Talk:Indian National Congress

Extremely biassed article under heading - Indira era (1966–1984)

Article is extremely biassed in not mentioning the reason the 2 Sikh body guards retaliated against Indira Ghandi. The text talks about Operation blue star with no further detail, yet the next paragraph in detail explains the 2 Sikhs killing of Indira Ghandi which led to massacres by Congress supporters against Sikhs as retaliation. The previous reference [120] clearly states from Operation Blue Star that the purpose of Operation bluestar was to kill Bhinderwale, not remove, Kill. There is a clear bias that forms a major turning point in Indian Congress party from becoming an equal religious government to becoming more anti-Sikh. I feel There is bias in not presenting the true facts which can be verified.

On the reference [120] to Operation Blue star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star it clear reads "...On 1 June 1984, after negotiations with the militants failed, Indira Gandhi rejected the Anandpur Resolution and ordered the army to launch Operation Blue Star, simultaneously attacking scores of Sikh temples across Punjab.[24] On 1 June Indian security forces commenced Operation Blue Star when they fired into various buildings with the goal of assessing the training of the militants, which resulted in the deaths of 8 civilians.[25][26]..."

This is attempted murder.

I'm not arguing to defend Sikhs, I'm arguing that the way the articles information is presented is to dehumanise Sikhs by misleading readers into viewing them as a source of disturbance hence leading to subjective riots. They were ordered to have their religious significant leader murdered by Indian Congress party instead, and on top of that the riots were a targeted massacare, there is a clear distinct difference between both words. I feel Wikipedia authors and admins are deliberately leaving this information to mislead viewers as it aligns with most other Sikh Wikipedia articles on the assassinators leaving out crucial information regarding reasons for the justification of murder for Indira Ghandi. This is simply unacceptable and Wikipedia is misleading readers with their authors contributions.

SumeetJi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Detail mention is not required. You can refer the main article by clicking see also or further information part. Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pumapaparti.N.rao.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Indian National Congress (Sidhu)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian National Congress (Sidhu). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Indian National Congress (Sidhu) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I failed to understand need of this article. I would rather propose deletion of Indian National Congress (Sidhu)--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Indian National Congress (Amarinder)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian National Congress (Amarinder). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Indian National Congress (Amarinder) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I failed to understand need of this article. I would rather propose deletion of Indian National Congress (Amarinder)--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian National Congress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

While there has been significant work put into this article, as it stands the article does not yet meet the Good Article criteria. Some problems and suggestions for improvement:

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

• There are a few areas where the prose could be tightened. For example the second paragraph of the lead begins with three sentences that all start with "Congress". The third paragraph of the lead goes until 2014, but the fourth jumps back to 2004. Overall however, the prose is of a decent quality.

 Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

1b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

• This article currently does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. However, it appears to have been written by itself without much reference to the rest of the article. It contains references only used there, which is a common indication that the text is not based on the article. Three of the four paragraphs are mostly or completely focused on History, while other sections such as Current structure and composition miss out.

The 1st - What INC is, 2nd- about it's contemporary situation incliding past notable PMs from the party, 3rd and 4th - election performance, 5th - Its policies and party structure. Please let me know if this sequence is fine.

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

• Some citations are incomplete or missing. The shortrefs "Singh, pp. 41–42", "Ghose 1993", and "Kopstein 2005" do not point to a longer citation. One reference, "Chandra 2007b", is missing completely. (Note if information including references is copied from other pages, this should be made clear in the edit summary.) Some sources include publishers in their titles eg. "Rent relief unlikely for Congress's Delhi properties | India News – Times of India", ""Political Parties - NCERT".

 Fixed Removed those sources.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding quotes, if using citation templates they can be included in those citations, rather than listed in separate footnotes.

Not getting. Can you please highlight what section of article having this issue ?

2b) all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• There are a few Britannica citations which might be replaced, however at a quick look through there are no glaring issues here.

 Fixed Removed. Also that line do not require a ref.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

2c) it contains no original research

• There is a lot of uncited information in this article. In addition to the outstanding cn tag, the General election results, Legislative assembly results, Presence in states and UTs, List of prime ministers, and List of current chief ministers are completely unsourced. Several areas of Political positions are unsourced, and there are a few scattered unsourced areas in other areas. (Note that I have not done a deep check into whether text matches existing sources, only checked for their presence.)

 Added section filled with sources. Let me know if it's okay.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

2d) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• Earwig shows a couple of large areas of overlap with the Britannica article on the topic, where multiple sentences appear roughly the same. I note there are some other copyright issues in the article history, so this may be an area worth checking.

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

• Compared to the few FA political party articles, and to a quick spotcheck of GA articles, this article appears to broadly cover relevant aspects. However, many sections are limited to only tables without any textual information. Information for example about General election results and Legislative assembly results should not be restricted to the History section.

 Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

• While the overall article length is within guidelines, more than half of the article text falls within the History section. This feels decidedly disproportionate, especially as the topic is already split off into a main article (albeit poorly developed compared to the section in this article). It would be advisable to merge the information on this article with the main article, and provide a more concise summary.

 Fixed check now --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

4) it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

• No issues are immediately obvious regarding neutrality.

5) it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• There is some back and forth in recent editing history, but this article is broadly stable at the moment.

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

• The designation of File:INC Logo.svg as "simple geometry" seems dubious, especially as the simpler File:Hand INC.svg is under Share Alike. File:INC Flag Official.jpg is tagged as own work, which seems unlikely given its similarities with the previous two. Hard to see how File:Cow and Calf INC.svg could be public domain. Other images not yet checked.

 Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

• Media is on topic, although the use of the Liberalism and Freedom of Religion sidebars seems too weakly linked to meet WP:SIDEBAR.

Best regards, CMD (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, quickfailing is out of my comprehension. I was expecting maybe a day or two to resolve concern raised by you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions, in fact have started working on it. Cheers--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This was not a quick fail exactly, I took the time to look through the article and all the criteria. However, the issues identified are significant and span multiple criteria, and will take awhile to fix, outside the scope of a GAN. I would encourage before nominating to take a few days off the article, so you can look at the article yourself with a relatively fresh eye to compare it to the GA criteria. Best, CMD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for responding. Just curious if you know any GA or FA political articles. I need to refer those in order to write this one.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 07:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: When looking into this article, I compared it to articles on this list. Keep in mind however that the present state of articles may not reflect their current status. For example, the current Bharatiya Janata Party article does not meet GA status, also having many unsourced sections. However, if you look at the version when it was promoted, here, it is in a much better shape, having for example a source for each row of its tables. CMD (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Working on GA Quick-failed suggestions

Hello @Fowler&fowler:. I have left a note on your talk page, reason behind changes to the article. Are you no reading messages left on your talk page mate? I do not intend to have edit war, never wished to. It's just that this article has been failed to meet GA status. Reviewer has suggested important points and I am giving my best to improve the same. Your reverts damaging every little thing I am doing to improve the article. Please be considerate before you revert edits, as I am spending significant hard work improving this place. Please discuss here before reverting. Cheers--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. All the best. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding mate. To all users, I will post here before I remove any significant content.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 19:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• I feel List of current chief ministers is not required, because Presence in states and UTs already gives an idea about list of CMs from Congress.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• For the second paragraph of lead I have been told to include three things, Why congress was formed, role during independence and post independence (split in it) not in detail but must give glimpses.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 06:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have tried to add more words than table as suggested.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede

The third paragraph in the lede is misleading. Congress (R) did not evolve into Congress (I). Indira left the Congress (R) in 1978 to form her own Congress (I) faction which eventually was declared the rightful Indian National Congress by the election commission in 1981.Let us get this clarified.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for clarifying. Please go ahead and make the required changes.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Subhash Chandra Bose

The section on Bose needs to be reworded. The section is on what he did after leaving the Congress party and therefore this material does not belong in the main body. It can be put in the Notes section. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Nehru/Shastri era

The content from Nehru's death to Shastri's death needs to be edited for

• Make it chronological
• Remove factual mistakes as to when the split occurred in the party.
• Regional Breakaway congress factions.Except Kerala Congress all other breakaways were from during Indira's time.

Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: mate, if you find any sort of discrepancy in any section of the article, please go ahead and make the necessary changes. As you are one amongst the top contributor of this article too. Cheers.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 04:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Founder

All the 11 mentioned are not founders of the Indian National Congress almost all WP:RS sources state and mention only Allan Octavian Hume the other 11 lack WP:RS if one is adding any name please do so with WP:RS.Delegates and Notable representatives are not founders. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the correction mate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 04:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

History article deletion.

Good day to all. I had just gone through the History of Indian National Congress and found the following:-

1. a)Most of the topics covered in that article is already covered here.
2. b)The tags pertaining to lack of citations and the style of the article is from 2014, around 7 years ago.

I would like to know what can be done with the aforementioned article. My opinion is to delete the article. Good day. (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)