Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 1

message: Forget about these reports... everyone knows how those committies are set-up and how they operate and under whose direction they operate. Nanavati-Shah commission was only Shah commission initially.. Set up by Gujarat Government after the riots. Imagine a RSS linked retired judge commissioning an inquiry of genocide of minorities. After this, the central government was forced to appoint Mr. Nanavati as a watchdog to Shah Commission. That's why it is called Nanvati-Shah comission. Also please check out the Tehelka expose of all RSS, Bajrang Dal and BJP leaders who were bragging about killing, raping and burning minority community. Don't make me write all these as I believe you already know these things. Also don't make the absurd comments about legitimacy of those Tehelka videos. If Tehelka catches some Congress leader in corruption sting, then these so-called "Indian Patriots" widely acclaim Tehelka's sting operations and if Tehelka catches any of RSS people, they blame Tehelka of having ties to Congress and Leftist.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.67.21 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reveal the truth about Godhara Incident and 2002 Gujarat riots

message: I'm putting this at the top of the page, to point out the stated convention that new comments should be added at the bottom of the page. This of course itself violates the convention. Imc 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page conventions

message: This article has improved, but it is still not NPOV.  Please keep in mind that the best way to avoid bias in writing is to report facts as facts, and opinions as opinions.  
I have no prior opinions concerning Narendra Modi, Hindu-Muslim antagonism, or the politics of Gujurat, and yet this article has clearly been written by a supporter of Mr. Modi.
This paragraph needs work:
--
Narendra Modi came under criticism from his opponents during the Gujarat riots. After the massacre of Hindus in a train by Muslims, the Gujarat riots in 2002 saw many Muslims killed in retaliation.  The opponents accused Mr Modi's government of turning a blind eye to the rioters despite his government deploying army in 72 hours, making preventive arrests of over 33,000 people, firing over 12000 rounds of bullets and 15,000 rounds of tear gas shells to control riots.  His government was one of the few ones in history of India to quickly bring in the army to control the riots.
Disturbed by the accusations, he resigned and sought a fresh mandate from the people of Gujarat.  To the chagrin of his opponents, he won by the landslide, the biggest victory in the history of Gujarat.
--
"After the massacre of Hindus in a train by Muslims," is not a good start.  The cause of the Hindu deaths are a point of dispute, and because of this, this statement is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.  User IMC made what I consider to be a sensible suggestion (see above).
The next sentence might be acceptable per NPOV rules, but I recommend reworking it.  In its present state, (a simple statement of one viewpoint followed by an overwhelming barrage of statistics for the other side) it looks like a debate tactic, not an encyclopedia article.
The last sentence, "His government was one of the few ones in history of India to quickly bring in the army to control the riots", is a subjective masterpiece.  Edit it or drop it.  And not to get to involved in debating Mr. Modi himself, but deploying the army after 72 hours of rioting wouldn't be considered "quick" by any objective measure.
"To the chagrin of his opponents" seems to reveal some glee on the part of the author, and should be reworked.  Also, throw in some numbers to help support the landslide remark.
Finally, I have to disagree with Alren concerning the following argument of his:
--
:* Firstly Just because you do not believe it does not make it suspect.  How can you suspect that he's not energetic, not focussed on Gujarat's future, championing the common man's cause, is passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption?  I myself put some examples supporting it.  Unless you have something which questions the above it should not be removed.
--
"Modi is energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future." "He has championed the common-man's cause." "He is a passionate crusader against red tapism and corruption."  
None of these statements are really supported by Alren's examples.  Well, actually, there's "The 'Lok Kalyan Mela' scheme, which has brought the government to the common man."  Well, what is the Lok Kalyan Mela scheme?  
Actually, don't bother explaining it.  Even if the statements about Modi were supported by neutrally-described goverment policies, they still wouldn't qualify as NPOV.  I mean, how can "he is a passionate crusader" ever be NPOV?  Or "he is an energetic leader"?  
Those statements, however, would make great voice-over lines in a TV commercial supporting a Narendra Modi political campaign.  
I really don't want to seem like I'm bashing Mr. Modi here.  I honestly have no opinion of him whatsoever at this point.  And how could I?  The only thing that I've read about him is so blatantly partisan that I have no idea what the truth really is.  Please reform this article.
--Rroser167 19:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still not NPOV

message: I dont see how anyone can call his platform anti-semitic ? There are virtually now jewish or semetic people in India. And it was the muslims who bore the brunt of the violence, so it should read anti-islamic.
:I reverted to the last version which was more NPOV. the page you saw was a vandalized page by some anon user. kaal 20:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicious anti-semitic platform ? 

message: I've attempted to clean up some of the POV anti- and pro- Modi language on this page.  I'm also becoming very tired of watching both sides play with this article.  --Rroser167 13:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I've just had to revert from some anon user who reverted me.  I don't understand what the user's purpose in doing so was; they restored both pro- and anti- Modi material.  If you want to engage in an edit war, at least apply some thinking to it.  --Rroser167 16:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edit 

message: I've been trying to keep a fairly NPOV version of this page going, but it keeps getting reverted.  Perhaps the Wiki community can help, or the person who keeps reverting can actually come here and explain their arguments to us all, instead of changing things and avoiding having to defend your changes.  There is no reason to be afraid, no one knows who you are, especially since you only use anonymous handles. --Rroser167 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, I don't believe I wrote those words anyway. Imc 09:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: Following the last modification by 203.99.42.15, the article reflects certain views and is definitely not NPoV. Would the anonymous user at that IP care to log in, and justify his repeated insertions of his opinions, before he does it again, on this page please?  Imc 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions of 203.99.42.15

message: To me, this article reads like it has been written by a Hindutva apologist - looking at the history page, it looks like it's improved somewhat from what it used to be, but as it stands certainly not NPoV, whatever that position might be. 2002_Gujarat_violence at least acknowledges that it is far from clear that the Godhra fire was started by "Muslim terrorists", as one railway ministry inquiry headed by a former Supreme Court justice, Justice Banerjee concluded that the fire was accidental. Also at the very least, external links should reflect the reports of  numerous human rights organisations that have held Modi's government culpable in the Gujarat pogrom.
Nedloh 02:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  not NPoV - add links maybe? 

message: 12.39.196.98 has twice removed parts of the article which(particularly the text book controversy and the Riots). Please give reasons before doing major edits, otherwise your actions will be considered as attempts of vandalism and will be reported to the administrators. 
anil 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please give reasons before removing any part of the article

message: There's still far too many unjustified and unreferenced assertions in this article. And such inherently PoV statements as India's largely left-wing media. The article is more a collection of disparate opinions than an useful entry. Perhaps all statements that are made without a reliable external reference being quoted, should be promptly removed. Imc 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPoV tag 30 Jan 06

message: While dealing with numbers, please cite proper sources from where you have retrieved the figures. I would request the users (esp. Imc) to get proper sources. This is with reference to AumprakashReddy's  entry. --Andy123 11:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I noticed that there was no mention about Modi's resignation and the dissolution of the Assembly after the riots. Have added the information (with citations, ofcourse). - Aksi_great (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details about Modi's resignation 

message: Here's something which I found on the net. Modi was awarded "Person of the Year" in 2005 by the top-selling Gujarat magazine Chitralekha . Do you all think it is worthy of mentioning in the article. Chitralekha is the highest selling Gujarati weekly, with readership figures above that of India Today , . - Aksi_great (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chitralekha is only a local magazine, while India Today is a national magazine. I dont think that we should include the 'person of the year' part into the article. The case would have been completely different, if it had been Time magazine instead of Chitralekha. If you check out the history the same thing had been removed the User:Imc earlier. --Andy123  talk 12:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't hv a problem with info as long as it is notable and verifiable - I think the info is both notable and verifiable here. One issue may be integrating it with the article. Personally, I'd use this fact to show how popular he was in Gujarat while country-wide, people expressed strong reservations against him in opinion polls held post-Godhra (I don't remember the details of such opinion polls, though). --Gurubrahma 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't know that someone else had removed it. Yes, it could be used as Gurubrahma has pointed out. But, I also don't remember any opinion polls saying that. I think India Today had ranked him high in the list of best chief-ministers. But looking at the current standard of India Today, I think it may no longer be regarded as a credible source. All they do is publsh surveys :) - Aksi_great (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's put this into some context. A major Gujarati politician has been chosen person of the year by a Gujarati publication - that is not really significant, is it? Given that this politician has twice been elected chief minister, and this award was during his term as the leading citizen of the state, it is actually trivial in comparison. It just restates the fact that he has majority support. If it is felt proper to include this, then I suggest that it be listed briefly with any other honours and awards in a separate section in the article, in a  style consistent with other articles. See e.g. Abdul Kalam, M.S. Subbulakshmi. And if there are Wikipedia articles for any other people who have been named person of the year by this same magazine, they should have it mentioned too! Imc 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  The majority of Hindus like Modi. Since India is at least 15% minority, those people despise Modi but the majority of Hindus feel he is a smart, shrewd, and strong leader. Outside the US, close to 80-90% of Hindus like Modi (only the seculars despise him).Bakaman Bakatalk 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person of the year 

message: Here are some statements that were removed from the article:
Despite his popularity with the wider Gujarati electorate, he remains a controversial figure and unpopular with minority communities.
His alleged anti-minority agenda is mired in controversy.
The National Human Rights Commission criticised the government, pointing to "a comprehensive failure on the part of the State Government of Gujarat to control persistent violations of rights
However, recently a case implicating Modi and his administration was filed by the widow of ex-Congress MP Ahsen Jaafri
The visit did not meet the criterion of a diplomatic visit either
If any other quotes are removed, please add the to the list above.  I will try to look for sources supporting these quotes, and I'd really appreciate any help.  Some of these statements may be wholly unsupported, and others are worded badly/with biase, so I will also try to fix these problems.  Mar de Sin Talk to me! 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All these comments are sourced. Read the linked articles from the references section properly. I have restored them. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 18:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed info 

message: Per precedent in 2002 Gujarat violence the video needs to be kept. Either keep this video or remove tha one.OK?Hkelkar 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove that one. Google Vidoes and YouTube are absolutely unreliable sources; as any dork on the Internet can make a video and upload it conviniently. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.Hkelkar 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modi Video

message: I have removed the following in-line comments placed in the article. These kind of comments are suitable only for this article talkpage. Embedded in-line comments are used only to point out a particular technical problem and not give commentary on more subjective concerns. I have left the 1 embedded comment that was technical. These 3 below, are definitely not: 
No one knows about his childhood or education. A wikipedia page beginning when he was 25 years is a collective insult to our knowledge! So sad!!
Which human rights organizations? There is only one in the world officially recognized, and all are parts of the same one. And, only a particular HR organization will have jurisdiction to examine such matters, and its decisions shall also be subject to review by the apex court of India. I fail to understand why people try to lower the credibility of wikipedia where as we have a system of verifiability. We are writing an encyclipedia and not chit-chatting. Let us tell the truth.
India is a democracy and a developed judicial system unlike most of the other countries around India. Anyone can file a case against any one. A sub-judice matter cannot be
discussed in this manner to impute guilt.''
Rama's arrow 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is no need to add :Category:Hindus when there is already a :Category:Hindu politicians - the latter is a subcat of the former. Same for :Category:People from Gujarat and :Category:Gujarati people. Rama's arrow 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama's arrow, I agree with your logic on Hindu politicians, but People from Gujarat is not always a umbrella for Guju people. I know a large number of Gujus not from Gujarat, and I know non-Gujus from Gujarat. I guess we should go with Gujarati people cat since its obvious that Modi-ji was born in Gujarat.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or "people fropm amdavad"Baka man 05:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems 

message: ..Cant the 2002 violence be mentioned in the first para? It is a large section of the article  and is primarily why he is known outside India... Hornplease 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Recentism Hkelkar 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: per WP:LEAD, it shld be. and stuff like "born in a small town in the northest of..." shldn't. Doldrums 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Can we agree on what the reference should be? A statement like "..was controversially accused of administrative inaction during the 2002 Gujarat riots?" Hornplease 16:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But nick, नरेन्द्र मोदि तो एक देवा हे | Bakaman 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. Since this 'fixing' never took place, I've taken the liberty of introducing this information myself. I trust it wont be reverted on sight like the last time I meddled in this. Hornplease 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzlement: Why.. 

message: He is also regarded as an excellent administrator, and a possible future leader of the national party.[2]
This claim seems to use weasal words, and unless someone can provide me with the text of the reference, I will delete this rather sweeping claim. Recurring dreams 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent Administrator 

message: India Today polls have rated him as the best chief minister in terms of in-state support three times in four years. Apart from the controversy that he always generated he is also regarded as an excellent administrator[6] [7] [8].
I don't believe this line belongs in the article either. The references do seem to give it credibility, but:
* One reference is not available online (the same mentioned above), and the text of which I'd very much like to see.
* Another reference is a broken link.
* Finally another reference is from nahendramodi.org, hardly an unbiased reference. Recurring dreams 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Even if its reproduced, it is not from an unbiased source [nahendramodi.org] (do we know if its reproduced correctly, what is the context for the reproduced sections, etc?) You must find a better source if you want to insert such a sweeping claim into the article. Recurring dreams 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And another line on "Excellent Administrator" 

message: I have now read the "India Today" reference: NARENDRA MODI: FACE OF DISCORD.
In provides absolutely no base for the two claims above, and unless other sources can be found, I am promtptly deleting them. Recurring dreams 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on reference 

message: Why was the honorable Sri Narendra Modi's paragraph on him being called "Chotte Sardar" removed? And what about him being the future leader of the BJP? Tri400 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chotte Sardar's future as India's leader 

message: Obviously this article is bias, the few words I inserted about the Sri Modi's Global Investors Summit of 2003, 2005 and 2007 which attracted over $102 billion of investment was trimmed to just 2 lines! Even though it attracted dozons of billion dollars of investment in one of the regions most prosperous states. While the section on controversies dominates the page. Nice going. Tri400 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, please read WP:UNDUE. The section should be expanded to cover the rest of his economic policy, not concentrate exclusively on a few fairs. Hornplease 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Article