Jump to content

Talk:Narendra Modi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNarendra Modi has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2017Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2017Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 17, 2020, and September 17, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2025

[edit]

Delete"a right-wing Hindutva paramilitary volunteer organisation" , because it might be a right wing ideological group/association but never a paramilitary organisation. SSProcks20 (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From which reliable sources did you wrote that RSS is paramilitary organisations,kindly provide the sources, if the sources are articles only then please refer this article:-https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sangh-not-a-military-organisation-but-says-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-2628290, which was said by mohan bhagwat himself. SSProcks20 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons, the Head of the RSS is not a reliable source for contentious statements about the RSS. We can say that he said it, but we can't state his comments in WikiVoice. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

All University degrees include the place of birth and date of birth, to ensure authenticity of the certificate and holder. Swamyhorizonguru (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Opinionated content.

[edit]

The content is very opinionated and biased against the personality. Request for a review and deletion of such content. ~2025-41182-13 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Biased

This page is overly biased and against the policy of this platforms norms and terms, I request a legitimate official to rectify the facts and perform the full verification of the facts and data mentioned on this page. ~2026-34393 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Please give some examples of this alleged bias, and explain why you think they are biased (and what the bias is). By the way, you do not need to create a new heading every time you write a post on this talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead say "according to the World Health Organization, 4.7 million Indians died.". Why not the figure of death by COVID from Indian government in the lead. This is the clear example of Opinionated content. ~2026-10361-0 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valid concern by IP. Naznin Huraira (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Covered at COVID-19_pandemic_in_India#Undercounting_of_cases_and_deaths. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you are expecting to report only Modi's views of his own performance and everything else is supposed to be bias? —Kautilya3 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the concern raised . In addition to WHO report of 4.7 million deaths. Indian goverment figure of 530,000 death properly attributed could be balancing neutral lead, otherwise the the lead looks opinionated and biased. Naznin Huraira (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The bit of the lead that you are talking about currently says:
  • Modi oversaw India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which, according to the World Health Organization, 4.7 million Indians died.[11][12]
So are you asking us to add that his government faked the figures to try to cover up the extent of the catastrophe? It could have a wikilink to Undercounting of COVID-19 pandemic deaths by country#India. I do not agree with you; I think that would place undue emphasis on that. We should leave that sentence in the lead as it is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We would do it only if there were WP:SECONDARY sources that validated the government figures or threw doubt on the WHO figures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV explicitly say that when there are differing views or figures, they should be clearly attributed rather than presented as undisputed fact.
Be clear, this is not a request to validate or prioritize the government’s figures, nor to challenge the WHO estimate. It is a request to accurately reflect that multiple authoritative figures exist, each properly attributed, allowing readers to understand the issue without editorial framing. The Government's officially reported death figure is a notable, widely cited position . Excluding it entirely from the lead, while including only the WHO estimate, give undue weight to one interpretation of events by employing editorial framing . Naznin Huraira (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FALSEBALANCE says the following: “Giving ‘equal validity’ can create a false balance.” Competence is required @Toddy1 to understand the meaning of “equal validity”. As stated earlier, this is not a request to validate or give equal legitimacy to any figure, but only to attribute differing figures accurately. Naznin Huraira (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support to Naznin’s point , WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ≠ Validation ~2026-40211-0 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, like Toddy1 and Kautilya3 I do not think it would be reasonable to point out in the lede that Modi's government faked the figures. --bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cited sources state that “Modi’s government faked the figures”; that is your own interpretation @Bonadea, and framing it that way introduces POV, Naznin’s position aligns with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by seeking proper attribution, not validation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements ~2026-45883-0 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly Muslim" - biased editorial framing

[edit]
  • The repeated foregrounding of “Muslim" in the lead is non neutral , BLP violation , editorial framing, not neutral summarization. advocacy narrative. Selective emphasis, NPOV.
  • Wikipedia must not imply blame through narrative structure, repetition and selective emphasis. Even when sourced, such framing constitutes editorial synthesis, gives undue weight to biased narrative.

Jeeitendra sharma (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ~2026-47392-6 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many readers only see the lead, so repeatedly foregrounding “Muslim” implies deliberate anti Muslim narrative against Modi . A definite case of WP:NPOV / Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Modi twice refused to wear skullcap gifted by Muslim leaders. is UNDUE and hillarious ~2026-58150-9 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and Neutral POV Issues

[edit]

Multiple statements in the introduction of the article lack citation and fail to address the motives/concerns of many voters.

The statement made in the second sentence of the third paragraph that Modi's administration "reduced spending on healthcare, education, and social-welfare programmes" in 2014. However, this BBC article refutes it. Yes, the article is about the 2024 elections, but the author also states that "After coming to power in 2014, Mr[sic] Modi has expanded India's welfare programmes, targeting women and farmers in particular" (Biswas). Presuming the BBC is a reasonably reliable and non-biased (in accordance with AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check), Wikipedia:NPOV states that this view must be included and/or referenced in the article.

Next, the introductory section focuses primarily on failures of the Modi administration; only in the later sections does the article address many of the concerns of voters, even then giving them low weightage. NPOV requires that prominent views are given adequate weightage. As per this article from The Diplomat from a reliable and non-biased source (as per Media Bias/Fact Check), the reason voters lean to Modi are more numerous than only a cult of personality. In fact, the article cites a decrease in ethnic violence in the northeast, contrary to the inference a reader would make from the Wikipedia article. Despite this, the only reason cited in the leading paragraphs for Modi's approval and high voting volume is this cult of personality. An engaged reader would need to read the article in depth to understand the views of the majority, which aren't being presented fairly. Abc-bcd (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a reduction in total spending is not incompatible with an expansion of specific welfare programs. Please also see WP:DUE for how we determine inclusion or exclusion of points of view in large topics such as this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A drop in spending can still coexist with expanding targeted welfare schemes, @Vanamonde93 I’m concerned Admin Vanamonde93’s responses and edits prioritize defending the current lead framing rather than addressing cited neutrality issues, and the article history suggests ongoing WP:NPOV problems that need independent review. ~2026-47392-6 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEAD summarises the body. Please look for the detailed discussion on these issues in the body along with the citations. Only if the lead contradicts the body can you bring up an issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi&oldid=1335308369"