Talk:Aam Aadmi Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 17 June 2013 (→‎Before deleting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Controversial (politics)

Founder of Aam Aadami Party

References :

ADDRESS

I WILL BE HAPPY IF THE WEB ADDRESS AND LOCATION ADDRESS OF THE PARTY CAN BE MENTIONED IN THIS PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.194.235 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadami Party Headquater Address is been added . :  Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aam Aadami Party office address is

Aam Aadmi Party
Ground Floor,

A-119,

Kaushambi,Ghaziabad - 201010.

Helpline  : 9718500606

Email id  : contact@aamaadmiparty.org

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/AamAadmiParty

Twitter  : https://twitter.com/AamAadmiParty
ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References :

  • Comment : As per consensus on this issue , I added the Headquarter address to the Article. ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the party

The following sentence appeared in the article:

It was proposed by Mayank Gandhi and seconded by Chandramohan.[1][2][3].

I have deleted above line from the section about "name" of the party, because the above statement is actually about how the "constitution" of the party was proposed (by Mayank Gandhi) and not exactly the name. None of the three references inserted in above statement mention that "name" was proposed by Mayank Gandhi. Rahulchic (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadami Party Registered Political Party

Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has got its registration from the Election Commission, though no symbol has been issued to it. The Election Commission has issued a registration letter, stating that it "has registered the Aam Aadmi Party as political party under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on and with effect from 21/03/2013".

Refrences:

Please ADD "Brief Glance of Aam Aadami Party Manifesto"

  1. AAP party Councillors and MLAs will have to spend the money allocated to them in consultation with the area residents.
  2. To deal with the law and order situation he proposed the idea of a citizen security ward in every Assembly constituency which would be headed by a former Army personnel.
  3. Within a year of coming to power, the AAP would regularise over 1,600 unauthorised colonies.
  4. AAP would prepare 71 manifestos in total - One for each Vidhan Sabha constituency and one main manifesto for Delhi. The local constituency-wise manifestos would address problems faced by people in that constituency and would be made by interacting with them.
  5. AAP party will work towards improving the conditions of government schools and hospitals.
  6. AAP will make a law to curb the trend of politicians running private schools, he said.
  7. For traders, AAP promises to draft laws which ensures bribe free trading.

Refrences :

Structural differences

Why is Differences in Party Structure & Policy bieng deleted from the article ?

Unconventional Party Structure

Some features of structure of this party stand out of the conventional typical party layout, important differences/deviation from standard party model are mentioned bellow:

  • There is no central high command in Aam Aadmi party. The party structure follows a bottom to top approach where the council members elect the Executive Body and also holds the power to recall it.[4]
  • No MLA or MP of this party will use red lights or any other beacons on his or her vehicles.[4]
  • No MLA or MP of this party will use any special security. We believe that elected people's representatives need the same security as a common man.[4]
  • No MLA or MP of our party will live in opulent and luxurious government housing.[4]
  • No one would need to buy an election ticket in this party. Candidates contesting elections from an area will be selected by the people of that area.[4]
  • Criminals (Goondaas) will never be given tickets in this party. A through screening process will ensure that no one with a criminal record or proven corruption charges could stand for elections from our party.[5]
  • This party will function with full financial transparency. Every single rupee collected by donations to run this party will be publicly declared on the party's website and all expenditures will also be declared on the website.[6]
  • Every member of the Aam Aadmi party will must follow a strict code of conduct. An independent body (Lokpal) has been set up, headed by 3 jurists and other eminent personalities to investigate charges of corruption, crime, substance abuse and moral turpitude against all office bearing members of the party. Any citizen can present proof of wrongdoing against a party member. If internal Lokpal finds the party member guilty, he or she will be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action as decided by the internal Lokpal.[7]
  • No two members of the same family will be eligible to contest elections in this party and no two members of the same family can become members of the Executive Body.[8]

--Ne0 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Neo , it was deleted by one of admins as it was a copy paste from the following link http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/How_are_we_Different.aspx

you have to understand copy pasting is strictly not allowed in wiki and is against copyright laws, however i have also watched the article edits, it seems the article has some edit wars. so my suggestion for you is to reword the sentences also try to get this information from popular sources and not from the same website itself . Shrikanthv (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 December 2012

Please change "through" to "thorough" Vbhusri (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Under Election Commission's directions to the party not to use the National Emblem, Ashoka Chakra or any part, Aam Aadmi Party has dropped the logo. Please make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.129.131 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Add "Aam Aadami party Started Civil Disobedience Movement(CDM) in Delhi" to Article

"Time has come to motivate people against illegal rise in taxes." Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday , March 23, 2013 started his indefinite fast against inflated power and electricity bills from a house in Sundar Nagri, a low-income group resettlement colony in North-East Delhi (capital of India).

In what is being seen as the beginning of his campaign ahead of the Delhi Assembly election due later this year, he accused the Sheila Dikshit government of being apathetic to the concerns of the common public and looting them via a nexus with the power distribution companies.

While urging Delhites not to pay “illegal” and inflated power and water bills, Mr. Kejriwal promised that any legal action against them would be revoked once the AAP comes to power in the city. Before starting his “civil disobedience” movement, he visited Raj Ghat and also paid his respects to martyrs Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru at Shahid Park. He was joined by AAP leaders Prashant Bhushan, Manish Sisodia and Yogendra Yadav. ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences : The Hindu Newspaper "http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kejriwal-begins-his-civil-disobedience-movement/article4541783.ece" Retrieved on March 23, 2013 ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Add this section to article . ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadami party Realtime Donor list

The Original and official Aam Aadami party Real Time Donor List is "http://internal.aamaadmiparty.org/donate/Donation_List.aspx" and donation link is http://aamaadmiparty.org/donate/Donation_List.aspx. I've updated it to the Article. ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To User:ThinkingYouth

To User:ThinkingYouth

I see you have been on WP for less than a month (20 days) and are still in school. Hence, I am required by WP norms to be polite to you and help you.

Kindly respect and value other editor's time and skill/knowledge. To assist you I suggest the following.

  1. Read "edit summaries" of other editors carefully and understand what they are conveying in a very compressed language.
  2. Read the indicated WP policies contained in edit summaries carefully - as a newbie your knowledge of these is still superficial.
  3. Read WP:OWN carefully. you don't "own" this, or any, article - it belongs to the community and ultimately to the Wikimedia foundation.
  4. Don't be in a hurry to "add" or revert disputed text back. Disputed text will be reinserted only after "consensus" is built. Otherwise the dispute will be taken to a formal or informal setup on WP.
  5. Respect chronology on Talk and discussion pages. use "Start New Section" liberally and keep your point short . Editors will only look at the latest discussions - which are conventionally found lower down the pages and ignore what is at the top.
  6. Don't overwrite information added / removed by others without good reason. For instance you have refreshed dates in the article's maintenance tags. This is vandalism as you have either deliberately (or inadvertently) destroyed information which shows that this page is substandard for a much longer period of time.
  7. Don't make bald statements on Talk when what you want to achieve is DISCUSSION with your "opponent"
  8. above all WP:AGF and don't WAR

PS: I note you have started vandalising personal BLP pages of persons connected with India Against Corruption. I suggest you revert these yourself and let some non-conflicted editor take it up.

So do ALL the needful and we'll get talking. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


TO User:AcorruptionfreeIndia

I see you have been on WP only for India against corruption page editing (and you haven't mentioned your education).Hence, I am required by WP norms to report your conduct/editing as Conflict of Interest violation and edit, unreliable source citations and opinions edit by you. Kindly respect and value other editor's time ,skill/knowledge and edits .Don't tag and abuse them of personal vandalism . I request you to

  1. Read Wikipedia norms and regulation carefully and remove all personal opinion ,unverified claims from concern articles.
  2. Respect other editors and don't personal tag them and put grudges remark on revert disputed texts and comments or vandalize concern articles.
  3. Take part in discussion on talk page of concern article to resovle dispute ,don't make hurry to revert or remove the source material from concern article without consensus and discussion with other editors.
  4. above all WP:AGF and don't WAR.

PS: I note you have started vandalising Aam Aadami party page. I suggest you to discuss the dispute in concern article page before starting edit war . FYI: I edited the Concern page( as you mentioned BPL pages from humjanange organisation ) with complete accountability and after reading and editing them through .I advise you to address the issues mention on editing and I advise you to refrain from editing article based on your opinions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox,until evidence is cited , the article is redundant according to Wikipedia standards. So do ALL the needdful and We'll get talking . Pls discuss further .ThinkingYouth talk 

16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As you seemingly don't desire to discuss this matter formally and are WP:UNCIVIL (thereby violating WP:5P), I am advising you as follows:-

  1. This article is badly written, biased, poorly sourced and violates WP:MOS. In places there have been deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by tampering with maintenance tags in this article, which persist despite warnings.
  2. I am shortly going to be deleting (in small chunks suitable for individual "Undo"s) all matter in this article which is deemed by me to in violation of various WP fundamental policies which I previously gave you adequate notice of through detailed edit summaries, and which you reinserted back unilaterally. As a token of WP:AGF I shall additionally again provide edit summaries while removing material.
  3. I have no WP:COI for this article
  4. I have no WP:COI for India Against Corruption either and I object to your insinuations.
  5. I do take an exceedingly keen interest in matters connected to anti-corruption in India as part of my profession. Hence I am an +expert on this subject, but that is irrelevant for the purpose of these articles.
  6. Kindly do not reinstate any material which I delete unless it is backed by either sufficient WP:RS - authentic and verifiable sources OR it is specifically allowed by unambiguous WP policy.
  7. The question of WP:SOAP for this article does not arise since I am DELETING spammy and WP:UNDUE material.
  8. Should you, or other editors you are contacting, restore material I delete without arriving at a WP:CIVIL consensus with me, I shall revert this article to a Stub and ask for it to be protected by an admin.
  9. I am not editing this article for another 12 hours to give you time to clean it up on your own.
  10. There is URGENCY in this, as the subject is a highly controversial political party in India and subject involves BLP issues and UNPROVEN allegations against third parties.

I reiterate that I am always willing and interested in CIVIL discussions to preclude WP:WAR

Have a nice day AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reply : To AcorruptionfreeIndia As you seemingly don't desire to resolve this dispute and persistently pushing POV and personal attack and are WP:UNCIVIL , I request you to follow wikipedia standards Norms and please follow the advises given in above replies and as you have clearly violated

  1. Conflict of Interest WP:COI
  2. Civility WP:Civil
  3. Reliabe source WP:RS
  4. WP:NOR

I request you to read the Wikipedia norms and stop personal attack and behave civil to resolve this dispute . I request you to read the Talk page and do not delete the consensus material without discussion. I request you to read WP:RS and do not delete well source material from article . you can have dispute on it , please follow civil manners to solve those disputes. As i notice you have invoked 3RR on me on Wikipedia administrator page and as a result you have been warned of your activities and blatant pushing of POV and conflict of interest WP:COI ,WP:RS by admins Editors . I Request you to stop your activities ,take a break , let a WP:3o editor take this matter and resolve it .

I reiterate that i am always willing and interested in Civil discussion on disputes and expect you to follow the same. Have a good day . ThinkingYouth talk 

ThinkingYouth (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious disputes for this article

Dear Editors.

You will note that I have not been editing this article to give some concerned editors enough time and space to sort this article out using the same WP principles and guidelines they use liberally on other articles. However, my good faith has abused for

  • wholesale and coordinated reinsertion of controversial and poorly sourced material,
  • frantic edits to boot "edit counts" by some editors to "cloak" their newbie status and WP:COI to this page/subject, and which disruptive edits clearly constitute vandalism and a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.

In the circumstances, I am informing everyone that I DISPUTE this ENTIRE article as being "not neutral" and "factually incorrect". I also see numerous places where blatant "hoaxes" are being perpetrated. At the present time I am not placing "maintenance tags" on the page as that would be a decisive final stage. Please clean up the page on your own, as you all know "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" etc.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits.

Sitush, please explain WHY its wrong. Not clear to me. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why what is wrong? Please can you try not to garble things as you have been doing in our conversations at Talk:India Against Corruption? I cannot read your mind and it makes life very difficult when you are so vague. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is "Recent edits", the time was 16:49 UTC. Edits is plural and most Wikipedia editors would understand that it referred to your (I specified Sitush) 2 quick edits at 16:45 and 16:46 where you reverted me. I'm not being snarky here, but if you can't multiplex, don't edit so many pages simultaneously. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The India Today story "So what is the Aam Aadmi Party all about" dated 24 November 2012 says ".. Arvind Kejriwal today launched his party naming it 'Aam Admi with an aim to provide gram sabhas more say in law making and making higher judiciary accessible to common man.", or was it named "Aam Admi" on 24.Nov and then they altered it to "Aam Aadmi" on 26.Nov (or even Aam Aadami" as User:ThinkingYouth keeps spelling it ?. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Multitask, I think you mean, and thanks for the ad hominem. The edit summaries that you left for those two items were:
  • Removed this Ref. Its about the "IAC party" proposed for Oct 2; which party was blocked by the "Parallel IAC".
  • Removed source: What kind of Power Point hoax is this ? A pastiche of a unnamed PTI feed mixed with dubious TV stills
The first of those I list makes no sense at all, while the second is not much better: PTI is a news agency, so what you mean by "unnamed" is beyond me. And why TV stills should be "dubious" is also beyond me. In any event, some of the sources that you removed did support the statements made, so it would be helpful if you could explain your rationale more completely here. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for news sources to clarify things. The later of those two IT sources does so, and there is potentially a difference between a "launch" and a "formal launch". You should, of course, be well aware the the timing of the 26th was to coincide with the anniversary of India adopting its constitution, so my gut feeling is that these edits by you are intended primarily to be disruptive rather than because of any desire for accuracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am not replying to any of this while the WP:ANI is in progress. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Common Man Party"

I have removed the literal translation of the name of the party from the lede as it is an WP:UNDUE addition. The translation, when properly sourced, may be included in the section on background. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced in the body. Please can you explain why it is undue. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you produce a reliable source where the party refers to itself as "The Common Man's Party"? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't be pathetic. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a policy-based argument. Please do not make personal attacks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this count "Reliable" [1]. ThinkingYouth (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, this is a reliable (though primary) source. It would be better to include this in a bracket after the name of the organization/party itself, rather than insertion of prose. [e.g. Aam Aadmi Party (or the common man's party)]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nick, if you can't stand the heat then either get out of the kitchen or take me to ANI. You know exactly what I meant and your pedantry is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TY. Odd that Nick now has a niggling concern that it is primary when he previously asked for something where the party "refers to itself as". Can't win! - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no concern with respect to the source being primary in this particular case. The organization's website is the best possible source on this particular matter. I couldn't find this page earlier on their website, and hence I asked. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 'Bhartiya Janta Party' is 'Indian People's Party' but we don't use it even if it is appearing somewhere in some reliable sources. Name registered with election commission and most commonly used name by people-media should be used. And I don't see people-media using translated name 'Common Man's Party'. neo (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not trawling through the list of worldwide political parties to verify what Maunus has said but it comes as no surprise to me to read that BJP and RSS may be the exception - that's Hindu nationalism for you, and we see it on Wikipedia with proposals to rename Ganges as Ganga, India as Bharat etc, As far as this article is concerned, the issue seems to be done and dusted & so perhaps we should all move on. It was a specious point at best, and the issue of due weight was ignored without further comment when a (primary) [sic] source came to light. This sort of behaviour has being noted and will likely end up before ANI or ArbCom in due course, so it perhaps behoves us all to move on and delay that seeming inevitability. As one who has been named in an ArbCom case previously, I can assure you that it is a massive time-sink and the outcome can be very unpleasant. Best to let it drop: we can all do better than this. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, the translation stood there on the page without a suitable reliable source and that was problematic. Secondly, it is also WP:UNDUE to include the translation in prose inside the lead section, when the translation could have been made available in a bracket next to the name. There was no intention on my part to drag on this discussion for as long as it has, and you are free to "note" whatever you feel like and approach whichever forum you want. Your continued lack of civility and assumption of bad faith will likely get you blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It stood without a source for exactly 6 minutes with no intermediate edits. And that is not what undue means. Undue weight is about how to weigh points of view against eachother, not about whether a piece of non+controversial information should be in the lead or not. Your continued failure to understand and follow basic policy will likely get you desysopped.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Common man party

  • Thy announced the plans for formation of political front(aka AAP party) on 2,October(2012), the birth anniversary of independence hero Mahatma Gandhi and formally launched the party on 26,November,2012(as it coincides with constitution day of India ) adopting party's name(aam aadmi party) and constitution.Read [2] and [3] and [4],[5].TY of Walk 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some fundamental issues

  • Founder of Party: Arvind Kejriwal is 1 of about 300 founding members.
  • Ideology/Agenda of the Party: This is badly sourced. The primary documents for what is claimed to be a party registered under section 29-A of RPA are a) its memorandum b) its bye-laws/Constitution. The Constitution of the AAP is not published on its website nor on the website of the Election Commission [6].
  • Is AAP finally registered or is it "provisionally" registered?:

If its finally registered there will be a gazette notification issued further to 56/2011/PS-II dt 28.Dec.2011 listing the party issued by the Election Commission within 30 days as is mandatory under section 17 of the RPA.

  • Is AAP a "National Party"?: Obviously No, since it hasn't fought an election as yet. So its to be explained how a party with HQ in Uttar Pradesh is fighting elections in another state - Delhi.
  • Many of the secondary "news" sources in this article are unreliable merely reproducing what the AAP or Kejriwal say/claim in press releases or press conferences. The AAP makes some pretty exceptional claims in these secondary sources. An article like this requires reliable secondary sources based on reliable primary sources.
  • Is www.aamaadmiparty.org the official website ? Reliable proof wanted from a primary source.
  • Background: Why start from 24.Sep.2012, when the decision to split was announced on 3.Aug.2012.
  • Who are the office bearers of the party ? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founder: discussed in next section
  • Registration: read the source that is cited. I don't think we need to get involved in WP:OR regarding Election Commission practices, especially since he article deliberately says "recognised" rather than "registered".
  • Delhi vs UP: the party can fight elections wherever it chooses, surely? Parties regularly target certain seats and they are not necessarily going to start with ones right on their doorstep.
  • Sources: The AAP is the primary source, especially given how new the thing is. How you expect people to find "reliable secondary sources based on reliable primary sources" (other than the AAP primary) is beyond my comprehension.
  • Website: surely a specious point? I am presuming that you have no evidence to the contrary. And, please, don't start quoting domain name registrar/who is info as you've done elsewhere, just provide a reliable source that says it is a fake
  • Issues regarding split - no big deal, just find some sources and remember that the focus is supposed to be on the party, not long screeds about dissent with IAC.
  • Office bearers - you could add them using the list on their website. I wouldn't bother. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founder? Many sources which speak of Prashant and/or Manish as founders or co-founders.
  • List of recognised political parties in India (remember those adjectives on ANI) A Party Constitution is now mandatory u/s 29A. The lack of it sets off a Redflag.
  • No, it cannot till it is "recognised" otherwise it is restricted to contesting within its state of registration.
  • Have you seen what they are claiming ? for eg. see "Agenda" and the section on "price control". Where is the data on which they make such absurd claims. This is all Redflag stuff.
  • Nothing to dissent - AAP was formed because the movement was not drawing crowds after Ramlila Maidan police action, plus media had got sick and tired of these fasts and they were all fighting over the money. They drew 180 people [7] in Mumbai and 300 in Delhi.
  • WP:BURDEN. Who owns www.organikitchen.com registered at the same address by the same person? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founder: you tell me, with reliable sources
  • WP:OSE
  • WP:OR vs WP:RS
  • The fact that you know such policies etc after so few edits is concerning me, and I mentioned this at ANI. Whether their claims are correct or not, this is their agenda
  • I have no got a clue what your penultimate point relates to - are you referring to the split issue?
  • Who cares who registered organikitchen? I have registered loads of different websites, from rugby to window-cleaning. You are clutching at straws here and your antipathy to the AAP seems pretty evident. If I am wrong about this then fair enough, but you'll need to find some sources of repute and not engage in conspiracy theories (seemingly) of your own making. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's the point, Delhi Vs. UP HQ? Is he trying to say , UP HQ party/people can't fight election in other states? TY of Walk 08:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you citing blogs [8],when thy don't count as WP:RS. What is this , Red flag on everything ? TY of Walk 18:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

The sources that I looked at a few days ago all referred to AAP as Kejriwal's party, "his party" etc and he seems to have been the one making the running since August/September 2012. He's also now the "national convenor", which seems to be as near as they get to a party leader. There are very, very few political parties that are truly founded by a single person because if they were then they would be one-person parties and that is an oxymoron. I've not got time to trawl through equivalent articles for other Indian parties right now but I think that the infobox either needs to show Kejriwal or show no founder at all. Can anyone find a source that specifically names him as founder? My bet is that one will turn up in due course but there may be no such thing out there right now. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you see ,the first post/comment/section of this talk page,The Founder of AAP is clearly Arvind Kejriwal. The other editors are confused with mandatory (signatory)300 members required to register(or give application of registration to election commission) Party with co-founders.TY of Walk 08:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donors

I've just removed a claim about transparency regarding donors - see here. Unlike claims about policy, which can clearly be attributed to a primary source because that source is talking about itself, claims that A does something that B, C, D etc do not is extraordinary and requires more than primary sources and press release-type statements for reasonable verification. Effectively, the AAP are claiming a uniqueness that might reflect negatively on other political parties and for which we really only have their word for it. They are not merely saying that "we will do this" but that "no-one else does". We cannot take their word for being the only party to list every donor, neither in a positive sense (ie: that indeed they are) nor in a negative sense (that in fact they do). I think we'll struggle to find decent verifiability for this any time soon because at present the sources for most things related to the AAP almost inevitably emanate from the AAP itself. It is a situation that will change, of course, when/if the organisation becomes more established in the political firmament. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation day (26,November 2012)

Thy announced the plans for formation of political front(later known as AAP party) on 2,October(2012), the birth anniversary of independence hero Mahatma Gandhi and later,formally launched the party on 26,November,2012(as it coincides with constitution day of India ) adopting party's name(Aam Aadmi party) and constitution.Read [9] and [10] and [11],[12].TY of Walk 08:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the constitution bit is in the article and it would be simple to add the other anniversary. However, there was a formal launch on 26th November preceded by a meeting on 24th at which a fair amount of stuff appears to have been sorted out, including appointment of office bearers. Phrasing it the way that I did - mentioning both the meeting and the formal launch - resolved some confusion among sources that AcorruptionfreeIndia pointed out. A really specious person might argue that the party was not "founded" until the Election Commission recognised it, so I think it best not to push this issue of whether it happened on a Saturday or Monday in November: people can make up their own minds based on the information already given. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NRIs/POIs

Do NRIs or POIs have a vote in Indian elections? Was the intention of the Chicago meeting to seek donations? - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NRI(what is POI?) can vote in Indian elections .Read [13] and this one TY of Walk 10:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant PIOs (people of Indian origin, which I think is a government classification). Anyway, I thought that NRIs could vote and I know that they are significant, so it's nice to have confirmation. The Chicago thing was removed at one point; I reinstated it. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this BLP violation?

I have reinserted the following line, with slight modification, which was earlier deleted by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" with an edit summary - WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG issues, Do they support Civil Disobedience or Electricity Theft:-

"J.M.Lyngdoh, former Chief Election Commissioner , Ramdas, Ex-Naval Chief Admiral, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, P.M.Bhargava, former Vice Chairman, National Knowledge Commission have supported Kejriwal's civil disobedience movement."

Can anybody please clarify, whether this amounts to BLP violation? If yes, how? If this is BLP vio., then the line can be/should be/will be deleted.

The editor who deleted has given another reason - REDFLAG and in my opinion, the reason is not a valid reason, because the personalities have just extended support, which is added to this article with reliable source. And multiple sources for this can be easily furnished (to attend REDFLAG) but then it may look oversourced. The third reason given by the "deleter" is since attended. Rayabhari (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No , (In my Knowledge)It doesn't amount to BLP violation,Editor Rayabhari. The Edit summary " DO they support CDM or Electricity theft" and recent comments by editor AcorruptionfreeIndia reflects his antipathy and POV-pushing against AAP.TY of Walk 14:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civil Disobedience is resistance to dictates / demands of Government. Asking consumers to consume electricity without paying the PRIVATE COMPANIES who supply it is not within "CDM" (??) but is "Electricity Theft" defined in Electricity Act 2003. So also is reconnecting habitual and disconnected Electricity Thieves and it is a private matter between consumers and Discoms [14], [15], [16]. So the entire letter from these eminent persons should be accessible (as a primary source) to see what exactly they were supporting (and if they actually did so). AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you are citing Articles(period of October 2012) of IAC Protest,whereas Eminent personalities like Admiral Ramdas etc supported Aam Aadami party CDM started from March 23,2013? Are you confused or confusing us? TY of Walk 17:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The demand to stop paying "inflated" electricity and water bills is an old one from IAC times - it is not an AAP demand as Kejriwal himself wrote in his email for the March 23 2013 fast. Some of these person had supported Kejriwal even then in Oct 2012. Use Google. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old one , IAC chapter is closed . Email? are you sure?TY of Walk 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open magazine interview/First Post

This article originally carried links to First Post and to two Open Magazine sources regarding Kejriwal's "not left or right" (paraphrase) comment in an interview. I've reduced it to just the First Post sources because the video interview is lengthy and runs over four different links. Furthermore, the video interview is not accessible to deaf people but blind people using Wikipedia have various aids available to them. Being deaf myself, I am not even sure if the interview is conducted in English! This seems to me to be an acceptable use of First Post as a source but if someone can narrow down which of the four links given at the Open Magazine primary url contains the actual quote then, of course, we could have that also. AcorruptionfreeIndia seems to think that it doesn't exist at all, in which case we need to work out what the actual statement made by Kejriwal was. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sitush

Dear Sitush,

You have restored the following quote in section "Ideology" - "We are aam aadmis. If we find our solution in the left we are happy to borrow it from there. If we find our solution in the right, we are happy to borrow it from there".

As I had mentioned in an edit summary, Firstpost is a tertiary source. Th secondary source cited by Firstpost (ie. OPEN magazine print article) does not contain this quote. The primary source (ie. the videos) which OPEN said will be uploaded to Open's website are instead linked to inaccessible subscriber videos on Youtube "This video is unlisted, only those with the link can see it - Open".

So please treat my edits with respect instead of repeatedly leveling allegations (which I have clarified on your Talk page)

You would have seen that the OPEN article is titled "We are not wedded to any ideology", which amply clarifies that this entire section is OR and contradicted by its sources, requiring it to be deleted. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the preceding section here. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In that case, there is no need for me to respond further in this section as it will just add to the disruption that is being caused by you. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting

On going through the history of this article for last three-four days, (12.6.2013 to 16.6.2013) it appears that any sourced information added to the article is deleted in general by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" on one ground or other. The reasons furnished by the user may be technically valid in several instances, but, by repeatedly doing so, the very purpose of developing the article is defeated - other editors require time to develop/set right/give sources! Further, by deleting almost every thing added to the article defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia : developing an encyclopedic article.

  • So, I propose that, for this article, any deletion may be done (particularly by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia") only after proposing and discussing the same in talk page and consensus is reached. (or source/clarity may be requested in article itself, before outright deletion, and time should be given to other editors to insert source/attain clarity)
  • For statistics, the following are the edits (deletions(-),additions(+)) by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" :
12.6.2013 : -640, -431, -830, -1171, -362, -1232, -379, -425, +20, -120, -479, -19, -176, -291, -19, -338, -88, +105
15.6.2013: +622, -1721, -151, -228, -36
16.6.2013: -243, +1, -241, -334, -583, -589

I propose this, without any prejudice against any user/users.Rayabhari (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained my WP:EDIT style at an inconclusive WP:ANI. Deleting material is permitted under WP:CANTFIX. Each and every edit/delete of mine is with an edit summary clearly citing the reason for deletion. It may not be the preferred way to edit but is not proscribed either. Statements like "so fix the damn quote" are WP:UNCIVIL and opposed to WP:BURDEN.
I have already put two detailed notes on this talk page saying I dispute the entire article and its sources.
Per WP policy deleted disputed material must be restored after consensus. I am not shying from discussion.,
If we have problems with my deleting material, I can start inserting very well sourced material to balance out this article. Just say so.
Lets all be clear what the real problem with this article is - it is about a new / fake political party, the sources for which are essentially reporting in real time (without any editorial process) what the party says about itself. Sections like "Support" and "Protests" do not find any place in an articles on actual Indian political parties - Congress, BJP, CPIM etc. In other words, the available sources are dictating the article
Controversial BLP material must of course be removed immediately. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to expand it. I would really, really like to see your reliable source for this being a fake organisation because, well, that is the ultimate conspiracy theory. Are you proposing WP:HOAX? If so then I think you need to raise this issue at a higher level than this talk page. Where you will in due course be laughed at, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certain portions of this article border on hoax.
Every registered political party now must have its Constitution. There is none here [17] or here [18] Please address this doubt of mine. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again , Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is confusing other editors by specious arguments .First of all, Election commission only display National or State(defined) parties constitution on their Website [19] ,that's why thy don't have AAP or Lok Satta Party or any other New/starting political party constitution and for AAP constitution, Google it ,thy must have a constitution to register their party to election commission(unless Editor Acorruptionfreeindia suggesting here,Election commission didn't register/recognized AAP as political party). TY of Walk 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is registered (although "unrecognised", whatever that means). The registration process does require that a constitution and umpteen other documents are submitted to the EIC - I've just spent 20 minutes reading the EIC website re: just this type of thing. AcorruptionfreeIndia, you are being ridiculous and I am on the verge of suggesting a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly stating that ECI has not recognised AAP. Kejriwal claimed to Firstpost on 26.Nov.2012 at 5 PM that their Constitution had just been approved. Obviously there is some problem with it now that they cannot publish it themselves (no doubt till it is again approved by the General Body) and instead I am being told here to use Google to locate it. No, you locate it using any means you like and give me an authentic link to an authentic version. Lets see if all their so-called 5 primary principles are contained in it.
"Ridiculous" ?? Is it too much to ask that an authentic copy of a mandatory core document of a political party be accessible. Also, where is the March 21 letter from ECI ? That is what WP:REDFLAG is for. Keep this Civil and AGF. 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)
It does seem to be a spurious argument. This document may be mandatory for Indian legislation, but it is not a requirement for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. All we need is a source close enough to the party to be reliable to state the five principles, and then we can include it with attribution to the source. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Election Communion granted Political parties recognized status on the basis of their performance(vote share,members winning etc) in state legislative election or National Lok Sabha Election .Read [20]. AAP hasn't fought any election state or national level election yet therefor,AAP is only a registered party. TY of Walk 18:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Obviously there is some problem with it now ... - there's your original research again, just like the stuff at Talk:India Against Corruption. What evidence do you have that there is a problem? None, except an absence of something that might, for example, just be a bureaucratic oversight by the ECI. Yes, now I'm speculating but I do so merely to point out the silliness of your own speculation. We do not operate on maybe's and possibly's here but rather on reliable sources. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that the sources are correct and that the AAP is not pulling some massive scam. After all, that is how any sensible person would view the AAP announcements etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TY, thanks - thought that might be the case. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What shows it is a registered party? Only the letter from ECI which is not in the public domain. Under Section 17 the ECI must issue a gazette notification for every registered party within 30 days of its being registered. The alleged letter claims AAP was registered wef 21.March.2013, so where is its notification ? How do we know the letter was a FINAL registration and not a PROVISIONAL registration. There is too much WP:UNDUE secondary material on this article for a new party which cannot be confirmed from primary sources including from the website of the AAP itself (which is the best source) as Sir Nick had said. PS: Thanking TY for what I informed you on this same talk page 24 hours ago (22:46 UTC)?? just shows your bias. 18:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)
Don't be (alleged) jealous of my ThankYou share ;-) .See what i found through google search for you [21] and [22](I've spent last 10 mins looking for it ..i(must)deserve a simple thankYou).TY of Walk 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to be jealous about - I simply didn't look at your link because Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry that you are still not understanding that we prefer reliable sources to conspiracy theories but if you can find some reliable sources that mention your conspiracy theory then please do let us know. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not offered by me as a source. Please stop going on and on about "conspiracy theories" - I have none - do you ? This is about Reliable Sources which you obviously haven't understood policy on see WP:NEWSORG. We have a good example of circular reporting for registration of the party in [23] and [24]. So which came first the chicken or the egg ? Note the ToI says AAP had decided to accept this direction from ECI on use of National Emblem. What other directions were there. Sorry TY, "internal" documents won't do. I think I'll leave this article and go over to Congress Party where they have a much better class of editor AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the first time, you have succeeded in completely confusing me. What the heck are you referring to wrt an emblem? You've swallowed a dictionary of acronyms at an amazing rate but you still cannot see the difference between, for example, primary, secondary and tertiary source. Try walking before you run. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
quote " While issuing the registration certificate, the Election Commission has directed the party not to use the National Emblem, Ashoka Chakra or any part in their letterhead or any other party materials in view of the provisions of the Emblems and Names (prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. "The party has accepted this direction," the statement said. "". You are confused between sourcing. read WP:RS AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem? For example, the ECI prohibits use of certain symbols just like it prohibits use of certain words. You are reading more into it than the sources say, ie: you are speculating on cause. You really, really have to stop doing this. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am forced to ask this because the primary documents are simply not there. Please see what a secondary source is. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.". In almost every secondary source on this article there is no author's own thinking - everything is coming from AAP direct. Like a press release. Is prweb.com an acceptable source ? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AAP constitution [25] is now , an Internal document for you ? what is your problem ;-) . TY of Walk 19:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an internal (see your link) document to AAP. If it is FINAL and PUBLIC then it would be linked out on the main banner. I would not speculate, but this is probably the version which they filed to the ECI on 3.12.2012 :-) AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is a conspiracy theory ;-) .. internal constitution ,external one..!TY of Walk 19:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AICC [26] Much better party to edit (and vote for). Theyhave nothing to hide. :-) AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(multi ecs) A, like I said, you misunderstand policy. We can use primary sources but it is usually better to use secondaries if they are available. In particular, primary sources are ok for comments about themselves; secondaries are ok for anything else. If the secondaries are saying, for example, that Kejriwal said A or B then we are ok to use that - he is their primary source. You remind me very much of a retired user - MangoWong - who had similar difficulties but I'm afraid that my ability to explain has not improved in the interim. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, A, your comments about Congress are increasingly tending to confirm my point that you have a POV here, even though you have said that you are neutral. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your rapid fire edits are conflicting with mine (see Congress additions) above. (There is no hurry)
If A says I am registered with B by letter C, then letter C should be accessible from A or B. B is also under a statutory obligation to publish - none of us can find C or any primary version of it. QED. BTW: I am not MangoWang (or any another WP editor either).AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well,You were not able to find AAP constitution ;-) and now EC section 17 ! .. ( Vote for MR. MangoWang ;-) ). TY of Walk 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were Mango, who in any event was a BJP chap; what I said was I've seen this problem before but my ability to explain why you are incorrect has not got any better. Someone did eventually manage to get through to Mango - you may find something on their talk page. Your failed search for primary sources is irrelevant because we have sources. To repeat myself again, please provide a reliable source to support your statements - you cannot expect everyone else to prove the numerous negatives that you are raising here. You need a source that says, for example, "despite the AAP claiming to be registered, our investigation has shown that it is not". Failing that, you are wasting everyone's time. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush is right. Your speculations are irrelevant unless you can back them up with secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The substantiations for series of deletions by the user are tricky and sometimes rediculous. <Much better party to edit (and vote for). Theyhave nothing to hide. :-)> This comment shows possible POV, although the user boldly declares that his edits are neutral. I do not find any :"hide/ internal" in AAP. Moreover, series of deletes without giving breathing time to develop a article defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia - that is to build an encyclopedic article. The positive editors usually try to build an article, and find sources for unsourced claims wherever possible, instead of outright deletion. Deleting the edits of other editors, on flimsy grounds or some fictitious grounds or on obscure technical reasons may just prove negative. Before deleting, let us discuss such points to be deleted and then delete the contents, that is my proposal and request with other editors, (particularly for this article, as the progress of this article is very very slow.) Rayabhari (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get the facts straight. 1) AAP claims to be a registered political party, ie. registered by Election Commission of India (ECI) wef 21.March.2013. 2) The Election Commission has the notified list of about 1,400 registered political parties on their website. AAP is not on that list 3) ECI is obliged to notify every registered party within 30 days. AAP claims they were registered wef 21.March.2013 No such notification can be located by me (you are welcome to try) on ECI website despite the limit having passed. 4) These, coupled with the missing AAP Constitution, set off a REDFLAG. I am not speculating, secondary sources need verifiable primary sources. In the absence of primary sources what you claim to be secondary sources are actually primary sources in drag. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "How Team Kejriwal decided to become the 'Aam Aadmi Party'". How Team Kejriwal decided to become the ‘Aam Aadmi Party’. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
  2. ^ "Kejriwal announces name of his party, calls it Aam Admi Party". Times Of India. 24 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
  3. ^ "'Common man' Arvind Kejriwal's party named Aam Aadmi Party". 'Common man' Arvind Kejriwal's party named Aam Aadmi Party. NDTV. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
  4. ^ a b c d e Aam Aadmi Party website
  5. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
  6. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
  7. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
  8. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aam_Aadmi_Party&oldid=560257693"