Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Covid management under Modi - Successful

Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates.

Yet another BBC reference , can someone add here India's production of free vaccines.

Seems like covid management was a failure mentioning the number of million people in face The overall case fatality rate in India was 1.2%, which was the lowest among the top 20 worst-affected countries.Publisehd by an offficial website of US ([1])

See the john hoping's university , India is no where : https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Say that under Modi rule , covid management was successful citing these references. Afv12e (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Find multiple reliable sources to say that Covid management "was successful" and that could be reasonable. But we can't just spout statistics and extrapolate from them - see WP:SYNTH. For example, demographics; India has a life expectancy of 70 and a median age of 28.7 - and we know that Covid mostly killed the very elderly. Black Kite (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• BBC was only reporting what WHO said.[2] Don't shoot the messenger. Capitals00 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, we cannot say Covid management was successful, as there are several reports and statistics that indicate the opposite and would consider deaths due to the migrant crisis, deaths due to the Oxygen crisis, and so on. Only fatality rate is not enough. Also, What @Capitals00 has pointed seems reliable. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No need of concluding it being success or unsuccess

Instead of highlighting the number of people died , which is having a tone that a huge population died , let's highlight what the us official site says :

The overall case fatality rate in India was 1.2%, which was the lowest among the top 20 worst-affected countries Afv12e (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't appear to be listening. Did you read what I said above about SYNTH and statistics? India's CFR will always be lower than other developed countries because it has a much younger population and a shorter life expectancy, given that CFR was directly related to age. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm listening and always up for constructive discussions.

I agree with you and I can see it's evidences in this paper : https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27696/w27696.pdf

But covid management has multiple factors and it was a new experience to the world. covid was not a disease to be treated but to be handled through vaccination.

India stood higherst in the world in terms of vaccination with 98 [3] of people taking atleast one vaccine.

Is it that worth highlighting , where a country having 121 crore population?

This sentence :

Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates

This sentence looks like modi was insufficient in handling covid pandemic and that made the death of these people.

India has made their own vaccine during the covid time and was freely available to the people to vaccinate.

Why can't we add their also India's own vaccine development and it's free vaccines exports to African countries, when west were failed to give assistance to African countries

Why can't we highlight that ?

https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/india-supplied-made-in-india-covid-vaccines-to-42-african-countries-eam/101009408

https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/28/7/taab064/6231165

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/10/29/how-did-india-beat-covid-19?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAvoqsBhB9EiwA9XTWGVnBMoWlAEgG6gqviU6lZD8T922_UxraOr7u3eoqf4lD5Y8gtvPJaxoCq6IQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds Afv12e (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Our discussion here is about Modi government's handling of COVID-19 in India. You have to provide sources to establish how it was successful.

Your first two sources are about vaccine exports and that is irrelevant.

Your last source said: "The plain fact is that, instead, covid-19 beat India. The world watched anxiously in April and May, when the caseloads were climbing almost vertically. The terror was justified. India was gripped by the first outbreak of the Delta variant (briefly called “the Indian variant”, until the WHO insisted on switching to Greek letters). Its ferocity taught lessons that some parts of the world are still learning. Indians died in untold numbers. To judge by the number of excess deaths, something like 4.6m lost their lives because of the pandemic. Those who survived rued the government’s failure to procure vaccines earlier, when India had positioned itself as a pharmaceutical factory for the world."[4]

I wonder if that is what you really wanted to show. Capitals00 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As others have already said, if you wish to change the article text, you need to provide reliable sources supporting a different narrative without relying on original research. Indian vaccine manufacturing isn't relevant unless RS say it is, and unless RS make the connection to the Modi administration's policy (which, for deaths, they do). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source publishing study by lancet. Add this fact "Vaccines against COVID-19 prevented over 42 lakh deaths in India in 2021, said a study published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, which based its findings on estimates of “excess” mortalities in the country during the pandemic." BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, though, that's simply a number. Is it good or bad? How does it compare with other countries? We need equivalent information from other countries or saying this is "good" or "bad" is simply WP:SYNTH. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I dont ask to add whether this is "good" or "bad". I only ask to add a scintific study carried out by Lancet to be added BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If the reader has no context to that figure, it is meaningless to them. It's a fact (or is at least claimed to be by the authors of the study), but it is not a useful fact. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, could we have the direct link to the Lancet article? This is what would need to be quoted in the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As BK says, this needs context; specifically, context tying it to actions or policies of the Modi government. The death statistics explicitly are tied to the administration by reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The context is clear. Death stats by WHO is independent of death prvention(as studied by peer reviewed medical journal Lancet) by COVID vaccine developed by India and the same is in line with deaths claimed by India. All the sides(backed by RS) must be presented neutrally with attribution. NPOVBlackOrchidd (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the context is NOT clear. For example, if I reliable sourced that there were 120,000 deaths from Covid in Spain, and 180,000 in Germany, which country would you say has dealt with it better? Well, you could argue that Germany has more deaths. But someone else could also argue that Germany has fewer deaths per head of population than Spain, because it's population is much greater - but you didn't know that from the statistic I presented. And that's a very simple example, because the effects of Covid on various countries had multiple different drivers as to whether they were higher or lower. Which is why we don't present statistics without context. Also - again - could we have the Lancet article weblink, please, since the Hindu article is hidden behind a registration wall? Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Black Kite , you are confused between context and conclusion. I am not worried here that which country has done better and which country has done worse. This is encyclopedia not a critics journal, don't getby the heading of this thread. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Having been here 17 years, I am aware this is an encyclopedia. Again - can we have the Lancet link, please? Even if the content is suitable, we cannot assess the quality of the source without it. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok , submitting hereBlackOrchidd (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the Lancet study titled Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. And here is the country wise infographics depicting Median deaths averted by vaccinations per 10 000 people by country in the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. The lead author of this study Oliver Watson from the Imperial College London, quoted this "For India, we estimate that 42,10,000 deaths were prevented by vaccination in this period. This is our central estimate, with the uncertainty in this estimate ranging between 36,65,000-43,70,000," to PTIBlackOrchidd (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this fits here. The Lancet study is about the efficacy of covid vaccinations in general and not about the actions or policies of any particular government. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Regents, thats a weird arguement. For the first time I am hearing somebody say that fact from the study of a peer reviewed, world's highest-impact academic reputed journal didnt "fits here" BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't fit here because this article is a biography of Modi and the study is about the efficacy of covid vaccinations in general and not about the actions or policies of any particular government. Deriving that this is Modi govt's achievement based on the study is simply WP:SYNTH. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  @ BlackOrchidd (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Server, its not about writing about achievement. Its stating a fact from Lancet. BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  And I have a fact that Earth is round, doesn't mean I get to state that in an unrelated article. You're missing the context as to why that "fact" needs to be mentioned here. Is it because of Modi's policies and governance? If so, please bring a source that examines that as the presented study doesn't do that. Also, please read WP:SYNTH. It seems to be pretty clear that you'll need a better understanding of that policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Earth is round" Nice word play. Well, what could be bigger "action" that India under Modi's leadership developed homegrown pandemic vaccine with an impeccable efficacy studied by the world's lagest peer reviweed journal Lancet. And further administered over 2.2 billion doses overall. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the contextBlackOrchidd (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates.

  This sentence itself has no relevance in Wikipedia article.

  Ever countries' president/prime minister oversaw covid-19 response. It is not relevant to mention here.

  Why to mention 4.7 million Indians died here ? How is it associated with Narendra Modi?

  Entire article lacks neutrality and written in way from someone's point of view and agenda. Afv12e (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hang on a second. You wanted a claim that 4.2m lives were "saved" by vaccination in India in this article, but don't want to mention the death toll from COVID-19 because it's "not relevant"? You can't have it both ways. Have a look at Boris_Johnson#COVID-19 pandemic, for example. Most countries' leader's reaction to COVID-19 are mentioned in their articles, whether that be positive or negative (and Johnson's is quite clearly negative). Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Black, why did you want to put your word in Af's mouth. Where did he said "4.2m lives were "saved" by vaccination in India"? BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, it was you that wanted to include that statistic. But the point still remains - statistics are just that without context. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  "India under Modi's leadership developed homegrown pandemic vaccine and its efficacy studied by the world's largest peer reviweed journal Lancet, which states 4.2 million deaths were prevented by vaccination in this period. And further administered over 2.2 billion doses overall." This is the context BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lot's of leaps here. The lancet article only says that 4.2 million deaths were prevented by vaccination. It doesn't say which vaccine (India used both its own vaccine plus the astra Zeneca version). And, of course, perhaps more lives could have been saved by a better vaccination job or more lives lost by a worse vaccination job! The point of that article is that vaccination overall was effective, not that India, or Europe, or wherever did a particularly good or bad job. The correct place for this information is in COVID-19 pandemic in India (which is hopelessly dated and fixing it, if you care about wikipedia, might be a good use of your time). --RegentsPark (comment) 17:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark

  Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million Indians died, according to the World Health Organization's estimates

  This means that 4.7 million people died just because modi has mishandled and failed in the covid response in india.

  Is that true ? Afv12e (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lets fix the leap. "India under Modi's leadership developed Covid pandemic vaccine and its efficacy studied by the world's largest peer reviweed journal Lancet. The study conducted by Lancet states 4.2 million deaths were prevented by all the vaccines combined in this period. And further administered over 2.2 billion doses overall." BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please do the work and provide the articles rather than a category? God knows which article you're referring to!! The Lancet says 4.2 million but does it say it's because of Modi or does it say it's because of vaccination? If they didn't attribute the figure to Modi, we may not use Lancet to do so.

  It's probably the time for someone to be rather blunt now. Let me try. This is getting into loops and loops with you not being able to comprehend that "if the sources did not attribute A to B, we cannot do the same in Wikipedia". — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Plz do the effort of going through the thread to find out the artciles I have given in support of my argument BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, one point if you're going to raise the "homegrown vaccine" issue - 80% of vaccinations (1.75bn out of 2.2bn) in India were with Covishield, which is the Astra-Zeneca vaccine developed in the UK, manufactured under license in India. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lets fix it. "India under Modi's leadership indigeneously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet , vaccinations avoided almost 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. India administered over 2.2 billion Covid-19 vaccination doses overall in the time spam of 18 months." BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. This is nonsense. All nations had a duty to vaccinate their citizens. Just because India has 1.4 billion people, you can't say that the ineffectual vaccine Covaxin, which most Indians avoided like the plague, saved 1.4 billion lives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear Fowler&fowler, please provide the source for your your unfounded claim of "ineffectual vaccine Covaxin, which most Indians avoided like the plague". If you can't, this just simply shows just how non-sensical your claim is, and thus, reflects on your other arguments when this one is taken into whole picture.

  Also, if it is explicitly mentioned "Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic", then there shall be no issues with forwarding BlackOrchidd's arguments. 157.34.23.157 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, please don't boldface your answers. We can read the simple unbolded font just fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here are some references:

  • "At the country level, the highest numbers of cumulative excess deaths due to COVID-19 were estimated in India (4·07 million [3·71–4·36]), the USA (1·13 million [1·08–1·18]), Russia (1·07 million [1·06–1·08]), Mexico (798 000 [741 000–867 000]), Brazil (792 000 [730 000–847 000]), Indonesia (736 000 [594 000–955 000]), and Pakistan (664 000 [498 000–847 000])." Lancet. 2022 Apr 16; 399(10334): 1513–1536. Lead author: Haidong Wang, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, and nearly 100 coauthors.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  • "Key findings:Total excess deaths, Globally, there were nearly 15 million excess deaths which is about 13 per cent above those expected. Countries in the ESCAP region accounted for more than half of these deaths, with 8.2 million excess deaths. Most of the excess deaths in the region were accounted for by just three countries: India (4.7 million), Russian Federation (1.1 million) and Indonesia (1 million), with these numbers considerably higher than the official COVID-19 numbers reported." United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, "Excess mortality estimates: how many people have really died in the COVID-19 pandemic", 19 August, 2022

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  "you can't say that the ineffectual vaccine Covaxin, which most Indians avoided like the plague, saved 1.4 billion lives." I never said this. Plz read my argument again BlackOrchidd (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.mygov.in/corona-data/covid19-statewise-status/

  Why this data on Covid death is not mentioned anywhere in this article?

  The total death is 5.33 Lakh according to this article.

  If you read third line it mention each state report data individually. This is a platform which aggregate all districts data. Around 2021 there were 13 states which was not ruled by NDA government. The mortality number in this site should be mentioned somewhere 117.213.8.141 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  +1 BlackOrchidd (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your suggested paragraph above insinuates that Covaxin saved 4.2m deaths (it didn't), and it also suggests that 2.2bn doses of Covaxin were applied (they weren't). Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

BlackOrchidd, please go read WP:NOR, particularly the section on synthesis, and return when you have fully understood it. Your desired addition has never complied with that policy. You need to find much better sources, or accept that the sources don't support what you would like them to, and move on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Kite, Where did I said "Covaxin saved 4.2m deaths" & "2.2bn doses of Covaxin were applied"?

• Fixing for more clarity "India under Modi's leadership indigeneously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet , vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. India administered over 2.2 billion Covid-19 vaccination doses(indigenous & foreign vaccines combined) overall in the time spam of 18 months"

BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Better, but I think you'd still need to mention that the vast majority of vaccines were AZ, for the reason I mentioned. There's also the issue of "avoided" deaths vs excess deaths as pointed out by Fowler&Fowler above, otherwise you're only citing one half of the narrative. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This really has no place in this article. The lancet article is making a bland statement about the efficacy of vaccines, the 4.2 million number is attributed to vaccinations rather than to the actions of the government. Definitely include it in the covid pandemic in India article but not here. However, I do think the covaxin development should be included here (assuming it is not already) because that is a government initiative under Modi. (Also, is there a reason for the separate existence of Premiership of Narendra Modi article if everything is also going to be included here?)RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, about the substance. The premiership article in theory is a valid spinoff, allowing a much greater degree of detail (and articles on various aspects of policy would be further spinoffs). In practice drive-by accounts care much more about this page, and established editors don't have the time to maintain and expand the sub-articles. Something like Foreign policy of the Narendra Modi government is consequently a disaster; it's announcements coupled with Modi's travel itinerary, with no substance about policy. As such I'm not sure the spinoffs are really adding value, but I'd still oppose a merger because we'd end up with any amount of trivial detail on this page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Is vaccination not action of government?

Kindly answer, because I want to know whether you think vaccination was done by government, or otherwise. Waiting an answer for my question in bold, please do not play around words and answer directly. 157.34.23.157 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

yes it is one of the action amongst many in response to the pandemic BlackOrchidd (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking to RegentsPark about their statement - "the 4.2 million number is attributed to vaccinations rather than to the actions of the government.", not you. 49.35.232.180 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

you can ping him @RegentsPark BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

+Suggestions. "India under Modi's leadership indigeneously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet , vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. India administered over 2.2 billion Covid-19 vaccination doses(indigenous & foreign vaccines combined) overall in the time spam of 18 months, the majority of vaccines administered was AstraZeneca. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A better idea would be to include this sentence in WP:SYNTH as an excellent example. I note that you've been referred to WP:SYNTH many (six?) times in the above discussion but you don't seem to have read it yet. Give it a shot when you have a spare moment. RegentsPark (comment) 16:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I dednt see this as synthesis, care to point? BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There are no original research in my statement and there is no conclusion either. Point any if you find, we will work out. BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Gentle reminder BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say. The bottom line is that the lancet article is not about Modi's handling of the covid crisis and therefore it has no place in this article. Any use of it to make some point about Modi and the crisis is going to be WP:SYNTH. RegentsPark (comment) 20:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

+Suggestions. "India, under Modi's leadership, indigenously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in the Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet, vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. However, as per the WHO estimate, the total COVID deaths in India stand at 4 million. India administered over 2.2 billion COVID-19 vaccination doses (indigenous and foreign vaccines combined) overall in the span of 18 months, the majority of vaccines administered were AstraZeneca. BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested comments as per above thread. BlackOrchidd (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd, RegentsPark: I mean, what is true is that the current wording is an example of lying with statistics. Saying in the lead that "4.7 million Indians died" during the pandemic is meaningless without expressing this as a proportion of the total population; the same goes for the statement further down, that "India's death toll was thus the highest worldwide, accounting for more than 20% of all Covid deaths.[349]" I mean, duh, India is the most populous nation on the planet. 4.7 million out of nearly 1.5 billion is a rather better rate than the UK (232,000 out of a population of 67 million). Could we agree to do a bit of work on those statements, without engaging in SYNTH? Andreas JN466 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Section break

To be honest @Jayen466 and BlackOrchidd:, I hadn't looked carefully at the text in the article but was merely responding to the lancet study inclusion discussion. Using that article as a comment on the Modi administration's response to COVID-19 is clearly synth. Now that I have, I think it does need some rewording. Note, though, that the statement on total deaths is not about total deaths but rather about the difference between the WHO estimate and the Indian government estimate. Also, it may be synth to add India's population when discussing the WHO estimate, unless a cited source is available. For the entire covid para, I suggest the following:

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Modi administration invoked the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005.[336][337] A 14-hour curfew was initiated on 22 March,[339] and a three-week "total lockdown" two days later.[340][341] Restrictions were gradually lifted beginning in April 2020, and were completely revoked in November 2020.[338][342][343] Beginning in March 2021, the delta variant was significantly more devastating and parts of India experienced shortages of vaccines, hospital beds, oxygen cylinders and other medical supplies.[344] India began its vaccination programme in January 2021;[346][347], using an indigenously developed vaccine (COVAXIN) (citation) and (whatever other vaccines it used) (citation) and, by January 2022, more than 720 million people were fully vaccinated with about 1.7 billion doses.[348] According to government estimates xyzzy people died of COVID-19 in India (citation) though, according to WHO estimates, the actual figure is closer to 4.7 million people.(citation)

There may be more we can add about the government response to the delta variant and its significance in the number of deaths. But, beyond a general statement that content here should be minimal and clearly associated with the Modi administration, I'm not qualified to do that. I'm pinging others who have contributed to this discussion and are likely better versed on the topic than I am. @Afv12e, Black Kite, Capitals00, 25 Cents FC, Vanamonde93, DaxServer, and Fowler&fowler: --RegentsPark (comment) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Broadly in agreement ... the main point of criticism, if any, should be the discrepancy between Indian government figures and WHO estimates, rather than the overall death toll of 4.7 million per se. The latter is a result which – for whatever reason – compares quite favourably even to more developed countries' death tolls per million. Andreas JN466 15:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder who would want to praise Modi administration over COVID in the light of researches like this. Capitals00 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm broadly okay with this. I agree the mention of India's population in the lead is synthesis, but there's been enough edit-warring over it that I didn't want to prolong it further. We're also glossing over a lot in the lead; Modi's initial handling of the pandemic was in fact praised by health experts, but was sharply criticized later, particularly during the Delta wave. I don't think we can cover all that. I think the proposal above does overcome some of the NOTNEWS problems in the current version, so I would support it. I also think the explicit contrast between WHO and Indian government estimates needs to remain. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm traveling, @RegentsPark:. Generally agree with your paragraph. Here are a few additional points.

(a) Modi's lockdown was an unmitigated logistical and social disaster that caused untold suffering to the urban poor in India.

(b) Covaxin is an old fashioned rudimentary vaccine, the only kind that India's federal establishment could produce in short order. Predictably, its effectiveness was in the range of 45%. Whether the funds employed in its development might have been better used in importing mRNA vaccines (such as Pfizer and Moderna) or increasing the production in India of the Oxford-Astra-Zeneca vaccine, I can't tell. Covaxin orders were canceled by several foreign governments and WHO, after giving it failing grades, OK'd it half-heartedly very late in the pandemic.

(c) The excess mortality in India during COVID-19 is in the range of 4.7 million deaths (WHO's study authored by nearly 100 scientists is the most respected), nearly ten times the official Indian estimate. The UN/ESCAP report is a good source to cite.

(d) That India held up the release of the WHO report by nearly six months (NY Times) was perhaps more symptomatic of something (e.g. the Indian government's unprincipled nationalism (COP 2? in Glasgow was another example)).

(e) The sources are not hard to find. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"the WHO accorded Emergency use listing (EUL) approval to Covaxin on 3 November 2021 after several delays, its Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) having previously recommended two doses spaced 4 weeks apart in all adults (15). Several South American and African nations have also been using it in their programs, though not without reservations."[5] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

UN/ESCAP, though a blog, is a good summary.[6] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"GLASGOW, SCOTLAND—COP26 president Alok Sharma held back tears as he accepted India’s last-minute motion to weaken the summit’s pledge to “phase out” coal. Sharma had been saying for months that he wanted COP26 to “consign coal to history.” And until India insisted otherwise at the 11th hour, it looked like the summit might achieve that scientifically imperative task."[7] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A new example of the unprincipled nationalism, barely several weeks old, is the Indian government's fully shutting off the water of the Ravi river just before it enters Pakistan, i.e. via a dam, and thereby affecting the complex ecology (the flora and fauna) of the river system. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And this is one of the Rigvedic rivers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Rigvedic river on Modi's page? I think fowler is having jet lag short of thing. They added nothing useful today. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Shutting off the historic river—not just a river in the vicinity of which the Rg Veda was composed (see the lead of Sanskrit) but also one around which Harappa, the type site of the Indus Valley Civilisation arose. (See the IVC lead). The Ravi was the last river Alexander the Great crossed in South Asia. That river is now dead, because of an election promise made by Modi.

Next time, please don't make immature comments about my work, BlackOrchidd. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

See, for example, "Hague court rejects India's objections over water treaty arbitration," Reuters, July 7, 2023 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• @BlackOrchidd could you include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue per WP:RFCOPEN? Just pointing to 67 comments isn't very helpful. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Andreas JN466 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: What's the question or proposal? Reading a discussion doesn't help clarify that and TL:DR. TarnishedPath^talk 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: As a very general comment, this is a complicated situation. There are good and bad aspects of history to choose from. Other factors, such as politics and India's population size and young age, also come into play. It would be difficult to say whether the outbreak was managed "successfully" by Modi without more solid sources. Senorangel (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Nemov for pointing. I will try to summarize and give you pointed question soon. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: this RFC is not about Covid management under Modi - Successful

My questions are

• Question-1: 2.2 Billion Vaccines : India administered over 2.2 billion COVID-19 vaccination doses in the span of 18 months.

• Question-2: COVID vaccine: indegeneously developed by India under Modi's "Atmanirbhar Bharat" Initiative.

• Question-3: Lancet study: study that was published in the Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet, vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021.

In this thread I was arguing about whether the above informations can be conveniently added to the article?

• I'm pulling the plug on this RFC. It still fails to ask a brief, neutral question. Nemov (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov, I asked in the RFC for the inclusion of 3 points which you removed. Going by your suggestion I could more shorten the question. But, i didnt get the how really this RFC was non-neutral BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Because you're asking whether it's OK only to include "positive" statistics about COVID under Modi, without any context (or indeed any of the less positive statistics or facts). This is, of course, non-neutral. I would have thought that this would have been obvious from the lengthy discussion above by now. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Eight times the word "COVID" is mentioned in the article. All the instances are used negatively for Mr Modi from "parody Ig Nobel Prize" to "Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which 4.7 million out of 1.4 billion Indians died,". Rightly pointed above by @Afv12e that "This sentence looks like modi was insufficient in handling covid pandemic and that made the death of these people." Truckload of peoples on this talk page talk about the neutrality of the article. If one goes through the archieves, they can easily find it. Remember NPOV is not the neutrality of the article but neutrality in editing . @Black Kite by consistently resisiting to add any positive events about Modi for COVID you are indicating a non neutral behaviour. And as far as the the "context " is concerned I have already given the context above in this thread BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I (and others) have already pointed out the problems with adding those particular three statements without any context multiple times. If you can write an actual neutral prose paragraph that doesn't cause an issue with WP:SYNTH on the topic and offer it up to the community via an RFC, then we could get somewhere. At the moment, we're going round in circles. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the context "India, under Modi's leadership, indigenously developed Covid pandemic vaccine Covaxin. According to a study that was published in the Infectious Diseases journal The Lancet, vaccinations by foreign and indigenous vaccines combined avoided about 4.2 million possible deaths in India in 2021. The study's conclusions were based on estimates of "excess" mortalities that occurred in the nation during the pandemic. However, as per the WHO estimate, the total COVID deaths in India stand at 4 million. India administered over 2.2 billion COVID-19 vaccination doses (indigenous and foreign vaccines combined) overall in the span of 18 months, the majority of vaccines administered were AstraZeneca. BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Request for Comment"

Should the COVID coverage on this page include the indegenous development of the COVID vaccine COVAXIN? BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Reviewing the discussion above there doesn't appear to be any logical reason to include this information. This addition requires WP:SYNTH so this an easy no per WP:NOR. In stronger terms, this RFC should be withdrawn and the stick should be dropped. Thanks - Nemov (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No per Nemov. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Nemov: no proposal has been put forward that does not violate WP:SYNTH. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (bot-summoned) nothing to note that has not already been discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No, there is no reason to include this. Doing so goes against WP:NOR as outlined above. Sohom (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

New additions

@BlackOrchidd: Hi, it is regarding this. The reference page isn't visible at my end. Note that caste of a BLP requires self-identification. Pinging @RegentsPark and Vanamonde93: can you see it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It failed WP:BLPCAT. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

BLPCAT didnt apply here + Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. BlackOrchidd (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

+ Reverting this edit by Capitals00 without giving reason is a serious concern BlackOrchidd (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"without giving a reason"? The reason is clearly stated there that we need self-verification from the subject. You have failed to provide it. Capitals00 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

BLPCAT didnt apply here BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd: Check my query. It is about self-identification not BLPCAT. We cannot include caste in the article of a living individual if there is no proof of self-identification per WP:CASTEID. Did the subject mention his caste in the source himself? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Fylindfotberserk. Here is the proof of self-identification by the source mentioning his caste BlackOrchidd (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd: Thanks for the link. He did say he belongs to a 'most backward' caste. Perhaps you can use this source as well as the other one to mention his caste. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

All good now. Grabup (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd:, Why you are not explaining it and reverting edits? Grabup (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd, What is this? You are warning a more experienced editor than you without explaining your edit here? Grabup (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary and revert

• @RegentsPark with ref. to your this revert. Your wrote the following edit summary Link already included in the Awards and Honors section.
• I would like to point here that Hindutva Link already included in the Hindutva section.
• Plz shed some light here that, as per the reason given by you in the edit summary as mentioned above, shall it will be proper to remove Hindutva from section See also ? BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd: From WP:SEEALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". The idea is that see also links point to other material that is not explicitly available from the article body but may be relevant. RegentsPark (comment) 16:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

CHANGE: While his policies as chief minister, which were credited for encouraging economic growth, were praised, Modi's administration was criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty and education indices in the state.

TO: While his policies as chief minister, which were credited for encouraging economic growth, were praised, Modi's administration was criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty and education indices in the state.. However, what must also be noted is that Gujarat is classified as a "front-runner state" in the NITI Aayog Health Index and also ranks above the national average of India in terms of human development index.

REASON: Possible Bias and POV pushing by citing one-sided sources when there are other equally reliable sources which paint a completely opposite picture (sources given in the references). Request to the editors to allow this edit to go through so that both sides of the coin are shown. Kailash K Singh (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia would not state in it's own voice "However, what must also be noted...". Wikipedia would also not attempt to make an argument on behalf of any person in an attempt to curb bias; ergo, Wikipedia itself would not clarify what this edit is requesting - it would cite a 3rd party reliable source which does so. If there are multiple sources that argue against the idea that "... Modi's administration was criticised for failing to significantly improve health, poverty and education indices in the state" to a point where it would not be a balance issue to include it in the lead, please provide them in a different request. —Sirdog (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

Change first sentence. Please remove “aka Dictator”, someone must have added it as a joke. 203.30.15.36 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Chaiwala

• @Vanamonde93 Plz refer your this revert.
• The following sentence but the evidence of his neighbours does not entirely corroborate this statement. is not supported by the citations [8] [9] that is provided in the article.
• The following is the available information regarding Modi's helping his father at the tea stall in the citation Most of them recall something of the childhood of Narendra Modi, such as when he brought home a baby crocodile from a lake. They speak with respect more than fondness. He rarely helped his father with the tea stal
• I have tried to copy edit this sentence he had worked infrequently in his father's tea shop on the platform of Vadnagar railway station but unfortunately you have reverted it.
• Plz go through the revert you have made thoroughly and help me in maintaning WP:V.

BlackOrchidd (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that your change was ungrammatical, both sources are making the point that according to his neighbors, he did not frequently work at the tea stall. The attribution to the neighbors is key, as is the contrast with the previous statement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• As per merriam-webster.com this is the meaning of the word corroborated to support with evidence or authority.
• The word corroborated didnt justify the situation as the neighbours didn't provide any evidence in support of their claim and neither they have any authority in this regard.
• In this regard I propose the earlier edit that I made to justify he had worked infrequently in his father's tea shop on the platform of Vadnagar railway station

Thanks BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your version does not attribute the neighbors' statements to them, and is ungrammatical. Pinging Fowler&fowler, who drafted that language; F&F, I seem to recall other sources discussing this discrepancy; do you remember what they are? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Thanks for pointing out. As suggested the version of neighbours and grammatical errors has been taken care of. Plz see the diff. BlackOrchidd (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is highly misleading to state it as a fact especially when his brother has refuted this claim.[10] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not stated as fact and neither in the wikivoice, Its attributed to Modi, his then neighbours and also to his brother. ThanksBlackOrchidd (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hate speech by PM at Rajasthan

Hello, I’m unable to edit the article, can someone write about Today’s incident went viral when PM Modi talked about How Opposition will take country’s money and will give all to minorities (muslims) which is direct violation of Election Commission of Indiaset rules about Religious politics propaganda. DAMGMG (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This information has been added to Narendra Modi#Hindutva but this is certainly not enough. Modi was also spreading disinformation about the Congress here. We really need a broader section now which would cover his inaccurate statements. See the earlier discussion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have any lasting significance to be expanded any further, considering the length of the present article. — hako9 (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd: Your edit dilutes Modi's comments. Remember that we report what reliable sources say in their own voice. We paraphrase quotations for concision, when appropriate MOS:QUOTE. And try to have a discussion before making very significant changes. — hako9 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Narendra Modi in 2024 Elections

Modi and His party's insincerity druing 2024 elections: Wrestlers protests, Farmer protest, Ladakh voice, Surat elections, Chandigarh mayoral election, Burning Manipur, Arvind Kejriwal, Hemant Soren, MPs Suspended , Congress bank account Freeze, violated Code of Conduct, He also controls EC and CBI. Pranay9977 (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 General election

In the section of premiership campaign, please add about the 2024 premiership campaign. Himankshu (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

New content dispute

Why do we need to detail the slogan used by Narendra Modi during 2024 election? See WP:SOAP. If you want to make a passing mention, fine, but it should be done only when there is a detailed section about 2024 elections covering several events.

Summarizing the polls carried out by Godi media as part of state-funded PR stuff of Modi should not summarised as a fact.

I don't deny that he won a Korean award, but summarizing the reason behind the award is clearly WP:UNDUE. Capitals00 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The airstrike

Why are we only using a biased media like Washington post for the claiming that the Airstrike failed? Washington post is biased and clearly against India. Why is Wikipedia this biased against India? 103.218.133.35 (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSP and WP:WAPO. Citation for the claim also includes The Round Table (journal) btw. — hako9 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Right bro 2001:4490:888:C1D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

2405:201:A423:B03D:5DBB:7067:FEDE:A02D (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Modi didn't reduce spending on public welfare programs and he didn't abolish or destroy labour and environmental laws.This is a straight up lie.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note that there are multiple references confirming welfare cuts in the economy section, and citations about environmental cuts in the environment section. Jamedeus (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

He was also portrayed in Film ARTICLE 370 alongside Amit Shah Jainsanyam08 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Jainsanyam08 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Modi is considered complicit by (whom) in the 2002 Gujarat riots?

closed as OP is now topic-banned

Brought some clarity by adding few words for this line in the lead. Modi administration is considered complicit (by whom) in the 2002 Gujarat riots? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1225087357 BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Considered complicit not just by the scholars but also by the court of India who handed punishments to some BJP members and also handed punishments to the members of other Sangh Parivar organisations like Bajrang Dal who operated under the command of the then BJP government in centre. Capitals00 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) 1. Supreme counrt of India rejected modi governments role in gujarat riots 2. Centre was rulted by UPA and not BJP during that time Afv12e (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) There are a good number of Sangh Parivar members who are out of jail now because they have spent their time in jail. For a name, look at those Bilkis Bano convicts who are currently missing.[11][12] It was BJP government in centre when the riots happened in 2002. Capitals00 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 1. Does arresting someone belongs to BJP party spent their time in jail makes Modi administration is considered complicit ? 2. Modi administration was in the state power By whom Modi administration is considered complicit (by whom) in the 2002 Gujarat riots? Afv12e (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Indian court or International court of justice or UN or anybody has said that - Modi administration is considered complicit in gujarat riots. This is like saying : Person A has been responsible for killing person B , even though NO courts in the world has ever said a verdict like that. Then how can someone come up and say that person A killed B ? Afv12e (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Please read WP:YESPOV, and also read the scholarly sources cited for that statement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) It is stupid to say that Wikipedia relays on 'scholarly articles’ on crime and convictions , completely going against what courts of the world has given the verdict. For crimes and convictions how can you rely on ‘scholarly articles‘ and not on the court verdicts? Afv12e (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) For one thing, because an entire government is never tried by a court; the court cases were for individuals. Secondary sources are the only ones who can meaningfully analyze the broader patterns. But in any case, you are expressing a problem with our policies on sourcing, and you need to raise that at WP:VPP, or the talk page of a specific policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Verdicts of courts in a country don't invalidate what reliable sources have written about it. And on wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say. — hako9 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) ok, then can we mention that : Modi administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots by various scholarly articles while Indian court invalidate this This would clear the confusion of by whom? Afv12e (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Won't happen because court considers Modi administration to have illegally helped the criminals involved in these riots.[13] Capitals00 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Aljaseera source says : Not done by modi's administration during the riot, but Gujarat government after that. Even though in Centre modi is in power, it was Gujarat state government who did that. How come action after the riot, which was not during modi at state government responsible to say that 'Modi administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots' ? Afv12e (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Reliable sources suggest that Modi was behind the riots. Wikipedia is not bound to accept what Indian courts are saying. GrabUp - Talk 09:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Indian courts have no jurisdiction to invalidate reliable sources on wikipedia and they have better things to do. You seem to not understand how wikipedia works. — hako9 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) +1 to hako9, that's why people who have no knowledge about Modi should be confused about who fixed the "complicity". As the "Reliable Source" and the reliable sources covering Supreme courts judgement both have opposing views. In order to maintain WP:LIVE, WP:NPOV and to keep WP:PURPOSE its mandatory to mention that Modi administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots by various scholarly articles, while the Indian Supreme court appointed special investigation team didn't find any evidence against Modi in connection to the riots. Proceeding with the change, any further conflict or revert should escalate this discussion. BlackOrchidd (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) @BlackOrchidd: The discussion is not yet over. How can you add this on your own and mention in your edit summary: "As per the discussion"? Do you have consensus to add this? No! How can you do that? GrabUp - Talk 17:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Apologies, I didn't see this discussion. Either way, the change is not acceptable. On wikipedia, we can state judicial outcomes but they are not considered authoritative which is why it is included later in the lead. And, of course, it is not just scholarly sources that consider Modi to be complicit. A rewrite is fine but this particular one was very poorly written.RegentsPark (comment) 17:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) The Modi administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots by various scholarly articles, although a special investigation team appointed by the Indian Supreme Court found no evidence against Modi in connection to the riots How about this? This present a balanced view. Afv12e (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC) I find it quite annoying that the editors proposing changes here do not appear to have read the paragraph they wish to change, let alone the rest of the article. Two sentences later, our article states "A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him", which is substantively identical to the proposed additions above, as well as a more appropriate use of in-text attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) To your knowledge there are different levels of courts in India. So the sentence 'The Modi administration has been considered complicit' is ambiguous and the proposed change combing the two sentences make it clear composite by who ? Afv12e (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC) I think the point you're missing is that the verdict of a court does not matter and is not something that is considered on wikipedia. We can mention the verdict but not use it to increase or decrease the level of complicity. Since the verdict is already mentioned, there really is nothing else we need to do. RegentsPark (comment) 21:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) "court does not matter and is not something that is considered on wikipedia" Thats a pretty vague & irresponsible comment by Admin @RegentsPark. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. The courts order are not directly asked to be cited , courts order are only facts whether true or not. They must be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise a common reader may confuse. Not mentioning courts judgement published by reliable secondary source in the lead and also not attributing this line His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots is a gross violation of NPOV [User:BlackOrchidd|BlackOrchidd]] (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Are you really saying that Sangh Parivar members who were convicted of theit crimes in the riots are not connected to Modi administration? See WP:RGW. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) how can someone say that 'if somebody who is a member of bjp is arrested or punished in any crime, then Modi administration is responsible for that ?' Afv12e (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) What about in the event of mass arrests? GrabUp - Talk 12:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) even if all the BJP members are arrested and punished, how come it is correlated to Modi administration ? Afv12e (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Because the BJP and the Modi administration are the same. Modi is in power under the BJP party, so the BJP is in power. It is accurate to refer to either the BJP administration or the Modi administration, as Modi controls or leads the BJP, making him accountable and closely correlated. GrabUp - Talk 13:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) BJP and the Modi administration are the same. This is nonsense ! Afv12e (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) The court judgement is in the lead. I struggle to take a comment seriously that doesn't acknowledge that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

closed as OP is now topic-banned

Can you add this in the lead ? He initiated and oversaw the world's largest toilet-building program under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission), significantly improving sanitation and public health across the country Afv12e (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Can't, especially due to significant corruption involved in this entire project. The lead already notes that Modi "Modi began a high-profile sanitation campaign". Capitals00 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) how come corruption has anything to do with the above sentence highlighting improving sanitation and public health across the country. The above sentence never said it was 100% corruption free. In india no projects are corruption free! Afv12e (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) @Valereee can you please have a look at this? Afv12e (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) @Afv12e, this sounds like a press release. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) ok rephrased it: He initiated and oversaw a large-scale toilet-building program under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission), which aimed to improve sanitation and public health across the country Afv12e (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) If I were you, I would stop working here and on other topics related to Indian politics until your AE discussion is completed. Valereee (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

closed as OP is now topic-banned

Can you add this in the lead ? He, has been instrumental in developing the country's road infrastructure, overseeing the construction of a record number of roads and highways during his tenure. Compared to the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, the Modi administration has significantly accelerated highway construction. Data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways indicates that the average road construction rate has increased from 11.67 km per day under the UPA to 36.5 km per day under the Modi government. This unprecedented growth in road infrastructure has not only improved connectivity across the country but has also driven economic development and reduced travel times significantly. Afv12e (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Mainly done by private companies. What you are citing are godi media sources. You should read third-party sources. You can see read this for now. Capitals00 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) you can see fact check here, not 200% but by 148% increased https://scroll.in/article/1025904/fact-checking-modi-governments-claims-of-record-infrastructure-growth-in-the-past-eight-years Afv12e (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) @Capitals00 can you add now? Afv12e (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) It requires consensus to add these. GrabUp - Talk 16:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) @Valereee also here? Afv12e (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Re: has been instrumental in developing the country's road infrastructure, overseeing the construction of a record number of roads and highways during his tenure. Compared to the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, the Modi administration has significantly accelerated highway construction. Data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways indicates that the average road construction rate has increased from 11.67 km per day under the UPA to 36.5 km per day under the Modi government. This unprecedented growth in road infrastructure has not only improved connectivity across the country but has also driven economic development and reduced travel times significantly. @Afv12e, this is incredibly promotional in tone. It sounds like a press release. No, we cannot add anything like that into any Wikipedia article, and honestly it's making me wonder whether you need to declare a WP:COI. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) The Modi administration has overseen development in the country's road infrastructure, with data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways showing an increase in the average road construction rate from 11.67 km per day under the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to 36.5 km per day. This growth in road infrastructure has improved connectivity and contributed to economic development by reducing travel times I just noticed that words like these are considered promotional in wikipedia. How about the edited one above ? Afv12e (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Still sounds like a press release from his government, to me. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) how about this ? Hope that this is not against wikipedia's promotional policy. I'm citing a GOOD thing of Modi , and I hope it wont be taken as PROMOTION Under the Modi administration, the development of the country's road infrastructure has increased. Data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways indicates that the average road construction rate rose from 11.67 km per day under the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to 36.5 km per day. This increase in road construction has improved connectivity and reduced travel times. Afv12e (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

closed as OP is now topic-banned

can you add this in lead? Narendra Modi's strategic foreign policy enabled India to secure significant quantities of discounted Russian oil during the Russia-Ukraine war, despite international sanctions against Russia. This move not only provided economic relief to India but also highlighted Modi's adeptness in navigating complex geopolitical landscapes. Afv12e (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Nothing impressive. Under Modi administration, India has been mainly selling the oil they purchased to Europe at record levels and those involved in the process are private companies. Now we are in 2024, the situation is no longer the same.[14] Capitals00 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC) so what? it was a economic relief to India. It was a huge diplomatic success despite international sanctions against Russia. Yes we are in 2024, why did in the lead added past years covid and CAA protests ? Afv12e (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Because CAA protests really happened unlike the non-existing example of some exceptional foreign policy which you are claiming for the Modi government. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) I quote the references Afv12e (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) @RegentsPark I kindly request you to look at these edit requests submitted Afv12e (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) @Afv12e: I don't see consensus for adding this to the article. RegentsPark (comment) 16:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) @Afv12e, same here: Narendra Modi's strategic foreign policy enabled India to secure significant quantities of discounted Russian oil during the Russia-Ukraine war, despite international sanctions against Russia. This move not only provided economic relief to India but also highlighted Modi's adeptness in navigating complex geopolitical landscapes. Same. Please declare your COI per WP:COI. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) ok rephrased to remove words which are promotional to wikipedia. I have rephrased it highlighting facts : During the Russia-Ukraine war, India's foreign policy under Narendra Modi facilitated the purchase of discounted Russian oil, despite international sanctions against Russia. This action provided economic benefits to India. Afv12e (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) @Valereee: See, a discussion of his Topic ban. GrabUp - Talk 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) References