Jump to content

Talk:Aam Aadmi Party/Archive 4

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

Snowball close. Both articles are Notable, and the Hatnote provides a vital link for the roughly 100 pageviews per day seeking the Pakistan party article.

The sole opposition is an individual subject to indefinite topic ban from all edits relating to politics of India and/or Pakistan, for disruptive editing on this exact issue. The topic ban explicitly includes Talk pages.

Comments raised the possibility of a Disambiguation page, but there appears to be no actual support for the idea. The India party page clearly satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:TWODABS is clear that a Hatnote should be used rather than Disambiguation when there are only two pages and one is a Primary Topic. A Disambiguation page is not warranted at this time. Alsee (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Delete The hatnote maligns the name of the Aam Aadmi Party. The hatnote links to a party which haad no part in any elections or not secured a considerable percentage of vote for media coverage. Completely bogus entry supported by few here. Sitush just because that article was not deleted doesn't mean the party is reliable. Why there is no news about the party ? Stop supporting fake parties. The hatnote is just SPAM. Bolterc (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy keep It conforms with our regular use of hatnotes and the so-called namesake party has recently survived discussion at AfD. Bolterc, given the stuff documented at ANI and your various other attempts to effect change here, you now need to drop this. Please read WP:TE. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hm. I see that your speedy delete above expands somewhat on your initial rationale. It makes no difference, though, and this RfC is in any event malformed because it is not worded neutrally etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment You should understand this is a RFC. I created RFC because how can a unreliable and not on news party be added to the hatnote of a popular party. I request neutral views. This person sitush is nonsense. The pakistan party has no news articles on it is the clear view to come to a conclusion that it is just a namesake party and does not deserve to be added to the hatnote. The editor who added the hatnote is a supporter of bjp which is a rival political party. I request for neutral views. Bolterc (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment Please note the hatnote links to an unimportant article. Unimportant articles added as hatnote were deleted before. Bolterc (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Who is more notable with this title? AAP of India. This article should not be moved to disambiguation. Fundarise (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It has already been determined via the deletion discussion that the Pakistani article is a notable subject. Please stop flogging this dead horse. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
What notable subject? There is no news regarding this party proves it is not at all important. The article is proposed and not deleted does not mean it is an important article. The discussion here is about the hatnote Let the neutrals decide whether it is important or unimportant to have this hatnote and not sitush or bolterc or fundarise who are involved in edits here. There is also a namesake party [[1]] try adding it to the hatnote of Democratic Party (United States) you will get reverted. Bolterc (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
See Democratic Party. There are so many of them that, if anything, a dabhat on Democratic Party (United States) should link to that, not to an article about just one alternate party. This has been explained to you before and I am becoming fed up of going round in circles. Much more of this and I will be asking for a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if there is consensus then the Article Aam_Aadmi_Party can be moved to Aam_Aadmi_Party(India) and the page Aam_Aadmi_Party can be a disambiguation page, then the hatnote from Aam_Aadmi_Party(India) can be removed. I will support anything if the maligning hatnote gets removed. Please go ahead. Bolterc (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. The hatnote follows wikipedia's standard disambiguation practice, and is not misleading, maligning etc in the least. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment linking to Unimportant article on hatnote is brainless. you guys Wikipedia editors or lol bots ? Bolterc (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. The hatnote is nothing to do with the content of this article and cannot possibly malign the party. The hatnote is separate from the article content and is there simply because we have another article with a very similar title. (If we had more similar articles we'd have a disambiguation page and a hatnote linking to that instead, and again there would be no maligning of any of the entries.) Squinge (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment There is no voting here. This is RFC. The hatnote links to unimportant article and the pakistan party with the name is not a notable one. If any of the "keep" editors wants the hatnote to remain prove the importance of the pakistan party. Any "recent" news sources should be provided to prove. Stop blindly supporting a trash hatnote added long back. Bolterc (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, your "If any of the "keep" editors wants the hatnote to remain prove the importance of the pakistan party"" is simply wrong not the way Wikipedia does things. If you don't think the Pakistan party article is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article then the onus is on *you* to nominate it at WP:AfD, and if the consensus agrees with you then the article will be deleted and the hatnote removed. Once again, the presence of the hatnote says nothing at all about the relative importance of the two articles, it merely says that the other article exists. You really need to understand the structure of Wikipedia articles and what the various parts of an article are for before you set off on these attempts to get stuff you don't like removed. Squinge (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
(Oh, I've just noticed you've been topic banned, so better not continue with this if you don't want to be blocked - but I hope my attempted explanation might help you understand Wikipedia article structure a bit better anyway. Squinge (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass data change!

Please discuss here before boldly changing mass of texts without any sources Shrikanthv (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Big revert

I've just made a big revert to reinstate a settled version of the article that had been in place for some time. I'm not opposed to changing things but much of what I saw really didn't seem to be an improvement, especially if viewed through the eyes of someone unfamiliar with Indian political systems etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are entitled to hold it. However, the text had gone stale and was bloated with trivia. For the unfamiliar readers there is always the Simple Wikipedia. Sigmabaroda (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand the purpose of Simple Wikipedia. If anything, your version would be more appropriate there (although still too much). - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
So what u propose is - articles keep accumulating recentivism, and pruning is discouraged ? The purpose of refnotes is not to suggest a controversy where none exists. NOTA and RTR are 2 distinct concepts as the cited refrence made very clear.Sigmabaroda (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose that articles explain their subject in a manner that is accessible to people who have no great prior knowledge of the context in which it exists. If things become bloated then we have options, such as forking. Cutting stuff out, as you seem to be fond of doing, is not always the best approach and, like it or not, retaining a record of what (for example) the party did stand for may have a relevance in a historic context as it moves the goalposts etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything you don't do yourself [2]. I attempted to retain all quality reference sources in this "big revert". The refnote was unnecessary. Sigmabaroda (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought you would say that after you followed me to Daya Singh Bedi. Alas, it just demonstrates that you do not know what you are doing. There is a time and a place for cutting stuff, and there is no doubt that judging it well is often aided by experience. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What you did at Daya Singh Bedi was cruel and callous considering the poor WP:SPA's long labors to buildup that article. You probably require to read WP:CIR to regulate interactions with other editors, especially the female newbies who could benefit from your experience.Sigmabaroda (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Do what? Can we please concentrate on the matter in hand, which is not what is going on at some other article. I realise that you have probably edited as an IP (you know too much policy in the space of 90 edits under your registered name) but you really do not know what you are doing here. That is why someone else also reverted you today at this AAP article. You can either learn or you can fight: one will get you somewhere, the other will not. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, if you really think I am a problem across multiple articles then you could always drag me to WP:ANI and complain generally about my behaviour etc. You'd not gain much support, though. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm requesting you to specify the concerns you had with my copyedits to this article which caused your big revert, so that we can discuss them. Otherwise, it seems it was you who followed me here for wikihounding (a form of online harassment) after Talk:Rajiv_Dixit. NB: I'm not here to drag anybody to WP:ANI or to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change something, you propose it. That is how it works, eg: the RFC model. I am not going to dissect all of the changes you made. I've been contributing to this article for years, by the way, so please stop with the hounding allegations and references to online harassment: you sound like one of the IAC mob when you do that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
So what you are saying is i) I need your permission to edit at Wikipedia, ii) if somebody corrects obvious mistakes to this article which touch on India Against Corruption you are allowed (by whom ?) to liken them to sock puppets. So because you are required to dissect your revert and because you seem to have IAC mob fixation, I am asking you to first dissect why you reinserted the image caption "Arvind Kejriwal in the IAC movement" when the image description is "Aam Aadmi Party Leader Arvind Kejriwal", and why you reinserted "Manish sisodia and Kumar Vishwas seen with Anna Hazare in the India Against Corruption Movement" when the image description is "Anaa Hazare with Anupam kher, Manish sisodia and Kumar Vishwas during Janlokpal movement.". Do you propose Wikipedia be used for such Original Research ? 05:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Not what I am saying. If there are errors in the image captions then feel free to fix them, provided that you are sure the original caption is correct and more accurate etc. For example, a picture of Kejriwal taken in 2011 might look very different to one taken in 2016 (I've no idea how much he has aged in appearance, if at all, but I know I've gone a bit grey in that time!)- Sitush (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. Just to specify, my editing interest right now is RSS / Hindu nationalism, not IAC. Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have looked at the two images, both of which have EXIF data. I would suggest "Arvind Kejriwal, pictured in 2012" for one and that we list and link all the people in the other, from left to right and adding "in 2012". See WP:LTA/IAC for the reasons why there have been significant problems here and at other articles. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see why either of these images should be used in the article, since from EXIF they were createde when AAP did not exist. Some more modern images must be located which are in Commons. Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
They identify the people and are reasonably proximate to the foundation of the party. Actually, that the Kejriwal portrait (which is excellent) dates from October 2012 and includes the slogan pretty much self-explains why the caption is as it is right now, so I'm not sure what your complaint is regarding that one. I'd still add the year, though. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Anna Hazare and Anupam Kher were not connected with AAP. All wrong signals will be sent with such photos. AAP put up Gul Panag against Kher's wife Kironn Kherr in Chandigarh LS2014. So you want to describe the image as Kejriwal in IAC when the image uploader claimed it was Kejriwal of AAP ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I've already said above If there are errors in the image captions then feel free to fix them, provided that you are sure the original caption is correct and more accurate etc. If the portrait caption says he was in the AAP then obviously that is an anachronism and we reflect the real situation, not the error made in the upload/file description. It is not original research to fix glaring mistakes, such as a book misprint that says the sky is bue. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As for the Hazare etc photo, the article discusses how the AAP emerged from the IAC movement. It is thus entirely appropriate, if suitably captioned. Indeed, the date is quite significant given its closeness to the falling-out. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The image description of image#1 is technically correct because Kejriwal had announced formation of his party (without disclosing its name) 2 months earlier. Actually image#2 is from the "Final War Against Corruption" 2012 phase of Janlokpal agitation (not the IAC 2011 phase), so uploaders description is also technically correct for#2. The image #2 should be deleted /replaced. Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
God help me. You've spent all this time nitpicking about the captions being wrong and now you are saying they are correct? I will tweak them anyway to give an indication of chronology etc. Can you translate the slogan on Kejriwal's head? - I've seen it loads of times but some years ago now. Sitush (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I had changed it, please correct me. He uses different slogans at different times on his cap. This one says "I need complete independence".Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the translation. Your change to the captions rather defeats the object of this discussion. You've gone done something without proposing it and indeed in a manner that, for image 2, is completely different to my own proposal. I am not wasting any more time on this. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: Just in case ever, theoretically, if a third opinion from other editors is needed, this discussion is not going to be much helpful as it derails from AAP to various other topics of other encyclopedic articles to personal behaviours. So just in case if others are needed to participate it would be better to keep discussion pointwise. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    For caption #2 I corrected the incorrect existing image caption to the correct image description as given by image uploader.Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Sena

A few days ago, I made a minor edit to the main article page for AAP to include information about, and provide context to, controversies at AAP. The edit was comprised of defining Aam Aadmi Sena, a dissent group that splintered off from AAP, and I provided basic information about some of the dissident group's protest work. After a user vandalised the minor edit (by deleting it), I created a stub article for Aam Aadmi Sena. Now, the same user has flagged for deletion the stub article for AAS. Please help improve the stub article and provide your comments and feedback and input, so it can survive attempts to delete it. Also, it would be nice to see other people get involved, other than the one person, who keeps taking action to delete all information about AAS. Thanks. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply stop biting other editors, branding other editors as a vandal and making predictive analytics on activity how an editor would behave which may not be bheast or concur to your ideology also warning other editors that i would vandalise there talk pages is not the way to go, finally you have decided to come here, which i had requested in the begining itself. stop masking your agenda as stub , facts ,censorship etc deletion tag is for discussion not a deletion itself if other editor feels it is noteworthy it will survive. again i did not vandalise anything had asked you to discuss here before adding your agenda. choose your next words carefully divide the topic you want to add with the editor,they are not the same. I have not been involved in this article for a while nor would like to get much involved in this topic would request other involved editors to close this issue pinging @Sitush: , @Dharmadhyaksha:, @Kautilya3: @Vin09: Shrikanthv (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to advise both the editors to stop making personal attacks, as per the banner at the top of the page, and focus on the subject of the article. @Maslowsneeds:, please provide diffs of your edits that were reverted, make sure you understand the reason given for the reverts, and explain why they should not have been reverted. If you want to discuss conduct issues, please do so at WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, after the recent ink attack by members of AAS, which was widely reported all over India, there were questions in the media about the AAS group. My original edit, if I recall correctly, was to define that AAS was a dissident group that broke off from AAP, and I gave two examples of direct action protests initiated by AAS. This information was added as two or there sentences under the Controversies section of the main AAP article. That contribution was deleted. I took that information and started a stub article for AAS, and then my stub article got flagged to be deleted (and is still marked for deletion). I did some more research, and now the stub article shows substantive information that now can't really be merged back into just being what was once just a few sentences under the Controversies section for the main AAP article. There are more examples of demonstrations that I can cite to, to keep fluffing the stub article, but before I add information that won't survive the stub article's deletion, it would be great if others can provide commentary about the cited and newsworthy information generally contained in the AAS stub article, as it provides information and context about controversies at AAP. This stub article grew out of AAP, but it has applications to provide context about New Delhi politics, government reform politics in India generally, and the political tactics of a newsworthy dissident political group. Thank you. Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed: Controversy section.

I find it odd that editors here allowed this section with trivial information like one MLA arrest on xyz case or EC sends notice, peculiarly when No Indian political party article mentions controversy section on Wikipedia. TY of Walk 21:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Dedicated controversy sections are not a good idea and we should strive to include any relevant material within other sections of the article. However, simply to remove because similar stuff doesn't appear in other articles is not in the spirit of an encyclopaedia. You need to reinstate your removal and either discuss why the individual items should be banished or how best to incorporate them elsewhere on the page. The last thing we want here is another round of AAP supporters vs Rest of the World: quite simply, Rest of the World will almost always be correct. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I eventually had to create a separate article for Aam Aadmi Sena, because criticism about AAP was not tolerated on this page by AAP supporters. Not even the name of Aam Aadmi Sena is allowed to appear, evidently. I have yet to figure out how balanced writing can be achieved on Wikipedia, if reliably cited criticism of a subject is not allowed. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Other election section

I think ward election win should not be mentioned. Its not major achievement for a state-level party. I propose to remove such small wins. No political party articles mentions such local by election wins.--Nizil (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per above

Election opinion polls

Aside from being useless navel-gazing, putting election opinion poll data in party articles is plain daft. Such polls cover all parties and should be in an article about the election itself, if they really must be included on Wikipedia at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aam Aadmi Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Noteworthy practices

I have just removed a section titled Noteworthy Practices. Aside from the minor point that it would need changing to comply with WP:MOSHEAD, it is just another list within the article that really adds nothing to it other than an apparent attempt to puff up the AAP with favourable trivia. Such material, if genuinely encyclopaedic and discussed by multiple independent sources, should be incorporated into the prose at the relevant points. One-off practices are rarely notable because they are likely to be less of a practice and more of a political stunt. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Axis Bank Fake Accounts and Black Money Linked to Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party???

How much truth is in this allegation?

http://postcard.news/axis-bank-fake-accounts-black-money-linked-arvind-kejriwal-aam-aadmi-party/

Not sure that I care. It is an allegation published on some website I've never heard of before. Wild claims are particularly common in Indian politics, so the default position is to be suspicious of them unless noted by very strong sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Funding

I removed some stuff about funding here. It seems to be fairly trivial but if it does deserved a mention then it would be better done either by having a longer section that discusses the funding of the party more generally or by incorporating this tiny piece of information within an existing section. We discourage very short sections such as this was. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

A longer section is needed and I was working on that before you reverted my edit. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There is already some stuff about funding in there - re: NRIs, I think - so perhaps that needs to be merged. Go ahead and write. I'll polish it up if necessary because what you had written sounded almost like point-scoring and we've had a lot of that on this article. It is important that we put things in context and yet do not get bogged down in trivia (which is why I removed the stuff you added regarding advertising spend). I also think we may soon need to consider separating the government(s) from the party, as we do for some other states/parties. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge Shunglu Committee into this article, since this was formed for actions of AAP Government, and won't have much content. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Update

A lot has happened since 2015, which the article fails to summarise. There is very little mention of the tenure of second Delhi government and Goa and Punjab campaign. There was no mention of the leaders who have left the party or joined it. Just added about the two founders. There is no mention about the leaders like Mann, and Kumar Vishwas, Jarnail Singh, etc. The party has close relationship with Anna Hazard and need to cover more of his views. Kejriwal's statements and party's claims on work done by it like mohalla clinic, electricity bill, surgical strikes, need sufficient mention too. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

RRC2397 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Plz Remove first line
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

CHANGE X

The party is also regarded as being populist Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][10]--DBigXrayᗙ 16:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "श्रमिक विकास संगठन का हस्ताक्षर अभियान शुरू". Dainik Jagran.
  2. ^ "कोलकाता : सीएम, पीएम के दफ्तर के सामने भीख मांगेंगे जूट मिल के मजदूर".
  3. ^ "आम आदमी पार्टी ने नए जीएम से मिलकर दी बधाई" (in Hindi). Dainik Bhaskar. 19 May 2018.
  4. ^ "केजरीवाल ने एलजी पर साधा निशाना, बोले- ऐसी हिटलरशाही कभी नहीं देखी". aajtak.intoday.in.
  5. ^ "AAP launches trade union in Kerala - Times of India". The Times of India.
  6. ^ "Kerala's Women Labour Union To Join Aam Aadmi Party". NDTV.com.
  7. ^ "निजीकरण के विरोध में बिजली कर्मियों ने शुरू की आर-पार की जंग - Amarujala". Amar Ujala.
  8. ^ "आप ने गुलाब का फूल देकर किसे और क्यों किया सम्मानित, जानें". www.patrika.com.
  9. ^ "DELHI में अनपढ़/अस्थाई, कर्मचारी/मजदूर का न्यूनतम वेतन 13,350 रुपए - Bhopal Samachar | No 1 hindi news portal of central india (madhya pradesh)".
  10. ^ a b "छत्तीसगढ़ की पहली पैड वुमन को आप ने बनाया प्रत्याशी, चलाया था पिंक अभियान". www.patrika.com.

Inconsistency

In the 'Initial Period' subsection of the 'History' section, it is mentioned that "Two of the founders of the party, Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav, left Aam Aadmi Party and formed Swaraj Abhiyan" whereas in the 'Delhi Assembly election, 2015' subsection of 'Elections' section it is mentioned that "..., Yadav and Bhushan were first removed from PAC, ...". It is widely known and Yogendra Yadav has said many times that atleast he (I don't know about Bhushan) was removed and that he didn't leave. Parthagar (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

User:Vif12vf With respect to this edit of yours. I think it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to add ideology in the infobox when the party itself has not explicitly mentioned it. there is no reliable ref for that. As far as I know, AAP does not consider itself aligned to any ideology, Whenver their leaders are asked questions on ideology, they answer that common man's welfare is their ideology. in such cases IMHO we should keep the infobox section empty. your thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ 11:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, in most cases we depend entirely on third-party sources to determine the ideology of a party, regardless of wether they identify with any ideology themselves, though with that in mind, both the ideology- and position-section here are entirely unsourced, which is a problem! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Infobox should only show data that is not in dispute. It is quite understandable why these editors are changing this section. That is why I proposed to remove the item from infobox and discuss it only in the article body. let me know if you have any objections to my proposal. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray: If there are no source then better remove the political position/Ideology. Source is a must. Most Indian political parties the ideology and political position does not have a source to back, which is very problematic. Check List of political parties in India very few Indian parties articles have a credible source. I suggestion until there are solid for position and ideology it is better to omit those fields.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
We all agree that this is unsourced. I am removing this from the infobox. I leave the article body for others to copy edit. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi Protect it urgently

Kindly semi protect this page urgently. APCO team from Bharatiya Janata Party is spamming with wrong information and spreading it via Twitter and Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitbjain (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UCT) (UTC)

Propaganda

Some people with vested interests have edited this page multiple times to include unsubstantiated claims. The semi-protected status needs to continue, and the whole article needs to be reviewed to maintain a neutral tone. I will keep doing so in the coming days, help would be appreciated. ~~indiegen~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiegen (talk • contribs) 15:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

National Convener

National Convener of Aam Aadmi Party is Arvind Kejriwal and here the list is of the convener of Aam Aadmi Party' Punjab unit. Thus Convener of Aam Aadmi Party (Punjab, India) and Aam Aadmi Party are two different articles and these two must be split out. Bhagwant Mann is the convener of Aam Aadmi Party's Punjab unit. The merger of these two articles mislead the readers. Manakpreet Singh (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Split

Please Split Convener of Aam Aadmi Party (Punjab, India) from this article. Both are different Articles Manakpreet Singh (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak Oppose : The Convener of Punjab is not notable enough to have its separate article. Furthermore the party is a State Party and not a National Party. Manasbose (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Re-write up of lead

For the recent revert by Revirvlkodlaku, lead is supposed to summarise the topic without unnecessary clutter. For the tag, we need better sources for its political position. Problem remains that AAP doesn't have that coverage in academia. I will really appreciate if you could corporate in finding sources than playing edit war straight away. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I have restored the version that existed before you engaged in an edit war with me. Please discuss your proposed changes to the article here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Revirvlkodlaku I have already highlighted those in summaries and here. Adequate re-writeups and maintainance tags for the clear state of article don't need to be atteneded on talk page, these are little improvements. But since you have objected, you must either highlight the problem with new version or revert yourself. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that as you make edits, you also add errors to the page, which requires work to correct. I'm happy for you to work towards improving the article, but please try to be a little more meticulous as you go about it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Revirvlkodlaku Can you point out the particular error I have made? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku This page is probably worst among all major Indian political party pages. There are a lot more of things to be done on this article. And since you have invited me here to talk, you need to discuss about content dispute with me. You are welcome if you want to collaborate and come up with some good secondary sources, you are welcome. But stalling editors like this without making any point isn't going to be good for you in long run. So let me know what is the problem with my edits. Else you should step back. I'm here for content dispute, nor to blame you for edit wars. Since this page isn't a WP:FA or WP:GA, it's not like I have to bring evey little edit here to talk page. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I suggest you keep the focus of this discussion on the article and not your issue with me. Your attempt to bully me (yes, I've looked at your user talk page) won't work, so you might as well stop trying. I found the edits you were making unconstructive. As with many situations that resemble this one in context, there is often political and cultural bias at play, and I'm watching it closely. Please make sure your edits are well referenced and actually improve the article. As a note to you, if you continue to dwell on things not related to improving the page itself, I will not engage further. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Revirvlkodlaku I have not attempted any of kind of bullying or hounding you. I asked you for a valid reason throughout the discussion which you have not provided so far. Since edits had reasons (weren't challenged), they are not unconstrictive at least. Lead wasn't in chronological order, ideologies weren't verifiable from sources, so all the removal and maintenance tag were warranted. What I have decided to assume so far that your case here disruptive editing or WP:NOTHERE for this particular discussion, for the reason WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any will to actually contribute. Unless you revert yourself or explain the content dispute properly, you will have to be reported unfortunately. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

Aam Aadmi Party's official color is green. 37.118.12.231 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   melecie   t 01:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

Remove "centre to" in template's political ideology position. In template political position should be "centre-right" Reason: most common ideologue is Left wing as it's economic policies says. Centre was inserted recently just based on 1 claim. Reference: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4827-which-path-to-choose-left-or-right-.html 157.49.149.124 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The current wording is well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Color of party

Aam Aadmi party is now using basanti coliur in their rallies as their symbol. So i think yellowish (basanti) color should be used for the party ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Venkat_TL ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ: Do you have a reliable source to cite here on the Talk page that shows that the party has adopted a particular color scheme? Because if not, no change can be made based purely on your claim. General Ization Talk 02:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

open this link to see there claim https://indiatoday.in/amp/news-analysis/story/punjab-aap-bjp-basanti-saffron-shaheed-bhagat-singh-1925689-2022-03-15 ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ The link you shared only explains the colour of the headgear they wore in the oath ceremony. Nowhere it states that the party has changed its colours. Even their website continues to show their old colours. Flag too. It is not appropriate to change colours based on headgear of one incident. Tomorrow they will wear navy blue, then what? @General Ization has explained you already. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

is there any explanation regarding their navy blue colour ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ their flag and website. Venkat TL (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

ok thanks ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aam_Aadmi_Party/Archive_4&oldid=1093532231"