Talk:2019 Indian general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contested deletion

This page should not be s (UTC)

I disagree. In parliamentary system even after getting a majority , there is no say when will the next election be held. Eg In 2004 the elections were supposed to be held in Oct but the dates were advanced by 6 months. Another factor could be unforseen event which can lead to postponement of election like in 1977 or advancement. The article should be changed to "the next general election" Manchurian candidate 06:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The main party did win on its own even w/o the alliance.Lihaas (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ankit Love, leader of JKNPP, Prime Minister candidate

According to the latest India opinion polls, available from Nov 2018, the parliament will be hung. Whereby both major party coalitions led by the BJP (170) and Congress (143) have less seats than the “others” (230). With 273 needed for a majority, under such a result the “others” can organize a third front, and attempt to form a government. This could happen with outside support from either Congress, BJP or their defectors. Somewhat akin to the short-lived Chandra Shekhar premiership in 1991. Thus, possibility presently exists, that the next prime minister of India, may not be from either BJP or Congress.

Ankit Love, leader of JKNPP, may not be odds on favorite to win, however reliable secondary news sources have reported him as a candidate for prime minister. A couple of anonymous IP editors, attempted to delete this, with no explanation, as their first edits on wikipedia. Yet, in the current global political climate, with propensity of candidates of an independent nature to have won, such as Macron in France, it remains worthwhile mentioning Love here.

It is also prudent to note, that Love’s father has been a member of Indian parliament, as founder of JKNPP. And Love’s party has had ministers as part of a coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir previously. 2019 Jammu and Kashmir Assembly Elections, are also tentatively scheduled to coincide with the Indian general elections.

The Ankit Love article, is fully protected, WP:GOLDLOCK the highest level of security, given on wikipedia, whereby only admins can edit it. In comparison, the Donald Trump article is one level less of security, WP:BLUELOCK. This appears to have been done, due to a high degree of edit warring and potential vandalism in the past. Thus, worthwhile to keep vigilance of IP address editors, to avoid editing that may be based solely on political bias, or whim.

Further, Love as a candidate for prime minster of India, is mentioned on both the JKNPP article, and the OLP article (that redirects from Love’s article) with both having in links to this article. Death Star Central (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Issue of neutrality in editing

{{POV-check}} Please ensure the article remains neutral and unbiased in best possible way. Personal likings and dislikings of an editor and the political opinions about a particular party or politician must not pass as an information to the readers. Hemant Dabral^Talk 16:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Rafale deal section is too long

I do not think the recent additions to the Rafale deal section are WP:DUE - this article is not about that issue and there is far too much detail not relevant to the election. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Deccan Herald Poll is not an Opinion Poll - it even says so in the Article

Hi All, The community should take note that the DH Survey is only a survey of DH correspondents and not an opinion poll of any kind involving any population surveys. It states so clearly on the article referenced as well. It seems absolutely wrong to place the article along with all the other Opinion Polls. 108.171.129.171 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue

This page is susceptible from heavy bias. The page is more like a propaganda page than an informative page. I feel the page must include : 1. Potential Candidates 2. Number of Constituencies 3. Prime Ministerial Candidates 4. Votes Gained 5. Results.

The Page must not be a place to discuss the policies and issues.

See Model Page for Elections Here

Thank you

Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Need for a Model Page

There is a requirement of neutrality for this page. I seek for a Model page which we can adopt to.

This page should not be a propaganda page for some party. May it be BJP nor the Congress. I feel this page should have clear statistics and not discussion or reporting of some issues. Media during the Election time is severely biased.

There is a section "Issues" That I have deleted. Due to this very reason.

Please provide suggestions to improve the page.

Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss "Issues" section before publishing.

Wikipedia is not a place to debate. Nor it is a propaganda page. This is not social media. Nor it is a copy-paste of Print Media. Having a topic named "Issues" is severely prone to personal opinion and bias. And this is a reason None of the Election pages in Wikipedia will discuss "Issues".

[Korea] Thailand Japan Maldives Check the entire List

Having such biased opinions on Wikipedia can severely scew the democratic fabric of the country. If any issues must be discussed it must be discussed on Social Media. Wikipedia is a page where people consider the data as fact.

Secondly, the sources attached to the "Issues" are not from authentic sources. Days before elections there is too much fake news even in mainstream newspapers like Times of India and The Hindu. Several News sources are unverified. Please remove this section.

I completely agree with you Rdr78 (talk). I have removed the Issues Section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Issues section is not neutral

Rdr78 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) It only contains issues that are attributed to the government by a certain section of the media. And even though some sources are linked, there is no proof that the sources are legitimate - like the sources for the "job crisis".

Rdr78, hello there! I am sorry you feel this way, so are there any sources that you feel would provide more accurate coverage of this topic? Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Rdr78 (talk). I have removed the Issues Section.

Wikipedia is not a place to debate. Nor it is a propaganda page. None of the Election pages in Wikipedia will discuss "Issues".

[Korea]

Thailand

Japan

Maldives

Check the entire List — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dheerajmpai23, As a counterpoint, we do have several similar section in the most recent elections for various english speaking countries: 2018 United States elections#Advertisements and campaign messaging, 2017 United Kingdom general election#Issues, 2017 New Zealand general election#Issues, and 2015 Canadian federal election#Election campaign. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Matthew J. Long. Pages linked by Dheerajmpai23 are all 2019 elections. Those are evolving pages. Even 2014 Indian general election has issues in campaign. -- Shreyas112358 —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dheerajmpai23 If it seems that all sides and their positions on various issues are not represented entirely, please go ahead and add those. I am reverting the changes -- Shreyas112358

Issues raised by Shreyas112358 is completely one sided and mostly unverified. Let it be first discussed in Talk sections and then be updated in the page later. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And I have reverted you once again. Please read WP:OSE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. What other pages have doesn't really matter; reliable sources discuss what they describe as issues in this election, and our page needs to do the same. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alliances

So, this conversation comes up every LS election: Alliances aren't coherent nationwide. The fact that CPI(M) and INC are part of the same alliance in TN doesn't make CPI(M) part of UPA, in fact "UPA" is a completely irrelevant concept in TN politics (where INC isn't a dominant coalition member). --Soman (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical/Spelling Errors

There is a spelling error in this section. The appropriate word is "morale", not "moral". Sidbishnoi (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rahul Gandhi 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

'Issues' section

@Vanamonde93: the entire sections on Rafale, Agriculture and the Ram temple are entirely unsourced. That's not minimal by any standard.

Where are the sources claiming these issues are going to be deciding factors in this election? All that is cited is that these were topics that have been raised within the last year. I have edited election pages for at least eight other countries; none have an essay that tried to predict (using WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL) what the issues are before the election has actually happened. --RaviC (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@RaviC: The section is far from perfect, but problems with the agriculture section do not justify removing the relatively well-sourced information about job losses. Deal with the unsourced information (I've already dumped some of it: some of the rest might need removal, but some can be sourced very easily). If there's material that says "these will be issues" rather than "these things have been raised during the campaign, then fix that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There's always material saying "these will be issues". There's one article by CNN already referenced in the campaign section. In all major democracies, opinion polls publish information about which issues are gaining resonance with voters. India isn't an exception. --RaviC (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Coverage of this election in reliable sources includes coverage of what issues candidates/commentators are bringing up. We therefore need to include it, per WP:DUE, and one sentence in the campaign section isn't sufficient weight. It's as simple as that. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agriculture, Rafale are not new issues, these issues have been in news since 2015-16. In the last 1 year these issues have been in news much more frequent due to coming election. So removing these issues altogether is not good at all. Update the issues section with these issues like Rafale, Job crisis, Agriculture crisis. Farmers have marched several times and it is a very serious issue. Ignoring these issues will be unjustice. Logical1004 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

These are definitely some of the issues which are becoming popular and will decide the election outcome. Congress party has raised banner of Rafale jets in UP roadshows. Chowkidar chor hai jibe and its rebuttal Main Bhi Chowkidar are the evidence becoming election issue. Now please stop these reverts and reinstate the issues. Your constant reverts are suggesting that you seem interested in Rafale issue. Please prove me wrong by your justifications or by stopping this edit war. I may follow you and continue this edit war by 8 other users if you are not stopping this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 06jay007 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No wikipedia voice please, attribute we must

@Vanamonde93 and RaviC: and others: we need to be careful that the article does not generalize or use wikipedia voice to summarize one politician's allegations or one newspaper's attack ads/article or non-peer reviewed oped by some commentators. For NPOV, we should attribute who or which source is stating so. We need to be careful that our wording reflects the sources and does not come across as favoring/attacking the BJP or favoring/attacking the Congress or one of their numerous regional parties. I will do some cleanup. Comments and discussion welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I originally had quoted sources for statements in the section (including CNN and Scroll.in), but they seem to have been removed by other editors. --RaviC (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition of other PM candidates

I strongly feel we need to add details about other PM candidates. Just like that in 2014 Indian general election. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements

Should the endorsements section (at least for media houses) be there? Indian media houses generally don't explicitly endorse politicians unlike say the United States. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: You may remove it as it's just empty currently. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion Polling Table

I recently removed the outcome section due to it being unnecessary and ugly, and my edit was quickly reverted afterwards. Rather than start an edit war or somthing Like that I would like to explain my reasoning.

Firstly it is unnecessary, this is because the data is not needed for someone who is looking at the polling all they need to know is "Who's ahead and ... by how much." This means that the note on whether an alliance has an majority or not is unneeded and could be rather distracting from the more important piece of information.

Secondly, the actual column is rather ugly. It is in bold in certain places when other places it isn't, a rather non-nonsensical way. It also looks rather like it has been tact on to the end with no real thought and just rushed.

Thirdly, the actual data is wrong. In parliamentary democracies the majority of a government is not calculated by $Government-SeatsNeeded$ rather it is calculated in two ways $2(government-(House/2))$ or $government-opposition$

Finally, there is no precedent for the inclusion of an outlook section in Indian election pages the pages for the 2014 and 2009 elections, the only pages with table in sections. Now, I know that I also changed the table to something different this year but that formatting for opinion polls tables are the standard for many pages for many nations.

This is my reasoning for why the outlook section should not be included, I hope that a disscussion can take place about it. JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Aréat (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. It would appear redundant to maintain the "Outlook" column. Makes sense to remove it, as the numbers speak for themselves. And the intermittent bold text is certainly unnecessary. Death Star Central (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have created an alternative to the current system, which keeps some of the features from previous Indian polling articles while also improving on the many aspects of the current problems. I removed the lead section and added a majority section due to the fact that with seat predictions I feel it was more important to consider the majority rather than the lead of the largest party, which is indicated by the highlighting of the party anyway.

JDuggan101's Proposal

Date published	Polling agency			Others	Majority
		NDA	UPA
Nov 2018	ABP News - C Voter	170	143	230	Hung
		300	116	127	28
October 2018	ABP News-CSDS	276	112	155	4
Aug 2018	India Today- Karvy	255	248	46	Hung
		228	224	91	Hung
		281	122	140	9
May 2018	ABP News-CSDS	274	164	105	2
Jan 2018	Republic-CVoter	335	89	119	63
Jan 2018	India Today	309	102	132	37
Jan 2018	ABP News-CSDS	301	127	115	29
Aug 2017	India Today	349	75	119	77
Jan 2017	India Today	370	60	123	98
Aug 2016	India Today	304	94	145	32
Feb 2016	India Today	286	110	147	14
Aug 2015	India Today	288	81	174	16
Apr–May 2014	General election results	336	60	147	64

JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
JDuggan101,yeah, this looks better. Feel free to add this table, replacing the 'outlook' column of the current table in the article with the 'majority' column of your proposed table. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI Your table is an improvement but uses incorrect information added by an IP which I reverted just now. Please fix and then you can reinsert - thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter Could you please tell me the incorrect information, so I could change it please; that would be very helpful.JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

JDuggan101, The table currently in the article should be correct; unfortunately you based your version on a version an IP appears to have vandalized (in this edit) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Predictions

The August 2018 India Today and Nov 2018 ABP News-CSDS polls give multiple predictions. Are these based on how the alliances form - for example, whether or not an opposition grand alliance forms in Uttar Pradesh? Can someone add an explanation for this in the table itself? Jose Mathew (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is based on different alliances that haven't been mentioned in the table SbChamp16 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead column in table

Regarding (this revert) JDuggan101 I dont think - for the total seats of the lok sabha only the majority column is needed; the lead is rather irrelevant.
Lead of largest alliance over next one is as relevant to who forms the government. Just for example - scenario where all alliances have roughly same seats and no majority of a single alliance, it would become complicated to predict who forms the government. Another scenario of one alliance, having a very big lead over the next one (even though no majority), has higher change of forming government.
Add to that the table is a time series - it becomes even more relevant regarding the trend changes in leads when verdict as a whole is hung.

I think lead column should be included in table as it gives a much clearer picture about parliament being 'hung'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyas112358 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the lead is included I feel that it should use the same formatting as the normal lead columns in the article. However, when it comes to seats data there becomes a major complication when an alliance is below others; if this occurs then what should happen: use the UPA or NDA seats, show lead other the others column. If the latter is used then it becomes rather disingenuous, "others" is a collective of the opposition and not a uniformed group therefore can not be used as a way of showing a lead; if the former is used it's incorrect, the alliance could be smaller than a group within the others section, when it comes to the overall seats in the lok sabha a majority column is only the relevant section and the lead section would, as I have stated above, be rather unneeded and is possibly confusing to readers. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 19:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you that others would possess some challenge. Others have to be neglected while calculating lead. Others means non allied parties. In that scenario where others are first or second largest group they wont be considered in counting of lead and (first or second non others alliance) and third alliance would be considered for calculations. As others join some alliance or form an alliance of themselves over time they will be counted giving far better clarity. Presently all surveys are assuming others as mahagathbandhan or third front or others. But as dust settles down others would be split into Mahagathbandan/others or Third front/others or mahgathbandhan/Third front/others.

In democracy when no one get above the half way mark (majority) then the lead and how large/small(lead column) is over the next one helps in determining how much of a challenge the second would posse to the first one to form government and predicting which way others would gravitate. --- Shreyas112358

Published dates vs survey dates

Presently opinion polls table is mentioning survey published dates. But there is a need to incorporate in some way about the survey dates in particular survey end date. There is a vast divergence in amount of time lapsed between survey is completed and published of various surveys. Some survey results are published immediately in couple of days while others taking more than fortnight. So those surveys taking long time to be published are effectively presenting analysis of long back in time effectively about a month back while others not. Mean while if some large vote changing event happened between the survey end date and published dated, its impact wont be captured by survey. But as the survey is reported by published date it would imply that the events impact was captured. There by giving a distorted picture. So I think that survey end date needs to be included in some way. ---Shreyas112358

Adding new surveys

Republic TV did a new survey with Jan Ki Baat. I added it but it was removed for some unknown reason. I don't know what's there to form a consensus about, it's a new poll so just add it already.

the reason given by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manthara was the source is not "renowned". why exactly? source is Republic Bharat and Jan ki Baat, both pretty well known

And exactly who decides what is "renowned" and what is not? Jan Ki Baat has a better track record of predicting elections correctly than most polls already included. They had got Gujarat, Tripura, Karnataka,Rajsathan and Madhya Pradesh right. saying they are not "renowned is baseless"

Whiny teenager (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Why diff. dates now-a-days with variance more, I suspect the Potency

The days while differing I suspect what sort of Constitutional Congress Democracy Units you're, I mean I sustain my question about the Potent people. Why it is not a same date of POLL.

—Dev Anand Sadasivamt@lk 15:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Voting Percentage

Voting Percentage Phase Wise. Meet Sachde (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Details of All PM candidates

I strongly feel, it’s not necessary to project few personalities as potential PM candidate. Since Indian democracy is parliamentary style hence it doesn't make sense to project few candidates as PM candidate. India practices Multi- Party System and it’s not prerequisite to announce PM candidate well before election. Selection of PM is post general election job and it will be carried out by elected people representative not directly by the people, by projecting couple candidate as PM  seems to be propaganda  and sets wrong narrative. --Nandeesh Kabbur (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)  

The 2014 Elections 2014 Indian general election has details of all PM candidates in the infobox. While the 2019 contains only Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. I feel it would be good to include the others also. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Something that looks like this

Extended content

For general elections in India, see Elections in India. Indian general election, 2019 11 April 2019 (2019-04-11) – 18 May 2019 (2019-05-18) all 543 seats in the Lok Sabha 272 seats needed for a majority Opinion polls Turnout TBA   First party Second party Third party   Leader Narendra Modi Rahul Gandhi Prakash Karat Party BJP INC CPI(M) Alliance NDA UPA Left Front Leader since 13 September 2013 2013 2005 Leader's seat Varanasi Vadodara (Vacated) Amethi Did not contest Last election 282 44 9 Seats won TBA 44 TBA Seat change TBA TBA TBA Popular vote TBA TBA TBA Percentage TBA TBA TBA Swing TBA TBA TBA   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Leader Mamata Banerjee Naveen Patnaik Arvind Kejriwal Party AITC BJD AAP Alliance Independent Leader since 1998 2000 2013 Leader's seat Did not contest Did not contest Did not contest Last election 19 14 4 Seats won 34 20 TBA Seat change TBA TBA TBA Popular vote TBA TBA TBA Percentage TBA TBA TBA Swing TBA TBA TBA   Seventh party Eighth party   Leader Nara Chandrababu Naidu Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao Party TDP TRS Alliance NDA Leader since 1995 2001 Leader's seat Did not contest Medak (Vacated) Last election 16 11 Seats won TBA TBA Seat change TBA TBA Popular vote TBA TBA Percentage TBA TBA Swing TBA TBA Prime Minister before election Narendra Modi Bharatiya Prime Minister-elect Narendra Modi BJP

Semi-protected edit request on 9 13 April 2019

Campaigning

Manifesto

Please rewrite Manifesto section content like

• The Congress released its manifesto, titled Congress Will Deliver on 3 April.
• ON March 28, the CPI(M) released its election manifesto for the 17th Lok Sabha in the country. The Manifesto was released by Sitaram Yechury, general secretary of the Party along with Polit Bureau members Prakash Karat, S R Pillai, Brinda Karat, Hannan Mollah, Nilotpal Basu and Subhashini Ali.
• The National Manifesto of All India Trinamool Congress
• Tejashwi Yadav releases RJD Lok Sabha election manifesto, supports Congress's NYAY yojana
• The TDP president N Chandrababu Naidu has released the party Manifesto for the 2019 General Elections on the eve of Ugadi, Telugu New Year, at his residence at Undavalli in Guntur district on Saturday 6 April 2019.
• The much awaited YSR Congress Party 2019 elections manifesto is finally released on the Telugu new year day 'Ugadi' on Saturday.6 April 2019

• CPI(ML) (Liberation) Manifesto for 2019 Lok Sabha Elections
• DMK has released its manifesto in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The manifesto has promised to make efforts for release of all seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. It has also promised compensation to victims of demonetisation.

• AIADMK manifesto promises national poverty eradication scheme

Campaign controversies

During the course of the campaign, several controversies arose, with parties being accused by one another and the Election Commission of India of violating the model code of conduct that was in force during the election.

• During campaigning for Modi, Chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, stated that "Congress people used to serve terrorists biryani and Modi ji's sena (Prime Minister Narendra Modi's army) gives them only golis and golas (bullets and bombs)". This statement of his was widely criticised by opposition, as he had supposedly insulted the Indian Army, by exploiting the achievments of the Army, for the benefit of Modi.

• The governor of Rajasthan Kalyan Singh, allegedly told BJP party workers that he is one among the"BJP ‘karyakartas". the Election Commission has found that his statements had violated the Model Code Of Conduct of elections, and seeks to ask the President to take further actions, as the governor had lowered the “prestige of the high office occupied by him”

• The Election Commission seeks information and broadcasting ministry's report on launch of NaMo TV, as the Congress party has lodged a complaint against it.

• The Election Commission has sought an explanation from the Railway and Civil Aviation Ministries on railway tickets and Air India boarding passes carrying Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photographs.

• Among the interventions by the EC was a ban on the use of images of Pulwama martyrs. Later, CEO Teeka Ram Meena put a ban on the use of issues related to the Sabarimala temple during the poll campaign.

• Niti Aayog vice-chairman Rajiv Kumar violated the Model Code of Conduct by speaking against the Congress's NYAY or minimum income guarantee promise plan, the Election Commission said on 6 April 2019, rejecting his reply as not satisfactory.

• Revenue Secretary A B Pandey and CBDT Chairman P C Mody have been called to explain the raids amid allegations by the Congress that the ruling BJP was using enforcement agencies to target it during the poll season.

• In a letter to the Election Commission, the AAP legal cell alleged that the Prime Minister talked about Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who was captured by Pakistan, during the interview to obtain political gains.

• Election Commission seeks report on PM Narendra Modi's Balakot strike remarks

• Mayawati and Navjot Singh Sidhu appeals Muslims to vote for Congress going against Election Model Code of Conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Participating parties

Please remove alliance column to exclude Sumalatha (Independent Candidate supported by BJP in Mandya) from National Democratic Alliance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.248.12 (talk • contribs)

References

• 112.133.248.12 / 112.133.248.26 / etc: You have been edit warring and replugging OR in the past. Wikipedia articles are not a laundry list of every allegation filed with the Election Commission against a particular party or politician – Congress or BJP or Kerala Communist parties or zillion others in India. You seem to be targeting one political party and providing a list of allegations against them. That raises NPOV issues. The same sources state that that counter-allegations have been filed with the same commission against almost every party on all sorts of issues ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc). This article cannot become a list of one-sided 10, or 100, or 1000, or 10,000 or 100,000 EC complaint one-line summaries. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a laundry list of allegations, advocacy, attacks, praise that are pro- or anti-Congress, pro- or anti-BJP, and pro- or anti-whichever party that interests you or another editor. Wikipedia is not the place to run a campaign against and in favor of any particular party, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:WWIN guidelines. I am looking into the manifesto list you provided, and will add them shortly where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for the editing and suggestions. You and or others too targeting one political party and providing a list of allegations against them in alleged institutional undermining (In response, Modi termed the allegations "a big joke", commenting that Congress and the communists had themselves undermined institutions including the police, CBI and the CAG, and cited the murder of BJP activists in Kerala and Madhya Pradesh.), Economic performance, and Income tax raids sections etc. So we need to add details about Campaign controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.248.24 (talk • contribs)

References

112.133.248.*: That section and those words were there before my first edit to this article. Those are contributions from other editors and okay because they cover the different sides, meet the NPOV and other core wikipedia community agreed content guidelines. The new sub-sections have tried to include issues / controversies-related content from secondary sources that cover the different sides per our NPOV guidelines. Please do not reformat this talk page sections or where the reflist is. Please follow the style and chron guidelines for this talk page. Also, please sign your posts on this talk page [by including ~~~~ without the nowiki markup]. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

'Issues' section too long

There is too much content in the 'Issues' section and people will get lost in the same. I strongly feel that the 'Issues' section must be shortened or other sections like manifestoes etc must be brought at the top Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dheerajmpai23 I suggest you create a summary at the top of the section which covers all the issues for people with low attention span.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jonathansammy: That "people with low attention span" motive is inappropriate. Dheerajmpai23, you and we all must respect and follow the MOS and our content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ms Sarah Welch, I believe the summary you deleted at the beginning of the issues section can go in the lede section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.The lead section as it stands also does not summarise the contents of the article. It can be expanded.Please comment.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you draft a proposed summary of that section in the main article per WP:Lead, we can discuss it. I do not think we should paste into the lead the sentence I deleted. We should strive for a better and more complete summary of the most important points in the main article. Or, just wait a few weeks when the results come out. The article would expand then and so would the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, however, we should not wait for the election to conclude.We should have a lede for the article as it stands now.Once the results come out much of the content will change and as a consequence, the lede will too.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dheerajmpai23 I think Income tax raids, Social media abuses and fake news, NaMo TV and Modi biopic, Dynasty Politics are controversies and not issues. So please restore "Campaign controversies" section and move them to "Issues" section along with some other main controversies.122.172.178.174 (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 122.172.178.174 (talk) . I think we should seperate out the sections. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Campaign controversies section is missing

@GVOLTT, Dheerajmpai23, Aswin8, Rsrikanth05, Abecedare, RaviC, and Ms Sarah Welch: I think Income tax raids, Social media abuses and fake news, NaMo TV and Modi biopic, Dynasty Politics are controversies and not issues. So please restore "Campaign controversies" section and move them to "Issues" section along with some other main controversies.122.172.178.174 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No. We summarize the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ms Sara Welch. In addition, if you want to edit here, use your account instead of editing with different IP addresses. --RaviC (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, they don't warrant more than a mention here. They van very well go into a controversies article by themselves. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

@Ms Sarah Welch, Political Observer 2019, Abecedare, and RaviC: I propose to merge Campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election,Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for the 2019 Indian general election and Indian National Congress campaign for the 2019 Indian general election articles into 2019 Indian general election.Requested to tag the destination page.122.172.249.1 (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Different topics. Once the voting data and the state-by-state results start pouring in, this article will grow (see the 2014 Indian general election and study the editing history in 2014). Better if those other campaigning-related articles are expanded and we keep a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for all except campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election, which is a poorly sourced fork of the main article created by an IP, so should definitely be redirected (at least for now). The other two are more specific so shouldn't be merged. --RaviC (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The article 2019 Indian general election is already too long. I agree with @RaviC that campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election can be merged. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Hi RaviC,Please transfer Background, Issues and Campaign controversies sections to 2019 Indian general election before redirecting the Campaigning in the 2019 Indian general election to 2019 Indian general election. 122.166.149.105 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's an unsourced fork full of empty sections and you need to stop editing from here without your account; if not I will need to file a SPI report. --RaviC (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content, WWIN and BLP issues

@Rams are: The cited sources do not support much of what you added, and your edits seem to be one-sided pro-BJP, anti-Congress. For example, this source does not mention the Benjamin property act which you inserted into the cited sentence, then you edit warred by re-inserting it back. As I mentioned in the sections above, any OR or one-sided cherrypicked summary in favor of or to attack the Congress, the BJP, or any individual or a party/organization violates our OR, NPOV and other content guidelines. Similarly, per WP:BLP and WP:WWIN guidelines we need to be careful with fresh allegations against any individual, no matter how much you like, dislike, love, hate that living person. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please explain your edits and how they meet our content guidelines. Please do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: The Election Commission of India has now responded to the complaint by an independent candidate (not from BJP). The candidate Dhruv Lal is one of many competing in Amethi. Dhruv Lal questioned whether Rahul Gandhi is a citizen of the United Kingdom and why his nomination papers do not show the income from the company named BackOps Limited that was registered and existed between 2003-2009. The Election Commission of India rejected the objections on April 22 2019, ruling that Rahul Gandhi's candidacy is valid.

This is not a new issue to those with good access to archived documents and published sources. Yesterday, I had done a quick search which had yielded the following: In November 2015, several sources (1, 2) described that Rahul Gandhi had started a consulting company as 65% owner, with someone else named Ulrik McKnight (35% owner). At the time of incorporation in 2003, Rahul Gandhi is shown as a person of "Nationality: Indian" in the UK's Companies House filings (McKnight was shown as American). The next document filed about a year later was typed as "Nationality: British", but this was manually crossed out by someone at some point of time and changed to Indian. In the years after 2005, Rahul Gandhi's nationality [citizenship] is typed in as British, year after year. This evidence became public and the issue of his citizenship was raised in 2015. At that point, Congress party denied that Rahul Gandhi ever became a British citizen, and claimed that the BackOps papers were an error. It is unclear what BackOps did, who its customers were, but except for two years when it made a very small profit, the company was very small and was closed in 2009.

Given the EC ruling above, I do not consider this as a significant and notable issue for this article at this point. I suggest we leave it out, because this is little more than sensationalism, there are a zillion sensationalist allegations and stories against BJP leaders, Congress leaders, regional party leaders and per our WP:WWIN and other guidelines that is not what our articles try to summarize. However, if others offer persuasive reasons in this particular case and a consensus emerges that we include it, I will go with the consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OR:Synthesis issues in Dynasty politics

Jonathansammy: Tish Sanghera's report is largely a historical analysis of elected representatives from dynasties/those with extended family links, since 1952. The report cites a student (don't know whether the student compiled data has been peer-reviewed), and has other issues. We cannot summarize much from it, nor can we synthesize or imply new conclusions to 2019 elections, per our WP:Synthesis guidelines. A source such as this may be relevant to Political families of India or some other article, but here we must focus on the 2019 elections. @Kautilya3: any 3O? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with that sentiment. What content are we talking about?

From the source, I think the best line to be taken seems to be the nam-dar vs kam-dar slogan. That captures the BJP strategy quite brilliantly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This, in particular the historical claims about various parties including the Congress and the BJP. Sanghera's report seems to be poorly researched and quite likely incorrect given the extensive tables, charts and discussions in this scholarly source published by Cambridge University Press about dynasty politics in India. It would have helped if Sanghera's report had disclosed or provided the underlying data on their IndiaSpend website, but I couldn't find it. Admin Nyttend has been right all along in reminding that newspapers can be a good source for the latest news, but they are typically not WP:HISTRS or RS for critical reviews and other areas where we must seek peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Chandra's book has many interesting chapters written by various scholars on political dynasties in India, it compares them to political dynasties in over 100 countries including those in Europe and in the USA (and South Asia), how this is a universal phenomenon, how Indian realities differ and are complicated, the bad and the good amongst these, and so on. This is not the right article though for all this because such a discussion would be offtopic and WP:Coatrack-ing. Perhaps someone with time and patience could expand Political families of India, or another appropriate article, or start a new article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)