Talk:Indian National Congress/Archive 4

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

Extremely biassed article under heading - Indira era (1966–1984)

Article is extremely biassed in not mentioning the reason the 2 Sikh body guards retaliated against Indira Ghandi. The text talks about Operation blue star with no further detail, yet the next paragraph in detail explains the 2 Sikhs killing of Indira Ghandi which led to massacres by Congress supporters against Sikhs as retaliation. The previous reference [120] clearly states from Operation Blue Star that the purpose of Operation bluestar was to kill Bhinderwale, not remove, Kill. There is a clear bias that forms a major turning point in Indian Congress party from becoming an equal religious government to becoming more anti-Sikh. I feel There is bias in not presenting the true facts which can be verified.

On the reference [120] to Operation Blue star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star it clear reads "...On 1 June 1984, after negotiations with the militants failed, Indira Gandhi rejected the Anandpur Resolution and ordered the army to launch Operation Blue Star, simultaneously attacking scores of Sikh temples across Punjab.[24] On 1 June Indian security forces commenced Operation Blue Star when they fired into various buildings with the goal of assessing the training of the militants, which resulted in the deaths of 8 civilians.[25][26]..."

This is attempted murder.

I'm not arguing to defend Sikhs, I'm arguing that the way the articles information is presented is to dehumanise Sikhs by misleading readers into viewing them as a source of disturbance hence leading to subjective riots. They were ordered to have their religious significant leader murdered by Indian Congress party instead, and on top of that the riots were a targeted massacare, there is a clear distinct difference between both words. I feel Wikipedia authors and admins are deliberately leaving this information to mislead viewers as it aligns with most other Sikh Wikipedia articles on the assassinators leaving out crucial information regarding reasons for the justification of murder for Indira Ghandi. This is simply unacceptable and Wikipedia is misleading readers with their authors contributions.

SumeetJi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Detail mention is not required. You can refer the main article by clicking see also or further information part. Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Indian National Congress (Sidhu)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian National Congress (Sidhu). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Indian National Congress (Sidhu) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Indian National Congress (Amarinder)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian National Congress (Amarinder). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Indian National Congress (Amarinder) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian National Congress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


While there has been significant work put into this article, as it stands the article does not yet meet the Good Article criteria. Some problems and suggestions for improvement:

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
  • There are a few areas where the prose could be tightened. For example the second paragraph of the lead begins with three sentences that all start with "Congress". The third paragraph of the lead goes until 2014, but the fourth jumps back to 2004. Overall however, the prose is of a decent quality.
 Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
1b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
  • This article currently does not meet WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. However, it appears to have been written by itself without much reference to the rest of the article. It contains references only used there, which is a common indication that the text is not based on the article. Three of the four paragraphs are mostly or completely focused on History, while other sections such as Current structure and composition miss out.
The 1st - What INC is, 2nd- about it's contemporary situation incliding past notable PMs from the party, 3rd and 4th - election performance, 5th - Its policies and party structure. Please let me know if this sequence is fine.
2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
  • Some citations are incomplete or missing. The shortrefs "Singh, pp. 41–42", "Ghose 1993", and "Kopstein 2005" do not point to a longer citation. One reference, "Chandra 2007b", is missing completely. (Note if information including references is copied from other pages, this should be made clear in the edit summary.) Some sources include publishers in their titles eg. "Rent relief unlikely for Congress's Delhi properties | India News – Times of India", ""Political Parties - NCERT".
 Fixed Removed those sources.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding quotes, if using citation templates they can be included in those citations, rather than listed in separate footnotes.
Not getting. Can you please highlight what section of article having this issue ?
2b) all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
  • There are a few Britannica citations which might be replaced, however at a quick look through there are no glaring issues here.
 Fixed Removed. Also that line do not require a ref.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
2c) it contains no original research
  • There is a lot of uncited information in this article. In addition to the outstanding cn tag, the General election results, Legislative assembly results, Presence in states and UTs, List of prime ministers, and List of current chief ministers are completely unsourced. Several areas of Political positions are unsourced, and there are a few scattered unsourced areas in other areas. (Note that I have not done a deep check into whether text matches existing sources, only checked for their presence.)
plus Added section filled with sources. Let me know if it's okay.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
2d) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  • Earwig shows a couple of large areas of overlap with the Britannica article on the topic, where multiple sentences appear roughly the same. I note there are some other copyright issues in the article history, so this may be an area worth checking.
3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  • Compared to the few FA political party articles, and to a quick spotcheck of GA articles, this article appears to broadly cover relevant aspects. However, many sections are limited to only tables without any textual information. Information for example about General election results and Legislative assembly results should not be restricted to the History section.
plus Added--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
  • While the overall article length is within guidelines, more than half of the article text falls within the History section. This feels decidedly disproportionate, especially as the topic is already split off into a main article (albeit poorly developed compared to the section in this article). It would be advisable to merge the information on this article with the main article, and provide a more concise summary.
 Fixed check now --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
4) it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
  • No issues are immediately obvious regarding neutrality.
5) it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
  • There is some back and forth in recent editing history, but this article is broadly stable at the moment.
6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 Fixed--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
  • Media is on topic, although the use of the Liberalism and Freedom of Religion sidebars seems too weakly linked to meet WP:SIDEBAR.

Best regards, CMD (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, quickfailing is out of my comprehension. I was expecting maybe a day or two to resolve concern raised by you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestions, in fact have started working on it. Cheers--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This was not a quick fail exactly, I took the time to look through the article and all the criteria. However, the issues identified are significant and span multiple criteria, and will take awhile to fix, outside the scope of a GAN. I would encourage before nominating to take a few days off the article, so you can look at the article yourself with a relatively fresh eye to compare it to the GA criteria. Best, CMD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for responding. Just curious if you know any GA or FA political articles. I need to refer those in order to write this one.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 07:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@25 Cents FC: When looking into this article, I compared it to articles on this list. Keep in mind however that the present state of articles may not reflect their current status. For example, the current Bharatiya Janata Party article does not meet GA status, also having many unsourced sections. However, if you look at the version when it was promoted, here, it is in a much better shape, having for example a source for each row of its tables. CMD (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Working on GA Quick-failed suggestions

Hello @Fowler&fowler:. I have left a note on your talk page, reason behind changes to the article. Are you no reading messages left on your talk page mate? I do not intend to have edit war, never wished to. It's just that this article has been failed to meet GA status. Reviewer has suggested important points and I am giving my best to improve the same. Your reverts damaging every little thing I am doing to improve the article. Please be considerate before you revert edits, as I am spending significant hard work improving this place. Please discuss here before reverting. Cheers--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. All the best. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding mate. To all users, I will post here before I remove any significant content.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 19:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I feel List of current chief ministers is not required, because Presence in states and UTs already gives an idea about list of CMs from Congress.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 05:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • For the second paragraph of lead I have been told to include three things, Why congress was formed, role during independence and post independence (split in it) not in detail but must give glimpses.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I have tried to add more words than table as suggested.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 11:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Subhash Chandra Bose

The section on Bose needs to be reworded. The section is on what he did after leaving the Congress party and therefore this material does not belong in the main body. It can be put in the Notes section. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede

The third paragraph in the lede is misleading. Congress (R) did not evolve into Congress (I). Indira left the Congress (R) in 1978 to form her own Congress (I) faction which eventually was declared the rightful Indian National Congress by the election commission in 1981.Let us get this clarified.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Done Thanks for clarifying. Please go ahead and make the required changes.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nehru/Shastri era

The content from Nehru's death to Shastri's death needs to be edited for

  • Make it chronological
  • Remove factual mistakes as to when the split occurred in the party.
  • Regional Breakaway congress factions.Except Kerala Congress all other breakaways were from during Indira's time.

Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: mate, if you find any sort of discrepancy in any section of the article, please go ahead and make the necessary changes. As you are one amongst the top contributor of this article too. Cheers.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

History article deletion.

Good day to all. I had just gone through the History of Indian National Congress and found the following:-

  1. a)Most of the topics covered in that article is already covered here.
  2. b)The tags pertaining to lack of citations and the style of the article is from 2014, around 7 years ago.

I would like to know what can be done with the aforementioned article. My opinion is to delete the article. Good day. (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I would suggest to expand History of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress contains summary of its history that too before independence. Moreover, History of Indian National Congress is so vast. Deletion will not worth here.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Founder

All the 11 mentioned are not founders of the Indian National Congress almost all WP:RS sources state and mention only Allan Octavian Hume the other 11 lack WP:RS if one is adding any name please do so with WP:RS.Delegates and Notable representatives are not founders. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: Would you please remove Dadabhai Naoroji and Womesh Chunder Bonnerjee as founders as we do not have many reliable sources which state they're the founders. Its better to stick with Hume only. Thanks--2409:4060:2D87:C12B:5D44:49B1:6B50:8766 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

History

National Movement The Last Phase 1919-1947 2402:8100:2840:C95C:0:0:3B7E:33CE (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Not clear what you are trying to convey.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Party name

Hello @Jonathansammy: @Fylindfotberserk: @TheWikiholic: @Numerounovedant: @Vanamonde93: @Fowler&fowler: folks. I need your suggestions: Out of INC, Congress, Congress party, what name should we use in the article? Or we should include all three wherever necessary? Also is there any way we can adjust this file in history section?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Congress," (without any "the" preceding it) is what is most commonly used in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
What F&F said; "Indian National Congress, commonly referred to as the Congress" or equivalent at first use, and "Congress" thereafter except where it introduces ambiguity (and such cases need to be handled on a case-by-case basis). Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Vanamonde makes a good point. The first mention should have Indian National Congress (in the manner he recommends). Maybe even use "Indian National Congress" in the first mention in paragraphs every now and then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean add the image to the history section? I had uploaded it long ago and added it to the British Raj page. It shows Aurobindo seated, Tilak to his left, and Rai to his right. It's blurred, but still notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
As Vanamonde said, Congress and alternative names when necessary. For a period between 1978 to early 1990s, Congress(I) was the preferred name for the party, and should be used if called for. I hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The file is added in such a way that left portion of the Congress as a mass movement section is vacant (above and below portion of the image). So, is there any way we can add the file in such a way that vacant places are filled. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
:) Apologies. Scanning the article would have helped. You could get rid of the portraits of Hume and Bonnerjee as they are also in the group pic, in whose caption you could identify them. Then move the extremists to the right (which is where they should belong, given their political predilictions. :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
It worked. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot folks for your suggestions. Appreciate. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Folks I have put Hindi words in italics form avoiding use of apostrophe. Say for example, Purn Swarajya over "Purn Swarajya", Satyagraha over "Satyagraha", Inquilab Zindabad over "Inquilab Zindabad" and likewise. Let me know what form will be better. Cheers. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, I tried to find a reliable source for "Indira Gandhi premiership was declined to the left". I am not able to get one. Please add if someone find it. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@25 Cents FC Use {{lang}} Ex: {{lang|hi|Inquilab Zindabad}} becomes Inquilab Zindabad — DaxServer (t · c) 18:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks a lot mate! 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Its political position as claimed by NCERT is left. Hence, making necessary changes. Let me know what others think. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 10:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I will be summarising lead part removing few things as advised in peer review page. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Indira Era section- How Sanjay Gandhi died and Rajiv Gandhi entered in politics seems irrelevant because user can refer it in main Indira Gandhi article. I am limiting the section strictly to Gandhi's premiership. Let me know what all think. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 11:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Grand Old Party

I tried to find, whether this (also an unsourced) statement Due to its enduring history, the Congress is often called the "grand old party" is valid in context of INC. Upon searching, most of results are related to US based Republican Party. Not even a single source says Congress is referred as Grand Old party in India or elsewhere. As a result, I will have to exclude the sentence but please feel free to add if someone finds a reliable source. Meanwhile, I would also like to know other editors thought on this. Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not heard the term applied to INC either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
To be sure, there was a Grand Old Man among its early leaders. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. the "grand old party" term do not apply to INC. Hence will have to remove. Thanks for clarifying. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Meanwhile, are we allowed to remove erstwhile Congress member Amarinder singh's view mentioned in Social affairs section? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Those who never heard of, or seen the term grant old party has been associated with the Indian National Congress are requested to see these sources 1, 2, 3, 4.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
But the "grand old" there is used as a adjective with the rough meaning of "pre-eminently great and old," not as an alternative name, such in "The GOP won the last election." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I liked the idea. So what I will do, I am going to add the sentence with a note. Will it be okay? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Party splits of 1969 and 1978

During Indira Gandhi's time, the party split twice, once in 1969 and second time in 1978.What were the financial implications of the split? Which faction inherited the properties, or how were they divided between the factions? I know that both occasions, Indira led faction was assigned a new party symbol, suckling calf in 1969, and the open palm in 1978 but that was a decision by the Election commission, and separate from the financial assets of the entities. It would be interesting to have this information, either in this article or in the article of History of INC.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Good ask. I think we can have such detailed info in the main article i.e History of INC. As you might have noticed there have been [Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian National Congress/archive2 discussions] about the length of the article. Editors are asking to put summary rather than details. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Unfortunately, the history article ends in 1952. Since you say that the INC article is too long, perhaps a lot of post-independence content from this page can be shifted to the History page. That would be a big undertaking but would do justice to both pages. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. However, I am not sure what content to keep and what to shift. This is the kind of concern I have since I started writing contents for it. I would be very very glad if you could help us with that. Much thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Lead section looks fine in my opinion. First and second para explains gist of it, third explains its electoral history general election winning loss etc including party split, and last para constitutes its political positions and party structure. Let me know if anything else needs to include.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 11:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

American or British

I had have converted few words into American spelling. However it was reverted. I would like to know what spelling is most preferred here on Wikipedia American or British? And especially for articles related to India. Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: It should be British, or Indian for India related articles. See MOS:TIES. Cheers.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sidebar

There is a reason for having Social democracy sidebar over Liberalism sidebar. As you can see Social democracy sidebar has more about what INC is all about like Gandhi, Nehru, Mixed economy, Social justice, Ambedkar. On the other side, Liberalism sidebar only constitute liberalism idea of INC. Thanks.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @25 Cents FC: Its utter stupidity to put sidebar when majority of scholarly sources does not mention that congress supports that ideology remember this party brought economic reforms in India in 1991. This party's ideology changed significantly over the last 100 years it would be foolish on our part to categorize this party as social democratic or democratic socialism or liberal party. Better not add any sidebar. We can add sidebar only if party has been heavily influenced on a particular ideology. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Workings of INC in early year

Point ways please 2409:4065:382:E5BA:0:0:9B1:60A5 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

correction

Subhas Chandra Bose is mentioned as 'president of India' instead of 'president of Congress.' Milind Patil (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for Bharat Jodo Yatra

Should we create a separate page for Bharat Jodo Yatra? By the end of the yatra there'll probably be so much detail that it'll need a page of its own. There's a lot more stuff going on in it judging from the media right now than how much is written in the page of Indian National Congress. It just has a lot of details and we need a separate page. Let me know what you think @Dhruv edits. Ok123l (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l no one stops you from starting it as a WP:DRAFT. If it is notable it can have its own page. I personally think a section is sufficient. Follow WP:NOTNEWS. Venkat TL (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your suggestion @Venkat TL. Ok123l (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l Agree with Venkat TL. As of now, a page about it will have notability issues. Apart from WP:NOTNEWS, also see Wikipedia:Notability (events). Dhruv edits (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits noting here that @Ok123l has created the page at Bharat Jodo Yatra. With the amount of coverage, may be a page is justified now. Venkat TL (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction

"In 1969, the party suffered a major split, with a faction led by Indira Gandhi leaving to form the Congress (R), with the remainder becoming the Congress (O)."

Indira gandhi was expelled from party. Indira didn't left to make new party. Jimpyarri (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It is talking about Indira Gandhi's faction, not Indira Gandhi herself. Ok123l (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bharat Jodo Yatra

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bharat Jodo Yatra. 2405:201:D01B:60BD:48E8:C100:A581:C74 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Arclic1980 has blatantly LIED about the Congress Party's political strength in the Indian Parliament and in state legislatures in his most recent edit to this page. Wikipedia should

Hi. I strongly believe that the last edit to this page by Arclic1980 blatantly lies about the Indian National Congress party's strength in the Indian Parliament and in state legislatures. According to the Government of India, the Congress Party only has 53 seats out of 543 seats in the Lok Sabha and 31 seats out of 245 seats in the Rajya Sabha.

Moreover, the political party strength of the Congress Party in State Legislatures has been wrongly depicted to be far higher than the true political party strength.

The Congress Party rules only 2 states (out of 31 states) in India, not 12 states. At the very maximum, with coalition partners in UPA, the Congress Party could rule 5 states (out of 31).

Here is the official Government of India website which shows political party strength in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as of November 1st, 2022.

https://loksabha.nic.in/members/PartyWiseStatisticalList.aspx

https://rajyasabha.nic.in/Members/PartyWiseSummary

Wikipedia should be a source of truth and should truthfully represent information. Congress loyalists are blatantly vandalizing Wikipedia pages to show that their party is much stronger or more popular than in reality. These Congress aligned people have also blatantly lied about BJP's strength in Parliament, showing that BJP has fewer seats than the actual count on the official Government of India website.

Wikipedia should ban any user (Arclic1980) who blatantly LIES about the true political party strength of the Congress Party. I support the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. 2601:647:6300:4790:DCC4:655B:7785:D45C (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Congress sevadal is also frontal organization and very important in Congress please

Congress sevadal is also a frontal organization of Congress party its very important in party please correct information . 2402:E280:2309:439:77FE:10E8:A038:BE65 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Democratic socialism

I saw only "Social liberalism" written on the infobox a long time ago until a few days ago. "Social democracy" or "Democratic socialism" has recently been added. However, considering India's level of gap between the rich and the poor and the market economy operating in India, the INC is historically a socialist, not a socialist at all now. I am against it if there are any users who want to add "Democratic socialism" to the infobox.

At least evidence is needed that the INC still supports substantive socialist policies. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Democratic socialism" has been added without any Talk. It should never be added to the infobox. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The above statement regarding a large gap between social classes and the market economy fundamentally misunderstands both the concept of democratic socialism and the purpose of an "ideology" section on a Wikibox. The party's ideology and the present socioeconomic situation in India are not the same. Regardless, there were sources added to the tag about social democracy and democratic socialism. The party, it would appear, historically held these views. As such, I believe it would be appropriate to add a "historical" tag and re-add those. That said, the will of the majority should prevail here. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
That is enough to describe as "Social democracy". That if "Democratic socialism" should be added, so should "Liberalism". Social democracy is a form of socialism. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I think during Congress regime policies such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 was launched is a testimony that vast section of party member still support some form of socialist policies. Although post 1991 economic liberalization the party tend to support social market economy policies. And both Democratic socialism and Social democracy are various types of socialism. "Historical section can be added in ideology section. Not sure whether absolute form of Liberalism can be added in ideology section after all the party is touchy about Kashmir issues and also implemented emergency. I will go with the majority's point of view.--Angelika789 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Social market economy is not socialism. It is related to German conservatism, ordoliberalism and Christian democracy. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I think MNREGA might be more of a social liberal policy like the New Deal in the United States. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I also feel Progressivism can be added with sources. The party from time to time introduced many progressive policies on socioeconomic front.--Angelika789 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Is the INC more left-wing in cultural policy than social liberal parties in the US and Canada or social democratic parties in Europe? I don't think so. One of the main elements of progressivism is cultural liberalism.
I don't think the INC is a progressive party. However, I will not object to adding "Progressivism" if it is a condition not to add "Democratic socialism". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

INC Presidents and its election

Both the above points can be merged/ added under party structure and composition. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, about its Political position; someone has added centre-left. Upon opening both the references, Ref21 has question mark with it, giving impression like a doubt if party is inclining towards left. Ref20 has nowhere mentioned word left.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Deeply sorry @25 Cents FC: for the revert, but it would be helpful if you explain in a section below what you propose to do next. Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Fowler&fowler, my apologies, because of other serious commitments I wasn't active here for months. You must have witnessed, I have been trying to improve this article a long period of time, however I am not sure what exactly I am missing that it's not reaching to a GA level. Coming to recent edits, my point was, ref 20 and 21 doesn't justify what is claims. Also, can we put Presidential election and Presidents of INC both the section under Structure and composition? Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned above, centre-left part from the article. Will add it back once I get a ref about it. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Shakya2007 FYI. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please make sure that only extended autoconfirmed users can edit this page.

This page has become a place for editing wars, with even vandalism taking place and argument over political position. As there are many political topics which have suffered the same fate before, therefore I believe that this page should only be edited by an extended autoconfirmed user. Shakya2007 (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Congress (I)

What we understand today as the Indian National Congress is effectively the Congress (I) breakaway faction that formed in 1-2 January 1978. This is not at all clear from the article. I have added a subsection heading---Indian_National_Congress#Formation_of_Congress_(I)---but I think it is important to give it more prominence. Chaipau (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Centre-left

I was just curious, isn't social democracy a centre-left ideology? Therefore, shouldn't centre-left be added in its political position? Social democracy is also already backed with sources so I'm not requesting a radical edit change or anything. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you in part. I believe that the political position of the party should be "centre to centre-left" rather than "centre" or "centre-left". The INC is centrist in that it is far to the right than hardline socialism or the Communist Party in the Indian political context, but it is centre-left in that it is the biggest opponent and secularist of the right-wing BJP. Mureungdowon (talk)
However, India does not yet have developed-level economic power, so the INC, a liberal party for the people's basic right to live, supports social democracy policy, but believes that if India has advanced-level economic power, social democracy policy will not be mainstream like the U.S. Democratic Party or Japan's CDP. The INC's social democratic policy is not aimed at economic equality. It is a matter of fundamental human rights. So I don't think the INC is a complete centre-left party. (The left supports equality economically and socially in the traditional political spectrum.) Mureungdowon (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised that "centre-left" isn't included to make it "centre to centre-left" like you said as even INC's national alliance of the United Progressive Alliance has centre-left included in its political position (with it also being sourced). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you on that point. The political position of the INC should be "centre to centre-left". Mureungdowon (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Big tent in infobox?

I've been told in other wikipedia pages that the addition of "big tent" within the infobox isn't allowed as it isn't an ideology. So I was just curious on why its still on this page.

I believe the page would look better with a footnote describing the party as being/having "big tent" tendencies. Similarly to how its done on ANO 2011 for example. (I added big tent into the infobox and was removed. So I instead turned it into a footnote noting how the party, ANO, has been described as big tent).

Though I believe, footnotes is not within the Indian political party infobox template. So if someone could add it (I have no idea how to), it'd be great. I already started a new section within the Template_talk:Infobox_Indian_political_party talk page. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Supports liberalisation, privatisation actually correct? Check needed?

There's a sentence in the page that says "The INC supports contemporary economic reforms such as liberalisation, privatisation and globalization."

If they're a member of the socialist international, and have other links/relationships with socialists if not also others moreso leftist, then how could they? That's practically a contradiction in terms, except perhaps, for (socialist/guided/controlled- economies)globalisation.

Although blended political philosophies like democratic socialism, or social-democracy, might make liberalism seem like something that are somehow now universal, in 'modern' or 'contemporary' "economic reforms",

VALUE systems, or differences-of-what-one values, changes or even INVERTS, what is implied there, as, either or both, of contemporary or modern, if you were to use that instead - neither defines a range of governments/principles/philosophies IN WHICH , what contemporary IS,.. before including the party within it.

If it is true that they do, then a singularisation of-politics / political-values APPLICATION, of some imagined-universality-OF, contemporariness / modernity, in reform, is either deliberate to try to avoid and conceal fundamental political differences, or, is just too-simply written.

Either COMPLICATE it, or correct / conditionalize it,..

...if it is not as-simple, as that sentence makes it SEEM.

ex.-hypothetical if the party conditionalizes their support of liberalism in a new medical small-business, contentiously, questionably, privately-owned,.. there would still be subsidy and cost-affordability policies/conditions that they would MAINTAIN, while considering something that might START with private investment/ownership, planned to TRANSITION, into being state-owned. The conditionalization of their allowance, is the ONLY thing, that would allow divergence from socialist/cost-access-equity principles/precautions/philosophy. 120.21.103.188 (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think being part of socialist International has stopped political parties from promoting privatization. China under the communist party may be authoritarian but the astronomical growth in the country's GDP hasn't been due to state ownership of business.Anyhow, I think I have made my point. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Founder details

I am not able to understand why the founder's name and/or details are not important enough to be included. And even if it is deleted by someone without discussing, why my reverting that delete is violation of any guideline?

Shouldn't the readers know about the founders of one of the largest and oldest political party of India? Anubhavklal (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's several problems with the content you added. It's not an accurate summary of the main text, which says that several non-British members and non-Civil service members were present at the first meeting. Also, it's not supported by the source placed after it, and also you need consensus to include any content, which you do not have. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So how is it going hat same fact is acceptable in "History" section with same sources? Anubhavklal (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you read the History section carefully, you will see that "Founded by retired British Indian Civil Service (ICS) officers in 1885," is not actually supported. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Liberalism (Indian)

I added the phrase "Liberalism (Indian)" and a link to the ideology item of infobox. The BJP and INC represent conservatism and liberalism in India, respectively. Although the INC has a socialist history, it does not necessarily contradict liberalism. In South Korea, the INC is believed to have a similar ideology to the Democratic Party of Korea, Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, Colombian Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party of the United States. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Economic liberalism

INC supports economic liberalism. INC under the leadership of Rao and Singh moved toward economic liberalism. So, it must be added to its ideologies. George Simon Ohm (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)information Note: Sock Strike

You need to provide references to support this claim. Just saying this won't help. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello @George Simon Ohm, it has been included under Economic policies. Please do let us know, what more should be there. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Presence/Alliance in states and UTs

Can someone please update and correct style and layout error in "Presence/Alliance in states and UTs" section? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 08:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_National_Congress/Archive_4&oldid=1223482572"