User talk:Vanamonde93/sandbox/Modidraft

Ghanchi-Teli
Hey there Cowlibob. I don't know if you noticed this already, but the first paragraph of the "early life" section makes a reference, and a link, to the Ghanchi-Teli community. Now the sentence is supported by the source, but the link is an interesting matter; it seems to be two links, to two separate articles, Ghanchi and Teli. I'm a little uncomfortable about this, because we refer to it as a single object and then point to two separate articles; seems dodgy. What do you feel? If you're comfortable, I'm fine leaving as is, else we should perhaps post at WP:INB. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC) PS I hope you don't mind that I created an article in your user-space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem this talk page is needed. I noticed that. We should ideally link only to one. From the BJP statement, he's part of Modh-Ghanchi,Teli caste. The teli article says it's not a separate caste but a counterpart of Ghanchi in other states. I think we should ask Sitush as he is the caste expert so he would be the best to clarify what is what. Cowlibob (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; posting on his talk now. He's been busy, hopefully has the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, caste is often considered to be based on traditional occupational status (leatherworkers, oil-pressers, scribes etc) and reinforced by endogamous practices. I've never got to the bottom of why a similar status should bear a different name in different parts of the country but I've always sort-of assumed that linguistic variations play a part, bearing in mind the numerous languages that do exist there. That said, and again because of differences in location, we cannot assume that the various names used are entirely synonymous: local practices develop that may distinguish occupationally-similar groups from each other. Thus we sometimes have several articles for what might be claimed to be the same caste, as has happened with the Ghanchi/Teli/Modh situation.
 * There are several ways to approach this when describing someone's caste.
 * Use whatever they self-identified as being (or most commonly describe themselves as being);
 * Use the term that is most commonly applied to them;
 * Use a construct like "of the X caste, sometimes also known as Y" but that can get messy because the list of Ys can be long;
 * Use which ever name is typical for the area in which they were born, regardless of what the sources might say about the person in particular.
 * I don't think there is any consensus regarding which of these is preferable, although the third one obviously isn't great. You'll have to use your own judgement and that may well be based on gut feeling. Without going back and reviewing all of the sources, my memory is that Ghanchi pops up most frequently in those that discuss Modi. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, friend. Quick further clarification; I take it, then, that you are not a fan of the current two links situation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It is confusing and could well become more so if the articles diverge as they are developed. My bet is that the BJP site is just trying to cover all the bases so that they attract the maximum support for their man. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More than likely. Alright, thanks. I'll We'll probably do another skim of the sources, and likely stick to the most common one? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Sitush. In terms of news sources they mention Modh-Ghanchi or Ghanchi more often than Teli and Teli is mentioned as a counterpart to Ghanchi in other states. There's a DNA article where they quote a state BJP spokesman saying only Modh-Ghanchi as the caste. Ghanchi or Teli are not mentioned in the Mukho bio but Marino bio states he is of Ghanchi caste with ref but the reflist is not in the preview. My preference would be Modh Ghanchi only, with link to Ghanchi. Cowlibob (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I could go with that; it's just that Modh has its own separate article, too. What if we just said "Ghanchi" in the main text, and explained these variations in a footnote? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That works. Also avoids the Congress charge that "Modh" meant he wasn't OBC. Cowlibob (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dumping space
I'm putting some stuff here that does not seem appropriate/ideal to me, but that we do not necessarily want to delete.


 * That interest has influenced how he now projects himself in politics.


 * Oi! I added that, so it must be ok  The point was that Modi is a particularly dramatic politician: he "plays to his audience" when speaking etc in a very skilful way, more so than many other politicians. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe. I guess I wasn't too clear in my dismissiveness; it just seemed out of place is what I meant, "inappropriate" to the section I was messing with. I'm sure we can shove it in someplace. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life to mainspace?
Greetings friend. First off, apologies for not working on this more; I've been busy. Second, after some work from both of us, it seems to me that the "Personal Life" section can be moved to mainspace. What do you think? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No need, I should have made more modifications thus far but you kind of need to be in a good state of mind to tackle articles like these. I'm going to look at clarifying some of the stuff about where he went after he went travelling and the whole reverence thing. We should probably work on the early political career and move both at the same time as they are about the same kind of time in his life. Starting with that glaring "joined RSS after 1971 war" which I presume is India Today getting confused with him gaining a position within the organisation at around that time. I'll try to make my additions/modifications by this weekend. Cowlibob (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is fair. I can go with that. I'll give those bits a shot over the weekend, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made my modifications of those sections. In terms of early life, I clarified where he went and why. As I suspected, India Today had meant he became a pracharak within RSS which I've now moved up.
 * The next paragraph on early political career seemed to describe his time under Emergency and then progress to politics so I've change the subheading to reflect that. The article described him being general secretary of "Gujarat Lok Sangharsh Samiti" set up by RSS after they were banned but I can only find sourcing which leads back to his website which I'm not sure we can use. I've reordered it so it's chronological so the yatra is earlier and also added LK Advani yatra as it was also one he was involved in. Also I've seen the main article has added his involvement in the Navnirman movement which doesn't seem as active as his action under Emergency so I wonder if it's worth a mention at all. Cowlibob (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I should have copy-edited it right here, but it's amazing the kind of things you notice when the two versions are side-by side.....Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ce. How do you feel about moving early political career section to mainspace? Cowlibob (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the second ping but have you had any thoughts about moving the early political career to mainspace? It is quite different from the one that's currently there so feel free to compare but I'd argue this version is more concise and to the point. Cowlibob (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many apologies, my friend, somehow missed the first ping. Also been a bit busy on other topics both on and off Wiki recently. I've done a copy-edit, and it seems fine to me now. The only significant change I made was to rework the bits about Patel and Vaghela. Some of it isn't directly relevant, and seems like coatracking, or just a very heavy narrative voice, which is poor encyclopedic style, IMO. Both of them are mentioned later, and I expanded one of those mentions. Feel free to revert those bits, if you feel they were not an improvement. I'd be happy to transfer it, once you've glanced over my changes. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Further note; I actually feel like just "early political career" may be a better title, as the current title seems a trifle colloquial, you know? "Early political career" is bad grammar, but as a fragment in and of itself it seems acceptable; attached to something else, it's awkward. Besides, the period of the emergency could be accurately described as being a part of Modi's early political career. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedit, reads much better now. Agreed switched back to early political career. Also changed order I think 1998 Gujarat assembly elections were in March so his promotion to general secretary (organisation) was after that. Ready for transfer I think. Cowlibob (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I went ahead and transferred it. Thanks! Busy for the next couple of days, but after November 28 or so I'd be happy to start taking a crack at the elections and riots sections, which of course are the real doozies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Political Career
I began sorting through this particular section, and started a CE before realising that IMO we have a more serious sourcing problem here. The various media sources are more or less parroting each other in this situation, and a lot of them seem to be reflecting Aditi Phadnis, which seems like a fairly decent source, and Venkatesan is okay, too. The rest seem a little dodgy, though, and the Zee News source doesn't even support the text it's used for. So, I've thrown that particular one out, and have started looking for better sources. Here a few to start with;





Thoughts? It also seems like the other Frontline source, Dionne Bunsha, is a little dated; there is a lot of detail on Patel there, and little on Modi, and she is writing pre-Godhra, pre-elections, so I don't know if that is a useful source. Also, I personally feel that for the rest of the Chief Minister section, we should find a few scholarly sources for most of the policy sections, and stick to those; media sources can be used if necessary for election results and such, but not otherwise. What say you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will try to look up the sources later. Though we must be careful with bias within sources as EPW is known to be more leftist so if they for example had a criticism of Modi's actions we would want to use in the article then we should have other sources which support their interpretation from more neutral sources if possible. I think we can use media sources for things which involve straight reporting of events with no critical analysis such as the Bhuj Earthquake death toll and election results. Scholarly sources primarily for the rest like development under Modi. We should also try to find some more info on development projects etc. during 2002–07 as the article is vague on details about that despite saying he made Gujarat "an attractive investment destination" during that time and could give the impression the projects only started in his third term. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call EPW leftist; they are critical of the BJP, sure, but they are pretty harshly critical of the Congress at times, too, and critical of the communist parties as well. They also have a fairly wide range of people writing for them, from die-hard Marxists to very capitalist writers. They are certainly all secular; but you would be hard put to find non-secular scholars in the first place. So we need to balance our authors, for certain; but EPW itself, IMO, is just fine. And in fact we are taking steps in that direction already; Phadnis is definitely coming from a pro-business view, while Jaffrelot is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, balanced authors would be best. No need to seek out non-secular scholars. I have read mostly leftist articles from the EPW but I'm sure you've read more of their articles than I so I shall trust in your judgement. In regards to the riots section, the most out of place statement for me is the last sentence with the NYT reporter. I think it should be moved but am unsure where. The rest seems to have an okay structure of events of riots-->Modi's response-->SC/court investigation into Modi's actions-->lasting legacy. Cowlibob (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We might have a slight problem. Started going through the Chief Minister section, and found that the second paragraph, starting with Advani's misgivings, is identical to the firstpost source. But, this is old history; the firstpost piece is recent, and so I don't know which came first, and haven't the patience to search through the main article's history. I am tempted to reword it just in case. What do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, am trying to temper the amount of time I spend on wiki. I think they may have copied from wiki as they also copied some text that I remember from an earlier copyvio that was on wiki in the early political section from a different source. Reword would be best anyway and if possible based of a book ref/scholarly source just to be safe. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Restart this project
Hey there, it's been a while. I've recently been able to find more time to edit Wikipedia, I have no contentious election coming up, and I've noticed that there are generally more sources on Modi and his time as Prime Minister in general: so all in all it seems to be a good time to restart this project, if you're interested. I wonder if would be into this, too. Although a good first step might be deleting this draft and making another copy, which I can do if needed. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much I will be around but can keep an eye on it. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you're well. Congratulations on your adminship. Similar to Sitush, I think I could perhaps keep an eye on it but my editing is becoming more limited as time goes by. I would support a new copy as this one will be very out of date. Cowlibob (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've deleted the old draft, and created a new one here in my userspace. I've copied over the contents of the old talk page to that of this draft, because I figured that it would be useful reference material. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Likely this is a project that you also might be interested in. Vanamonde (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Information dump
Just in case any of you are watching this and are puzzled by some of my additions, I am just dumping information from related reliable sources at this point; I will organize them, and toss out stuff which does not fit, later. It is much harder to figure out what to leave out while staring at a pile of sources. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)