Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

has improved its agricultural output substantially

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 8 March 2014

I request to add 2 new categories. These are Indian politicians and Bharatiya Janata Party politicians. Prateek Malviya^Talk 07:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Summary is overly critical and undue weight is given to critics of Gujarat's development

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

Overall Gujarat's development under Modi is hardly disputed though there will always be critics. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Why-the-Gujarat-miracle-matters/articleshow/20820774.cms The criticism on the economic front is already covered within the article and does not need to be repeated up front, especially when it is a minority view. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE The Gujarat riots criticism line in the summary has however been kept since that is clearly a major uncontested issue. Puck42 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, so it is not undue to have a criticism of the "Gujarat miracle" in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The LEAD needs to summarize the body of the article, including all notable views. The critique of MOdi is not only notable, it is ubiquitous in reliable sources, even those that do not agree with the criticisms very rarely fails to mention it. Also whether the critique is a minority view is not clear, in the most reliable sources such as academic publications it is the majority view. Whether it is a minority view in the indian public remains to be seen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The criticism is a minority view in that it holds that "not all sections benefited" and should not be given the same weight as the undisputed view that there was considerable development under Modi, borne out by http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-09-22/news/34022206_1_poverty-ratio-narendra-modi-gujarat "Not all sections benefitted" can pretty much be said for anyone and any development and though it is clutching at straws it still has been given plenty of WP:UNDUE weight in the article already without it also being in the summary. Puck42 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a false weighting of the criticism and the statement of development. The fact that it didnt benefit all social groups equally is also undisputed. What makes it a notable criticism is that it is prominent in the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The lead section has been discussed at length, as has much else in this article. Writing a good lead for a controversial topic is quite a skill and not one that I'm much use at doing. It does, however, seem pretty reasonable to me in its present state. Your argument appears to basically be that the lead includes a truism and I really do not see the problem with that. Certainly, the pros and cons of the economics issue are discussed at length in the body and thus we have to reflect them in the lead. We can't just say, for example, that there has been an economic miracle under Modi when in fact there are reliable sources which question it. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Whether it is a minority view in the indian public remains to be seen.." We are talking about Gujarat here and the people of Gujarat has already voted him back for an unprecedented fourth term, stating in no uncertain terms what the people he impacted with the development think of his development claims, arm chair critics in the US notwithstanding. The way the lede reads is biased to the critical side which is simply not borne out by the fact of his reelection as one of the most popular CM's in his state of all time. Puck42 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

But this is not the Gujarat wikipedia. Our coverage reflects global coverage of Modi, not just the feelings of a majority of Gujaratis.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

And it is WP:OR to assume that Modi won an election mainly because of his economic strategy. It is rarely that simple and, as a rule, governments lose elections rather than win them. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

His popularity among the electorate is irrelevant. We cannot remove content based on whether the lead is "too critical" or "too positive." We have to accurately reflect good sources. Among academic sources, criticism of the Gujarat development model is far more common than praise; if anything, the lead is not explicit enough about this. Wikipedia is not attempting to reflect public opinion; it reflects academic opinion, or tries, anyhow.Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

His popularity is a fact as measured by the election results, which are not in dispute. The criticism of development is a contested opinion. The article lead is high on opinion and low in facts and gives undue importance to these opinions. Puck42 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks more like a case of your comments being high on opinion and low on fact. The lead summarises the article; the article is reliably sourced; period. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the Cato Institute that ranks Gujarat under Modi as the #1 state in India in economic freedom? http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/economic-freedom-india-2013/economic-freedom-states-of-india-2013.pdf

Removed superlatives , and went through reference, removed too generic terms like human development, should we go into more protection as it may get messeier Shrikanthv (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

references

1) the actual link here

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

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

comment  : really seems like a opinion to me

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

::  comment  : again really seems like a opinion to me and used in general terms 

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

Darkness Shines I ask you to discuss here Shrikanthv (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

All this shit was discussed before, the sources are fine, and Modi calls himself a nationalist. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

and how was the significant measured ? ,

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

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

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

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

2002 Election

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

Resolved by moving this phraseFantumphool (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Weasel-y heading

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

I've no idea if Modi has called it a "miracle" but one of the sources uses the terms (without quote marks) in its own title. I suggest that we replace with Debate on economic policies or some such. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Similar issues with Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008 section? It reads a bit like "election campaigning". However, should not it be under "Third term (2007-2008)" section instead "Second term (2002–2007)" section? Many of the contents actually belong to Gujarat article. For example, texts under "Third term (2007-2008)" section reads as follow,

Gujarat is a semi-arid state and, according to Tushaar Shah, was "... never known for agrarian dynamism" but in recent years[when?] has improved its agricultural output substantially, in large part due to projects relating to improvement of groundwater supplies in Saurashtra,Kachchh and the north, as well as efforts to increase the use of micro-irrigation and to provide more efficient power supply to farms. Public irrigation measures in the central and southern areas, such as the Sardar Sarovar Project, have not been so successful in achieving their aims.

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

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

I am glad this topic was raised once my edit removing the scare quotes was reverted. Anyone care to explain why the reference to the Cato Institute study was removed? Not prejudiced enough? http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/economic-freedom-india-2013/economic-freedom-states-of-india-2013.pdf Puck42 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From seeing stuff about the Cato Institute elsewhere, I get the impression that they're a bunch of fringe-y right-wing oddballs who have formed a club. Perhaps that is the reason? - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree as well, "Debate on economic policies/development" for me, sounds good. However I could go for something else better, might show up later. And related to the section, "Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008" under "Second term (2002–2007)" section. I would like to see it similar to, "2002 election" under "First Term (2001-2002)" section. "Terrorism and elections in 2007–2008" should be renamed to "2007 election" with Further information: Gujarat legislative assembly election, 2007 present under the head. And similarly, there could be a section, "2012 election", if needed under "Third term (2002-2007)". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Puck: As Sitush says, and like I said in my edit summary (which you clearly did not bother to read) the Cato institute is a right-wing think tank. They make no pretense of being neutral; so why are you attempting to portray them as such? Find a real source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Zafri Case

Anyone know what came of the Zafri case? What is the status of the the SIT report being accepted by the supreme court?Fantumphool (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The clean chit to Modi was opposed by Jakia Zafri in a lower court, the court ruled in favor of Modi accepting the SIT report. The latest news is that Jakia might go to High Court or Supreme Court. She has not yet done that.-sarvajna (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Her name is Zakia Jafri.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, thanks! Fantumphool (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

(EC)This is POV and the first source, here is not RS, is is a blatant propaganda site for the BJP. The inclusion of phrases such as "outshined", apart from the terrible grammar, is peacock. And this source has no mention of a "canteen job"? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed why you think the years or UPA are POV. I agree that the term "outshined" is an issue, and I think that we need to work on the wording. I am trying to improve the wording but you are reverting en bloc before I can do anything. Fantumphool (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because it was shite. And when reverted you really ought not restore contested content unless you get consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The insertions about development and agriculture are very obviously poppycock, from very questionable sources. Moreover, the administration makes a claim about development; academics contradict this. The double negative of Modi's supporters saying this is not true, is somewhat redundant. If you want to separately add the sentence about Modi becoming a general secretary, I have no issues with that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your description is your opinion. What exactly is your issue with INC leading the UPA? The source says he became a RSS prachak in 1970. What is your issue here? Please describe your problems with all of the points above if you are going to revert them all. If you have problems with individual edits, please revert them separately. Fantumphool (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am re-adding the years and the UPA bits. Fantumphool (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no issues with the INC leading the UPA, except that you tried to link that to more questionable stuff. Likewise with his becoming a pracharak. Although perhaps the UPA bit is not necessary in the lead. As DS said, using the first website as a source is out of the question, it is a BJP site. The business line piece reads like a viewpoint piece, and a better source is needed for a claim as outrageous as the one it makes. Satisfied? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

First, these are not edits that I put into the article. I am trying to incorporate them into the text to make the text better. I have little in the way of an opinion about Modi, and am only interested in him. So, this is not to just to satisfy me. Second, I will leave out the claims about Gujarat's growth and the refutation, but I don't see anything wrong with using the dates given by that article - do you? Fantumphool (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The source that you are disputing says that he became a RSS pracharak in 1970. One the previously cited articles [1] says that, "he used to stay in his canteen ... till he was inducted as a full-time pracharak". I am re-adding the year. Fantumphool (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

M J Akbar

I'm a newcomer to wikipedia. I read in the newspaper today (23/3/2014) that the well known Muslim journalist, M J Akbar joined the BJP. I request someone to insert that news in this article with the appropriate citation. I'm scared to do it myself, because I have been reported to the Arbitration Coomiittee for Enforcement already. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This oage is about Modi not about BJP. That any particular individual joins the BJP is not relevant to this article unless it has some specific significnce for Modi.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

This article is currently under discussion here. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate on Gujarat's development under Modi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaffrelot Christof's report

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

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

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

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

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

hi Vanamonde93 , Report is here . this is the source which is referenced to the statment saying of low human development Index , which is completely false claim as i went through the referenced report , it does not say any such thing ! , may be the source content have changed with time ? , please also note that the concerned thing here is a BLP claim , and can effect a living person negatively Shrikanthv (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It says fairly explicitly that "development" was aimed at Urban dwellers, at the expense of the health, education and economic development of rural areas. These last are the three components of Human development as the term is usually used (including J himself). Also, please look up the archived discussion about this, it is exhausting to repeat arguments every few months. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

went through archives, you were right removing this stuff may lead to NPOV and make the article unbalanced. (with all the stuff available in the net now! like har har modi!!) I guess i will not support the claim for removal now , but still feel interpreting human development, vaguely attaching it components of human development without any measure or number is little bit hard to digest for me Shrikanthv (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I can understand what he is talking about. It is definitive that the given document is not even 'criticism'. It is a neutral report, both sides have to be mentioned, but inside the subsection. And I am not sure which admin you are referring to. If you are referring to 'reviewer', then make sure, that reviewers are no stamp, at least when you have provided no link to the report and asked about the "report" yourself. Even if modi was dead, it is wrong to insert such misleading, however it is BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Narendra_Modi. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Wife

There has been an addition of a name who is the so called Narendra Modi's wife here is the link. However Modi himself has never claimed that she is his wife. So the addition of Jashodaben would be unsourced. As this is a high profile article, because he is one of the prime minister candidate for 2014 general election, this might become a BLP issue and I think any such controversial unreferenced edits should be discussed. Shriram^Talk 08:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear BLP issue. It is just an allegation by his fierce political opponent Digvijay Singh, with no substance whatsoever. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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