Talk:2014 Indian general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:ECI logo.jpg

Image:ECI logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Links

>> Election Commission sets ball rolling for Lok Sabha polls in 2014>> Full transcript: Stand by my report on no evidence against Modi, says SIT chief RK Raghavan to NDTV>> Infographic: How India forms a government*(Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)).

AAP Infobox

AAP are a minor party unrepresented in parliament, that is not a reason to post them here as then every other represented party will have to be put in the infobox.Lihaas (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Congress hasn't announced its' candidate yet as well, so this section has been added too early.

--RaviC (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Aam Aadmi Party is the third most powerful party in India as per many polls. Party has already announced to contest 300+ candidates. So with the facts we can not underestimate to Aam Aadmi Party as minor. After debut in Delhi legislative assembly election, 2013, party has clear mandate for major role in Indian general election, 2014. GKCH (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

One election in one state/territory does not constitute a serious contender in a national scale. If that was the case, other parties such as the AIADMK etc.. would also have to be here. I'm not doubting that he may have an effect, but placing AAP here is far too early.

And as it is, he hasn't even announced his candidature for the role of PM. So this is factually inaccurate.

--RaviC (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few hours now so I'll go ahead and revert to the edition with full consensus. --RaviC (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you that one state does not constitute a serious contender in a national scale e.g. AIADMK. But If you will analyze the status of huge effect and mandate/ influence, you may assumed that Aam Aadmi Party will be the third National wise party even may be second. As Aam Aadmi Party has already said that they will contest for 300+ seats after buildup base ground, that mean they are major party national wise not state wise.Aam Aadmi Party already stated that they will contest for all seats in Maharastra, Gujrat, Haryana and Delhi and accessing for other states. Its for future but we can add Aam Aadmi Party in Infobox, this is my strong view. So please rethink about this. GKCH (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Guys, don't edit war as you are almost on 3RR.

As for the content, I agree with Ravi. AAP has no "huge mandate" on the national level and that is OR/Synthesis. Further calling it the "third most powerful party" is also not only OR/Synthesis but wrong as it has no power in a territory of a small population without even a plurality at that. Lets see its legislative agenda occurring then adjudge its power. Media sensationalism is not reality. Also note that just because it is running in a place does not men it will win, that does not mean they are a major party. Lots of other parties run in constituencies. I really don't comprehend your logic here.Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GKCH, I'm not ruling their addition to the box out, but it's too early to predict what impact they will have, especially in rural constituencies. As time goes on, if it seems like they will be a major contender, then I will have no problems adding them to the infobox. --RaviC (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We cant add it in saying "if it seems", there has to be objective fact. That will only happen after the election result if outLihaas (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with that. --RaviC (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ɳ

My last revert

I have reverted the edits which was edited by User:Sanatan2014, because,

• The third front had existed in the year 2009, so I believe it should be added in the list (feel free to correct me)
• UPA has more seats than NDA (2009 election) so UPA should be written first.

Shriram^Talk 12:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dodgy that first one . True it has seats currently, but per the edit summary adding it, if it doesnt exis t for this then its no relevance to 2014.

AGreed wholly. Only the post-election will change that. Although their 2009 composition has changed today. There is a tab to reflect the change in the last election and current composition.(Lihaas (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)).

AAP

Hi Sriram,

If that is the case, it has to be mentioned that Wikipidea is giving publicity for only two parties and influencing people's decision by highlighting NDA and UPA. The format of the page has to be changed in such a way that all parties are recognized equally. It should not be not used for highlighting a few and mentioning others as 'other party', thus giving less importance to new parties. A few things required: 1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties 2. Remove parties from 'other parties' in contents section and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA 3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same 4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first as it is a new party of high importance in INDIA after Delhi elections

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right off the bat, AAP will not be put first with prominence as "high importance" is subjective, it did not exist in the last election adn has no seats so presuming it iwll gain is WP:Crysal ball.

Previously consensus has been to represent by the largest parties/alliances in existence in parliament as we cant hve more than 9 parties in the infobox (and we rarely put more than 3 for readability)., Since there are 2 major alliacnes and 2 major parites weve currently stuck to that as it was getting cumbersome to decice on the 3rd (which i beleive right now is Smajwadi) and the shifting alliances for the "third front" (itself controversil here)Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My point is different. When given as an election page for 2014, it should not pick up last year results and highlight them as bigger parties. ( let us not take for now that Congress failed so pathetically against AAP in Delhi election. ). Need to remember that AAP is contesting in almost 350 constituencies.

The structure of the election 2014 would be such that it give equal importance to all parties. I would like to disuss the earlier mentioned points individually rather than a vague answer. Highlighting them again below

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties

2. Remove parties from 'other parties' in contents section and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA

3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first as it is a new party of high importance in INDIA after Delhi elections

Soorejmg (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, we in wikipedia have what is called Neutral point of view. I suggest you to go through it. Contesting 350 does not mean victory, besides its not even a national party. We can't be biased enough to consider the so called high importance. Arguing in a same way as you did, NDA should be first because it has been projected to form the government while the aap has been hardly considered in that projection. Also because of the Modi wave, which is being discussed all over the country. The fact that the congress is put first is because it had won the highest tally of seats in 2009. Why don't you give us a good reason? Shriram^Talk 20:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

you have clearly ignored what was said before. AAP will not by any stretch of the imagination get the prominence you want...and the uquestion rises if you are part of the prrty?Lihaas (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sriram, To simplify the question- The objective of the page should be to tell people the details of general election in a such a manner that every party contesting election gets equal importance. It should not create wrong impression on people mind from the previous election results or such historic ideas. In the page , Modi and Rajiv Gandhi alone are being pictured as main people. Until the election is complete for 2014, no one is important than other. So the format of the page should be such that all parties gets equal importance. For this purpose, 4 points which I suggested above is important. Contesting 350 seats is showing the importance that the party has the ability to keep that many candidates across country which makes it important ( that part is any way not important for the page format). I am also not asking to highlight modi based on modi trend. They are just assuming that one is going win before the actual result comes out. What we require is just a format which gives equal importance as mentioned above. Highlighting the 4 points that will guarentee equal importance to all people-

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties

2. Remove parties from 'other parties' in contents section and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA

3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first as it is a new party of high importance in INDIA after Delhi elections Soorejmg (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Equal importance? You are asking to put aap first by quoting the words High importance. Seriously? It is not creating any wrong impression, you are just assuming things. Do you want to add all the independent candidates? Because as far as your argument is concerned, they should not be left out. Your suggestion is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I seriously don't think it is of high importance, especially after what happened at Delhi. If it does any impact in elections. We will surely add it. But for now I believe only the national parties should considered. Now don't say it will be too late. You can't use wikipedia for election canvas. Shriram^Talk 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say Wikipedia is being used now for canvasing of Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi, UPA and NDA. My suggestion is pretty straight forward and simple. Remove this canvasing of Modi and Rahul. Other wise gives add PM candidates /Leader of all parties. That is the least than can be done.

Could you give an inline reason for each point why it cannot be done?-

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties

2. Remove parties from 'other parties' in contents section and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA

3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first as it is a new party of high importance in INDIA after Delhi elections

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Do your homework now. Read this. If you think this article is being used for canvasing, complain here. Shriram^Talk 15:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Surpising that you are not willing to give inline answers!!!

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties

2. Remove parties from 'other parties' in contents section and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA

3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first as it is a new party of high importance in INDIA after Delhi elections

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously dude. Go through those five pillars and then read your above four points. You'll come to know how biased those four points are. Shriram^Talk 12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously friend, give an inline comment on each point. It will clarify the points instead of deviating away.

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties

2. Remove parties from 'other parties' in contents section and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA

3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY firs if you say there no importance in the order in which parties are listed

Thanks Soorej 116.15.45.112 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shriram, Waiting for your reply.

Hi EvergreenFir, Inviting you here . EvergreenFir. Help to solve this if you can.

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Please correct the spelling of "Satewise" to "Statewise" Dayalrajendran (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)  Done(Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).

Already done Apparently by Lihaas who forgot to close this request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion poll

Please update the mentioned section. Headlines Today withdraw its opinion poll result given by c-voter after controversy(sting operation done on c-voter). Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Source?(Lihaas (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).

[1] Plese visit link Thanks. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 16:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).

•  Not done source still exist. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The controversy is mentioned in the section with your source.Lihaas (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• My question is since they have suspended cvoter then what is a point of adding that source ? --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That came later. The sourec itself indicates this outcomes and there is no evidence that this particular poll was rigged. Yet as theire is doubt the caveat is givenLihaas (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox information has been persistent reverted back to earlier revisions. i added a comment " not being mp doesn't specify anything. to be a leader you need to be a mp and for that seat is to be decided" to specify that seat is yet to be decided and should not be changed. And more too both of them in the infobox are leaders. the mere fact that one is a declared PM candidate and another is just not declared but he is leading the elections as Head of election campaign. that just make no difference at all to be added to infobox rather this should be added and expanded by adding it to the content of election campaign. therefore there is no need to add this "not mp" and "PM candidate" or "Head of election campaign" in the infobox

Khushank94 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You seek consensus BEFORE a change not after.

Anyways on the content tbe note (added by others) indicated that one is NOT the PM candidate as the leader position generally implies. ON most occasion the leader IS the candidate hence the caveat here(Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).

So, to counter there are no PM candidature allowed in Parlimentry Democracy -Khushank94 (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says youre not allowed a PM candidate? I don't see any constitutional proviso indicating this. ALL the parliamentary democracies in fact DO this previously (you have debates in certain countries). India never used to do this, but now it has with Modi being declared.Lihaas (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just Some Days or Moments ,i can say...Khushank94 (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WHat?

And please don't remove/change without consensus first.Lihaas (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

need consensus...explained fully in my first comment.....Khushank94 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I replied. You dint provide any other comment before unilaterally changing again.

Also do NTO meddle with others people's talk pages commentcs. thatll get you a block!Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

NOT intersted at allKhushank94 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In my view Votes Are not needed and are simply not necessary.Khushank94 (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC) please provide me with a source on ECI website explaining all six together. I have just no problem with all these being here but why not decrease them to four removing the last two because they are not national parties.Khushank94 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Votes are definitely interesting, as the Indian electoral system is not proportional. I had first suggested (see below) to list the 6 national parties, Lihaas suggested going by the election result instead. Personally I would see no problem expanding the box even further, to 9 or 12 parties. In 2009 the two largest parties combined did not pass 50% of the vote, and the outcome of the election is not just a battle between Rahul and Modi. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a further comment, at present (apart from infobox) the article makes no mention at all of BSP whatsoever, in spite of it having been the 3rd largest party in 2009. --Soman (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If I get it right, the INC leader does not apply for a seat in the parliament, while all the others do. In that case I think there should be a note "Not a PM candidate" for the INC leader and nothing for the others.

Next, if the BJP leader has no seat currently, then his seat should be just simple "—" or "None". — Petr Matas 11:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of the party leaders don't even contest LS polls at all, the "leader's seat" passage is highly Anglocentric. --Soman (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a bit trouble to understand:

• What do you mean by "even" and "at all"?
• Does "LS" mean "Lok Sabha"?
• Does "passage" mean "section"?

Don't hesitate to reply inline. — Petr Matas 06:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

LS is Lok Sabha. What I meant is that in Indian politics, one should not assume that party leaders stand as candidates themselves. If we look at 2004 & 2009 elections, Manmohan Singh did not stand as candidate in any seat. In the 2009 elections, amongst the top 6 parties only the BJP had their leader standing as a candidate. --Soman (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In my veiw it should be a simple thumb rule, choose one that(who) is in command. Khushank94 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's present it like this:

Leader	Rahul Gandhi	Narendra Modi
Leader's seat
– current	Amethi	—
– contested	—	Varanasi

— Petr Matas 13:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

that will be a little ambiguous but you can still Go ahead you can try it out, as long as others don't revert it. this all is needed before election afterwards it doesn't matter that they were incumbent or not. -Khushank94 (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I did it, but User:Sanatan2014 continues warring without seeking for consensus. — Petr Matas 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As I am uninvolvd in ##this aspect, I have reverted him and warned him again to discuss .

Good to see consensus was agreed here.

Okey, theres a cock up now. i cant figure it out. Could you do it again?Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure :-) — Petr Matas 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better now...Whats say? -Khushank94 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I was not able to swap it like that the word 'seat' came down to new row. -Khushank94 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Was there any opposition to having more than 2 parties in the box? Or can be reinstate the larger listing there now? --Soman (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

National parties can be put there, but not state parties, as then it will clutter the space there. Logical1004 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Schedule Map

We already have SVG file for election constituency of india which was used for 2009 election results. Here Map. And map of constituency with dates of election on Election Commission website here. Can someone with vector graphics editor like Inkscape or Photoshop use both maps and create on for this article. Its easy. I do not have computer else i have done so. Regards Nizil (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yyou can request it at the graphics workshop(Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).

Just to double-check; there hasn't been any changes in the constituencies between 2009 and 2014? --Soman (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Party position

Hello. The parties section of article seems to be a victim of edit wars. Anyway, I think here on Wikipedia things added keeping previous records in mind until new output come. On this particular note, I feel the UPA won previous general elections, they need to be mentioned first(one can make changes on Indian general election, 2019 page, if NDA wins Indian general election, 2014). I hope wikipedians are getting what I am trying to depict. I might be wrong on this, please help.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 19:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of not taking sides in the election, the neutral position of alphabetical arrangement is fairer.

The infobox is separate however as it specifically depicts the number of seats, the campaign section is irrelevant to the size of the organization. One could also, arguably, insist that the campaign sized of different parties is not what is rpresented in the Lok Sabha in 2009.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have to say that again. Why are you following alphabetical order for NDA and UPA only ? Do justice with rest of party name also. I suggest you to follow alphabetical trend for the whole section. You could say both are major parties that's why but this would be a contradict. Please correct me if I'm missing something--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, youre right. the other alliance should be in the same form too. (as mentioned on your talk page) (and good spot!). Feel free to move third front in between these two.

Also as note "other" is not the next alliance, its just a combination of all those left out. So as "miscelleaneous " its tacked on there at the end.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Logical1004 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but for edit summary you should insert "per talk". Anyhooo...job well done.

You reverted yourself ?Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The ruling party (majority) gets mention first. Look at United States presidential election, 2000 and United States presidential election, 2004 the ruling party gets the mention first. That's Democratic in 2000 and Republican in 2004.--Kinderlander (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC) If it is Alphabetical then Aam Aadmi Party has to be mentioned first not NDA or BJP. So it is always the ruling party that gets the first mention. And it is not alphabetical. --Kinderlander (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Agree

I agree with Kinderlander and 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS, ruling party should be mentioned first. There is nothing about giving priority to any political party here, its just a general idea that other articles on Wikipedia are following. Logical1004 (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas, you are reverting every edit of party swapping instead of discussing. Kinderlander and 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS do have a point here. Please discuss here instead of swapping the parties. Logical1004 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Logical1004 at the very beginning I asked him whether is it possible to put party position according to previous general elections. Also Lihaas edit seems to be pro-BJP (Please don't take it as a personal attack/ offense, I am just expressing my views). One more thing, Controversy section should include controversy happened or happening to Indian general election, 2014, not what happened in Narendra Modi's rally.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 08:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Per OSE, we dont have to follow another election. We agreed here befoer that per NPVO it is alphabetical. Also the 2000 article suppotrs my assertion of alphabetical

Also you dont have a consensus just becaus eyou posted here. We need discussion first before consensus is given.#

The infobox has the ruling party. This is NPVO. I also said above that per the user if he wants to move the other one he can, but he himself moved it back to this.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is alphabetical AAP will be first. But I disagree that it is alphabetical, but has to be ruling party. --Kinderlander (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

NIBODH (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, provide reliable sources for any changes you want made. Cannolis (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) will put up 85 candidates in nine states in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls, party general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharyya said. The party will contest seats in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Punjab, Jharkhand and in Puducherry, Mr. Bhattacharyya said at a press conference. He was accompanied by lone party MLA, Vinod Singh. Mr. Bhattacharyya expressed regret that CPI (ML)’s endeavour to forge an alliance with Left parties had not materialised. But he cautioned the Left parties about joining hands with JD (U). The move by the Left parties, including CPI and CPI (M), to forge an alliance with JD (U) is “not good” as it would only weaken them, Mr. Bhattacharyya claimed while favouring the proposed Third Front. “I would favour a Third Front as an alternative force comprising non-Congress, non-BJP parties,” he said. Demanding a mechanism for fixing prices, the CPI (ML) leader said that the inflation and prevailing corruption was at the root of all the problems plaguing the country. Mr. Bhattacharyya, who had hailed the formation of the Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi, has supported its leader Arvind Kejriwal’s approach on the gas price issue saying it was in the country’s interest. CPI (ML) strongly opposes privatisation of any natural resource as these belong to the people of the country, he asserted. The party is also opposed to the acquisition of agricultural land for industrial purposes and recruitment on contractual basis or against honorariums, he said. Referring to the recent killing of AJSU party leader Tileshwar Sahu in Barhi, Hazaribagh, Mr. Bhattacharyya said that the killing was a sequel to a political conspiracy and should be probed by CBI.

Do you have a source?(Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)).

Here is the source: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-03-10/news/48084074_1_cpi-left-parties-third-front , I'll add it to the article --Soman (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bombings

The bombings occurred at an election rally that is pertinent to this election page.(Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)).

Elections are going to happen in India soon and malevolent things always happens at different party rallies. My question is would you add each and every occurrence or just related to NDA or Narendra Modi ?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why only NDA or BJP? Any such incident during the election campaign of any party needs space here. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct, that is what I want to exhort. Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, all related incidents do warrant posting. and if it happened for others, wed still list it. min you, its an election rally Lihaas (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely pertinent for the article. However, it is not a 'controversy'. Rather we could include it in BJP section or in a 'time-line' section. --Soman (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Agree

I despise the time line section as they really add nothing encyclopaedic are merely a list of links. But dont mind it being moved elsewhere. Feel free to do soLihaas (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

October 30, 2013 meeting of non-congress, non-BJP parties

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Fourteen-parties-close-ranks-against-communalism/articleshow/24950421.cms lists the People's Party of Punjab as attendee, but that contradicts the Indian Express reference in the article. Any clarity on this? --Soman (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Metropolis vote

I removed the passage "The eight largest metropolises in India are considered important because they constitute 31 seats, larger than some regions altogether. In the previous election, the INC-led UPA won 24 of these seats, but the UPA is trailing in these areas." Whilst the two authors of the article in question are entitled to their opinion, the analysis is extremely thin and I see no reason for Wikipedia to reproduce the argument in this article. There has to be tens of thousands of commentaries on the Indian elections, and we cannot reproduce all.

First of all, the authors make the argument "Clearly, there was support for UPA amongst the urban, big-city Indians at the time. While these cities are spread across the country, their cosmopolitan nature and economic profile puts them closer to each other than to their immediate hinterland, in our view." Looking at the outcome of the 2009 elections, that analysis is clearly flawed. What would be the linkage between an AIMIM voter in Hyderabad and a Trinamool voter in Kolkata? In reality, Indian elections represent a myriad different scenarios, and the Trinamool vote in Kolkata should be seen in backdrop of state politics (anti-incumbency vote against WB state government), the AIMIM vote is a communal vote (not a vote for UPA as such), the Chennai situation is yet another one, Mumbai and Maharashtra has its own processes, etc., etc..

Looking at demographics, the 8 metropolis counts for 5.3% of the Lok Sabha seats. In many other countries that number would be far higher, it's quite common that the capital city alone accounts for 10-20% of the seats in a national parliament. Contrary to the argument in the "India Spend" article, it is the rural vote that is the king-maker in India, to the frustration of political pundits, twitterati, AAP and neoliberals. Remember how the pundits failed to predict the 2004 outcome? The answer lies in their bias to see correlation in strength of urban and rural votes. --Soman (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We can select and choose to dismiss. it s from a RS, that notable itself. I disagree with removing, but if you want to reword it differently then thats a compromise.Lihaas (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't any material no recycle here. The authors of the article try to connect disparate developments, whilst in reality urban/rural votes moved differently per the state context (such as in West Bengal). There is no distinct, generic 'urban voter' at the national level in India. --Soman (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What is "reality"? Where did you get that from? Surely you are not indulging in Synehtesis and self-analysis against RS. Come one, you should know better. Counter it with RS, not self-perceptionLihaas (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, we are not forced to reproduce every commentary we find on line. We are, without entering into WP:OR, able to dismiss the relevance of an online article. "India Spend" is hardly a key reference on contemporary Indian politics. --Soman (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I am not saying we hae to include everything. But it could be notable. You havent given adequate reason to remove it other than your personal analysis which is synthesis based on you personally disagreeing ewith the analysis. You are not RS, questioning the other RS is better placed at RSN.

FY, its now removed from this pageLihaas (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Complexities of alliances

I think that the article has to be reconstructed somehow. The Lok Sabha poll is not a straight, US-style contest between two major national parties. Alliances such as UPA and NDA are extremely fluid and their compositions will certainly change once the results are out and ministries are being allocated. The reality is that alliances are set on state levels, and that each state has its own dynamics. For example, the UDF in Kerala is not the same as the UPA, the Kerala, the fact that the RSP is contesting as part of the UDF does not make RSP a UPA constituent. Notably in West Bengal RSP is contesting as part of the Left Front, against NDA and UPA partners. Likewise the All India Forward Bloc is a partner of the Left Front in West Bengal, but is contesting against the Left Democratic Front in Kerala. The Samajwadi Party is aligned with a third front in Jammu and Kashmir, but that alliance is limited to that state alone. Whilst seat-sharing between Janata Dal (Secular) and left parties has failed to bear fruit in Karnataka, JD(S) is allotted a seat as LDF candidate in Kerala. Etc, etc.

I propose that we: 1) Include parties, not alliances, in infobox. Prior to the election the resonable inclusion criteria is the six national parties recognised by the Election Commission. 2) Having a section on alliances, with subsections for each of the two main alliances (UPA and NDA). But no subsections on the constituent parties. 3) Having section on parties, with short subsections on the parties contesting: one each for national parties, one each for recognised state parties and others currently represented in Lok Sabha and one common subsection for 'Others' not covered in the other categories. --Soman (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a naional campaign for the election which has pre-poll alliances. If there are changes we can mention that, there is also provision for "other" parties.

Agree with the infobox assertion, though the number of parties is best represented by the result in the previous election as NPOV. I diasgree though on the second styatement. It would be odd fo r having a large section on alliance only. The current format cpompletes thisLihaas (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sanatan2014 reverted the expansion of the infobox, and added a caption stating: "Dont add Smaller Parties like BSP, SP, CPIM and all.. Before Adding pleaset Discuss in Talk Page". It could be mentioned that these 2 4 "Smaller Parties" had a combined vote of over 75 million in 2009. The question is if we should expand to further 9 or 12?, anyhow it would be an arbitrary cut. --Soman (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As per the "Pre-Poll alliance" passage, I see the following issues in quick reading:

• It lists RSP as a UPA affiliate. RSP contests as part of UDF (Congress alliance) in Kerala, but contests as part of Left Front (against Congress) in West Bengal. Should it be listed twice?
• No seat sharing arrangements have been done with JD(U), BJD or SP, so in what sense are they in alliance? With JD(S) this is only relevant for the Kottayam seat, not the Karnataka seats.
• Lok Janshakti Party is listed as NDA. In Jammu & Kashmir it contests as part of the CPI(M)-initiated People's United Front.

--Soman (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Soman, as per the Eelection Commission of India, There are only Two Collations (Alliances) are Registered Officially which are NDA (The First Alliance Registered in 1998) and UPA registered in 2004. So General Elections are contested mainly on the basis of Alliance & Pre-poll understandings. So I request you to not add inbox with those small Parties which are not yet formed any alliance officially. Let them Join together and form alliance then, lets consider 75 million of votes... You can add their Details in Parties Menu - Other Sub Menu.. Warm Regards.. Sanatan2014 (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Soman for the correction of infobox.

• I agree that individual parties mainly National parties should be there in the infobox as recognised by the Election Commission of India, but we may avoid putting state recognised parties as it may clutter the space, even though their role is also important and they have a large vote share too.
• RSP can be mentioned twice- one with UPA in Kerala, and one with Left Front in West Bengal. Similarly LJP can be mentioned twice, with CPM in Jammu and Kashmir and with NDA in Bihar.
• Sanatan2014 can you give reference that UPA and NDA are registered alliances with Election Commission of India as I couldn't find any references on ECI website. I know that ECI have 6 registered national parties, so its better to put the infobox in that way, instead of alliance, until this discussion is closed. Logical1004 (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanatan2014, just after commenting here you can't revert the infobox until this discussion is closed. Just commenting here doesn't mean you have discussed. So don't revert the infobox again. Logical1004 (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(Logical1004) & Soman Samajwadi Party & Trinamool Congress are not National Parties. Please Remove the same.. Warm Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanatan2014, I agree on that. Thanks.

There are no registrations of NDA nor UPA. A quick google reveals that. And whilst SP or AITC are not recognized as 'national parties' by ECI, they do have branches across India. Trinamool has various branches in north-east India, SP has branches as far south as Kerala. --Soman (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS doesnt prove anything affirmately. les wait per AGF if there is a source for the assertion.

Also, ALL parties (or manyu) have candidates across their region and others. theres a disconnect in that contention of regional.Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

comment: stop edit warring to have your way. As a veteran editor, Soman, you should very well known that your BIOLD edit to add them all was reverted, so per BRD cease and desist from warring on it till there is consenssu aachieved here.Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 The undersigned user condemn the use of words "advani drama" by an editor and would like the user to Assume good faith.
 The undersigned user would like to ask the editor to refrain from using such words.-Khushank94 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What? Whos entering anything into the mainspace. Please discuss content instead of getting personally invovled. Clearly we have an issue here that needs resolving, instead f getting personally invovled.Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Seats Won in Last Election

According to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009>: Seats won by INC, BJP and CPI(M) are 262 159 79 respectively. However, this page erroneously describes: Last election 119,110,776 votes (28.55%), 206 seats 78,435,538 (18.80%), 116 seats 25,728,889 votes (6.17%), 21 seats

Could someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BharathSampath93 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing seats per coalition with seats per party. Considering that these coalitions (in particular the 'Third Front' which has no solid structure of its own, and is a non-entity in 2014) evolve heavily over time and have arbitrary inclusion mechanisms, it's better to compare by party. --Soman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

pronvinces or states.

this article is about INDIA and here we don't use any such word such as provinces. so, why not change it with states or others where ever needed see this ,[2]. -Khushank94 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos

A few more photos of public meetings and banners extra should be added to the article. Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wee need free images for that. If you have some, then itd be great ot add it.(Lihaas (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)).

Process check box

This was done int he previous multi-phase UP election during the process to indicate where ti is. When it is done then it is removed altogether. Its sort of an idnciator of an iongoing event as the page is read during the phases.[3](Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)).

it's alright to add process but those big crosses " Not done" give out a dangerous look, like something is urgently need to be done. so, you can add process in a way like completed or not. -Khushank94 (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but then how do you propose to do this?(Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)).

I have done it above simply write "completed or not". -Khushank94 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats why we have teh  Done to show its done and otherwise its not. WE did the same thinkg in UP election until the process was over and then rem,oved it altogether. Its only in the itnerim.Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

you can do so but dont put those big crosses -Khushank94 (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So what do you suggst? As I said we used this before in UP elections in the interim till the process if over then '##removed it altogether.Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

something more

i would also like to propose that a part of edit [4] be undone because -

1. 'shadow finance minister' means nothing because there is no distribution of any such portfolios in India.
2. also, inserting DMDK, MDMK and PMK as a heading will be fine because to general public in India the full form is not known and it will also make the contents box look alike.
3. the Retiring MPs template should be swapped to the end because unlike other representative democracies, a lot of leaders change there seat, they don't have a fixed seat i.e. there standing down doesn't matter a lot and the list is not complete though.

-Khushank94 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Shadow Cabinet means something, and this is sourced here.
2. Then we have to do the same for all. To be consistent and neutral we cant selectively cut only a few.
3. Its consistent with other such pages. And its not about changing seats, its about those retiring ie- not running altogether.Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Shadow Cabinet means something, But outside India..not here. the source is completely ambiguous, it never states anything like 'shadow finance minister'
2. ....blank?
3. is not the content and issues more important than this. -Khushank94 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Umm, India does have it, otherwise the source would not say shadow fin min
2. what?
3. what, sorry dont understand?Lihaas (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1. have a look,the source does not say "shadow".
2. blank- i mean we are discussing about it and the content is just blanked out by someone
3. the issues of election should come first and then everything else -Khushank94 (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. hmm, "potential" seems to indicate that. But anyhoo, removed. Done
2. well, i guess its solved then?
3. but its chronological(Lihaas (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)).

Alliance table

Since there are too many rables (and resulst are yet to come), I have moved it t o themore encyclopaedic prose format. Also those in the party that are not competing (eg GJM) have been remvoed as that is then irrelevant here, it can go on the NDA articleLihaas (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Linkspam

Loksabha-2014 (talk · contribs) is creating several articles on the elections in the different states (like Indian general election, 2014 (Uttar Pradesh)), copypasting from his/her own blog with his/her own blog as reference. This clearly constitutes linkspam and as the blog is anonymous it does not conform with being WP:RS. Can we just redirect these copyvio articles, awaiting that they can be rewritten with proper sources? --Soman (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Put the template on the article and send the user a message first and wait if the article is expanded or not. If not, we can redirect the pages. Logical1004 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just figured out there are articles for Indian general election like Indian general election, 2009 (Delhi) and many others. So let these articles be there, but ask for putting more references and avoiding copy-paste. Logical1004 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I share the concern for issue raised by Soman, as the page List of members of the 16th Lok Sabha (which is a redirect[5] for now) will hold all information of this kind.
Also, The articles like Indian general election, 2009 (Delhi) should be contested for deletion as List of members of the 15th Lok Sabha contains all the necessary information.
Anyhow, I would support the expansion of article if they are made to carry local issues and information that cannot be accommodated here. but there is a very little scope for it especially for the article relating to 2009 election. -Khushank94 (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely a valid subject to have separate articles on the election in each state. The problem here is that a non-RS blog is used as source and that the articles are essentially copyvios. --Soman (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

non-RS source should be removed and content should be verifiable.- -Khushank94 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirectedf them here as the content is verbatim the same as the list of candidatges page. (which in turn will be the same essewntialy as that of the 16th Lok Sabha)Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Article size

per WP:Article size, the page is much too long and need trimming. Im doing some now, but well probs need more in a bit.(Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)).

Trimmed the Opionion polls section adn the giant list in the NDA, when the shorter prose covers the details. Together the 2 removals cut 14k from this page and bring it to 84k. Meaning we have another 15k before further trimmingLihaas (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think campaign part may be moved to a new article with summary of campaign retained here.Something like Campaigning in the 2008 Austrian legislative election.India is a large country with a large number of parties, candidates, voters, seats , phases of elections .It makes sense to have a separate page for campaigning.Shyamsunder (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed (and thought so too), perhaps when we re-reach 100k that can be our next split.(Lihaas (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)).

Thanks. Meanwhile User:Khushank94 has already created the page.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity candidates list can also be put in Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 article and controversy section can be shortened from this article as this has already been kept in the new article.. Logical1004 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity candidate section+ retiring MP section

These both sections seem unnecessary. Celebrity candidates are media attention but here they are not useful. Retiring MPs are not retiring from politics or may come back anytime. They are just not contesting election. No need of separated box. I suggest to remove both. Nizil (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable suggestion. Please remove if none objects.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No objection Logical1004 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

objection Retiring MPs is on the other anglo-speaking election pages (that are organized better too, incidentally)

And celebrity candidates is not media fodder alone, it is precisely this reason that they rare nominated in the first place (Govinda v. Ram Naik). As vote grabs, hence the notability. Though structuring them together or something is okey.(Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)).

Lihaas, IMO such listing of retiring MPs/Celebrity does not help much. Its not always such celebs win. They are eye grabs, not vote grabs. And if such listing is elsewhere, its not compulsory to have it here too. Rather we should focus on more info about election and parties. Its not issue of notability but issue of presentation. There would be large number of MPs/politicians who are not contesting/retiring. If they are not contesting, there is no reason for mentioning them here. Its about who are involved, not about who are not involved. :) Regards-Nizil (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Retiring MPs is a separate issue here. Its also notable per other articles. Where incumbency is a huge factor this is relevant.

Celebs are on the ticket as you say for "eye grabs". why? because it leads to votes. (one and the same) That's what makes the electoral process in India "interesting", to say the least

Again, if you want to merge it into a separate section so as not to give it prominence, that's fine.(Lihaas (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)).

Ok, i am not stretching the issue. I moved section of Retire MPs after Parties section as its better if we put them after list of parties. Clarify: Chidambaram his seeking Rajyasabha seat so he will be Again become MP - thus not retiring. I changed title by adding Not Contesting. Is it Ok? -Nizil (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we move info about Retiring MPs to their respective Parties in prose?? What do you say? -Nizil (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In consistency , id rather not. But ill differ to consensusLihaas (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

This talkpage is getting long. Can anyone Archive inactive/closed/possibly not repeatedly discussed topics and make it short? Regards, -Nizil (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)