Talk:Narendra Modi

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Narendra Modi page.


Source information[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about the source info, or more specifically whether or not quotes are sourced, and proposed an alternative solution, see here. Please let me explain:

  • It has become a Wikiquote custom to accompany every source directly with source info.
  • If this source info is not there, then there is confusion about whether or not the quote is sourced and a {{source}}-tag can be added.
  • When I started checking the online sources, I noticed/suspected those series of quotes are all from one source, listed at the bottom of the series.
  • Now when there are series of quotes from one source, it is Wikiquote custom to add them in one subchapter... as I did.
  • (Just for the record) another option is to source the first quote, and to repeat the source info in abbreviated form or not.

I hope this explains. If Saravask has no objection, I can rearrange the whole article like this. -- Mdd (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I see. Thanks for the explanation, Mdd. I've no objection to such a rearrangement.
  • Ningauble, who added those tags, also pruned the lead. If consensus/policy/whatever says that supposedly unsourced quotes and/or lead bloat be removed, it would be great if that stuff could be saved here on talk in case customs change in the future. I thought that was pretty customary here on WQ. Regards. Saravask (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Mdd for exemplifying a clearer arrangement with section headings to group quotes from the same source. This should also be done for several other sections in the article that still list multiple items before identifying their common source.

    Regarding trimming the introduction, see the Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia policy: "A short introduction is used to identify an article's subject and, if needed, indicate why it is notable." Longer expositions and biographical materials belong at Wikipedia. For politicians it is usually enough to identify their highest office held and/or their party affiliation and highest office sought. (Compare the length of introductions for the American presidents Bush.)

    It is not necessary to save deleted article content on the talk page, it is all archived in the article history like this. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Mdd re-pruned the lead per your reasons. I didn't claim that it was necessary to save, but "customary" was the wrong word. I saw a few talk pages on WQ (out of those I bothered to check) with "unsourced" sections. It can get very tedious to dig out old content from long histories, and others would not even know it was there to be sourced or reformatted or whatever. Also, had at first thought that yours edits were a gratuitous mala fide drive-by tag bombing, something sometimes seen on WP articles; should have AGF. Thanks for your clarifications. Saravask (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

More standardized source info[edit]

It seems to be harder, than I though, because the source info itself needs some update to fulfill the current standards. See for example here. Let me explain some more, with the following source info, which was here:

This should be split in two.

  • First a clear description of the primary source, and eventually a secondary source
  • Then possibly a description of the context of the event

In this example it should be split into:

... To be continued -- Mdd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a try updating the source info of the article, and in the end I trimmed the intro as well. I do think further improvements could be made here, but I think the article is properly cleanup now. -- Mdd (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, Mdd. Looks good from my side. Saravask (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. In this more advanced layout more quotes can be added, preferable from secondary source, such as for example here. -- Mdd (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

About the "About Narendra Modi" section[edit]

One more thing about the "About Narendra Modi" section. We normally don't allow such large sections, and if so there is normally just one quote from every source. Also not all the quotes directly relate to Modi. So I think this section could and should be trimmed down.

I would suggest moving the sections from Bibek Debroy, Swapan Dasgupta, S. Nambi Narayanan to separate Wikiquote articles, leaving just one quote here, because these people are notable enough on their own. Preferable other sections should be trimmed down to one or two quotes, and/or also moved to separate articles if possible. -- Mdd (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one quote (the most arresting one revealing a lot about Modi) can be left here for each notable quotee. Though some in-line big-picture or non-Modi context would inevitably be hidden (it would be a perhaps non-obvious click away). And if citing policy/convention you or someone else must completely delete sections from seemingly non-notable quotees (possibly Zafar Sareshwala, Jashoda, etc.) due to convention/policy, then whatever, so be it. Saravask (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, now that the S. Nambi Narayanan article is created, the section is trimmed down (to one quote). -- Mdd (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in "About Modi" section, which does not directly relate to Modi[edit]

"Narendra Modi: the social reformer", 2013[edit]

Bibek Debroy, "Narendra Modi: the social reformer" (18 November 2013)

  • And the fifth and final principal [...] is the recognition that poor people are not voluntarily poor. They are poor because they lack the physical infrastructure, because they lack the social infrastructure. People do not necessarily want to be subsidised. So once you enable people to improve their lives, they will go ahead and do that, and you can notice it even in the traditional deprived areas of Gujarat, where farmers have now diversified. They've gone on into dairy, animal husbandry, horticulture, floriculture, and the marketing networks have been established. The reason I'm mentioning all of this is [that] quite often there is an impression that the "Gujarat story" is about Vibrant Gujarat and it's about corporate-sector Gujarat. It isn't.
  • [...] India is too overly centralised. [...] we have central-sector schemes [with] very, very rigid templates. [...] ideally, of course, we should scrap all of those centrally sponsored schemes. But we're stuck with those. One of the things that Gujarat has been able to do is to plug the gaps in those centrally sponsored schemes with its own state-level schemes. And that's very important because there are states which have not been able to do that. They've not been able to plug the gaps [...] And Gujarat has been able to do that because of the fiscal consolidation work that was done. And this is pretty important because this is sometimes not recognised [...] because of bad reporting in the newspapers and people not bothering to check. And quite often therefore you'll have reports that say that Gujarat is the most indebted, uh, state in the country, which is of course not true. But it sort of floats around and people don't bother to check. Gujarat has had a pretty successful experiment at reducing the debt and creating the fiscal latitude to improve the RTE and add to it with its own state-level interventions.