Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 19 October 2013

Narendra Modi's Google+ Hangout was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 October 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Narendra Modi. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Gujarat / Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in June 2013.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Uttarakhand Controversy violates NPOV and BLP policies of wikipedia

There is no authentic and reliable source where BJP leadership supposedly admitted its role in promoting the story. Other articles/comments from political opponents were based solely on the news report of Times of India for which they explicitly issued a clarification on a later date. This is clear violation of NPOV where non of the supposed authentic source is cited and exceptionally doubtful and malintentional gossip has been included in. This section should be removed. It is simply making this whole article extremely bias.

"Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content: 1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles. If you can successfully show that your biography is unbalanced or non-neutral, does not represent its sources properly, uses poor quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you will find others agreeing quickly to fix any issues"

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India "sources in BJP", name of no big leader cited; just mentioned as local leaders in BJP, even in clarification). Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violatin of Misplaced Pages policies(policy no 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• You misunderstand policy if you think that section violates it. For something to be verifiable does not mean that the statements themselves have been verified, but simply that they are supported by a source that we can consider reliable. www.sify.com clearly published the statement by Rajnath SIingh saying that BJP workers had contributed to giving the impression, so that statement is verifiable. There also isn't a shred of Original Research in the secion as all points are supported by sources. OR is when editors make their own research (for example if I were to call Rajnath Singh to ask him if the sify.com quote is true), not when journalists do. It is also not non-neutral to include critical information if and when it is sourced to reliable sources. NPOV means that all notable events and points of view should be covered. The Utterakhand flood controversy was covered in all major Indian News papers. The article would be less neutral if the section was deleted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the Uttarakhand flood subsection to address all aspects. Initial report by TOI, comments by others, clarification by BJP, retraction by TOI and criticism of TOI for the inaccurrate reporting. Hopefully this is not POV now. Gmcssb (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Critique of Gujarat "miracle": Unnecessary addition of section

The subsection "Critique of Gujarat "miracle"" reflects a biased piece of writeup with a view to malign Narendra Modi. The article is about Modi and not for underachievement of his Government. If somebody has his/her view about the govt for being poor in HDI, it should not be part of the article, as the article is a BLP and not about Gujarat govt. The same logic has been given by an editor named Sitush for when a edit was made in Akhilesh Yadav's article. The same should be removed as it violates the BLP andNPOV policies of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this. The section directly above ("Development Projects") is also about the government. Should that also go? If not, then perhaps this section should be a sub-section (or a paragraph) of the Development Projects section. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a criticism. Criticism will be against one person, finding his faults. So I don't feel there is any problem with the content under "Critique of Gujarat "miracle"" subsection. Irfannaseefp (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Cabinet issues": Title and content mismatch

In the subsection "Cabinet issues", the content describes some controversies due to a speech and other cases. Is the title to be changed to something else ? Irfannaseefp (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to thank everyone working on this page for doing such a good job on such a controversial topic! I came here expecting to find an article torn by edit warring and filled with maintenance tags. I've put in a couple of inline tags for problematic lines but by and large the article is well written and nicely sourced. If anyone is interested in pushing this towards GA (and later FA?), please let me know - I would be happy to chip in. I remember both the Barack Obama and Mitt Romney articles were brought up to FA status in the run up to last year's US presidential election. It would be great if we can get FA-class articles for all the major candidates before the 2014 parliamentary elections. SPat 20:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The article is largely okay now but needs copy-editing (many references are just URLs, some sections are not balanced). But we can all work together to improve it and push this to GA and then maybe FA. Gmcssb (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Was it a pig that just flew past my window? - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Still do not understand this quote

We say "In 2003, when Narendra Modi was asked about the conflict of his dreams for Gujarat's future with international criticism of his past activities, Modi said, "Yet, no one has asked this question to the USA after 9/11. Delhi is developing fast – no one has asked this question to Delhi after 1984. If it does not matter to Delhi and USA, why should it matter to Gujarat?"

I am sure that I or someone else has raised this before but I still do not understand it. We are reporting an answer to a query about conflict between his dreams after criticism of his activities. His response is clearly not addressing that. Sure, I get the point that he is suggesting that terror in those two places has not inhibited them and so why should it in Guajarat but he is actually ignoring the question. Since he has had no role in the government of the US or Delhi and the events that took place there did not (by and large) attract criticism of their respective governments for any alleged promotion or tacit acceptance of terror, his response makes him look a bit silly and it is a non sequitor. What happened in those places did not involve him nor did they involve a similar criticism of those in power to that which he endured. Do we really need to mention it? Have other people asked that question of him? Is it really quote-worthy given its irrationality? Was it widely reported? Is it due weight? - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work in the article. A quote should be used to support something in the text of the article (e.g., so and so has expressed support for such and such "I support the activities of such and such" he said. But where the quote currently is the article is talking about the economy of Gujarat and the quote appears out of left field and makes no sense at all. It should go (and I'm taking it out). --regentspark (comment) 00:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Biased lead

"He is a controversial figure ..." -> This is an opinion/view. Any opinions and views need to be ascribed. "He is described as a controversial figure by .... (media outlets/authors)" is more neutral statement. If strong words like "controversial figure" are used to present the view of his critics, why cannot "demonized by media" be used in the same line? The lead needs to be balanced, and not biased by giving undue weights to views critical of him. Gmcssb (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the statement to give equal weight to both positions. I have still not used "demonized" for now and am open to suggestions. Please discuss here. A view like "a person is controversial" is - has to be ascribed, and the contra-view needs to be presented and ascribed too. Gmcssb (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed to death. Quotes have to be specifically attributed but paraphrases merely have to be sourced. The statements were sourced and then you changed them into quotes but retained all of the sources event though most did not use the quote. Introducing the "demonised" word into the lead section was grossly undue. You might want to revisit WP:LEAD and review the copious discussions from only a few months ago - fiddling with this stuff has landed a fair few people in hot water. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying if I paraphrase a view, it is all right not to ascribe it? That does not sound right to me. Why is "controversial" not undue but "demonized" undue? Gmcssb (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do not understand what I am saying then this is probably not the best article for you to be editing. It is difficult enough for those of us who do have a decent understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, the above is no argument. I can say the same for you. If you are not able to explain or clarify your arguments then you should not be making them in the first place. The question is simple - is a view, even if paraphrased, to be ascribed or not? Gmcssb (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Gmcssb, this has been much discussed in the talk page. Controversial and divisive is the way Modi is described and this doesn't need any caveats or modifiers. Feel free to make your case here if you like but don't go around modifying the article without consensus. You might also want to get hold of a dictionary and check the meaning of controversial. When there are multiple views about a person, some favorable and some unfavorable, that person is controversial. There is no other side. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Second that. I think anyone who has a problem with this apparently controversial statement of Modi being "controversial" needs to check a dictionary for the meaning of the word. "Controversial" does not mean negative views about a person, it indicates presence of multiple, conflicting views, which clearly is the case here. - Aurorion (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is discussion about whether it is controversial to call someone controversial then there is a beter than average chance that they are in fact controversial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple views about almost every political figure. All those talking about a dictionary - please keep in mind I neither contested nor removed the "controversial" description. I ascribed it, and added another statement which is a counterview - people who think the media has treated him unfairly. I do not see anything wrong with that. Reading A: "He is a controversial figure both within India and internationally." Reading B: "He is described as a controversial figure by some writers within India and internationally; some other writers say that political opponents and media are antagonistic towards him for several reasons." Reading B or a shortened version of it is much more NPOV that Reading A. Gmcssb (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If he is controversial then by definition people disagree in their judgement of him. This makes "some other writers ..." a pointless statement because controversial means some agree and some others do not. Furthermore, imposing your "counterview" ran against a recently-established consensus and if you can see nothing wrong with ignoring consensus then Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that a counterview should not be in the lead? Is there a consensus that nothing new will be added to the lead even if new information comes out? If you can talk like "Misplaced Pages is not the place for you" - it is you who are imposing and collaborative editing is not the place for you. Gmcssb (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The counterview is included in the statement that there is controversy. It is redundant and nonsensical to state that some people dont think he is controversial. Also it is not a label, it is a fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is a personal opinion that is being put upon the article. It is certainly not a fact that Modi is controversial, but a piece of opinion of certain individuals/media. Citing reasons like this to make the person controversial certainly pushing a biased POV through the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• See the 5 examples I have posted below, all of which are news articles in highly reputed international media sources. That Modi is "controversial" is considered a fact by all of them. (And many, many more - as you can verify yourself) Don't you realize that discussing more and more on this issue itself is proof of this fact? - Aurorion (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Poll

We say that "Many businessmen from India, financial analysts and economists have a favourable view of Modi. In September 2013, Nielsen and The Economic Times published results of a poll of 100 Indian corporate leaders - 74 of them wanted Modi to be the next prime-minister, compared to 7 whose preference was Rahul Gandhi." It is factually correct, although the source is neither Nielsen nor The Economic Times. However, a poll of 100 people is unlikely to be statistically meaningful - you don't even need some training in stats in order to realise that. I think that this needs to be removed pending some more detail, ie: the small print of the poll analysis. And since the poll analysis is likely to be a primary source, the house of cards is in danger of collapsing. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am trained in statistics, I am not sure about you. Can you please show (using t-stats or p-values assuming the appropriate distribution) that the result (74 out of 100) is statistically insignificant at 95% or 90% confidence level? Why do you not apply the same analysis on 10 media reports calling the subject "controversial"? Why remove anything that is favourable to the subject and retain everything (e.g. TOI "fake report") which is unfavourable? Gmcssb (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

All right, for the record - R says that even with two equally likely outcomes, 74 votes out of 100 is statistically "very significant" with a p-value of 8.337e-07 for one-sided test and a p-value of 1.667e-06 for a two-sided test. We do not go below the significance 1% (confidence interval of 99%) in most tests. The output if seen with more than two possible outcomes (obvious since 74 + 7 = 81 << 100), would be even more significant. :) Here is the code which you can try -

> binom.test( 74, 100, p=0.5, alternative='g' )
Exact binomial test
data: 74 and 100
number of successes = 74, number of trials = 100, p-value = 8.337e-07
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is greater than 0.5
95 percent confidence interval: 0.6580082 1.0000000
sample estimates: probability of success 0.74
> binom.test( 74, 100, p=0.5, alternative='t' )
Exact binomial test
data: 74 and 100
number of successes = 74, number of trials = 100, p-value = 1.667e-06
alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is not equal to 0.5
95 percent confidence interval: 0.6426879 0.8226056
sample estimates: probability of success 0.74


I am happy to address any other concerns. :) Gmcssb (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have some training but there is no need to go to this depth to make your point. A sample of 100 people out of a substantially larger population (probably numbering a few million) is not statistically meaningful. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Few million corporate leaders"? Where is this number from? Do you have a source to back up that there are few million corporate leaders in India? Gmcssb (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a guess and I said as much. Every business has a leader. There are many hundreds of thousands more than 100 businesses in India. The source is not good enough and we need to at least track back to the report as presented by Nielson/Economic Times. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you come down from millions to hundred thousands? It is a survey of "corporate leaders" so you cannot take the number of businesses as population. Please furnish a source for hundreds of thousands of corporate leaders. Gmcssb (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I really could do without more pedantry - we had enough here before Yogesh got his three-month holiday. Use common sense. Or, for example, consider the sourced entries for just some of the companies in one municipality here. Find that report, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. It is a survey of 100 top business and corporate leaders (CEOs) which the ET clearly states has nothing to do with number of companies. Gmcssb (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

When I said "report" I meant "report" as in "study" - not a link to some crappy puff piece that refers to them as "honchos" etc. Although since you now say that it apparently has nothing to do with number of companies it is most definitely undue weight because it has no statistical validity whatsoever. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"No statistical authority" - this conclusion itself has no statistical grounding whatsoever. How can this conclusion follows from "no relation between top 100 business leaders and number of companies"? You do not talk about representative sampling, you do not talk about sampling error distribution, you do not talk about population and sample size, you do not talk about p-values, you do not talk about critical region, you do not talk about response variable assumption, and you act like a statistical expert to declare something has "no statistical authority"? This is like saying a mathematical formula is wrong without trying to derive it or disprove it! To say that something has "no statistical authority", you need to either prove that the sample is not representative or that statistic is not critical using all the above (sampling, error distribution, p-value) etc. If the sample size is representative and test statistic falls in critical region, even a sample size of 30 is sufficient to test for a null hypothesis. If I extend your argument, 55 MPs writing a letter to POTUS is UNDUE since there are thousands of legislators in India, so why is this in the argument? The survey is sourced, states clearly "100 top business leaders were surveyed", is from an established news source, I do not know what your problem with this is. We are not saying "majority of businessmen in India". Then how can one unilaterally decide whether something is UNDUE or not? And who are you or I to decide if a news report is "crappy" because of one word? "Honco" is a word used in headlines by Wall Street Journal, TIME, and many others. 222.167.246.119 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to log in and, really, there is no need to outdent more or less every time you reply, Gmcssb. India has a population in excess of 1 bn and is home to a lot of large corporations. The opinions of 100 un-named people in response to unknown questions and without benefit of any explanation of methodology (including geographical distribution etc) are really not signficant. It is undue weight in the same way that the opinion of a named fringe theorist or an unnamed source might be undue. Let the electorate decide and report that in due course. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am on a different machine at home now and was not logged in. Fine with not outdenting. You keep changing grounds of discussion (sample size -> statistical authority -> unnamed sample -> fringe) and do not seem to have enough grounding in statistics and yet talk like a statistical expert. And don't bring in "electorate" - you and I know electorate decides who rules, electorate does not decide results of surveys. Results of surveys are decided by those surveyed. Most surveys in academia and statistics do not name those surveyed. The source is reliable (ET) and it is in no way a fringe theory - ET is more trustworthy than you, and if ET says "100 top business leaders in India" were surveyed, we have to believe it unless it is contested by some other source. We cannot disbelieve a reliable published source like ET because you disbelieve it. Gmcssb (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not disbelieving that the ET got those results. I am questioning the weight of relaying them in this article and the sheer style of their report, which is tabloid journalism of a type that we do not often rely upon. Statistically, 100 people is an irrelevance. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dont use the word statistically - your knowledge of statistics is shallow - when I go into specifics you say we do not need to go deep and make sweeping statements about things you dont know anything about. You have changed your argument N times since beginning which shows you are on weak footing and not sure what the problem is. Gmcssb (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The poll itself should not be included per WP:WEIGHT unless it is referred to in other reliable sources. And if we post about the views of 100 random(?) businessmen then we should also include the opposite view of the many Indians to whom he is anathema.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is referred to in other reliable sources already (DNA article). Opposite views are already present. Gmcssb (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposite views are not present, no.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whats wrong with his two year Sannyasa and Himalaya experience?

If you have to remove the caste, why do you remove everything else in the edit. Gmcssb (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The sannyasa thing was in there at one point but it was removed. There'll be a discussion about it somewhere in the archives but, off the top of my head, I think the reason for removal was because we only have his word for it and he has been notoriously silent about that particular period of his life. Tbh, I'm not unduly fussed either way but the caste stuff stays out. If you want to include the sannyasa stuff then get consensus here first. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Caste

Please see Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_3#OBC before reinstating a mention of his caste in this article. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a concensus in the above discussion. Gmcssb (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some links to other discussions, and the outcome of this edit request. There have also been discussions at WP:VPP and other venues. The gist is that unless someone self-identifies, it does not go in. And Modi has actually specifically dissociated himself as per the quote from him in my original link above. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement in body

Further down in the body. Reading A: "Modi has been labelled by the media and some articles in peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure." Reading B: "Modi has been labelled by some authors in the media and peer reviewed journals as a controversial, polarising, and divisive figure. This portrayal is contested by some other authors who claim that political opponents and media have unfairly targeted him." What is wrong in adding the second sentence - numerous authors believe he is not polarising or divisive, rather unfairly targeted by the media. Gmcssb (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it is stupid. IF half of people consider him controversial and the other half dont then he obviously is controversial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you even read or respond without thinking? Your reasoning is itself stupid. Does statement B remove the "controversial" adjective? Furthermore the first statement contains very strong adjectives like "divisive" and "polarising" which are obviously views, not just the word "controversial". It is because of stupid reasoning like this that Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source. Gmcssb (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been no objections to Reading B here for a week. I am inclined to add back Reading B - I am happy to even reword the second statement if there are any better suggestions. Once again, reading B is NOT in the lead, and it does NOT remove any cited material. It is more balanced than Reading A (which uses very strong negative adjectives) and the second statement in reading B (the addition) is supported by multiple reliable references. I have no idea why this change had problems - it was not a part of edit warring, it was not a change in the lead, it was not removal of any sourced material, and the counter-view I added was cited by multiple sources. Yet Sitush hastily threatened to report me unless I reverted it. When raised on talk page, Sitush has nothing to say for more than a week? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· goes off on a tangent without paying attention, and uses words like "stupid" for a change which adds a counterview supported by secondary sources? If senior editors with Administration rights act in this manner, are the best interests of Misplaced Pages served? Gmcssb (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

See my response of a few minutes ago in the next section. I'm not sure that I would call you "stupid" but you really are not understanding this. You are also not understanding that people who did understand the point held a long, tortuous discussion about the issue quite recently and that what you see now is the consensus outcome of that. I suggest that you drop this particular stick before accusations of tendentious editing start flying around - enough people have already been warned, blocked and topic banned for such attitudes relating to this article. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't name it as consensus. It is bulldozing of an opinion in an article which is suppose to be neutral. Further, rather than engaging in consensus, the dissenting voices are being threatened of being blocked, warned. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary lead of word "controversial' in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article starts with the word "Modi is controversial". This makes the article looks biased right from the start. While every politician including Digvijay, Akhilesh Yadav, N D Tiwari, Rajiv Gandhi, Abhishek Singhvi etc are mentioned by media as controversial for some or the other reason, only this particular article seems to be singled out by people with vested interest. For Modi, people like Sitush Sitush , Maunus User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, Aurorion cite dictionary, media reports, leftist intellectuals for mentionning him controversial. But while editing and mentioning controversy regarding Digvijay Singh, Akhilesh Yadav this same user Sitush deleted the controversy section claiming that " controversy should not be mentioned in the article to uphold NPOV" and that "it has become a fashion to label all politicians controversial" and also that "nowhere does it make substantive statements that these result from anything that Yadav's government has or has not done, let alone the man himself." But for Mr Modi, Sitush and similar thinktanks are hellbent to demonise Modi with their own biased point of view, creating doubt whether they are acting on someone's behest.

• In every section of Modi, some amount of criticism is deliberately added, be it Sadbhavna mission, speech regarding elections, Debate on Gujarat "miracle", Cabinet issues, Uttarakhand controversy(where none of top BJP leader claimed to have said what is mentioned in the section.
• If Modi's views on reply to Sonia Gandhi's accusition of Mr Modi as merchant of death, has been taken into count, why no mention in Sonia Gandhi's profile where she accused Modi as merchant of death.
• In Gujarat riots not a single court/ enquiry commission has found Modi guilty of 2002 riots, maximum convictions have happened in this case, still the article reflects as though Modi was responsible for the riots.
• In section 'Second term (2002–2007)', it is mentioned that Modi's emphasis shifted from Hindutva to the economic development of Gujarat. From where is it proved that his initial emphasis was on Hindutva?

This act of spitting venom on a leader in the Misplaced Pages needs to be seriously condemned and I request the editors that article need to be improved to make it non bias with NPOV. This is not some Congess/ Left mouthpiece, but an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please spend ome time reading the archives to this page from earlier this year (little box towards top right of this

The article does not start with the word/phrase "Modi is controversial" - this is included only in the third paragraph in the current version of the article. Like Sitush says, this is an issue that has been discussed several times. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources (media as well as academic) that describe Modi as such. Especially international sources talking about Modi tend to use this descriptor a lot. For example, check out the coverage in international media sources about Modi's selection as BJP's PM nominee:

• Washington Post article: this is titled Narendra Modi, controversial Hindu leader, is his party’s nominee for Indian prime minister. It repeats the "controversial" tag in the first sentence of the article.
• BBC article: India's main opposition party has named controversial politician Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate...
• The Australian's article: Last weekend, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party anointed controversial Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi....
• Financial Times article: Narendra Modi, the charismatic but controversial Indian politician, was named on Friday...
• International Business Times article: Like WashPo, this refers to Modi as "controversial" in the article title: Narendra Modi: India’s Controversial Politician Named Opposition Party BJP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate For 2014 Parliamentary Elections.

As you can see, especially in international media, "controversial" is a very highly used term to describe Modi. Whenever international media sources (or even scholarly/academic ones) carry items about Modi, they almost always introduce him as controversial, often even in article titles. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, so it is acceptable - arguably, it is even necessary - to reflect this in the article.

I am not an expert on the other personalities you mentioned: but I don't think there are too many international media/scholarly sources that call them "controversial". If you believe otherwise, if you think reputed media and scholarly sources describe any of them as such, please feel free to start discussions on the appropriate talk pages.

About the other issues: I believe all of them are based on reliable sources. The controversies such as the Uttarakhand controversy have had a lot of coverage in media sources. So it is not like anyone here is basing content on original research. - Aurorion (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any politician who runs for national office after having had to defend themselves against accusations of being complicit in genocidal violence is by definition controversial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Due to media calling a person controversial doesn't make him so. It is not a fact, but an opinion. It can be said that "he is considered controversial by some media/ authors internationally/nationally". Some user User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· has invented a new definition of being controversial. So going by his definition Akhilesh Yadav, Rajiv Gandhi, Tarun Gogoi, Omar Abdullah, etc, all are controversial. But somehow his scope is limited to Modi only. Uttarakhand related story was a piece of gossip printed by a newspaper with no authenticity and subsequent retract. So if someone wants to include the gossip, it should be " according to a newspaper TOI "; the title itself should not be 'Uttarakhand Controversy'. And when Sitush said that riots pertaining to Akhilesh Yadav belongs to his government and not him, then the same principal should also be applied here; hypocrisy should not be allowed.

• Regarding the "Debate on Gujarat 'miracle'" some Leftist/partisan views have been given consideration regarding performance of Gujarat government in the BLP of Modi. Is it the same with every Indian CM? The citation of the Gujarat officials about relative growth of Gujarat in the 10 years of Modi vis-à-vis prior to his becoming CM, smells of malintention as the language "Gujarat official claims" denote that it is their opinion, where as it is a fact based on data.
• The citing of a Leftist magazine "Frontline" (I'll provide sources to prove that soon) to put an opinion as fact (" Shifting of Modi from Hindutva to development") is highly distasteful. In the article the author has mentioned his/her opinion which has been included in the article as fact. This is blatant violation of NPOV and need to be removed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The stance and reasoning of Sitush , User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, etc is strange to say the least. They claim to be "obviously neutral" but treat this one article specially. Akhilesh Yadav/Laloo are not controversial, Modi is. Others' caste can be mentioned, Modi's cannot. Anybody else's article can have contra-views, Modi's cannot. If anything contrary to their views is presented, it is "stupid" (e.g. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· on inclusion of counterviews even in body) or problematic by selectively applying certain policies and ignoring a host of others. Sitush acts as a know all and cites "his own" page rather than Wiki's policies in arguments. Lot can be improved in this article to make it encyclopedic if only some of these editors were open to improvement. Gmcssb (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Gmcssb, it's not Sitush or Maunus who are calling Modi controversial. Reliable sources are doing that. We don't judge things here but let reliable sources do the judging. If reliable sources start using the word controversial to describe Yadav, Laloo, Obama, or anyone else, so will we. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Attacking people is not usually a helpful response. FWIW, I did not cite my own page - I said that there were links to be found there to various discussions conducted elsewhere relating to the BLP caste issue. There are. Read them. And read WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that attacking people is not a helpful response, but then help let this article be emerge as neutral rather than indulging in making an article itself as controversial. The inclusion of an opinion of some author in an article in a leftist magazine "Frontline" as fact should be removed. It clearly violates BLP and NPOV. Author of any magazine is entitled to his/her opinion. Misplaced Pages is not a plateform to make it a general fact.

• As for regentspark, reliable sources also call Digvijay Singh as controversy king. Kindly help to get this tag (controversy king) included in his introduction too.

• Also all editors should help in getting various development indexes figures linked with every present Chief Minister of Indian states in their BLPs along with comments made by various authors/ intellectuals regarding the development/ development model/ performance based upon various development indexes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• I request all editors to please contribute to make this article encylopedic which currently looks like an article printed in Congress mouthpiece.

• Instead of making such "requests", why don't you yourself take the initiative to improve such articles? But please make sure that you make your edits based on reliable sources. In this particular case, there are hundreds of high quality sources who call Modi controversial. If you can find similar high quality sources for other politicians you mentioned, please go ahead. The same for development indexes. If you want to improve other articles in a constructive manner as per Misplaced Pages policies, it is always welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.214.218 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, I don't agree with your opinion that this article "currently looks like an article printed in Congress mouthpiece". I think it's far from it, it looks like an article from Modi's or BJP's website. Look at the "personality and image" section for example. Just one statement to reflect the fact that Modi is a divisive figure. There are a lot of high quality sources with much more information that can be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.214.218 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Users Sitush, Ugog Nizdast may kindly refer to the WP:CRIT. "When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice". But consider the introduction of this article "Modi is a controversial figure" without naming any source of criticism, while the sources are media reports/ views of some authors. It should be changed to follow the wikipedia rules or I would have unnecessary quoted the above rule in case some different guidelines are being followed for this article.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• It may be "often best" to name the source of the "criticism": but in this case, if we try to list the sources that call Modi "controversial", it will be long enough to warrant a page of its own. Moreover, calling someone controversial is not a criticism. - Aurorion (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editors/ Users including Sitush, Ugog Nizdast have constantly desist from including a section "controversy" or label any leader as controversial, citing WP:CRIT and BLP policies.Eg in case of Digvijay Singh, Akhilesh Yadav, it has been argued that controversy should not be a part of BLP and it violates NPOV, immaterial of the news reports. Further I don't think labelling any leader as controversial is glorifing him, rather it is equivalent to criticising. Whatever be the case, uniform policy should be followed rather than selected approach and being hypocritic. Either the labelling or Narendra Modi as controversial should be removed/ not presented as wikipedia voice, or if calling controversial is not criticism, then other leaders who have been frequently cited in media reports/ news reports for creating controversy should also have such term used with them.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear: when I quoted WP:CRIT, I meant it only for subjects like Akhilesh Yadav who are not referred to as controversial repeatedly by reliable sources. Modi on the other hand, has sources like NY times, BBC, CNN etc who never forget to tag him as 'controversial' besides national news like TOI and The Hindu; hardly any other Indian politician gets such treatment. What are we to do then? We simply can't in the name of NPOV remove it from the lead. We can't pretend to not see the elephant in the room. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that for some people foreign media sources are reliable and Indian media sources are not. Also not all articles mention this ToI, Pioneer, Hindustan Times, Economic TImes, zee news etc etc don't refer to him as controversial while covering the news articles related to Modi, who by the way is in constant media glare. This is grossly unfortunate to treat media sources of foreign origin as " gospel truth ". Even if so insistent to include it, why not add the line, "internation media cited him as" or "as per media". However, Indian media's treating Digvijay Singh as controversial does not matter because foreign media is not saying so? This is laughable and deeply partisan view. In the articles about Akhilesh Yadav, Digvijay Singh even the events that triggered controversy are not termed as "controversial", and here the politician himself is termed so, that too as a wikipedia voice. You will get tons of sources which says Modi has been unduly vilified. . I can only hope for neutrality to prevail as wikipedia is a window of information to the world. The way the biased approach is being roadrolled, can seriously undermine its credibilty.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if a few cherrypicked media sources don't call Modi "controversial", that doesn't change the fact that most academic and media sources do. Plus, your cherry-picked media sources do also call Modi "controversial":

ToI example: "The advisory stems from the assessment of the party's sparring with the controversial chief minister since he emerged as the top saffron leader for 2014 elections."

ET example: "...instead asked whether the controversial Chief Minister has got visa from the US."

HT example: "The UK's unexpected policy move to cozy up with controversial chief minister was criticized..."

Pioneer example: "Clearly, the controversial Chief Minister, who is seen as the BJP's ..."

Zee News example: "...winning a record third term as chief minister of Gujarat last December has put the controversial politician straight in the national league..."

Again, Narendra Modi is described as "controversial" overwhelmingly by reliable sources around the world, including India. I don't think any of your examples are even remotely that controversial. If you can prove that any of them are in fact considered controversial by a similarly large number of diverse reliable sources, please discuss on the corresponding Talk page. - Aurorion (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Aurorion, quoting such poor sources divelge the mindset you have. The Pioneer source quoted by you is actually a letter to the editor; the source in ToI and ET are infact statement made by a leader of Congress which has been reproduced verbatim. I am surprised at the perseverance and impatience you are showing to put forward a biased view, even mentioning a letter sent to the editor!! Moreover all the sources quoted by you consist of media articles/ opinions, which are not infact a "fact". This opinion of any media outlet cannot become voice of Misplaced Pages, if wikipedia policies are followed sincerely; lest it is hijacked by someone with ulterior motive. I wonder such users can be banned for citing such "controversial" sources.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My bad about the Pioneer example: but the others are not statements made by Congress leaders. The sentences I have copied above are not from any quotes attributed to anyone; they are part of the articles themselves. In case you didn't know, media sources do not reproduce verbatim statements from political parties or people without indicating that clearly, often in quotes. If you want, I can find and give here more sources from ToI or ET which describe Modi as "controversial".

The opinion of any single media outlet may not be important, but what is obviously considered true by just about all reputed media and academic sources around the world is definitely important. And no, users are not banned here for citing news articles from reputed media sources. - Aurorion (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• The ET source says "party spokesperson Renuka Chowdhary sidestepped questions on the "clean chit" given to Modi by the European Union and instead asked whether the controversial Chief Minister has got visa from the US."

Now it must be clear; anyways Aurorion is right in saying that media outlets (some reputed as per Aurorion ) are important, but definitely what is not important is the opinion of the media. Based on one news article, several other articles are triggered(so called controversy around Uttarakhand rescue triggered several reports) and though wikipedia policies NPOV and BLP discourage them, some users make them part of BLP. Hence thats why it has been mentioned specifically by wikipedia policies "When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice". But so called "reputed media" sources are being cited to make it encyclopedia's voice. Is there any such policy that based on so-so " reputed media " sources, wikipedia will give its own voice to the BLP.2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Every day there are thousands of news reports in English media in India on Modi - I am not sure how can one cherry-pick a few headlines and make a conclusion that "Modi is described as controversial overwhelmingly by reliable sources around the world including India" as Aurorion has done. These days many reports and headlines focus on his "charisma", "show stealing", "oratory skills" and "crowd drawing capacity" See here (Hindustan Times from yesterday), here (New Indian Express, yesterday) here (few days ago, Pioneer), etc. Shall we by the same logic include statements like "Modi is a charismatic orator and a crowd-puller" right in the lead? I would not, as these are still strong views which need attribution (e.g. Modi is described as a .... by ...). The Indian media has had a love-hate relationship with Modi and independent authors have written that he is targeted by the media (references to which were removed by some editors, from even the body of the article). A statement like "Modi is/has been described as a controversial person by some Indian and international authors" is much more balanced than the present reading "Modi is a controversial person in India and internationally". Gmcssb (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It is clear to me that some people need a lesson in logic and also a dictionary. You can keep posting your comments here until the cows come home but the wording is not going to change. There is not a lot that people can do to convince those who seem to lack an appreciation of the English language, sorry, but this is English Misplaced Pages and so you'll have to live with it. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The more you indulge in argumentum-ad-hominem, the more you display your superficial knowledge and lack of understanding. Your arguments are nothing more than personal attacks. Gmcssb (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And yeah Sitush, let me remind you that your ignorance has been thoroughly exposed in the discussion on "statistical significance". You talk with supreme confidence about things you have absolutely no idea about. Editors like you are reason why Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Gmcssb (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What you are not seeing is that loads of experienced contributors are telling you the same thing. Please read WP:IDHT because if you persist with this then I am going to take your behaviour to WP:ANI: people can only take so much tendentious crap before their eyes start to bleed. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Its clearly evident from these comments that user Sitush is pursuing his own agenda; rather than improving the article, he is very much intend to malign Narendra Modi. Further consensus of 3-4 editors/users do not and should not become Misplaced Pages's voice. If Sitush is so fond of citing dictionary again and again, he should cite the meaning of word "controversial" in the article itself along with the word, so that other benighted beings can easily refer to it and do not make any arguement with the learned holy folks. Please put forward your reasoning about how foreign media sources are so "holy reliable" that wikipedia easily make their opnion its own voice, bypassing Misplaced Pages policies; or it is also something that is mentioned in the dictionary? 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of nationalist-style maligning of foreign media sources, why not consider what has already been said, ie: (a) it is domestic sources also and (b) foreign sources have a less vested interest. Instead of maligning consensus, which was arrived at through involvement of far more than "3-4 editors", either accept it or go to WP:VPP and propose a change to WP:CONSENSUS. Good luck with that, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe you two are still not happy with this. Also please stop all this allegations against each other, this discussion is not going anywhere at this rate (how long I had to scroll to reach the end). Complaining that no one was replying to the post and then hurling allegations against users who spare their time to reply is not recommended. If what you both claim is true, (that some experienced users here are biased and you don't agree with the consensus or there hasn't been one), then why don't you all start an WP:RFC? If it rules in your favour then there is still no excuse for not assuming good faith and if it doesn't, everyone will be relieved if you finally let the matter rest. If you all go about saying even after that, entire Misplaced Pages is biased with all its experienced editors who silence a few who try to show the truth (or better WP:THE TRUTH), then what can we say then? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• After going through all this marathon discussion, and wikipedia policies, one thing is very clear. The introduction in the article itself saying that he is controversial, and then that he is also credited........ speaks of biases and prejudices. Media trial cannot be termed as a general fact about any person, be it wikipedia or any other neutral encyclopedia. When the court has cleared Modi of any wrongdoing, why is he still controversial? Is it because of the basis of foreign media reports, which were actually taking cue from Indian media reports ever since the riots took place, or rather set off by Indian media reports which in the aftermath of 2002 riots wrote of series of articles vilifying Modi(although nothing proved yet). I am surprised by the amount of dedication and efforts by some users to make Modi controversial. Or if CONSENSUS is the Supreme Court of Misplaced Pages, then ofcourse nothing can be done about it. Readers would have to cope up with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.28.214 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit required: Biased mention of Rhetoric campaign

In the section "First Term", subsection "2002 election", the last sentence says " Modi used extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign ", which is grossly unfair, biased and violation of NPOV. It is opinion of some authors which has been mentioned as Misplaced Pages voice. The sentence should be removed as it is not an established fact and put the person whom biography is mentioned in poor light. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Read NPOV, to not mention it would violate that policy, not the other way around. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear 2001:4490 (it would be a lot easier if you logged in) ... You are yet again raising something that has been discussed to death only very recently. You are not going to get the statement changed any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I coudn't come across any discussion where this particular sentence has been discussed. Darkness Shines should go through NPOV and BLP in detail. It says that any criticism mentioned in BLP should be avoided being mention as Misplaced Pages's voice, but instead should be as per the source, eg, Source 'A' says that.., or as per media.. Sitush is so keen to delete any reference to controversy around Digvijay Singh, and exactly opposite in case of Narendra Modi for he is openly declaring that "this is not going to change soon". One do not need any further proof for if these users are actually being paid by any party/ individual to carry on with the propoganda. Hope some neutral users can really save Misplaced Pages articles from these propoganda machines. 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B99 (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-india-modi-idUSBRE98C0JZ20130913
2. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?283393
3. http://www.rediff.com/news/column/the-wharton-brouhaha-lets-get-the-facts-on-modi-right-column/20130322.htm
4. http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1693
5. http://www.niticentral.com/2013/08/19/its-not-about-modi-its-about-india-120764.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Gujarat articles
• Top-importance Gujarat articles
• B-Class Gujarat articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Gujarat articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles
• Top-importance Indian politics articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles