Talk:Public image of Narendra Modi

Forked content
This article was started with content which was WP:UNDUE in the main biography of Narendra Modi. See the Fashion discussion on the talk page there for more information.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is undue as a separate article also. Did you get consensus to fork this or is it, as I suspect, a POV fork? - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_13. If you suspect a POV fork then address it as you see fit. WP:UNDUE refers to weight in a given article. If this material were in the Modi article then it would be undue. I am here to talk through any concerns you have.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Modi's suit
The fabric for Modi's pin-striped suit was a gift. I will add some details and citations soon. Malaiya (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem?
What do you see about this article which is controversial?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  22:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to have been made to unfairly target Narendra Modi. Rakesh R. Garia (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

COI
added COI because of this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 November 2015
 * What about it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge
I propose to merge Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas into Public image of Narendra Modi. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  17:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Be bold and do it. No big deal -- Y not? 03:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support merger. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Public image of 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/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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This page contains only positive news ignoring the negative image. This page is eligible for NPOV dispute until all the views are added.--Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any sources which give the kind of criticism which you want included?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Its much needed, therefore I added a criticism section. Hope others can help expand and improve it. --39.57.136.218 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where has explained why something the IP added is undue, unless it is use of the deprecated section heading Criticism, but, regardless of that specific edit, there is no doubt that this article is biassed because it makes no mention of the numerous image issues Modi has faced both at home and abroad, notably his various travel bans that were only rescinded out of political expediency when he became Prime Minister. Yes, these issues are covered in the main biographical article but they do form a part of his public image and so should be here somewhere, too. - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * HI I agree the article needs to add criticism of him to make it more balanced. The editor continues to add statements from Bilwal Bhutto and other random people. The question I ask his what makes Bilwal Bhutto an expert on Modi or why does his criticism matter? We should evaluate what criticism is valid here because we cannot take everybody's statement for or against Modi and add it here. Similarly, we need to evaluate the positive statements made in his favor and evaluate what is UNDUE. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's fine, thanks. I couldn't spot where you'd said it. WP:QUOTEFARM is something to be aware of, as well as who says it. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect?
, sending this to AfD makes little sense, because the notability of the topic is not in question. It's just a bad and redundant article. If you are unwilling to change this back to a redirect, I will have to remove the dodgy information; and all that will remain is a copy of the relevant section of Narendra Modi. What purpose does that serve? Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vanamonde. The notability is certain to meet GNG but the article itself is useless and always has been. It arose out of a desire of some Modi supporters to retain information that was being removed at the main bio article due to its trivial and hagiographical nature. Moving it somewhere else does not alter that judgement. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You both were in the Fashion discussion in April 2015 saying that the information about Modi's clothing was undue for the main biographical article on them. If I understand correctly, both of you agree with all of the following statements:
 * The information about Modi's fashion does not belong in the biography about him
 * The information about Modi's fashion does not belong in this article, "Public image of Narendra Modi"
 * This article, "Public image of Narendra Modi", should be blanked but not nominated for deletion
 * The purpose of this article is to present the information around a topic which meets WP:GNG and which you both have argued does not belong in the main biography. Sitush, I created this article but I am not sure what is here that makes you say I have a bias in any political direction. I think the fashion is important and journalists thought enough of it too to write about it. I think most of the deletions you are proposing are great but I restored the fashion deletion. If you dispute that for some reason then say why.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A short paragraph about fashion here would suffice. You are going overboard, overciting and trivialising. We're not a fashion blog. I'm surprised that you do not understand the concept of overciting, nor the concept of when to delete or not - you have been around long enough now. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand what you are doing or your surprise. Here are your edits. Here is what you do not like in the fashion section -
 * You delete a citation listing iconic dress which Modi has worn and describing the cultural context. What is your objection?
 * Modi routinely wears extremely expensive clothing including a suit which auctioned for US$700,000. Why do you support leaving in that information about the price, but you oppose linking to NPR's media coverage citing it?
 * Modi has used a particular tailor since the 1970s. This is such unusual and newsworthy behavior that it appeared in journalism. Why do you object to that statement remaining?
 * WP:Fashion is a part of wiki. Why minimize it? India was founded based on fashion activism when Gandhi promoted Khadi and Modi is doing politics with fashion also. Fashion communicates lots of things and lots of reliable sources publish interpretations of Modi's fashion choices.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that his choice of clothing is covered at all, the problem is that it's covered in far too much detail, bordering on WP:CRUFT. This is a problem with any significant politician, really, but particularly so with Modi, who has a large number of supporters swarming Wikipedia, who seem to want to add any available information about him wherever they can. The problem isn't limited to this article; every single program or policy that his government puts out has a short and badly written article about it. When I suggested moving material here, I hoped this page would turn into a decent article about his image; ie his ideology, appearance, style of functioning, speaking style, etc., all of which there's substantial real analysis about. Instead its largely fancruft, a lot of which Sitush removed yesterday, but which has still left this page bereft of substance. Which is why I suggest redirecting it. lots of reliable sources publish interpretations of Modi's fashion They do, yes, but they also publish pieces discussing how Hugh Jackman shared the stage with him in NY, and how me made a Star Wars reference in his speech. It doesn't necessarily become encyclopedic just because an RS somewhere has covered it; newspapers cover a lot of trivia. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the pop culture references are unnecessary but I disagree that anything that I posted in the fashion section is so trivial. Perhaps I care more about fashion than you do - I have organized wiki editing events to improve fashion articles, so I have a bias to include information that would interest people in that professional field.
 * When someone campaigns politically with fashion then saying that they have the same tailor for 40 years is part of that story. Every source cited has substantial material about the relationship between either Modi and his fashion or his fashion and public image. I cannot speak to the other articles about Modi and maybe they are in poor shape. I could support a renaming of this article into "Narendra Modi and fashion" if you thought it would be easier to focus this on fashion and keep public image a separate issue, but the Category:Public image of politicians articles are the usual place to put fashion information.
 * I also think that every policy and program of the central government in India should have a wiki article. There is no other place for people to post and share this information. Wikipedia is the public information plan for the Indian government and most governments, including my own the United States. Articles start bad but if they at least meet WP:GNG then whatever wiki has is still the best available source of information and the reasonable way to access the content. This is true for every country.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm busy elsewhere, so I'll be brief. I don't think all the fashion information is unnecessary, just that we need to be a little more discriminating about what we include. With significant contemporary politicians, we have a huge recentism problem, born of the fact that the media covers every trivial detail, and then it's put into Wikipedia because it's covered in some source somewhere. Is Modi more significant to Indian history than, for instance, Vajpayee? Probably not; yet he's covered in far greater detail; and that extra detail is often cruft. Every policy of the Modi government should absolutely be covered on Wikipedia. It just doesn't need a standalone article. Again, too much trivial detail, insufficient substance. Vanamonde (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the public information plan for the Indian government and most governments, including my own the United States Do what? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR outlet. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain to you above and in my edit summary when I reverted you (and also my summary when I first removed it), the NPR citation is overciting. Are you not familiar with that? We don't usually cite the same source for consecutive statements. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am familiar with the content posted on the citation overkill page. I do not think it applies in this case. I criticize the page at Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill where I talk about the problems of not using citations.
 * In any case what you are proposing does not apply. The overcite rule there says that if a paragraph all comes from one source then just cite once. In this case we have a paragraph with 6-7 sentences and I think 5 sources. I think it would be simpler to use citations everywhere. If you insist then I will start a policy discussion at cite overkill and get another opinion.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do. I can see an exception might be necessary for direct quotes but not otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism
, how is this a BLP? Isn't the main article, the BLP? Your edit summary says, "we don't usually" that means sometimes we can add a Criticism/Controversy section to such a controversial person's article. That said, what problem do you find with a clearly attributed statement made by a published author? 39.48.82.6 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Mfarazbaig sock.


 * Hi, BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, so we have to be careful when referring to living people. I am not opposed to including some information about the controversial past of the man which, after all, landed him with extensive travel bans until he became prime minister. It's just that we try to avoid sections that label living people in that way and instead incorporate the material within the general flow of the article. Perhaps that is not possible in this instance, which is why I said it needs to be discussed. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Modi Lies
, Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion". I would request to reinstate or rewrite this edit. Italawar (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming nothing; you're edit added egregious original research, and I removed it; that's all. If you want to reinstate it, you need to rewrite the content to comply with WP:NOR and WP:RS. I do not have the time or inclination to rewrite it for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for not mentioning WP:ARBIPA and WP:BLP here as you did in this edit summery. Italawar (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ARBIPA and BLP are very relevant here. I did not mention them again because I had brought them up before. Your editing history on this page is absolutely bizarre, though, so unless you engage here more meaningfully, I think I'm going to have to seek sanctions on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Feku
The article has nothing on the moniker "Feku" (liar or somebody who builds tall tales) for Modi. There are many academic sources on this topic. Should there be a separate section or can it be accommodated within existing sections? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A separate section would likely be highly undue weight; every politician is known by several unflattering epithets. It, and other critical terms, should be worked into the prose about communication. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vanamonde.I will work on appropriate wording to add to the article.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Auctioning of gifts
Under section on Personal life, it says "Modi donates big chunk of amount for different government related schemes. He always auctions gifts received. He has raised Rs 89.96 crore by auctioning all gifts he received as chief minister of Gujarat and donated this to the Kanya Kelavani Fund. After becoming PM, he has contributing to public causes ranging from Girl Child Education to Clean Ganga to welfare of underprivileged. These donations have now exceeded 103 crores and most of that comes from auctions of the gift he has received and from his personal savings." 

I would be interested to know what the laws and rules are on gifts (domestic or foreign) received by Indian government officials including ministers? Can the officials concerned auction the gift received themselves or is there a government body responsible for it? Who are the buyers, and how is it all kept above board? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Info Box
What purpose does the info box have on this page? Isn't all that information covered in his biography page? At the very least, the box needs to be considerably shortened. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19)
We need a section of Modi's policies and behavior during the pandemic. It would be nice to have multiple contributors.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Narendra Modi 2021.jpg

Topics to add
No matter what the adverse effects of his policy decisions, Modi is not blamed by ordinary people for the policy failures, and  remains the most popular politician in India.This phenomenon merits expansion of the section on his popularity.This can also include the development of his personality cult.His populist policies should have separate section.Important content missing from the article is that on Cronyism.Would like to see NPOV contribution from other editors. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)