Talk:Narendra Modi

23 years back incident highlighted in lead

This was a 23 years old incident , when he was a cheif minister of gujarat state. Already in the body. Why need to highlight at the introduction paragraph ? Also it is saying that :A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him. why should we need to add something 23 years back that too 'Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him' ?

His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. According to official records, a little over 1,000 people were killed, three-quarters of whom were Muslim; independent sources estimated 2,000 deaths, mostly Muslim. A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him. Hajpo (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Narendra Modi himself refuses to forget about that whole thing. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This Godhra train burning and not gujarat riot. That too in an election campaign.

It doesn't mean that Narendra Modi is thinking , talking daily on the incident occurred 23 years back that too 'Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him'.

it is in the body and keeping that in the very first paragraph is giving a undue weightage and is nonsense. Hajpo (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I said "about that whole thing" which includes not only Gujarat riots but also its surrounding events. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just a news during election campaign. H

Does that mean he is daily thinking , talking and discussing on this matter ?

This 23 years old thing should not be highlighted in the lead as it is 23 years old, when he was a chief minister ,as it is extensively in the body. Hajpo (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hajpo, Modi's alleged involvement in the Gujarat riots is a significant part of his career. Perhaps you are not aware of this but, because of these allegations, he could not travel to the USA and many European countries for a number of years. All this makes this a very significant part of his history and not including it would be tantamount to whitewashing.RegentsPark (comment) 15:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark okay, If that is the case you add this detail as well, the reason for the riot as it says 1000s of Muslims are killed. Saying that riots killed 1000s of Muslims is saying only one side of the riot, this is the beginning of the riots where Hindus are killed. :

(directly copied from Gujarat riot wikipedia article):

The burning of a train in Godhra on 27 February 2002, which caused the deaths of 58 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, is cited as having instigated the violence. Following the initial riot incidents, there were further outbreaks of violence in Ahmedabad for three months; statewide, there were further outbreaks of violence against the minority Muslim population of Gujarat for the next year. Hajpo (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark Hajpo (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What caused the riot is not relevant for this article. — hako9 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

it is important. Hajpo (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Modi was controversial image due to Gujarat riots but wording of the sentences in the lead blaming him even the court has found no evidence. That needs to correct in wording. Also all the lead is filled with only criticism of Modi. We need more census and sources of last 3-4 years for democracy backsliding which is not reported and cited. Loveforwiki (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Importance ≠ Relevance. — hako9 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

whole lead is biased, everything is written as a certain pov. Loveforwiki (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

India's Supreme Court cannot pass an injunction against the world media or wikipedia, to stop writing about the event. The SC saying it "found no evidence to prosecute" doesn't necessitate wikipedia to scrub its scholarly and academic citations that analyze that event. Hosni Mubarak was acquitted in 2017 against charges which included complicity in killing hundreds of protestors. The acquittal by Egypt's top court, doesn't invalidate criticisms of that acquittal by international media, and neither can it stop wikipedia editors from including any, in an article we write. We go by reliable sources only. Moot point, but a clarification regarding "found no evidence to initiate prosecution"; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indian courts distinguish between acquittal (due to benefit of doubt) and honorable acquittal. @Vanamonde93:, can we have an FAQ like Talk:Elon Musk, on this page. I think there have been a lot of edit requests along these line. — hako9 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; legal liability, popular perception, and scholarly assessment, are all distinct; and we carefully cover all three. An FAQ wouldn't be a bad idea at all, but I currently lack the ability to help create one. If someone else would take the lead, I would pitch in as I could. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I am bad with templates, so I'd appreciate if someone wants to take a look. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hajpo: The details of the Gujarat riots are best left to that article. And, our text here is well supported by the sources. He is considered complicit, he has been criticized for his management of the crisis, and the Indian Supreme Court found no evidence against him. All three are well supported since plenty of sources consider Modi complicit and plenty of sources criticize him for not managing the riots properly. We can't reargue the details of the riots here, that's for the other article.RegentsPark (comment) 16:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  According to official records, a little over 1,000 people were killed, three-quarters of whom were Muslim; independent sources estimated 2,000 deaths, mostly Muslim.

  This is highlighted in the lead of Narendra modi article. If this is mentioned why not mention like ' His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots,which started after the godra train burning incident where Hindus were killed, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. Hajpo (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because the causes of the riots have nothing to with his alleged complicity in them. RegentsPark (comment) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  He failed to contain the retaliation of Hindu wings towards Muslims. If he could contain that at the very beginning there won't be a communal riot.

  That is the crux.

  So adding that part is necessary Hajpo (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we can say that. All we know is that Modi was a public servant, his job was to contain riots, and that reliable sources say that he exacerbated them rather than contained them. And that India's Supreme Court did not find enough evidence for prosecuting him. I don't think we should speculate on his motives, not without the weight of reliable sources.RegentsPark (comment) 22:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  no I'm saying that these two incidents should be mentioned, like :

  .. in the 2002 Gujarat riots,which started after the godra train burning incident where Hindus were killed, Hajpo (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to suggest that Modi's complicity is because "Hindus were killed". I don't think that's a good idea because we don't have reliable sources that say that. RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  we have reliable sources :

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13170914

  here it is clearly saying - ' He also alleges that, in a meeting in the night before the riots, Mr Modi told officials that the Muslim community needed to be taught a lesson following an attack on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims.'.

  So mentioning of godra is important.

  Atleast in this form it should have a mention in the lead : .. in the 2002 Gujarat riots,which started after the godra train burning incident where Hindus were killed, Hajpo (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  also this from the article suggest strong argument in favor of to mention godra :

  In a sworn statement to the Supreme Court, he said that his position allowed him to come across large amounts of information and intelligence both before and during the violence, including the actions of senior administrative officials.

  to make the Wikipedia article neutral godra should be mentioned Hajpo (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah.. i agree neutrality of the whole lead is disputed. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I can see 3-4 editors engaged in this coversation. And in the end they are going to set the whole narrative whether to include or not.

  Better we start a RfC (Request for comment) which invites comment from a larger community to find out? Dopacane (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Checkuser note I've blocked Hajpo, who started this discussion, as a  Confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Evaluation of Premiership

Hey guys, i think we need to update the premiership as it is very least updated since years. Need to add further actions. Kindly update. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove defamatory words "Pogrom" & "Ethnic Clensing"

Edit request

Defamatory words "Pogrom" & "Ethnic Clensing" has been used for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this article related with 2002 Gujrat riots to which Indian Supreme court had already given him clean chit. Remove it , it is highly defamatory Dopacane (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is a GA, and GA articles are assessed regularly by their top contributors. Also, could you please elaborate on who it is defamatory to? Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Seperate page for Early lige and career

Hey guys, I think we should create a new page called "Early life and career of Narendra Modi". It's too long to read here. Loveforwiki (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Female labour force participation rate

A report released by the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM) states that, nationally, the rural female LFPR increased from 24.6% to 41.5% between 2017–2018 and 2022–2023, 69% overall rise over five years.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/female-labour-force-participation-in-rural-india-up-at-41-5-from-24-6-between-201718-and-202223-eac-pm/articleshow/116015911.cms?from=mdr

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/centre-working-on-national-policy-paper-on-female-labour-force-participation/article68934963.ece