cited source but I', pretty sure it is not this pair of inanities. Most senior politicians, and especially those who utilise their skills in demagoguery, are "crowd-pullers". As for suits, well, I'd be surprised if he turned up in swimming-trunks for a business meeting. It is the exception that would be of interest, the classic example of which is perhaps Gandhi's tour of the mill-towns of northern England. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the good laugh I had at your comment, am still shaking as I'm typing it, actually I think NYT means that though Modi wears Indian clothes most of the times he's started to wear "business suits to business meetings". (P. Chidambaram for that matter wears white lungi and bush shirt many times. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about the crowd puller thing but the business suits thing can/should be removed --sarvajna (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone of note who is connected to the RSS/BJP pulls big crowds - they are corralled in there if necessary. The same applies to most political rallies worldwide. It is inane. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The personality section should not be a part of "Early life". We can work on that later. For now, if possible, let us please collect all available sources for us on the subject over here so we can analyze and comment on them. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is a part of "Early life", although I've long said that it should not be. I'll promote it now and maybe later we'll move it to where it should be, which is almost certainly not at the top end of the article. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: The suits info makes sense when read after "is known for leading a frugal lifestyle". For the "crowd-puller", the actual line in the reference is "With national elections under way, Mr. Modi is the biggest crowd-puller for India’s main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party." Using a superlative degree within a stated category makes sense, as is done in the original source. A random crowd-puller with no comparison as is in our article makes little sense. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the source is 4 years old, so although I presume that he still is the biggest crowd-puller for the BJP it might not be the right thing to say. As for frugal lifestyles, I take such things with a pinch of salt. Harold Wilson famously smoked a pipe and drank beer in public so that he gave the appearance of being a common man, but in private he was a brandy-drinking cigar smoker. He is not the only example, and we already know that Modi is image-conscious (like most politicians, I hasten to add). This is a part of the problem: how do we reflect information that seems mostly to emanate from Modi himself without descending into weasel wording. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... You may actually remove the crowd-puller bit for (i) it being quite old (though it still could be true) and (ii) it most probably being a general statement made by a not-so-notable reporter. Had the statement been made by any politician (preferably non-BJP) or some reputed reporter or columnist, etc. then it could go in as a quote. For the dressing, one may rephrase that "Modi is often seen in khadi and traditional Indian clothes but also wears business suits to business meetings." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says 'He is a complete loner' , 'Prefers to eat alone ', 'Entertains no relatives: Even his mother does not stay with him' ,'Is only good at mass interactions ','Is obsessed with his public image' and is a 'workaholic . But the authour has taken only the fact that he is 'workaholic' . The entire section need to be removed Shivramkrishnareddy (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very tendentious use of the source indeed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Early life section: discussion

• The Rediff source says that his family were "grocers"; the next source, which refers to his parents' names and regarding which we have actually breached copyright, goes into much more detail. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• We really should not be using his official website for things such as During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations. For those in doubt, have a read of the biographical sections there: they are very self-serving. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Aren't they just simple facts or do you consider them tall claims, the former we can use from websites attached to the subject, the later we cant. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• ... but we might have a problem sourcing elsewhere. I think that I hit this issue of contradictory "official" accounts etc a few months ago. NB: link is an excerpt from an "authorised-turned-unauthorised" biography. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sitush. I generally agree that the use of primary sources ought to be minimal, however they can be used for straight-up factual information unless an exceptional and opinionated claim is made (e.g. "he's awesome!"; see WP:SELFSOURCE). Similarly, the feature story in the Caravan Magazine also comprises a primary source as it is a written investigative account and opinion piece by a journalist. Straight-forward and descriptive assertions made in the article which can be backed by other secondary reliable sources can be used in the article, however, all exceptional claims that are not backed by secondary sources should be avoided. Please note that exceptional claims must be backed by exceptional sources (see WP:REDFLAG). You will find that several of these media publications have a self-serving agenda of their own. On Wikipedia, we must learn to sift through the muck. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• You are preaching to the converted. But if he cannot even keep his own story straight, and nor can his friends, then we really do have a problem with SPS in a BLP. We'll need either to show all the variations or to show the most recent. The former would be the way that differing opinions are shown when secondary sources disagree; the latter would give Modi the optimal point of personal preference (it would be the version that he currently abides by). I'm not sure which way to go but if we do the former then it could be a very long article. Oddly, his official bio at present doesn't give his birth date, merely that it was in September 1950 - that is exactly the sort of info that we usually do consider to be ok to take from SPS (although sometimes it needs qualifying if secondaries say they mess around with their age). - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally

The paragraph should start with "He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally..." and then explains why. Not the way it is now. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to say he is controversial withoput giving even the faintest hint of why that might be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I couldn't understand why your change of sentence-ordering was reverted earlier today but did not have time to comment. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards and recognitions

Under awards section there is mention about the times magazine and the authour made a violation of the neutrality by just including the favourable points only.The entry in wiki says 'his leadership was described as being strong and businesslike; one that could guide India towards honesty and efficiency ' where as the original issue features Modi, with the caption: "Modi means business but can he lead India? Also the original article describes Modi as a "controversial, ambitious and shrewd politician". All these mentions were omitted when it was added to wikipedia. The source cited itself has all these points and they were omitted deliberatelyShivramkrishnareddy (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We read and replied. Controversy is written on Modi's forehead, metaphorically meant: actually in the lead, why splash it all over the place? "Can he lead India" is a question, that is attempted to be answered in the article. Modi did feature on the Times cover, didn't he? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. The one positive sounding adjective has clearly been cherry picked from an otherwise fairly critical source. That is tendentious editing. Saying that someone is controversial provides no information whatsoever. We of course have to describe why that is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We have considerable text describes the alleged reasons as to why Modi is considered controversial, Modi is on the Time cover not for the controversy but for his leadership was described as being strong and businesslike; one that could guide India towards honesty and efficiency ' the violence occurred ten years before the cover story. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no text in the lead that describes the reason he is controversial. The article barely mentions it but in entirely exculpatory wordings, never mentioning the actual substance of the accusations. The fact that the Times ask "can he lead india" is exactly an expression of doubt of his ability to be a uniting figure given his divisive agenda and problematic past. The article here is even less critical than the Times article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead section provides sufficient context for the controversy linking to 2002 Gujarat violence. The body text further elaborates on the reason behind the controversy. Given the fact that he has been absolved of any wrongdoing, there is no reason as to why a detailed explanation needs to be provided in the lead section. Please review WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. And yes it there are reasons we should describe how he is controversial, and I gave those reasons above. Please review WP:NPOV.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The actual Time article on him seems to be pretty even in praising him and being apprehensive of his riots record.—indopug (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a primary source, we can't look at that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is not a primary source, it is a news article, and even if it were we could still use it - and you were just saying yourself we should adopt its "good for business praise". What gives? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Time story is a primary source when we write about the Time story, that is elementary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a time story when we write about Modi. Then it is a high quality secondary source, which is also incidentally critical and not just praising his business skills.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Use another story to write about the Time story. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, I am not suggesting to use the Times article to write about the Time article, but to write about Modi. Just like we use a wealth of other news articles to do so. Times is a reliable secondary source about Modi.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if you see how this thread started that is what I assumed you said, again the Time story is uneasy with facts, it says 2000 Muslims were killed by Hindus, whereas 790 Muslims and not all were riot deaths a part of them were rioters killed by the police. So we have to separate grain from the chaff. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to pick the nice things from a source and then say it is unreliable about the negative things. You have to make up your mind. And if you want to challenge claims in an otherwise reliable source you have to present better sources, not just your own claim that it is mistaken.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't quite like the way you present it. In a BLP any controversy would need exceptional sourcing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what BLP says, it says any exceptional claim needs exceptional sourcing, particularly if it is controversial. Critiques of Modi and descriptions of why he is controversial are not exceptional claims they are the rule and appear in ALL reliable sources I have had a chance to look at. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They are allegations and accusations, not a single one has been proved in 11 years. In the meanwhile he has lead his party through three election victories, we need to take the hyperbole with a pinch of salt. We are editing an encyclopaedia not writing a tabloid article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry but there is nothing in any policy we have that says that the inclusion of allegations and accusations is limited to those that have been proven in a court of law. What determines whether allegations and inclusions are to be included is solely their notability which is a function of how frequently they are referred to in reliable sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in any policy? A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. (Please look it up at the BLP page.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another irrelevant statement since no one is trying to insert claims about his guilt but rather noting the nature of the accusations AND the fact that they are unsubstantiated in court. According to your ridiculous standards we couldn't mention that a person had been in court for murder allegations and then acquitted. Again, you are wasting time and I will not abide it much longer before requesting administrative interaction against your tendentious filibustering tactics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

2002 polls

There was a cn tag in the 2002 poll section with the statement that BJP won 127 seats. I changed it to 126 with this ref as support. However, our article on Gujarat legislative assembly election, 2002 also states for 127 seats and lists 127 wins also. Any idea where this list is taken from? This source gives us poll results of 1998 (although it says 2002 on top, inside there are results of 1998 and they mention it that way too). Another ref counts 126 for BJP, 51 for Congress and 4 for others. But that sums to only 181 whereas GUJ Assembly is of 182. So is the right figure 127? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the report of 2002 elections from Election Commission of India, it states BJP won 127 seats, INC 51 and 4 for others which sums up to 182 seats. Hope this helps. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the link. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

I understand that the information about support from the upper castes was removed from the lead because it was not already present in the body, and because the wording could be read as conflating class and caste. The source used however is talking about the BJP and Modi support in general and does not support the claim that the composition of supporting voters differ between Gujarat and Northern India - that claim would require different sources. The Jaffrelot source also specifically states that in spite of Modis OBC background he is able to get support mostly from the upper castes by projecting himself with as an ascetic karmayogi. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this can be added at the end of the section on Second Term or beginning of "Third term". I also support adding BJP's caste based electoral strategy in "Fourth term" which probably needs to be retitled "Campaign for Prime Ministership". We had discussed something similar on this talk page here. Let's start with that, lead will eventually have to be rewritten. But let's leave it for now. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Modi was a pracharak (full-timer) in the RSS during his university years

How can a person both be a student and a full timer at RSS? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

YK, not all pracharaks go and teach tribal kids, may be he had some other responsibilities. Why would you think a student cannot be a RSS pracharak ? Many of the ABVP guys are Pracharaks. --sarvajna (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

::I don't have issues with pracharak I wonder whether when one has two occupations one can be called full timer in either. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pracharak: "Workers who have dedicated their lives to the Sangha... devoted to the organisational work... free from family responsibilities... they do not enter into marital bonds... pracharak doesn't remain in the limelight... nor does he indulge in religious preaching... the pracharaks are organisers..."[1] "...the lifeblood of the RSS... devoted to lifelong celibacy, poverty and service..."[2] "...the pracharaks... literally a preacher but more an organiser... they work full time but get no salary..."[3]. Was Modi a pracharak? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Modi was a pracharak, you see a person who becomes Pracharak during his student life will be given responsibilities which suits him. I personally know people who worked in software industry who quit their job to become a pracharaks, unlike the full time jobs a student's life has ample amount of time for RSS. In any case we have sources which say that. --sarvajna (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem contradictory and, yes, we do have sources. Some sources use a different term and it is one that I have not come across before - can't remember what it is but I'll try to find an example later today. This may be one of the Modi inconsistencies referred to in the preceding section here. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

YK, those definitions are of an "idealistic pracharak". You see, we call Prime Ministers as Prime Minister even if they don't fit in their constitutional definitions. "Pracharak" is just a commonly used word for an active worker/member with ref to RSS. Isn't it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The word 'publicist' can be used instead of pracharak. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that would mislead readers to think that he was in the publishing industry when in fact he was a full time political activist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, "publicist" is intended in the sense of someone who is involved in "public relations", not publishing. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be the right word to use here. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: I beg to differ, pracharak isn't a commonly used term, it is a position in the RSS hierarchy. @Sir Nicholas: "Publicist" would be a novel translation of the word "pracharak". @Sarvajan: Perhaps you are right. I don't know enough, I tried to understand the term using reliable sources. Is it that Modi was a pracharak and some time down the line he quit the RSS and joined the BJP? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he has ever said that he quit the RSS, and since the two organisations are often considered to be related there would seem to be no need to do so. The BJP is often seen as the "public face" of the RSS, vaguely as Sinn Fein is/was seen as the public face of the IRA (not a perfect comparison, obviously). The Caravan article linked above and in the article defines pracharak as "propagandist": I really would encourage people to read the entire thing, which is not immediately visible from the url (you need to click the "view as a single page" link). According to that, He swore an oath as a bal swayamsevak (child volunteer), later became the maker of tea and cleaner of the offices, then took an officer training course to become a pracharak and became a travel organiser etc and rose to become a significant organiser. "The Sangh pracharak in-charge of a frontal organisation like the ABVP is supposed to function like an underground guide—to be like a vein hidden under the skin, exercising authority away from the public eye—but Modi’s personal style, which chafed at such restrictions, was already making itself evident. ... For all his allegiance to the Sangh and its ideology, the organisation’s structure and style—placing the group above the individual, restraining one’s anger, respecting the protocols established by the leadership—did not mesh with Modi’s personality. Shankarsinh Vaghela, who was senior to Modi in the RSS and the BJP ... " I realise the limitations of that source but the detail is considerable. I've not found the alternate term to pracharak yet - it began with an "s". - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean "Swayamsevak"? Where is the "Caravan" article? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@YK He did not quit RSS, there is no formal membership in RSS. It is a volunteer organization. He is still part of RSS, just that he is not a pracharak anymore. Modi, Advani and many others are still associated with RSS. @Sitush BJP is not exactly the political face of RSS because people from non RSS background are also in BJP(Although RSS has tremendous control over BJP). I am not sure if we can use propagandist in place of pracharak.Pracharaks are kind of first rung of office bearers in RSS, IMO pracharak can be used and there is no need to waste so much time and energy on just this term.--sarvajna (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Sirsikar writes in "The Experience of Hinduism" (from which the quote above "...the lifeblood of the RSS... devoted to lifelong celibacy, poverty and service..." is taken) about his quitting the RSS. (2) Pracharak is best translated as "organiser" per Mark Tully. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Caravan article

The article makes two factual errors that I could identify, it describes Rahul Bajaj to be a Parsi and calls sickle cell anemia a disease from which tens of people were dying like some kind of plague. Then the writer imagines that we should believe behind the scene stories he tells about Modi. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Approximately 150,000 children are born with the sickle cell trait every year. Untreated they rarely live beyond their forties, and treatment is not usually present in many of the countries where it is most prevalent. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the Caravan article to know what I mean. See how the author is bluffing/ not fact checking when he is making allegations, the same with Bajaj. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you subject other sources to similar criteria of credibility.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This one is gross, it sticks in the face, it isn't nit picking if that is what you hint? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Asia Society awarded that Caravan story on Modi with a citation for "reporting excellence" and called it "courageous reporting...a terrific piece of work".—indopug (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reflects poorly on the Asia Society, what else can I say? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another translation of pracharak I've stumbled on is "cadre".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Inaccurate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The Caravan article seems fine as a source and has been in the article for some time. Cherry-picking from sources is rarely a good idea and thus if it is deemed no good for some points then it should not probably be used at all. We may need to treat any opinions with care but that is all. Does the author have some sort of record of being virulently pro- or anti-Modi? Or are they instead writing as a typical skilled investigative journalist etc would do? - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • You've (Sitush) shared the article, what is your take, calls Modi low caste Ghanchi, his opponents high caste Brahmins, is that skilled investigative journalism at work? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is incorrect then why is it also repeated here[4] that he is Ghanchi (OBC) and yet has disposed of upper caste (Patel) rivals within the party? "Gujarat’s BJP vote bank is Patels + upper castes. As a ghanchi from the OBC, or Other Backward Classes, community of oil-pressers (teli) Modi has no caste base. Ghanchis get little respect in a state of merchants and my family will use the word “ghanchi” sneeringly. He has united a very caste-minded society by first rallying it against Muslims/Pakistan/jihad/terrorism and then rousing their pride in their state. He has put to pasture one Patel rival (Keshubhai) and made another Patel, the clownish Pravin Togadia, irrelevant." Please share with us the source of your seemingly endless knowledge about Modi, since apparently every journalist from the Times to the Wall Street Journal have been misinformed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Did I ever allege that Ghanchi was a bad fact, please don't create a strawman. All I say is that the author is holding Modi's low caste as an undesirable attribute, is it Modi's fault that he was born in a Ghanchi family? Does that make him ineligible to aspire any public office, as the author seems to allude. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) Do you want a citation for Bajaj not being a Parsi? Or that Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder, or that around 700 Muslims died in Gujarat and not millions or thousands, that figure including deaths in rioting and at the hands of security personnel? What do you achieve by throwing names like WSJ or Time. Facts are facts are facts. If I say Maunus is a forward caste fellow, fair and well bred, poet and all and he is pestered with low caste Yogesh in arguments at Wikipedia, how much sense would that make? (2) Modi has refused to identify himself with any caste, check this HT video.[5] We at Wikipedia can't call a person a Hindu or an atheist or a lesbian unless they self-identify as such. That's a basic rule. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This peer reviewed 2012 source[6] supports the Caravan article's claim of approximately 2000 Muslim deaths, depending on who does the counting. "This violence, which in several places took on the scale of a pogrom, claimed approximately 2,000 Muslim lives, including many women and children. The official death toll is lower (1,169) whereas some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) mention the figure of 2,500 victims on the basis of information gathered from families about the missing persons – those whose bodies were never found." So not only are your unsubstantiated claim unsubstantiated, it is also flatly contradicted by recent, scholarly sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• That is not the same as saying that 2000 Muslims were killed by Hindus that Caravan says. Additionally the official death toll includes Hindus and Muslims, it includes all deaths, that is rioting deaths and death at the hands of law enforcement authorities. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The source clearly talks only about Muslims. As for who killed them, I am sure most of them died of "shock".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to imagine anything, Wikipedia doesn't give them a canvas though. Yes Caravan does say 2000 Muslims were killed, without acknowledging that the official stats are 790 (killed by rioting Hindus, shot by security forces etc.) That is why a source that is poor on facts isn't quite the best one when it comes to being used by us. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You make a new argument at every turn, most of them red herrings or non-sequiturs. No one is suggesting that we should add a category of Ghanchi to the article, or to define Modi as such. We can how ever describe this as his family background, and note that he does not define himself as such (just like we frequently do for example with people who come from Jewish families but who do not identify as Jews). But that is not the question here - it is not what we are discussing at all - we are discussing your ridiculous approach to sources where you think you can cast suspiciion on sources based on the fact that you know better, and furthermore the hypocrisy implicit in your suggestion that we only pick out the positive stuff from these otherwise unreliable sources. Facts are facts - but in wikipedia we only refer to factas that appear in reliable sources. I hate to break it to you but you are not a reliable source. You must bring new sources that contradict the sources we have if you wish to be taken seriously. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You can call me illogical or ridiculous but that won't make the 2000 Muslims killed figure any more factual. I am not a reliable source but that doesn't make Bajaj a Parsi, do you need me to provide a citation for Paris is the capital of France? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be a relevant issue to discuss if we were writing an article about Rahul Bajaj and someone was trying to claim that he was a Parsi based on that source. You may have noticed that that is not the case. Please stop filibustering, it is now verging on disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No amount of abuse or wikilawyering is going to justify a opinion piece, bad on facts to be used to insert controversial material into a BLP. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is now more an opinion piece that, say, a book by Jaffrelot. And it is certainly far less an opinion piece than Modi's own website biography etc, which is a pretty grotesque piece of hyperbole and manipulation even by the standards of some of the UK's less salubrious politicians. Are you happy for all references to Modi's website and related materials to be removed on similar grounds to those that you have raised against other sources? In the interests of balance, I can live with seeing both used as sources provided that we can agree some sort of "proviso" wording that does not breach WP:WEA. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We can use Modi's own website only for facts (such as when he was born, his family etc.) and not for claims, (he did this or that) so also the likes of Caravan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If a reliable source says that he did this or that then we can use it. If another reliable sources differs then we show both. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sitush, have you read the Caravan article, I consider it presumptive, its tone is allusive, I've demonstrated it bad on facts, what is your opinion? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You have "demonstrated" exactly nothing. You have made unsubstantiated claims, and invalid arguments presuming to discount a source as unreliable because according to you they get other facts wrong.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Pl check reply regarding Gray below. Let us have Sitush's opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

2002 Riots

There is some need for correction in the 2002 riots section. A Railway Board inquiry found that the fire was accidental, while a special court deemed it an intentional conspiracy First of all it was not a railway board inquiry, it was a one man committe (Banerjee Committee) set up by the railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in 2004 two years after the incident. In 2006 the Gujarat High court held that the Banerjee Committe was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and seting up this committe was "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions.This is the source, ofcourse I can get other source as well. Also should we name the section Gujarat riots or Gujarat violence. --sarvajna (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Modi's goverment is seekign death penalty for Maya Kodnani and others convicted, because we have mentioned Maya Kodnani's conviction, I think we should also include this as well.[7]
• The Modi administration was accused of insufficient action over the riots and suspected of encouraging them.[10][26][27] However, Narendra Modi had promptly issued shoot at sight orders and called for Army to prevent the riots from worsening, but given the massive reaction to Godhra carnage, the combined strength of Indian army and State Police too proved insufficient, as confirmed by the media reports on 1 March.[26] Modi administration promptly imposed an indefinite curfew in 26 sensitive cities to ensure that riots do not spread, as reported by The Hindu on 1 March.[27]. Why should we include these sentences of as reported by or as reported on. Whenever we source anything do we write as reported by ??--sarvajna (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of 2002 riots currently reads "On 29 August 2012, an Indian court found Maya Kodnani... On the eve of this decision, Modi refused to apologise and rejected renewed calls for his resignation". You can add the update after this.
• Yes the as confirmed, as reported on are unnecessary. It appears as if we are desperately trying to prove Modi's innocence.
• I don't mind replacing "riots" with "violence". But, in other instances such as "...a series of communal riots in Gujarat consolidated BJP's support among Hindus in the state" we are using riots. We need to be consistent, unless we have a good reason to call 2002 violence and everything else riots.
• Exactly what changes do you want to see with regards to the Banerjee report? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We should make it clear that it was not a Railway board inquiry but a committe set up by then railway minister. We need to mention the gujarat High court verdict about the Banerjee report that it was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void and seting up this committe was "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions or if you think that too much information is stuffed into the section we can just remove the refernce to the report. At present it looks like a railway board report has proven that the fire was accidental which is not correct as the report is not valid. I don't want to give Sitush another oppotunity to say that I am trying to censor things --sarvajna (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a few bold edits, the Gujarat violence is 11 years old, Modi's biography needn't swell with details referring to it, we've the Gujarat violence article for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 April 2013 (IST)

So we have my edits undone, fine BOLD is one edit, there is no white wash, there was mention of allegations against Modi and his rebuttal, equally balanced, a biography shouldn't be full of accusations and rebuttals. I'm not going to edit-war but will await consensus on this page, the spat with the governor is (yawn) most commonplace. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have asked him on his talk page to explain what he found as whitewashing, first there is no need for detail for how to violence occurred and other details of the violence. Modi has been accused of certain things so let us summarize and mention then let us not sensationalize things here.--sarvajna (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All dedicated articles/biographies of Modi give sufficient coverage to 2002 riots. For instance, the Caravan article devotes 1&1/2 of 11 pages to riots, Zee news profile 4 of 14 paragraphs and Aditi Phadnis devotes 1 of 6 pages in her book. Only Reuters is kinder to him in this sense, it gives only two paragraphs to riots in a relatively long article. I agree that our section is a bit bulky compared to the other biographies, but that is because it has many redundancies like the content on politically motivated early speculations on Godhra train burning which sarvajna alludes to above, or the third paragraph in section on the SIT report which is only tangentially connected to the (sub) topic. The first paragraph of SIT section and last paragraph of 2002 riots section also have overlapping content which can be done away with. But turning the section into 2&1/2 line paragraph (here) is unacceptable. We can get to Kamla Beniwal eventually, let's first try to expand other sections like Sadbhavana, industrial growth (with a bit about Tata Nano) etc. Once we have a comprehensive article we will have a better idea of what to cut down so as to retain maximum amount of information in least amount of words. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CK you want to have Caravan's article here then what is the need for wikipedia editors and all the policies. I hope you know what I am trying to tell here, Wikipedia is not Zee News or Caravan. Just because we are using these as source doesn't mean we have structures like them. There is a separate article named 2002 Gujarat violence which is also linked in the article(for obvious reasons such things cannot work with Caravan or Zee news, they cannot have a separate page and say read more about 2002 violence there). No one is trying to whitewash anything like you said, there is a mention in the lead a few lines which also contain a link to main article. Which is fair enough given the fact that Modi is not a convict in this case. Mentioning how people died, where people died, whether Modi ordered shoot at sight or not all these things can be mentioned in the main article.--sarvajna (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well said Sarvajna. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that we should have structures like other journalistic pieces, but rather that prominence given to 2002 riots in those articles gives us some idea of the kind of weight we should give it on Wikipedia. Otherwise, deciding what to keep and what to delete will become arbitrary and subject to our personal biases. Someone else might argue that we shouldn't have content on Modi's contributions to agriculture/industry because improvements in Gujarat were the result of his government's policies and not him individually. In fact, they already have. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

PS I was hoping to find tertiary sources on Narendra Modi because per WP:TERTIARY, "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources... may be helpful in evaluating due weight". But because we have no dedicated entries on Modi in any of the encyclopedias, textbooks, guidebooks etc. independent and reliably published biographies and profiles will have to do here. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of communal harmony, :) I have cut down the section myself, something I would have done right at the end. The parts removed were ones we had consensus on and by that I mean which I thought were redundant. Since sarvajna and Yogesh want no more than a 2&1/2 lines paragraph, I am assuming they would concur on any reduction to the section. I am hoping editors involved here will drop the stick after this and try to work on other sections which badly need to be expanded. Please also take a look at Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon to see what comprehensiveness really means (don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that I was inspired by those two articles). Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that achievements of Modi's government should not be associated with Modi, a quick check of the articles of other leaders will help us. CK, those two artciles are good we can borrow a lot from them. However we should not make a mistake of comparing watergate to 2002 violence. Nixon and his administration was involved in watergate while Modi and his administration are accused of being involved in 2002 violence.--sarvajna (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not making that mistake. Those two are probably the best written political biographies on WP. I was just trying to point out how far we still have to go with this one. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing about the work that he has done in Guj, do you have any plans on how to proceed ? --sarvajna (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We could start by addressing the maintenance tags in the article. Issues with the personality section (listed a few sections above this) need to be discussed further and rectified before we can even think about removing that POV tag at the top. While trying to address the weasel word tag in the Second term section, I found out that the sentence, "Modi's decision to link Gujarat's violence with the 9/11... L. K. Advani's unpleasant apology for Gujarat in London a year ago.", is close paraphrasing of the source. We need to rewrite it and remove the tag, since it is unaddressable in this case. And then of course, the lead, paragraph on Sadbhavana and section on Prime Ministerial candidate need to be expanded. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS I think, right now, the article has enough broad coverage of Modi's developmental initiatives for a GAR. For an FAR, the article will need to be comprehensive, which means we will have to include his solar energy policy, industrial growth (Nano etc.), as well as, malnutrition and book ban. We'll cross that bridge when it comes. :) Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a couple of weeks, and am encouraged by the incremental improvements by CK and others. It'd be marvelous to see this prepped for and sent to FAC.

Comparing this page with Manushi's "Modinama" series of articles makes me agree with what others said above: this page could be much, much more lucid and informative. Saravask 23:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

There is an attempt to mis-interpret sources and word the lead. For example Independent[8] 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 been 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 [9] 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)

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.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectKnowledge (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 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.[10] 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)

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)