Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 10

has improved its agricultural output substantially
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/AK-16-Opening-salvo-fired-at-Modi/articleshow/31625175.cms You claim 11% agriculture growth in state while your government's data says production has shrunk at 1.18% annually and revenue declined from Rs 27,815 crore in 2006-07 to Rs 25,908 crore in 2012-13.

Once protection is off can we remove this false claim from the article please? Hcobb (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because the agriculture growth rate of Gujarat did increase to 9.6% in his first two periods of office (2001–2007.) If the data mentioned by Arvind Kejriwal is true, we can indeed supplement that sentence with the fact that the revenue declined in the third period of office. --RaviC (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Gujarats-agricultural-growth-sluggish-in-11th-Plan-Report/articleshow/29786850.cms States like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh are ahead of Gujarat when it comes to agriculture production.

RS enough? Hcobb (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This kind of stuff is messy. Partly because people can do anything with statistics, partly because it is election season (both in the media and, alas, with campaigning here on WP), and partly because you really, really have to be careful about news sources cf. academic sources. For example, the "reliability" reputation of The Times of India has deteriorated considerably in recent years as it has tried to retain its premier circulation spot among English-language newspapers in India. I know a few very experienced contributors and admins who quite often now refer to it as The Toiletpaper of India and, believe me, they've been saying that for quite a while, certainly long before any recent elections and/or Modi's candidature.


 * I'm not sure what the answer may be but two things stand out. Firstly, try to support any suggestions with alternate reliable sources and beware of the habit common among India's newspaper of basically copying stuff from each other. Secondly, remember that this is really all bollocks anyway: anyone who take news stories about politics (of any persuasion) seriously during an election period needs a reality check. I've been massively criticised on this talk page as being anti-Modi and I've also been criticised for being pro-Modi - I really do not have a horse in this race but I am generally capable of recognising politicking BS when I see it. Which brings me back to my first stand-out point: show that it is not BS by providing other sources rather than relying on one that, to be frank, nowadays can't even print a comprehensible story a lot of the time. What has The Hindu said about this issue? What has been the response of Modi/BJP? And, yes, what do the academic political commentators think? Are numbers being manipulated? Of course they are, by both sides. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 March 2014
I request to add 2 new categories. These are Indian politicians and Bharatiya Janata Party politicians.

 Prateek Malviya Talk 07:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to add the categories anyway because they are covered by the BJP Chief Ministers category - see WP:Overcategorisation. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary is overly critical and undue weight is given to critics of Gujarat's development
Of the 3 ending summary lines, 2 are critical. "His administration has been severely criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence.[9][10] He has been praised for his economic policies which are credited with creating the environment for the high rate of economic growth in Gujarat.[11] However, his administration has also been criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state.[12]"

Overall Gujarat's development under Modi is hardly disputed though there will always be critics. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Why-the-Gujarat-miracle-matters/articleshow/20820774.cms The criticism on the economic front is already covered within the article and does not need to be repeated up front, especially when it is a minority view. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE The Gujarat riots criticism line in the summary has however been kept since that is clearly a major uncontested issue. Puck42 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, so it is not undue to have a criticism of the "Gujarat miracle" in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The LEAD needs to summarize the body of the article, including all notable views. The critique of MOdi is not only notable, it is ubiquitous in reliable sources, even those that do not agree with the criticisms very rarely fails to mention it. Also whether the critique is a minority view is not clear, in the most reliable sources such as academic publications it is the majority view. Whether it is a minority view in the indian public remains to be seen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The criticism is a minority view in that it holds that "not all sections benefited" and should not be given the same weight as the undisputed view that there was considerable development under Modi, borne out by http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-09-22/news/34022206_1_poverty-ratio-narendra-modi-gujarat "Not all sections benefitted" can pretty much be said for anyone and any development and though it is clutching at straws it still has been given plenty of WP:UNDUE weight in the article already without it also being in the summary. Puck42 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a false weighting of the criticism and the statement of development. The fact that it didnt benefit all social groups equally is also undisputed. What makes it a notable criticism is that it is prominent in the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead section has been discussed at length, as has much else in this article. Writing a good lead for a controversial topic is quite a skill and not one that I'm much use at doing. It does, however, seem pretty reasonable to me in its present state. Your argument appears to basically be that the lead includes a truism and I really do not see the problem with that. Certainly, the pros and cons of the economics issue are discussed at length in the body and thus we have to reflect them in the lead. We can't just say, for example, that there has been an economic miracle under Modi when in fact there are reliable sources which question it. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Whether it is a minority view in the indian public remains to be seen.." We are talking about Gujarat here and the people of Gujarat has already voted him back for an unprecedented fourth term, stating in no uncertain terms what the people he impacted with the development think of his development claims, arm chair critics in the US notwithstanding. The way the lede reads is biased to the critical side which is simply not borne out by the fact of his reelection as one of the most popular CM's in his state of all time. Puck42 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But this is not the Gujarat wikipedia. Our coverage reflects global coverage of Modi, not just the feelings of a majority of Gujaratis.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And it is WP:OR to assume that Modi won an election mainly because of his economic strategy. It is rarely that simple and, as a rule, governments lose elections rather than win them. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His popularity among the electorate is irrelevant. We cannot remove content based on whether the lead is "too critical" or "too positive." We have to accurately reflect good sources. Among academic sources, criticism of the Gujarat development model is far more common than praise; if anything, the lead is not explicit enough about this. Wikipedia is not attempting to reflect public opinion; it reflects academic opinion, or tries, anyhow.Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His popularity is a fact as measured by the election results, which are not in dispute. The criticism of development is a contested opinion. The article lead is high on opinion and low in facts and gives undue importance to these opinions. Puck42 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks more like a case of your comments being high on opinion and low on fact. The lead summarises the article; the article is reliably sourced; period. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean like the Cato Institute that ranks Gujarat under Modi as the #1 state in India in economic freedom? http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/economic-freedom-india-2013/economic-freedom-states-of-india-2013.pdf
 * Removed superlatives, and went through reference, removed too generic terms like human development, should we go into more protection as it may get messeier Shrikanthv (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * claims of being member of RSS & Hindu nationalist, I went through the reference and found it'S not factually stating the claim in the lead and the gross meaning can misslead into a POV , here are there reference below for above claim

1) no where in the reference is it claiming he is a member of RSS ! 2) the hindu nationlist is just present in one interview article (seems more like he is re-afirming a claim in an interview), and the lead may seem to branded as something !!

references

1) the actual link here

2) another terrible source here, it also goes on to proclaim that babies where thrown to fire !, do not know if we should include that too. but no where talks about he being member of RSS and branding hindu nationalist!

3) ^ Menon, Kalyani Devaki (2012). Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0812222340. "Yet, months after this violent pogrom against Muslims, the Hindu nationalist chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, went to the polls and won a resounding victory"
 *  comment  : really seems like a opinion to me

4) Jump up ^ Mishra, Pankaj (2011). Kamala Visweswaran, ed. Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 188. ISBN 978-1405100625. "The chief minister of Gujarat, a young up-and-coming leader of the Hindu nationalists called Narendra Modi, quoted Isaac Newton to explain the killings of Muslims. “Every action”, he said, “has an equal and opposite reaction.”" ::  comment  : again really seems like a opinion to me and used in general terms

should we go ahead and remove this ? please discuss Shrikanthv (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines I ask you to discuss here Shrikanthv (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All this shit was discussed before, the sources are fine, and Modi calls himself a nationalist. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

lets take one at at time The last line "" However, his administration has also been criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state. the last line ""

what do you mean by human development refer to the source here

and how was the significant measured ? ,

Would suggest to change the wording to the following according to summary from there reference

" according to some researchers his administration has given rise to polarised social change and economic growth, having stronger support from urban dwellers "

Shrikanthv (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your version is a lot more vague and wordy. "Human development" is a very commonly used academic term; it's a catch all for education, health, and poverty indices. Besides, there are no academics who actually argue that development has reached everybody; all the academics supporting him just talk about overall growth, and sometimes infrastructure, so the qualifier is not just unnecessary, it would be a misrepresentation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

2002 Election
I'm not debating whether the content is reliably sourced. However, I don't think the sentence on his rhetoric seems relevant to the rest of the paragraph, unless the rhetoric can be argued to have contributed to the victory in the elections. Will leave as is for now.Fantumphool (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Resolved by moving this phraseFantumphool (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Weasel-y heading
The section heading Debate on Gujarat "miracle" is a breach of WP:MOSHEAD and WP:WEA. Basically, we've got an unattributed quote in there and the use of quotation marks around the word carries judgemental overtones. It would breach WP:PEA if the quote marks were not there.

I've no idea if Modi has called it a "miracle" but one of the sources uses the terms (without quote marks) in its own title. I suggest that we replace with Debate on economic policies or some such. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Gujarat is a semi-arid state and, according to Tushaar Shah, was "... never known for agrarian dynamism" but in recent years[when?] has improved its agricultural output substantially, in large part due to projects relating to improvement of groundwater supplies in Saurashtra,Kachchh and the north, as well as efforts to increase the use of micro-irrigation and to provide more efficient power supply to farms. Public irrigation measures in the central and southern areas, such as the Sardar Sarovar Project, have not been so successful in achieving their aims."
 * Similar issues with Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008 section? It reads a bit like "election campaigning". However, should not it be under "Third term (2007-2008)" section instead "Second term (2002–2007)" section? Many of the contents actually belong to Gujarat article. For example, texts under "Third term (2007-2008)" section reads as follow,


 * I'm not sure how it is related to Modi. It'd be better if we put contents of Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008 section under this "Third term (2007-2008)"? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, how about something like "debate around economic development" or even just "economic development."? I'm not entirely sure about the other section, but how about "third term (2007-20012) and 2012 elections" ? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am glad this topic was raised once my edit removing the scare quotes was reverted. Anyone care to explain why the reference to the Cato Institute study was removed? Not prejudiced enough? http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/economic-freedom-india-2013/economic-freedom-states-of-india-2013.pdf Puck42 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From seeing stuff about the Cato Institute elsewhere, I get the impression that they're a bunch of fringe-y right-wing oddballs who have formed a club. Perhaps that is the reason? - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, "Debate on economic policies/development" for me, sounds good. However I could go for something else better, might show up later. And related to the section, "Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008" under "Second term (2002–2007)" section. I would like to see it similar to, "2002 election" under "First Term (2001-2002)" section. "Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008" should be renamed to "2007 election" with Further information: Gujarat legislative assembly election, 2007 present under the head. And similarly, there could be a section, "2012 election", if needed under "Third term (2002-2007)". Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Puck: As Sitush says, and like I said in my edit summary (which you clearly did not bother to read) the Cato institute is a right-wing think tank. They make no pretense of being neutral; so why are you attempting to portray them as such? Find a real source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Zafri Case
Anyone know what came of the Zafri case? What is the status of the the SIT report being accepted by the supreme court?Fantumphool (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The clean chit to Modi was opposed by Jakia Zafri in a lower court, the court ruled in favor of Modi accepting the SIT report. The latest news is that Jakia might go to High Court or Supreme Court. She has not yet done that.-sarvajna (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Her name is Zakia Jafri.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, thanks! Fantumphool (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why
(EC)This is POV and the first source, here is not RS, is is a blatant propaganda site for the BJP. The inclusion of phrases such as "outshined", apart from the terrible grammar, is peacock. And this source has no mention of a "canteen job"? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed why you think the years or UPA are POV. I agree that the term "outshined" is an issue, and I think that we need to work on the wording. I am trying to improve the wording but you are reverting en bloc before I can do anything. Fantumphool (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted because it was shite. And when reverted you really ought not restore contested content unless you get consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The insertions about development and agriculture are very obviously poppycock, from very questionable sources. Moreover, the administration makes a claim about development; academics contradict this. The double negative of Modi's supporters saying this is not true, is somewhat redundant. If you want to separately add the sentence about Modi becoming a general secretary, I have no issues with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your description is your opinion. What exactly is your issue with INC leading the UPA? The source says he became a RSS prachak in 1970. What is your issue here? Please describe your problems with all of the points above if you are going to revert them all. If you have problems with individual edits, please revert them separately. Fantumphool (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am re-adding the years and the UPA bits. Fantumphool (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with the INC leading the UPA, except that you tried to link that to more questionable stuff. Likewise with his becoming a pracharak. Although perhaps the UPA bit is not necessary in the lead. As DS said, using the first website as a source is out of the question, it is a BJP site. The business line piece reads like a viewpoint piece, and a better source is needed for a claim as outrageous as the one it makes. Satisfied? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First, these are not edits that I put into the article. I am trying to incorporate them into the text to make the text better. I have little in the way of an opinion about Modi, and am only interested in him. So, this is not to just to satisfy me. Second, I will leave out the claims about Gujarat's growth and the refutation, but I don't see anything wrong with using the dates given by that article - do you? Fantumphool (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The source that you are disputing says that he became a RSS pracharak in 1970. One the previously cited articles says that, "he used to stay in his canteen ... till he was inducted as a full-time pracharak". I am re-adding the year. Fantumphool (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

M J Akbar
I'm a newcomer to wikipedia. I read in the newspaper today (23/3/2014) that the well known Muslim journalist, M J Akbar joined the BJP. I request someone to insert that news in this article with the appropriate citation. I'm scared to do it myself, because I have been reported to the Arbitration Coomiittee for Enforcement already. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This oage is about Modi not about BJP. That any particular individual joins the BJP is not relevant to this article unless it has some specific significnce for Modi.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
This article is currently under discussion here. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate on Gujarat's development under Modi
I am adding a image to this section- "Debate on Gujarat's development under Modi" but image is removed again and again.

It is clearly mentioned Economics Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen said......, Gujarat's "record in education and healthcare is pretty bad"

I am 'only' adding a picture to it which i have recently clicked on 25th march 2014.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahultalreja11 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please take this picture to Hospitals in Gujarath not here its about a person Shrikanthv (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya have praised Modi for his economic policies. Also how can you say that the image was taken in Gujarat?  Shriram  Talk 10:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Some may people has praised modi then it doesnt means that we wont highlight the negative aspects of Gujarat.secondly you have requested for deletion of media from wikipedia. you may hold right to remove that from this page but you are no one to remove that from wikipedia.Please mind your actions and take in neutrally not in favour of any particular person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahultalreja11 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Now learn to be polite with wikipedians. I don't hold any rights.  Shriram  Talk 12:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jaffrelot Christof's report
So far it discusses nothing more than the simple fact that Gujarat ranks 10th out of 21 states in human development. I have not removed any content, just pushed it to right place. In whole document of Christof, it doesn't support the given statement "criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state"... Gujarat developmenet was 0.467 according to the report, in 2001, but according to 2012' figure, it was almost 0.700. It is not even criticism. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Report (of christof) says "First the re-delimitation of the constituencies had increased the number of urban seats, in a state where the proportion of rural dwellers was declining anyway. Second, Modi’s policy, over the last 10 years, has benefited urban middle class more than anybody else. Gujarat ranks only tenth out of 21 states in terms of Human Development Index because some groups of rural Gujarat continue to lag behind ( India, Human Development Report 2011:Towards Social Inclusion, 2011, p. 24). "

I think it has been misinterpreted in both lead and "Debate on Gujarat's development under Modi", where someone has wrote "Gujarat ranks 21st among the 28 Indian states in the Human Development Index,". It should be edited, and removed from lead. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do see a point as i went through the compelete report no where did I see that it mentions about human develpment index or criteria, its a falisfied claim, let us wait for some other to comment, as I have stated the same before also Shrikanthv (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am unclear what is meant by "report" here, but there was a remarkably long-winded debate about this when I first inserted this source, an admin looked into it, and verified it. You should be able to find the discussion in the archives, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * hi Vanamonde93, Report is here . this is the source which is referenced to the statment saying of low human development Index , which is completely false claim as i went through the referenced report , it does not say any such thing ! , may be the source content have changed with time ? , please also note that the concerned thing here is a BLP claim , and can effect a living person negatively Shrikanthv (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It says fairly explicitly that "development" was aimed at Urban dwellers, at the expense of the health, education and economic development of rural areas. These last are the three components of Human development as the term is usually used (including J himself). Also, please look up the archived discussion about this, it is exhausting to repeat arguments every few months. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * went through archives, you were right removing this stuff may lead to NPOV and make the article unbalanced. (with all the stuff available in the net now! like har har modi!!) I guess i will not support the claim for removal now, but still feel interpreting human development, vaguely attaching it components of human development without any measure or number is little bit hard to digest for me Shrikanthv (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93, I can understand what he is talking about. It is definitive that the given document is not even 'criticism'. It is a neutral report, both sides have to be mentioned, but inside the subsection. And I am not sure which admin you are referring to. If you are referring to 'reviewer', then make sure, that reviewers are no stamp, at least when you have provided no link to the report and asked about the "report" yourself. Even if modi was dead, it is wrong to insert such misleading, however it is BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At BLP noticeboard Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thread closed or archived, so what we are going to do? D4iNa4 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wife
There has been an addition of a name who is the so called Narendra Modi's wife here is the link. However Modi himself has never claimed that she is his wife. So the addition of Jashodaben would be unsourced. As this is a high profile article, because he is one of the prime minister candidate for 2014 general election, this might become a BLP issue and I think any such controversial unreferenced edits should be discussed. Shriram Talk 08:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a clear BLP issue. It is just an allegation by his fierce political opponent Digvijay Singh, with no substance whatsoever. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

- I hope everything is clear now, that all this was true !. Rahultalreja11 Talk  — Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Jasodhaben
Jashodhaben am on a handheld device! didn't check whether already updated. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Since, as the article says, Mr. Modi's to hi s wife is non consummated and even remained unclaimed by him until 2013, his wife, Miss Jashodaben, must not be referred to as Modi. Instead, by her name- Jashodaben Chimnalal. Thankyou 14.139.229.34 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note, in Gujurati females have "ben" as a title, that is not the given name. (as males have "bhai"). In Gujurat the convention is thus that her real name is Jashoda'Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard
Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Same issue. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For now it has been tagged, but I don't think that would be enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Name translation
In accordance with precedence across WP, the persons name is listed in their native script.Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , why is it that every time I see your name at an article where I have previously edited, you demonstrate big dollops of cluelessness and seem always to end up being reverted? You are not a new contributor and, bearing in mind that you are familiar with India-related topics, I find it astonishing that you demonstrate a lack of awareness of WP:INDICSCRIPT. Please can you acknowledge that you have now read that guidance, which I am sure has been pointed out to you before. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
I just reverted multiple edits for the following reasons;
 * 1) The citation at the end of the lead explicitly states who is doing the criticizing;
 * 2) The statement "he has been cleared of any wrongdoing" is a blatant NPOV violation, because no court has done any such thing. He has been cleared in specific cases, such as the one where Jafri was murdered.
 * 3) Finally, as per WP:INDICSCRIPT, Modi's name should not be in Gujarati; that is stated explicitly. I have not touched that for now, because that would be a second revert on my part, but Lihaas is refusing to abide by the indic script policy despite my having pointed said policy out to them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But still, it has been proven that the source is being misused. Jaffrelot no where 'criticized' Modi's administration. It is blatant violation of BLP. And he has been proven by court to be innocent. I think you are getting yourself into conflict of interest, see WP:COI. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It has not been proved in any way; point me to the discussion where any such consensus was reached. Did I not ask you to read the TP archives once already? Also, why on earth are you edit warring on the tag? The same language has been used throughout the lead: "His administration has been praised for..." etc. Why are you taking issue with it the third time it is used? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's still no discussion on the subject. I don't see any consensus that the report had any criticism. I don't have to always look at TP archives that you are misrepresenting. No where its being discussed that the report were 'criticism'. You didn't even showed up on BLP noticeboard. And be more practical with the edits you are reverting. He has been proven, that Supreme Court has not found any evidence against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no discussion, because it was discussed. You're edit-warring at this point. Yes, consensus is required to add content; and consensus was obtained. Once that is done, there is no need to justify content to every tom dick and harry who shows up on the page. Moreover, you have no consensus for adding the extra unsourced sentence. DS, what have you to say about this? And Sitush? I cannot revert, because I would be hitting 3RR, and I have no intention of being blocked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I still cannot see any discussion whether this report had any 'criticism' or not. Clearly it had none. In fact you never had access to this report. Still you have misinterpreted it. May I know why? If Lihaas tagged 'by who', it is your liability to explain. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is here. It got filed under a different heading, for whatever reason. Read past the first few paragraphs. As you can see there, I did have access to the report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got split while archiving; the rest of it, with the conclusion, is here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you have access because I had provided the link, so did other user(User:Shrikanthv). Yet you are still pushing your POV that it is criticism. Can you find me even a single secondary source that claims Jaffrelot's opinion to be criticism? As usual, you don't seem to be understanding what has been written. You are not understanding or willing to admit that the archive has to do nothing with this BLP violation. That discussion was only about whether Jaffrelot's opinion should be added or not. For the subsection. So stop using it as a scapegoat. We all know that it is being misused, just like on subsection, you/or someone had added that Gujarat ranks 21/28 in Indian states. Although report said 10/21. We need WP:RS not your misinterpretation of archives. Because they don't support your opinion either. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What the bloody hell are you talking about? The entire section IS ABOUT THE LEAD. Can you not read what's written? I HAD access then; on what basis are you saying I do not? Jaffrelot IS A SECONDARY SOURCE. What part of that do you not understand? This is the last sentence presented there: "The Gujarat chap- ter of the India Human Development Report 2011 concluded ‘the high growth rate achieved by the state over the years has not percolated to the marginalized sections of society, particularly STs and SCs, to help improve their human development outcomes" EXACTLY what the sentence you are disputing is saying. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've asked above "what you mean by report", probably because you were unaware about it. If there was access to report, why link was tagged as "subscription required", you are contradicting yourself. So you admit that you are the only one pushing that Jaffrelot's report is critical. However, his whole report has got no criticism, why? Let me know that. Jaffrelot's report seems to be neutral like it was discussed on BLP noticeboard. It is almost similar to other reports that has been attributed to be positive. He points out the positivity of Gujarat's growth, he adds that middle class families have highly benefited, so on..Whatever you have written just now, it only supports the subsection, it is not supporting any thing that has been written on lead. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, and you are getting tendentious on this matter, drop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me know where it does? Just saying that it does makes no sense, you are only violating WP:BLP by misusing the source. And I am not getting why you are ignoring my suggestions as well as of Lihaas, and Shrikanthv but pushing the POV of Vanamonde93. Care to explain? Also tell why you have removed the Gujarati translation and the line that the court found no guilty. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:INDICSCRIPT, as was explained already, I explained on my talk page, and it has been explained to you here, countless times that there is criticism in Christophe`s paper, you just keep choosing to ignore that, and next time you mention my name at ANI, kindly inform me. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure I will, I didn't knew that people have to be informed. Anyways, there's still no explanation that how his report is a criticism, because it doesn't seem to be, and even more it hasn't been interpreted as criticism by any other source other than this page. It is important to mention about the Court' ruling. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you not read page 84? It is a blistering critique of the administration. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In page 83, he writes that "Generally speaking, the BJP manifesto was more oriented towards the urban dwellers than before". In Page 84, he writes that "Modi’s policy, over the last 10 years, has benefited urban middle class more than anybody else. Gujarat ranks only tenth out of 21 states in terms of Human Development Index because some groups of rural Gujarat continue to lag behind (India, Human Development Report 2011: Towards Social Inclusion, 2011, p. 24)." But then he writes that "Indeed, Gujarat is a case of social polarization with new rich in the cities and most of the groups which are at the receiving end concentrated in the villages." - None of it sounds to be criticism. If you would read whole report, it sounds neutral. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And there are the paper by Maitreesh Ghatak and Sanchari Royand here, so it is high time you dropped this. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are mostly positive views about his administration., So if you are weighing up the negative comments, you should also weigh up the positive comments. So it is much better to add something like "Considering the human development of state, his administration has received mixed views." Even your own source says "Several economists have written praising Gujarat’s growth performance under Modi, such as Debroy (2012) and Panagariya (2014)." So why there is a need to ignore those positive views? D4iNa4 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are mostly positive views about his administration., So if you are weighing up the negative comments, you should also weigh up the positive comments. So it is much better to add something like "Considering the human development of state, his administration has received mixed views." Even your own source says "Several economists have written praising Gujarat’s growth performance under Modi, such as Debroy (2012) and Panagariya (2014)." So why there is a need to ignore those positive views? D4iNa4 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

D4iNa4, I'm not seeing anything new in what you are saying, although I'm also still trying to catch up with where you want it to be said. As others have pointed out, all of this has been discussed extensively in the recent past and nothing generally seems to have changed: he is and will likely remain a polarising figure in a very corrupt democracy. Dealing with situation where the subject is known to be economical with the truth, pursues a populist agenda in a semi-literate, corrupt and factionalised country and attracts criticism from the intelligentsia is always going to be fraught with difficulties. We are duty-bound to attempt an explanation of why this man's name so frequently appears together with words such as "controversial". The situation is not helped when contributors with a clear pro- and anti-Modi POV keep bringing up the same issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But it seems pretty unnatural here, I am not rejecting the critical view, especially those by Maitreesh Ghatak and Sanchari Roy. As per WP:NPOV, why we are not highlighting the positive views about his administration then? When it comes to human development. That would be the best solution, that is why rfc below has been opened. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "He has been praised for his economic policies, which are credited with creating an environment for a high rate of economic growth in Gujarat" That is directly before the sentence you are disputing, how do you think the article does not highlight positive reviews? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Economic growth and human development are two different things. i.e. China has probably 2nd largest economy in the world, but its human development is at 101/187(See HDI). D4iNa4 (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat in Indian general election, 2014 Modi entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife.
Changed: Modi acknowledged Jashodaben as his legal spouse in the campaign for the 2014 Loksabha elections To In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat in 2014 Loksabha elections Modi entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife. He has _not_ done it in a 'campaign' -- he filled his nomination paper! That is what the source also says. I think WP:STICKTOSOURCE applies here. Jyoti (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems specious to me. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Darkness Shines has put it in back himself. My point was He has _not_ done it in a 'campaign' -- he filled his nomination paper! That is what the source also says .Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

changed pracharak english translation to (full-time promoter/worker) from (propagandist)
I think the literal translation is not accurate here. I see the hindi term translated in a more appropriate way on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Mohan Bhagwat page. Of course both usage can be cited from reliable sources. In my opinion full-time worker is more accurate. Jyoti (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the source that we cite for the point. That says propagandist, and since you say both translations could apply there is no reason not to use the one that the source uses. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, your choice over mine. :-) Jyoti (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Replaced 'estranged' with 'parted ways' as in the infobox.
Changed: and were soon estranged because Modi decided to pursue an itinerant life. To: and soon parted ways because Modi decided to pursue an itinerant life. Typical synonyms of 'estranged' are alienate, antagonize, disaffect, make hostile/unfriendly, destroy the affections of, turn away, drive away. Which, imho, is not reported in this case. I think it goes against WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Jyoti (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If they are not divorced then they are estranged, what has BLPPRIMARY got to do with it? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, "estranged" is commonly used here. If anything, "parted ways" understates the issue because his wife makes it clear that he was the one in control of the decision and she just did his bidding. Try, , , , , , and for starters. It shouldn't surprise you to know that I'm pretty au fait (sic) with English language usage and abusage. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think 'estranged' is the common correct usage in this context -- okay. My doubt was because I considered it to convey: alienate, antagonize, disaffect, make hostile/unfriendly, destroy the affections of, turn away, drive away. In that context I wanted to point out WP:BLPPRIMARY to not use that word. But if that is the correct usage I admit that it has no relevance. I see that you have updated the infobox also accordingly. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey results about PM choice and seats
It is very interesting to observe that anti-BJP mongers strive hard to include any myriad criticism about Modi from any media/ personality/ magazines etc. Even Left biased intellectuals/economists are given prominent space in the article. But when it comes to surveys, despite every news channel, magazine,news portal, every newspaper is publishing surveys that depict Narendra Modi as top choice of PM by Indians. Still the mongers want to turn blind eye to it reverting when an updation regarding surveys been made. A user Vanamonde93 says while reverting "As you would say, that's why reverting". It seriously raises questions about the bias depicted in the article when such people makes edit and control the article. ,, , ..


 * Go Through wiki:notnews, there would be millions of survey by millions to add in every article and especially during election process, so will not support such additions Shrikanthv (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @IP; As I have explained before, if you wish to add a sentence saying "every survey has found.." then you need a source saying that. It is not enough to merely provide a lot of surveys. Also, please sign your comments next time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As per Vanamonde93, the current phrasing of the polls section is ok, and outlines the point - polls are showing support in favour of Modi. You will need some kind of source to prove that all of the polls are in Modi's favour though. There may be one or two which don't fit the general trend. Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention one updated poll as well, as these do show the seat prediction rising above 220. --RaviC (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very peculiar of user Shrikanthv to talk of wiki:notnews. The section itself is about polls and mentions about pre-poll surveys. But when[] (which is a hoax even accepted by the newspaper itself was included), does he has anything to comment? Now anyone who reads newspapers, Rajkamalrao (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)magazines,news portals, watches news channels, would know that what all surveys indicate. I had put link of just few surveys out of so many that took place. It is difficult to adjust each one of them, but while going through the article, when it says " In three opinion polls.....", it reflects as the section has not been updated since ages. However if so desired as to have proof of what all surveys indicated, here they are. [] " Mr Modi, who is ahead in all the pre-election surveys......", [], " All surveys unanimously declare Modi as people’s choice.....", [], "Final India opinion polls boost Narendra Modi’s campaign...". So while I am quite sure that you guys may stall the updation under some new pretext, but still the sources say all. 210.212.144.133 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, such additions now will result in wiki:NPOV, there are survey's which are available which counter your claim, will wait for other users to comment. do not edit until a necessary concensus is reached here Shrikanthv (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Come on user. Cite any survey by reputed/ reliable media which says otherwise. How come NPOV comes in picture? It is really surprising to see that information about surveys have not been updated since May 2013, as the section of the article says " In three opinion polls.....in May 2013.....". When some links have been introduced about what all surveys say, you are adopting sinister acts to NOT update the surveys result. Do you really consider yourself as editor of Wikipedia or UPA's menacing agenda.117.201.231.249 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits.
Changed Having effectively denied the marriage in four previous election campaigns To Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits. Added another citation too from The Economic Times. "denied" is not accurate. Not present in sources. I have reworded considering WP:BLPSTYLE WP:WELLKNOWN. There is another article from The Hindu "Avoid personal issues: BJP". He was entitled to leaving it blank and he exercised his choice. No one has challenged his 'choice' in any court of law. He never said he is bachelor. "effectively" denied the marriage in a BLP should be avoided. Jyoti (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong, "He previously claimed to be unattached and without family ties" "Mr. Modi and the B.J.P. took pains to keep the marriage quiet for many years, even when reporters managed to interview his wife, a village schoolteacher", sounds a lot like denial to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with DS. There are plenty of other examples out there. We might just be able to change it to "implicitly" but it is obvious from the sources that he denied his legally-recognised marriage in prior elections and indeed the INC challenged this from 2001, although not in court. The source does say it was in previous elections. All of your recent work on that paragraph needs to be reverted. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "INC challenged this from 2001, although not in court" -- It was his legal right to fill that section or not INC is incapable of going to court! And not speaking about his wife in election campaign is also his choice which everyone should respect. Can we get a quote where he says "I-am-not-married" from a reliable secondary source? No, right? My concern is in the manner in which this section is worded in a BLP. "Having remained, and having said, ..." suggests that he lied which is not the case -- at no point in campaign he has talked about his spouse! This can very easily be three smaller sentences, closer to source than being a long sentence (presently) that subtly sends a wrong message. Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits. He claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt. In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat in 2014 Loksabha elections Modi entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife. I don't even want to get into the poor translation of his hindi speech the way it is done here! Jyoti (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A lie of omission is still a lie, how do you think it ought to be phrased? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He exercised his legal choice -- can you dispute that he violated any law? You are not to judge him on a Wikipedia article and blame him of a 'lie'! I think I have made my viewpoint clear -- Have I not already made the edits which you have reverted and have I not put it in italics yet again here? Jyoti (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What has the law got to do with it? He lied by omission, do you deny that? Or as the source say "Mr. Modi and the B.J.P. took pains to keep the marriage quiet for many years, even when reporters managed to interview his wife, a village schoolteacher". I am not seeing how what you have in italics above is an improvement over what is there now. I did a few changes, what is wrong with those? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An omission is an omission. You cannot label it as 'lie'. He exercised his legal choice -- can you dispute that he violated any law by his choice of omission or made a lie? I didn't say I have problem with the further edits you did after reverting -- skip that. BLP has to be more than based on recent news headlines -- I had also given an inline source from The Economic Times and mentioned another from The Hidu. I say, no it is not a 'lie'. Someone's private life and individual choices are to be respected. The citation also do not use 'lie' at any point. This was for addressing your viewpoint that it is a lie. The article does not use that word. My viewpoint remains same, quoting myself from above:


 * My concern is in the manner in which this section is worded in a BLP. "Having remained, and having said, ..." suggests that he lied which is not the case -- at no point in campaign he has talked about his spouse! This can very easily be three smaller sentences, closer to source than being a long sentence (presently) that subtly sends a wrong message. Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits. He claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt. In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat in 2014 Loksabha elections Modi entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife. I don't even want to get into the poor translation of his hindi speech the way it is done here! Jyoti (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Election candidates have to file sworn affidavits (nomination papers etc) at each election in India. Those affidavits include a question regarding marriage status. By leaving that blank, it seems to me that he lied by omission. That is what the sources seem to be saying. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may "assume" that -- I say it is not. He had a choice -- he is not obliged to disclose it if he so chooses to. We are not authorized to question his private life. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course he is obliged to show it if it is an affidavit. That's why the BJP are scrambling around at the moment to avert a PR disaster; that's why umpteen sources refer to the omission as a lie. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No User talk:Sitush he had a choice to leave it blank and he chose to leave it blank -- he was not under any legal obligation to fill in this field. Recently it was made a mandatory field and this time he had no choice and he was under legal obligation to fill it and he filled it. I think we agree on this point? Jyoti (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It has only recently become mandatory? That is news to me. The affidavits have been sworn many decades. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sitush that is the case. There was a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding this. I am not able to find the exact ruling but it is mentioned in these two news articles: previously it was not mandatory for candidates to disclose spouses name or details and he had to mention the name of his wife this time in view of the Supreme Court order. He has never discussed his spouse in election speeches by choice. Jyoti (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Although I note that the BJP are trying to say otherwise. This sounds like a Clinton-Lewinsky situation. How did we treat that? - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not read that link. Staying on the current topic -- current topic is absolutely no where similar to Clinton-Lewinsky by any standard. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And is it worth mentioning the speculation for his rationale, ie RSS liking for celibacy. I'm wary about speculation. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not read that link. Staying on the current topic -- I am not talking about RSS and their linking for celibacy by any length of imagination! We have to stop at some point, of course it can be extended and discussed at great length -- not on Wikipedia! I am not arguing in that direction. In this reply I am only opposing your view of terming it a 'lie'. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was perhaps not clear enough. The Clinton-Lewinsky situation I was referring to was with regard to the definition of "sexual relations". As far as I can recall, Clinton claimed that he did not have sex with Lewinsky, based on a definition that simply boggled the minds of most observers. Similarly, the BJP seem to be saying that he was not lying by omitting the information even though an affidavit has to be truthful. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish to refrain from extending this discussion towards comparison with Clinton-Lewinsky situation. I made a response to your earlier point above. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Modi lied about his marital status" Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not secondary source. It is another allegation in a news article. I will refrain from counting it as a judgement/verdict. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when has a newspaper not been a secondary source? There are loads of them saying the same sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say newspaper articles cannot be secondary source. Would you count it as a judgement/verdict? I think we are deviating from the topic. Let us not discuss about it is lie or not, I can continue to keep my line of thought and you can keep your arguments. Since it cannot be asserted unambiguously about this living person that he lied on this account I would have preferred to keep the description in this Wikipedia article also void of such derivation -- sensitive towards two living person's personal lives. I am in no way motivated to convince you or anyone to the 'truthfulness' or 'lie' of his deliberate choice -- but I am sure it has not been termed 'lie' by any competent authority or there is any case under-trial. Lying in nomination paper is a serious punishable offence. Jyoti (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Floating an idea: what if we say that the BJP have denied that he was lying, as per the NDTV link I gave earlier? That seems to balance things out, although I wasn't aware of it when I rewrote that mess of a paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is also fair enough, that balances it out in my opinion. BLP has to be extra careful and give benefit of doubt to the privacy of the person. Please also reconsider breaking into three sentences (in which case -- without having to add the counter of BJP from NDTV report you have mentioned) not linked by 'however' so that this subject does not get undue weight either. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, do we have a consensus on adding another line from NDTV article or breaking into three simple sentences? Meanwhile someone has added more to it! It will appear like his early life == his marriage controversy. lol! Jyoti (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing, the para says  He was engaged at the age of 13 to Jashodaben Chimanlal and the couple were married by the time he was 18 (emphasis mine). The source used says that they were married when she turned 17. I don't see anything mentioned about Modi's age when the marriage was formalised. Also the source used to support the statement Having remained silent on the question of marriage in four previous election campaigns says no such thing.Also Sitush, just like Jyoti said above it was not mandatory to fill all the columns. Even Manmohan Singh had left the column of his wife's name blank during one of his nominations (I have the copy of Nomination, it is a primary source and useless here)-sarvajna (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarvajna, the source for the "18" statement is in fact the Caravan article here, which indicates that he went off on his travels at 18. Someone has since edited the paragraph and ballsed it up. As happens so often with people here who do not read the cited sources etc before jumping in to amend a statement. On this occasion, that is you. The solution is to move the Financial Express citation to the end of the sentence that you modified.


 * Similarly, the "last four" tihng is sourced, just not particularly well-placed. It is in the citation immediately following the next sentence, ie this. I was going to do some more work on that but then Jyoti began suggesting more significant changes. That said, this is another instance of people not reading the damn sources: if you had then you could easily have fixed the placement yourself.


 * As for the issue of lying, the NDTV route is the way to go. Something like "Accusations that Modi's previous omission amounted to lying have been rejected by his party." No doubt, now that the big boys are back, we'll end up debating the precise wording until around about the time the election ends ;) It pisses me off that every time I come here to fix obvious big problems, certain other people turn up, say nothing about the big problems that were there but begin instead to quibble about stuff that often is of their own making. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

New biography
I don;t have a big problem with including this info from a new biography if we can also explain how Modi has shifted his story. The one that he is selecting to emphasise now seems very different to the adamant stance that he used to take and I can't help but think it is geared to the forthcoming elections. It would be easier to include if he just said that, if he had his time again, he would have resigned but instead we're being fed information that was available to him at the time but he chose not to divulge even though it was not exactly in the category of state secret.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical here but I'm already fed up of the way that various political articles are being manipulated in the run-up to the elections. Sometimes, I wonder if it would be better to have a moratorium on substantive content changes in these periods and let them all fight their campaigns off-wiki, as indeed they should! - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I read, it seemed as though this interview had been compiled last year. To be honest, I don't really mind how it's phrased - it just seemed like new information to add to the article. --RaviC (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * why not think of a full protection upto running down of elections, the biography by the author is a claim not really affirmed by the living person. I dont think it can be wieghed in as a usefull information on a third party claim on some of saying ya he said that while the actuall person is still alive !, with political newspaper article really I could find biased on both sided articles, it is literally possible to build an entire article on using only one sided article!, I am really against adding any more info at this point of time (good or bad) Shrikanthv (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All of these seems to be your personal views. This is a new information and should be added to the article. No one is stopping you from adding Modi's past "stories". ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not seeing this as a reliable source, given the source used for the addition of the content also says, "The largely-adulatory book" Darkness Shines (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, that doesn't look good, then. It rather confirms my suspicions that this is largely an electioneering effort. Vibhijain, we have a duty to be neutral, so "no one is stopping you from adding Modi's past stories" doesn't really do the job. If we were to add one "side" then we should add the other variants at the same time. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I havent' checked in this article, but in the BJP article (which is Modi's political party), there are many books cited with a negative bias against the BJP. If sources with a negative bias can be cited, then surely those with a more positive bias can also be cited? --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is spurious to say that this book is an election effort. The author is not affiliated with Modi in any way, and it's not unusual for new biographies to be published in election years--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC).


 * The idea is to prefer independent sources where possible. Furthermore, to work towards a neutral article and not one that reflects mostly "positive" or mostly "negative" sources. It is all about balance, relevance and reliability. I've no idea what the situation may be on the BJP article but, by following the spirit of WP:OSE, it is of no relevance to this article.


 * Modi has said many things and, in common with a lot of other politicians, they are not always consistent. Rather than rush to incorporate new stuff, during an election season we should instead be even more cautious than is usually our wont. This is a BLP of a very contentious person and caution should be our watchword. You are correct that it is not unusual for new biographies to appear at times such as this; it is also the case that many of them prove to be rushed, half-cocked jobs cashing in on the market and/or designed to promote the candidate. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just removed your addition of the book to "Further reading". As the link provided by Darkness Shines suggests, it is a rush job and so the chances of it being reliable/authoritative are not that great. There is currently a sockpuppet investigation concerning you and maybe it would be best to let that run its course before adding more information: we routinely revert sockpuppets, so continuing to add material would mean that you'd be wasting both your own time and ours if you are in fact socking. Obviously, if the investigation proves that you are in the clear then everyone will be happy and, since there is no deadline, you'd still have the opportunity to make whatever changes you want, wherever you want, and they will stay provided that you have consensus. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sitush, would you care to read WP:AGF? --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reliability of this book can be questioned, but given its coverage on Indian media, we add it in this way - "According to a political biography written on Modi by British author and TV producer Andy Marino, Modi wanted to resign from his role as Chief Minister after the riots at the BJP's Panaji enclave, however party discipline prevented him from tendering his resignation." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You've still not addressed the issue of neutrality/balance and I'm at a loss as to why we'd want to cite something that seemingly may not be reliable anyway. What has Modi said about the book? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I try my best to be neutral in my views. The coverage this book has got in Indian media can't be ignored. Many parts of this book have been actually said by Modi in a speech. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have very quickly scanned the article, and there are many sources which are biased against Modi and his party, the BJP. As an example, Amartya Sen is known to be critical of the BJP and its politicians: "is looked as one of their own by Marxists, and "describing himself as a fellow traveller of the Marxists, Professor Sen said that since his student days at Presidency College he had been adhering to Leftist thinking and “nothing has happened to make any reappraisal of that position”. " (The source is a blog, but the statements about Sen's political position seem reliable, and are well known.) --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think if we allow such additions, please try to add all the following things here in the article ! Please note that wiki is not a news

things for addition 0.1 1 2 3 4 Shrikanthv (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think that this book by Andy Marino is notable enough to put into the bibliography section.


 * Andy Marino: Narendra Modi- A Political Biography. ISBN 9351362175 HarperCollins. (2014)

What about these books, can they be included too?:


 * Narendra Modi : The Man, The Times

Author	Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay Publisher	Westland, 2013 ISBN 9382618473, 9789382618478


 * Narendra Modi, the Architect of a Modern State

Authors	M. V. Kamath, Kalindi Randeri Publisher	Rupa & Company, 2009 ISBN 8129114682, 9788129114686 Length	297 pages
 * Images of Transformation: Gujarat and Narendra Modi

Author	Pravin N. Sheth Publisher	Team Spirit (India), 2007 ISBN 8178970430, 9788178970431 Length	258 pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are terror bombings against Modi not mentioned in article?
Why are the terrorist incidents against Modi not mentioned in this article? They include the 2013 Patna bombings and this here: --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Four Indian Mujahideen terrorists arrested, had plans to target Narendra Modi

Terror outfit, Indian Mujahideen’s (IM) expert bomb-maker, Waqas alias Javed, a resident of Punjab in Pakistan was arrested along with three others suspected members of IM from Jaipur and Jodhpur in Rajasthan by the Special Cell of Delhi police.

The terror module, which was busted with the help of Intelligence Bureau, was learnt to have been holed up in Rajasthan for past few weeks and had plans to carry out terror attacks during the election rally of BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/four-suspected-im-terrorists-arrested/

Two days after serial blasts targeted Narendra Modi's Patna rally, the Uttar Pradesh police today said they had received intelligence inputs about terrorists plotting to attack the BJP's prime ministerial candidate's October 19 rally in Kanpur. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/terror-attack-planned-on-narendra-modi-s-kanpur-rally-too-says-police-439076

Ahead of BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi's rally in Muzaffarpur, there are reports that the March 3 address could come under terror attack. According to reports, to carry out the terror attack help of women present at the rally could be sought. http://zeenews.india.com/news/bihar/narendra-modi-faces-terror-attack-threat-ahead-of-muzaffarpur-rally_914256.html

Two suspected terrorists were on Wednesday arrested by the UP ATS team near Gorakhpur for their alleged motive to carry out suicide attacks during BJP prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi's upcoming poll rally in Gorakhpur. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/two-suspected-terrorists-arrested-in-up-ats-gorakhpur-narendra-modi/1/351388.html


 * Read your own sources, and you'll see why. All of them are saying something like "There is a report that suspected terrorists might attack a rally that Modi might be attending and he is possibly the target." Miles too speculative to put in here. Even in the case of Patna, there was no proof that he was the target. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the Patna bombings. What you mean by no proof? All news reports say that he was targeted. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Carrying out attacks at an election rally is not the same as targeting one person, an election rally is a choice target for terrorist attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you say that the lead of the article should talk about "human development", which is the responsiblity of a government, not of a single person (Modi), but here you say that a bombing of a "Modi election rally" should not be mentioned becasue it is not about Modi?
 * Should a Request for comment be opened for this? --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the terrorist attacks on Modi's election rally is removed from the article, then how can you argue that the lead should include those claims about the "human developement" of the Gujarat state administration. Can you prove that these were significant on Modi's life or campaign? --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead summarises the article body. As the body makes clear, the economic aspects of his policies/leadership have been widely commented upon, including by academic sources. He has been linked personally to those measures and has taken trips abroad to investigate and promote. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As per Sitush, the statements about human development have their notability established by their mention in academic sources. If, on the other hand, we were to report everything the newspapers said about him, there would be no controlling the size of the article, nor would it be possible to maintain NPOV. So, a newspaper mention is insufficient. Moreover, you are still only providing sources which say that the attack occurred, not that several of them were targeting Modi. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

University
This says Gujarat University and this says Delhi. We cite both, in different places. I'm inclined always to prefer The Hindu over The Toiletpaper (and, frankly, would rather we treated the latter as unreliable for pretty much everything) but are there any official sources that might clarify the issue? - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Modi completed his undergrad from Delhi University and completed his masters from Gujarat University. Check |here.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

National Secretary of BJP
I don't get it; "In November 1995, Modi was elected as the National Secretary of BJP.[25] In May 1998, Modi was elevated to the post of the General Secretary of the BJP and was transferred to New Delhi where he was assigned responsibility for the party's activities in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.[23] After Vaghela, who had threatened to break away from BJP in 1995, defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, Modi was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998" - So? 1995 or 1998? SHIMONSHA (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem to be different posts - National and General. That said, I'm not familiar with the organisation of BJP. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * General and National Secretary are two different posts, General Secretary being the higher post amongst the two. This can be checked |here from their official page. 'Term' Secretary has been used for the national level 'Secretary' which is generally referred to as 'National Secretary'.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)