Jump to content

Talk:Aam Aadmi Party/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

AAP website

Aam Aadmi Party official website is AamAadmiParty.Org.
Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.223 (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting non-free logos

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation for discussion. - Sitush (talk)

Please note that we have a potential copyright problem here relating to non-free use rationale. It is for that reason I opened the above discussion. Until the issue is resolve, please do not mess with the logos any further. I will revert on sight under the copyright provisions of WP:3RR. As the discussion indicates, we now have three possible files and there are implications for other articles also, eg: the BJP article. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that WP:3RRNO only applies to images that "unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" (emphasis original). That is not the case here. For the purposes of NFCC#8 there is a clear interest in showing the symbol that has been allocated to the party, on much the same grounds that we show logos at all. This is true whether or not the other logo is shown, as it does not have this role. Finally, the copyright taking here, per eg NFCC#2, is minimal: this image has been specifically created for the purpose that it should become closely associated with the party; including it in an article comprehensively presenting the party is in the public interest; and no financial interest is in any way affected by its use here. Jheald (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I could say twaddle but what is most obvious here is that you are presently not doing well in the linked discussion and yet have decided nonetheless to reinstate an image that, for example, has already gone at Commons and is definitely a copyright violation. Yes, we may have a non-free rationale but right now that is in the air and thus the image should not be here. You could, of course, argue the same for the other image and I have no objection to that being removed until the matter is resolved. There is certainly no benefit in showing the pair here while the discussion continues and as you claim: the discussion already provides a similar example at the BJP article. This strikes me as a purely point-y reinstatement. - Sitush (talk)
Fair use is not a copyright violation, or even a copyright infringement. It's a First Amendment right, expressed concretely in black-letter law at 17 USC 107 in the U.S. Statutes. Being unsuitable for Commons does not make something a copyright infringement. So start off by getting the basics right.
Secondly, it's standard procedure while an image is under discussion, either at WP:NFCR or at WP:FFD, to leave the image on the page in context. This has two advantages: (i) discussants can see exactly what the image is, in context, and how it's used; and (ii) it prevents the image being auto-deleted as being NFC not currently in use, which can be a pain all round while discussion is still ongoing.
Finally, are you really suggesting that the image by which the party needs to identify itself with at the polls isn't something significant -- at least as significant as the corporate logo on the average corporate article, for example -- for the purpose of the key NFCC #8 requirement? Jheald (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

undue weight and pov pushing

Niticentral is a blog website which publishes BJP party oriented blogs. It is neither notable and reliable.Please stop pov pushing. If you want to add controversy section material please back it up with reliable and notable sources. RouLong (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Both the sources you deleted are reliable professional news sources. NitiCentral is not a "blog" of Kanchan Gupta, but a professional news organisation of which Gupta is the Editorial Director [1]. WP:N applies to the article and not to the source. NitiCentral describes themselves as "a Platform today encompasses Web based Commentary by leading Center Right Columnists like Sandhya Jain, Kanchan Gupta, Shashi Shekhar, Gautam Mukherjee, Atanu Dey, Tavleen Singh and others." [2]. These are all very well known "centre right" columnists from mainstream media. "Publish" means to publish "text" either in print or online. Do you have any reliable (and notable) sources for your assertion that NitiCentral is a BJP party oriented blog ? The fact is that 2 independent news sources published the same fact (ie. AAP spokesperson Kumar Vishwas insulted people on Twitter concerning Viswaas's 4 year old statement praisng Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma as a patriot and his total silence on Kejriwal's statement that Inspector Sharma was a villian gunning down innocent Muslim youth in a fake encounter.) within minutes of each other.TheWikiIndian (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I am not convinced that any controversy section should exist. Aside from the obvious - all political parties attract controversy - in the case of the AAP it would seem likely that determining whether a controversy relates to Kejriwal in a personal capacity or in his party role might be difficult. We currently mention the BH encounter which, I note, has also been subject to "fake" remarks from Digvijaya Singh of the INC.

    I am also wondering whether we need to implement some sort of calming measure for articles such as this in the run-up to elections. I'm not at all sure what would be suitable or even do-able but the influence of on-wiki campaigners both for and against a party can be very disruptive and Indian politics is at least as "dirty" as that found in other major democracies, and arguably more so. Certainly, the input of contributors who rarely edit such articles needs extremely close scrutiny. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • And I've just notice that the pair of you have barely 200 contributions in total and are battling it out on other political topics also. This does not look good. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • the other editor seems to be stalking me everywhere I am editing and is edit warring. I was editing peacefully and in NPOV way but its clear the other editor is aggrieved only with this particular edit of mine about the BH controversy of the spokesperson of AAP and is vindictively undoing all my edits on other pages also. I had only made one edit (this disputed one) to AAP or any AAP persons page till this editor started warring. TheWikiIndian (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And I also note with concern that there was some prolonged edit warring on this article / talk between "Sitush" and other editors including an MTNL Delhi IP range 120.5x.xx.xx resulting in this article being protected against IP edits on 3.Aug. On 4.Aug the other editor opens his account and his first action is to remove the official website link of India Against Corruption which is a movement opposed to AAP, and the same MTNL IP range was also disrupting a BLP of IAC's Convenor Sarbajit Roy on 19 August and then the other editor continues the same edits as the IP when I corrected those disruptive edits.TheWikiIndian (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • oh, please, stalking you when you clearly don't understand difference between reliable source and blog website of particular political inclination and despite telling you so many times , Wiki policies do not allow legal court judgements as source(primarty),you are clearly wikilawyeing on those other articles and pov pushing and undue weight here on adding non notable source niticentral. RouLong (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please reply to the substantive points, and don't evade the controversy. For example, how is NitiCentral a "blog", after that How is it a BJP Party blog ? Do you have any sources to say that Niticentral is a BJP blog, or do they say so themselves ? Take the disc. on WP:Primary to the appropriate talk page.TheWikiIndian (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if they are a BJP blog, but if you read [www.niticentral.com/2013/07/29/aap-sucks-up-to-jihadis-111362.html Their About Page] they explicitly state that they are a biased source designed to push a specific point of view. As such, they do not meet WP:RS--this would be true if they supported or opposed AAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Merely reading the title of that article makes it clear that the article and likely the newspaper isn't reliable for anything other than the opinions of the authors, and I see no indication that the authors are important enough people for their opinions to deserve inclusion here. Furthermore, you are using an obviously biased source to support negative information living people, a clear violation of WP:BLP. This means that I can and will revert you every time you add that, and it is exempt from WP:3RR. And the fact that you would even consider using that source makes it extremely likely that none of your edits to the page can be trusted, because it is clear that you are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia article, but rather to push your own POV (I speak to TheWikiIndian here, just to be clear0). Do not add that source again; if you do, I will seek to have you blocked. It is literally abhorrent to me that you think you can use Wikipedia as a tool in a political battle. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

TheWikiIndian, your efforts of 29 August that I have just reverted were ridiculous. The stuff was sourced, often independently so, and had generally had agreement until your arrival here. It seems to me that you are deliberately attempting to put a spin on this article: please be aware that we are supposed to contribute in a neutral manner and that if you are unable to do so then you should perhaps look for some other area of Wikipedia in which to participate or else go take the political battle someplace else. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Among the items which you deleted and I reinstated are:
  • the origins of the party in the IAC movement and the difference of opinion regarding politicisation
  • some items from the infobox that are not contentious
  • the significance of the various announcement dates
  • a list of agenda items that was indeed correct at August and which are still visible on the AAP website, albeit spanning four separate subpages
  • a perfectly valid explanation of swaraj
  • some brief info regarding their first electoral test
Now, if you can honestly say that your removal of all that was not intended to undermine the article then I will go buy a hat and eat it. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush

TLDR. Nonetheless;

  • I am not deleting to "spin" content, I am deleting to ensure high quality Secondary sources which are consistent with each other. So, lets discuss your reverts 1 Item at a time to cut down EW.
  • The LEDE was pure Original Research. It makes good TV/press to portray it as a difference between 2 "leaders", it was not. Your account of the "split" only starts from Sept 19 2012, why are you so desperate to hide what was widely reported on August 3 2012 when "Team Arvind" actually announced (5 PM on 2nd August 2013) they are going political and forming a political party. Starting from 19th Sept is very convenient for "your" 3 paras on "Background". Do you dispute the reliable sources dated 3-August 2012 I gave which said the announcement to form a party was already made then? Do you want 20 more such leading newspaper/magazine sources with the 2/3-August date as announcing a party would be formed? Do you deny the numerous reliable sources which say the decision by Team Arvind to go political had been taken in April 2012?
  • What did Anna say on and around 3 August against the political option which he did not repeat on 19 Sept ? Please !! if you can say that you are not POV pushing here I will buy you a hat to eat. BTW, whatever happened to WP:AGF. FYI, I had made 1 edit to this page and had moved on until an "excessively pro-AAP" editor (your words) chased me on other articles.
  • I've just read above where you say you're "deaf". If so, please stop shouting at other editors. We can hear you very well, and would probably hear you better without all the aggro which accompanies your talk.

TheWikiIndian (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

TheWikiIndian, I don't see any contradiction between the August 3 announcement and what is in the article currently. As far as I read the August 3 ref you had, on that day, Kejriwal announced the intent to form a party on that date. The references currently in the article state that in September, this lead to a formal split from the "Team Anna", because Hazare did not have the same views on being a part of the political process. Where is there a contradiction? These seem to be wholly consistent. I think it would be fine if we added in the August announcement, though. Note that the revert by Sitush was not likely targetting any one specific change of yours, it was more the fact that you'd changed such a large amount with inadequate explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I explained my rationale for reverting what appeared to me to be rather grotesque deletions of sourced content here. My disability is irrelevant in this context because none of it relates to video sources but instead to the written word. However, just for clarification, deaf people do fairly often tend to shout in the spoken word because they have a different perspective regarding acceptable volume (in my case, practically zero) and, conversely, they generally do not cope well when people shout at them in the spoken word because the act of shouting distorts the face and makes lipreading etc more difficult. Basically, yours was an ill-informed and somewhat low blow ... but hopefully you will now know better than to repeat it. I'm entirely in favour of a bit of basic education but apologise for the off-topic nature response to what might be considered to be an ad hominem attack. In fairness, you did provide some edit summaries for your various removals but they were simply not adequate when contrasted with that which you actually removed. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper : Aap Ki Kranti

Please VERIFY this, since I dispute there is any such "newspaper".

This is the so-called website "http://www.aapkikranti.com/" and this is the only source I could find on it "Aam Aadmi Party to launch Aap Ki Kranti - as newspaper and web channel" [3] saying the paper will be launched from 25 August 2013 quoting some unspecified news report. The website incidentally is registered to an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiIndian (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There are loads of sources for the launch, albeit many probably originate from the same press release - try this. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Having said which, if you go through the edit history then you will see that I, too, had some doubts about this in the past. It was on the AAP website at the time when someone added it here (I checked) but the AAP seem to be a pretty disorganised bunch to me and it is not there now. This is a recent story but I'm not fussed if the thing is removed because it does seem from the description to be more of an internal party newsletter than a newspaper in the sense that most people would understand the word. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not in the least interested on your past views / doubts on this "newspaper". When I deleted it, it was to implement core Wikipedia policies. When you reinsert it back, it leads me to believe you are a closet AAP POV pusher for a "good hand bad hand" routine with the excessive ones. TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Collaborator, The "newspapers" "www.aapkikranti.com and www.aapkikranti.net have actually been operational as far back as Feb 2012 promoting AAP [4]. and were then (as today) functioning under the name of "PEN Magazine" www.thepennews.in to which the website www.aapkikranti.net is redirected with a cloak16:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiIndian (talk • contribs)

Aam Aadmi Party Symbol Broom (in hindi झाड़ू )

Please update Aam Aadmi Party Symbol broom as per today order of election commission of India .120.59.137.63 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please update the AAP symbol alloted by Election Commision SourceNo1
SourceIBNnews
SourceFirstPost
SourceEconomicTimes
SourceTimesofIndia
SourceNewIndianExpress
SourceNDTVnews
SourceNavBharatTimes
SourceNewsTrack
SourceSify

Please Update the Symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.3.168 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the symbol? Those sources confirm that it will be a broom (thanks) but we'll need an image just as we have for other Indian political parties. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I see that there is to be an official launch of the symbol on Saturday. Since we are not a news website, it will do no harm to wait until then before adding anything. We'll have to hope that the symbol is licenced in a suitable manner for use in the article. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The symbol as is seen in the website is not copyrighted as it has been alotted by Election commission of India which any party or Independent candidate can use as per these 1 and [5] Sources. Kindly restore it as it is not copyrighted but Official alloted Image in public interest by an Official Indian Commission. Tall.kanna (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The symbol was added but I removed it. I am not great when it comes to our image-related policies and logos are a particularly nightmarish scenario for me. However, until someone can explain the situation I think it wise not to show a symbol that has been extracted from an image hosted on a copyrighted website (ie: the AAP's website). I'm pretty sure that the AAP would be willing to sort something out for use via WP:OTRS if someone were to email them. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Tall.kanna, the first of those sources is from January and it is legalese - I have no idea what the Commission mean when they say "free" because it is referring to other laws/regulations. The second source does mention the AAP but has no image and, again, uses the "free" word. I still think OTRS permission granted by the party is the best way forward here. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This symbol falls under the type like flag or coat of arms or such and is thus non-copyrightable, just like how other election symbols of other parties are. Even if you disagree with it, the proper venue to debate over this would be Commons as it would gather better and more audience. Until the image is hosted by commons, there is no reason to remove it from here; in other words, removal should actually happen from commons. Side note; when said "free", the Commission means "free for use". Some symbols are free for assignment to other parties also. For example, if AAP is not registered in Andaman & Nicobar and i want to stand from there as independent candidate, the symbol can be assigned to me also. The opposite of it is a "reserved symbol". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There is loads of stuff at Commons that is ineligible for inclusion on en-WP, and vice versa. The fact that other symbols exist is irrelevant: they too may be improperly attributed wrt copyright status etc. I suspect that you are correct about the status but until we have something a bit more substantial than just your opinion, we should err on the side of caution. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me. Will wait till you start the deletion process on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in what happens at Commons, although I've just nominated the present Kejriwal image for deletion there. Commons is a separate project and right now I'd just appreciate some means of verifying the copyright status of this image on this project. I have admitted to being unsure of how copyright works in situations such as this but, prima facie, a derivation of an image hosted on a copyrighted website is going to be a violation.

Can we find a legal alternate to File:Arvind_Kumar_Kejriwal.jpg for use in this article? I'm pretty sure that is unacceptable at Commons and here. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As Dharmadhyaksha said "Will wait till you start the deletion process on Commons" and please stop bickering here over your alleged "Copyvio" allegation without contesting it at WP commons. 120.56.237.93 (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
But you didn't wait, did you? Instead, you reverted me for a fourth time and then posted your message here. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fourth time ? I hope your editing isn't as bad as your counting ? Have you contested the Copyvio or just time passing here with your gibberish comments. 120.56.237.93 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
*1
*2
*3
*4
I also think that you have deliberately logged out to do this stuff and if I am correct then, one day, it will catch up with you. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I can only laugh on your lame edited diff excuse.How could adding information(or actually editing image caption Copyedit) is counted as a revert? Do you want to catch up with me when and where,time and place.I'll advise you to go and file a Sock Puppetry case against me(if you have a suspicion over my edits being influenced by others) but please stop your gibberish conclusions and comments.120.56.237.93 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(EC)I've just reverted as well, and requested semi-protection on the page (I don't want someone to raise a ruckus because they claim I'm too WP:INVOLVED to protect it myself). Deal with the copyright matter first. Once the image is no longer up for deletion at commons, or someone uploads one that is unambiguously not a copyright violation, then add it. Seriously, there is no rush here, and erring on the safe side of copyright is always better. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(Post-ec)Also, yes, all of those are reverts. A revert means undoing the work of another editor, and can include either additions or removals. No more reverts from you, okay? And you could drop the insults as well, but, you know, that might be asking too much. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(Post-ec) I again, humbly request you to check the disputed (or allegedly copyvio as claim by sitush) [6] yourself before jumping to any conclusion.Yes, a revert means undoing the work of another editor and I thought you are intelligent enough to see , how sitush manipulated edit diff to fool others that i reverted four times when it is clearly evident from the first edit diff 1 that its just a Copyedit(image caption) edit.120.56.237.93 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
What you should have done was revert that edit, not enhance it. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Dharmadhyaksha. This is an Election symbol as allotted by Election Commission of India to many Political parties in many different elections. It's use is governed by The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, as in following references, [7], [8], [9]. The same symbol is also used in website of Naitik Party, another Indian Political Party. This symbol is alloted to AAP as per this official Source [10] and in this official document, it has been mentioned that this is a free symbol. Tall.kanna (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If you check what Dharmadhyaksha said, you will self-revert because they agreed to wait until the issue is settled. Furthermore, none of your sources contain the image being used and I've already addressed the problem of interpreting the legal stuff. Given that this article has also been semi-protected by an uninvolved administrator, I strongly suggest that you revert now because you could otherwise quite easily be blocked for disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

hmmm... can anyone tell me, why are we having this copyright discussion ? if the AAP symbol is a copyvio, so are these: File:Bharatiya Janata Party.svg, File:Indian National Congress.svg ! anyone mind removing them from their respective pages due the "alleged" copyvio, that is, if they are violations ? --Ne0 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is currently here and, yes, the issue of BJP and similar symbols has been raised. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RTI campaign

By this diff [11] I deleted the following text with the edit summary "(WP:V, claims not contained in sources. also WP:PROMOTION and misleading)". Sitush says this edit summary is "simply not adequate".

"The AAP party is one of the few political parties of India who have supported and accepted the Central Information Commission's order of RTI Act applicable to political parties. AAP has disclosed details of those who have donated to it."

I reiterate this is PROMOTIONAL SYNTHESIS and OR. Hence, VERIFY and please give me the exact quotes from the sources cited along with also the names and particulars of the AAP's Public Information Officer(s), the First Appellate Authority(s), AAP's section 4 RTI disclosure etc. (all of which the 6 national parties named in CIC's order of 3 June 2013 were directed to adhere to within 6 weeks), if as you say, the AAP has accepted the CIC's order. TheWikiIndian (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that particular edit summary was "simply not adequate". Please do not misrepresent me. You'll have to explain the gibberish concerning information officers, appellate authorities etc - unless I can understand what you want, I'm going to struggle to provide it. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Please reread your own comment. You implied I only provided "some" edit summaries - FALSE. You implied the edit summaries I provided were "simply not adequate" - FALSE. I assume that you NOW accept that THIS edit summary is "adequate". Furthermore - the subject of the sub-section I deleted was "RTI campaign". RTI in case you don't know means "Right to Information" (look it up - it has its own Wikipedia Article - which I have also cleaned up against POV pushing well before editing AAP). I take offence to your insultingly describing my text/information as "gibberish". If you don't know about RTI but still feel empowered to repeatedly revert my edits on it - please STFU - because wikipedia does not require me to educate lazy editors for something which has its own detailed article.TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
We are supposed to collaborate. If you do not want to do so then that is fine by me - it just means that you won't get your way any time soon unless someone else can explain your comments. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't twist words/phrases. I am perfectly willing to collaborate if a) you are polite (as I shall be henceforth) b) You adhere to WikiPedia core policies. TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, okay, enough bickering you two. I'm going to go look at the sources now and see what I can see. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I looked the three sources provided on the whole AAP RTI issue. The most that those sources say is that Kerjwal has supported RTI, and that the AAP fired some strange, complicated procedural motion regarding RTI. Furthermore, the sources say nothing about the stance of other parties on RTI. Now, my guess is that the sentence is at least partially correct, but it's not stated clearly in the sources. As such, I'm going to remove that sentence and the references.BTW, TheWikiIndian, let me point out that had you 1) only removed the part not supported by sources, and 2) not done this as part of a large multi-edit process, this revert would have been more likely to stick. Yes, both Sitush and I often do massive article cleanups where we make a dozen edits in a row, but in cases where an article is being disputed by partisans on all sides, a little more caution may be warranted. For example, only removing the parts that are absolutely incorrect, only removing 1 major part in a period of time (like making one removal, then waiting a little bit), and, perhaps most importantly, if your removals are challenged, coming here and explicitly explaining the reasons for the individual reverts. I know it may sound burdensome, but I've had to do it, too--make a removal, then jump to talk to explain why, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, one more comment on the RTI section: The statement that they've revealed their major donors is 1) not verified by indepedent sources (we have no way of knowing that list is accurate, since it hasn't been subject to editorial oversight), and 2) without secondary sources commenting on the matter, we have no way of knowing if this is at all unusual even if its true. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that I have reverted an IP editors attempt to re-add those claims; none of the new sources provided cover that statement either. Now, those sources that were given might be useful to verify something else in the article, but not the specific claim they were linked to. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

RTI campaign global protest

The party has supported Central Information Commission's order of RTI Act applicable to National political parties and globally started protest campaigns against planned RTI amendments. Source : SourceHindustan times
GlobalProtest SourceDNAnewspaper
Source ArunaRoy and ArvindKejriwal teamUp for SaveRTI campaign
SourceEconomicTimes
TheHinduNewspaper Only CPI party and AAP party replied to RTI queries

Let's look at each of these:
  • Hindustan Times (Cabinet keeps info article): This could be used to support an extremely limited statement about the AAP. Paraphrasing form the 4th paragraph, we could say something like "The AAP and the CPI were the only two major political parties to not object to the application of the Right to Information Act to political parties." But see below.
  • DNAIndia: No reference to any position by AAP. They happen to mention what one AAP activist thinks, but that is not an official statement of support from AAP. Any information on the protests themselves belongs on the Right To Information Act page, not here.
  • HindustanTimes (Team Up article): No information there about AAP. Yes, there are statements from Kejriwal, but that, again, cannot be taken as an official stance of the party; it could go onto either the RTI page or onto Arvind Kejriwal.
  • Economic Times: Unsigned opinion article, thus does not meet WP:RS, and cannot be used to support anything here or anywhere on Wikipedia.
So, we have one useful source about AAP; the only info we can really pull is written above; however, I'm worried that such a small statement is WP:UNDUE. I ask for the input of others before we add such a statement and that one reference. If we do add it, we certainly shouldn't add it in it's own section (that gives it too much prominence), so where do we put it and how do we phrase it? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And the source you just added added about the CPI says absolutely almost nothing about the AAP, just a tiny phrase in the middle of a paragraph. And all it says is that the AAP says that the info is available on its website--the reporter does not confirm this as a fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
:: Another source : SaveRTI campaign rallies organised by Aam Aadmi Party

SourceTimesofIndia and Aam Aadmi Party protested outside Prime Minister's House — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.5.62 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Confused over Wiki Undue Policy

On the one hand , RTI campaign section supported by numerous Newspapers(notable) is undue for Wiki and on the another hand, controversy section about a "A letter" is significant enough to be remain intact. I'm confused ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.5.62 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's unsourced, I'm saying I'm not sure, and I want the opinion of other editors before we re-add information that has been removed by a few different editors (including myself), especially since the previous version misrepresented the claims in the sources. The RTI campaign itself is not relevant here because it's not about the AAP. Statements the party (and not individual members of the party) has made about the RTI campaign are probably relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As per this news report published today [12] Only All India Trinamool Congress and Biju Janata Dal support CIC RTI order on political parties "the fact that with the exception of the Trinamool Congress and the BJD, all other political parties are united in being kept out of the transparency act.". No mention of Aam Aadmi Party here. None of the sources cited by the IP say that Aam Aadmi Party has complied with RTI Act by appointing its Public Information Officers / Appellate Authority and publishing its mandatory suo-moto disclosure.TheWikiIndian (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The WikiIndian, you're crossing over into WP:OR. You can't say that it only counts if they appoint a PIO or whatever. All we care is what the reliable sources state. Could you respond to my suggested addition in the above section? It's a pretty minor/mild point, not actually the extreme statement of before, so maybe it's an acceptable compromise for everyone? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No OR. Read the last para of the CIC decision dt 3.June.2013.
"93. The Presidents, General/Secretaries of these Political Parties are hereby directed to designate CPIOs and the Appellate Authorities at their headquarters in 06 weeks time. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI applications extracted in this order in 04 weeks time. Besides, the Presidents/general Secretaries of the above mentioned Political Parties are also directed to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act by ay of making voluntary disclosures on the subjects mentioned in the said clause."
So if AAP says they adhere to it as was earlier claimed in the article, the 3 things I mentioned are the bare essentials to evidence their compliance to the CIC's order on political parties being under RTI.TheWikiIndian (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
About the pretty minor/mild point, the same newspaper Hindustan Times, says something entirely different today and categorically names 2 other parties as being the ONLY parties to support CIC's order. So we must be very careful against allowing planted stories, paid news and disinformation into Wikipedia articles.TheWikiIndian (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, that is original research. If you are taking the law, interpreting its meaning, and then checking to see if a group is or isn't following the law, that's original research. I know this may sound odd, but a lot of very basic exercises in "reasoning" are considered original research on Wikipedia. If a reliable source says they are following the law, we say that. If a reliable sources says that they say they are following the law, we might say that. But we don't decide for ourselves based on the law whether or not they are following it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another odd removal

This edit removes a sentence - " The swaraj model lays stress on self governance, community building and decentralisation." - and two sources that covered those words and also "The party claims that the common people of India remain unheard and unseen except when it suits the politicians to consider them. It wants to reverse the way that the accountability of government operates and has taken an interpretation of the Gandhian concept of swaraj as a tenet. It believes that through swaraj the government will be directly accountable to the people instead of higher officials." The next edit then removes the now-unsourced second set of statements I've just quoted on the grounds that it is unsourced cruft and "copyvio'd from a blogger's review of Kejriwal's book." It is only unsourced because of the prior edit and I'm not sure what copyright is being infringed here since neither of the once-cited sources are a blog. This is the sort of thing that Zuggernaut used to do and I find it confusing, so I've restored the content pending a more clear explanation for the removal. Perhaps, for example, there is a violation but please could we have a link; perhaps there is a difference between the Gandhian concept of swaraj and that espoused by the AAP but please it is all very odd because in the first edit there was a linking to swaraj that contradicts the earlier removal of it from the infobox. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Friend, You are POV pushing here, indulging in OR/SYNTHESIS, and restoring poorly sourced / unsourced PROMOTIONAL cruft. The 2nd "source" predates AAP by 20 years and says ZERO about AAP, the first source is SPS. I don't know who Zuggernaut is/was and why it is relevant here - please take your innuendo somewhere else. As I've mentioned, its not my problem if you are confused or handicapped or undereducated. I suggest you read Swaraj to come up to speed and stop wasting everyone's time. Let me "fix" it since you quite obviously cannot.TheWikiIndian (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@TheWikiIndian. Sorry, the indenting is now messed up due to refactoring. Please can you link to the blog that you refer to in your edit summary cited above. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if the point that TheWikiIndian is trying to make might be that they think the AAP/Kejriwal have sort of hijacked the Gandhian concept of swaraj (self-rule)? I can sort of understand that this might happen at a semantical level since swaraj is a word as much as a concept. However, I think we might need academic sources for that because there are plenty of news stories that seem to be linking them, eg: this op-ed says "And yet, [Rahul] Gandhi sounds more and more like Arvind Kejriwal with every passing day. Mahatma Gandhi talked and dreamt of swaraj, Kejriwal wrote a book on it, and [Rahul] Gandhi talks of it in speech after speech." I know that the INC were a bit miffed when the party name was chosen because they thought that they had some sort of ownership of the phrase "aam aadmi" in political discourse. Messy, this. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just chedked JSTOR for the simple search phrase "kejriwal swaraj". That returns only one hit & unfortunately it is only an indexed article. There are no hits for "aam aadmi party kejriwal" or even "aam aadmi party" but there are 41 hits for "kejriwal", so I guess that I'll have to read all of those. Part of the problem here is that academic response to a new political party probably will not really kick in until after the forthcoming elections - I'm not a fan of relying on newspaper sources but right now it would seem likely that we can do little else. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't speculate and throw in opinionated red herrings. My edits summaries are specific and describe violation of Wikipedia policies causing me to delete blatantly promotional and slanted text.TheWikiIndian (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you realise how rude you sound? - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Almost all of the 41 JSTOR sources actually relate to other people called Kejriwal, and those that do relate to our man only mention him in passing. I can see some excoriating comments about his concept in news media - eg: "Kejriwal’s vision for India, elaborately detailed in his book Swaraj, is a disastrous mix of idealism, naïveté and blindness bordering on the idiotic. It has received scant attention; the media has mostly followed Kejriwal’s valiant attempts to expose the rotten underbelly of India’s political establishment." here - but they really do seem to be opinion columns, not reportage. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, I cannot discuss like this if you go off at tangents and into personality based issues. Your "fix" is slanted, SPSed and contradicts the 3rd source (which is the best source we have at present). The 2nd source is actually a catalog denouncing Gandhi's version of Swaraj and also proves that AAP's version is even more further off than Gandhi's.TheWikiIndian (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Using the AAP as a source for statements concerning their own purpose is perfectly permissible. I'm not sure what sources you are referring to when you call them 1st, 2nd etc and when you removed them anyway - could you perhaps give them short names, eg: "AAP website", "Dalton"? I don't mind looking closer at this issue because I suspect that we made need to modify the phrasing, especially around the swaraj point. I'm still waiting for the link to the copyrighted blog that you say the article was mis-using. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-indented. The present section about AAP's "ideology" is contradicted by their own website [13] which refutes that AAP is ideolgy driven while saying "Ideology is one for the pundits and the media to pontificate about" - Exactly what the Firstpost source says. So please leave the entire section on AAP's Ideology the way I did without "fixing" it - the Secondary source I retained exactly bears out what AAP says on their website. Accordingly, I don't have to reply to anything further on AAP's "ideology" since my edit was 100% spot on and you are simply wasting everybody's time.TheWikiIndian (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion concerning ideology has been had before here - try searching this page for it. If someone says they see no need for ideology then that itself is an ideology. Perhaps the section needs expanding and/or perhaps we could find a better choice of heading but deletion seems very odd to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have failed to find any consensus or even mention of your assertion "If someone says they see no need for ideology then that itself is an ideology.". You will notice that I had left behind the statement that AAP is not ideology based since it was based on a reliable secondary source. I am not required to wade through reams of prior Talk-shit. Anyway it seems that there is another source - OPEN Magazine - which also confirms that AAP (or is it only Kejriwal?) professes no ideology. Kindly restore my edit immediately. I also find that you are still editing disputed portions of this article without obtaining consensus. You are as equal as me and Jimbo when it comes to content, right ?TheWikiIndian (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I never said that there was consensus for that statement. I'm not even sure that I've used it before here, let alone in the article. Our article makes it clear that the AAP proposes to operate not based on a traditional left/right/centrist type of ideological classification but rather with a pragmatic approach intended to achieve its over-arching goal of swaraj. Since swaraj is the target and is itself a concept, it is also effectively the ideology. This is a common use of the English language and has nothing to do with what the AAP may or may not say. But feel free to suggest a new section heading. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You are responding in an evasive and tendentious manner. I shall wait a few hours if any Admin wishes to propose/insert a consensus position. Failing which I shall be trimming the "Ideology" section to only "quotes" from reliable secondary sources.TheWikiIndian (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not evading anything, although I'm still waiting for you to supply a link to the blog that you mentioned. I'd be wary of pruning the section without properly gaining consensus because articles such as this are subject to discretionary sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
How can there be consensus when there are only 2 editors, one of whom keeps threatening and following the other ? Re: ARBIPA - Is it your case that each and every article about India, Pakistan or Afghanistan is covered under ARBIPA ? As far as I can see it covers Nationalistic / Sectarian EW/POV pushing between editors of different nationalities / communities of these 3 nations. What we are discussing HERE is getting this article to conform to wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS etc. and I will revert material which violates these core principles on-page if you refuse to cooperate/collaborate in cleaning it up. Your recent editing of Shazia Ilmi makes it even more clear you are AAP affiliated and I am formally counter-warning you under ARBIPA to strictly conform to Wikipedia's 5 pillars. TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The consensus lies in the fact that it has not been challenged for some considerable time, even though there have been many edits to the article and to this talk page. Look, TheWikiIndian, your large removals of content are being reverted all over the place and not merely by me - Darkness Shines has just done so, for example. I think that you need to slow down a bit and wait to see if a new consensus forms. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, yes, I owe you an apology. ARBIPA does not cover this and while the caste sanctions one does cover political parties, this is not a caste issue. In my weariness, I had conflated the two sets of sanctions. Nonetheless, you do need to slow down a bit otherwise you will end up in trouble - I've seen this plenty of times before and my advice to you is well-intentioned. Finally, if you make that allegation of AAP affiliation once more without proof, I'll be treating it as a personal attack. You really have not done your homework there. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that one problem here, TheWikiIndian, is that you're confused a little bit on how we do and don't use primary sources. With regards to an organization's explicitly stated "goals"/"purposes"/"ideology", we can, in fact use their own self-published sources to verify them. Take a simpler example: an individual person. If a person says, "I am politically conservative", and publishes that information in a blog or other self-published website, we can post on Wikipedia that the person is a Hindu conservative. We don't need an independent source; in fact, an independent source wouldn't be very helpful, because an independent source can't speak as to what's in the person's brain. Now, we could have an independent source that said something like "Person X says she's conservative, but, in fact, if we look at the causes she supports, she acts like a liberal." This would also be a legitimate thing to consider including.

So, in the case of AAP, if they claim to believe one thing or another, we can use their own website as a source for this. We can also use the commentary from relevant sources (i.e., not editorials, only some news articles, but academic analysis would be good) that makes claims about their ideology. For the first (self-sourced) part, we would explicitly say, "The AAP website states that ...", while for the second (independently sourced) part, we would say, "According to Source Y, ...". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sitush pointed out that I made an mistake in the above analogy, which I corrected; I had changed which analogy I was planning to use in the middle of my writing; sorry if anyone else read it and was confused. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. I'm very clear about what CAN and what CAN'T be added from Primary sources. In this section, we have a Secondary source (OPEN Magazine) which has Kejriwal saying AAP has no particular ideology. We have a spot on PRIMARY source (a page from AAP's website) which explicitly says much the same thing and goes on to deride ideologies as being for the pundits. However, somebody (!!!) has being ORing/synthesing an entire thesis from another page (a rambling and incoherent essay) from AAP's website (which essay BTW doesn't use the word ideology anywhere) to CONCOCT this theory that AAP's "ideology" is "Swaraj", and then throws in a random source to OR what Swaraj is.TheWikiIndian (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agenda

I am also challenging the "Agenda" sub-section. It does not correspond to "Article II : Objectives of the Party" as mentioned in AAP's Constitution (which incidentally is not on AAP's website). The only vague Objective of AAP seems to be to "restore the promise of Swaraj enshrined in our Constitution". The 4 "agenda" items listed (which are not properly sourced) will come about IF AND ONLY IF they form the next Government at the Centre, so it is proscribed by WP:FUTURE, WP:CRYSTAL etc. TheWikiIndian (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Objectives stated in organisational constitutions are not synonymous with a political agenda. For example, the constitution of a charity for the deaf would state as its objective something like "to promote the interests of deaf people" ... but the precise decisions regarding how to achieve that objective would form a part of its day-to-day activities. Again, perhaps the section heading could be improved here but it is no reason to delete the content. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I am getting sick and tired of educating you. Please see Political agenda. Let AAP first come to power instead of these "pie in the sky promises". An agenda is NOT a series of day to day decisions/activities, it is a set of laid out issues and policies. For a Political Party these are contained in its Constitution or its Manifesto. After being forced to wade through Talk Shit, I see AAP will have 71 Manifestos and adopt different positions in each constituency it plans to campaign in. You will also see that those 4 links on AAP website are contained under "Vision" - ie. in Plain English - crystal ball gazing.TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I have read that the party proposes to introduce a manifesto for each constituency in the Delhi elections. I've no idea whether that will come to fruition but the fact remains that the points listed in our "Agenda" section comes from their website, where they exist under a menu item titled "Key Agenda Items". A party does not have to be in power to have an agenda, nor is there any contradiction between producing a manifesto for each constituency and maintaining these four key agenda items. As I understand it, the manifestos are to be created after consultation with people in each of those constituencies in order to address issues specific to those individual places. I've not yet seen anything saying that local issues could over-ride the ones that are presently listed on the website and I doubt that I will because the website issues are national things, not local ones. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
These are FUTURISTIC "proposals" conditional on their coming to power at the National level. The party is nowhere near implementing them. Do we have to publish this only because this party has published it on its website ? Why not publish their entire website and get this over with ?TheWikiIndian (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Publishing the primary objectives is absolutely alright only if they are supported by reliable source (currently there is a primary source only, it'll be better if we can add a secondary source, it'll show that those are being highlighted by reliable third party sources too) and if those are important enough to include. --Tito☸Dutta 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The platform on which a political party proposes to contest is clearly notable and is not in breach of WP:CRYSTAL which, I think, is probably what you are referring to here. Tito, we do not need a secondary source for a statement of opinion made by the party, nor would such a source carry any greater weight. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I did not refer that WP:CRYSTAL. it'll be better if we can add a secondary source, it'll show that those are being highlighted by reliable third party sources too. It is all about, "it is fine now, but, this might make it better." --Tito☸Dutta 17:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Titodutta - we had an edit conflict. The "you" was a reference to TheWikiIndian and then when I saw your response in the conflict, I tagged on a sentence replying to that. Sorry for not making it clear but I'm getting very tired of this stuff. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"However, in order to be more than another naysaying party, this one will need to state not just what it opposes but also what it supports. Some of its agenda for the future — like bringing in an overarching Jan Lokpal with few checks and balances — is problematic. Some aims to steal Anna's thunder by promising gram sabhas more muscle but leaving the details hazy. Some is utopian — promising lawmaking by referendum. Most is driven by one aadmi, Arvind Kejriwal. Crucially, none of the party's agenda spells out how reforms, essential to a middle class seeking jobs and growth, can be harnessed for the best possible socio-economic development. Instead, the party currently seems quite arty, embarking on a revolutionary road but unclear about how this proceeds."
So we need some extremely reliable sources here.TheWikiIndian (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are you quoting an editorial published in a newspaper ages ago in support of your argument? The present incarnation of the party's website says what it says. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see what I wrote in the section above. We do not need an independent RS to state what the parties claims are its own agenda/policies/plans. And this isn't at all WP:FUTURE or WP:CRYSTAL. This is a statement of fact about the present: right now, what are the organization's goals (whatever we call them). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because of the poor language used on AP's website that I want Secondary sources. AAP is a new unrecognised political party. As such it is self evident, their ONLY AGENDA is to get political power. What THEY describe as their "AGENDA" is actually "PROMISES" which are contingent on their getting power. It would be different if a party in power, say the Congress, says their agenda is to pass the Food Security Bill within 90 days. So please get the terminology correct even if AAP can't.TheWikiIndian (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
And that last statement was exactly what I've been waiting for. Your claim that "it is self evident that their only goal is to get political power" clearly indicates you are not here to provide an improvement to the encyclopedia. Rather, you have an opinion of AAP and you are seeking to push it into the article. AAP has stated goals and plans. You don't get to override that and say it's all just a cover for obtaining power. At this point, I intend to revert every edit you make to the article, and expect you to first obtain consensus for any edits here. Your clear lack of neutrality cannot be trusted. You've raise a point or two across multiple discussions worth consideration, but the vast majority of what you say is an attempt to violate Wikipedia policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
1) I waited 2 days for somebody to respond. Nobody did. In any case what I deleted was "Ideology" (being discussed in the preceding section) not "Agenda" 2) If you perceived any "bias"/neutrality you could have said so 2 days ago when I made that statement. 3) Please tell me in, your considered opinion, what the objective of AAP (or any new political party for that matter) registering as a "political" party is if it is not to fight elections and get political power. There are several sources which quote AAP as saying they floated the party to fight elections and come to power to achieve their objectives (Janlokpal or whatever) since as per them all other peaceful alternatives have failed. They say so themselves "Since most political parties are corrupt, greedy and thick skinned, it's time to bring political power back into the people's hands." [15].TheWikiIndian (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Their objectives/agenda/ideology are whatever they state that they are. Do I think that most political parties want to take power? Yes. But when we talk about what a party's goal/agenda is, we're talking about what political actions they intend to take if they have an opportunity to wield influence within a government. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please understand this carefully - I am not here to edit war or to POV push. Just because an article's subject keeps self publishing controversial (and factually incorrect) views, should they be included in Wikipedia. For instance own AAP's website and Constitution self publish that it wants to achieve the Swaraj as promised in the Constitution of India. When I last checked, the Constitution of India does not promise, or mention or use the word Swaraj or Svaraj anywhere. As both I and "Tito Dutta" have said, please include reliable secondary sources and delete the primary ones. I disagree with you that Primary Sources are the best / only source for an organisation's agenda. This will lead to Wikipedia being a WP:PROMOTIONAL WP:SOAPbox for WP:FRINGE theories.TheWikiIndian (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
For someone who has only recently registered here, you are very familiar with a host of obscure policies. I'm surprised that you have not mentioned WP:DR. Mind you, before taking this further, I do think that you should re-read all of these policies that you are citing; for example, what on earth does WP:FRINGE have to do with us recounting the objectives of the AAP as stated by the AAP itself? - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@TheWikiIndian:The Indian Constitution gives emphasis on Swaraj & is evident from its preamble. Various commentaries on Indian Constitution including wikipedia's own article explain it. If you think otherwise, (just because of absence or sporadic use of keyword Swaraj), please either sort out the confusion on why you think otherwise or try to put forth your point of view in those articles & see if consensus forms. Till that point you can not claim neutrally that the subject of this article is publishing controversial &/or incorrect views without making it POV. Moreover till that point I do not see any need to distrust primary sources in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, folks, it wouldn't matter if the AAP said that the earth was flat: it is what they think. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

AAP's demand that CAG can audit private companies

I submit that the AAP's "demand" that CAG can audit the private electricity "discoms" is contradicted by Comptroller and Auditor General of India which says the CAG is only the external auditor of "Government-owned companies". Should such undue "demands" be included when the Electricity Regulator and almost every political party in Delhi (Congress, BJP) have also demanded this [16], [17], but there is a stay order of Delhi High Court on this demand since 2006 and again 2010 when the Electricity Regulator's (DERC) Petition for this was twice dismissed and matter has already been successfully challenged in the Court by the private companies.TheWikiIndian (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We do not rely on other Wikipedia articles and we are well-aware that there are numerous contradictions across Wikipedia - it is a work in progress. More importantly, it is irrelevant whether or not CAG has the authority to do this or that thing, as the statement claimed. What is particularly relevant in this particular instance is (a) was the statement verifiable using reliable sources and (b) was it due weight. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Had you cared to read the CAG wiki link, you would see that the statement I extracted is well sourced/referenced [18]. Section 19(1) of the Duties and Powers of CAG Act permits audit of Govt companies. Section 19(3) permits (for Delhi a Union Territory) the Lieut-Governor can request in public interest the CAG to audit books of corporations established BY a Law of Parliament (which BTW the "discoms" are not). So whatever is demanded by AAP that books of discoms be audited is "pie in the sky" / moonshine which is UNDUE (as I said earlier) and "Fringe" (because the theory/notion that private corporations which are NOT established BY Legislature can be audited by CAG is not supported by mainstream sources covering audits or law in India or by the CAG himself). Furthermore the source (The Hindu) makes it very clear that it is Kejriwal's demand and not necessarily AAP's and it is in the context of another group "seconding" Kejriwal's demand (which the Electricity Regulator had already asked for since 2006 and again in 2010 in the Court and lost, so it is hardly some unique/notable Kejriwal demand which requires to be seconded). This is clearly POV pushing to make out that Kejriwal/AAP have done something notable to make this "demand". In fact the fact that Kejriwal broke his fast without getting the CAG audit for discoms is itself proof that his "fast unto death" was merely a hollow publicity seeking device.TheWikiIndian (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you read what I said about reliable sources, verifiability and weight? That is what matters and we are not qualified to interpret laws. I've not checked the stuff which you are complaining about in this instance to see whether it complies but unless you come up with a decent rationale based on that, there is a prima facie case for inclusion. Your talk of "hollow publicity seeking device" seems to be a further indication that you are approaching this entire topic - and probably all the other AAP/RTI-related articles that you edit (ie: practically every contribution you have made) - in completely the wrong fashion. I've tried to explain on several occasions and, to be honest, I'm becoming fed up of it. You might not like the drama boards but I have no problem taking you to one if you continue in this manner. The issue seems to be less about pure content than about intentionally seeking to score some sort of political point. Enough is enough: you are being reverted all over the place and it surely cannot be the case that everyone else is wrong. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Before you pass those kind of personal remarks, please see this entire talk page where I am only asking for core policies to be UNIFORMLY applied. The direction I am approaching this article from is apparent - BALANCE, UNDUE, VERIFIABLE, RS, NPOV and so on. I am striving that this article be up to the same standards and as balanced as say that of the BJP or Congress. I am further striving that this article be sourced from RELIABLE Sources which do not merely echo what AAP or Kejriwal are saying and which attempt to analyse all aspects of the issue and which incorporate contrarian POVs too. Finally, please self revert your fabrications on Swaraj.TheWikiIndian (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@WikiIndian:Just because at present condition, CAG may not be able to Audit the DISCOMs, does not make the demand irrelevant or publicity stunt. Moreover following are the sources other than Hindu that attribute the demand of CAG audit to AAP & not Kejriwal as a person [19] [20].As sourced in the main article, the purpose of the Kejriwal's fast was to mobilize more & more people against inflated bill & the fast was indefinite & not unto death.So please gather the correct facts first before drawing conlcusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rushikesh.tilak, since both your sources were first given by me at the start of this section, why do you presume I have not read them ? Can you verify that any reliable source says that what Kejriwal / AAP is "demanding" is possible without amending the Constitution of India, and that the "demand" of a new political party which has not formally contested even a single assembly seat let alone a Parliamentary one carries sufficient weightage to be included in a non-fringe wikipedia article especially when this "demand" has been twice rejected in the courts (when the notice to discoms was sent) and when no other private electricity utility in India is audited by CAG. (I hope Sitush doesn't object that I am addressing these core WP policies to the concerned contributing editor).TheWikiIndian (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You are not getting it, TheWikiIndian. It doesn't matter whether the scenario that Kejriwal/AAP were demanding is in fact achievable: the point would be that they were demanding it as, it seems from your comments, others have in the past. As above, they could demand that children are taught tahat the earth is flat and even though this might seem a ludicrous demand to the vast majority of people, it would still potentially be an acceptable statement in the article because it reflects their position. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You are not getting "fringe". The "mainstream" professional view of a) courts b) lawyers c) Chartered Accountants d) Private companies is that the Constitution of India does not permit the CAG to audit private companies. If you disagree I shall give you 20+ sources which say this. The "fringe" view (which has been repeatedly tossed out by the courts) is that if a Government "requests" CAG for a private company to be audited the CAG is bound to audit them. There has not been a single such instance of a private electricity company being audited by CAG. So what I am questioning is the WEIGHTAGE being given to such PROMOTIONAL "pie in the sky" inclusions (which are not unique to AAP). TheWikiIndian (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@WikiIndian:Please see an excerpt of your own comments: "Furthermore the source (The Hindu) makes it very clear that it is Kejriwal's demand and not necessarily AAP's".This prompted me to resupply your own links to bring your attention to the point that 'the demand was from AAP party'.For a new political party, 'number of elections contested' can not be a criteria to assign the weightage to its demands. The fact that 'AAP made a demand for audit, which was supported by other civil groups & political parties attests a certain weight & historical decisions of court based on prevalant proofs/data during 2006 & 2010 can not be a deterrent to raise the issue once again in 2013.Moreover it was not just a demand but an attempt by AAP to mobilize people using indefinite fast(15 days) & protests until Delhi Chief Minister accepted the protest letters, that also makes it non-fringe section.ratastro 19:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

  • Both those sources mention BJP's and AAP's demand in passing with a single reference (they are actually both the same story so count as 1 source). This demand is a very old demand since at least 2006, and long predates AAP. No other political party has supported AAP's demand for CAG audit. In fact AAP has supported the BJP's demand for CAG audit considering that the 2010 case was Nand Kishore Garg (a BJP councillor) who raised this demand. Before you do POV pushing please read the Discom's version [21] which mentions that AAP's Prashant Bhushan was a party in that case also. The so-called protest letters made no mention of this demand and are not official/reliable in any case since they were delivered to the Chief Minister of Delhi's residence. And as you know the AAP has withdrawn the corruption allegations they made about Mr Sudhakar Chairman DERC from AAP's website.TheWikiIndian (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I must be stupid but I cannot see what relevance No other political party has supported AAP's demand for CAG audit has. If all parties thought the same then there would be no need for parties. What is your point? What possible relevance do all these old cases have to an alleged demand made by the AAP/Kejriwal/whoever in 2013? Did those people refer to the prior actions? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not for me to comment on your stupidity, but I think you should ask this of Rushikesh.tilak (who is the contributing editor) especially since he wrongly stated as fact that AAP's demand was supported by other political parties. I put it to him it was the other way around since AAP was supporting the BJP's demand for CAG audit. The 2010 High Court decision was in the Petition of Nand Kishore Garg (a BJP Councillor). Jayant Bhushan was for the intervenor (AAP's) Prashant Bhushan in WP(C) 4821/2010. The case is decided, and the present legally settled position is on the Discom's website (link given earlier) as follows:-
  • Shri Prashant Bhushan was also party to this and the issue has been conclusively settled by the Hon’ble court, vide its judgment on May 23, 2011.
  • 8. CAG Issue
Response
  • At present the CAG has no authority to audit the accounts of private companies in view of the clear provisions contained under Article 149 of the Constitution of India.
  • The various provisions of the CAG Act, 1971, clearly set out the duties and powers of the CAG are with respect to audit of accounts of Union States and Government Companies / Corporations. These powers do not extend to private companies.
  • Subsequent to transfer of management control to discoms in 2002, CAG categorically confirmed stating that from July 1, 2002, discoms are not government companies under Section 617 of the companies Act, 1956.
  • DERC itself, in its tariff order of 28.05.09, had observed that the private discoms being a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, presently there is no such provision of CAG audit in respect to private companies.
So WP:NPOV would require a balanced picture with all of the above incorporated.TheWikiIndian (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The AAP did not exist in 2010. How the hell could it have supported anything back then? I'm going to bed and tomorrow I will see you at WP:ANI with regard to your competence issues and tendentious style. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a controversial subject and Wikipedia ought not to be used for POV or Promotional purposes to promote ANY political party. Prashant Bhushan (the AAP's co-founder) intervened in the BJP's Writ Petition filed through their councillor Nand Kishore Garg where this "demand" for CAG audit of discoms was made. The case was decided in 2011, the Court rejected the demand for CAG audit, nobody appealed this decision and it is final and binding. From Oct 2012 onwards when the AAP went political they made a series of defamatory statements about electricity sector which have all now been withdrawn from AAP's website. Many of these old news reports refer to those AAP withdrawn statements, should they reenter Wikipedia through the backdoor of outdated sources ? To answer your point - the AAP today (2013) is supporting BJP's demand, it is not AAP's demand for CAG audit. Both those sources say BJP and AAP are asking for CAG auditTheWikiIndian (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@WikiIndian: Kindly allow me to point out three errors you made earlier: 1) The demand for CAG audit of discoms in 2013 was made my AAP as a party & not by Mr. Aravind Kejriwal in its personal capacitiy. 2) Mr. Aravind Kejriwal's fast was indefinite & not 'unto death' 3) Purpose of the fast was to mobilize people against inflated electricity bills & not till CAG audit is done. Once we come on the common terms on these points,let us proceed with following facts (keeping aside the possibility/feasibility of CAG doing audit of private companies) 1) AAP in 2013 was supported by Civil Groups in this movement. 2) Even DERC in 2013 is in favour of CAG audit of these companies & 3)DERC in 2013 announced setting up independant body for inspecting electric meters within a month to address concerns of people.This shows that the demand for CAG audit is completely valid (how it will be achieved is different issue to be discussed elsewhere) & many civil groups rallied behind AAP during this protest. This makes inclusion of 'demands' in Protest section of this article non-fringe.ratastro 00:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@WikiIndian:There is no promotion here. Following are facts which can be verified.

1) AAP protested against the inflated electricity Bills in 2013. 2) They were the first party to mobilize people on large scale against inflated electricity bills. If there is contradictory opinion on this, then it must be proved with necessary citation/sources. 3) Mr. Aravind Kejriwal sat on an indefinite fast for the same cause. 4) Civil groups & prominent personalities supported it publicly & called for CAG audit.

As to the archived sources mentioning defamatory statements about Electricity sector are concerned, can you please let me know the reliable sources/links?

Moreover as far as 'Nand Kishore Garg vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 23 May, 2011' case is concerned, can you please let me know if the below link gives all the information of the case? The reason for asking this question is that it does not have any reference of Prashant Bhushan.[22]

Also whether Prashant Bhushan was an intervenor/concenred party or not is irrelevant here as the case was in 2010 when Prashant Bhushan was acting in his own capacity as lawyer & AAP did not exist.ratastro 01:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic and TLDR. Please confine yourself to a) CAG audit of Discoms b) That the demand was originally raised by BJP - not AAP (ie. AAP is only repeating/supporting BJP's demand made well before AAP sprang up) c) That the Discoms have responded to AAP's "demand" and other AAP's allegations (first publicly raised by AAP in Oct 2012) citing inter-alia AAP co-founder Prashant Bhushan as a party in the case who knows the present Constitutional impossibility of CAG auditing their accounts. Which discom's rebuttal should get equal coverage in this article if AAP's promotional fringe theories are permitted. The defamation has been withdrawn from AAP website's "pol khol" page (which can be independently verified), which is why I again request - stable secondary sources. Several authentic links (for eg. on DERC's website) about Prashant Bhushan's involvement/impleadment are available online and are NOT restricted to your link. He was not acting as a lawyer, he was impleaded as a intervening party and was represented by his brother Jayant Bhushan (who is a senior advocate).TheWikiIndian (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@WikiIndian: Allow me to first put more light on points that you have raised.

1) CAG Audit of DISCOMS: 2) Who Originally raised the demand for CAG audit of Private Discoms: 3) Discoms response to AAP's demand:

reference: Referenced the case directly from Delhi High Court website so there is no question of authenticity of the source. For interested readers you can find the judgement at: Delhi High Court Site -> Judgements tab on left side of the home page -> 23 May 2011 -> 4th page last case.

Following are the conclusions (please correct me by supplying authentic source if I am mistaking):

-> There is no mention of word CAG, Comptroller, Audit etc. in the entire PDF document. -> There is no mention of Mr. Prashant Bhushan in the entire PDF. -> The demand is specific to year 2009-2010 where the petitioner (Mr. Nand Kishor Garg) wants Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission to issue the tariff order approved by it on 28th/29th Apri & highlights illegality (according to his opinion) committed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in asking the Commission not to issue the tariff. (This is a simple translation of technical terms. More simpler version by any editor which includes all the aspects of the case is welcome).

Hence it can be said that

1) Demand of CAG audit of Discoms was not raised in 2010 by BJP. Even if mention of CAG audit is proved, the petitioner is a person acting in its own capacity & not BJP. 2) For the alleged corruption charges by Private Discoms in 2012-2013, it was AAP who raised this demand while it was attempting to mobilize population against inflated bills. 3) Discoms response to AAP's demand needs to be supported by authentic sources/citations/documents equal in weight to the Delhi High Court judgement PDF.

Please do read this part without fail even though it is lenghty so that your reply will have less chances of diversion from important points.

Coming back to the previous update by me, kindly allow me to correct the errors made by you in your earlier posts in simple format:

1) The 2013 demand to conduct Audit of Private Discoms by CAG was made my AAP & not by Mr. Aravind Kejriwal in its personal capacity. 2) Mr. Aravind Kejriwal's fast was indefinite & not unto death. 3) The purpose of Mr. Aravind Kejriwal's fast was to mobilize the people against inflated Electricity bills & not till the Audit is done.

& while ending the reply, I would like to stress following facts which make the disputed section Nuetral & not an attempt to promotion: 1) AAP protested against the inflated electricity Bills in 2013. 2) They were the first party to mobilize people on large scale against inflated electricity bills. If there is contradictory opinion on this, then it must be proved with necessary citation/sources. 3) Mr. Aravind Kejriwal sat on an indefinite fast for the same cause. 4) Civil groups & prominent personalities supported it publicly & called for CAG audit.ratastro 11:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aam_Aadmi_Party/Archive_2&oldid=1136488644"