Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015
he is a murderer a activist of RSS group which is a terrorist group

83.110.225.61 (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  04:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

World Records
Multiple world records of PM Modi and his initiatives including 1 for Jan Dhan Yojana(see ), 2 for yoga day (see ), 1 for 1st PM to (see ), 1 for 3D Appearance (see ), 1 for largest assembly of party workers (see ), 1 for PAHAL (see ) and 1 for twitter (see ) deserve a mention in the respective sections. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice idea. But perhaps better suited at --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha I would phrase my reply in Hindi Uplabdhiyan dekhke mirchi lagi? (Feeling jaleous of his achievements?) :p -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar reply here too. These feats can go in the individual articles of these events/schemes or when the PMship article is written. Lets keep biography away from such feats. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't use such words like "mirchi" and "jealousy" here, some editors said you got very much leeway, your such comments will go only against you. This is not facebook. Limited humour is allowed here but preferably you avoid it specially debating with experienced editors. Don't show your immaturity again and again. You are topic banned from Indian religions, just think what will happen if you are topic banned from Indian politics or all India related topics? I think you will not get anymore chances. Maybe your next mistake can lead you to topic ban. Be aware. -- Human 3015   TALK   02:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that . I should have not used it. But I guess, even I deserve some respect. I mentioned about referenced content and asked for if it can be added or not. And the answer I got was "Nice idea. But perhaps better suited at ". -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The academics' verdict
There have been repeated calls to include information about Narendra Modi's tenure as Prime Minister, and many of us have felt that the dust hasn't yet settled on his performance yet. Now, 125 academics have issued a letter that says this:

"Modi’s first year in office as the Prime Minister of India includes well publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary. Under Mr. Modi’s tenure as Prime Minister, academic freedom is also at risk: foreign scholars have been denied entry to India to attend international conferences, there has been interference with the governance of top Indian universities and academic institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Indian Institutes of Technology and Nalanda University; as well as underqualified or incompetent key appointments made to the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Film and Television Institute of India, and the National Book Trust. A proposed bill to bring the Indian Institutes of Management under direct control of government is also worrisome. These alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country."

Follow-up letters here and here. The pro-camp has created a change.org petition. So, it looks like we might have a serious debate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is important and has value. It could be cited in this article. This letter was drafted in the context of Modi's visit to San Francisco in the United States.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The second follow-up letter gives loads of sources that we can use directly. It is sad to find out that the Kalburgi's murder was nationalist-inspired. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * These are all blogs which seems to be not written in neutral manner, also has some factual errors like one of above blog mentioning that "Prime Minister Modi who is a RSS member", while Modi left RSS before joining office of CM of Gujarat. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, confirmed, these are not written in a neutral manner and are obviously criticism. Wikipedia has to be neutral, but cited sources do not need to be. Neutrality in Wikipedia happens when all perspectives are included, and when the major biased perspectives can be compared. This is from a blog but it is published by American Association of University Professors and can be trusted as a source for the consensus statement of the people who signed it.
 * If this is put into the article, it would be nice to balance with a counter-perspective that has the opposite bias. These people talk about censorship, but lots of other sources say that Modi has greatly increased government transparency. Both of these perspectives are valid.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * forgets that our policies permit self-published material from reliable scholars: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. These are top scholars in the South Asian Studies field that we cite in almost every article we write. He also ignores the fact that they have given us loads of factual information in the second follow-up that I posted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a piece on the scholars' letter.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In India too, protests are coming in pretty much every day against the growing intolerance in the country and the government apathy (in fact, Narendra Modi's apathy): Loads of top people in all fields, including Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan awardees have returned their awards, protesting against the government's acquiescence of the growing intolerance. It seems to me that this government has acquired a serious deficit of trust. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Writers: Munawar Rana, Katyayani Vidmahe return Akademi awards; PEN International expresses solidarity with authors, The Indian Express, 19 October 2015; Here are the 33 writers who returned their Sahitya Akademi awards, The Indian Express, 25 October 2015; Writers protest ‘rising intolerance’, The Indian Express, 21 October 2015; Writers make a point with silent march to Sahitya Akademi building, The Indian Express, 24 October 2015.
 * Actors: Kabir Khan, Emraan Hashmi, Soha Ali Khan slam intolerance towards Pakistani artistes, The Indian Express, 23 October 2015; Pune theatre artiste’s creative Protest — a silent 15-minute ‘blood bath’ on stage, The Indian Express, 25 October 2015.
 * Film makers: Full text: Dibakar Banerjee and 9 other filmmakers’ letter to President and Prime Minister, The Indian Express, 28 october 2015; FTII row: 12 filmmakers return national awards to join agitation against ‘intolerance’ The Indian Express, 29 October 2015.
 * Scientists: Top scientists join protest, slam ‘climate of intolerance’, The Indian Express, 29 October 2015.
 * Historians: Now, historians speak out against ‘highly vitiated atmosphere’, The Indian Express, 29 October 2015.
 * You must have missed everyone pointing out the hypocrisy of award-returners and their affiliations to the Congress party. They were pretty much universally condemned.  Please post those articles too. VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it is not only about facts but perception of the facts. Modi bhakts going to support Modi whatever he does, same way some Modi haters going to criticise Modi on any issue. There are "scholars" in both of these group. Regarding perception of facts, attacks on churches in India during Modi's administration are same that of last year of Manmohan Singh's administration, then why Singh's rule was not "communal"? Kalburgi was assassinated recently but Dabholkar was assassinated during Congress regime then why they are not responsible for it? I can provide scholarly sources for my claims. We are encyclopedia, we can't put forward someone else' agenda. We have written lots of criticism regarding Gujarat riots which this article deserves and we can add criticism of his first year of PM regarding his failure in implementation of policies or bringing back black money etc, but writing "intolerance in India is increased since Modi came" is just direct or indirect POV pushing or supporting some propaganda. -- Human 3015   TALK   22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all of them affiliated to Congress, some of them like Sarah Joseph are Aam Admi Party leaders. But it is may not be good to call all of them as political people, some of them are non-political, but questions remains how it can become part of biography of Modi? We can also get many scholarly criticism of these "scholars" who are returning their awards, common question is "Where were they at XYZ religious incidence during Congress regime?". These things are political moves and I think that don't deserve place here. There are many articles related to Secularism in India or related to religious violence, maybe it can be added there. We also have various lists of Indian who got some award, we can also create List of Indians who returned their award. -- Human 3015   TALK   23:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop engaging in WP:OR and WP:FORUMy discussions. If you have reliable sources of stature equivalent to the scholars and writers being referenced here, please bring them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's sourcing is not based what you personally feel is "of stature equivalent to the scholars and writers being referenced here".
 * The scholars' letters are primary sources.
 * Regarding the award-returnees, the link to Modi is not explicitly mentioned by many of your own sources.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sourcing indeed takes into account "stature" in the sense of academic and professional standing of sources. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
 * The paragraph I quoted above is by no means a primary source. If you think so, your understanding of WP:PRIMARY is wrong.
 * As for the mention of Modi, I can quote this from the historians' statement:

"“And when it is hoped that the head of government will make a statement about improving the prevailing conditions, he chooses to speak only about general poverty; and it takes the head of the state to make the required reassuring statement, not once but twice. When writer after writer is returning their award of recognition in protest, no comment is made about the conditions that caused the protest; instead the ministers call it a paper revolution and advise the writers to stop writing. This is as good as saying that intellectuals will be silenced if they protest,” it said."


 * That seems quite clear and explicit to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the Carly Fiorina page. The sources it uses are not scholars. VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are doing more damage than good by running such an agenda. I have checked Arvind Kejriwal, Sonia Gandhi and many other pages related to BLP. They have been strongly censored to exclude all the criticism and now there is not even a single word which talks about the other side of them. The articles are like court poets of Akbar which do nothing but sing for him either to praise him or to please him. Where its opposite in case of Narendra Modi. You bring here all kinds of justifications and logics to include any and every criticism that might have been done by anybody. He is PM of the India. If you feel you want to damage Wikipedia for your agenda go ahead. By the way, The most so called reliable source considered here is INDIAN MEDIA, which have been time and again accused by everyone to be biased. If you want, go ahead and see Social Media, where there is a flood of both supporters and haters of EVERYONE. Be it Kejriwal, or Sonia. But its only MODI you want to include everything negative about, no matter how politically motivated it is. Further, he has just found his place in WEF top 10 people. No discussion on that. I asked for slogans, you said include it in public image. I suggest you create a separate criticism article and do all the agenda talks there and give the link to that page in See also. But let this page respect BLP. If good needs to go to separate pages and not in this one, so should be bad. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt this would be considered to include any info in this article. I am 100% sure the source I shared would be ignored. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * World Record is not a reliable source I guess, because it has not been able to find its place in this article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can give you many examples but you can read these, Vidya Balan on her National Award, "Scientist" ISRO Chief says "return of award is just a show, Madhur Bhandarkar on award return row, Anupam Kher slams award returning filmmakers (you can say Anupam Kher is affilated to BJP, but with same logic many award returners are affiliated to some party), Lyricist Prasoon Joshi speaks against award returners, Even Shashi Tharoor slamming award wapsi. Also there are many cricketers including Tedulkar, filmstars, Singers like Kailash Kher, authors who are working for Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and praises government. If you want to mention award returners then you have to also mention who is criticising them. There are many editorials by reliable scholars who also cricised these award returners.-- Human 3015   TALK    03:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt you would include this. By the way, its hilarious that I havent been able to find or read about a single leader post Mahatma Gandhi era, which have addressed the huge rallies like Modi do abroad. All his public meetings abroad have count of tens of thousands without a fail. And every time the stadium is filled with the hootings Modi Modi. But the fact is not relevant for agenda runners here. Right? Can you please point me to a single political leader of the world who have adressed such huge audience live abroad even in a single country, leave alone modi comparison. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Control Pankaj Control. That is different thing. Here we are talking about inclusion of recent events. I think you gave one nice suggestion to create new criticism page of Modi, that may work. But even creating "crtiticism" secion within article is not allowed, we have to merge or write "criticism" in overall article without creating such section, so creating separate article on "criticism" is against policies.-- Human 3015   TALK    03:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point. The people who are protesting by returning their awards are not under trial here. Whether other people think their manner of protest is reasonable or not is not our business. You can go and debate them in debating forums, of which there are plenty. The point of relevance is the causes for which they are protesting, the causes for which the government is being blamed. In the words of the American South Asian scholars, they are: well publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary as well as the attack on academic freedom. If these assessments should not be included in our article, you better find reliable sources that contradict them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why no word of criticism included in Arvind Kejriwal? Has no-one ever opposed him? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, In your list you have even mentioned Emran Hashmi and you are denying other people. If Vidya Balan returns her award then she becomes scholar and deserves mention but if she says she will not return her award then her statement becomes non-notable? Padma Bhushan Scientist Bhargav is returning his award but Padma Vibhushan ISRO scientist Madhavan criticising these award wapsi which you think do not deserve mention. And all these we are writing in biography of Modi instead of somewhere relevant place. On Wikipedia we write both sides, we should mention "protest" but also "criticism of protest". -- Human 3015   TALK   04:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana needs a mention, they are longer topics with many scholarly analysis done. Not a single word on these in the article. --AmritasyaPutra T 07:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Modi has said to Hindus and Muslims to not fight against each other but fight poverty. Modi also said to ignore statements given by various communal leaders and do not listen to them. read here, here. Bur those "scholars" who don't read news papers are keep on saying that Modi is mum over "intolerance" in country. Where does his these statements have mention? Is there any statement by Modi against any community which increased intolerance in country? Does Modi incited intolerance? There are statements by some leaders like Sakshi Maharaj and others but how Modi is responsible for that? If you want to write "there is increasing intolerance in India since Modi became PM" then we should also mention that "In reply to increasing intolerance in country Modi urged Hindus and Muslims to not fight against each other but fight against poverty." Afterall this article is about Modi, not about "intolerance in India", so Modi's statements regarding this issue gets priority here. -- Human 3015   TALK   11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are falling into a FORUMy discussion.
 * Whether Modi has incited intolerance or not, we have no way of knowing. You should not be making that kind of an argument.
 * We have no obligation to include both "positive" and "negative" views. We are not a television network. As per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT we summarize all the viewpoints that appear in reliable sources. It so happens that the scholars who are critical of Modi (if that is what they are) have spoken. The scholars who might possibly support Modi haven't. If they have spoken, please produce such sources. Not news items but scholarly analysis of news items.
 * We don't cherry pick from the thousands or millions of news items that cover a national government or head of government. We depend on the scholars to do such picking.
 * We also don't include "criticisms of criticisms". We might include, as per due WP:WEIGHT, contradictory views among scholars. To pick an example, Vamsee Juluri has written a blog post criticising the original 125 scholars. But that is of no value to us. If Juluri had produced a scholarly analysis of Modi government, we could include that. But it appears that Juluri is a Media Studies scholar. So it is unlikely that he will produce anything useful here.
 * So where are the scholars (third party scholars) who might give you positive views of the Modi government? If you want to make an impact on this article, that is whom you need to hunt for.

- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder you want to write about "intolerance in country" in Modi's article but don't want to write Modi's views on "intolerance in country". -- Human 3015   TALK   12:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not scholars. It would be arrogant of us to assume such a role. We don't decide whether the views of Modi should be covered in an analysis of Modi. That is for scholars to do.
 * Can somebody step in and put an end to the WP:FORUM that is developing here? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should provide your draft what you want to write. Moreover, Modi's views about "intolerance in country" are important if you are writing it in this article. This is article about Modi. Modi's views on intolerance are not important if there is an article named Intolerance in India. And also read WP:ADMINSHOP.-- Human 3015   TALK   12:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adminshopping much? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Time and again we see proposals to edit this biography when that all content is more suitable for Primeministership of Narendra Modi or something such. Most of the "academics" can be linked with non-BJP parties. If one wishes to write their stand and be neutral too, the page will have a lot of UNDUE stuff here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The problem with much of the above discussion is that it is too early to judge Modi. Ideally, what we should say is something along the lines of "As Prime Minister, Modi has initiated various economic initiatives - list 3 or 4 of the more important ones here. However, his administration has also been marked by allegations of attempts to curtail religious and academic freedom in India - mention the sahitya academy stuff and the beef bans and murders." Anything more is too much and, as DD says, should probably go in his PM article. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it should have been in his PM article. Regarding "intolerance" Modi said "Hindus and Muslims should not fight each other", no one insisting to include this sentence but people are opposing to include this statement even while mentioning current "intolerance" in country. If he would have said opposite that "Hindus and Muslims should fight with each other" then this statement would have featured in lead section of this article. There is a basic Wikipedia policy named WP:NPOV. I think what Kautilya is suggesting lacks NPOV. He want to write about award returners but don't want to mention other elite people who are critising those award returners. Arun Jaitley called these award returners as "rabid", but I'm not saying to include it here, but remarks of other scientists and filmmakers are important in this respect. (But if there is separate article on PMship then we can mention "rabid" remark there). He want to write "intolerance" is increasing in India since Modi came but don't want to write Modi's view on "intolerance" in Modi's article. If Modi would have said any inciting statement then same people would have supported to write it here.-- Human 3015   TALK   13:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Human3015, we don't really care what Modi has said or not said. What we care about is what reliable source say his premiership is doing. By all appearances, they are saying that he is starting various economic schemes but also that there is an increasing climate of intolerance under his administration. That's what we should say too. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But as many sources pointed out, there were worse communal incidents under the Congress party, even as recently as 2013.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 14:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When Modi says "I'm Hindu Nationalist" then we mention it in lead attaching citation of his that interview, but when he says "Hindus and Muslims should not fight against each other" that time we don't care what Modi says. It is a biography article, and his views does deserve mention, same way "Hindu nationalist" mentioned in article. -- Human 3015   TALK   15:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * we are not writing Modi's views on his own government, we are just writing his views on "intolerance", which is biographic and encyclopedic. We are also adding criticism by others. -- Human 3015   TALK   16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clear my stance, I'm not Modi supporter or his Bhakt. I have never done any editing on page of BJP, RSS, Bajarang Dal etc to show them some nice organization. I have created page Foreign Direct Investment in India which was featured on main page under DYK section, I wrote how FDI in India increased and other things, but not a single time I wrote name of Modi in that article, I have not written "something good happened because of Modi" though I was having all liberty to edit that article. I have mentioned Make in India but I just said it is initiative of Government of India. Im saying this because many times some editors gets "labelled" and other editors thinks that he is doing some POV pushing.-- Human 3015   TALK   16:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Um, no. When other people call Modi a Hindu nationalist, we say he is a hindu nationalist. And, surely, 'biographic and encyclopedic' includes opinions about a person's career. Otherwise we will be reduced to "born in, married in, and died in." --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

He is a Hindu Nationalist. Has anyone objected? --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 18:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What you were opposing to add in this article for some reasons is currently on the main page. I think these kind of "intolerant" things can be added in dadri article. Actually its already there. -- Human 3015   TALK   05:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gaurdian report in Public Image section
Why the article Narendra Modi: the divisive manipulator who charmed the world it should not be include in public image section. Are planning to add only the positive content ? --Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been referred to WP:NEWSORG which states that newspapers are only reliable for news, not opinions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also that your attribution is wrong. It should be attributed to the author of the opinion, not the newspaper. Only editorials can be attributed to the newspaper. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If attribution is wrong, we can use articles author name like it was in positive opinions. I referred the mentioned WP:NEWSORG, what about deleting positive opinions on the same lines. Modi has also been called a fashion-icon(and this part describes everything positive by omitting controversy over his name on suit) . Modi is "good on economics" – one of the things "India desperately needs in a leader""The Indian stock market's greatest hope.....              --Rasulnrasul (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you attribute it Pankaj Mishra, it is not going to have any weight any more. It would be just an isolated commentator. The "divisive" bit is already mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. "Manipulation" and "charming the world" come naturally to politicians. So there is no substance there. The factual information that can possibly be attributed to the Guardian itself is the phrase "presided over a rising tide of assassinations and religious zealotry." That issue is in fact substantiated in the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * your reasons are selective and not valid. Also please provide your opinion about remove positive opinion. Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't agree with rahurlnasrul's edit, he is right about one thing. The entire image section is tiptoeing around what is probably Modi's most salient characteristic - the fact that he is a divisive and controversial figure. An entire paragraph to fashion icon? I thought that this was supposed to be a serious encyclopedia that focused on what was important. The takeaway from the current image section is that Modi is a hardworking, powerful, and popular leader who manages the economy well and also finds the time to be a fashion leader. Oh, and yes, 'some media sources' think he is divisive. Fan of Modi or not, this is not reality. --regentspark (comment) 20:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Only in the western media where every mention of Modi is accompanied with 2002 Gujarat riots.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indian media also relates Modi with Gujrat roits, but current issue is why only selective positive opinions are included while ignoring negative opinions. How wiki rule vary about positive and negative opinions from reliable sources? The takeaway from the current image section is that Modi is a hardworking, powerful, and popular leader who manages the economy well and also finds the time to be a fashion leader. It looks like paid advertisement rather than enclyopedia Rasulnrasul (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rasul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:428:AFBF:0:30:E27E:C601 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Narendra Modi ministry
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article is not notable enough. However, if it is merged with the Wiki page Narendra Modi, it will be in the right context. Isnowden (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, suggest renaming to "Narendra Modi administration" and expanding it. The administration clearly needs an article, but the cabinet by itself, not so much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposer has been blocked as sock. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article is neither an encyclopedic subject, not a historical event. The swearing-in ceremonies happen around the world, but they do not qualify to be an encyclopedic subject. This article should be created as a sub-section and not an individual wiki page. Currently, it is nothing more than a press release. Isnowden (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Rather non-encyclopedic article, in my view. The person is (obviously) notable, and there will likely be more than enough material for an article about his administration; but this is overboard. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposal is made in block evasion. Proposer of this merge has been blocked as sock. -- Human 3015   TALK   20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"*controversial figure domestically and internationally*"
Could I add to that, that controversy does not begin to describe it. His party is openly fascist, founded by an admirer or Hitler. He himself has a long series of bigoted statements and actions against Muslims, investigated repeatedly for failing to protect Muslims who were mass murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.249.3.198 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"controversial figure domestically and internationally" of lead only sources to links before 2011 and they don't support the assertion except that he was controversial in India. His travel ban on the US was also removed. Can we have some new and accurate source to support this sentence? Or we can just remove now. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I support a removal if new sources are not available. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  08:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the various discussions above (and note the sources provided). --regentspark (comment) 12:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

, those discussions and sources only support the sentence "criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state and failing to prevent the 2002 Gujarat riots", but not more than that. Can you verify again? D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indian PM Narendra Modi still mired in controversy, Modi has become one of the most polarizing political characters on the world stage since he was elected last year, receiving both rock star status and antagonized receptions throughout his international visits, Modi remains mired in considerable controversy about his role in the event. Looks clear enough to me. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He was and he remains a controversial figure both at home and internationally. Just go search for his name on the BBC News website, for example. The guy pops up almost weekly in stories that raise serious criticisms and debate regarding such things as his economic policies, his failed promises and his underlying Hindu nationalism. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition, the pre-2011 examples, of which there are many more than those we list, are still "live" and most probably will remain so long after Modi himself has died. The previous discussions dealt with all this and reached the compromise that is reflected in the article as it exists now. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I checked, not that I could find any, but you have a point, can we just keep it as "He remains a controversial figure." D4iNa4 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If examples are required, the current controversy may help. Modi has been criticized for not condemning the killing of a Muslim man suspected of the sin of eating beef, whilst he is at the same time calling for the banning of the killing of cows and the beef trade. The inference that the lives of cows are more important than those of Muslim men is inevitable, even if not an accurate indication of Modi's views. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Narendra Modi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131207150752/http://www.hindustantimes.com/specials/coverage/gujarat-assembly-elections-2012/chunk-ht-ui-gujaratassemblyelections2012-topstories/narendra-modi-wins-maninagar-by-70-000-votes/sp-article10-976853.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-TopStories/Narendra-Modi-wins-Maninagar-by-70-000-votes/SP-Article10-976853.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130210144412/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-BlogPostsAshokMalik/Popular-but-polarising-can-Narendra-Modi-be-PM/SP-Article10-956550.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-BlogPostsAshokMalik/Popular-but-polarising-can-Narendra-Modi-be-PM/SP-Article10-956550.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016
Under the heading "2014 Indian general election campaign", consider the third paragraph, first line, the verb to be used is "speed-up" instead of "speed up" because the '-' indicates the association of 'speed' to 'up' and not to 'government decision-making'.

Anuraglal13 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Some people on Wikipedia are quite particular about which particular Short horizontal line should be used. User:Chris the speller may like to comment - Arjayay (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Please re-open this once consensus is reached. Thanks. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The phrasal verb "speed up" does not need any punctuation at all. A phrasal verb should never be hyphenated. Chris the speller   yack  03:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Development debate
Hello. I wanted to correct the following for erratic English: "He has been praised for facilitating ease of doing business and ending buerocratic logjam which made investment in India an olympic feat. Gujarat topped the World Bank's ease of doing business rankings for two consecutive years.[149] of which the first report was blocked by the then UPA government.[150]". But then, I checked the sources and what I see there is quite far from what the article says: So I would propose to replace the whole thing by: "Among Indian states, Gujarat topped an ease of doing business ranking in September 2015". But then the problem is, in September 2015, Modi hadn't been Chief Minister of Gujarat for quite some time. So, should we remove this? Thanks, Biwom (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) it's not a World Bank ranking
 * 2) it's not clear that Gujarat was on top the previous year
 * 3) the UPA government didn't block the first report

NPOV dispute
This forum is already rife with examples of the lack of NPOV in this article, which reads more like a propaganda piece than a neutral view of a politician. I could give nearly the entire article as an example, but we have particularly egregious lines like "As Prime Minister, Modi began working to speed up the efficiency of India's economy and make it more business-friendly.".

Jkoudys (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would probably be simpler if you just go ahead and change the text and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, then the discussion can move to the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling out one line, I'm calling out the whole article. I don't know that much about the man, but it's quite obvious to me (or any reasonable person who reads it) that the tone is heavily non-NPOV. I'm simply following the guidelines for marking an article as POV by starting this section on the talk page. Jkoudys (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with on this. Point out the phrases and copyedit and if someone revert, then start the discussion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I agree with your concerns. I think a lot of the biased wording is due to Modi's current very high personal popularity in India and high poll ratings. AusLondonder (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think it is appropriate to raise the matter here prior to any significant clean-up being attempted. AusLondonder (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd still suggest moving ahead with small scale changes first. A generic 'the article is non neutral' is not going to get us anywhere. Start with specific non-neutral statements (obvious ones like jkoudys' example in the OP is a good place to start). Reword the statement (or argue for its removal). And let's see what happens. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. This is a knotty problem and perhaps discussion is the way to go after all. I took a look at the statement quoted above and it looks like the entire paragraph is sourced to news reports immediately following the election. Except for the abolishment of the planning commission, the stuff is entirely speculative from a 18 month old perspective. Either we get references that are more up to date that tell us whether these speculations about reforms actually took place, I would suggest deleting the entire thing. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously he's an incredibly influential and important person, so there needs to be something here, but yeah it does feel like like the first cut needs to be done with an axe, not a scalpel. I mean, the first paragraph states "Modi remains a controversial figure domestically and internationally, despite his progressivism", which is a weasel-words way of saying "Modi has critics in spite of how great he is". It's embarrassingly POV. Jkoudys (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The controversial statement was settled on a while ago and 'despite his progressivism was recently added by someone. I've removed it. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting that someone would add a statement saying Modi is "progressive" given he is actually from the centre-right party of India. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

He's actually a head of government, you know. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. As with the case of every article on an incumbent head of state, there is bound to be some POV language creeping in. At least this page is in way better shape than the whole slew of articles in Template:Narendra Modi which is rifled with copyright violations and other major issues.  The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's Call the Whole Thing Off. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

New section on IT policy
I propose to create a new section in Prime Minister IT Policy from the existing article Digital India. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not needed. Digital India is already mentioned in Economic Policies and has its own article. It is premature to say much about the impact of Digital India anyway. I do not think it warrants a whole section on Modi's page. Givemeplease (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? I echo Givemeplease's thoughts, apart from a brief mention+link, this is better covered on its own page.Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Impact is not relevant here. Its biography of Narendra Modi and we need to mention his initiatives and reactions on it from public. Impactful or not, the initiative has created a buzz in Indian media and is has got international attention from IT giants. If you see the article Digital India, there is enough content we can extract directly related to Narendra Modi. And in the last, I would like to say, that it being a key initiative of Modi's policies need a mention as a brief subsection. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is room in Wikipedia for all information that summarizes reliable sources. Draft a few sentences of content if you like. It can be considered here, or if for some reason it does not fit here, then it can be placed in another article like "Political positions of Narendra Modi" or "IT policy changes during the Modi administration". The only concern is the quality and appropriateness of content. If you provide good content that is appropriate for Wikipedia then there is always room for it somewhere.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Honorific Suffix
I think that the previous honorific suffix i.e. "Prime Minister of India" should be there rather than the current one which is "OAS".According to me the "Prime Minister of India" is in itself a great honor.All other honors should be after that only.So if there is any valid reason,then please do provide us with that. Dpshmrt (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Prime Minister of India" was removed as an honorific suffix because that is not an official honour, let alone an honorific suffix. It may be an honour to serve in the role, but that is not what is meant by an honorific suffix. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi , It's quite delay in your response but no matter .I found this suffix a little bit strange and I think that "Prime Minister of India" can be there as a part of prefix.Don't you think so ??As both of them would make it more attractive. Dpshmrt (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think OAS is a bit weird. Not exactly a well known honor. However, we don't need to say Prime Minister of India either (that's already there below the picture) and it is not a permanent label. I'm going to remove the OAS while you all figure this out. --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the prefix "The Honourable" is debatable. A brief discussion earlier here concluded that it is not used in India as a title. Perhaps it should be removed as well? --regentspark (comment) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article Prime Minister of India says "The Honourable" is a formal title. A number of sources refer to the Prime Minister of India as "The Honourable" such as here and here. Order of Abdulaziz al Saud is an official honour awarded by the King of Saudi Arabia. However, other recipients of the honour such as David Cameron to not have it listed in their infobox as an honorific suffix. AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron... are all using "The Right Honourable". So I don't see why "The Honourable" should be removed from here it being a style of reference. I have now wikilinked it. I noticed that Manmohan Singh doesn't have that and it should be added there too. Would have to check all PMs and Presidents and like wise.... §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. It would be nice to see a source that explains its usage (for example, is it ex-officio, if yes, will it still apply to Singh, does it apply to all parliamentarians as it does in the UK, stuff like that). In the case of the UK there seem to be good sources but all we have here are a couple of examples from government websites which doesn't necessarily make it reliable. If someone has access to the official policy on honorableness, that would be great. Tongue in cheek comment: Popping an 'honorable' in front of a politician is the best example of British humour I've seen in a while :) --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2016
This page provides false information about educational qualifications of Narendra Modi. There are no evidence regarding the same, and the concerned department has denied to reveal the information as well. Thus the information must be removed from the page.

Aman9.bits (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ the education section is referenced, whereas your claim "the concerned department has denied to reveal the information" is unreferenced - so cannot be considered - Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reference: http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/gujarat-university-rejects-rti-request-on-pm-modis-masters-degree/13645
 * Unfortunately that reference doesn't contradict the sources that say he does have those educational qualifications. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per RegentsPark. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

His educational qualification should be discussed if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNS Cosmos (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The person at question does not have any educational qualification and any false claims of his honors must be refuted with evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNS Cosmos (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Honourable term
Hi,

RegentsPark, I want to know that what part of Wikipedia supports term like Honorable, Dear, or any kind of honor tittle. Referred articles Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin. Please do correct if I am missing something. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 05:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the page on The Honourable or have a look at the section above? The "part of Wikipedia that supports terms like Honorable, Dear, or any kind of honor title" is MOS:HONORIFIC and articles include The Most Honourable Andrew Holness, The Honourable Steve Bracks, The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher and a whole lot of others. Now join the discussion above instead of reverting blindly. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly what the Masked Man says. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting. I need some time to get that. As of now you can revert the edit. Good luck.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegations/ accusations - Narendra Modi
dear Administrator I was going through the pages on Narendra Modi and to my surprise I could not find any sub heading (describing allegations/ accusations) that made the Narendra Modi such a controversial figure. After lot of effort and reading irrelevant sections I could find some lines on his accusation for which he was barred to travel to US and EU for 12 years, under the heading of Gujrat Riots. I suggest we must have a subheading where all the allegations are listed below for easy reference and assimilation of comprehensive picture. Under that heading I suggest following well sourced material could be added.

Narendra Modi is seen by many as revivalist of Hindu culture and dominance and other see blood on his hands. Mr Narendra Moodi was denied its entry to US and Eu for twelve years till he became Prime Minister of India. He was blamed to covertly allow massacre of Gujarat deadly riots of 2002 in which large number of innocent people died. Later, however, it is said, Supreme Court of India has cleared Moodi of the charges / allegations. Though many believe that supreme Court has never given Mr. Modi a clean chit Mr Narenda Moodi is a controversial figure.And this needs to be written in his page for the sake of improving information and record. MalikAttaRasool (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a separate section for Gujarat riots. All the allegations and the clean chit by the court has been mentioned there. Bharatiya  29  09:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Bharatiya29 dear, Sure, there is a separate section as Gujarat Riots but it does not solve the problem of researchers who when looking for, why Mr. Narendra Modi was denied entry to US and Eu for 12 years. Mr Narendra Moodi was denied its entry to US and Eu for twelve years till he became Prime Minister of India. therefore, in order to have proper understanding of BJP leader profile some suitable heading needs to be created. It is further added that clean chit by Supreme Court of India is also dubious claim. - MalikAttaRasool (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All these are adequately covered in the article. The visa issue has an entire paragraph devoted to it in Narendra Modi. The article you cited from July 2013, (which btw is a press statement from 'Citizens for Justice and Peace') about the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri is also mentioned in the article with the conclusion - "In December 2013 the magistrate court rejected the protest petition, accepting the SIT's finding that there was no evidence against the chief minister". The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Any researcher who is interested in knowing controversies / allegations on Mr Modi will not look into section like “International Diplomacy” and “Gujrat Riots”. Therefore, for the purpose of clarity and improve the standing of article, it is once again suggested we should have a suitable sub paragraph heading covering the allegations which are talk of town, provided we are interested in better and easy accessible information on Wikipedia rather promoting the image of a leader.MalikAttaRasool (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we cannot possibly in good faith call them a "researcher" then. Which town are we talking about here? "We are interested in better and easy accessible information on Wikipedia" and that is exactly why we have the Manual of Style/Layout and what you are suggesting goes against WP:STRUCTURE. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Modi is the 14th PM of India
Wiki page shows Modi as 15th primeminister, but he should be the 14th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.216.95 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. clpo13(talk) 15:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Editor,


 * I think the Prime Minister sequence in which Honourable PM Narendra Modi is actually 15th and not 14th as specified in the article.


 * Please do make the correction immediately.


 * Best regards,
 * Harsha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshakasi (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Gulzarilal Nanda was only an acting PM. According to my knowledge he has never been sworn in as PM.
 * Hence Modi is the 14th PM to hold the office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.216.95 (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Law repeals
The law repeal info is trivia. All governments do it but you can't compare one with another because times and situations change. It is housekeeping, not substantive. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, repeal of a significant active piece of legislation, rather than something which is obsolete or affects a very few people, would be a different ball-game. This article is way too slanted towards promotion of the man, driven by slavish press reports that in turn are driven by him. People really do need to look outside India for media sources. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. The entire Modi as Prime Minister section is just a bunch of bullet points taken from news headlines. Modi announced this. Modi did that. No attempt to go deeper into anything. We should just throw the whole thing out and start again. --regentspark (comment) 13:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary/lead text
Dear Administrator, I've made a recent edit that was undone and I am taking it to the talk page for some discussion. Here's my take:

Under Summary

Much limited information is present in the quick intro compared to international leaders. As opposed to the world leaders, the information present is again critical and not informative. For instance, that he has been praised and that he has been criticized (which is congress press driven, due to opposition politics). In an attempt to present a generic image of the leader, we must just say what he has done (and not be carried away with critical information that any world leader has including Obama).

Not only that, all cite notes are outdated by 5-10 years, and the sentence says "remains" a controversial figure. He remains a cheerleader, and a savior among the supporters and a controversial leader among the suspicious ones. We need not establish our democratic favoring in the summary for the international audience to see that creates a fragmented image of the democratic victory of our Prime Minister (in majority). In order to create a matured content, we should move the content of criticism, performance as a chief minister to the subsections below.

Suggested add/edit to the First section/Summary


 * Description of his first electoral victory (commonly present in pages of world leaders including Obama and his distinction of having served CM for the longest time.
 * Description of his international awards and recognition by fortune and other magazines, facebook following, twitter following.
 * Some notes about his recent campaigning for PM candidate under BJP that has led to the historical victory.
 * Current "unique" efforts as a prime minister surrounding international tours, schemes he has launched (ranging from Swacch Bharat), Man Ki Baat (through which he connects to millions of Indians)

Justification

As a world leader, we are obliged to present a generic relevant up-to-date view and information about their activities. Outdated, critical information isn't recommended. Articles of Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi are perfectly well written offering generic, unbiased, non-critical information (despite "much" controversy surrounding them). — Preceding unsigned

comment added by Dvishnu (talk • contribs) 09:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your appeal to make Prime Minister Modi look good for the international audience makes it seem like you are under the impression that this page is edited/managed exclusively by Indian editors who are duty-bound to show their Prime Minister in good light - not the case. As for the "remains a controversial figure" part, please see this article from just two days back or this one from last December. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I agree on your last point. My request for the last sentence on "controversial figure" was requesting that to let it remain in the summary with updated cite-noted. There are severe allegations against "most" statesmen of the same degree. India has been ruled by the opposition party for the most part, after independence. While it's understood that he remains controversial, a good amount of it is fragmented for political reasons. He could have done better (before 14 years), but, in a critical situation that is already ridden with communal rage as expressed through mind-boggling violence, the sheer inability to do a satisfactory job can take up multiple definitions and it is not a crime in itself.

And if such a precedent is established for punishing the CM for his perceived incompetence, then no sane person would even dream of taking the Chief-ministerial job of any state that has a history of communal discord.

Coming to my other request, referring to my request to add more detail to the "very short" summary about his activities, campaigning, electoral victory, recognition as a leader can be addressed in the top. Please suggest. cpajourney (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree to the proposer to some extent. Firstly, lede should be updated with recent info and cites. Second, international honors do require a mention. Third and most important is that it should be in line with information present on other world leaders. The current version is definitely not neutral with any stretch of imagination. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  16:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks completely neutral to me. What part do you think is biased? --regentspark (comment) 19:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out three points which need to be adressed by lede. Further, refs older that 2011 need to be removed from lede or moved to content below. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with what the masked man has done below. And updating cites. But the presence or absence of international honors has nothing to do with neutrality and "in line with information present on other world leaders" is very vague (and perhaps has nothing to do with neutrality either). I did take a look at David Cameron and nothing really leaps out as being particularly different. Regarding international honors, world leaders get tons of honors and who are we to decide which ones should be in the lead and which ones not? Better to shove that stuff into a separate section titled "International Honors" or somesuch. --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, better still, don't even bother with another round of fluff section designed to promote Modi. I could understand mentioning, say, being the recipient of a Nobel Prize but pretty much everything else is just diplomatic BS. As for the old chestnut re: him being controversial, well, he remains so - does anyone read the regular stuff published about him on the BBC News website? It is almost without fail critical of him, albeit often in a subtle style. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the status quo is just fine and we should leave it as it is. If anything, the article is completely biased towards Prime Minister Modi. The lede and section Narendra Modi goes into detail about what he’s done since taking office, but does not mention anything negative about his premiership. The Guardian article from just a few days back has this to say - A series of cases involving official attempts to curtail freedom of expression and censor online media, harsh treatment of a student activist accused of sedition, failure to curb the misogynistic treatment of women, and the banning last year of a British documentary about a notorious Delhi gang-rape in 2012 have all contributed to perceptions that Modi’s premiership and aggressive nationalism are combining to undermine India’s democratic ethos and postcolonial liberal, secular tradition. Amnesty International has also expressed concern about current trends. Its 2015 report said: “Religious tensions intensified, and gender- and caste-based discrimination and violence remained pervasive. Censorship and attacks on freedom of expression by hardline Hindu groups grew.” The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please include such content to make it neutral. Talking about the lede, For instance, consider "Earlier, as Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi's economic policies have been praised,[9] although his administration has been criticised for failing to significantly improve the human development in the state and for failing to prevent the 2002 Gujarat riots.[10][11][12]". His Economic policies have been praised (for what?). Negative point has descriptive text detailing and linking articles. whereas positive point is just that it has been praised without answering what why and by whom. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pankaj raises a good point.  Do you happen to know of any prior discussions regarding this statement?  The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems I was the one who removed the “(credited with encouraging economic growth in Gujarat)” part from that sentence (Special:Diff/706238059). I honestly can't remember why exactly I did that and since the edit summary “some tweaks” is as vague as it gets, I’ve restored the text. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The content as it is, is fine. In my view, it's just limited and very small (compared to Obama, Justin Trudeau or any other world leader). We could briefly write about his electoral victory (first time and now), the progressive steps he has taken as a Prime minister (including international visits), the alignment/transparency he has brought in the Ministry (by reducing Cabinet positions), and initiatives taken. Honorable Forbes and Fortune mentions are present in other leaders lead text, for instance Justin Trudeau (and not limited to Nobel Prize). To indicate the popularity among the masses, the key social media stat (one line about his mass twitter following and 66% nationwide attendance to his Man Ki Baat) could be added too.


 * Just specifically the number of laws repealed, number of initiatives taken are worth-mentioning (Swacch Bharat, Make in India, Smart Cities, etc) (It is mentioned in Barack Obama's lead text that states the major initiatives he has taken taken, and law's that were passed both in his previous and current terms). We can mention a point in the summary to state some thing like "During his term in office as a Prime Minister, Modi has introduced various initiatives to attract FDI and reformed IT, Energy and Defence Sectors. He sought to improve economic equality and standard of living domestically through initiatives such as Skill India, Smart Cities & Villages, Housing for All, Digital India, etc. Other major initiatives include the abolishing of the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog in an attempt to foster involvement and participation in the economic policy-making process by the State Governments of India. His frequent international visits and a corporate approach to diplomacy has helped improve the relationship of other countries with India [1 ] [2 ]."


 * Referring to some of the above cite notes - One of the links hyperlinked above states about the clean chit issued "during opposition rule" [2 ] [3 ]. On the note of his controversy and new links that were passed on, whether it is Guardian or Telegraph (some of what they're writing is contradicting their own sentences). Press would've to cover news "for and against" any sensational leader for it to attract it's audience base. There are significantly larger number of intolerance issues, nut-cases at an international level that we do not often attribute to the prime minister of a State. Going by WSJ, Modi has never been found guilty of anything for his Visa to be banned (it was about the people who were found guilty, and nothing to do with Modi). The WSJ article states his clearance from the apex Indian Supreme Court. With all that, I am not making it a point to edit anything to make it neutral.


 * My request is to propose the addition of some relevant text about his administration, international diplomacy in line with the International World Leaders. dvishnu (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a fine line between an "initiative" and a PR stunt. Modi is very adept at PR; many of his "initiatives" amount to little or nothing in practical terms in the eyes of the world. For example, a promise relating to river clean-up has resulted in bugger all tanneries being closed (300 or so, out of tens of thousands that all do the same thing). - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Are any of the following notable enough for lede?
 * Solar Alliance
 * Yoga Day
 * Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. If there is some significant legislative action with a meaningful outcome, then we could consider that. --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with RegentsPark, although they probably wouldn't agree with what I am going to say next! Those are classic PR stunts: lend your name to something that looks unifying but has no practical rationale or purpose and/or meaningful impact. I'm surprised they even have standalone articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to be surprised. I'd suggest you to initiate a deletion discussion instead. Since your are sounding so confident, I'd like to see you delete these "classic PR stunt" pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to know what "billions" of people and leaders of "hundreds" of countries feel who are a part of yoga day and solar alliance. Also please share some RS proving it to be a "PR stunt." -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  16:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have better things to do with my life than argue with Modi acolytes at AFD. Like I said, he is an acknowledged master of PR and we know from past discussions that they come out of the woodwork on such occasions. The items you mention are trivial: if he has enabled the passing of some significant legislation to fix caste issues, relieve the horrendous poverty, stop the corruption etc and that legislation was workable then we might have something to talk about. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please avoid WP:POV and cite some sources describing these as trivia or PR. We are not discussing legislation here, if you want to discuss that, please initiate another discussion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  18:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, please refer me to a WP guideline which says to include ONLY "if he has enabled the passing of some significant legislation to fix caste issues, relieve the horrendous poverty, stop the corruption etc and that legislation was workable" or to NOT include sourced content like Solar Alliance and Yoga Day. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  18:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever goes in the lead should be significant (India joining the Paris agreement as Modi promised today would be something includable). The Jan Dhan Yojana is probably the most ambitious of the three things you've mentioned but it is not clear what effect it has had on India. What we have at this point is many initiatives, some that are still at the slogan level while others that have yet to be analyzed so let's just wait and see. Meanwhile, what I suggest is that we build good articles on the initiatives - the Jan Dhan article is, for example, in terrible shape. As material pours into those articles it will become clearer what to include and what not to include in the Modi article and then we can figure out what should flow into the lead. --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are in-numerous witnesses of the benefits people have derived, despite being in power for "just" 2 years. For the first time in Indian Governance, we're witnessing a scam-free central government that said "no to nepotism" and is progressive. To name a "few" among the many result oriented large-scale actions taken, (Successful Spectrum Auction, Coal Auction (transforming into into a surplus nation), International Investments growing 30+% ([1] [2]), Shipping (Port Revenue Growing/Internal Cargo Chabbar Port). Stagnant highway construction has gone up several folds under his administration (everyone are aware of all stalled projects from debt/scam stricken developers were sorted). Every department has been reformed altogether to produce electrifying results whether it's Railways [1], Energy, Road Transport, Shipping, Defence or anything.


 * As a citizen of India, when we reject this progress out of our sheer hatred, limited analysis, confirmation bias and [|cherry picking] - it is truly worry-some. Congressmen and haters consistently and repeatedly produce stories surrounding 1 or 2 irrelevant incidents to divert attention, and attract voters and it is congress that has significantly more influence with PR makers in the country (being in rule for decades). With due respect, noting your intent to do better things in life, I clearly see that you're misinformed and speaking with limited information. Modi has clarified repeatedly both through Man Ki Baat and through several channels on his idea of securalism. Just because someone is following a religion, his followers wouldn't become acolytes. If so, then we're biased. People of India have given him their approval of his merit, that has made him Prime Minister. After becoming one, he is tirelessly serving the nation to the fullest of his capacity.


 * You are correct about the rhetorical clerics that play on one-sided incidents to attract haters of each side. Biased dismissal of initiatives of the large scale Central government with allocated budget is inappropriate. We must furnish the efforts taken, initiatives taken during his government. The whole proposal is to furnish adequate information about his honors, work undertaken (in the recent time), and his electoral victory. Even in the existing article, we're "critically" specific about his HDI going down, but just informative about the economic growth the state has achieved (without being specific). There are accounts of endless stories (ranging from Tata, Vibrant Gujarat till GIFT) that have all empowered the state economy that could have been given equal weightage to the poor performance in HDI.


 * I think we could mention in a brief one-line note about the following things:
 * * Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana
 * * Foreign policy of Narendra Modi
 * * Paris Agreement
 * * Swachh Bharat
 * * Make in India
 * * Skill India
 * * Coal Surplus Nation/Compact Ministry (Passing maximum bills with the highest approval rate)
 * * Himself elected as the CM for maximum times in his home state. His electoral campaigning, charisma and mass appeal that led to his success. His honors (by Fortune and Forbes similar to Justin Trudeau). His :::: popularity among the social crowd of the nation/fan following.  dvishnu (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think if you focused less on the lead, which is fairly well balanced right now, and more on building substantive content in the body, we would be better off. Nothing in the body currently points to anything that should be included in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will work on the inclusion of a few items this week in the substantive content. I do not disagree that the lead is well balanced. It's just very short and slightly outdated with mostly information about things that happened 10+ years ago. dvishnu (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't buy this "outdated" argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this is a biography article. It is not a newspaper or magazine article commenting on the hot topics of the day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Information about the past is in the "already short" lead text, as opposed to the information of the present (that's non existent). This is not in line with any international leader. This is like limiting the lead text to state about Mr. Obama's actions and progress as an Illinois Senate, but not as the President of America. Mr Modi has become the Prime Minister of India in 2014. Much of the lead text speaks about his actions during his tenure as the CM of Gujarat. While I do not ask for removal of anything of the past (added before ages), but just to update it with relevant up-to-date cite notes. I primarily call upon to add information that's recent and current.

You're right. It's a biography article. Any biography's brief should be presented with a holistic brief in the lead text to portray the appropriate full image of the person that is up-to-date. Not limited to the parts of it that are few years old, like a printed text book subject to be constant. dvishnu (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment in principle. However, it is unclear what exactly we should list. Unlike in the case of Obama, there seem to be no significant legislative accomplishments (at least none that I can see in this article) to list. None of your short list items above appear to have had an impact on India (again, at least not as described on Wikipedia). Of the lot, I'd say the one that could be fleshed out is the foreign policy one, particularly the relationship with the US which appears to be a significant shift in India's foreign policy. If Modi's government follows through by ratifying the Paris accord, then that's another possibility. But, this article confines the foreign policy of Modi to one line in the text and the Paris accord is yet to be ratified. Once again, I suggest you focus on improving the body of this article and/or related articles rather than on the lead. A fixation on the lead results in poor overall articles. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. I'm not opposed to adding more as time passes, but just two years into his office the lead already summarizes what he has done so far. Since taking office as Prime Minister, Modi's administration has focused on reforming and modernising India's infrastructure and government, reducing bureaucracy, encouraging increased foreign direct investment, improving national standards of health and sanitation and improving foreign relations. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight
A fair chunk of the article, which is supposed to cover the policies Modi has pursued as prime minister, seems to be somewhat fluffy at the moment. This is not because the sources are not reliable per se, but essentially this is a collation of reports that have come out soon after a policy was announced. Which means that none of these are looking at the larger picture with any sense of perspective; what is the general thrust of economic policy? Of social policy? etc. Determining due weight is near impossible when relying on sources like these. Over the long term, I think a good target would be to replace these sources with academic sources that cover a longer period and take a more general look, and which should now be available in a way they have not been in the earlier days of Modi's government. Vanamonde (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Maninagar in infobox
I think Modi was not MLA of Maninagar from 1 Jan 2002. He was not MLA when he became CM. He was not elected until 24 Feb 2002 when he won by-election from Rajkot-II. He resigned and elected again in Dec 2002 from Maninagar. Possibly he was MLA from 1 Jan 2003. Please check and correct it. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * -Nizil (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Narendra Modi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140524050207/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131222/commentary-columnists/commentary/poetic-side-narendra-modi to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131222/commentary-columnists/commentary/poetic-side-narendra-modi
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222182023/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132920-Narendra-Modi-invites-Pak-investment-offers-energy-solutions to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132920-Narendra-Modi-invites-Pak-investment-offers-energy-solutions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Success! --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Baubles
This restoration of awards that amount to baubles seems inappropriate to me. I really don't care what significance the award might have to a "normal" person from those countries, the fact remains that they are doled out like toffees to foreign dignataries in the interests of diplomacy, not merit etc. Lots of countries do it and, as with honorary degrees, they are not usually worth recording because they're pretty much worthless. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We always needed WP:NAWARD to be out of inactive pages and be expanded and put to use. It would include which award is notable for independent page and which is notable worth mentioning on bios/organizations/etc. as recipients. Despite the inactivity of that page am not sure why State Order of Ghazi Amir Amanullah Khan and Order of Abdulaziz al Saud would ever be excluded. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained why. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This link, while far from ideal, gives you the gist re: these being baubles. I will say the same at Talk:David Cameron later - these barely get a mention outside the awarding country, which presumably is why the source in the Cameron article is not from the UK. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And while inactive, note that NAWARD says There may be a conflict of interest if the award is presented in a small field where most of the eligible candidates personally know each other. That's the diplomacy thing in this instance, eg: the UK's controversial continued sales of arms to Saudi. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NAWARD as long as is inactive should not be quoted in arguments. With that logic all film critic/jury awards should be discarded. For that matter, almost all awards are given by a selection committee who are experts of relevant fields, like Nobels, and might very well know each other. It also says Being covered by multiple, independent, non-trivial sources and this two are covered well by many sources Indian as well as non-Indian. Also not sure why diplomacy should not be awarded? Awarding diplomacy can itself be the function of a particular award. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they probably are covered by the Indian media because the Indian media are slavish, petty people who just love a bauble. How many non-Indian sources cover it, especially those that are also outside of the awarding country? And as for film awards etc, well actually I would agree that they are the same rubbish, as also are awards in the financial services industry etc: given by those who receive. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes
Why are we using both Narendra Modi and Modi? It adds clutter, especially since they contain the same links. They're the same template by different names. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We should send one of the them to TfD. I've never been a fan of the big navbox on the side, since it really does seem like puffery: but the fandrones will never let us get rid of it, and in any case that's a much wider problem (far too many articles about Merican politicians also have those). The other one, though, should be very deletable: if you want to send it to TfD go ahead, else I'll do it myself after doing some checking. Vanamonde (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is actually the one that should be binned: it is ugly, distracting and breaks the flow of the article. However, I think there is nothing to send to TfD because one is a redirect to the other. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then what on earth is being transcluded at the bottom of the page? I am confuse! I'm just going to remove that for now: we can deal with deletion by and by. Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016
117.240.224.78 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016
Avialone (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016
In making a public statement after the incident, Modi said that the attack had been pre-planned terror attack by local Muslims is a lie said by modi,<-- it is a lie said by modi, RSS the notorious terrorist organisation in India which MODI belongs to, killed the hindu pilgrims, then they spreaded the news as local muslims attacked, to create the communal riots in india and to use it for political gain, you can easily understand this if you look into his history and history of rss, don't just read what RSS and Modi Bhakth's share, they are 100% fakers, They pay and use media to spread news biased to their side. and they block or threaten news agencies and journalist if they try to share real story to any one, and charge them and arrest them by saying they are anti nationals and terrorists. Almost all terrosrist stories from India are fake, most of them executed by RSS and related Organisation. Haf rah (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

sub-sub-sections + diplomacy
If anybody is wondering why a lot of fourth level sections disappeared, it is because the content in those sections did not fit cleanly within the different level two sections (terms of office). I have therefore reorganized the content into level 3 sections. Additionally, I have removed the long catalogue of international trips from the chief minister section, because an article about Modi is no place for such a list. Individual visits of his have gotten barely any coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

SIT on black money.
You're not getting it. Every source you have provided is a source relating a statement by somebody in the government. These cannot be used to determine what is due weight. Moreover, we cannot cover every decision taken by the cabinet: there are far too many. The ones covered are the prominent ones, and this decision is not near prominent enough. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first cabinet decision of a government is definitely not "every decision", and has due weight. As far as, statement is concerned, this will adress your reservations. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  17:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not really, it doesn't. Nothing noteworthy about the first decision in and of itself, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
What terms Modi has or has not used are utterly irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say, period. Since you seem keen on citing NPOV, perhaps you should read the policy first. Also, read WP:REDLINK, and do not remove links to notable individuals, even if the articles do not exist yet. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

New article?
Should we start a new article on Modi administration? Would anyone like to intiate? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  16:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Section "Hindutva and social policies" by User:Vanamonde93
has come with a section about "Hindutva and social policies" during Modi's term as PM. The problem is that none of it is actually about Modi but several state governments and other BJP leaders. Kindly discuss here, build a consensus before adding it. Thanks. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources connect these issues to Modi, which they have, it is an NPOV violation not to include them: especially when those are scholarly sources, not tabloids. Consensus is based on policy, not simply on agreement: and you have yet to offer a policy based reason as to why the content should not be in the article. Also, you have now violated WP:REDLINK by removing the link for the third time, despite my citing the policy multiple times. You have self-reverted this edit: good. Now please read NPOV, particularly the part about due weight. Modi's education policy, the appointments made by his government, and the environment created by his government, are related to the article because scholarly sources have made the connection. There is really no argument here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the red link. Secondly, reliable sources have not connected all these events and incidents to Modi, please go through the section, written by yourself. All these incidents have happened during his term but they do not attribute any of them to Modi in particular but to BJP and more specifically RSS. For exapmle the starting sentence of the section, "Modi expressed hopes for a tenure without communal violence. The BJP sought to identify itself with political leaders known to have opposed Hindu nationalism, including B. R. Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose, and Ram Manohar Lohia." How is it about Modi? Further it says. " The campaign also saw the use of rhetoric based on Hindutva, however, by BJP leaders in certain states. Communal tensions were played upon especially in Uttar Pradesh and the states of Northeast India. A proposal for the controversial Uniform Civil Code was a part of the BJP's election manifesto...", again, no mention of Modi. Throughout the section there is only mention of BJP, not Modi. May I remind this is a page about Modi and neither BJP nor RSS. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is not sources but the relevance, none of it belongs on Modi's page as these incidents are not directly attributed to Modi, please read the section in the old revisions, it talks about BJP not Modi in particular. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is connected because these are sources discussing the policies of Modi's government: as is most of the content under "Prime Minister". By your argument, every part of economic policy, foreign policy, defence policy, etc, which does not mention Modi by name should be removed: which of course is ridiculous. I don't see you trying to remove details of his budget, for instance. He is responsible for the budget: for the military actions: for Make in India: and for his education policy, and the appointments of his government, and if any sources comment on the atmosphere created by his government, then for that, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is Modi responsible for random statements of BJP members and incidents which are not activities of his government? Were Assam riots and Muzaffarnagar riots attributed to Manmohan Singh government? Are gun-shooting incidents in US attributed to Obama? Is Modi under investigation for these incidents and events? Are these subject of central government, headed by Modi? The answer is NO. These are not directly related to Modi or part of his government's activities, someone accusing Modi of being responsible is nothing more than a POV or a political position, not neutral edit. Barthateslisa (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, if reliable sources had connected any of those incidents to those heads of state, then those articles should make such mentions. The sources actually connected these incidents to his government: they are not simply sources saying that these incidents occurred. Besides which, you also removed content about Modi's education policy, and about the appointments made by his government. Are you telling me he is not responsible for his education policy as well? Vanamonde (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with to some extent. Firstly, most of the sources  has used don't have any link, so I can't verify. Secondly, he has removed my additions based on WP:RS citing that they are not important even when they are covered by enough media sources and are linked directly to Modi. Lastly, he is adding lots of POV linking things to Modi which are not even linked to him. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  07:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If a source has somehow connected Modi to these events, doesn't mean it has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It is their POV, there are 'n' number of people with as many views about Modi. It doesn't mean we have to pick each of them and add them on the person's Wikipedia page. Much of it is POV and political accusations, which is a norm in politics. Modi has not been formally charged by any neutral body like courts or enquiry commission for these "issues". Just because some commentator has a POV doesn't mean it has to be mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Would we, for instance, add every accusation, direct or indirect on Manmohan Singh's page? These are no related to Modi, nor involves his participation. Barthateslisa (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we get to the crux of the matter: your misunderstanding of WP:NPOV on Wikipedia. Courts or enquiry commissions count for nothing. Reliable sources count for everything: and scholarly sources count above all others. I rewrote the article based on essentially every scholarly source about Modi published after he became prime minister. You have deleted a bunch of content that you didn't like, including about his education policy. Vanamonde (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of difference between NPOV on Wikipedia and real world. You are just adding incidents which are not directly related to the subject i.e. Modi. Some random political incidents, which do not involve him directly. One sided POV of certain commentators are not FACTS. They still remain POV, and BTW "reliable source" is not even an issue here, its the false association, which is an issue, you can't add incidents which are not directly related to Modi on his page. Everyday accusation by some politicians are POV and are not meant for Wikipedia. The whole section looked liked an op-ed in a newspaper not FACTS on an encyclopaedia. Barthateslisa (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you're still dodging my question, let me take the section part by part, and ask you explicitly: what issues do you have with the paragraph discussing Modi's education policy? Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, lets start subject by subject, what is it that you want to put on the page? Please make it clear. Barthateslisa (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Some quick comments. The new content is in the section titled "Prime Minister". It is about his government and his governance. The Modi government is "presidential" (sources tell us so), which means that pretty much all the policies are decided by him. He is also the de facto boss of the BJP, its president being his personal appointee and a long-time colleague. So, once again, all the policies of the BJP are decided by him. So, none of this content is "unrelated" to Modi.

On the other hand, I sympathise with the view that this section may be getting overweight. In the long run, we should have separate articles for his government, perhaps several such articles. For the moment, I am just happy that good reliable content is being created. The material can be reorganised in due course.
 * "The Modi government is presidential (sources tell us so)", lol, are we on an encyclopedia or doing a cover story for a newspaper? He is PM, if some people have a view that it is a "presidential" govt and all the policies are decided by him, then it is their observation, not an official position. These are unrelated to Modi as none of them have his DIRECT involvement. Barthateslisa (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the people that don't have access to the sources, please flag up any content that you find questionable. Those of us that have access can try to cross-check the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Thanks, K. Barthateslisa: to begin with, the section about his education policy, as I said earlier. The last of the four paragraphs that you removed: it begins "The government began formulating a New Education Policy, or NEP, soon after its election..." This is identical in structure to the rest of the prime minister section. Vanamonde (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't get that, please be specific about what do you want to put on the page, I mean what exactly is it that you want to add, all the points. Barthateslisa (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously unable to see what "fourth paragraph" means? Okay, then, here is the paragraph in its entirety. Obviously, you might have to go back to the article for the full source in some cases. Vanamonde (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"The policy was described as having overtones of Hindutva", "The RSS had a role in its creation", "There was also a debate about removing caste-based reservation in favor of reservation based on income, a move supported by the RSS, but which was criticized as being discriminatory on the basis of caste."


 * All of the above quoted sentences from the para are nothing but POV of a person i.e. Madhulika Sharma, none of it is official and not even has a response from the government. Giving undue weight to one person's POV obviously makes about that person and not the subject of the page, it also goes against NPOV principle. Where are the counter-claims? Why just one sided observation of one individual? Barthateslisa (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * More misunderstanding of WP:RS. Find me a scholarly source arguing the opposite point of view, and I'll cheerfully include it. "Official" has no meaning on Wikipedia. It doesn't need a response from the government: none of it does. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * RS is not even an issue here, NPOV is, you are giving undue weight to one view from a person about a policy of the government. What makes Madhulika Sharma, so important so as to to mention her views selectively on a living person's page? Go through WP:NPOV again, you are giving undue weight to one person's observation. Citing RS, one can assert facts, not opinions. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not really understand what NPOV means. The first sentence of the policy says Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Vanamonde93 has cited a peer-reviewed scholarly article published in the Journal of Asian Public Policy. It is improper to call it "one person's view". Unless you produce a peer-reviewed scholarly article of equal quality that takes an opposite point of view, it is improper to raise an issue of NPOV. Repeatedly doing so to an editor with an excellent track record constitutes casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I suggest that you stop throwing mud at people and do some real work of going out and finding sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is the same old tired argument that has been presented in previous arguments. Scholarly sources are not somebody's opinion: they are facts, and analysis of facts, and they receive both peer reviews and editorial oversight: which is why we weight them so high. You need to find sources supporting your position. Vanamonde (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinions are opinions, not facts, you can not call opinion FACTS, and you can't use RS to stress on opinions, only facts. Did RSS have a role in NEP? No, it didn't, it is Sharma's opinion not FACT. I am well aware of NPOV principle, you can not give undue weight to one opinion. Opinions, even by scholars, do not become facts, their is a very basic difference between opinions and facts. Also in your writing there is no attribution, i.e. according to whose opinion this version is presented. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * High time we write an article at Premiership of Narendra Modi removing it as redirect and then condense it here for simplicity. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We certainly need an article about Modi's administration, and need to summarize it here: but "summary" is not the same as "throw out the sections we don't like." I'm open to pruning, but it can't be selective. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that proper summarization would only be possible when we have a long version. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. When you're operating only with media sources, then yes, proper summaries are tricky. When you're using scholarly sources it's much easier, since virtually all of the substantive work on Modi since his election has been cited here. This has been my point since the beginning: the content in the article two days ago was supported by reliable sources: to remove or contradict it you need to show that it is undue weight, which requires producing sources of equal weight. This, Barthet has not done. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been open for a while, but policy-based objections to the content have yet to be made. Therefore, I will reinstate the content shortly, unless further reasons are brought up here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Some observations: 1. The abstract also says: "The NEP, along with other interrelated initiatives, is a timely and most appreciated feature of Modi’s overall development agenda." The summary written here is not similar. 2. She worked for the Modi Government at the time of publishing the article and was herself part of formulating the said education policy. 3. "Was described as" kind of phrase begs the "by whom" tag. Why not keep the "overtones" aside? 4. This particular Journal describes about itself: The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. --Neaom (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a scholar appointed to a government committee is not the same as working for the government. Do you have evidence that she was actually involved in creating the document in question? Additionally, if you read the paper in its entirety, you will see that the abstract of the paper itself is not an accurate summary of the body: which is why the text here, written based on the body, sounds different. It does mention the things the author sees as positive: the first new policy since 1986, the focus on minority education. Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Modi leading the general election
, I am disappointed with your edit-warring. The sentence you have changed has a link to 2014 Indian general election, which says Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was chosen to lead the Bharatiya Janata Party's campaign after a party conclave in Goa, supported by two sources. You needed to check them first. If you keep disrupting Wikipedia in this way, there will be consequences! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm the one disappointed with your uncivil threat. This was my last edit summary "@Kautilya--Rajnath Singh, as BJP President, led the party. If the election page says otherwise, we should correct that too, IMO. Feel free to revert if you still disagree, and we may discuss further". If you call this attitude (clearly stating that you can revert if you do not agree) as "edit-warring", then more power to you. I could have shared my views on the content, but given your belligerent attitude, I guess I will just pass. Js82 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, edit-warring means continuing to revert after it becomes clear that there is disagreement. The content is verifiable. And, you have not provided any source to contradict it. So, there ends the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I was not aware there was "disagreement", since we never actually discussed anything. I had made the last edit in good faith (again, see my edit summary) and with some reasoning, but yeah, let's just end the matter. Js82 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Uniform Civil Code
Under the Hindutva and education policy section it is mentioned that UCC was part of BJPs manifesto, UCC was part of the BJP manifesto previously and there is nothing new about this. To include this in Modi's article and giving an impression that it has something to do with only 2014 election is wrong. Also how can the election manifesto be listed under policy? -sarvajna (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016
i need to change the iamge to this File:Narendra modi dsfsdf.jpg with the caption : Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the nation. Dojablack (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * we cannot accept copyrighted images. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse
The "Hindutva and education policy" claims that Godse has been celebrated by Sangh Parivar organizations after NDA's coming into power. However there have been no such instances. It must be noted that Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, which did promoted Godse, is not a member of the Sangh Parivar. Bharatiya 29  12:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The source mentions Hindu Mahasabha. So I will change it. The source does say: Astonishingly, the prime minister has chosen to remain silent on this issue. Indeed, silence is his usual response to inflammatory provocations from the Hindu Right. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This source seems to be a little outdated as it covers just the first year of Modi administration. For example, Modi did spoke up against right-wing organizations after the Dadri incident. Bharatiya  29  11:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Commentators find his responses to be far below the standard expected of a Prime Minister. In any case, it is not for us to make such judgements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What does many mean?
In the line "many of the country's labour laws" in economic policies in Prime Minister, what does the word many mean. Should it be clarified? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Many" is generally used to suggest more than a couple, but in a context where the precise number does not matter. As such, it is used in many places in the article; why are you raising objections to this usage? Are you also going to demand that we clarify which political opponents Indira Gandhi jailed ("many") and which industrial projects began under Modi's government ("several")? Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be avoided whenever possible, if exact no. is not available, more clear versions like hundreds, thousands can be used. Quantification is important in this case since there are only handful of labour laws in country. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The precise figure does not matter: which is why none of the sources actually mention a precise figure. For that matter, it is quite impossible to state with precision the number of labor laws in any country; in one so large as India is, with an overlapping system of state and federal laws, it is quite impossible. I suggest you turn your energies elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic is not the number of laws of the country, but the no. of laws passed by modi govt. for that particular sentence. The statement is ambiguous, clarity should be brought into the sentence, another possible approach could be getting rid of the word many. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017
"The plann was to achieve these aims in five years" - This sentence has a typo - plann. It should be plan. 67.160.96.155 (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Native name
Narendra Modi is currently the Prime Minister of India, so per WP:INDICSCRIPT can the Gujarati script be removed ?South Indian Geek (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * INDICSCRIPT applies to the lead, but as far as I know, current consensus is that it does not apply to the infobox; particularly when there is an obvious and logical native language name. Modi being the prime minister has nothing to do with it. He is from Gujarat, so his name is in Gujarati. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

revertion of my edits
Please could you tell me why you reverted the edits which I made .I didnt do anything wrong did I?FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits were not wrong, but they did not add very much. The term "pracharak" is not an English term, and so when a precise translation is available, that is preferable in the lede. The word "absolute" before "majority" is simply redundant, and is the sort of excess verbiage newspapers are always throwing around. "majority" means "more than half". "Absolute majority" mean....exactly the same thing. So the extra word serves no purpose. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as pracharak goes it is already used in the article I just wanted to add it to the top." he stopped working for his uncle and became a full-time pracharak (campaigner) for the RSS,[40] working under Inamdar.[44] Shortly before the war, Modi took part in a non-violent protest".The word "absolute"...... well may be your right.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it's in the article: that is the place for relevant detail. The lede is a broad overview, a summary, and so this is unnecessary. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok.Get you.Thanks! FORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that he was a pracharak, now an ordinary member. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at this link to my Sand box .I have compiled a small section which I want to add to this article but in view of the last problem I am slightly nervous about adding it.06:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)FORCE RADICAL (talk)
 * It's a good thing you brought this up, because the same problem is here as well. Some of that criticism and praise is already in the lede. Some of it is in the body of the article, and is not appropriate for the lede. I'd suggest you take a look at the GA review for this article, where a lot of these details were discussed. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017
→→ Avirkm (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No request. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)