Talk:Jashodaben Modi/Archive 1

Notability
In 2011 and 2014 the article on this person was deleted as noted above in the deletion records. Most people argued that notability was WP:NOTINHERITED. I think that this article should be kept because this person meets WP:GNG due to having been the subject of multiple journal articles over a period of time. Here are some sources which establish that this person meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria: The other articles cited give information about her marriage to Modi and their relationship.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Interviewer Darshan Desai in 2002
In 2002 there are reports that Darshan Desai tried to interview Jashodaben but was unable to reach her. See I am not sure what the story is about this incident but it seems like another case when Jashodaben got media attention.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * some book
 * some book
 * See http://www.firstpost.com/politics/fantasies-of-jashodaben-leave-narendra-modis-wife-alone-1475961.html for the details on the incident. &#8212;  C ute st Penguin Hangout 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Birthday uncertain
Is there any source for Jashodaben's birthday? I cannot find it. A 2014 interview says that she is 62, which puts her year of birth at 1952.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  01:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Year of receiving SSC uncertain
Jashodaben graduated and received her SSC in either 1972 or 1974. The Open interview says 1972, but the Indian Express interview says 1974. The Indian Express article says that her father died two years after beginning her studies, so knowing when she started studying could help place his death date in this.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... I checked previous AfD discussions. This article is different now. I wrote an entirely new article.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

turned this article into a redirect.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - If you wish to challenge the outcome of the last AfD, you must start a deletion review, at WP:DRV, until then, the closure of the most recent AfD will stand, which was to redirect the article. Please do not undo the redirect. Nick (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The last AfD was valid. I do not wish to start a deletion review. I wrote a new article. Please propose it for deletion.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if the last AfD was valid, can you please explain why you keep removing the redirect, which was the outcome of the AfD, and why you wish to restore a speedy deletion template, one that you previously removed ? This behaviour is unacceptable and disruptive. If you wish to overturn the most recent AfD, take your discussion to deletion review. Nick (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bluerasberry! If you were to re-read the AfDs you would know that notability of the topic was the issue of deletion, it wasn't the prose quality that your version of article would suffice. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This person meets WP:GNG. No one made that argument in the past three AfDs, because no one cited sources about this person. I wrote a new article with new sources. Would you please start a new AfD?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm afraid that's out of process, the notability issue was the main issue with the article that was discussed at Articles for deletion/Jashodaben and is what you need to address at deletion review first before proceeding further. Nick (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Bluerasberry: No! A list of sources was presented at Articles for deletion/Jashodaben claiming the subject has "national limelight, plenty of press coverage, and thus notable". GNG was thus refuted here. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted at Deletion_review.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , . The advice above is incorrect.  Unless challenging the XfD process or close, a non-deletion redirect based on new information or arguments does not belong at DRV.  Consensus was to merge and redirect.  To reverse this is to create a spinout of the target, Narendra Modi.  To propose a spinout, seek consensus to do so at Talk:Narendra Modi.  At that page, there should be enough interested editors to contribute knowledgeably.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Name change "Jashodaben Chimanlal" to "Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal "
In three deletion discussions and elsewhere in forums people have said that "Jashodaben Chimanlal" does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, most commonly citing WP:BLP1E. In response to those comments I have reformatted this article to be about that one event, the marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal, which has gotten a lot of media attention. Thanks, , , and for feedback. If you have other thoughts on this article please share.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the efforts in maintaining the article. — CutestPenguinHangout 18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't have this page on my watch list and didn't notice all the work you have put into it. I think the current shape of the article is quite good.  But unfortunately, this is `tabloid material' and I am afraid that, sooner or later, it will degenerate into edit wars about whether Modi had consummated his marriage or not.  And, that is not something we will ever know unless he talks about it.  So, my discomfort about this topic is still the same. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like this reformatted article. It has achieved restraint from being a biography of a private person.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Relationship status
I am not sure what to call the relationship status. I would like to link to some Wikipedia article to describe it but none of these words describe the situation. Their status is an Indian concept and there is not really any English word for it.
 * Family estrangement - not quite right, but this is the closest word
 * Legal separation - not quite right, as there is no legal arrangement
 * Divorce - this is the most correct concept describing what happened, except that for Indians the taboo of these and estrangement or separation is reversed, and divorce is much worse than the other two so it rarely happens.

I am not sure how to describe it. Ideas?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Non-acceptance of childhood marriage (traditional but not legal)?

Malaiya (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of SPG chief
Some sources commented that the November 2014 removal of the Special Protection Group chief was related to the complaints from that month that the SPG officers were getting media attention due to Jashodaben's RTI. I see no follow up on this story so I omitted it.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Year of marriage uncertain
In the Indian Express interview Jashodaben says that she married when she was 17. If she was born in 1952, then the marriage was in 1969. Modi's official biography says that he traveled from age 17 for two years, so perhaps 1967-1969. The story in Caravan says that Modi was married at age 18 which might have been 1968 or 69, wandered for two years, then was to meet his wife again in 1970 or 71, then he separated. Times of India and others reporting on Modi's election filing say that Modi was married at age 17, which would be 1967.

All of this talk of years is original research and what is needed is a source which gives the year of the marriage, because even knowing his age the year of marriage could be either of two years depending on the month. Is there any source which gives the year or date when Modi and Jashodaben married? It seems like Jashodaben and Modi remember different years.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  01:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Week reports that they married in 1968, that Modi was 18 years old, and that Jashodaben was 1.5 years younger than Modi.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of this article
This article was last deleted in November 2014. Since then I have added more references from more sources. I feel like the content I have added should meet all previous objections that the subject of this article does not pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for inclusion as an article. The article has been deleted four times in total, and someone may feel like deleting it again. If someone wishes to nominate it for deletion then I would help if asked, and could do things like signal people who previously said to delete the article.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Bluerasberry! This is a huge gossip column you have brought into an Encyclopedia which should be deleted just like the four times it has been deleted before. But that you have put such tremendous efforts into it that on cursory looks people are not going to vote for deletion. They will only know the depths of this damn thing when they read it. While the article stays on wiki, this is a great example of What-WP-is-not but it still is because our principle of WP:V and others don't speak anything on what is encyclopedic and what is not. That distinction was left on us editors and I fail to see why you have always gone against so many delete voters and recreated this article. In the meanwhile I will edit the article following all our WP rules, the same ones which have made this a gossip column and take it to more unfathomable depths. Is that pointy; yes! But if you can make one, I can make one too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, from the choice of content that you took to write this article I am sure that you are quite unaware of the patheticness of Indian mass media. Google out #Presstitutes and surf through. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not my intent to make a gossip column. I am not Indian so I cannot gossip about this because I do not have enough cultural understanding to understand Indian politics. Definitely I have no bias for any political party in India.
 * I recreated the article because I like Jashodaben and because I felt that previous deletions happened reasons unrelated to Wikipedia's deletion policy. Per WP:GNG a person can have a Wikipedia article if they have been the subject of media coverage. Only 2-3 sources are required when many more exist, so it is hard for me to understand why anyone would delete this.
 * I am aware of #presstitutes and the change in perception in India over the past 5-10 years that there are no trustworthy newspapers, magazines, or news sources. I only started hearing this recently but maybe this is nothing new. I would respect consensus to reduce the use of certain newspapers on Wikipedia, but here in this article, some of the most respected news sources are used. There are also some foreign sources. I would participate in any discussions to quit using certain news sources. In the Narendra Modi article, 90%+ of the sources cited are newspapers and no one objects. When those same sources are cited here people have said to use better sources. These newspapers should not be controversial - they are the best that India has to offer.
 * Thanks for cleaning the article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning the article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So where does she live?
Rajosana village? Or Unjha? The article says one, then the other. --Haruo (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
The section "Jashodaben as Representative of Indian Women" is completely biased in favor of a sexist view of what women should do in such a situation as the topic person. It contains only praise for her frankly needless self-sacrifice and self-denial, nothing about any debates, let alone critcisms, on or of the message she is sending to so many females in her country that are in comparable situations with their relationships, nor other perspectives on the moral value of her conduct as compared with, say, that of someone like Anuradha Gandhy? Jamutaq (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, all reliable English language sources which talk about Jashodaben have been identified and are being cited in this article. Wikipedia is reflecting the available published information. I feel that the Wikipedia article matches the content of the original sources, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. I do not think that it is Wikipedia's place to provide original commentary on the information from the original sources.
 * If you have any information from published sources about debates or criticism of this view then please share. Wikipedia is developed when someone provides a source that other people can summarize and present here. If you have a source which compares Anuradha Ghandy and Jashodaben then please share - it would be interesting to include.
 * Is what I am saying the way that you expect Wikipedia to work? Do you agree that Wikipedia should match the perspective of the cited sources without giving commentary?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response; however, I was only using Anuradha Ghandy as an example. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia provide original commentary, as I know it is not its purpose to do so. What I am asking (and may well get around to doing) is that a more nuanced view of her lifestyle choices be manifested in this article. Jamutaq (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, all English language sources about this person are cited in this article, except the sources which are derived from other sources. When one newspaper reported news based on a report from another one and did not provide additional commentary, in that case, I only cited the original source. If you can find a way to make this article less POV either with the available sources or by finding any new sources then that would be good.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Portrait - Original research
I believe the portrait (File:Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi painted.jpg) is a work of original research being an artistic drawing derived from multiple sources, and being, by definition, crafted by and subject to the artist's personal interpretations and choices. -- Veggies ( talk ) 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I got the idea from the article on Satyajit Ray where a similar portrait is used. That image is used at least 30 times in 15 languages. When no other image is available, I like the idea of using a likeness created by an artist if it is possible to do so.
 * If you click through to the Jashodaben file on Commons, you will see the list of working images that were used to model this portrait. I think that I found every image of Jashodaben available on the Internet either by photo or movie, and used those as the basis for creating this image. I hope that the image is thoughtful, respectful, and useful. It was the product of a lot of research.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you make my point for me. Compare File:Satyajit Ray.jpg to File:SatyajitRay.jpg. Which one is closer to the actual man's likeness? What was the source for those paintings? They weren't done from life or commissioned by the Ray himself. If we accept them, we're accepting the artist's interpretations, ambiguous sources, and later edits as being encyclopedic-quality likenesses of the real man. That's too OR for me. -- Veggies ( talk ) 16:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You found two different images of Ray. I cannot say which one is the better likeness - I would say that both are acceptable for use on Wikipedia, because they both seem good enough for me.
 * So far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy on the use of artistic likenesses of people featured in biographies. Perhaps there should be if there is some problem with drawings like the one used here and in the Ray article. Just last week in The Signpost there was a report that someone felt that a photo in a Wikipedia article was "the worst photo that had ever been taken of me. It was a camera photo from a bad angle, blurry, and I felt I looked disgusting" so even a photo can be OR and not encyclopedic quality. I know of no Wikipedia guidelines to routinely review the artistic merit of images in articles. I would support you in getting more comment on this if you saw fit. Perhaps asking WikiProject Biography would be a good idea, or perhaps calling for an WP:RfC would work. I agree that this is an unclear issue.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)