Talk:Narendra Modi

The Article is openly biased

Opening paragraph references multiple speculative information including speculative death counts in 2002 riots, labelling farm laws as 'controversial', overstating number of COVID-19 deaths by a factor of 10 and including false statements about democratic backsliding. Consider maintaining at least a semblance of neutrality. 108.31.170.82 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I considered making similar changes back in time. However, we need to have substantial references to make changes we wish too. It's tough to consider personal view while editing an article. Sometimes, we need to add and keep contents in an article, even if we are uncomfortable with them. Sorry for no help. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 03:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed a serious bias against India in all the wikipedia articles, which is why many people do not consider wikipedia a good source anymore. There is no evidence for any democratic backsliding etc. It sounds like the article just wants to bad mouth Modi. The most recent survey declared him as the most popular leader globally but the article fails to mention it. 50.39.108.4 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The entire piece is nothing but a leftist, colonial propaganda against India and Hindus. Wikipedia has plunged to new lows by describing Balakot airstrikes as "failed". They could not digest development of Gujarat and India. Progress of Kashmir is eating them up from inside. Feels like the page is sponsored by Pakistan or CPI(M). Have courage to accept the truth and realities !! Meinhoonbharat (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Heavy Bias

This article is rubbish. Covid deaths were far less than what WHO speculated. Around 500k to be specific according to government data. You should have at least mentioned the government data too. Is this Modi bashing? How is one supposed to get neutral article about someone on wikipedia. Wikipedia has inherent bias. 103.165.22.42 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

+1, India's official count is based on counted numbers. While WHO's data is based on some "methodology".[1]https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-releases-2020-death-data-ahead-who-covid-mortality-study-it-objects-2022-05-03/ Keeping only one sided story is i think violating NPOV. BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

WHO is more reliable than any official government source, not just Indian government. Capitals00 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, Mabe not. The comparative reliability of sources could be discussed on RSN. BlackOrchidd (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You can take WHO Vs Indian government to RSN and inform here once you have. Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Onus is on you. As you said source X is more reliable than source Y. NPOV is not neutrality of sources but neutrality of editing. BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the tone of the article

Greetings, I wanted to raise my concern for the texts written in the introduction part of the article which I believe is violating the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living personsand the essay Wikipedia:Criticism. I request for a neutral overall check wether it does or not. I know Narendra Modi is a controversial figure but, it is better to write criticisms seperately or at least limited to keep it Neutral as Wikipeida is not a news ( WP:NOTNEWS) and not a place for advocacy ([[WP:NOTADVOCACY) Regards Yamantakks (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Come to the point. On lead, I had added about Manipur violence, Adani scam, Chinese land grab all of which was removed in a matter of days.

At this stage you can only complain why this article is not highlighting the significant failures of Narendra Modi as PM. Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00 ,

I have first of all, asked to just review it unbiasedly, but if you feel such about that the article is at the point biased towards not "highlighting the siginificant failures of Narendra Modi as PM", so as I earlier said, wikipeida has a policy which says what wikipedia is not and it says wikipedia is not a plae for promotion or demotion, and if we see other Prime Ministers' articles, like that of Rajiv Gandhi (Rajiv Gandhi), and Indira Gandhi (Indira Gandhi), the articles unbiasedly criticizes them only wherever needed and that too for the sake of knowledge of the reader not trying to defame them or something like that even if The Emergency (India) was more horrible and inhuman than the Manipur voilence, Adani scam, Chinese land grab. So, why the srticle focuses on only showing the demerits ony of Narendra Modi in certain portion.

Yamantakks (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is clearly less critical on Narendra Modi than what it really needs to be. There are serious arguments that Emergency was a good move, nevertheless it has been mentioned on the page of Indira Gandhi. Whataboutery will not work here. Your topic here is Narendra Modi and you will need to use a better argument than Wikipedia:JDLI. Capitals00 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

backsliding of democracy after Modi ? Seriously Wikipedia?

'Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression.'

This sentence should have to be removed. There are no UN or any other reports on India's democracy backsliding under modi's government.

Wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda and it did not take propaganda articles published by some vested interest groups.

If Saddam Hussain was alive, should we say the same now ?

There are other reports that under mod's rule democracy has flourished.

Unless it is from some credible institution like UN , these propaganda reports cannot be taken in Wikipedia to spread propaganda Afv12e (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There are seven references for that sentence. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I can provide 100s of such papers or reports by Individuals on Chinese and US president. These are just opinions and should be added as opinions only and not as a general conclusion unless it is published by any international organization like United Nations.

Every country has it's own politics and political accusations and attacks, and these propaganda reports should not be added as a validation conclusion in Wikipedia.

'Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression.'

This should be removed. Afv12e (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have high quality academic sources arguing that under mod's [sic] rule democracy has flourished, please do present them. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not the point.

These are the references given to conclude that in India democracy as backslided after modi, who is having approval rate above 70% [2] :

1.New York times [3] - Known for pushing American interests and the mouth piece of American propaganda , and the author expressed his opinion in the news article.

See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies

2. Freedom House - it is an non profit organization in Washington dc, usa

3. Paper[4] by Christian Welzel, a german professor who is also the director of World Values Survey, which in turn is the next non profit think tank from Stockholm, Sweden

4. One [5]by a professor called Tarunabh Khaitan , not notable author, head of another tink tank at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights

5. An article on Foreign Policy , an American magazine

6. A random book [6] called 'Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia' which has Best Sellers Rank: #11,184,093 in Books and only 3 ratings in Amazon written by an assistant professor at a university [7]

7. Another book called Democratization [8], which has only 26 reviews in amazon [9], also written by Christian Haerpfer , President of the World Values Survey Association, assoacited with the reference 3

Seriously wikipedia , are you taking these news articles and only 10 people read books of these authors to conclude that in India backsliding of democracy happened during modi's rule!

No United Nations report on democracy said this , which is a neutral international organization than these think tanks funded to spread western propaganda .

The sentence :

Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression.

Should be removed as this expresses the option of these author and no independent neutral international organization like United Nations never released any reports as such. Afv12e (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what your fixation is with the UN as being either neutral or the sole arbiter of these sorts of things, but that's not the basis of WP:RS. The analyses are cited to the sources, so anyone is free to see what the sources are and form their own opinions. But again, it takes you (or someone else) finding equal or better sources, not just your personal dislike of what is currently there. Non-profits and think-tanks that have a reasonable reputation are fine, exactly because they are notable for studying this sort of thing and others trust them. Freedom in the World is well known and has been studied extensively. Foreign Policy has won many awards for its reporting. The New York Times is generally considered reliable for news and similar reporting based on consensus here on wikipedia. The Bonavero Institute of Human Rights has multiple notable individuals affiliated with it, including Martin Scheinin who is..."is an international law scholar who served as the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism in 2005–2011.[1] He was selected for this position after serving for eight years (1997–2004) as member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the independent expert body monitoring states' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." Yeah, that "United Nations". DMacks (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced

His administration increased direct foreign investment, and it reduced spending on healthcare, education, and social-welfare programmes. Modi began a high-profile sanitation campaign, controversially initiated the 2016 demonetisation of high-denomination banknotes and introduced the Goods and Services Tax, and weakened or abolished environmental and labour laws.

The above in lead is unsourced and should be removed Afv12e (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP standard (WP:LEAD), the lead just summarizes/highlights the main ideas of the body of the article. And therefore per WP standard, it should generally not be cited. I spot-checked the article, and there are multiple cites for those ideas in the body of the article. DMacks (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Supreme court verdict or some political accusations ?

His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. A little over 1,000 people were killed, according to official records, 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.

As the para is talking that supreme court of india found no evidences against him , then what is the reliability of the sentence :

His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. Afv12e (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

His administration is considered complicit but he was himself acquitted.

That is what the lead said. Capitals00 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not related to Balakot airstrike

Modi's administration launched the 2019 Balakot airstrike against an alleged terrorist training camp in Pakistan. The airstrike failed, and the deaths of six Indian personnel to friendly fire was later revealed: but the action had nationalist appeal.

The sentence in bold letters is not related to Balakot airstrike, but was related to a f16 jet plane crossing Indian border and chasing it. Afv12e (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This is related to Balakot conflict. See the infobox of 2019 Balakot airstrike and get consensus there first. Capitals00 (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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 ([10])

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.[11] 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 [12] 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."[13]

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)

Economy comparison: Modi vs MMS

Hello @DMacks,

Firstly, thanks for considering it as a valid point.

Second, I can provide a more updated source here, which compares the two for their first terms which signify the COVID impact. This provides a more holistic view of the current economy. Especially when at the end of Manmohan Singh's term India was in Fragile five. GDP growth with low inflation is the most desirable situation (most economists agree) which did not happen from 2004-14 as suggested here . I mean the difference is very stark 5.1 vs 8.1.

I think at least we should modify the statement as follows:

"The period of Modi's administration from 2014 to 2022 has seen a decrease in GDP growth compared to Manmohan Singh's tenure from 2004 to 2014. However, the inflation rate during Modi's administration has been lower compared to that of Manmohan Singh's years from 2004 to 2014." (cite this with Indian Express source) SpunkyGeek (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, such as that Indian Express piece, don't count for much; see WP:OPED. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What about Suday Guardian And Investopedia? BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Investopedia is already flagged as a source we should not use. The Sunday Guardian appears to be a weekly newspaper with very little visible impact founded by a member of Modi's own party; unless we can establish editorial independence, I don't see how it carries much weight either. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ashok Gulati is a well-known economist. Has also criticized Modi before. According to WP:OPED "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Basically, you endorsed the use of this source.

Now coming to Investopedia, it was used to make the argument that most economists consider. High inflation is bad in long-term scenarios for any economy. The Sunday Guardian is a reliable source unless you can point to any violation of journalistic ethics.. and you should go and post that to WP:RSN SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are talking absolute stats. You cannot dispute the facts. Now, a higher GDP growth rate will have a natural effect on inflation. Hence it is important to keep a check on inflation which UPA wasn't able to do. as compared to the Modi administration. SpunkyGeek (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Fragile five" was just a "new term coined by a little-known research analyst at Morgan Stanley last summer" that identified "Turkey, Brazil, India, South Africa and Indonesia as economies which have become too dependent on skittish foreign investment to finance their growth ambitions."[14] What it has to do with GDP growth? Nothing! Sunday Guardian is a mouthpiece of BJP. Manmohan Singh perfomed much better than Narendra Modi when it comes to GDP growth as well as economy as a whole.[15] If you really want to talk about inflation then we will have to talk about price control under Modi administration which is actually all-time high now.[16] Capitals00 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  (The author is an independent political commentator and can be reached at @politicalbaaba. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.) This is what i found in the footnote of quint article, cant use this source WP:OPED BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  newsclick portal allegedly received money to spread pro-China propaganda.[17]. the founder prabir purkayastha arrested and bail denied by delhi High Court [18] bank account of the website frozen [19] fishy chienese website , cant trust BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Another source which is not an opinion piece: "The average GDP change over the previous year between 2014 and 2020 was 10.18 percent. On the other hand, the same for the 2004-2014 period was nearly 15 percent."[20]

  NewsClick is a reliable source used across Wikipedia.[21] Yes it is facing some hardship because it refuses to become a part of Godi media but that should be ignored. You can take this source to WP:RSN and I register the fact that its a reliable source. Capitals00 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Fragile Five term" was coined because these "emerging "economies were having major issues with balance of payments and high inflation were highlighted.

  If you have problem with The Sunday Guardian post than on WP:RSN. The report on NewsClick was from an independent source it doesn't matter what its relationship with the present government is. SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Replying to several comments here, because previous replies have been all over the place; 1) per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, the person wanting to change content needs to demonstrate the verifiability of the content they wish to add, and get consensus for it. The Sunday Guardian fails many of our checks for reliable sources, quite apart from its political affiliation; it doesn't list its editorial board, doesn't make public its editorial policy, indeed doesn't have anything about itself on its website. Even the name of its chief editor does not appear to be verifiable. It's certainly not enough to support an exceptional claim by itself; indeed its use for anything political should likely be reviewed carefully. 2) This link lists stats, but does not analyze them. Using this to claim the Modi government is doing better would be original research, especially considering that the picture painted by those data is far from clear. 3) Analyses of the Singh administration's record is irrelevant here unless sources explicitly make the comparison. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Why no positive points mentioned?

The use of 'New York Times', 'WaPo', 'The Guardian' etc. as sources for Modi is like using Bible to comment on Theory of Relativity ROFL xD.

Anyway after reading the replies from editors to other notes, will be interesting to see what reasons you have for not mentioning even a few positive things in Modi's govt.

To begin with... not even a passing mention of UPI, Jan Dhan Accounts, India becoming 5th largest economy, India's vaccine deployment and supply to other countries, reduction in terrorist attacks on civilians, Africa's inclusion in G20, more than doubled no. of airports, only major economy to be on track of Paris goals, Ram Mandir, Women's reservation in Parliament, fastest growing economy after Covid slowdown of world etc.

Even Swachha Bharat Abhiyan is termed as 'high-profile sanitation campaign'.

And poverty alleviation guys 😭

From UNDP report: https://www.undp.org/india/national-multidimensional-poverty-index-progress-review-2023#:~:text=The%20NFHS%2D5%20(2019%2D,during%20the%205%2Dyear%20period.

"The NFHS-5 (2019-21) data show that 14.96% of the India’s population are multidimensionally poor compared to 24.85% of the population that was multidimensionally poor based on the 2015-16 (NFHS-4), resulting in 135mn individuals escaping poverty during the 5-year period. This highlights that India is on track to achieve SDG Target 1.2 that aims to reduce poverty in all its forms by at least half by 2030."

Please dont say you didn't find any credible source for even these 😔😂 Divi98 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You can cite the "positive points" about Narendra Modi but you will have to cite WP:RS which are third party source, not WP:PRIMARY like you have cited above. Capitals00 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol so a UNDP report is not a reliable source but WaPo articles known widely to have strong left wing propaganda even in the western world is.

Let's not even take "positive points", while the introduction is plainly filled with negative commentory/opinion, just consider facts:

Women's Reservation Bill: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/22/india-women-parliament-reservation-bill/

UPI: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/07/india-stack-financial-access-and-digital-inclusion.htm

Chandrayaan 3: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/23/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-3

Africa @ G20: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/09/african-union-made-permanent-member-of-g20-at-delhi-summit

Ram Mandir: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/as-a-grand-hindu-temple-starts-to-rise-prime-minister-modi-is-transforming-india/2020/08/05/5d8859fa-d6a8-11ea-a788-2ce86ce81129_story.html

Reliable enough? Divi98 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable? Yes. However, the IMF link doesn't even mention Modi, the Guardian one is about the African Union joining the G20 and only mentions Modi in passing, THe WaPo one is about a very contentious issue which doesn't necessarily paint Modi in a good light, and even the women's parliament one contains some criticism. I can't read the moon landing one as it's behind a paywall, but that would seem to be something that would relate more to the India article (where it is indeed mentioned in the lead paragraph). In the end, you'll have to articulate what you want to change about the article, rather than copypasting random links. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So lovely to see articles from the same publishers, which are used for other things being dismissed as random links lolol.

How can a fact be contentious issue? 'Ram Temple' is actually being constructed and will be inaugurated this month. This is contentious but 'His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots...' this is not contentious 😂.

Hilarious to see that it concerns you whether the articles put Modi in good light or not.

Since you don't know what to write for the things I mentioned, let me help:

'Modi's govt. brought the long pending Women's Reservation Bill for Lok Sabha and got it passed by the country's parliament.'

'Under Modi's Chairmanship, African Union was included in the G20 during the 18th G20 summit in New Delhi in Sept. 2023.'

'163 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines were provided by Modi's administration to 93 countries as part of Vaccine Maitri initiative.'

'Modi govt. is credited for accelerated deployment of UPI and India Stack which transformed the payment system in India with 11 billion transactions amounting to ₹17 trillion in the month of Nov. 2023.'

'Ram Mandir construction which was a controversial issue in India was constructed and will be inaugurated by Modi.'

'Under Modi's economic policies, India saw quick recovery after the Covid pandemic and has remained the fastest growing major economy since then.'

I obviously know you are not gonna incorporate any of these, even though these are not opinions but clear facts, but wanna see what sweet reasons you have to dismiss them. Divi98 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. To be fair, you could have written "I don't understand how Wikipedia works" in a lot fewer words. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, expected this reply, when you are countered with facts and your agenda is caught. Just please don't put this topic from talk in archive. Let the people who care to visit the talk page see our exchanges.

What makes me sad is for a very long time I considered Wikipedia to be an actual encyclopedia which gives opinion-less facts. I had paid $10 from my pocket money to help Wiki "stay neutral" and had encouraged my friends to do the same. But I regret it.

Didn't realise as a teenager that so many websites including this one run with funds from powers unknown, and propaganda is a real thing.

I don't even vote for Modi, and it's not about him fr. It's about the narrative and the false branding Wilkpedia carry of being "neutral". Hope with time more people will come to realise the agenda that runs Wikipedia. Divi98 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you talk about the controversies over "Ram Temple"?[22]

Are you going to mention how many bills Modi government had to withdraw?

What about the many deaths happened in India due to COVID largely due to the mishandling of the crisis?

You are relying over only 1 aspect but we will need to also talk about the decline in India's relationship with the neighbors under Modi government.[23]

The current lead, as it stands, is not covering a lot of controversies about Modi. If you are trying to think that the lead should become more positive in the current times then I would simply assure you that it is not possible. Capitals00 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All is being said that the article as it is, is not neutral. There are some noteworthy achievements which are not included. The reasons given for not including are not logical and I am forced to presume a bias against the current Indian PM. **Code Eater** 20:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

edit to the following paragraph " In Ahmedabad, Modi renewed his acquaintance with Inamdar, who was based at the Hedgewar Bhavan (RSS headquarters) in the city. Modi's first-known political activity as an adult was in 1971 when he joined a Jana Sangh Satyagraha in Delhi led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee to enlist to fight in the Bangladesh Liberation War. The Indira Gandhi-led central government prohibited open support for the Mukti Bahini; according to Modi, he was briefly held in Tihar Jail. After the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Modi left his uncle's employ and became a full-time pracharak (campaigner) for the RSS, working under Inamdar. Shortly before the war, Modi took part in a non-violent protest in New Delhi against the Indian government, for which he was arrested; because of this arrest, Inamdar decided to mentor Modi. According to Modi, he was part of a Satyagraha that led to a political war. " Change "Modi left his uncle's employ and became a full-time" to "Modi left his uncle's employment and became a full-time" 223.178.80.56 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 DoneRegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)