Talk:Narendra Modi/Archive 10

Seems specious to me. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines has put it in back himself. My point was He has _not_ done it in a 'campaign' -- he filled his nomination paper! That is what the source also says .Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the literal translation is not accurate here. I see the hindi term translated in a more appropriate way on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Mohan Bhagwat page. Of course both usage can be cited from reliable sources. In my opinion full-time worker is more accurate. Jyoti (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the source that we cite for the point. That says propagandist, and since you say both translations could apply there is no reason not to use the one that the source uses. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, your choice over mine. :-) Jyoti (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed: and were soon estranged because Modi decided to pursue an itinerant life. To: and soon parted ways because Modi decided to pursue an itinerant life. Typical synonyms of 'estranged' are alienate, antagonize, disaffect, make hostile/unfriendly, destroy the affections of, turn away, drive away. Which, imho, is not reported in this case. I think it goes against

If they are not divorced then they are estranged, what has BLPPRIMARY got to do with it? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "estranged" is commonly used here. If anything, "parted ways" understates the issue because his wife makes it clear that he was the one in control of the decision and she just did his bidding. Try [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12] for starters. It shouldn't surprise you to know that I'm pretty au fait (sic) with English language usage and abusage. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think 'estranged' is the common correct usage in this context -- okay. My doubt was because I considered it to convey: alienate, antagonize, disaffect, make hostile/unfriendly, destroy the affections of, turn away, drive away. In that context I wanted to point out

WP:BLPPRIMARY to not use that word. But if that is the correct usage I admit that it has no relevance. I see that you have updated the infobox also accordingly. Thank you. Jyoti (talk

) 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very interesting to observe that anti-BJP mongers strive hard to include any myriad criticism about Modi from any media/ personality/ magazines etc. Even Left biased intellectuals/economists are given prominent space in the article. But when it comes to surveys, despite every news channel, magazine,news portal, every newspaper is publishing surveys that depict Narendra Modi as top choice of PM by Indians. Still the mongers want to turn blind eye to it reverting when an updation regarding surveys been made. A user Vanamonde93 says while reverting "As you would say, that's why reverting". It seriously raises questions about the bias depicted in the article when such people makes edit and control the article. [1], ^[2],^[3], ^[4]..^[5][6][7]

Go Through

wiki:notnews , there would be millions of survey by millions to add in every article and especially during election process, so will not support such additions Shrikanthv (talk

) 06:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@IP; As I have explained before, if you wish to add a sentence saying "every survey has found.." then you need a source saying that. It is not enough to merely provide a lot of surveys. Also, please sign your comments next time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As per Vanamonde93, the current phrasing of the polls section is ok, and outlines the point - polls are showing support in favour of Modi. You will need some kind of source to prove that all of the polls are in Modi's favour though. There may be one or two which don't fit the general trend. Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention one updated poll as well, as these do show the seat prediction rising above 220. --RaviC (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's very peculiar of user
  wiki:notnews. The section itself is about polls and mentions about pre-poll surveys. But when[[13]] (which is a hoax even accepted by the newspaper itself was included), does he has anything to comment? Now anyone who reads newspapers, Rajkamalrao (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)magazines,news portals, watches news channels, would know that what all surveys indicate. I had put link of just few surveys out of so many that took place. It is difficult to adjust each one of them, but while going through the article, when it says " In three opinion polls.....", it reflects as the section has not been updated since ages. However if so desired as to have proof of what all surveys indicated, here they are. [[14]] " Mr Modi, who is ahead in all the pre-election surveys......", [[15]], " All surveys unanimously declare Modi as people’s choice.....", [[16]], "Final India opinion polls boost Narendra Modi’s campaign...". So while I am quite sure that you guys may stall the updation under some new pretext, but still the sources say all. 210.212.144.133 (talk
  ) 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi , such additions now will result in wiki:NPOV, there are survey's which are available which counter your claim, will wait for other users to comment. do not edit until a necessary concensus is reached here Shrikanthv (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on user. Cite any survey by reputed/ reliable media which says otherwise. How come NPOV comes in picture? It is really surprising to see that information about surveys have not been updated since May 2013, as the section of the article says " In three opinion polls.....in May 2013.....". When some links have been introduced about what all surveys say, you are adopting sinister acts to NOT update the surveys result. Do you really consider yourself as editor of Wikipedia or UPA's menacing agenda.117.201.231.249 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed Having effectively denied the marriage in four previous election campaigns To Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits. Added another citation too from The Economic Times. "denied" is not accurate. Not present in sources. I have reworded considering

Wrong, "He previously claimed to be unattached and without family ties" "Mr. Modi and the B.J.P. took pains to keep the marriage quiet for many years, even when reporters managed to interview his wife, a village schoolteacher", sounds a lot like denial to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DS. There are plenty of other examples out there. We might just be able to change it to "implicitly" but it is obvious from the sources that he denied his legally-recognised marriage in prior elections and indeed the INC challenged this from 2001, although not in court. The source does say it was in previous elections. All of your recent work on that paragraph needs to be reverted. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"INC challenged this from 2001, although not in court" -- It was his legal right to fill that section or not INC is incapable of going to court! And not speaking about his wife in election campaign is also his choice which everyone should respect. Can we get a quote where he says "I-am-not-married" from a reliable secondary source? No, right? My concern is in the manner in which this section is worded in a BLP. "Having remained, and having said, ..." suggests that he lied which is not the case -- at no point in campaign he has talked about his spouse! This can very easily be three smaller sentences, closer to source than being a long sentence (presently) that subtly sends a wrong message. Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits. He claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt. In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat in 2014 Loksabha elections Modi entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife. I don't even want to get into the poor translation of his hindi speech the way it is done here! Jyoti (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A lie of omission is still a lie, how do you think it ought to be phrased? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He exercised his legal choice -- can you dispute that he violated any law? You are not to judge him on a Wikipedia article and blame him of a 'lie'! I think I have made my viewpoint clear -- Have I not already made the edits which you have reverted and have I not put it in italics yet again here? Jyoti (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What has the law got to do with it? He lied by omission, do you deny that? Or as the source say "Mr. Modi and the B.J.P. took pains to keep the marriage quiet for many years, even when reporters managed to interview his wife, a village schoolteacher". I am not seeing how what you have in italics above is an improvement over what is there now. I did a few changes, what is wrong with those? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An omission is an omission. You cannot label it as 'lie'. He exercised his legal choice -- can you dispute that he violated any law by his choice of omission or made a lie? I didn't say I have problem with the further edits you did after reverting -- skip that. BLP has to be more than based on recent news headlines -- I had also given an inline source from The Economic Times and mentioned another from The Hidu. I say, no it is not a 'lie'. Someone's private life and individual choices are to be respected. The citation also do not use 'lie' at any point. This was for addressing your viewpoint that it is a lie. The article does not use that word. My viewpoint remains same, quoting myself from above:

My concern is in the manner in which this section is worded in a BLP. "Having remained, and having said, ..." suggests that he lied which is not the case -- at no point in campaign he has talked about his spouse! This can very easily be three smaller sentences, closer to source than being a long sentence (presently) that subtly sends a wrong message. Modi used to leave the space marked for spouse blank in his earlier affidavits. He claimed that his status as a single person meant that he had no reason to be corrupt. In his nomination form for the Vadodara Lok Sabha seat in 2014 Loksabha elections Modi entered the name of Jashodaben as his wife. I don't even want to get into the poor translation of his hindi speech the way it is done here! Jyoti (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Election candidates have to file sworn affidavits (nomination papers etc) at each election in India. Those affidavits include a question regarding marriage status. By leaving that blank, it seems to me that he lied by omission. That is what the sources seem to be saying. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you may "assume" that -- I say it is not. He had a choice -- he is not obliged to disclose it if he so chooses to. We are not authorized to question his private life. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course he is obliged to show it if it is an affidavit. That's why the BJP are scrambling around at the moment to avert a PR disaster; that's why umpteen sources refer to the omission as a lie. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No User talk:Sitush he had a choice to leave it blank and he chose to leave it blank -- he was not under any legal obligation to fill in this field. Recently it was made a mandatory field and this time he had no choice and he was under legal obligation to fill it and he filled it. I think we agree on this point? Jyoti (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It has only recently become mandatory? That is news to me. The affidavits have been sworn many decades. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush that is the case. There was a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding this. I am not able to find the exact ruling but it is mentioned in these two news articles: previously it was not mandatory for candidates to disclose spouses name or details and he had to mention the name of his wife this time in view of the Supreme Court order. He has never discussed his spouse in election speeches by choice. Jyoti (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I note that the BJP are trying to say otherwise. This sounds like a Clinton-Lewinsky situation. How did we treat that? - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not read that link. Staying on the current topic -- current topic is absolutely no where similar to Clinton-Lewinsky by any standard. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And is it worth mentioning the speculation for his rationale, ie RSS liking for celibacy. I'm wary about speculation. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not read that link. Staying on the current topic -- I am not talking about RSS and their linking for celibacy by any length of imagination! We have to stop at some point, of course it can be extended and discussed at great length -- not on Wikipedia! I am not arguing in that direction. In this reply I am only opposing your view of terming it a 'lie'. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was perhaps not clear enough. The Clinton-Lewinsky situation I was referring to was with regard to the definition of "sexual relations". As far as I can recall, Clinton claimed that he did not have sex with Lewinsky, based on a definition that simply boggled the minds of most observers. Similarly, the BJP seem to be saying that he was not lying by omitting the information even though an affidavit has to be truthful. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish to refrain from extending this discussion towards comparison with Clinton-Lewinsky situation. I made a response to your earlier point above. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Modi lied about his marital status" Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not secondary source. It is another allegation in a news article. I will refrain from counting it as a judgement/verdict. Jyoti (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when has a newspaper not been a secondary source? There are loads of them saying the same sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say newspaper articles cannot be secondary source. Would you count it as a judgement/verdict? I think we are deviating from the topic. Let us not discuss about it is lie or not, I can continue to keep my line of thought and you can keep your arguments. Since it cannot be asserted unambiguously about this living person that he lied on this account I would have preferred to keep the description in this Wikipedia article also void of such derivation -- sensitive towards two living person's personal lives. I am in no way motivated to convince you or anyone to the 'truthfulness' or 'lie' of his deliberate choice -- but I am sure it has not been termed 'lie' by any competent authority or there is any case under-trial. Lying in nomination paper is a serious punishable offence. Jyoti (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Floating an idea: what if we say that the BJP have denied that he was lying, as per the NDTV link I gave earlier? That seems to balance things out, although I wasn't aware of it when I rewrote that mess of a paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is also fair enough, that balances it out in my opinion. BLP has to be extra careful and give benefit of doubt to the privacy of the person. Please also reconsider breaking into three sentences (in which case -- without having to add the counter of BJP from NDTV report you have mentioned) not linked by 'however' so that this subject does not get undue weight either. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus on adding another line from NDTV article or breaking into three simple sentences? Meanwhile someone has added more to it! It will appear like his early life == his marriage controversy. lol! Jyoti (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, the para says He was engaged at the age of 13 to Jashodaben Chimanlal and the couple were married by the time he was 18 (emphasis mine). The source used says that they were married when she turned 17. I don't see anything mentioned about Modi's age when the marriage was formalised. Also the source used to support the statement Having remained silent on the question of marriage in four previous election campaigns says no such thing.Also Sitush, just like Jyoti said above it was not mandatory to fill all the columns. Even Manmohan Singh had left the column of his wife's name blank during one of his nominations (I have the copy of Nomination, it is a primary source and useless here)-sarvajna (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarvajna, the source for the "18" statement is in fact the Caravan article here, which indicates that he went off on his travels at 18. Someone has since edited the paragraph and ballsed it up. As happens so often with people here who do not read the cited sources etc before jumping in to amend a statement. On this occasion, that is you. The solution is to move the Financial Express citation to the end of the sentence that you modified.

Similarly, the "last four" tihng is sourced, just not particularly well-placed. It is in the citation immediately following the next sentence, ie this. I was going to do some more work on that but then Jyoti began suggesting more significant changes. That said, this is another instance of people not reading the damn sources: if you had then you could easily have fixed the placement yourself.

As for the issue of lying, the NDTV route is the way to go. Something like "Accusations that Modi's previous omission amounted to lying have been rejected by his party." No doubt, now that the big boys are back, we'll end up debating the precise wording until around about the time the election ends ;) It pisses me off that every time I come here to fix obvious big problems, certain other people turn up, say nothing about the big problems that were there but begin instead to quibble about stuff that often is of their own making. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don;t have a big problem with including this info from a new biography if we can also explain how Modi has shifted his story. The one that he is selecting to emphasise now seems very different to the adamant stance that he used to take and I can't help but think it is geared to the forthcoming elections. It would be easier to include if he just said that, if he had his time again, he would have resigned but instead we're being fed information that was available to him at the time but he chose not to divulge even though it was not exactly in the category of state secret.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical here but I'm already fed up of the way that various political articles are being manipulated in the run-up to the elections. Sometimes, I wonder if it would be better to have a moratorium on substantive content changes in these periods and let them all fight their campaigns off-wiki, as indeed they should! - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I read, it seemed as though this interview had been compiled last year. To be honest, I don't really mind how it's phrased - it just seemed like new information to add to the article. --RaviC (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

why not think of a full protection upto running down of elections, the biography by the author is a claim not really affirmed by the living person. I dont think it can be wieghed in as a usefull information on a third party claim on some of saying ya he said that while the actuall person is still alive !, with political newspaper article really I could find biased on both sided articles, it is literally possible to build an entire article on using only one sided article! , I am really against adding any more info at this point of time (good or bad) Shrikanthv (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

All of these seems to be your personal views. This is a new information and should be added to the article. No one is stopping you from adding Modi's past "stories". ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not seeing this as a reliable source, given the source used for the addition of the content also says, "The largely-adulatory book" Darkness Shines (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that doesn't look good, then. It rather confirms my suspicions that this is largely an electioneering effort. Vibhijain, we have a duty to be neutral, so "no one is stopping you from adding Modi's past stories" doesn't really do the job. If we were to add one "side" then we should add the other variants at the same time. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I havent' checked in this article, but in the BJP article (which is Modi's political party), there are many books cited with a negative bias against the BJP. If sources with a negative bias can be cited, then surely those with a more positive bias can also be cited? --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It is spurious to say that this book is an election effort. The author is not affiliated with Modi in any way, and it's not unusual for new biographies to be published in election years--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

The idea is to prefer independent sources where possible. Furthermore, to work towards a neutral article and not one that reflects mostly "positive" or mostly "negative" sources. It is all about balance, relevance and reliability. I've no idea what the situation may be on the BJP article but, by following the spirit of

WP:OSE

, it is of no relevance to this article.

Modi has said many things and, in common with a lot of other politicians, they are not always consistent. Rather than rush to incorporate new stuff, during an election season we should instead be even more cautious than is usually our wont. This is a BLP of a very contentious person and caution should be our watchword. You are correct that it is not unusual for new biographies to appear at times such as this; it is also the case that many of them prove to be rushed, half-cocked jobs cashing in on the market and/or designed to promote the candidate. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed your addition of the book to "Further reading". As the link provided by Darkness Shines suggests, it is a rush job and so the chances of it being reliable/authoritative are not that great. There is currently a sockpuppet investigation concerning you and maybe it would be best to let that run its course before adding more information: we routinely revert sockpuppets, so continuing to add material would mean that you'd be wasting both your own time and ours if you are in fact socking. Obviously, if the investigation proves that you are in the clear then everyone will be happy and, since there is

no deadline, you'd still have the opportunity to make whatever changes you want, wherever you want, and they will stay provided that you have consensus. - Sitush (talk

) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, would you care to read

WP:AGF? --Calypsomusic (talk

) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the reliability of this book can be questioned, but given its coverage on Indian media, we add it in this way - "According to a political biography written on Modi by British author and TV producer Andy Marino, Modi wanted to resign from his role as Chief Minister after the riots at the BJP's Panaji enclave, however party discipline prevented him from tendering his resignation." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. You've still not addressed the issue of neutrality/balance and I'm at a loss as to why we'd want to cite something that seemingly may not be reliable anyway. What has Modi said about the book? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I try my best to be neutral in my views. The coverage this book has got in Indian media can't be ignored. Many parts of this book have been actually said by Modi in a speech. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have very quickly scanned the article, and there are many sources which are biased against Modi and his party, the BJP. As an example, Amartya Sen is known to be critical of the BJP and its politicians: "is looked as one of their own by Marxists, and "describing himself as a fellow traveller of the Marxists, Professor Sen said that since his student days at Presidency College he had been adhering to Leftist thinking and “nothing has happened to make any reappraisal of that position”. " [17] (The source is a blog, but the statements about Sen's political position seem reliable, and are well known.) --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if we allow such additions, please try to add all the following things here in the article ! Please note that wiki is not a news

things for addition 0.1 1 2 3 4 Shrikanthv (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think that this book by Andy Marino is notable enough to put into the bibliography section.

Andy Marino: Narendra Modi- A Political Biography.

ISBN 9351362175 HarperCollins

. (2014)

Why are the terrorist incidents against Modi not mentioned in this article? They include the 2013 Patna bombings and this here: --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Four Indian Mujahideen terrorists arrested, had plans to target Narendra Modi

Terror outfit, Indian Mujahideen’s (IM) expert bomb-maker, Waqas alias Javed, a resident of Punjab in Pakistan was arrested along with three others suspected members of IM from Jaipur and Jodhpur in Rajasthan by the Special Cell of Delhi police.

The terror module, which was busted with the help of Intelligence Bureau, was learnt to have been holed up in Rajasthan for past few weeks and had plans to carry out terror attacks during the election rally of BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/four-suspected-im-terrorists-arrested/

Two days after serial blasts targeted Narendra Modi's Patna rally, the Uttar Pradesh police today said they had received intelligence inputs about terrorists plotting to attack the BJP's prime ministerial candidate's October 19 rally in Kanpur. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/terror-attack-planned-on-narendra-modi-s-kanpur-rally-too-says-police-439076

Ahead of BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi's rally in Muzaffarpur, there are reports that the March 3 address could come under terror attack. According to reports, to carry out the terror attack help of women present at the rally could be sought. http://zeenews.india.com/news/bihar/narendra-modi-faces-terror-attack-threat-ahead-of-muzaffarpur-rally_914256.html

Two suspected terrorists were on Wednesday arrested by the UP ATS team near Gorakhpur for their alleged motive to carry out suicide attacks during BJP prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi's upcoming poll rally in Gorakhpur. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/two-suspected-terrorists-arrested-in-up-ats-gorakhpur-narendra-modi/1/351388.html

Read your own sources, and you'll see why. All of them are saying something like "There is a report that suspected terrorists might attack a rally that Modi might be attending and he is possibly the target." Miles too speculative to put in here. Even in the case of Patna, there was no proof that he was the target. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Patna bombings. What you mean by no proof? All news reports say that he was targeted. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Carrying out attacks at an election rally is not the same as targeting one person, an election rally is a choice target for terrorist attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So you say that the lead of the article should talk about "human development", which is the responsiblity of a government, not of a single person (Modi), but here you say that a bombing of a "Modi election rally" should not be mentioned becasue it is not about Modi?

Should a Request for comment be opened for this? --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If the terrorist attacks on Modi's election rally is removed from the article, then how can you argue that the lead should include those claims about the "human developement" of the Gujarat state administration. Can you prove that these were significant on Modi's life or campaign? --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article body. As the body makes clear, the economic aspects of his policies/leadership have been widely commented upon, including by academic sources. He has been linked personally to those measures and has taken trips abroad to investigate and promote. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As per Sitush, the statements about human development have their notability established by their mention in academic sources. If, on the other hand, we were to report everything the newspapers said about him, there would be no controlling the size of the article, nor would it be possible to maintain NPOV. So, a newspaper mention is insufficient. Moreover, you are still only providing sources which say that the attack occurred, not that several of them were targeting Modi. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This says Gujarat University and this says Delhi. We cite both, in different places. I'm inclined always to prefer The Hindu over The Toiletpaper (and, frankly, would rather we treated the latter as unreliable for pretty much everything) but are there any official sources that might clarify the issue? - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Modi completed his undergrad from Delhi University and completed his masters from Gujarat University. Check [18].--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it; "In November 1995, Modi was elected as the National Secretary of BJP.[25] In May 1998, Modi was elevated to the post of the General Secretary of the BJP and was transferred to New Delhi where he was assigned responsibility for the party's activities in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.[23] After Vaghela, who had threatened to break away from BJP in 1995, defected from the BJP after he lost the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, Modi was promoted to the post of National Secretary of the BJP in 1998" - So? 1995 or 1998? SHIMONSHA (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be different posts - National and General. That said, I'm not familiar with the organisation of BJP. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

General and National Secretary are two different posts, General Secretary being the higher post amongst the two. This can be checked [19] from their official page. 'Term' Secretary has been used for the national level 'Secretary' which is generally referred to as 'National Secretary'.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)