Talk:2014 Indian general election

Rectify the Map showing winning seats in Andhra Pradesh region

Actually there are two mistakes in the map which was uploaded through wiki commons which I have spotted. The Kakinada Loksabha seat (Number 23 in the map located in Andhra Pradesh region) is won by TDP candidate Mr. Thota Narasimham by a thin majority of arround 3000 votes; but it was shown as YSRCP won seat. Another one is that of Narsapur/Narsapuram Loksabha seat (Number 36 in the map located in Andhra Pradesh region) which was contest and won by BJP candidate named Mr. Gokaraju Gangaraju. But it was shown as TDP won seat. Please refer to http://ibnlive.in.com/general-elections-2014/india-election/ for better comprehension. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to add AAP in infobox

Hello everyone, I suggest we add AAP (Arvind Kejriwal) to the info box alongwith Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, as AAP seems to be a contender to both of them.

Suggested format : <!-- AAP --> | image1 = [[File:ArvindKejriwal2.jpg|150x150px]] | leader1 = [[Arvind Kejriwal]] | party1 = [[Aam Aadmi Party]] |alliance1 = | leader_since1 = 2013 | last_election1 = | seats1 = | seat_change1 = | popular_vote1 = | percentage1 = | swing1 = What do you all feel? Notthebestusername (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times earlier, see the discussions here, here and here. Please follow past discussions. Logical1004 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Logical 11004 - Thanks. I just went through the entire thread regarding the info box, and feel that this particular question (AAP / Arvind Kejriwal as the third contender) has not been discussed. AAP seems to be coming up as a clear contender to the above two. Naturally, we cannot wait till May 16th results to add this - this wiki article would have lost it's current relevance by then and will become more of a historical account then :)

The AAP is contesting 424 seats all over India (more than INC and BJP as per NY Times)

The Guardian, TOI and Time magazine have already started to show him and AAP in this light.

Notthebestusername (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done. AAP has not been considered as major contendor in majority of the opinion polls. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Dharma - The Time magazine 2014 Opinion poll appears to differ from your point of view. Of a total of 3.2 million votes - the results were Arvind Kejriwal = 261,114 votes / Narendra Modi = 164,572 votes

Notthebestusername (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about some shady on-line poll but about the "general election" in India. The AAP is not a major contender in this election. In India you can make some ABC political party and can nominate candidates from all the 543 Lok Sabha seats; it certainly doesn't make you or your party a "major contender". — Bill william compton^Talk 06:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Bill, Interesting that you would like to call the Time poll a shady one. :) I will smile and leave it at that. (PS - I do not belong to AAP, or for that matter, to any political party.)

@Notthebestusername: AAP is minor party just like other state parties (SP, BSP, TMC, BJD etc.). We can't add AAP on basis of Time 100 poll and other newspaper reports. Only contesting is not criteria to add party in Infobox.Prateek Malviya^•✉•✎ 06:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

3rd on the list of TIME's 100 is the pop singer Katy Perry. She is NOT contesting from any constituency for ongoing Lok Sabha elections in India.

Have you realized the fault in your logic by now? With your logic of following TIME's 100 list, we should be removing Rahul Gandhi and instead adding Katy Perry from the list. Think over it and after that you should conclude that the list has nothing to do with "opinion polls of elections". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Dharmadhyaksha - In a way, yes! we should be removing Rahul Gandhi's name, but that is a completely different subject. Returnign to the topic, the Time magazine poll of 100 most influential people consists of 5 sections - Titans, Pioneers, Artists (which is where Katy perry sits securely in), Leaders (which is where AK has been featured) and Icons. Hence the question of Katy Perry is rather superflous. And yes, Mary Karra, John Kerry, et al who have been included in the leaders section ARE considered serious contenders in their respective countries and fields. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

But yes, your opinions are well noted. Let us see if there are any other points of view from others. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Prateekmalviya20: I consider all the on-line polls shady. I don't get it why people get excited when they hear Time; it's not like the magazine has any control over the outcomes of its on-line polls. If you have proper resources you can easily influence outcomes of any on-line poll. — Bill william compton^Talk 08:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I have said earlier, I am saying this again briefly:

After Delhi elections, I agree that AAP has emerged as a state party. But currently there are 47 state parties along with 6 national parties. If we put all in the infobox, it will clutter the space, then we may need to have one separate article for that. The infobox has been prepared keeping in mind the last 10-15 year general elections. Earlier third front was also there in the infobox, but as there is uncertainty over third front (it may be formed after elections), it has been removed. Regarding inclusion of third-front/AAP/other national parties, lets wait till the elections, and based on their performances in the elections, these can be included in the infobox. There has been a discussion on this several times. So have a look on that. If you disagree, then you can put your point. And regarding Time magazine and opinion polls, they have been proved wrong several times earlier and they can't be taken as authorized sources as their sample size is very limited. They predict the trend, but actual reality can be entirely different. Logical1004 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Logical1004 - The Japanese 2012 elections wiki has 3 people in the infobox - do have a look at it - it does not appear cluttered. Also, an opinion poll, by it's very nature is exactly that - it shows possible trends based on a poll as a probability - it is NOT a predictor (come to think of it, an election itself is an opinion poll with a much larger sample size - in India, it still shows you only the opinion of less than 60% of it's above 18 population) - Notthebestusername (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Notthebestusername: Is Time 100 polls are a Opinion poll (as you say)? By this logic, Barack Obama and Shinzō Abe should be in Infobox. I agree with Bill william compton's fact that if you have proper resources you can easily influence outcomes of any on-line poll.Prateek Malviya^•✉•✎ 10:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Prateekmalviya20 - Exactly. Obama is included in the infobox for 2012 US elections and Shinzo is in the infobox for the Japanese elections.

As several people have said already, the amount of screen time a person gets is not a measure of how likely they are to succeed in the election. The AAP will certainly not even come close to the tally of the UPA or the NDA, so it doesn't have to be in the infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Notthebestusername Time magazine online poll is international opinion, (were same person can vote many times also)People from more than 100 countries around the world will vote in it, who cannot vote in Indian election. It doesn't represent the opinion of only Indians,while In Indian elections only citizens of India can vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.242.237 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Clean up Required

I would suggest that a {{Cleanup}} process be initiated so as to improve the article[1]-

In my view following should be given importance

1. the contents template crosses half-century mark as it contains nearly 50 headings and this is mainly because of "all" parties being named under headings(== ==,=== === etc.). rather they should be named as such under the article in a paragraph form in their respective alliance or as others.
2. organisation section is in a very need of expansion as this is the biggest election in human history and why can not we include facts, figures and the hugeness of the election.
3. such a small campaign section. I mean this should be heart of the election.-Khushank94 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Separate paragraphs still don't distinguish easily. Having headers also helps readers to jump to their choice. 2. You may add more to it. I agree that hugeness should be highlighted. 3. That section is cut out and placed in different articles already. Smaller section over here is justified by that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In my view the following are some of the talking points/events/developments during the campaign so far and these should find mention in the article to make it better and complete. These are not in any particular order.

1)Anti-incumbancy/Women empowerment/policy paralysis/unemployment/farmers and jawans/black money/economy/dynasty/corruption

2)Communalism/secularism/polarisation along caste and religion/skull cap/Sonia's meeting with Bukhari and his support to congress/DNA test

3)Sonia Gandhi's televised appeal to save Bharatiyata ( Indianness)

4) Boru's book -the Accidental Prime minister

5)Modi wave or not

6)development and good governance/vote for change

7)Gujarat model or other models

8)Bharat Vijay rallies

9) 3 D ralllies

10) Modi's interviews- Aaap ki Adalat and Doordarshan and Rahul's interview in timessnow

11)Major violations of Model code of conduct and speeches by Beni Prasad Verma,Azam Khan, Mulayam, Giriraj Sigh, Baba Ramdeo,Imran Masood, Sharad Pawar,Modi FIR , Farooq Abdullah's secession threat

12) Deletion of large number of voters in Maharashtra and PIL filed

13) Modi's road show in Varanasi

14) Kejariwal's candidature against Modi in Varanasi/Priyanka's campaign in Amethi

15) State specific issues- Telangana in AP, Sharada scam in Bengal, Drugs issue in Punjab, etc

Shyamsunder (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ready for the Results!!

Hello Wikipedians, Results are yet to be declared on May 16. What preparation should we do? as there will be massive amount of work on day of result and days following result. For Example:

1. creating/Updating 16th Loksabha member list
2. updating winners on all constituency articles
3. updating articles on all politicians who contested (won or lost?)
4. updating articles on all political parties who contested or atleast won.
5. updating all 15th Loksabha members articles as their tenure ends
6. updating articles on states and countries to mention that head of state changed
7. Vidhansabha election/member/parties articles of Sikkim; AP etc
8. updating political history articles
9. updating articles related to 2014 election like campaign etc
10. updating all this on Wikidata and across all language Wikipedias
11. and anything you think left..

[sigh] So will we manage these massive work? I suggest to create special taskforce to deal with it where we can divide works, track progress and save lot of time and efforts. Who will manage this? What do you think?

Regards Nizil (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I started working on a massive results template, which would be able to host all info divided in both party and constituency, but I couldn't proceed as there are still some state CEOs that haven't published all candidate info (Form 7A). However, I also began looking at some of the constituency articles, and already there are some problems there (in some cases, results from 2014 have already been added...). The listings of candidates is highly inconsequent, often just AAP or BJP are mentioned. Sometimes results given for previous elections are incorrect and unsourced. When results are updated, it's important to have references. Also, there will be prelimary results and final results. It's better if we just put final results in the constituency articles, otherwise we'll just create a massive clean-up operation for ourselves. Myself, I won't be able to edit much around May 16-17, for personal reasons. --Soman (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest using Wikipedia:Indian general election, 2014 progress report‎ to keep track on the progress of updating different constituency and candidate articles. --Soman (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

some of the above pages are already created and can be found in the template on main page

Massive work .....Ready -Khushank94 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose to create articles for all candidates who win the election from Rajasthan and one more state -a small state like H.P.. Happy to update the existing members' articles also for these states.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ready to volunteer in updating some articles. Logical1004 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

State articles

Aren't Assam in the Indian general election, 2014 instead of Indian general election, 2014 (Assam) and Haryana in the Indian general election, 2014 instead of Indian general election, 2014 (Haryana), for example, more appropriate formats for articles like that? Shouldn't it be [state] in [main event] instead of [main event] ([state])? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No. See WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Number 57 18:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer [Main event] ([state]) format too so when i type [Main event] in search box, the drop down gives me these options too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dharmadhyaksha Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Please include state wise and if possible constituency wise poll percentage. You can get information various election comminssion office. If it is difficult for you I can do it. Iloveindia444 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2014

Please change the sentence "Following an electoral win from the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party will be contesting from contested from 424 constituencies in India" to "Following an electoral win from the 2013 Delhi election, the Aam Aadmi Party is contesting from 424 constituencies in India" because the current sentence is incorrectly constructed and does not make any sense. Suomoto (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done well almost - I don't think we need either of the "from"s in your suggestion, I changed the first one to "in" and omitted the one before "424". Arjayay (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How do we present results?

Before the results come out, we need to agree on how we will present them. I noticed that in the past months there has been a tendency to want to describe the election as a contest primarily as a straight contest between NDA and UPA (as seen, for example, in the infobox debate). This is of course true in a sense, it's highly probable that the next Prime Minister would come from either of the two main camps. We could present (a somewhat arbitrary) count of number of MPs that are identified with either of the 2 main blocs. But in terms of vote % and total number of votes, we cannot categorize them by NDA/UPA/Others, as alliances and seat-sharing differs from state to state. Some examples:

• RSP is allied with the Left Front in West Bengal (contesting against Congress), it is allied with Congress through the regional alliance UDF (and thus, albeit indirectly, with UPA in some sense). In Andhra Pradesh it contests without any alliance at all.
• The Naga People's Front is allied with BJP in Nagaland. But it also has candidates outside Nagaland, without any alliance with BJP.
• Shiv Sena is allied with BJP in Maharashtra. But it runs candidates in other parts of the country as well, without any alliance with BJP.
• CPI is in many states allied with CPI(M). But in Telangana it has an alliance with Congress. In Bihar it has an alliance with JD(U). Should the votes for CPI in Telangana count as INC /UPA votes or as votes for an imaginary 'Third Front' or 'Left Front'? (In Manipur it has an alliance with JD(S), Shiv Sena (!), Bahujan Samaj Party, etc.)
• There is no 'Left Front' at national level. CPI(M), CPI, AIFB and RSP all contest against each other in some constituencies. Not even West Bengal LF and Kerala LDF correspond directly to each other. Nor did any solid 'Third Front' materialize.
• I haven't seen much about it in this election, but RJD used to field candidates outside Bihar as well (where it would, presumably, contest against UPA/INC).
• Another problem is comparisons between 2009 and 2014. These are difficult to do on basis of coalition, as the coalitions fluctuate over time and have no clear membership criteria.

So, in my opinion, the conclusion is that total number of vote, national % percentage and comparison 2009/2014 should be done on basis of party rather than coalition. --Soman (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this approach.Shyamsunder (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. Logical1004 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Coalition is Confusion. I agree with you. -Nizil (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We should try to use more templates to use in state pages and more reusable format. Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Another take at election map?

map of Lok Sabha constituencies, a first draft, where each box is 1 seat

I created a draft here File:Lok sabha map square draft.png, as an alternative Lok Sabha results map. In the other election maps, there is such a huge difference between the size of constituencies, and the urban constituencies just don't show whilst Ladakh and Arunachal are huge. This is just a first draft, maybe somehow with better sense of geography/design would be interested in find a more precise way of aligning the different states and territories. --Soman (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Its an addition but not repacement, please use it. Also i would like to know how did you make, i would make similar to use it for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2014_(Andhra_Pradesh) Rasulnrasul (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea, Soman. Lets use it too. -Nizil (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If was very simple, I did it in excel, saved a screen-shot and created an image in Paint. --Soman (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

Section "4.1.1 Alliance" is empty and should be deleted. It has no sub-sections either. Keerikkadan91 (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It's not empty, it is the table on the right side of the page. I'll admit that it is confusing, and I'm not exactly sure what should be done to fix that. You can see for yourself it isn't empty by clicking the section edit link. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

NDTV-Hansa Exit Poll

NDA=279, BJP=235 UPA=103, Congress = 79 Please correct the figures. And why is it separate? Why not in the same table as all other exit polls? Its also an exit poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.28.196 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Well I correct figures and move to Exit polls table.Prateek Malviya^•✉•✎ 06:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

In the celebrity section Actors named Dipankar Deb (TMC), Satabdi Roy(TMC), Tapas Pal(TMC) will be added. 112.79.36.29 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (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. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Large tags on the page

Hello! As the article is nominated at WP:ITNC, we would have to get it clear of major tags. Please help in cleaning all sections. Major orange tag on top is of copy-editing. Also note that at the ITNC, many more comments will come. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm editing the article for its grammar as the election has been past now. We may have an edit conflict while editing the article, so it is advised to save the edit locally as such in notepad before one save his changes. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• What copy-editing issues are present now? I can hardly see any major English blunders. Is the tag really needed? Can it be moved to any sub-sections which needs attention? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It should better completely be removed. I either do not see any major issue with the article. If any person else notice any such issues and unwilling to edit the article, he/she should leave a note to explain the tag here on article's talk page before re-instating the tag. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Updating results

The results are presented at http://eciresults.nic.in , which is authorative and more reliable than some of the unofficial counting sites. So far no candidate is declared winner, but as they start to appear at 'won', please procede and update articles, with Wikipedia:Indian_general_election,_2014_progress_report as check-list. --Soman (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Lok Sabha Election Result Prediction

Lok Sabha Election Prediction

As per the Predition of Johnson, gowthami leading experts from Tamil nadu , BJP is going to Lead the way by winnning 284 seats and ADMK winning all seats in Tamil Nadu 203.99.193.81 (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (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. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

182.19.67.34 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done - As no change requested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please change "Chandigarh" to "Chhattisgarh"

For good reasons, this page is not editable till May 18th. The article refers to a quote from Rahul Gandhi's speech and states that the speech was delievered in Chandigarh and provides a reference to a Washington Post page. However, the Washington Post page clearly mentions the place of the quoted speech to be "Chhattisgarh". Please make the correction if you are reading it and the page is editable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.207.34 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the correction suggested. The article is protected to be edited only by autoconfirmed users due to recent persistent vandalism. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox mark-up

Can anyone fix what went wrong here [2]? Not sure how the mark-up error occured. --Soman (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion, after results

Now that we have the results, and we've been able to settle that Kejriwal won't be the next PM, can we expand the infobox per the actual results? The 2 largest parties got 50.1% of the popular vote, it would be a bit weird not to make mention of the other parties. --Soman (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

NDA votes, after results

NDA votes percentage is wrong shown as 31% which is of BJP, can you please correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.141.215 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be BJP vote, not NDA vote. The "NDA vote" would be impossible to calculate, as NDA parties contested against each other in different states. It could be relevant to list NDA in terms of number of seats, albeit it the future of NDA is uncertain as BJP won a majority of its own. --Soman (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

In accordance with WP:SUMMARY, I pruned the reactions section to only state who proffered congratulations. Please note that I'm not proposing to remove these outright but would not object if someone did. Although some may feel it is relevant, my concern is that our job is to write encyclopaedic content and not document and quote sound bytes and hollow rhetoric from heads of governments and other self-important politicians and from civil servants who are only following diplomatic protocol of niceties. Such congratulation are routine, which makes them rather humdrum and non-notable. Globally reported by the media, but WP is not the news either. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I found this discussion concerning deletion of the international reaction to the 2008 US Presidential election. Most of it pertains to this discussion. In any case, here we are talking about a small section in an article, and not an entire article. Further, User:Anon200401 also reverted your edit stating, "The statements form the official reactions of leaders/nations following these elections and are extremely relevant to this page." BigJolly9 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way it's relevant Anon never made clear. Such comments are akin to WP:ILIKEIT and carry no weight. I don't know whether he might be referring to the bit about Karzai "spoke to the BJP leader in Hindi and recalled his days as a student in Shimla" – which is about as relevant as screwdrivers are to lemon meringue pie. Just being relevant isn't enough, the contents have to pass many tests, including WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:TRIVIA. We don't need numerous quotes about invitations received by Modi to come over to our house to play, or the multiple "We look forward to working together" or "hope to strengthen the relations between our two countries" – these are examples are standard diplomatese that are commonly used are are otherwise indistinguishable, and which can and need to be summarised to avoid repetition redundancies and reader boredom. Except for adherence to policies and guidelines, the existence of similar instances do not create precedence. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius seems to have a mighty personal distaste for those s/he considers "self-important politicians" and "civil servants who are only following diplomatic protocol of niceties". Is there a reason her/his obviously prejudiced (and clearly self-important) viewpoint should have any weight here? These Indian elections are considered a watershed in Indian politics because they have reversed a 30 year phenomenon of so-called coalition politics. Narendra Modi has emerged as the Prime Minister amidst fairly intense speculation about the contours of his foreign policy. As such, the section that this user is bent upon leaving her/his mark upon is relevant to this page for all the reasons that User:BigJolly9 provided above. Is this user certain that s/he is not removing positive international reactions to Mr. Modi's ascendancy in India because s/he harbors an intense dislike to the new Prime Minister of India? A clear case of missing the woods for the trees. I'm bringing back the section again. My suggestion would be to permit others to add/refine this section for some more time and then link it out as a new page--as has been done for the US elections pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon200401 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The importance of the change in government is not in dispute. It's the encyclopaedic importance of each of those leaders' and diplomats' comments that is being challenged. By all means, external commentary from political analysts is expected and welcome. I see only a little bit of that in the article, and I could envisage its expansion. but please leave out the predictions and speculation.

By mentioning the political watershed, you seem to be implying that those reactions have some special meaning or are otherwise radically different from comments from world leaders for other elections. BUT THEY ARE NOT! I really fail to see the relevance or importance of having repetitious comments from assorted international leaders that you see again and again in news coverage for most elections. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not want to go into much detail, which is why I thought a link to the old discussion would be enough. The points you raise are exactly why the person who raised the deletion of the US article did so. In the consensus, people have provided the reasons why it should be kept and it was. Please read it. When you say other users WP:ILIKEIT, please remember that others will suggest that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have been following the election closely, you would be aware that Modi took a strong anti-Bangladeshi "illegal" immigration stance. Yet, the Bangladesh PM has the kindest words for him, which reliable sources note as significant. If you have an RS that says these statements are completely meaningless, please do present it. Until then, your assumptions are WP:OR. Finally, I again point to the international reaction articles for the US election. I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. The problem here is that the other stuff are entire articles. If you feel so strongly about not having these kinds of statements, I would suggest getting those articles deleted first. (Obviously one attempt by another user has already failed). Surely, entire articles concerning such statements should be removed from Wiki with higher priority than one sub-section of one article. If not, as Anon200401 suggested, it looks like you have a specific issue with the content of this article and not a genuine concern for the issue. BigJolly9 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You continue imply that it's as simple as me disliking and you liking; you also imply that I should go and fix another problem elsewhere before I start complaining about this...

Please note that I never simply said I didn't like the contents of the Reactions section as you would have it. I advanced substantive policy-based reasons why they should not be there, but I also noted the counter-arguments advanced were not clearly elaborated or not supported by policy. It upsets me that you seem to be either unwilling or unable to put forward cogent arguments of your own, but are merely using the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument against me.

You (collectively) say that the outcome of the election is important, and I said I don't disagree. There are plenty of sources to also make the analysis which can be used to good effect, and yet you insist on keeping the diplomatic niceties and make this look like just any other election article – which I am certain isn't your intention. You say that the Bangladeshi reaction is kind and has been remarked upon positively, and I don't disagree. But why simply quote Hasina's kind reaction and omit the more significant comments and appreciation of observers of the "gentlemanliness"? Please understand that I am trying to help by redirecting the focus of the article. I want you to make this into a special article that I know it deserves to be. As said, this can be by including significant and noteworthy facts and analyses. Don't boilerplate the article on other election articles. The bland repeated rhetoric and standardised congratulation and invitations that are there are unworthy and even demeaning of such a special event; they takes all the sparkle out of it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we all consider to move reactions section to a separate page like International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012. Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User Ohconfucius' primary objection is that since all elections worldwide are the same and since reactions to all such events everywhere are the same, ergo it is unnecessary to include the reactions on this page. S/he is, of course, wrong. Each election is different. The (diplomatic) world is dynamic and official international reactions to a particular election are a reflection of (diplomatic) relationships at a particular point in time. It is entirely possible that said user is incapable of parsing specific diplomatese but s/he should not presume that to be true for others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon200401 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Shyamsunder, I have no objection to moving the section to a new article. I would suggest that we move all reactions (domestic and intl) to the new article. Having only international reactions would reduce the scope of the article in my opinion. BigJolly9 (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Separate page would be good. KRK tweeted "I 100% believe tat @narendramodi Ji will remain PM of India for next 10yrs so I shall live in Dubai for next 10yrs. I will miss my India.". Good if he is going. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is nowhere near long enough to justify the split. And if all it is to contain is the bunch of standard diplomatic congratulations, it's better off within the same article. It will be more comprehensive that way. To be honest, I don't mind it being ejected. It means fewer people will read the standard boring sound bites that I have advised you against including here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on that. Reactions should be more than just quotes of congratulations. We need to cut that out from here itself and write reactions in economics, international relationships and such. There would be many articles out there now and in coming days which would speculate on changes that will happen. Also, we have to include how various CMs have started resigning now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the section is currently too short for a split. However, there is a lot of possible content to be added. In the economic section, I have added the Sensex, Nifty and rupee's reaction to the result on May 16. The sources go on to describe why this is the case, which we could also add. Also, we have not included the reactions of Modi, Rahul, Jaya and other prominent politicians who stood in the election. The media sections currently dont cover reaction to the actual results, just predictions of the results.

Regarding the international section, I dont mind trimming quotes or re-writing them as prose. I objected to Ohconfucious' edit because it basically turned the entire section into one sentence that read "Congratulations were sent by leaders of nations its neighbours, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka..." This makes it look completely like standard diplomatic protocol, and doesnt tell the reader much about international relations between the countries, the relations between leaders, or anything else. The Afghan PM had tweeted that Afghans consider India a "true friend". They probably wouldn't tweet that for a US or Israeli election. Again, the reaction of Bangladesh is very different from India's other neighbours Pakistan and Sri Lanka. This gives the reader an idea of relations at the time. I didnt include the parts of Hasina's letter where she goes on about the 1971 war. I stuck to the parts specific to the new PM and govt. The Chinese govt didnt congratulate Modi, they simply said they are "willing to work with the new govt". Putin (not included) specifically mentions good India-Russia relations under the previous NDA govt, and also mentions signing the "Declaration on Strategic Partnership" with them. Each statement from each country has its own uniqueness to it.

Besides, standard protocol would mean only the head of state says anything. In the US, the Secretary of State, National Security Council, as well as some lawmakers (not included currently) also congratulated Modi when they had no reason to. In Bangladesh, an opposition leader, as well as the Jamaat-e-Islaami congratulated Modi. In France, it was the ambassador not the President who congratulated Modi. The French govt has mostly avoided Modi, and the ambassador mentions that they will engage with Modi soon. If we go through the sources we could also explain more about Modi's "pariah" status and how some countries were avoiding him up to this point. (Sorry, for the long post) BigJolly9 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the Reactions section has been taken over by a whole bunch of quotes of Twitter feeds that incorporate the plethora of symbols "@" and "#". There really is no need to quote these messages verbatim. These should be rendered in a more encyclopaedic/prose-like form. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Errors in Results

Please note that UPA has won 60 seats, not 59. See this article of Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Indian_general_election,_2014#Lok_Sabha_Seats , the work done on this article is accurate. There should be consistency between both the pages

Suggestion - I suggest only BJP, INC, AIADMK, AITC and BJD be shown in the table of parties with their leaders photo. Not only are they the top 5 parties in no. of seats, but also the parties who have 20 or higher seats. No point showing parties like SP, BSP, AAP, NCP who are either in single digit or zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.40.24 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the infobox runs in lines of 3, it makes more sense to have 6 or 9 parties in the box. There really isn't a valid reason to limit this, better to have as many parties as the box can hold (which for what I understand is 9). --Soman (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the table in the "Results" section, not the one at the beginning of the article. Either we remove that table of photos of leaders in the result section completely, or we limit it to BJP, INC, AIADMK, AITC and BJD (the top 5 with 20 seats) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.20.49 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be even more weird. Why limit to 20? That's very arbitrary limit. --Soman (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox percentages not consistent

• Last election percentage is shown based on coalition whereas current is shown based on party.
• BJP percentage should be 31% and not 37%
• Swing percentage are completely wrong.

Avinds (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Avin

It should be consistent, either coalition alliance or party, in every row. Alliance data makes more sense in the infobox, given the discussion under Parties and alliances section.

What should be the correct % and numbers for the two coalitions? from which reliable source? Welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources on the alliances, as the seat-sharing alliances are made on state level (with the national leaderships giving the final green lights). A party might be considered as part of a coalition in one state, but contest against this coalition in another (this was discussed above). Both NDA and UPA are largely fictional entities, euphemisms to say "BJP and allies" and "INC and allies", and after this election the future of both these platforms are highly doubtful. --Soman (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Soman, Avoid WP:OR and what might happen "after this election". It is outside the scope of this article. For applicable NDA and UPA definition, see Parties and alliances section.

Let us also avoid forum like discussion here, per WP:TALK. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see party results only as alliances can change overnight. Election commission doesn't track any alliance as well.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH lies in the current version. We have no WP:RS listing of 'membership' in the NDA, for example. The NDA chapter has 5 refs;

• http://www.business-standard.com/article/politics/nda-hopeful-of-more-pre-poll-and-post-poll-friends-114022801201_1.html and http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/partners-possibles-in-bjps-target-272/2/ talks about current and possible alliances that the BJP might do in a number of states, but it is clear for the articles that NDA alliance basically means having some seat-sharing with BJP.
• http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Rangasamy-in-NDA-Names-Ex-Speaker-as-LS-Candidate/2014/03/13/article2106172.ece mentions the entry of AINRC in NDA.
• Mentions the formation of a Kerala state chapter of NDA
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/apna-dal-allies-with-nda/article5826609.ece says that Apna Dal had declared support for NDA.

For me this is fine, there wouldn't be any other way to describe this. But there are no authoritative listings of membership of NDA, as NDA is merely another way to say that a party is aligned with BJP. When the NDA was in power, it was the name given to a governing coalition, whoever sat in the government were somehow part of NDA (the TDP at the time distinguished itself as stating that it was not part of the NDA as such, but allied with it). The same is true for the UPA, it was a post-electoral mash-up of Congress and smaller parties, who has been considered as UPA constituents have changed over time (the terms UPA-I, UPA-II and UPA are ways to label this evolution). Maybe the terms NDA and UPA will re-appear in the next national election, but these alliances are not that important between polls. This is different from say the Left Front of West Bengal, which has some formalized structures, like a committee, convenor, etc.. --Soman (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Results by party

At the current stage, the result is only given in terms of number of seats and number of votes in national level. We'd need to give the results by party as well, to describe the outcome. For me, it would make sense to join the outcome with the candidate/campaign passages, but not sure if that would requite reorder the chronology of the article. Would it be weird if we partially mentioned some aspects of the outcome of the results in the 'Parties and Alliances' section, whilst having the full list in the end as well? I'd also say that we could reduce the quotefarming even further. --Soman (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Vote share pie diagram

I have removed the vote share pie diagram from the article as it doesn't really hold much importance. What matters is that how many votes a party got but how many seats it finally got. Such statistics are popularly used and they can stay on Results of the Indian general election, 2014 but not here when we have to write the results only in brief. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is highly relevant to include the vote share, and it is notable that this election has resulted in a majority with the lowest % of votes in the history of the Lok Sabha. It is important for readers to understand the dynamics behind the advance of BJP in terms more complex than just 'Modi wave'. This aspect is starting to be picked up in mainstream media, such as http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Lok-Sabha-Elections-2014/News/BJPs-31-lowest-vote-share-of-any-party-to-win-majority/articleshow/35315930.cms --Soman (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Am not objecting it's inclusion on the main article of results. But at the end of it, how many representatives each party sends in the LS is what counts and what's required on this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the pie chart overemphasizes the importance of national vote share result. Vote share is only relevant at the provincial level, where candidates fight for a seat. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The vote-share pie chart is definitely relevant for this article, which is about the Indian General Elections, 2014. I have added another pie-chart below it, showing the seat-share. As both are nearby, and with similar colour-codes for the parties, the readers can easily view them and compare different parties' vote-shares and seat-shares. All this is completely relevant for the article, and it should stay. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Constant removal of MPs with criminal background.

I do not understand the reason for editors to remove it. The previous lok Sabha election, there is a paragraph which states the fact and no one edited it for the last 5 years. Why have inferiority complex and hide the truth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009#MPs_with_pending_criminal_charges

manchurian candidate 06:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The section on criminal candidates is definitely relevant for this article, and it should stay. I have added a table in that section, which presents the statistics in a clearer way. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to me to be seriously wrong. An indictment does not a criminal make. The editors insisting on inclusion seem to be using the information to make the point that the house is more corrupt and morally bankrupt than it has been in previous years. Although there is no roll call, it's quite bad to perform that sort of analysis on pending charges – I mean does India not subscribe to justice not only being done but also seen to be done; furthermore, does India not subscribe to the notion of a person's innocence until proven guilty? There is synthesis in the making too as the landslide victory has brought a greater proportion of crooks and BLP politicians into the house. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with User:Ohconfucius. In case of India, even indictment is unnecessary, just an allegation (First Information Report, FIR) is sufficient for a criminal case to become pending. Criminal allegations do not mean someone is a criminal. Universal human rights require that individuals must be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. From wikipedia perspective, this is a serious violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE for this article (or older election articles). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with User:Ohconfucius and User:Ms Sarah Welch. The inferences are clear, and Wikipedia is most definitely WP:NOTSCANDAL. POV pushes to include allegations constitute WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this is the talk-page of a Wikipedia article, and not a forum for discussing what does and what does not make a criminal, or whether or not the elected politicians are criminals. Secondly, the section in question uses the phrase "winners with criminal cases", and not just "criminals". Nowhere is it being stated that just by having criminal case(s), a person becomes a criminal. The content of that section is not anyone's personal point of view, original research, or anything else that must not come in a Wikipedia article. It is all a collection of true and important facts that are relevant for the topic of the article, and all the facts are supported by valid references:

• http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/Every-third-newly-elected-MP-has-criminal-background/articleshow/35306963.cms
• http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/the-numbers-story-list-of-mps-facing-criminal-charges/
• http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/a-third-of-mps-have-criminal-cases-shiv-sena-tops-list-report-398609
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/over-30-of-mps-mlas-face-criminal-charges/article4938403.ece

The inclusion of the said section in the article is not violating WP:Neutral point of view (including WP:Due) guidelines. The section is not pointing out the criminal and financial details of only one politician, political party or political front. It is pointing out the details of several parties (the ones that have the largest numbers), including both Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress, the two largest and opposing parties. In fact, not including (or deleting) such important (and reference-backed) information in the article may be a violation of WP:Neutral point of view (NPoV) guidelines. Those trying to hide such information may be wanting to hide the criminal aspect of Indian politics, mentioned political parties, etc. The section also does not violate WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) guidelines. No living persons are mentioned in that section. Even if they were, it would not be a violation as long as the information was true, relevant for the article and backed up by valid references. Finally, the section is not WP:Tendentious editing (TE). (But repeatedly deleting the section might be tendentious editing.) The section also conforms to WP:Notscandal and other WP:What Wikipedia is not guidelines. Please stop false, baseless and foolish accusations like these. If you bring them up, then you are the one violating Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, the language, typing and presentation styles of some of the above users suggest that they are all the same user who is resorting to WP:Sockpuppetry. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Tread carefully when casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding other editors, Sarthak Sharma. This is, as you have noted, an article talk page... and you have overstepped the line.

Note, also, that WP:UNDUE is closely linked with WP:BALASPS, and the subject matter of the article is essentially WP:RECENTISM. Creating a section about allegations at this point would essentially be journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The section may be said to have "allegations" if it states that the election winners with criminal cases are "definitely" criminals. But that is not the case here. The section is merely pointing out some true "facts": that some winners have criminal cases. The presented facts are relevant for the article about "Indian General Elections, 2014", and they are all backed up with valid references. Also, they are not given any undue weight. The given references present a lot of data on this aspect, but the section is presenting only the important data that should be mentioned. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see how anyone, based on the brief exchanges above, can state so categorically that "language, typing and presentation styles of some of the above users suggest that they are all the same user". What is clear, though, is that than none of us three writes in Indian English. ;-) Making bad faith accusations as has been done is in breach of WP:CIVIL, and is definitely not the way to go to winning consensus. I note that the user seems to be getting increasingly aggressive. I would forgive him for being so utterly convinced he is right and simply being frustrated with not getting their own way.

  Substantively, this seems to be another case of people conflating the different roles played by the press (including tabloids) and reference works such as Britannica and WP. I did not say inclusion of the criminal cases text would be in violation of BLP, but it certainly seems to violation WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NPOV. Contrary to what Intelligentguy89 seems to be arguing, there may be stronger grounds for including mentions of legally proven criminals, but the relevance still needs to be demonstrated that it has been a factor during the election and not by some ex-post summary analysis of the results, and I don't see that being the case. It is certainly undue and in my view could also constitute synthesis. Relying on press articles containing flimsy raw data on unproven crimes to try and demonstrate any increasing trend to criminality in the house, and the apparent relative probities of the different parties, is what newspapers do all to often to sensationalise and sell more copy. The worst is the article from TOI, whose heading quite blatantly misleadingly states "Every third newly-elected MP has criminal background" – having a criminal case pending does not constitute a "criminal background". We cannot dismiss that the paper, with such prominent bias, may be driven by some political agenda. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You did not mention the WP:BLP point, but someone else did, and my BLP-related point was for that user. And you fail to see the point. Again, I am saying that the section is just presenting a fact: that some election winners have criminal cases. This is not "flimsy raw data". It is information as stated in the sworn affidavits submitted by candidates themselves, to the Election Commission of India (ECI), while filing their nominations for election. Third-party neutral organizations have just analysed or compiled the data (available publicly on the ECI website) of thousands of candidates (from which the 542 winners came), and presented the results of their analyses on their websites. One such example is of the Association for Democratic Reforms (http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners). You can analyse all publicly available data yourself, if you have the patience and time. Nowhere in the section is it stated that those winners with criminal cases are proven criminals. The section says nothing about the "confirmed criminal status" of anyone (until it is proved). And the section does not come under the category of synthesis, as no original research is being presented. No new, un-referenced conclusions are being drawn. Factor of all this during the election is neither presented nor needed as the election is over, and the section presents information of candidates who have already won the election. This is not analysis of how "criminal status" may have affected "voting". The referenced reports themselves were compiled and released after the declaration of election results on 16th May 2014. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Where is the proof of guilt? The "facts" you refer to are merely a bunch of figures upon which some journalists have used dubious assumptions, innuendo and conjecture to their own "newsy" ends. It's a joke of an analysis using "polluted" data and an insult to the intelligence of right-minded folk. If you are accused of assaulting or killing someone in India, do you go straight to jail, or is there a mock trial before some kangaroo court? If that is the case, the "criminals" section might belong somewhere in Wikipedia. But you accept that the NGO released their "analysis" after the elections were over, which means the matter was not relevant and discussed at length during the election. It being ex-post means it certainly doesn't belong in this article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Where is the proof of guilt ?, Criminal cases background must be included. This data is from Official affidavits and section says "With Criminal cases" not "Criminals" and also 65.87% does not have criminal cases. Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• So it comes from candidates own affadivits... it makes for transparency but I fail to see why should it be used to infer or imply guilt. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• I have posted a request for further comment to the NPOV Noticeboard. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The issues raised by User:Ohconfucius and User:Iryna Harpy remain unanswered. The latest version of "Criminal and financial details of the election winners" section should be deleted. Here are some additional reasons:

1. This article is about "Indian general election", not election winners or current members of parliament. This WP:TE to include a large section on "criminal allegations" or their financial data for winners only is irrelevant, one sided WP:COATRACK. A more balanced section would cover "criminal case disclosures" that covers all 8,000 competing candidates, not just the winners.
2. The section in the current form is being used to infer or imply guilt against election winners, without a balanced discussion of Indian criminal justice system and Indian democracy. This is neither balanced and complete nor in the scope of this article.
3. The cited source is WP:PRIMARY, and neither peer reviewed nor secondary/tertiary. I looked into the source - ADR; it is an advocacy activist group. Blogs and activist websites are not WP:RS. Even tabloids or news articles that republish media-savvy advocacy group press releases do not automatically meet WP:RS thresholds.
4. The latest May 31, 2014 version of this section alleges a "serious criminal case" to include "Offences that are mentioned in Representation of the People Act (Section 8)", with ADR advocacy group cited as source. There is a bias in the definition of "serious", and the current version is seriously so. Here is the complete text of that law. Section 8 provides grounds to allege a crime, if a politician says or does anything that may be considered "prejudicial to (the) maintenance of harmony", or "undue influence", or "ill will", or anything that "might promote enmity" between religious groups or classes in India. Any free speech or questioning of policies favoring a religious group or class of people can be alleged to meet this vague threshold. This threshold is far lower than hate speech crime statutes in India, which are covered by Articles 124, 153, 295 and possibly other penal codes of India. In other words, ADR has included vague allegations as "serious criminal cases", where the allegations are mere political speeches that may be misunderstood as potential "ill will" and "threat to harmony". From wikipedia reader's perspective, a summary of this foundational premise is missing in the current section. It misleads the reader into believing that allegations of "Offences that are mentioned in Representation of the People Act (Section 8)" must indeed be as serious an alleged "criminal case" as "rape, murder, kidnap, assault." Such misleading, incomplete summary violates WP:NPOV.

Therefore, I too support this section be deleted. If any persuasive reasons are found to include it in this or any other wikipedia article, the discussion should be properly expanded to make it WP:NPOV, with content sourced from reliable peer reviewed sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the PDF, Ms Sarah Welch. For the purposes of English Wikipedia, I'd say that qualifies as being conclusive evidence of the concept of 'allegations' conflicting with the English language/inbuilt legal implications of the term. In terms of the context of the subject of the article (as you've pointed out), I would call for the removal of the entire section as WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Existence of criminal or civil cases against a person is no gauge of anything. The conviction upon the cases might be a gauge of something. The bottom line remains that as long as politicians are not discriminated for being criminals or being accused of crimes, and if they are equally treated like any other politician, I see no reason why it should be part of this article. About Indian media churning and munching on such stuff... that's what they do everytime. If not given some other issues to munch on, they would also draw statistics on bald and gray-haired and black-haired politicians along with the affidavits. Just as the educational qualification is no gauge, so is pending legal cases. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the point you are making. True that none of this is a gauge of anything, and the papers will write what they wrote. So none of this is relevant to anything else in the article because it's journalists' jobs to write copy. By saying "I see no reason why it should be part of this article" using justification that is contradictory, you seem to have just utterly destroyed the basis of your entire argument. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Dharmadhyaksha, the same could be said of all journalism, in which case three-quarters of Wikipedia wouldn't exist. Arguments here are based on policy and guidelines as to whether the content is appropriate or not for the purposes of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So that's what I said. Everything that's written by journalists is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. On how the legal cases matter is important than just that they are being talked about by media. If the name-changer user can justify on why the cases matter over here in this article, the list can be included. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha:You've repeatedly told us it's important because it's newsworthy, but WP:NOTNEWS denies that as grounds for inclusion; you still haven't told us how it's encyclopaedic and not a tendency to scandalise based on crimes alleged but not substantiated. Do you still beat your wife? ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My English must be really bad for you to not understand it. I will try putting it in simple words:
Remove criminal records. They are not important. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Ohconfucius: @Ms Sarah Welch: @Iryna Harpy: @Intelligentguy89: so was there WP:CONSENSUS anywhere to exclude the criminal-cases-stats and financial-stats from this article but include it in 16th Lok Sabha? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My feeling is that it shouldn't be used anywhere, full stop. Exactly the same rationale. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see how precisely the same policy and guideline based arguments against the inclusion of the "allegations" for this article don't apply to 16th Lok Sabha, Dharmadhyaksha. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted it clarified again as the user has added it on other article now. I will remove it from there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• • I see no reason why such a section cannot be included. It presents important information that is totally relevant for the article, is unbiased (mentions several opposing political parties, not just one), and is supported by valid, third-party references. Users opposed to its inclusion are either going into too much detail about a minor aspect (e.g. excessive discussion about just one of the eight criteria used to determine what is a "serious" crime, and that discussion also presents a more-or-less personal opinion), or failing to understand that the information stated in the section is just facts, and uses the phrase "criminal cases", not "criminals". Nowhere in the section is it being implied or explicitly stated that those people who have criminal cases are criminals. And just because the analysis is carried out after the declaration of election results, and is about only winners, does not make it irrelevant for this article. The article is about Indian general elections, 2014, so a brief analysis of the winners of the election, as given in the section, is definitely relevant. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There's far too many problems with this addition: we can not just add this based on cases, and the ADR is not a widely accepted peer-reviewed source either. In addition, WP:DUE applies too. —SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been provided with an extensive list of policy and guideline-based arguments against the inclusion of the content, User:Intelligentguy89. Please drop the stick and back away. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You have also been provided with an extensive list of policy and guideline-based counter-arguments for the inclusion of the content, User:Iryna Harpy. For the determination of consensus, I am providing my input as I am supposed to (and as I am asked for it). If you do not have anything concrete to contribute to a discussion, please do not post anything. Citing essays that contain only "advice or opinions" (correct according to you, not everyone), and not any "Wikipedia policies or guidelines" (that must necessarily be adhered to by everyone), is not making your case any stronger. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

According to me and several other editors. The fact that you are the only one arguing for the inclusion of this content (take 2) suggests that you don't have a case of any description other than that you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Same could be said about you. You are effectively telling me to shut up because you do not agree with my views. That may be categorized as WP:UNCIVIL. Plus, you are engaging in an edit war on 16th Lok Sabha, without even initiating any discussion on that article's talk page. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to act in a less puerile manner. I have just posted to your talk a warning for you to desist in edit warring. Thank you for your attention. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am behaving appropriately enough. But are you saying it is OK for someone one your side to engage in an edit war, but not OK otherwise? You and User:Iryna Harpy (and not me) are performing the "undo" edits (without even discussing on that article's talk page). And this talk page's consensus (if any) is not automatically transferred to that article. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been spamming this same content across three different articles despite the discussion here and on NPOV/N. That is quite disingenuous and a clear form of tendentious editing. This discussion is quite clear. —SpacemanSpiff 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Intelligentguy89, I would suggest you read WP:EDIT WAR and explain how you are justified in accusing me of edit warring given that I've only actually edited the article in question once, whereas you have now been engaged in edit warring there for two consecutive days. I would also ask that you remove your edit warring notification from my talk page before an AN/I is opened against you again. Gaming the system by demanding that the same content be discussed from scratch on each related article is tendentious editing. You cannot claim that you were unaware of the fact that the discussion was taking place here because, frankly, the time stamps for your input regarding the issue on this talk page belie any claims to ignorance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The three revert rule is for blocking a user during an edit war, and not determining when an edit war begins. It is not necessary for at least 3 reverts to occur, for an edit war to begin. A single edit may be enough. You undid my edits that had added an entire section to 16th Lok Sabha, without even discussion on that article's talk page. That may be the beginning of an edit war. And I never claimed of being unaware of the fact that discussion was taking place on this talk page. I am just saying that the discussion of one article's talk page can not automatically be applied to another article. They are two different articles for a reason: they deal with two different topics. And the talk page discussion of another article may invite comments from different editors (or different comments from the same editors, due to difference in topic), and hence lead to a different consensus, conclusion, etc. This is the expected logical and rational editing in Wikipedia, and not tendentious editing. [By the way, the section has changed a bit. Before commenting on it (on the relevant articles' talk pages), please go through the latest version, and consider its relevance for the different articles, separately.] --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox election template too wide

'Infobox election' template is too wide for small screens. I've started a discussion on the template's talkpage at Template talk:Infobox election#Template too wide for small screens.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Key Leaders Constituency

I deleted the part of S Gurumurthy as this person is not a leader of mentioned political party and did not try to contest from this particular seat. It was another person and this was a goof up by the Indian media due to similar names. The Nilgiris seat is reserved for SC candidate as per the Election Commission of India while S Gurumurthy is not from the Scheduled Caste.Aditya8993 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian general election, 2014. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140714222441/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/ajc-stmnt-india-elec-idUSnPnnGBCG 4f PRN20140516 to http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/ajc-stmnt-india-elec-idUSnPnnGBCG 4f PRN20140516

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian general election, 2014. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140714222441/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/ajc-stmnt-india-elec-idUSnPnnGBCG 4f PRN20140516 to http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/ajc-stmnt-india-elec-idUSnPnnGBCG 4f PRN20140516

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian general election, 2014. 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/20140116082136/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-07/news/45955465_1_aam-aadmi-party-aap-plans-opposition-alliance to http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-07/news/45955465_1_aam-aadmi-party-aap-plans-opposition-alliance
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606003137/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/GE2014/PC_WISE_TURNOUT.htm to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/GE2014/PC_WISE_TURNOUT.htm

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indian general election, 2014. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eciresults.ap.nic.in/PartyWiseResult.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804032238/http://www.seekersfind.in/loksabha-election-2014-prediction-survey/ to http://www.seekersfind.in/loksabha-election-2014-prediction-survey/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234140/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=836528 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=836528
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ceosikkim.nic.in/Files/GENERAL ELECTION 2014/VOTER TURNOUT 2014/AC WISE VOTER TURN OUT.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/ajc-stmnt-india-elec-idUSnPnnGBCG 4f PRN20140516

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Indian general election, 2014. 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/20140406105503/http://inc.in/media/candidate.aspx to http://inc.in/media/candidate.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315220451/http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news/latest-news/cpi-m-in-kerala-finalises-list-of-candidates-144333.html to http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news/latest-news/cpi-m-in-kerala-finalises-list-of-candidates-144333.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140516110209/http://cpim.org/elections-2014/election-issues/electoral-battle-telangana to http://cpim.org/elections-2014/election-issues/electoral-battle-telangana
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322183027/http://www.thestatesman.net/news/45684-fb-releases-first-list.html to http://www.thestatesman.net/news/45684-fb-releases-first-list.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313022741/http://www.hindustantimes.com/specials/coverage/myindia-myvote/chunk-ht-ui-myindiamyvote-countdownto2014/left-plans-secular-meet-for-third-front-options/sp-article10-1135186.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/specials/coverage/myindia-myvote/chunk-ht-ui-myindiamyvote-countdownto2014/left-plans-secular-meet-for-third-front-options/sp-article10-1135186.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410041802/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/state-of-the-states/brisk-voting-in-assam-tripura-in-first-of-9-phase-lok-sabha-polls/article1-1205113.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/state-of-the-states/brisk-voting-in-assam-tripura-in-first-of-9-phase-lok-sabha-polls/article1-1205113.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140411084559/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election2014-placeholder/live-lok-sabha-elections-voting-for-91-seats-in-third-phase-begins/article1-1206370.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election2014-placeholder/live-lok-sabha-elections-voting-for-91-seats-in-third-phase-begins/article1-1206370.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Indian general election, 2014. 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/20140422151956/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election-beat/is-congress-worried-for-rahul-in-amethi/article1-1210970.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election-beat/is-congress-worried-for-rahul-in-amethi/article1-1210970.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319004035/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/cpim-cpi-to-contest-nine-seats-each-in-tamil-nadu/article5785081.ece to http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/cpim-cpi-to-contest-nine-seats-each-in-tamil-nadu/article5785081.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515001150/http://www.todayschanakya.com/loksabha_result_2014.html to http://www.todayschanakya.com/loksabha_result_2014.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417234023/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/the-big-story/voting-begins-121-constituencies-12-states-195-million-voters-in-5th-phase/article1-1209013.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/the-big-story/voting-begins-121-constituencies-12-states-195-million-voters-in-5th-phase/article1-1209013.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424165428/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/state-of-the-states/third-phase-up-poll-begins-amid-tight-security/article1-1211629.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/state-of-the-states/third-phase-up-poll-begins-amid-tight-security/article1-1211629.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507160057/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/state-of-the-states/ls-polls-live-voting-begins-for-64-seats-all-eyes-on-amethi-seemandhra/article1-1216285.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/state-of-the-states/ls-polls-live-voting-begins-for-64-seats-all-eyes-on-amethi-seemandhra/article1-1216285.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520182322/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news-feed/editors-pick/gujarat-modi-wins-from-vadodara-bjp-ahead-in-all-26-seats/article1-1219764.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news-feed/editors-pick/gujarat-modi-wins-from-vadodara-bjp-ahead-in-all-26-seats/article1-1219764.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517161017/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=840952 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=840952
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519114543/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=840914 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=840914
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527150808/http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election-beat/us-congratulates-bjp-on-twitter/article1-1219982.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/elections2014/election-beat/us-congratulates-bjp-on-twitter/article1-1219982.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517221309/http://www.nst.com.my/latest/najib-congratulates-narendra-modi-for-winning-india-elections-1.599589 to http://www.nst.com.my/latest/najib-congratulates-narendra-modi-for-winning-india-elections-1.599589
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520222228/http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54850 to http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54850
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524104008/http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54852 to http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54852
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524105330/http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54879 to http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54879
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404032617/http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/284012/pm-greets-modi-on-poll-victory to http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/284012/pm-greets-modi-on-poll-victory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714191744/http://www.niticentral.com/2014/05/17/the-dalai-lama-congratulates-narendra-modi-224487.html to http://www.niticentral.com/2014/05/17/the-dalai-lama-congratulates-narendra-modi-224487.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indian general election, 2014. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-27/india/46683685_1_2002-gujarat-riots-rahul-gandhi-sikh-riots
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223043125/http://upelectionresult.in/mayawati-up-election-2017/ to http://upelectionresult.in/mayawati-up-election-2017/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407082911/http://www.abplive.in/india/2014/04/01/article287481.ece/Third-Front-government-at-Centre-after-polls-Mulayam-Singh to http://www.abplive.in/india/2014/04/01/article287481.ece/Third-Front-government-at-Centre-after-polls-Mulayam-Singh
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413144024/http://www.abplive.in/india/2014/02/22/article267206.ece/Modi-led-NDA-way-ahead-than-UPA-to-win-236-seats-in-LS-polls-2014-ABP-News-Nielsen-Opinion-Poll to http://www.abplive.in/india/2014/02/22/article267206.ece/Modi-led-NDA-way-ahead-than-UPA-to-win-236-seats-in-LS-polls-2014-ABP-News-Nielsen-Opinion-Poll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515114349/http://www.abplive.in/india/2014/05/12/article311808.ece/ABP-NEWS---NIELSEN-EXIT-POLL-2014 to http://www.abplive.in/india/2014/05/12/article311808.ece/ABP-NEWS---NIELSEN-EXIT-POLL-2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525233902/http://www.gov.mu/English/News/Pages/Dr-Ramgoolam-congratulates-Prime-Minister-–-Elect-of-India,-Shri-Narendra-Modi.aspx to http://www.gov.mu/English/News/Pages/Dr-Ramgoolam-congratulates-Prime-Minister-–-Elect-of-India,-Shri-Narendra-Modi.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Narendra Damodardas Modi (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Leader Since" Tag

I think the "leader Since" tag is very ambiguous and needs to be removed. May be we can change it to "Entry into Politics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Telangana CM TRS.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jayalalithaa1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

About voters

What is the percentage of total voters voted all over the country Sriram bharathwaj (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

66.20 Sriram bharathwaj (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What does "assembly segment" mean?

The section 2014_Indian_general_election#Voting_pattern refers several times 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) 01:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Assembly segment simply refers to the legislative assembly constituencies in a state. Ok123l (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"2014 Lok Sabha Elections" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2014 Lok Sabha Elections has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26 § 2014 Lok Sabha Elections until a consensus is reached. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 ClosedExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 08:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)