Talk:Narendra Modi
|
|
| Contents |
Talk page conventions
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)
NPOV
This article needs a rewrite to conform to the NPOV standards of wikipedia. The lead section has to be expanded to include other details of the guy like his birthplace, education etc. its too short. The section on the riots is a very POV with statements like "Over 2000 Muslims led by a local politician belonging to the Congress party forcibly stopped a passenger train and torched several compartments after locking them from the outside to prevent passengers from escaping" which have not been substantiated by any courts in india. The gujrat riots have a substantial page and thus only needs to be mentioned breifly without any POV with a link for further reading. The assasination attempt is also highly POV with statements like "The people shot down were terrorists and their accomplices, although most of the original critics have refused to acknowledge the same and continue to profess the innocence of those killed". The case is by no means closed by the courts yet and hence the persons are innocent until pronounced guilty. If this case is closed by the courts or the NHRC please provide a link.
Please refrain from making statements like "much to the chagrin of his detractors, most of whom are self-proclaimed human-rights activists who have actively championed the cause of terrorists". You have no substantiation for it. Also no mention of the fact the BJP lost in the recent Lok Sabha elections held in gujrat.
Please discuss the article in the talk pages before removing NPOV.
kaal 00:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He is the champion of communal harmony - this sentence is very POV. KRS 17:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Removed the following statements (again) because these express a point of view.
" Though it has been established later on that it was not a mere suspicion but indeed a terrorist conspiracy. The people shot down were terrorists and their accomplices. "
If as alleged, this is proven, is there a reference to a court case that supports it? Police making such statements is not proof. After all, they have to defend themselves after having killed people. I found the following news articles, some including their own viewpoints and opinions;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3816673.stm http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040619/edit.htm http://www.hvk.org/articles/0604/203.html http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/696/in1.htm
Imc 17:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Reverting back to the earlier statement. Again it is not a POV. It has been categorically established that people shot down were militants and/or had terroist links. POV is "...Gujarat police have shot down civilians on mere suspicion", maligning the police as well as the Chief Minister. Either remove the whole paragraph or show all the details.
Links -
- Javed, Ishrat had plans to kill Advani, In Mumbai Mid-day by PTI (http://www.mid-day.com/news/nation/2004/june/86199.htm)
- http://www.internationalopinion.com/Jihadi_terrorists_target_gujarat.htm
- Ishrat was our activist: Lashkar. In The Hindu by PTI (http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/15/stories/2004071515561100.htm)
- http://india.eu.org/1867.html
- On the trail of terrorists, on rediff.com (http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/15spec1.htm)
- LeT describes Ishrat Jehan as outfit's woman activist (http://www.deepikaglobal.com/archives/ENG3_sub.asp?newsdate=07/15/2004&ccode=ENG3&hcode=61465)
- Ishrat was on IB watchlist for six months. Mid-Day (http://www.mid-day.com/news/city/2004/june/85967.htm)
Alren 14:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I still don't agree that the number of times a statement is made in newspapers is an account of truth. The matter is disputed. For instance, again, in this page - http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Jul04-Print-Edition/011507200498.htm as well as some of the references above. Compromise proposal; take out all references in this article to the 4 dead; it is not directly about Modi anyway. That's one more (previous) sentence, not the whole paragraph.
- If necessary it can go into another article on Lashkar e toiba and people who may or may not have belonged to it.
- (also added line feeds after my previous sig for readability). Imc 21:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The riots were in response to the death of 57 Hindus in the town of Godhra, which was either due to being set fire to my local Muslims or due to a stove fire in the train itself, as indicated by subsequent forensic investigations.
What is this supposed to mean? Everything after town of Godhra must be removed. I suggest the text be replaced with due to a fire incident in the Sabarmati Express. Or something better maybe? Jam2k 16:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I suggest that this be replaced with something like due to a fire incident in the Sabarmati Express, the causes of which are disputed. Imc 16:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This statement is in the section "Challenges"
... much to the chagrin of his detractors, most of whom are self-proclaimed human-rights activists who have actively championed the cause of terrorists.
This statement is itself seriously biased, and should be removed. Imc 16:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following POV statement has been added by user 67.182.161.29 since the last edit of 26 December. This person also removed some of the previous material.
Comong from a very modest background, he became the Chief Minister of Gujarat when Keshubhai Patel resigned from office following the loss of 2 Assembly bypolls and 1 Lok Sabha seat. Modi is regarded as a clean, energetic leader with focus on Gujarat's future. He has championed the common-man's cause.
- I would like some evidence of his 'very modest background'.
- Modi is plainly not regarded by everyone as 'as a clean, energetic leader ...'; that is why there is much controvery about him.
- I would also dispute that 'He has championed the common-man's cause.'
I propose that these statements be removed. Imc 17:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
NPOV again
The article is still very POV. I agree with Imc that the first first paragraph need to be removed. More information about his background and qualifications need to be put in the article in an non-pov way. let people read and decide if he the champion of commmon man. The article also needs formatting. right now it feels like the article is more about the riots and the assasination attempt than a biographical article about Modi. There is no need for whole new subsections about the riots or about assasination attempts. This is page about the man not about gujrat riots which has its own big page. The challenges section is useless. All political leaders have challenges. There is need for subsections about his acheivements as the CM and for critisims about his functioning. Heres how i think the article can be formatted
- biography and the various roles he played before becoming CM.
- acheivements during his tenure.
- critisms about functioning of his government.
feel free to add to this and suggest modifications.
Please do not remove NPOV tag before this article is fixed properly. As of now it seems like he is either a great guy or a really bad guy based on which version of the article one reads. kaal 21:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following phrases seem very suspect.
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
Disturbed by the accusations, he resigned and sought a fresh mandate from the people of Gujarat. - Prove this.
These sections were removed but then added again. I am new here. how does one go about resolving such situations?
- 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.
- Secondly, last part about resigning. I would tend to agree on that. He was not disturbed by accusations. In a sense, he did not resign. Dissolving the assembly to seek a fresh mandate is not resigning. Resigning from the post is leaving it and not coming back again (Yes, a somebody can indeed come back, but not immediately or withdraw's the resignation).
- Alren 22:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Still not NPOV
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)
Vicious anti-semitic platform ?
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)
new edit
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)
- 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)
Help!
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)
IMC, your edits are excellent, but I took the liberty of erasing the comment concerning "yielding rich electoral dividends", as this seems to accuse Modi of being anti-Muslim for political reasons, a statement that we can't make without being POV. --Rroser167 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's OK, I don't believe I wrote those words anyway. Imc 09:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)