Talk:Lok Sabha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Indian terminology

"On normal business days the Lok Sabha assembles from eleven o'clock in the forenoon to one o'clock in the afternoon "

"forenoon"?? is this some english word used only in India? - cogent, 15 oct 2004

• forenoon is an english word meaning period of time between sunrise and noon; i,e morning. It is an older english word not in common use. I changed it to morning.kaal

The article 2014 Indian general election#Voting pattern and articles on several constituencies refer to assembly segment. And I see that constituencies in different states have different numbers of segments: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/count-vvpat-slips-of-5-booths-in-each-assembly-seat-sc/articleshow/68786810.cms Is an assembly segment a geographic region? of a certain number of voters or area? Numbersinstitute (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Numbersinstitute: The assembly segments are the state electoral districts that between them cover the area of the Lok Sabha seat. For instance, the Gwalior Lok Sabha seat is divided into eight constituencies for elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The differing number of assembly segments are owing to the fact that the state legislatures have different sizes and different populations per seat, from Uttar Pradesh, where one Lok Sabha seat has the same population as four or five state seats; to Nagaland, where one Lok Sabha seat has the same population as sixty state seats. The Election Commission publishes results by assembly segment for statistical purposes, which is why they're often referred to.

I hope this is a good explanation. YttriumShrew (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Union Territory

What are union territories? Some sort of federally governmed states? A bit like DC in the USA, or what Brussels will become in the next decades? :-) Wouter Lievens 09:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I know it's pretty late, but better late than never. Yes, union territories are federally administered to a large extent although UTs of Delhi and Puducherry do have their own legislative assemblies and Chief Ministers. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility to contest elections to the Lok Sabha

Only Citizens of India who are criminally convicted are debarred from standing for Lok Sabha Elections. Those who just have criminal proceedings in courts i.e. not yet convicted, IMHO, are not barred, but instead are required by law to mention all such procedures in their affidavit to be filed to the returning officer of the Election Commission. This information is merely collected to be made public to the electorate along with other information such as the educational background, wealth, tax status, etc.

Therefore changes should be made, but I would rather like to confirm this. Drjagan

I have removed the secretary-general from the list of important members of the house.Secretary general, though the highest ranking officer(equivalent to the rank of Cabinet Secretary of Central govt) of the lok sabha secretariat, is not an elected member of the house.Bharatveer 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lok Sabha Seats and Reservation

In many Indian States seats for Lok Sabha are also reserved for Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

vkvora 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In all, infact.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 05:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Under "important members of the fourteenth Lok Sabha" is listed the name of the Secretary General also. Is the Secretary General a "member" of the house? Wikwiki 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC),,,,,,,,

below poverty line

i think in india BPL list made very wrong & faulty thats why needy people could not get help so i would like suggestion to prepare a list who are self employed & unorganised worker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.23.103 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

reservations

What percentage of seats are reserved and for whom? This info should be included. 24.125.38.175 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.

Term length

What is the term length of members elected to the Lok Sabha? Also, when do newly elected members come to office? Blue Rasberry 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is normally five years after which elections to the parliament are held, however if the government becomes a minority government due to some reason and the prime minister cannot get confidence vote(or loses a no confidence vote called by opposition) the house will be dissolved and fresh elections ordered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamicus (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: both articles were moved back a week ago, and there is consensus for this decision. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• House of the People (India) → Lok Sabha
• Council of States (India) → Rajya Sabha

– Wikipedia articles have the titles as Wikipedia:COMMONNAMEs, not official names. Also, even in official usage, the terms "Lok Sabha" official site and "Rajya Sabha" Official site are popular Government of India site. Also, compare news entries: 5 for "House of the People" v/s 2360 for Lok Sabha; 6 for "Council of States" v/s 1150 for "Rajya Sabha" Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support – As per rationale of nominator, no need to redundantly mention all guidelines for support. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't see this move request when I moved the pages back, but if we do need a move request done, it should be a move request from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as they are the longstanding names and no reason that they should not continue to be without any discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I've moved this back prior to looking at the discussion I'm not going to close this discussion, but it could be closed as withdrawn as moot by the nominator. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Note — I have corrected "Lok sabha" to "Lok Sabha" in the material at the head of this section. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC).
• Comment — My impression is that "Rajya Sabha" and "Lok Sabha" are the usual form, although I suppose this may be subject to regional variation within India itself.

The official websites for the respective chambers routinely use the forms "Rajya Sabha" and "Lok Sabha".

Using Google, I get 2,240 "News" results for "Lok Sabha" (with the quotation marks) compared with just 11 for "House of the People"; results for "Rajya Sabha" vs. "Council of States" are 1,890 vs. 26.

Using Google for general pages ("Web") I get 2.6 million for "Rajya Sabha" but just 818,000 for "Council of States". Note also that the results for "Council of States" are inflated, as they include references to bodies with the same name existing in other countries. It's only with a "Web" search for "Lok Sabha" vs. "House of the People" that the "constitutional" name gets more results (5.7 million vs. 90 million).

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

Searches only for "House of the People" are also inflated as many of them refer to bodies other than the Indian one like the "House of the People"in Romania or Afghanistan as well as some things like "House of the People of God", "House of the People of the Sun" etc. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha it should be. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• I was the person who made the initial move. I regret that I made the move without proper discussion. Since the rename is against the Wikipedia policy, I withdraw my proposal. I agree that the article names should remain as Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Model Code of Conduct

There is need to put down short summary of Election Model Code of Conduct under this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.125.211 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

please update infomap as 4 seats are vacant

please update the map. 4 seats are vacant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.111.189 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding designation and name of Secretary General in infobox

The infobox should also contain the designation and name of the "Secretary General of the Lok Sabha". I suggest this since he is the heading the Lok Sabha Secretariat and is an integral part of the House.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdessai (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lok Sabha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530124125/http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Secretariat/JRC.aspx to http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Secretariat/JRC.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Electorate 1892-?

In the article, it states "and the electorate very small" when talking about the legislatures under the Indian Councils Act 1892. I think it would be a helpful expansion to add a quick reference who would typically be included in that electorate. From the article under the ICA, it seems that this is basically a number of boards/committees - but I'm not quite clear if I'm understanding correctly. I think this would be particularly helpful in understanding the development of the electorate over the history. effeietsanders 19:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

National emergency

Hi,

In the article is stated: If the Lok Sabha is dissolved before or after the declaration of a National Emergency, the Rajya Sabha becomes the sole Parliament. It cannot be dissolved. This is a limitation on the Lok Sabha. But there is a possibility that president can exceed the term to not more than 1 year under the proclamation of emergency and the same would be lowered down to six-month if the said proclamation ceases to operate. - Maybe it's just me, but the last part is quite confusing to me. Could someone who is more into the matter rephrase this a bit? Thanks! effeietsanders 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Rephrasing 'as of...'

Is there a way to rephrase the 'as of' sentence, so that it doesn't have to be edited every single day (as an anonymous editor seems to do)? Is this really something that should change on a nearly daily basis? effeietsanders 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting move, again

It is regrettable that the page was moved back to the Hindi language title with so little discussion.
The Google count is not a valid argument. Obviously the overwhelming number of references to the entity are in articles by and for people in India; but those people are all bilingual, at least to the extent of understanding what "Lok Sabha" means in Hindi. To English speakers outside India, however, that name is incomprehensible. Consider one of these readers being informed that "the bill was rejected by the Lok Sabha", rather than "the bill was rejected by the House of the People" (or, better, "the bill was rejected by the lower legislative House").
In the interest of serving the widest possible English-speaking readership, please consider again renaming the article "House of the People (India)"
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Two houses of German parliament are called Bundestag and Bundesrat even in English Wikipedia articles they are named as such. Even though majority of English audience is unfamiliar with that terminology. Same with Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. These are the official names of both houses of Indian parliament. All the official business, even in English language is done in the name Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. That's why the titles of the articles shouldn't be renamed. Adding to the fact the parliamentary assembly of India is called 16th Lok Sabha, 17th Lok Sabha and such, not the 16th House of the people and 17th House of the people. Furthermore it is not just the Hindi language title but it is called Lok Sabha and Rajya sabha in a majority of Indian languages.

— Hemant Dabral^Talk 05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the name should be changed or not be changed can be discussed when you (Jorge Stolfi) or someone starts an official change request. So will comment on that then.
However, for your current problem that "the bill was rejected by the Lok Sabha" being incomprehensible, changing name of the article is not going to help. You will have to edit all the 17k+ article on Wikipedia that use "Lok Sabha" to make it "House of the People (Lok Sabha)". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just noting that I support the current title and will strongly and vehemently oppose any rename to the titles suggested above. To add on to what User:Dharmadhyaksha has already stated, the current title is as per the policy, and the above reasons are just not good enough for a rename. Jorge Stolfi to resolve your concern the accepted way is to write it like this (in an article mostly read by foreigners) " the bill was rejected by the House of the People" (or, better, "the bill was rejected by the lower legislative House")." In an article directly dealing with India related topics that will mostly be read by Indians, one can directly wikilink 'Lok Sabha as that is the less confusing alternative. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Transition period policy on article

Can anyone tell me what is the policy of Wikipedia on editing articles wherein a Legislature is in its transformative stage, as is this Lok Sabha. New Lok Sabha (17th) has not yet begun officially, the present Speaker' term (16th Lok Sabha's) will not end until a day before the new Lok Sabha meets for the first time. Yet the article shows leadership positions vacant, a new Lok Sabha already formed. What should be done? Seomelono (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the vote totals haven't been declared final yet, so it's premature to start listing representations and leaders of the new parliament. What is the legal status of the old Indian parliament during elections? I'd assume that all the old officers retain their posts until at least nearer the time when the new parliament is convened, as well as the old representation continuing to stand (on the Indian National Congress article there is what I think is a premature reporting of 52 MPs, instead of the old number of 45). Dhtwiki (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Lesenwriter Because now the President of India has dissolved the 16th Lok Sabha & the Election Commissioner has presented the President with the list of elected members for 17th Lok Sabha, many of your edits are now valid, but the issue is you did those edits even before that formality was completed. Also, as per the RoP of Lok Sabha, the Speaker of 16th Lok Sabha is still in her office & will remain so until a day before the new Lok Sabha meets for the first time. How you resolve this technical question? Is the removal of her name right? Need your inputs so as to put a policy for transition period, it does not exist. Seomelono (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated the date to 25th May as you mentioned officially Mr.President dissolved 16th and asked Narendra Modi to form new government today for 17th Lok Sabha on this date. I will make a note of it next time , it was a good faith edit after official results .

On other point, according to me Speaker field should be empty after Mr.President dissolves the government officially and shall be filled after the first convene by new members to elect a new speaker for the lower house . I may not be absolutely right, it is just my understanding. For more details, someone please help to quote from Constitution of India book. Thanks !!... -Lesenwriter (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Lesenwriter Here is the link concerning the term of office- https://speakerloksabha.nic.in/roleofthespeaker.asp Seomelono (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

2409:4063:2089:6F5D:1E67:A778:FAAC:156D (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For upper house, see Rajya Sabha. For current list of Lok Sabha members, see List of members of the 17th Lok Sabha. Lok Sabha House of the People 17th Lok Sabha Emblem of India Type Type Lower house of the Parliament of India Term limits 5 years Leadership Leader of the House Narendra Modi, BJP since 23 May 2019 Leader of the Opposition Vacant, as none of the opposition parties has more than 10% of seats. since 23 May 2019 Structure Seats 545 (523 States + 20 Union Territories + 2 Nominated) Political groups (17th lok sabha) Government (352) National Democratic Alliance   BJP (303)   SS (18)   JD(U) (16)   LJP (6)   SAD (2)   AD (2)   AIADMK (1)   NDPP (1)   RLP (1) Opposition (190) United Progressive Alliance (90)   INC (52)   DMK (23)   NCP (5)   IUML (2)   JKNC (3)   KC(M) (1)   JD(S) (1)   JMM (1) Others (99)   AITC (22)   YSRCP (22)   BJD (12)   TRS (9)   SP (5)   CPI(M) (16)   TDP (3)   AIMIM (2)   CPI (16)   AAP (1)   AIUDF (1)   NPF (1)   RLP (1)   NPP (1)   SKM(1)   Independent (4)   Vacant (1) Elections Voting system First past the post Last election 11 April – 19 May 2019 Next election May 2024 Motto धर्मचक्र-प्रवर्तनाय Meeting place Lok Sabha, Sansad Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, India - 110 001 Website loksabha.nic.in The Lok Sabha or House of the People is the lower house of India's bicameral Parliament, with the upper house being the Rajya Sabha. Members of the Lok Sabha are elected by adult universal suffrage and a first-past-the-post system to represent their respective constituencies, and they hold their seats for five years or until the body is dissolved by the President on the advice of the council of ministers. The house meets in the Lok Sabha Chambers of the Sansad Bhavan in New Delhi. The maximum strength of the House allotted by the Constitution of India is 552. Currently, the house has 545 seats which is made up by the election of up to 543 elected members and at a maximum, 2 nominated members of the Anglo-Indian Community by the President of India. A total of 131 seats (24.03%) are reserved for representatives of Scheduled Castes (84) and Scheduled Tribes (47). The quorum for the House is 10% of the total membership. The Lok Sabha, unless sooner dissolved, continues to operate for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. However, while a proclamation of emergency is in operation, this period may be extended by Parliament by law. An exercise to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies' boundaries is carried out by the Boundary Delimitation Commission of India every decade based on the Indian census, last of which was conducted in 2011. This exercise earlier also included redistribution of seats among states based on demographic changes but that provision of the mandate of the commission was suspended in 1976 following a constitutional amendment to incentivise the family planning programme which was being implemented. The 17th Lok Sabha was elected in May 2019 and is the latest to date. The Lok Sabha has its own television channel, Lok Sabha TV, headquartered within the premises of Parliament.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

References

recently added citation

A citation to a source http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Members/StatewiseList.aspx was recently added. There is no metadata (name, title, publisher, date, etc) about this source, and the URL is to an IP address. is this in fact a reliable source? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Government and opposition

There is many parties in others not in NDA or UPA so anyone please remove that Kaustubhkul (talk) 14:12, 13 August 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:

• Lok Sabha picture.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Hi, The number of MPs is incorrect for UPA and NDA when compared to the info on their respective wiki pages. e.g., the UPA page shows 110 seats whereas this particular page shows only 91. I believe this page is not up-to-date. Could someone please check and update?

Thanks, Deekshith Darkn8DJ (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Darkn8DJ: The difference in UPA's numbers are due to Shivasena's placement. They're in coalition in UPA but they don't caucus together in Lok Sabha. That's why UPA page considers the 19 SS seats to be part of UPA and raises the number from 91 to 110. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 06:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per CX Zoom casualdejekyll 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Replacing Government of India with Second Modi Ministry

Hey so I have a suggestion of replacing it because many parliament articles use cabinets ministry or wtv u call it as government article. Angshaojun08, 06:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angshaojun08 (talk • contribs)

Requesting people not to add parties to the government based off sources that cite their support to the ruling BJP in state assemblies.

The past addition of YSRCON and BJD to the government was based on sources that they have expressed support for BJP in some place or another, similar sources are being used to cite the support of JD(S) to the government. Please stop adding parties to the government based on such reports and only rely on official spokesperson's statements to make changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoocit (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022

In the "History" section, please un-italicise the phrase acceded to Pakistan. This shouldn't be italicised in normal text, and there's no apparent reason to consider this text abnormal. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022 (2)

Part of the following phrase is wrong.

This is typical of any Parliamentary democracy, with the lower House always being more powerful than the upper.

Many parliamentary democracies function this way, but not all; for example, the upper house of the Italian Parliament is equal in power to the lower. Please change this phrase to:

This is typical of parliamentary democracies, many of which have a lower house that is more powerful than the upper.

Thank you. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

United Progressive Alliance

User:SharadSHRD7 mentioned NCP Shiv Sena and DMK not allies of UPA in national level but the state level allied parties are also supporting UPA in the national level They are part of UPA directly or indirectly.Source also given refer: Therefore I say you to not remove them as UPA allies .The state level alliance are directly or indirectly supporting UPA in national level.This user was leaving under rock for years and suddenly arrives again making new rules Even many administrator agree that state level alliance support Congress in national level Source:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shiv-sena-supports-pawar-as-upa-chief-101648753014120.html%7Ctitle=Shiv Thank You Chennai Super Kings Lover

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: After pulled out from UPA in 2013, DMK never rejoined in that alliance. The Secular Progressive Alliance led by DMK doesn't come under UPA (because it's a state-level alliance and also have communist parties which are not part of UPA). Officially there is no source to mention SS(UBT) as part of UPA. Maharashtra Congress leader Ashok Chavan clarified "Shiv Sena Not Part of UPA, Alliance Limited to Maharashtra:". Only NCP and JMM confirmed its alliance with UPA in national level. So, I request you to stop adding non-members under UPA. Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

@SharadSHRD7:, @Chennai Super Kings Lover: DMK currently is a member of UPA. Links - DMK FIRMLY WITH THE UPA

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/dmk-chief-stalin-invites-trs-leader-kcr-to-upa/articleshow/69310508.cms Ku423winz1 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ku423winz1: First link was already given as a source by @Chennai Super Kings Lover: which I explained already in this page. Second source is not official because it's opinion; Neither DMK leader nor DMK members gave statement about that meeting. According to Wikipedia:No Original Research: Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Infobox

There is no alliance-based Parliamentary groups in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Alliances are formed by political parties for general election, but they are not parliamentary groups (Legislatures in some countries like France follows the alliance-grouping system, but there is no such system followed in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha). In my opinion, adding alliances is unnecessary, because they're not official parliamentary groups and tends to be WP:SPECULATIVE. Also, this is one of the reasons for frequent edit war (adding and removing parties under an alliance). Here I'm seeking WP:CONSENSUS on whether adding alliances in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha should be allowed or not. Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) Any thoughtful response would need a large amount of reading and learning about the article and what's happening here while will limit such participation significantly. Maybe a substantial discussion amongst the more involved persons (which I don't see here) would be a better start. But, since info boxes can't fit attribution and other explanatory wording (e.g. on border-line inclusions) when it is needed, my advice for those is "when in doubt, leave it out". North8000 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I do agree that the RfC seems to be premature here (I was going to note for the Sharad that in their future RfCs, their third and fourth sentences are the type of thing that should be saved for their !vote, as the prompt should remain neutral--but then I realized there was no pre-existing dispute here (at least not recently) on this topic. However, given this is a question laying at the intersection of infoboxes and politics, it's probably not unreasonable to anticipate dispute.

However, also like North8000, I feel like I have not been given enough information to be confident in my feedback: some of what Sharad is saying seems to not jive with what I know of the Indian parliamentary system, but I'm hardly an expert on the topic, so I'm left a little confused. Sharad, are you saying that the parties form loose informal alliances to cross-promote eachother during the general election, but that they do not form multi-party coalition government's after the election? I don't think that's what you're saying, because that's clearly not how India's parliamentary system works, but that being so, I'm struggling to understand the distinction you are actually making, but maybe I am just being dense. Perhaps you're say that it is discretionary whether parliamentary groups formed within electoral alliances caucus together, even if the involved parties form a coalition government, and therefore they are not true alliances? If so, I'm not sure that's a defining feature of an alliance, but there may be sourcing to support your position. Before I can weigh in though, I need more context for clarity. I do suspect I'm missing something obvious though. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:, Usually after the election results, the majority party/single-largest party will elect their parliamentary leader. Other parties which contested in alliance with the aforementioned party, will give their support to the elected leader. If no party/alliance got majority, there will be negotiations with other parties for gaining majority support. The other parties may join the alliance or give outside support to the Government.

We can mention the alliance which is in Government. Currently, it's not possible to mention the alliances of opposition parties because there're numerous regional alliances (Currently, INC have 52 MPs, 8 of them are part of SPA in Tamil Nadu, so they cannot be included under UPA). If we assume SPA as sub-alliance of UPA, then we have to add non-UPA parties like CPI and CPI(M) under UPA. There is no clear source about the official members of UPA. That's why I think it's better to list all opposition parties without alliance (to ensure WP:NPOV and avoid WP:SPECULATIVE). SharadSHRD7 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

See Dear User:SharadSHRD7 In the recent UPA meeting DMK,NCP, Shiv Sena,JKNC attended as members of UPAand Farooq Abdullah was UPA's first Presidental Candidate pick until he dined to contest. And I have given you source that DMK is member (has confidence) of UPA, said by DMK Rajya Sabha Leader.Refer: Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: It's not UPA meeting. It's a meeting of few opposition leaders. IUML and JMM (members of UPA) didn't attend this meeting. Farooq Abdullah said "also discussed about strengthening UPA". It's not a clear statement about whether JKNC is part of UPA or not. Other party leaders also didn't give statements regarding this meeting. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What about DMK<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/loksabha-elections/news/dmk-firmly-with-the-upa/articleshow/69435620.cms|title=‘DMK FIRMLY WITH THE UPA’-DMK party rajya sabha leader and MP TKS Elangovan}}</ref> Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: Notice the words clearly "DMK with UPA" - it doesn't mean DMK as a member of UPA. DMK going to contest 2024 election under Secular Progressive Alliance. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Parties like DMK,SHS(UBT), JKNC,also support UPA in parliament, So we should restored the former version before the comeback of User: SharadSHRD7, who introduced disputive edits reducing UPA strength from 91 to 57 with no source(WP: SPECULATIVE). Everyone know that DMK is part of UPA, Therefore administrators gave UPA seats (91) in 2019 Indian general election, including parties like DMK,JKNC Thank You, (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: Why are you not waiting to hear the opinion of other users? Where is the reliable source(s) for your claim that some parties support UPA in parliament? Even if you are so sure in your opinion, kindly wait the opinion of other users. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: you're assuming a party to be a member of UPA if they supports UPA in the parliament. As per your opinion, will you consider BJD and YSRCP as the member of NDA, because both parties usually support the bills proposed by the ruling party (BJP)? This is the reason why we can't assume a party to be a member of an alliance just because of their voting on bills (support) in the house. There is no discussion happened before about this topic. So please don't assume everyone/most editors favour your opinion. Please wait for other editors to give their opinion. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC) SharadSHRD7 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying those parties which have alliance with UPA in state level also support in Indian Parliament whereas YSR Congress Party and BJD doesn't have any alliance with BJP Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: DMK and SS(UBT) doesn't have any national-level alliance with INC as of now. Their alliance is limited to state-level and have separate alliance names. You're assuming regional-level alliances as subset of UPA. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@SharadSHRD7:: SPA is sub alliance of UPA. Everyone knew that, you on baised point of view, said that they are different thing.Everyone was not stupid that they kept DMK on UPA membership. Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: Media opinions are different from official statements. There is no official statement from DMK leaders or party members about your claim (SPA as sub-alliance of UPA). And also, please avoid harsh words and follow WP:Civility during discussion. Don't post unsigned comments. Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover: At first you assumed DMK as part of UPA, now you're assuming the entire SPA as sub-alliance of UPA. As per your assumption, we have to add both CPI and CPI(M) under UPA because both parties are part of SPA (and won seats under SPA in 2019 election). That's why I'm asking you to stop Original Research. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I haave to side with @Chennai Super Kings Lover in this matter. See when political alliances are formed we have national as well as regional. And generally the party at the head of the centre alliances continues with the formation of same alliance in regional level unless the part attempts to have a deeper connection or another party.

For example Indian National Congress has UPA on the national level and continues with this alliance unless it decides to partner with more regional parties and form sub alliance with UPA like UDF in Kerala or have another party in lead like Secular Progressive Alliance in Tamil Nadu. And the parties present in the alliance supports the party in lok sabha unless it forms a different national level alliance. What I am trying to say is that is the party in regional support national unless they join a different front in national level. Now this brings us to the state of UPA where CPI and CPIM are sided with INC in WB and TN but not in national level.

BJD and YSRCP vote with BJP in RS and LS however BJP leaders and YSRCP leaders openly call each other out in public within their states and BJP has already formed alliance with Jana Sena. Stalin openly said they are in a alliance with INC at regional and national level however.

At the end UPA has to be restored with all the parties involved earlier to be added. Repto79456 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I too side with @Chennai Super Kings Lover on this issue . Shakya2007 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Kindly explain it. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Repto79456 Where did Stalin openly said DMK is in alliance with UPA in national level? Please cite reliable sources. CPI and CPI(M) are part of SPA. If you assume SPA as sub-alliance of UPA, then you have to add both parties under UPA. INC supports CPI and CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu but campaigns against both parties in Kerala. Please try to understand the difference between national and regional alliances. Don't assume anything which is Wikipedia:No Original Research. I'm not supporting/opposing any specific party/alliance. I'm expressing neutral opinion according to WP:NPOV. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note as I have stated above parties may support each other at state level but oppose each other at national level. Thats the scenario with INC with the left front parties. In 2021 they contested together in WB, TN but fought against in Kerala. So the alliance partnership is for the state but not national level and thats why sub alliance are present.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/tamil-nadu-dmk-allots-one-rajya-sabha-seat-for-congress/articleshow/91584048.cms

DMK alloted one seat for INC for RS as the alliance pact too remember.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/upa-s-dmk-ncp-will-join-regional-parties-to-form-govt-trs-119041500771_1.html

Even other party member such as KCR clearly mentioned DMK NCP as part of UPA Repto79456 (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Repto79456:: Don't assume SPA as sub-alliance of UPA. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Still, you are not satisfied with the given facts? Shakya2007 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shakya2007: Opinions and facts are two different things. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can understand which are facts and which are not. Shakya2007 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shakya2007:: I've searched in depth but cannot find any explicit source which contains statement of DMK leader M. K. Stalin about DMK being part of UPA. That's why I disagree to add DMK under UPA because it'll violate WP:No Original Research. Only NCP and JMM confirmed their alliance under UPA. I agree NCP and JMM are part of UPA alliance. But I can't agree for adding other parties under UPA without any explicit source. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@SharadSHRD7::I have already given source stating DMK is with UPA..That Also of DMK's Rajya Sabha Leader but you ignored it. You are not at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, there are many Wikipedian who support and know that DMK is with UPA.Therefore , they added DMK as member of UPA in 2019 Indian general election, but you have not put any sources that states that DMK is member of only SPA and not UPA.You directly removed DMK from UPA membership without any sources.Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover::DMK leader M. K. Stalin confirmed SPA will contest 2024 general election. He didn't mention anything about UPA. DMK leads SPA in both regional and national level. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Repto79456 CPI and CPIM are not part of UPA in WB. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

My bad I meant to say they came together and formed sanjukta morcha (although removed later) Repto79456 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Disbanded Shakya2007 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For my part I agree that electoral alliances should not be shown when discussing the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha membership in the infobox. It is fine to simply have it as "government" and "opposition", with membership in either being determined by whether the party supports the BJP in key votes. With regards to the actual pages for these electoral alliances, I had an issue before with members being listed as a definitive and numbered list (which appears to the reader as an exhaustive list of all members) rather than discussion of how some alliances may only be on the state level, or how some electoral pacts might not cover every constituency contested. For the record, I would say that DMK is part of NDA, but the fact that the state-level alliance in Tamil Nadu is led by DMK and has a different name makes the matter a bit less clear. This might suggest that articles discussing electoral alliances need to be clear which pacts are only on the state level, and which pacts are between parties that contest multiple states. From a quick look it looks like someone has hidden/blanked the list of NDA members which isn't very helpful. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I ask all users of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics,

• @AKS.9955:
• @AnkurWiki:
• AusLondonder (talk · contribs)
• Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs)

• Chomskywala (talk · contribs)
• @DaxServer:
• @Dhruv edits:
• Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs)
• Dshrm (talk · contribs)
• Fitindia (talk · contribs)
• @Fylindfotberserk:
• Ganeshk (talk · contribs)
• GarvitKaushik8 (talk · contribs)
• Gfosankar (talk · contribs)
• Gopaalan (talk · contribs)
• gppande (talk · contribs)
• Gsingh (talk · contribs)
• Gurubrahma (talk · contribs)
• Het666 (talk · contribs)
• IJohnKennady (talk · contribs)
• jonathansammy (talk · contribs)
• Jaywardhan009 (talk · contribs)
• Lesenwriter (talk · contribs)
• mahensingha (talk · contribs)
• Master purav (talk · contribs)
• Maswimelleu (talk · contribs)
• MohitSingh (talk · contribs)
• MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs)
• Nahtrav (talk · contribs)
• @Ok123l:
• @XYZ 250706:
• @Rohitsetthachok:
• PQR01 (talk · contribs)
• pratap555 (talk · contribs)
• Prong$31 (talk · contribs)
• Puck42 (talk · contribs)
• Repto79456‬ (talk · contribs)
• Royroydeb (talk · contribs)
• Rufyrosh (talk · contribs)
• Salilb (talk · contribs)
• Semanticz0 (talk · contribs)
• Shakya2007 (talk · contribs)
• Shivashree (talk · contribs)
• Shyamsunder (talk · contribs)
• @Venkat TL:
• Xoocit (talk · contribs)

to help us in this matter.Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)

@SharadSHRD7:, Actually, here talking about SPA is irrelevant because it is a state coalition but UPA is a national coalition and for parliament we have to consider only the national one. And clearly, DMK is nationally in alliance with Congress and its allies i.e. UPA. Ku423winz1 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ku423winz1:, @Chennai Super Kings Lover:: When did DMK chief M. K. Stalin explicitly give a statement about DMK being part of UPA in national level? You have to cite the source. M. K. Stalin attended CPI(M)'s 23rd party congress (national level meeting) in Kerala. This proves DMK is not part of UPA in national level. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC) SharadSHRD7 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@SharadSHRD7:, CPIM is a particular party,not an alliance. If Stalin attended left front meeting or any other national alliance then you could say DMK is with Cpi-m nationally. But attending another party's meeting is being a guest. But DMK took part in UPA meeting as @Chennai Super Kings Lover: said earlier with source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ku423winz1 (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: We can't assume anything without any explicit statement. As of now, DMK is part of SPA in both regional and national level DMK chief M. K. Stalin confirmed it officially by giving statement. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ku423winz1: @Chennai Super Kings Lover:: DMK leaders and parliament members never referred SPA alliance as "UPA". Here's another source which reads: The memorandum signed by Lok Sabha and and Rajya Sabha members belonging to the ruling DMK-led Secular Progressive Alliance seeking removal of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi has been submitted to Rashtrapati Bhavan, DMK said in an official statement.[1][2] SharadSHRD7 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In the recent UPA meeting DMK,NCP, Shiv Sena,JKNC attended as members of UPAand Farooq Abdullah was UPA's first Presidental Candidate pick until he dined to contest.And also referred [3]. So Should we end this discussion? Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) Yes, I fully support the departure of this discussion as, User:SharadSHRD7 has retired, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe de Jointe (talk • contribs) 10:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:, yes I fully support to revert to the previous version. DMK, SS(UBT) all are in UPA because they are nationally in alliance with Congress and Stalin clearly said that his party is with UPA. So yes, this discussion should be ended, and previous version in which DMK was part of UPA, would be restored -- Ku423winz1 (talk) Ku423winz1

References

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

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

• Lok Sabha Chamber.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)