Talk:2019 Indian general election: Difference between revisions
Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) |
Logical1004 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1,825: | Line 1,825: | ||
::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. --[[User:RaviC|RaviC]] ([[User talk:RaviC|talk]]) 19:55, 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. --[[User:RaviC|RaviC]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:26, 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 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. [[User:Logical1004|Logical1004]] ([[User talk:Logical1004|talk]]) 12:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:22, 20 March 2019
 | India Start‑class Top‑importance  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Elections and Referendums Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Consider replacing the Pre-Poll Alliances and Non-alliance sections to Political parties/Independent politicians.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."[1] 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 rather it is calculated in two ways or [2]
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.
- 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)
JDuggan101's Proposal
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)
- 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)
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
- 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)
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
References
- ^ "Talk:Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election", Wikipedia, 2018-10-28, retrieved 2018-12-16
- ^ "How election results are calculated and reported". BBC News. 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
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 DabralTalk 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)
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]
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
- 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)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why seats needed= 228 already filled for Cong ? It should be removed which makes no sense Lesenwriter (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:13, 25 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)
'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)
- 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)
- 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)