Jump to content

Talk:Indian National Congress/Archive 2

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

Please remove the comment that INC is the most corrupt political party in India. That's partial, and not neutral. 1.22.204.252 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't saying that. It's saying that CNN-IBN said that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

now what new things to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.97.50 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per Jackmcbarn and edit request of 13 November 2013, above. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

{{edit semi-protected|| I want to add the name of the founder of Indian national congress


Wizwiki234 (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

Remove the statement "The most corrupt party in the world" from this article. That's completely biased an opinion. In a realm like wikipedia which is to be neutral, such comments are not encouraged. 196.15.16.101 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Seems a fair statement backed by reference placed in relevant section. Neutrality doesn't mean blanking criticism. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Congress Factions

After Independence, the Congress split for the first time in 1969. What happened to Congress (O) faction? Who has the right to the two bullocks symbol ? Then Mrs. Gandhi split the party again in 1978. What happened to the "Non-Indira" fsction ? ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Congress (O) quickly became irrelevant, and what was left was merged into the Janata party in 1977, along with the other faction led by Charan singh etc that broke away in 1977. When the Janata party broke up in 1980, these two entities didn't really re-emerge like some others did. You're right, this stuff should be inserted, but the page is such a mess, that I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add information on when and how was Congress(I) able to call itself Indian National Congress. Does the Election Commission of India plays a role in the name a party can use ? Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

I want to add the name of the founder of Indian national congress

Wizwiki234 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article already contains the name of Hume. If you mean somebody else, you need to provide more specific information. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Congress F actions

After Independence, the Congress split for the first time in 1969. What happened to Congress (O) faction? Who has the right to the two bullocks symbol ? Then Mrs. Gandhi split the party again in 1978. What happened to the "Non-Indira" fsction ? ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Congress (O) quickly became irrelevant, and what was left was merged into the Janata party in 1977, along with the other faction led by Charan singh etc that broke away in 1977. When the Janata party broke up in 1980, these two entities didn't really re-emerge like some others did. You're right, this stuff should be inserted, but the page is such a mess, that I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add information on when and how was Congress(I) able to call itself Indian National Congress. Does the Election Commission of India plays a role in the name a party can use ? Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph that is in wrong context

The paragraph under the heading Corruption scandals that says, "A 2011 survey conducted by Outlook and a television news channel CNN-IBN in the wake of the 2G Spectrum scam and the 2010 Commonwealth Games Scam found that Indian voters ranked corruption as the second most important issue facing India (inflation was the first) and ranked politicians as being the most corrupt." is in wrong context. The referenced material says, "A total of 1,633 adult respondents (1,037 males and 596 females) in eight cities —Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Calcutta, Lucknow and Mumbai—were interviewed between January 8-10 for the survey." India is a country with a population of 1.237 billion. How could a feedback by just 1,663 people that too in 2011 be relevant today and tag a political party as the most corrupt one? It is simply a survey and the results of such surveys change often. Further, the article also says, "Worse, more than half of those surveyed said that none of the political parties had the wherewithal to deal with corruption.". So, it can be deduced that half of the respondents felt that other parties are equally corrupt as they do nothing to curb it, right? A piece from survey has been used in the wrong context and sending out the wrong message. I request everyone on board to consider it and remove this paragraph.Learner (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If there is anything in the survey that refers specifically to the Congress, then it should be mentioned. As it now stands, we are drawing conclusions about the Congress from something that doesn't mention it, and that is OR, and should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Could be elaborate more, Vanamonde? I only agree that it's a bit misplaced, having its own subsection is too much...a bit POVish. But is its complete removal justified? As it stands, I see that it's worded per the source given: this Outlook report. It can be shortened a little and merged to the part just after the two corruption incidents which it talks about are mentioned, for better flow. I think it's important to show the impact on the people's confidence in the party during that time. About the background of this survey, we really can't judge since we can only reflect what the source says (Outlook is reliable enough). There has to be more different reports documenting this, if not the same specific survey—this makes atleast one statement pertaining to this relevant in the article. What do you think? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies my friend, I guess I didn't make myself very clear. I am not suggesting the removal of the entire "controversies" section; most of that info is decently sourced. Personally, I am in favour of integrating it into the article instead of a separate section, but that is a different matter. My objection here is only to the intro paragraph of the section, about corruption being the biggest issue facing Indian voters. THAT source does not mention the Congress, and thus including it is OR. I think that is what this TP post was about. Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, then it's all fine. If I'm not mistaken the OP meant blanking the entire statement completely by this edit. In any case, now that you intend to fix it...I think we all (both of us atleast) agree on the same thing. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ugog Nizdast and Vanamonde93 for understanding and taking swift action. I appreciate your time and involvement. Thanks once again!Learner (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

All the uncited paragraphs in this article constitute an attempt to malign the Indian National Congress and revise history.

Please change --

In 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose, the elected president in both 1938 and 1939 was expelled from the Congress for his socialist views and the Congress was reduced to a pro-business group financed by the business houses of Birla and Bajaj. At the time of the Quit India movement, the Congress was undoubtedly the strongest revolutionary group in India, but the Congress disassociated itself from the Quit India movement within a few days. The Indian National Congress could not claim to be the sole representative of the Indian people as other parties were there as well notably the Hindu Mahasabha, Azad Hind Sarkar, and Forward Bloc.[citation needed]

-- To --

In 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose, the elected president in both 1938 and 1939 resigned from the Congress over the selection of the working committee. The Indian National Congress was not the sole representative of the Indian polity and other parties existed at the time, notably the Hindu Mahasabha, Azad Hind Sarkar, and Forward Bloc. 

-- CITATION: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/subhas-chandra-bose


98.180.39.88 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Dmelc9 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

the missionairy visa project to mass convert hindus allowing european and american christians/catholics to stay in india

This caused the congress party to nose dive after this new missionary visa was created in secret behind closed doors, also the catholic cross coins raised more tenstion in india with the added insult of the ganges river being left to be polluted while the sikhs golden temple and all catholic and christian owned buildings got yearly up keep.[1][2][3]82.38.160.153 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)ve

wrong flag

hand is not in indian nation congress flag,hand symbol is only their election symbol.The flag of the Indian National Congress shall consist of three horizontal colours: saffron, white and green with the picture of a Charkha in Blue in the Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.185.218 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


CONSTITUTION & RULES OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (As amended upto 83rd Plenary Session, 18-20 December 2010) Article II-A Party Flag

The flag of the Indian National Congress shall consist of three horizontal colours: saffron, white and green with the picture of a Charkha in Blue in the Centre. It shall be made of certified Khadi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.185.218 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Article II-A Party Flag

The flag of the Indian National Congress shall consist of three horizontal colours: saffron, white and green with the picture of a Charkha in Blue in the Centre. It shall be made of certified Khadi.

http://inc.in/documents/constitution.pdf 117.206.57.244 (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of social media accounts

Hi all,

I have removed official twitter and facebook accounts in external section, no publicity here. This was done after discussion with an editor in BJP talk page. Work2win (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, here are the discussions after which it may be taken into account that official sites should not be added in political parties articles.

I am unclear - are you proposing additional changes? --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:NeilN,

I am not proposing any new changes, only mentioning the conclusion after discussion(whether official social sites be added to political changes) with editors. Work2win (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Congress in Haryana

Division of the main party Shrikanthv (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, Considering the size of India, and the role INC plays in national and state politics, there is definitely a scope to develop a good article on INC in Haryana. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment , Size of India has nothing to do with INC, not much information is available to sustain itself for the topic Shrikanthv (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

p><< How Indira's Congress got its hand symbol(Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).

Congress F actions

I am restoring to Talk page, inquiries that remains unanswered. The messages below have absolutely nothing to do with Facebook, Twitter etc. , it is not in the main article and so please do not remove it.

After Independence, the Congress split for the first time in 1969. What happened to Congress (O) faction? Who has the right to the two bullocks symbol ? Then Mrs. Gandhi split the party again in 1978. What happened to the "Non-Indira" faction ? ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Congress (O) quickly became irrelevant, and what was left was merged into the Janata party in 1977, along with the other faction led by Charan singh etc that broke away in 1977. When the Janata party broke up in 1980, these two entities didn't really re-emerge like some others did. You're right, this stuff should be inserted, but the page is such a mess, that I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add information on when and how was Congress(I) able to call itself Indian National Congress. Does the Election Commission of India plays a role in the name a party can use ? Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Jonathansammy (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Bring strong sources. It's wikipedia where gossips plays no role and aren't allowed to add. Thanks. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 20:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Leader of Opposition

Till now there is no official leader of opposition. So, there shouldn't be a person as announced in this page.[3][4] ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been announced and leader of Congress in Loksabha is Mallikarjun Kharge. See here.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation

Hello users. The references which have been added to controversy section doesn't fulfill what sentence claims. It only depicts what controversy is all about and doesn't satisfy if Indian National Congress has any role in it. As of now I am removing those fake sources. Do not add it again without a broad discussion here on talk page. You can add those if you find reliable sources and after having consensus here. Thank you and wishes. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is quite absurd as is this removal, to say the least. Please self revert and stop calling scholarly references as fake sources. If you have specific objections, list them out, but any removal of content that you don't like isn't acceptable. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
While ago went through several references that have been added; and like I said most of them depict what 2G spectrum is or what was emergency. From the word fake I did not mean the real fake actually. I think content should get added only if it proves that Indian National Congress involved in all the mentioned controversy. Also, I do not belong or related to this article personally, so there's not a single question about I am removing content that I don't like. Please rollback my edits if you think I have made a mistake. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

I am in process of developing this particular article. Will add controversies in due time. So please do not panic. Also please do not revert edits without proper discussion. Thank you. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The proper discussion is above, discuss your changes here before doing them, that's more important than asking people to not undo you when you do absurd removals of content. —SpacemanSpiff 16:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference

I have re-written the whole article except History's Pre-independence section. Meanwhile made a request to copy edit it because it has become very lengthy, especially History part. Will re-write History's Pre-independence section in coming time. If you have any issues regarding topic I haven't covered, please let me know. Also, please avoid asking to add news things. I am tagging article with construction tag, as I am going to add references one by one.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

this page edit to Leader of the Opposition in rajya sabha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.167.108.134 (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2014

rahul ji muje bi congress party ka neta banna h isliya muje aapke supoort ki jarurt h mera name sunil saini h me bi desh ke liye kuch acha kerna chahta hu me india ke rajasthan sete ki rajdani jaipur me niwas karta hu aapka pyara bhai sunil saini.. muje bi congress party me shyamil hona h muje bi congress party ka neta banna h....mere mob:9587733366. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.218.83 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 July 2014‎

Not done: In English, please. Sam Sailor Sing 11:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content and WP:INDICSCRIPT

User:Kkm010 is edit warring over this diff [5].

WP:RS r/w WP:V permits any user to delete unsourced material on sight. see - "Wikipedia does not publish original research", "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." etc.

Furthermore, the WP:INDICSCRIPT RfC consensus was The consensus is to remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation - DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC) see diff.

Now if User:Kkm010 disagrees with that consensus, and how it was surreptitiously arrived at on the talk page of the closing admin, we could jointly revisit that consensus which was applied on Aam Aadmi Party here only a few week ago. Gollymemolly (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your point of view as far as script is concern. But, don't remove other materials as you did in that article. Some through discussion are required in order to removed all those ideology's.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion can begin once you provide reliable sources for the deleted content. Until then I am following policy and established consensus to improve this article. Gollymemolly (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Naming the political party's own website as a source "about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" is allowable under WP:SELFSOURCE. I don't see that the party's website supports the plethora of ideologies that have made it into the article, but it's likely that such a large party, appealing to diverse interests and having a long history, would have a plethora of ideologies.
If you read the underlying RfC discussion resulting in the WP:INDICSCRIPT policy, you'll see that the banning of such scripts was pertinent to biographies of living persons where there was a questionable rationale for a particular script being used. In the case of a major Indian political party, where the Hindi/Devanagari script is part of the party's official logo, the use of the script in the article lead/infobox would be more justifiable. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You cannot remove unless high level of consensus is achieved regarding ideology. Moreover "Political position" and "International affiliation" section, credible source has been provided. Only in ideology section sources are required. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 12:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Note Gollymolly has been indeffed by a checkuser, this discussion is effectively over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw a warning on Gollymolly's Talk page, against edit-warring, but no block and certainly no injunction against joining the discussion here, which, as far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to do, however unsatisfying he might find it, given the number of editors who have objected to his stance. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Dhtwiki, CU blcoks don't require a notice, I believe; try this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Presence in various states

In the map showing INC Presence in various states the state sikkim is colored light blue but in the sikkim legislature Sikkim Krantikari Morcha is the principal opposition party. INC doesnot have any presence in sikkim legislature hence it should be colored dark blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.30.21 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

centrist party

Isn't the INC a centrist party? --117.53.77.84 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing

Someone has tagged Article with copy editing. I want to know what part of article needs grammar and sentence structure.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Simonchummar (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Since the world corruption in two paragraphs misleading google search " the world's most corrupt party" to our site, please change the word "corruption" to a word like "allegations" Simonchummar (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: If you have a problem with Google PageRank, file a complaint with Google. Also, you can't assume Wikipedia is completely to blame for this search result. Google bombing is a technique many activists have used in the past, setting up their own independent websites to distort search results. Altamel (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Different Congress Parties should be separately shown

Indian National Congress is not same since Independence. The party was dissolved long ago. This is a new party formed around 1995 and should not be confused with the one formed pre-independence. Therefore the information disclosed on this page is both misleading and incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That is WP:OR my friend. Please find reliable sources that discuss the issue. Note that the Election Commission has awarded the Congress banner to the current fragment operating under that name. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Party meaning Congress Party

Party and Congress Party -- Party needs to be consistently capitalised. Rwood128 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The MOS recommends against this:
  • Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals:
Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (title): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Corinne (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to where the word 'party' was used as an abbreviation for Congress Party, and is therefore a proper noun: "Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context)." (MOS my emphasis) I subsequently edited accordingly, though it looks like I missed some. Rwood128 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 You don't think using "the Party" as an abbreviation for "the Congress Party" is a little different from using "the State Department" as another term for "the Department of State"? I think "the Congress" is a better abbreviation for "the Congress Party", and the lowercase "the party" is sufficient as an alternative. You wouldn't use "the Company" to refer to "the Main Street Furniture Company", except perhaps in a legal document, would you? Corinne (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I had doubts, but then checked the similar use of 'university'. See the following:

The contents of this calendar set forth the intentions of the University at the time of publication, with respect to the matters contained therein. THE UNIVERSITY EXPRESSLY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT APPEARS IN THE CALENDAR WITHOUT NOTICE, including both the content and scheduling therein, in whole or in part, and including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the right to revise the content of, and to cancel, defer, reschedule or suspend, in whole or in part, the scheduling of particular periods of instruction, courses, or programs, and the academic program of the University, and to alter, accelerate or defer fees and charges, and to do any or all of the above either in order to serve what the University considers to be the best interests of the academic or student community or of the University itself, or because of any circumstance or occurrence, whether occurring by or through the wilful act or negligence of the University, its agents, servants and employees, or otherwise and whether or not beyond the reasonable or other control of the University.[4]
And [6]

But these are legal documents! But why does that make a difference? and if 'Party' is clearly a synonym for INC, shouldn't it also be in capitals because its role is also that of a proper noun? If there was an article on Wikipedia for "the Main Street Furniture Company" I'd be inclined to use Company in that specific context.

However, I'm feeling that I'm in a minority here, but I find this usage just as illogical as 'winter'. Rwood128 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Just an FYI, Indian media is divided on this too: Huffington Post India and NDTV mostly use "Congress Party", Indian Express prefers "Congress party", The Hindu is divided between the two. —SpacemanSpiff 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all; I usually defer to the MOS but if there's a good reason to I'm happy to defer to another consensus while c/e-ing the article. I'm using "Congress Party" (though I'm mostly changing that to "INC" for consistency), and "the party" for generic uses, such as "In May, the party won 43 seats in the election" (not from the article btw!). Please let me know if things change. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Good, that's what I'm used to seeing. Rothorpe (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You don't like using "the Congress", which, as we read at the beginning of the article, is the abbreviation often used by Indians? I prefer "the Congress" (and "the party") to "the INC". "The INC" looks like the "inc" for "incorporated" and, as "the I - N - C", is harder to say than "the Congress". Corinne (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"The Congress" sounds odd to my ears. "Congress", without the article, sounds right; but that's probably from seeing too many movies. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen "the INC" before (and agree); I have seen/heard both "the Congress" and, more often, just "Congress". Rothorpe (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem; I can go back and change things around. I'm not Indian so I don't know what terms Indians commonly use. Mea culpa, innint. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC) --->  Done, per above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably my mind isn't working clearly, but I still don't understand the logic behind the use of the lower case where party is short for Congress Party (e.g. from the lede: "The [Congress] party was founded in 1885 during the British Raj).") However, I'm happy to accept that it is the common usage, like spring rather than the logical Spring. I've been searching online for clearer guidelines, without much luck, other than the following, from the Government of Canada (does someone have the MLA Guide, or similar, to hand?):

"A generic noun used as a short form of a title is often capitalized, especially in corporate writing:
the Institute
the Board
the Party". [5]

See also:

"Capitalize the word party when it is preceded by the official name of a political party, unless it is used as a generic term:
He was a member of the Social Democratic Party.
A new agrarian party was founded at the rally."[6]


Simom & Schuster's Handbook for Writers (2nd Canadian edition, 1999) recommends the use of the lower case, though it also advises that in certain contexts the capital letter is used: "the administrators of your school might writer the Faculty and the College or the University ". Rwood128 (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rwood, that's helpful and points towards using lower case when using the generic term in this article, since we aren't corporate writers or school administratiors here. I don't have any dead tree style guides but the Oxford University one is here; it agrees with much of the above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Baffle gab1978 for responding to my comments. Unfortunately the Oxford Guide doesn't address this matter directly. I'm still unclear why 'party' is a generic noun in the example that I gave above (The [Congress] party was founded in 1885 during the British Raj). ) – but I'm not much of a grammarian. Is it simply a case of common usage being followed and a rule ignored -- or am I just being dense?
The following sentence is helpful (but again doesn't deal with this specific point): "The general rule is that capitalization makes a word more specific and limited in its reference" ("Capitals 5", The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, (3rd edition, 1996), p. 128). Rwood128 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert grammarian either btw; I'm just following Wkipedia's style guide. I'm not deliberately trying to be contentious. In this context, "Party" isn't a proper noun by itself, so "the party" can be used generically to refer to a specific party because we know which party is being referred to. As per your example above, I'd write and expect read; "The local council founded Eastern Middle School in 1976", but not "The local Council founded the School in 1976". Apart from hubris, that's the best explanation I have; sorry. My c/e is almost done; I'm just checking for WP:OVERLINKs then I'm done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. If anyone is being contentious it might seem to be me. Yours is the best explanation yet – better than the Wikipedia guidelines. Many thanks for clarifying this – though I'd still prefer the more formal 'Party' in the sentence I quote (see Canadian Government guidelines above). Rwood128 (talk)

References

  1. ^ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/foodgrains-meant-for-floodhit-villagers-rotting-in-uttarakhand-godowns/442366-3-243.html
  2. ^ http://creative.sulekha.com/sonia-gandhi-s-cong-s-blitzkrieg-christianization-of-india-through-rbi_247154_blog
  3. ^ http://en.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2012/11/9/Indian-Secular-Govt-officially-issues-visa-for-Christian-Missionaries.aspx
  4. ^ Memorial University of Newfoundland Calendar [1]>
  5. ^ Translation Bureau, Government of Canada: [2]
  6. ^ Translation Bureau

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

103.226.88.39 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2015 (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. Altamel (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

103.226.88.39 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2015 (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. Altamel (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Usable links. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Useful links. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked. Works. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Link seems to work now. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016

Rohit.rajput2016 (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC) NABAM TUKI ARUNACHAL PRADESH REMOVE CONGRESS GOVRMENT THIS TIME

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
And please, STOP SHOUTING IN BLOCK CAPITALS - Arjayay (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_National_Congress/Archive_2&oldid=1136816575"