Talk:2019 Indian general election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unemployment section /Jobs data: Misinformation?

@Abecedare and RaviC: and others: This article states, "According to this [National Sample Survey Office] report, the 2017–2018 unemployment rate in India was at 6.1%, a four-decade high". It cites a newspaper, that does check out (other newspapers / tabloids in India mirror the same or something similar). That "low unemployment rate" is a very strong, exceptional claim to make for 40+ years, when in the same 40+ year period, the US, Canada, European nations, China, etc have seen much higher unemployment numbers. So, I sought scholarly papers as well as the NSSO survey archives at Harvard, and data files of the ILO and the World Bank. The easiest one to access and read is a paper in an Indian journal Economic and Political Weekly. In 2013, Abhishek Shaw published a paper titled, "Employment Trends in India: An Overview of NSSO’s 68th Round" (Vol. XLVIII, No. 42, pp. 23–25, Link). The Shaw paper, its table 5 on page 25 in particular, states that the 1999-2000 unemployment rate was well above 7% (unemployment rate for rural male: 7.2%, rural female: 7.0%, Urban male: 7.3%, Urban female: 9.4%). The 2005 unemployment percentage was even worse. The 2010 and 2012 unemployment numbers do not look too good either. Thus the newspaper claims about "6.1%, a four-decade high" is either false, or the Shaw 2013 paper in a peer-reviewed Indian weekly journal was false/wrong. In the interest of keeping wikipedia as honest as our abilities allow, and avoid being a source of misinformation, what should we do about this? Clearly the "6.1%, a four-decade high" claim is in the newspapers and thus meet our WP:V guidelines. Yet, given the Shaw paper analysis, and given the latest NSSO survey has not been released yet, these newspapers may not be WP:RS for the "four-decade high" historical claim that has not been vetted by scholarship. For now, I am leaving it in. Should we attribute it and add a ref-note? Keep it as is. Remove it completely? Suggestions and comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The 6.1 unemployment rate for 2017-18 reported by Business Standard is as measured per the 'usual status' approach. The unemployment rates in Table 5 of the Shaw paper are as measured per the 'current daily status' approach. The two measures are not directly comparable. Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Another article that talks about the data's unreliability. A statistical embarrassment --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the data has been proven to be unreliable, I think it's probably best to either remove it or alternatively make reference to its unreliability in the text. --RaviC (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare: Thanks. For those wondering what Abecedare is talking about, please see this and study the related appendices from NSSO. I will study these closer, and call some scholars in this field of expertise. May take me a day or few. RaviC: I suggest we let it remain in the article until then (and till we have a consensus on the talk page), since it is verifiable and in so many newspapers published over there. Leaving it in may be fair to the editors who added it in the first place and help avoid unnecessary edit warring. I urge patience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, you can likely download the data for all the post-1983 surveys from here (I haven't done so myself). The 2004-05 and 2009-10 data are easiest to access in this report (page 27 of pdf); the 2011-12 data is accessible here (page 18 of pdf).

As a cross-check, these can be used to verify the last three columns in Table 5 of Shaw's paper. The UR_{usual status, rural+urban, male+female} for 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 are recorded in these reports as 2.3%, 2.0% and 2.2% respectively, which is consistent with the Business Standard claim. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare: Thanks again. The data is odd and not comparable with the unemployment data from the US, EU and other major economies. The data is odd because it is difficult to believe (or understand) how India can have "usual status" unemployment rate of 8 per 1000 or 0.8% (see 2009-2010 report, page 56, Table S28, all-India male+female data)? This implies 99.2% of those 1000 were "usual status" employed in 2009-2010. Incredible! Even full employment situation in a major economy has people between jobs and therefore about ~3% to ~6% unemployment rate. How can the Indian population have below 1% "usual status unemployment" (or extremely low "current weekly/daily status" unemployment rate, Tables S29 etc) in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s but also report high poverty rates and low per capita income rates in the same decades. Were the masses working for no wages, producing nothing of economic value, and yet fully employed (I still need to complete reading through their methodology pages)? From this article's perspective, that 6.1% unemployment rate-related sentence is unclear and confusing since NSSO's "usual status unemployment" terminology is different than "unemployment" terminology in use in the US, Europe and elsewhere. We do not have an article on Usual status unemployment, so we can't link it and let any interested reader understand what NSSO means by unemployment. Either a ref-note or a link to another wiki article that better explains all this could be helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the definitions of these terms are non-intuitive and country-specific.

For example it is not true that "usual status" unemployment rate of 8 per 1000 or 0.8% ...implies 99.2% of those 1000 were "usual status" employed in 2009-2010.. If you follow along the definitions on page 13, you'll see that "Proportion employed" (not that that is a term used in the document) = Labour Force Participation Rate (LPFR) - Proportion unemployed (PU) = 39.2% (of the total population).

The two main factor that make unemployment numbers for India and, say, US not directly comparable are (a) the significantly lower LPFR in India (esp among women), and (b) and the much laxer definition in India for counting as employed, for example per the CWS standard, working 1 hour in the preceding week places a person in the employed category (cf, different standards used for defining literacy). The 'usual status' standard, is more complicated, but even laxer! There are other secondary factors that effect things on the margin eg seasonal adjustment; whether total population or working-age-population is used in the denominator; how seeking-employment is defined etc. And beyond these definitional issues there are issues related to how-frequently and how these measures are estimated (eg, issues, as Bhalla says, regarding how the population is sampled)

(TL;DR)  All this may be too-far-afield for this article, but could/should be better explained at Unemployment in India. Abecedare (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare: I heard back this evening from someone in this field of expertise. His comments pretty much are along what you wrote above plus those in the Bhalla article (thanks Rsrikanth05 for that link). It may be best to keep that Business Standard source supported text in the article, but for NPOV, we could add a few disputing lines from the Bhalla article as a ref-note. The Bhalla article mentions this election thus is relevant to the subject, and as an economist with a PhD from Princeton and publications, he is an RS. I should have some time on Wednesday, or the day after, to add that clarifying ref-note, but anyone else willing to dive into these and other relevant sources is most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a source where a scholar / respected economist defends the unemployment data collection every 5-year in India rather than monthly or quarterly, or supports NSSO's sampling methodology and the 2017–2018 report? If someone knows of one or few, please provide. FWIW, according to Raghuram Rajan – the former RBI governor and current professor at Univ of Chicago – "We need to collect better jobs data. Unfortunately, the issue has languished, as various arms of the [Indian] government have never settled on whose responsibility it is. I believe, there are still various efforts on, but I am unsure of their progress. It is one reason why we need to push a thorough look at our statistics" (Link1) and "Jobs statistics have been very poor for a long time [in India]. We need to improve the collection of these... cannot rely on EPFO or other make-do versions, need to collect better jobs data." (Link2). Perhaps, as Abecedare notes above, all this could/should be better covered in the Unemployment in India article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated RTIs have revealed that Labour Bureau's report on employment-unemployment data is supposedly ready and was to be released in 2018. Why then is the BJP continuing its deafening silence on the matter? (Link1) Results of a survey on jobs created under the Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency (Mudra) scheme, conducted by the Labour Bureau, will not be released before the 2019 elections, the Indian Express has reported.(Link2) Gujarat Unemployment: 8 RTI Queries, 1 Answered and 7 Stonewalled [https://www.thequint.com/voices/blogs/gujarat-elections-2017-rti-employment (Link3)122.172.253.60 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge sections

Consider merging of Election schedule, Reschedule, Cancellations, Voting and Turnout sections.

Extended content

The election schedule was announced on 10 March 2019, and with it the Model Code of Conduct came into force. Election schedule The election is scheduled to be held in seven phases, with counting starting on 23 May. In Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the election will be held in all seven phases. The polling for the Anantanag constituency in the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be held in three phases, the first of its kind, due to violence in the region that had prompted the ECI to cancel a bypoll in 2016, leaving it vacant since then. Vellore, Tamil Nadu: Over ₹11 crore (US$1.4 million) in cash was seized in Vellore from DMK leaders – a regional party in Tamil Nadu. According to the News Minute, this cash is alleged to have been for bribing the voters. Based on the evidence collected during the raids, the Election Commission of India cancelled the April 18 election date in the Vellore constituency. The DMK leaders have denied wrongdoing and alleged a conspiracy. Tripura East, Tripura: The Election Commission of India deferred polling from April 18 to 23 due to the law and order situation. The poll panel took the decision following reports from the Special Police Observers that the circumstances were not conducive for holding free and fair elections in the constituency. According to the Election Commission of India, 900 million people were eligible to vote, with an increase of 84.3 million voters since the last general election in 2014, making this the largest-ever election in the world. 15 million voters in the age group of 18–19 years are eligible to exercise their right to vote for the first time while 38,325 transgenders will be able to vote for the first time as members of the third-sex and not as male or female. 71,735 overseas voters have been enrolled in the electoral rolls for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. In 2015, an India-Bangladesh boundary agreement was signed, in which the two countries exchanged their enclaves. As a result, it will be the first time in which residents of these former enclaves vote in an Indian general election. ... In the first phase of the general election, about 69.45 percent of the 142 million eligible voters cast their vote to elect their representatives for 91 Lok Sabha seats. This was higher than the 2014 nationwide election average turnout of 66.44 percent. In the second of the seven voting phases, 157.9 million voters were eligible to vote to elect their representatives for 95 Lok Sabha seats. The average turnout for the second phase was about 69.43 percent in 2019, compared to 69.60 percent for the same seats in 2014. In the third phase of the general election, 176 million voters were eligible to elect 116 Lok Sabha representatives at 20,116 polling booths. The estimated average turnout for Phase 3 was 65.71%, according to The Election Commission of India. Phase Date Constituencies States and Union Territories 1 11 April 91 20 Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha, Sikkim, Telangana, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep 2 18 April 95 12 Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Puducherry 3 23 April 116 15 Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tripura, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu 4 29 April 71 9 Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal 5 6 May 51 7 Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal 6 12 May 59 7 Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Delhi 7 19 May 59 8 Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh Key   Polling held   Polling ongoing   Polling to be held State/UT Total constituencies Number of voters Number of constituencies, election dates and turnout Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Male Female Third gender Total voters 11 April Turnout 18 April Turnout 23 April Turnout 29 April Turnout 6 May Turnout 12 May Turnout 19 May Turnout Progress 91 95 116 71 51 59 59 Andhra Pradesh 25 1,93,82,068 1,97,95,423 3,908 3,91,81,399 25 79.88 Arunachal Pradesh 2 2 Assam 14 5 Bihar 40 4 Chhattisgarh 11 1 Goa 2 Gujarat 26 Haryana 10 Himachal Pradesh 4 Jammu and Kashmir[a] 6 2 Jharkhand 14 Karnataka 28 Kerala 20 Madhya Pradesh 29 Maharashtra 48 7 Manipur 2 1 Meghalaya 2 2 Mizoram 1 1 Nagaland 1 1 Odisha 21 4 Punjab 13 Rajasthan 23 Sikkim 1 1 Tamil Nadu[b] 38 Telangana 17 17 Tripura 2 1 Uttar Pradesh 80 8 Uttarakhand 6 5 West Bengal 42 2 Andaman and Nicobar Islands 1 1 Chandigarh 1 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 1 Daman and Diu 1 Delhi 7 Lakshadweep 1 1 84.96 Puducherry 1 Total 542 468 million 432 million 38,325 900 million 91 95 116​1⁄3 Total constituencies by end of phase 91 186 302​1⁄3 Percent complete by end of phase 17% 34% 56% a polling in Anantanag scheduled over three days b polling in Vellore cancelled (see above) References

122.179.16.154 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• No, because the existing format is clearer, better and per our MOS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• I have been WP:BOLD and neverthless combined all Voter Turnout tables into one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unemployment section

We need to add other references like Repeated RTIs have revealed that Labour Bureau's report on employment-unemployment data is supposedly ready and was to be released in 2018. Why then is the BJP continuing its deafening silence on the matter? (Link1) Results of a survey on jobs created under the Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency (Mudra) scheme, conducted by the Labour Bureau, will not be released before the 2019 elections, the Indian Express has reported.(Link2) Gujarat Unemployment: 8 RTI Queries, 1 Answered and 7 Stonewalled (Link3) 122.179.27.56 (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No. A more constructive approach would be to update, revise and expand Unemployment in India and then link it here, perhaps with a summary sentence or two in a refn note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Prime Ministerial candidate

The template Template:Indian general election, 2019 stated that Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi are Prime ministerial candidates of their individual parties. Do we have reference for this? No media speculations or implied candidature; but a formal press release or press conference reporting wherein these two have been declared candidates? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In case we are adding Rahul Gandhi as PM candidate we need to add other cadidates too including Mamata Banerjee, Akhilesh Yadav, Mayacati and Chandrababu Naidu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Have removed all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.This is not a presidential contest or even a two party contest.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lok Sabha members are directly elected by the people of India and the party holding a majority in the Lok Sabha elects its leader as the prime minister of India. So remove [1] [2],Opinion polls,Leader,Party,Alliance,Leader since,Leader's seat,Last election,Seats needed etc.from infobox and add [3].Further consider to remove [4] [5] [6] 122.179.18.243 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing section on neutrality / ineffectiveness of Election Commission

The 2019 election campaign trail has seen a big rise communal and hate speech and the Election Commission has been widely criticized in its ineffectiveness in ensuring a free and fair election campaign. In some other cases – like suspension of officers who searched PM's helicopter, or the case of delayed cognizance against the top leaders of the ruling government – its neutrality has also been questioned. This article would be incomplete without references to these. Shubhamkanodia (talk) 6:37, 4th May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shubhamkanodia please go ahead and add yourself otherwise Ms Sarah Welch may say "No.A more constructive approach would be to update, revise and expand Election Commission of India (ECI), Election Commission of India's Model Code of Conduct or any other articles then link it here, perhaps with a summary sentence or two in a refn note." 122.179.18.243 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Shubhamkanodia: Wikipedia is not a place to publish/repeat the latest sensationalist allegations, nor a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Tabloids, blogs, op-eds in newspapers and such information sources tend to publish whatever news, speeches, claims and propaganda they feel fit for their readers and click-baits, but we cannot lead this curve nor participate in this per our community agreed guidelines. As you probably know, all major political parties in India have been accusing the political leaders and their opposition of all sorts of things (see the section above on Rahul Gandhi's citizenship). We cannot include every little allegation or every major sensationalist claim. If their regional courts or their Supreme Court have determined that there is/has been "a big rise communal and hate speech" in the last few months over the past elections, or that the Election Commission has been failing in a manner you mention, then such a summary would be welcome only if presented with one or more reliable sources. Else, we need to wait till there is scholarly or judicial peer-reviewed publications or equivalent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Parties and alliances

Update parties and alliances section with list all other parties, fill the number of independent candidates from List of Contesting Candidates and consider removing alliance column.171.61.110.126 (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Campaigning

@LeoC12, AS Sayyad, Davemck, Master of Time, Number 57, Dheerajmpai23, Nandeesh Kabbur, Dharmadhyaksha, and Jonathansammy: Create Prime Ministerial candidates/Prominent candidates section and list Narendra Modi,Rahul Gandhi,Prakash Karat,Mamata Banerjee,Naveen Patnaik,Arvind Kejriwal,Nara Chandrababu Naidu,Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao,H. D. Deve Gowda and others. 171.61.110.126 (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

2405:204:A389:9B67:67E1:F50C:85E5:4E2E (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agrarian and rural distress

@Rams are, Ms Sarah Welch, Rsrikanth05, Hemant Dabral, Rsrikanth05, Vanamonde93, Shreyas112358, Gazoth, Dheerajmpai23, and Shreyas112358: Thank you for contributing to Agrarian and the rural distress section. If you'd like to include a citation, please read Documents obtained through RTI requests shed more light on complaints by farmers that money deposited under the PM Kisan scheme was immediately debited by the banks. 112.133.244.27 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Something similar has been happening in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, where the new Congress-led state governments and Rahul Gandhi-stated "loan waivers" are actually nothing more than legislative action. No money has been paid by these state governments to the farmer or their bank accounts so that they can pay off their loan, nor has the money been paid to the bank so that they can mark the loan as paid. The farmer loans in those states are still on the banks' books. So, the Congress party's "loan waiver" is fiction (unlike their Karnataka and Maharashtra states where those governments have actually transferred some money or plans to do so). That may be interesting to summarize in another wikipedia article such as the Politics in India or a Farm loans in India article, but all this is not really relevant and WP:Due in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ms Sarah Welch here. Seems overdue in this article, but can be mentioned in the article on farm loans or the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No new article please. maybe just one sub-section in Agriculture_in_India#Problems. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Do you know the difference between Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi? 112.133.244.22 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch and Dharmadhyaksha: Summarize in another Wikipedia article later, but do it first here or remove and consider summarizing "The BJP campaign has highlighted that the Congress party had been in power for five generations of the Nehru dynasty and its past promises and campaign issues have been empty. It claims that the recent farmer loan waivers by Congress have not reached "even 10% of the farmers" nor has it helped the financial situation of the farmers. BJP highlights that its "Kisan Samman Nidhi" helps the small farmers at the time of seed planting through a direct deposit of ₹6000 to their accounts. The opposition has accused this as being an attempt to lure voters." too in another article. 112.133.244.22 (talk)

Yes I do. There is no need to attack users. Whatever be the case, it can go to the relevant article, it is overdue here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is undue weightage to Indian farm loan waivers already at Loan waiver. One may want to curb that there and add to; like my initial suggestion, to Agriculture_in_India#Problems. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Refund

@Rohit.dandona1, LeoC12, JDuggan101, Manthara, JDuggan101, Certes, Dheerajmpai23, 182.64.164.98, Samf4u, Kahtar, Akashgautamab, Vishnuprasadp, Shashwat312, Rsrikanth0, Gazoth, Shreyas112358, Absolutelypuremilk, and Wafflepancake34: Please have a look at removed content. I suspect there may be anything salvaging in the removed content. 112.133.244.19 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Which removed content in particular are you referring to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: All! Browse revision history you will find some such as the Citizenship amendment bill 2016,Job crisis/Unemployment,Ram temple,Rafale deal,Prime Ministerial Candidates,Endorsements,Campaign controversies,Attack on the Independent Institutions/Alleged institutional undermining,Campaign controversies,Allegations of price escalation,Voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) or verifiable paper record (VPR) and Prison term for false complaint on Electronic Voting Machines etc. Further review other sections too.112.133.244.21 (talk)

Table and arrows

@Anon200401:, others: Thank you for all the updates. You Anon200401 added those arrows (, ) to the table. It may not be obvious to wikipedia readers what they mean or what those arrows are in reference to (Turnout higher than 2014 elections etc, as your edit comment suggests). Would be nice if we could add something in the footnotes or the key above the table to explain those color-coded arrows. Is there a way for us to do so? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I've included a footnote to that effect. Note that this table is likely to metamorphose in a few days upon completion of elections in India. The color coded progress will vanish, some formatting might change as needed, and perhaps another table with a single, state-wise turnout figure and other population-wide numbers will become equally significant. Anon200401 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anon200401: Before indicating the turnout change compare the number of phases and the constituencies of both elections, I suggest to keep the change only for total column by adding percentage figures of increase or decrease like: { {increase|00.00%}} { {decrease|00.00%}} 112.133.244.27 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not the Election Commission of India has, quite competently, released the change from 2014 elections numbers on a constituency-by-constituency basis. Made it easy for us to not spend effort on WP:OR. The table in its current form will remain useful in the short term--many are interested in trying to guess which way the political winds are blowing in India based on whether turnout has been more or less than in the previous elections. In a few months' time, such analysis will be less urgent and then this table can be collapsed (my preference) or removed (not my recommendation) or replaced by another table with less granularity. Anon200401 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Anon200401: I would welcome and support your "preference" version. Please keep the table relatively simple and intuitive to understand for the wikipedia readers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sid54126:: Thanks for taking the time to cull out specific turnout numbers from the ECI data and calculating final voting percentages for the states where polling was multiphasic but has completed. Upon rechecking WP:NOR it appears that "routine calculations" including "basic arithmetic", which is what you did, is permitted provided there is editor consensus. I checked your numbers and you've obviously spent a lot of time going to the ECI source and doing the necessary calculations. My apologies for undoing your edit. Anon200401 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

Why seats needed= 228 already filled for Cong ? It should be removed which makes no sense Lesenwriter (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just saying. INC has 48 seats in the Lok Sabha right now. They need 272 to form the government. Simple arithmetic would tell you that 272-48=228. @Lesenwriter:, this is why it is prefilled. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of Arithmetic , but what is the logic behind for 48 seats and 228 when there is upcoming election for all 543 seats... it would be then 272 needed to form government . How do you determine 228 only needed ? 48 seats strength is over by 2019 May and now it's complete new election ... so current strength should not be pre-filled and needed shall be 272 for majority . Whatever i don't see issue there now as it is removed by someone else ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesenwriter (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I came here just to point out that the 'seats needed' is a very flawed conception. A better concept would have have been a common indicator of the majority to form government -- instead of a party specific indicator. The reason why I think it is stupid is because the seats a party holds in the previous parliament has no bearing on the seats in the impending parliament. That is, all parties have a clean slate when they enter Parliament -- they cannot continue to hold the seats they have right now by virtue of having been elected to it once. As a result, the seats needed thing kind of venture in psephology predicting that the parties will retain the seats they have presently -- which is particularly improbable in the case of BJP, making their seats needed flawed. Please relook at the whole concept as it is confusing, and very much flawed. VicHouse (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

I want to edit voter turnout data which are described under the table. Link :

• https://www.eci.gov.in/files/file/2832-pc-wise-voters-turn-out/
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/phase-5-of-lok-sabha-elections-2019-states-constituencies-and-key-candidates-going-to-the-polls-on-may-6/article27039218.ece

STATE: CONSTITUENCY(2014'S %) total Average(2014's Average) and finally 2019's Average Bihar: Sitamarhi(57.18%), Madhubani(52.86%), Muzaffarpur(61.17%), Saran(56.12%) and Hajipur(54.91%) total Average(56.44%) which is less then 2019 current average(57.08%).

Rajasthan: Ganganagar(73.17%), Bikaner(58.45%), Churu(64.54%), Jhunjhunu(59.42%), Sikar(60.31%), Jaipur Rural(59.77%), Jaipur(66.35%), Alwar(65.36%), Bharatpur(57.00%), Karauli-Dholpur(54.62%), Dausa(61.08%) and Nagaur(59.90%) total Average(61.66%) which is less then 2019 current average(63.72%)

Uttar Pradesh: Dhaurahra(68.05%), Sitapur(66.25%), Mohanlalganj(60.75%), Lucknow(53.06%), Rae Bareli(51.73%), Amethi(52.39%), Banda(53.61%), Fatehpur(58.58%), Kaushambi(52.37%), Barabanki(62.06%), Faizabad(58.82%), Bahraich(57.02%), Kaiserganj(55.11%) and Gonda(51.08%) total Average(57.20) which is less then 2019 current average(58.00%)

West Bengal: Bangaon(83.36%), Barrackpore(81.77%), Howrah(74.79%), Uleberia(81.95%), Sreerampur(79.50%), Hooghly(82.88%) and Arambag(85.16%) total Average(81.34%) which is greter then 2019 current average(80.08%)

Madhya Pradesh: Tikamgarh(50.16%), Damoh(55.33%), Khajuraho(51.36%), Satna(62.63%), Rewa(53.74%), Hoshangabad(65.80%) and Betul(65.17%) total Average(57.74) which is less then 2019 current average(69.14%) Hforhirenpatel (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done, because it will make the table overly complicated and too difficult to understand to almost all wikipedia readers. Please see our MOS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with archiving of sources

This source gives links to various PDFs from where voter turnout is currently sourced in the article. I can actually archive this link myself. But i want the individual PDFs to be archived for future referencing. These PDF get downloaded directly on local drive and hence i dont know how to archive them. Can someone archive these PDFs? Govt websites have a tendency to change links and then all data is lost. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be nice if someone can figure out how to do this. Can the bookmarklet / procedure mentioned in WP:WebCite help? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Economic performance

@Rams are and Ms Sarah Welch: and others:If you'd like to include a citation, please read NSSO Questions Quality of Key Database Now Used to Calculate GDP [7],Money of Indians in Swiss banks rise 50% to over Rs 7,000 cr .. [8],NPAs up by Rs 6.2 lakh crore under NDA, finds parliamentary committee [9],In Supreme Court,EC Criticises Modi Govt’s Electoral Bonds and Foreign Funding Tweaks [10],India’s debt under Modi govt surges 50% to Rs 82 lakh crore [11],PM Modi went ahead with demonetisation before RBI’s formal approval: RTI [12],India's debt up 50% to Rs 82 lakh crore in Modi [13],Divestment has never been the same again — either during the UPA or the NDA rule [14]. 171.61.99.40 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hopping IP: The 7000 crores INR ($1 billion) increase, if accurate, over a year in Swiss banks is a negligible amount, if you or your newscopy writer have ever carefully studied the international annual deposits and the holdings in Swiss and world banking system. Just the Swiss banks held $6.3 trillion in customer deposits in 2017. As another example, the divestment article is from 2018 and has no mention of 2019 Indian elections. So, instead of merely "if you'd like a citation", please consider the notability, balance, completeness, relevance, reliability, WP:WWIN and other content guidelines. Just like the way we can't include the pro-BJP or anti-Congress plugs from non-WP:RS op-eds / advocacy / sensationalism into this article as noted above, we can't include the pro-Congress / pro-whatever / anti-whatever op-eds / advocacy / sensationalism here. The content here must meet the matrix of community-agreed wikipedia content requirements. For more, please see the comments above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion NSSO, EC, parliamentary committee and RBI sources are not as per notability, balance, completeness, relevance, reliability, WP:WWIN and other content guidelines? 171.61.101.216 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The source must mention the subject of the article, discuss its relevance, make the conclusions, etc. Those links don't. I just checked your links above again. We can't do OR:Synthesis etc in wikipedia. If you keep repeating yourself and pinging numerous editors in multiple sections of this talk page, please expect that you will be ignored. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You said that "The source must mention the subject of the article, discuss its relevance, make the conclusions, etc." But in your 2nd April 2019 revision you cited an interview to subject Kisan Samman Nidhi and you cited an inappropriate to the opposition has accused this as being an attempt to lure voters. 122.171.175.11 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The cited sources mention the "subject of this article,....". The summary presents the different sides in the 2019 elections context per our NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Your text used to summarize presents different sides and not cites. 122.167.228.35 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: In reading this, I have absolutely no idea what the dispute is about or over. Could the parties please summarize their positions and, if edits have occurred which illustrate the dispute, provide diffs? To other 3O volunteers, I have not taken or reserved this dispute and if you care to offer an opinion, please jump right in as I may very well not do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page) In light of the RFC now pending below, the 3O request has been removed (i.e. denied) as only one form of dispute resolution may be pending at any time. If the RFC is ended without other editors joining in then the 3O request may be re-made, but please do not do so without the clarification noted in the strikeout section. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sri Lanka terror attack

Muthalganesan: Welcome to wikipedia. The tragic Sri Lanka terror attack by Muslims on Christians on Easter was mentioned during this long election campaign when it happened, but after a few days rarely if you look at the sources and their election coverage. That was therefore hardly a major issue for their political parties. It is not-WP:Due. Please discuss your evidence and reasons as to why it is WP:Due. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It is still widely discussed by Indian media and it is playing a huge role in the two South Indian states where Muslims, historically peaceful, are becoming more and more violent due to ISIS. The two citations provides a source about its impace on the election. I've posted articles from various dates:

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/sri-lankan-techie-under-indian-surveillance-key-in-bombings-investigators-2037745 http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/sri-lankan-techie-flagged-by-india-key-in-easter-attacks-say-investigators-119051400455_1.html http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/sri-lankan-software-engineer-under-indian-surveillance-key-in-easter-attack/articleshow/69320308.cms http://nypost.com/2019/04/30/india-nabs-alleged-follower-of-sri-lanka-bombings-suspect/ http://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/columns/sri-lanka-faustian-bargain-with-pakistan-exit-ltte-enter-isi/story/339389.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/tn-islamic-group-decries-terrorist-tag/story-QTeWO7tz3in9jirmhRQb9O.html

Also these three links also show about the impact on the election more:

http://www.economist.com/asia/2019/04/27/the-indian-governments-election-pitch-centres-on-hounding-minorities http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/high-stakes-india-social-media-whatsapp-elections-11534752 http://www.firstpost.com/india/sri-lankas-easter-sunday-bombers-with-alleged-islamic-state-links-had-visited-tamil-nadu-in-2017-no-proof-over-kashmir-trip-yet-6586221.html

I will presume that you are a westerner from your name and you appear to have a left-wing bias. I will revert the edit for now since I've provided plenty of links. Muthalganesan (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

These links either never mention the 2019 Indian general elections or mention it in the passing. I am sure you can find a few links, as I noted above, around the Easter day and perhaps later too. But, those links are a tiny subset of links on Indian elections issues. If you google or bing search Indian election issues, 99.9%+ do not discuss the Sri Lanka terror attack. The article already mentions terrorism as an issue. That suffices. You need to persuade that putting a para on the Sri Lanka attack in this article is WP:Due. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of konmis results

Hi Sid, why have you deleted our estimate for exit poll 2019. They are based on scientific sampling. Please restore Konmisindia (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Anchal2385 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Use gender neutral words in the writing. For example, use 'he/ she' instead of 'he' when making generic references.

 Not done: The only place I can see "he" used is in reference to the President of India in the Electoral system section. As Ram Nath Kovind is currently the President, "he" is perfectly acceptable in this case. NiciVampireHeart 18:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Add templates

Add {{Politics of India by state or territory}} and {{Indian political parties}} templates. 112.133.244.30 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sankalp?

@Dharmadhyaksha: Sankalp means "vow, resolution, declaration of purpose, solemn vow,..." in Sanskrit. See (p. 1046). If you have another source / better translation, please share. Let us add the "lit." back with whatever is well supported, since it is a NON_ENG term, and we should generally try to include the meaning of terms such as "Sankalp patra" for the general reader in and outside India. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

To me the best translation of “Sankalpit Bharat, Sashakt Bharat” is “Determined/Resolute India, Empowered India”. Anon200401 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Gma Exit pole reslults of 2019

Please update[[15]]of 2019 Indian general elections

Update the results with followig source:

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/photo-gallery-andhra-pradesh-exit-poll-results-2019-live-updates-lok-sabha-poll-predictions-revealed-2750895/andhra-pradesh-times-now-vmr-exit-poll-results-2019-2750974

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2019/may/20/2019-lok-sabha-exit-polls-ysrc-landslide-victory-predicted-as-hope-floats-for-tdp-1979133.html

https://www.hindustantimes.com/lok-sabha-elections/lok-sabha-elections-2019-1998-to-2014-what-exit-polls-predicted-and-what-voters-decided-a-look/story-equsfdbM4CYpHB7i2LBANK.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/confused-with-exit-poll-results-here-are-five-times-when-they-were-way-off-the-mark/articleshow/66987186.cms?from=mdr

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/confused-with-exit-poll-results-here-are-five-times-when-they-were-way-off-the-mark/articleshow/66987186.cms

https://www.hindustantimes.com/lok-sabha-elections/lok-sabha-elections-2019-1998-to-2014-what-exit-polls-predicted-and-what-voters-decided-a-look/story-equsfdbM4CYpHB7i2LBANK.html

https://politicalbaaba.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/comparison-of-projections-vs-actual-results/

https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha-2019/story/elections-exit-polls-1527936-2019-05-18

https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/todays-chanakya-exit-poll-predictions-for-lok-sabha-election-result-2019-live-update-1558270957-1

https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/todays-chanakya-exit-poll-predictions-for-lok-sabha-election-result-2019-live-update-1558270957-1

https://www.motilaloswal.com/site/rreports/HTML/635355785286597922/index.htm

https://www.motilaloswal.com/site/rreports/HTML/635355785286597922/index.htm

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/photo-gallery-exit-poll-2019-chanakya-nielsen-survey-c-voter-who-got-the-2014-exit-polls-right-2750829

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/photo-gallery-exit-poll-2019-chanakya-nielsen-survey-c-voter-who-got-the-2014-exit-polls-right-2750829/cnn-ibn-csds-exit-polls-2014-2750837

https://www.firstpost.com/politics/chanakya-exit-poll-full-results-2019-pollster-predicts-350-seats-for-nda-95-seats-for-upa-6661951.html

https://www.firstpost.com/tag/exit-poll-2019-ndtv

https://www.business-standard.com/article/elections/exit-poll-results-2019-live-updates-lok-sabha-elections-2019-result-who-will-win-election-narendra-modi-wave-bjp-nda-congress-tmc-rahul-gandhi-mahagathbandhan-119051900428_1.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/ap-exit-polls-2019-18-ls-seats-for-ysr-congress-says-times-now-vmr/articleshow/69398779.cms

(Pradillus (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)) (Pradillus (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC))

Pradillus: Welcome to wikipedia. We do not summarize moment by moment forecasts/updates in newspapers or televisions. Wikipedia is a slow follower of the news curve, weighing whether the development is notable, reliably verifiable and in multiple independent reliable sources. Please see the WP:WWIN and other wikipedia community guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Per the discussion above, this request for comment is to review all sections again. 122.179.18.249 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone has any idea what is RFC is about? If not, we should close this. RFC tags get transcluded on various pages and thus invite editors and we better at the very least should let them what they are here for. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• I have removed the {{rfc|pol}} per the above (unclear RfC). --MrClog (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Candidates with criminal allegations

I NPOV tagged "Candidates with criminal allegations". It makes some startling allegations "with 27 accused with serious allegations such as rape, murder or attempted murder." for which there is ONE source, and neither the article nor the ref offers any specifics. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: That bothered me too. Would trimming that to "with 27 accused of serious allegations" suffice? That is vague. Our other option is to just delete that phrase. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(ps) I have taken that phrase out. If someone wants to restore it in another form, let us discuss. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks. I'd rather just strike the whole paragraph, without context it's just sensationalist nonsense. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Final map with the results is wrong

The final map with the results seem wrong, although I can understand that some seats are still not fully counted. But seats like Andaman-Nicobar and also some seats in the southwestern Telangana are showing as NDA seats, which is not. So it would be great if someone can edit it properly. Arka 92 04:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made amendments to the map now. I tried to compare it to multiple published election maps but I found the complex result in Tamil Nadu difficult to interpret and as such there could be mistakes there. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Voter Card required for voting?

The Electoral system section says that "Eligible voters must be Indian citizens, 18 or older, an ordinary resident of the polling area of the constituency and possess a valid voter identification card issued by the Election Commission of India". However, is a Voter card required for voting? I believe only a proof of identity, with clear photo, is required (subject to some conditions). In fact, the ECI usually publishes a list of identity proofs that may be used, such as pass-port, driving licence, etc.

Also, I believe it is necessary for the person's name to be on the electoral rolls. Sometimes an eligible voter's name may be left out due to administrative errors. In that case, they can complain to the ECI and have their names re-instated. However, if the voter does not complain in time, they may not be allowed to vote. --Jose Mathew (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In all democracies, a voter typically must register in a particular voting district/constituency even if she or he has a passport/driver license/etc. This is typically done to prevent a voter from trying to vote in many districts by showing the same passport or another valid document. Every large democracy has a voter registration deadline, so that the nationwide voter ID database can be created and distributed to polling booth officers before the voting day, and that database is used to check and prevent fraudulent repeat-voting by a voter. Here we must stick with what the sources are stating. If you identify reliable sources with specific page numbers that state something different than what this article is stating, we can review it in order to further improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read my post. I was saying that Voter card, issued by the Election Commission, is not required for voting, and that certain other proofs of identity, such as passport and driver's licence, can be used instead. Of course a voter should ensure that they are registered, as you say, and their name should appear on the rolls of that constituency. But they do not need to produce the Voter card itself. For references, see [16], [17] and [18]. Thank You.--Jose Mathew (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded that sentence and added the BT source link you provided. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)