Talk:Narendra Modi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

[edit] Development Policies

Sri Narendra Modi's main development policies ARE attracting FDI in creating world-class infrastructure, building SEZ for export generation (and of course tax generation for Gujarat Government and Indian Government). So therefore these multi-multi billion dollar investments deserve to be on his page since he's the only one holding biennial summits to attract and retain FDI and Indian Investments.

Jai HindTri400 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, they should be included as factual, neutral information, without giving undue weighting in comparision to other issues. Also, you should really have a look at WP:NPOV. Recurring dreams 08:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. As has been already pointed out, the Development Policies section should not be taken up by a 2007 fair, its a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. If these problems become intractable, I think I'll call for a third opinion. Recurring dreams 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a third opinion, mine, and I think that WP:UNDUE covers it nicely. Hornplease 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visa Controversy

I have not removed any material from this section as claim in the edit summaries (if so it was accidental, but it doesn't seem to be the case looking through the edits). However there does seem to be some discussion about this section. Please let's discuss it on the talk page rather than through edit summaries. Recurring dreams 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The words on the experts view as to who lobbied for Narendra Modi to be denied a US visa was deleted without reason. Tri400 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which edit? As to the naming of the section, the text deals with visas to a number of countries, "Visa Controversy" is more inclusive and succinct. Recurring dreams 12:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Hornplease edited again what Tri400 was complaining about without discussing it here. You removed the part that says the Dalit network lobbied for the denial of the visa and left a summary of ((→Visa Controversy - cleanup, rm single, unbalanced opinion). I'm not entirely sure that it is valid who lobbied for the visa denial, but then again, I don't know much about Gujarat politics. I think if that is an important issue, it be left in the article as long it as a caveat that the allegations are just that and there isn't proof (assuming there isn't any). Akubhai 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went and read the source for the lobbying claim. Is this place reputable? He doesn't site any sources or references, all claims are "reportedly". Sounds kind of like gossip to me. Akubhai 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a Delhi-based thinktank; this is some sort of working paper, it isnt produced with any kind of peer-review; and the paper itself is full of 'reportedlys' and what not, as you note, and is frankly not representative of most of the coverage, which focused on criticism of Modi in the US Congress. Hence removed, under WP:UNDUE. Hornplease 15:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd fall under WP:UNDUE, but it could fall under the unreliable sources (don't feel like looking up the policy title). Are there any other sources that support that claim Tri400? Akubhai 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and Achievements

Is this about Modi or about the state? If the implication (like the article suggests) is that Modi's policies have contributed to the earning of the award, then the reference to the award should be moved under the policies section since either way Modi was not awarded the honor. Akubhai 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

An award is an award, not a policy. Of course it is a result of Sri Narendra Modi being business friendly, having low corruption and having low crime. Tri400 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the award was given to the state not to Modi.Akubhai 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Delete References

It looks that during a couple of edits, some references have been deleted inadvertantly, be careful about that. Obviously, if a reference isn't valid, delete it and replace it with a {{fact}}. Just be careful when editing the page. Akubhai 15:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

There seems to be an editor determined to mould the article to his biases. I will try to incorporate the material you keep adding, but will revert if they are not added as per WP:NPOV. Recurring dreams 07:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and Recognition

Removed the following two from text:

In 2005, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation's internal economics thinktank ranked Gujarat first in the country for economic freedom (Already mentioned in the main body, not really an award for the subject of the article)
Narendra Modi is recognized as an excellent speaker and in 2005 at the National Development Concil meeting, he spoke without using paper notes. He was by far the best speaker of all the Cheif Ministers. (This is not a formal award or recognition) Recurring dreams 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

it is also blatantly POV Akubhai 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now again anti-Modi anti-BJP and anti-India, because some communists keep trying to dishonor one of the greatest politicians in this country's history by de-recognizing his skills and policies. Tri400 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies and Development

This issue has cropped up again; I reverted the restructure of the policies and development paragraph. There shouldn't be a whole paragraph on the Gujarat Global Investors Summits: even the current material is pushing WP:UNDUE. Recurring dreams 07:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do so, because Narendra Modi attracting $102 billion in investment is worth only 2 short paragraphs as it is nothing for a rich country like India. Communist states like Bengal and Kerala attract 10x more Investments. Infact, Narendra Modi attracts less investment every year than Pondicherry does in just 1 month. (NOT) Tri400 05:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares?Baka man 21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Great attitude from Bakasuprman, its just what we need to help India go from a poor country with a huge chunk of the worlds poor people to a rich country. (NOT) Tri400 17:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of us surprisingly are not from India, and dont care whether Dispur or Trivandrum receives more money. It doesnt even factor into this article.Baka man 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why are u editing this page then? Tri400 01:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is neither a comparison of the FDI into various regions, nor is it a critical analysis of Mr. Modi. I'm really interested in knowing, where it states one must be from India and care about Dispur and Trivandrum receiving more money to edit the Narendra Modi page on Wikipedia. Vishnuchakra 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of links

I fail to see why links to his upbringing, a neutral description of views on Modi, and a section on the Godhra train burning are consistently being removed. Of course, if one wants to portray Modi as a modern day Hitler, its made easier when only a description of the violence and leftist gafflegab remains on the article.Baka man 00:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are forcefully trying to portray him as a modern-day Gandhi. Everyone knows he is the nemesis of Gandhi. Every human rights organization says that Modi sat over the massacres. Please show some moral courage by allowing others to present neutral views too. Besides, you are adding links to nowhere, ghost links. While other sites are Using popups.--TomCat111 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Modi is no Gandhi. There is and was only one Gandhi. Everyone, in your definition, is Osama bin Laden, members of the NLFT and Brinda Karat, perhaps. The ghost links were removed in my edits.Baka man 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

modi was rejected visa by usa because of lobbying of some religous organisations.we know every body tehelka is puppet of one political party which sstrongly opposes BJP.every body knows the credibility of investigations are conducted in india under political influence including CBI.Why not Mr.Rajiv Gandhi was called killer of massacres when 3000 sikh people were brutally killed in capital of india? every body knows the propagation of conspiracy against Mr.mody by national media.no credibility of news of our national media who are puppets of so called secular parties.why can't media see Mr.mody in other way through development and increasing standards of living for our people? poverty is ours main enemy,it does know any religion.ours humble request to so called secular parties please help the people of india to come out of poverty than wasting their enery for getting vote banks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.185.137 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tehelka

Tehelka is quite biased and has been criticized, and a mention of criticism of the commie rag needs to be present for NPOV. I suspect Relata refero (talk · contribs) is the new avatar of Hornplease (talk · contribs).Baka man 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV nowhere supposes that every reliable source needs to be discussed on each occasion it is mentioned. The liberal bias of the Times is not mentioned every time it is sourced; nor that of the Guardian. In addition, of the several stories I have read reporting on the recent news, those discussing Tehelka's motivation are a vanishingly small minority. (This is not surprising, as most people do not assume that the motivation for this sort of scooping is anything other than selling newspapers.) Putting anything of the sort in would thus violate NPOV, unless Modi himself has responded, in which case it can be put in as relevant to his biography.

About your second statement, I have edited several times before with different though not concurrent accounts, but to confirm or deny your supposition would render my decision to do so somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? Besides, that is not relevant to an article talkpage. Relata refero 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tehelka mrerly publicizes allegations, and there are many responses to it. WP:BLP notes that a disproportionate space should not be given to critics, and this article (in your version?) violates this in a grotesque fashion. The BJP's response to it is notable, and in fact required under BLP. As for doubtfully sourced, Think tanks and mainstream papers do not fall under the defnition of that. Tehelka is a doubtful source.Baka man 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please make a claim as to why this is disproportionate, citing reliable sources. The full quote from the policy you cite is "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." If you feel that the current mention of the recent tapes represents a minority of the reports on the issue, please substantiate that.

The response by a spokesman of the political party to which Narendar Modi belongs is not required by policy as far as I can tell. In any case, the response, which as far as I can see consists of a suggestion that the timing of the release is politically motivated, hardly seems relevant to either Modi's biography or the allegations per se, and is not mentioned in most of the sources.

About your claim that Tehelka is a doubtful source, I do not have an opinion, but it seems clear that the tapes themselves have received wide coverage in the mainstream press in India, so we do not need to source it to Tehelka in particular, making the concern moot. Relata refero 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please substantiate that the page does not give disproportionate room to critics. On the page of a similarly controversial politician, M_Karunanidhi#Controversies does not eat up the majority of the page as it does here. Most of this page is devoted to criticism/controversy serving as criticism, overwhelming the biography, a clear violation of BLP.

All news reports also gave the BJP's response making it quite notable in this regard. Reports have also been made that this specific report was assisted by the congress party [1], so criticism of this is both neutral and conservative, as required by BLP. Reliable sources, criticizing a source of questionable reliability will always have precedence and note on a page generating this much controversy.

Whatever your previous identity, your agenda is quite clear, the inflation of the criticism section, and an unbalanced page serving as a soapbox for leftist conspiracy theory are the goal.Baka man 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove or trim the section on the visa denial, if you feel that that is overly critical of Modi. Of the section on the Gujarat violence, I see that one paragraph has a neutral rendition of facts that can hardly be called critical, one paragraph mentions both criticisms of his government and the fact that cases have been dismissed, one paragraph - the smallest - mentions the recent newsreports, and one mentions political opposition and the fact that Modi won an election immediately thereafter, which is difficult to define as criticism. How precisely is this disproportionate? Each discussion is taken to its logical conclusion, which in most cases is indicating that cases have been dismissed or elections have been won, which is hardly that of a section devoted to criticism.

"Reliable sources, criticizing a source of questionable reliability will always have precedence and note on a page generating this much controversy." I not only do not see this anywhere in poliucy or guidelines, I fail to see mention of this strange CIA accusation in most of the articles that actually discuss the issue. Google news suggests 130 articles for tehelka modi, but 9 for tehelka modi cia. As I said, if you wish to include the BJP spokesman's claims that the timing was politically motivated, you will have to make a case for it being relevant to a bio of Narendar Modi, which I fail to see it as being. If you wish to make a claim that the spokesman also said that it was just boasting and that the law will take its course, please make a similar case for relevance. Finally, if you wish to make the claim that the tapes did not implicate Modi personally, I am personally sympathetic, but please find several reliable sources indicating as much, as most RSes take the opposite view for some reason.

Finally, I see no criticism section, as I stated above. Please do not accuse me of an agenda here; I couldn't care less what this article looked like as long as it was readable, respectful of a living person, moderately accurate and not sourced to random websites. I doubt if shortly before an election anyone will come to WP expecting the whole truth about the man, so WP's reputation - which is my main agenda - might not be on the line here. (Similar processes are at work in Australia-related articles right now.) Relata refero 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(incidentally, the criticism section in the article you quote has more words as a proportion of the total article than both the sections that you erroneously call critical here.) Relata refero 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(de indent)The page is not being written according to your planned out vision. If you cannot made a very real and obvious extrapolation from WP:RS stating that reliable sources are always more appropriate than unreliable sources, it indicates a very myopic and unintelligent analysis of the policy.

A conservative and neutral discussion of controversy is necessary to meet WP:BLP. Deleting criticism of an obviously partisan report is neither conservative nor neutral, ergo it doesn't meet BLP guidelines. You "failing to see" this and that is immaterial. Its merely you failing to look into the issue in a neutral and holistic manner, not any fault of mine or the sources.

What you really "fail to see" is that the page does not serve as your personal soapbox. I am under no obligation to "make a case for relevance" when sources like The Hindu, Times of India, and The Pioneer have done so for me. If they printed it, its probably relevant. The sources discuss it dispassionately. The only sources that took these allegations as gospel were the CPIM rags and a couple Indian Muslim papers.

The Gujarat Riots section is criticism. Calling someone a facilitator of genocide or something along those lines is criticism since its an attack on Modi, this is a common sense, somewhat obvious observation.Baka man 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Point by point: I have no 'vision' for this page, as I already stated; (ii) The fact that reliable sources are preferable to unreliable sources is undeniable, and doesn't affect my argument or yours (iii) I don't think calling me myopic and unintelligent is helpful or civil (iv)I don't see that that neutrally reporting a controversy about that part of report X that according to reliable sources affects person Y requires us to mention all details about report X, which is why I asked for an argument about relevance (v) The report is not obviously biased, and, even if it was, I would require several non-partisan sources telling me it was in order to accept it (vi)I don't think calling me neutral and non-holistic (?) is helpful or civil (vii) I never said anything was the fault of either you or the sources (vi) I don't saying that a page I just expressed relative disinterest is one I wish to use as a soapbox is either helpful or civil (viii) The vast majority of article on the recent tapes, as I mentioned, report merely on their content (ix) None of the newspapers you mention have made a case for why the party's response - that the Tehelka is inspired by the CIA - is in the least relevant to Narendar Modi (x) "If they have printed it, it is probably relevant", no, not unless they say it is, otherwise the football scores would be relevant (xi) All sources discussed it dispassionately, and if you feel the article uses excessively passionate language, suggest an alternative (xii) I fail to see any part of the article or the riots section that mentions the word genocide or accuses Modi of any facilitation of genocide, and if such a claim were made, it should be removed unless backed up by the most extraordinary of sources (xiii) You have not replied to my detailed breakdown of the riots section or explained how it is that you feel that a very balanced section about this event that is very relevant to Modi's first term and re-election is criticism. Relata refero 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(i) The fact that reliable sources > unreliable sources is very germane to this discussion as you have soapboxed for the politically motivated Tehelka report while whitewashing criticism from legitimate sources which are much more reliable (ii) The tehelka "sting" is quite notable and does deserve its own subsection, considering that it has been discussed in media (iii) NPOV requires neutrality and since the tehelka report has been criticized (iv) a proper summary of the merits of the report must be placed since tehelka is not anywhere near official (v) the sources do not need to tell you anything, since wikipedia is obviously not your personal repository, see WP:OWN (vi) More than one respected journalist has criticized the Tehelka report, its just that Mitra phrased in the most interesting fashion (vii) If you were expressing disinterest, certainly three undiscussed reverts phrased with gratuitous patronizing give any tabula rasa the wrong impression (vii) Since you fail to read the articles, I dont necessarily see any veracity to vapid statements about relevancy above, especially in terms of football (viii) a criticism/allegation that an expose targeting one man is politically motivated is relevant to the man (ix) especially in talking about the veridicality or farcicality of such a report (x) genocide is a figure of speech, people that read Tehelka generally call it a genocide (xi) controversy/criticism go hand in hand, especially when talking about how the lawyers of terrorists pity butchers while ignoring the rights of a generally peaceful populace (xii) You are still violating BLP by vandalizing the page, by publishing allegations as fact even as mainstream sources use terms such as claim, and gloss over the sensationalized drama put out by tehelka, Osama, and friends. (xiii) whining about civility only cements allegations that you are Hornplease (talk · contribs), which is now patently obvious.Baka man 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(i)Only reliable sources are being quoted, Tehelka itself is not being quoted; the RSes determined that the sting was reliable, so we don't need to concern ourselves with it (ii)Accusing me of soapboxing and whitewashing is neither helpful nor civil (iii) The sting is not notable enough for its own subsection, whether or not it has been "discussed in media" as you put it in a charmingly inarticulate manner; many things are "discussed in media" but do not deserve their own section (iv) There is no need for a "summary of the merits" of the report anywhere in any policy, merely what reliable sources consider most notable and relevant to Modi about it (v) In order to justify calling the report obviously biased, you would need to back it up with RSes, your word alone is not enough, and thus your quoting WP:OWN is strangely ironic (vi) IF more than one journalist criticised it, I am not surprised, but I fail to see how such criticism that it is motivated is relevant to this article unless Modi himself has said it or Modi is mentioned in the majority of such criticism (vii) If you felt patronized by my edit comments, I apologise, but I assumed that there was random editorialising occurring such as I had observed this page attracts (viii) "a criticism/allegation that an expose targeting one man is politically motivated is relevant to the man" not unless you can provide enough sources making that point that it can be demonstrated that it represented a significant minority view (ix) especially if the criticism deals with the motivation rather than the 'veridicality' of the report (x) "genocide is a figure of speech, people that read Tehelka generally call it a genocide", possibly, but they're not editing this page currently, so I will assume you have no further objections to make about the even-handedness of the section in question (xi) I am not sure what you mean when you talk about the lawyers of terrorists, my point remains that you have to make a case that the sections are even-handed (xii) If you believe the section on the report is improperly worded, I have already asked you to suggest an alternative, preferably one that does not call this newsmagazine a friend of Osama, as that would appear faintly ridiculous (xiii) I do not believe that you think that anyone would not be offended by your tone, and if you persist in believing I am someone's sockpuppet, please file an suitable report. Relata refero 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot of the stuff that Tehelka publishes, if posted on WP would be considered a violation of WP:BLP. So be careful of the tone that is used. 71.250.156.200 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if I agree, which I may not, I think we can avoid linking Tehelka directly. Relata refero 07:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please speak plainly. 71.250.156.200 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few points

The India Today article as far as I can see doesn't explicitly back up the statements in the lead. Can we please have an excerpt of the actual wording on this talkpage so we can discuss the best way in which to paraphrase it?
While Tehelka was certainly sensationalist, I don't know whether it was speculative, and it hardly affects the fact that it was notable. I have, however, a great deal of sympathy for the remark that it doesn't belong in with the judicial probes. Can Sarvagna suggest a refactoring of that section that would be approved? (Note, per WP:BLP/N, even if other ethical aspects of the Tehelka investigation have been criticised, it is not necessary for us to discuss them if they do not impact the notability relevant to Modi.In other words, stings are poor journalism, but notable sources don't have anything to say about the relevance of that to Modi and hence this article.) Relata refero 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The SAAG 'link' links to a non-peer-reviewed working paper by a college student. I don't think that meets WP:RS. Removed.Relata refero 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The recent removal of all references to riots in the lead appears to be a direct violation of WP:LEAD. Can someone suggest a reason why it is not? -- Relata refero (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From the India Today article: Face of Discord

Unacceptable as it may be to his anguished critics, he has become the latest poster boy of the counter-establishment and a veritable hero for many in Gujarat. He has even acquired a new label-Chhote Sardar-and been anointed inheritor to the mantle of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Iron Man who was independent India's first home minister. Without any fanfare, prominent Hindu religious leaders-including the heads of prominent Hindu orders-have conducted pujas for his well-being and proffered words of encouragement. The venerable Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Jayendra Saraswati, has even given him a public certificate: "Modi is doing his best to restore normalcy." "Some people," rues Bal Apte, BJP Rajya Sabha member and acknowledged guru of the party's Young Turks, "simply want Gujarat to simmer. Therefore, the present peace and measures for peace are ignored." — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful, though I don't know how that supported the statements in the lead at the time. I'm happy to note in the lead that he is popular in Gujarat in the manner in which the IT article suggests, though I'd like a straightforward news article rather than an opinion column to paraphrase about his role in the Gujarat economy. -- Relata refero (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is from a news article. Can we get back to using our primary accounts, please? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the above extract about the economy. As I said, I am more than willing to note in the lead that he is popular in Gujarat in the manner in which the above news article suggests. Relata refero (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Aditi Phadnis on Business Standard:

"n the last one month alone, FIRs for stealing power have been filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) against 10 persons in Surat and four in Mehsana, most of them industrialists. The GEB unearthed 578 cases of power theft worth Rs 2.4 crore in July this year. It is filing cases merrily. Over the years, in part because of this crackdown, aggregate technical and commercial losses in Surat are down to 8 per cent. They are 30 per cent in Delhi.

"The fact is that the VHP used to traditionally play the role of facilitator in Gujarat, serving as an interface between the government and industry. Modi knew these tactics only too well and let the VHP know its services were not needed any more. Modi has not spared the tender mercies of the RSS either. Relief work in the Gujarat floods last year was not entrusted to RSS cadres. Instead activists of an NGO, the Swadhyay Parivar, were given the relief materials."

"During a rath yatra in Bhavnagar last year, the district administration did not allow a procession to proceed with the weapons of Ram and Hanuman. Among those who sat in protest against the government move were well-known RSS supporters Haribhai Kordaliya, former BJP OBC cell chairman, and former state BJP chief Rajendrasinh Rana. The yatra could proceed only after they had sat on dharna for four hours."

"Even those who didn't go there know Bhuj was levelled after the earthquake in 2001. Go to Bhuj now. New roads, a new town, new houses"

"Earlier this month, Modi laid the foundations of a finance city, a technology park and an integrated township in Gandhinagar. IL&FS signedseveral memoranda with investors like Kotak Mahindra (committed to developing 300 acres of land), Chest Core (to design 2 million square feet space), Punj Lloyd (set to design 1 million square feet built-up space), and Fairwood Associates (to deal with 1 million square foot area). This follows commitments worth Rs 660,000 crore in January 2007 at the Vibrant Gujarat Investor's summit."

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tehelka

BLP articles should be edited with extra care and there simply is no room for mudslinging by other means. Also when we have the high courts and supreme courts commenting on the matter, Tehelka counts for squat. Especially when it is at odds with what the courts say. If and when the Honorable Judge deems the Tehelka tapes worthy of being examined, examines them and pronounces his verdict, we will add his verdict into the article. Until then, sit tight and hang in there. This isnt the evening tabloid or a two-bit Tehelka for us to propagate hearsay and slander people. Sarvagnya 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tehelka sting operations cannot be treated as relevant for this article for 1) There have been strong and valid claims made against their validity, 2) the admissibility of such evidence in a court of law is always challenged 3) it is highly irrelevant in the this article, since the comments were not made by the subject himself, but some members of the Bajrang Dal. Inclusion of material with such dubious authenticity and its libellous nature is forbidden under WP:BLP. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the word 'mudslinging' and 'slander' and suggest you withdraw them.
About the relationship between the Tehelka report and judicial investigation, I think you misunderstand how we judge notability. Nobody claims that all discussions of controversial subjects have to be ruled upon by a court of law. Relevance and notability are determined by reliable sources, not by the courts.
I do not see any "strong and valid claims against their validity", merely against their intention, ethics, and motivation. (i.e., that it was intended to influence electoral results, that it was as unethical as all such stings, and that it was motivated by a desire to help the opposition party.) None of these are claims against their validity, and are irrelevant.
The admissibility of such evidence in a court of law is nothing we need to concern ourselves about, as we are not a court of law, and we have different rules for inclusion of such material.
The fact that the focus of the original tapes was on recording the purported statements of members of the Bajrang Dal does not change the fact that the focus of a large proportion of the reporting and discussion in reliable sources was the supposed light it shed on Modi himself, and is thus relevant to this article.
Material of "dubious authenticity" is, according to BLP, judged as dubious only if reliable sources have not discussed it. In this case a vast number of reliable sources have discussed the claims, and they are thus not of dubious authenticity by our standards.
There's also no response to my concerns about WP:LEAD. -- Relata refero (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of your points just rehash the same thing. So I wont bother countering each of them. Suffice to say, on BLP articles we err on ths side of caution. Conspiracy theories and petty intrigues are 'discussed' in RS sources all the time. Doesnt mean they all become encyclopedic. Nowhere is it said or implied that everything that appears in a RS source ought to be on wikipedia. That simply isnt the way WP:RS works or was meant to work. As for Tehelka, the charges concerning its political motivation and journalistic ethics are pretty serious and damage their credibility(atleast for purposes of an encyclopedia) greatly. So till we have a reliable neutral entity like a judge or a court comment on the matter, we dont take things into our own hands. Period. Sarvagnya 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear to not know what you're talking about, either about RS or about credibility, or about "conspiracy theories". Please deal with each point as far as you are able or I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on. For starters, can you point to a single other article on WP that applies this absurd (a-judge-must-pronounce-standard? (I thought not.) "Erring on the side of caution" doesn't mean we exclude every whiff of controversy when the individual is generally notable precisely for being controversial. Unless you have some real argument to make, with reference to policy and precedent rather than invective, this is going back in. Relata refero (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya's points are expressly based on the spirit of the policy, unlike your pettifoggery. The criticism of Modi you place on this page is politically motivated, hornplease. Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is really untopical, considering that Modi has never been tried in court for any "crimes". Tehelka is not an RS, not credible, and is a political shock machine. If the tehelka libelrag goes in, so too does all the criticism that comes with it. I can understand that you are perturbed by the fact that wikipolicy basically undermines all your supposed contentions for why we should slander Modi. WP:BLP is paramount in this arena.Baka man 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that almost every sentence in that statement is incorrect. Modi being tried in court is irrelevant to notability. As long as the allegations originally in tehelka are quoted extensively without discussion of tehelka's "criticism", introducing that criticism is a violation of our core policies. Many, many reliable sources have discussed the Tehlka sting as it applies to Modi; a vanishingly small minority of those sources, if any, have discussed Tehelka in the manner you have. Simply put, neither of you polite gentlemen have a single bit of policy to back you up. (One can usually tell when somebody rambles on about "spirit of the policy".) Oh, and for the last time, if you continue to assume, in the face of evidence which I provided you, that you know something of my identity, I am afraid I will have to do something about it. Relata refero (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the great Tehelka is not going in for any sting operations in West Bengal?? I just wonder why they are targeting only BJP as if all corruption is in that party alone. What about other parties like so called Congress and leftist Parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vu3ktb (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is bizarre. If a public figure is accused in the mainstream media of something major, then it's notable and must be reported in Wikipedia. WP:BLP is not intended as a tool with which to write hagiographies. We must of course attribute all accusations properly. --Delirium (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The accusations are pretty controversial and unsurprisingly the sting does not cover the subject himself making any comments to compromise his position. Coverage of this kind is incidental, and not really relevant or substantial for the future. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't make that judgment. It has been covered a great deal in mainstream, non-tabloid sources. Relata refero (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Modi was criticized by Tehelka and "implicated", but the sources now (as Nick indicated) have moved on. This article from the International Herald tribune was the only article on modi caught by google news, and Tehelka vis-a-vis Fernandez gets more coverage than vis-a-vis Modi, even if the latter arguably could have had the larger effect. The inclusion of Tehelka's politically motivated jabs was hotly contested, and many users have spoken out against the sole inclusion of the accusations as gospel truth, one that as indicated above violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.Baka man 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tehelka should certainly be in Fernandes' article as well.
The accusations should not be included as gospel truth, but as notable accusations. They were the most reported Modi-related story in the two years leading up to the recent elections.
Naturally the sources have moved on. They are newspapers. We are not.
I see no relevance of WP:BLP, or of WP:UNDUE. The authenticity of the Hindu, the TOI and such papers is not under dispute; and, as pointed out, this received more coverage than anything else for years, so it hardly violates NPOV. Relata refero (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, no objections, then? Relata refero (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been covered a great deal in mainstream, non-tabloid sources. - Everything that makes it to the national press doesnt automatically become encyclopedic... not to mention that wikipedia's content is governed by wikipedia's own policies; not by those of the 'mainstream' press or of the tabloids. Sarvagnya 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And our policies mandate the inclusion of notable information about an individual convered in mainstream non-tabloid policies. Read them again. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Material covered in tabloids does not belong in the article, and since you removed the prominent criticisms of the tabloid material, sarvagnya can hardly agree with your conclusion that any sort of "policy" supports this kind of defamation.Baka man 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Which tabloids are in the article? Relata refero (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tehelka, and any mention of Tehelka's "findings" must be followed by a qualification of Tehelka. The report was widely criticized, and since the consensus and policy are against including the slander in the article, it will be promptly removed.Baka man 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was it widely criticised? I don't see any wide criticism of the content of the reports in the linked reliable sources. If you mean there were three op-eds criticisng the timing, putting them in is undue weight. If Modi had a statement on it, we can put that in. I can't find it, though. Relata refero (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was criticized by not numerous op-eds, and it was also criticized (Both content and timing) by members of the Shiv Sena, BJP, Indian National Congress (go figure), and the RSS. The report itself was highly contentious, however a simple google news search shows that very little actually stuck to the wall, in comparison to actual government reports concerning the situation.Baka man 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no direct criticism of content, I see no evidence that the criticism of content was such that introducing it would not violate NPOV, I see no reason why criticism of timing would be relevant, and I have no idea what "stuck to the wall" means. It was widely covered, it was the single most important Modi-related story of the last year leading up to elections, and I can't imagine why you'd want to keep it out. Also, do read WP:LIBEL for a change. Wikilinking something is no substitute for actual application of the policy. And I have seen nothing in the last couple of remarks that are not a series of increasingly wild assertions. Relata refero (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth a couple of recent London Times articles mention this "sting" as part of their explanation as to why Modi is a rather controversial figure. London Times essentially takes it at face value. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is now sourced to the Times, the Economist, the Washington Post, the Times of India, the Telegraph, the Herald-Tribune, Reuters, the AP, and heaven knows what else, all of which attest to the importance of this episode to Modi's bio, and none of which contain any "criticism" of the "tabloid" that broke it. I really think that anything further on this subject would be new heights (depths? directions?) of tendentiousness. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magrol Speech

I would request the wiki community to include a section on speech habits of Mr. Narendra Modi. I realize that certain facts may not be facts till they have the support of accredited source. However, I am using proper sources but get admonished by good user community. I do not desire to slander Mr. Modi but presenting facts about his speech is important as it reflects his personality. I can provide video footage as a source of the speech, if needed. recordfreenow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordfreenow (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Read the policy

I realize that we all want to make certain comments. I do to. However, after reading the policy [WP:BLP], I realize that I will need to take extreme caution about making any positive or negative comments. So let us do our research. I am sure that if we put our efforts and resources together, the true biography of Mr. Modi would be exposed/made public. As the policy say, "Do no intentional harm". We need to follow the policy and implement it for every positive or negative comment. If you want to learn, read the biographies of other living person's such as Manmohan Singh, George Bush, even Bin Laden. You will notice that these have been written with a LOT of objectivity. Initially, I also wrote emotionally but now stand corrected. I still have an opinion but submit that to objectivity and will propose cleaning to remove other poorly sourced and propoganda items. Let's co-operate. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speech quotes

Would it be alright with the community if we were to have a Quotation section and include some quotations from Mr. Modi's speeches?Recordfreenow (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not received a response, I take that as an acceptance to include speech quotes.Recordfreenow (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a quotation farm. Please desist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations provide a distinct understanding of the individual. The need would be not to "mis-quote" and editors would need to take the needed precautions. Please indicate your thought process. I do not believe this violates the WP:BLP. Also, the section of position of terrorism is already a quotation. Remember we are not supposed to have single sided agendas!! Recordfreenow (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write Social reforms

Either someone (including me) need to re-write the social reforms or we need to take it out. The section needs to be about Modi. The center of each section needs to be Modi. So don't write about Gujarat government but rather about his governance. You get the point. I will make an attempt but since I have not done research on the Social reform, I am not fully capable. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitiveness with no proof

Please discuss such changes on the talk page of the article before making them. Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cant write on your page seems.. So Mr. Headless Nick, where on earth my edits are not neutral when there is a clear indication that in the version that you want us to read there is a hiding of the fact that:

a) The people who got burnt "alive" as the article says were not mere Hindus who were travelling on a family trip. Those killed were coming back from participating in a communally sensitive event in Ayodhya organised by Modi's party.

b) The final reports of the enquiry committee is still to be out and there have been at least two enquiries that have not come up with a comprehensive reason as to whether the fire started from within (through the stoves being used by the Activists) or out of the train

c) Your wordings are too final and unsupported by any facts that "Muslim fundamentalists burnt the Hindus alive", You use an Israel based Think Tank's report to support your point of view when clearly there are loads of artlicles published by Indian papers that speak the truth.

The modus operandi of a group of writers in Indian articles is clearly to tag team together to exhaust the other POV's. Someone needs to look into the people who blank out the sourced stuff from the Indian Right wing parties pages on Wikipedia.You all are a CANCER Samarpan11 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do elaborate on these wild conspiracy theories. Also the BJP is really run by Yahudi's, and India is Dar ul' Harb. Whatever has been written is both sourced and verifiable.Baka man 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Described by no less than the New York Times as a "Hindu Supremacist"

New York Times article in question. While this point (like any point) can be argued, it might be the basis for a section on whether or not he can be considered a Hindu Supremacist, what that even means, and (if he is) whether it should be even considered a pejorative. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Modi is a magnet for adjectives, due to his rather polarizing nature. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is any more relevant to his notability than the numerous other adjectives used to describe him.Baka man 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, pointing to a reliable source like The New York Times or the number of similar sources that use that adjective should be more than sufficient. --Bobak (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ermm, I don't really agree with that, but by the standards of Ahmedijinad and anti-semitism, I suppose it should go in there. Unless someone has objection's they'd care to outline here. Relata refero (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] paani ne samsya

Mdohi sir taamna koti koti vaandan!!!!!!

         aap na janava va nu ke aamare society mma cchala 15 yaer thi paani ne samsya cha to pan aama BJP paaks par visvaas raki na vote aapeiya cha pan hava aamare dirraj no aant ave gayo cha. aamara corporataro aamare satha vaothing samaya visvaas aapava ta aaviya cha pan aa loko pan jutha cha. aamare aas-pass na vistaro (Ayodhya Nagear Soc., Sundram Soc. Jitendra park Soc., Upvan Soc., Rajdeep Soc. etc.) paan aavu na aavuj cha jevu 15 year Pahela Hatu Khass kari na Paani mata. To hava Hamana Avi Aasha cha ka aap kye problem solve karo nathi tar aagami Lok Saba Ne Vothing Ma BJP na vote aape sakeya aave ammre passa thi tama Aasha Chodi dajo because aamre passa rahala tamara corporataro (Yougesh Patel, Arvind Patel,) amna kam thi Niras cha. To aap shri mharbheni karei na aamara problem no Aant lavsoji. 
         Aamna Hundutva ana Moditva na Vote aapyo cha maata tama aamarai aasha puri karshoji.

THAKAR A. BHAUMIK, GOPAL S. KIKODE, AYODYA NAGAR, V.I.P. ROAD, KARELIBAUG (VOD NO: -8) PIN: - 390018 MOB: - +91 9925928751

      +91 9427787002
      +91 9913844671  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.211.79 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longest serving CM in Gujarat History

I added that he is the longest serving CM in Gujarat's history. I am putting it back on the page. Tri400 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.