Talk:2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election

Speculations cannot be added on Wikipedia

@GJ 06 You have re-added the speculatory content that I had removed. Now I see @YttriumShrew has removed it again. Please follow WP:V. We cannot add anything based on speculations. Any content that is without a reliable source can be challenged and removed. It should not be restored without backing up with a reliable source. If you think that the reliable source may be available in future, then you should wait for that time and only add it back with the reliable source. Continued addition of unsourced and specualatory content is considered disruptive. Same goes for empty tables. Venkat TL (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The alliance mentioned between NCP and INC is also a purely speculative one, furthermore they did not ally with each other in 2017 & fought the 2021 local elections separately, yet they are mentioned to be within UPA. In contrast BTP & AIMIM fought the 2021 local elections together and have declared their intention to fight the assembly polls together.

source https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/aimim-to-fight-next-assembly-polls-in-gujarat-in-alliance-with-bharatiya-tribal-party20201226205408 GJ 06 (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

GJ 06, this is acceptable as it is sourced. But Congress NCP Gujarat alliance need to be sourced separately. Please do not revert back unsourced stuff. Thank you. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:59, 17 November 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:

• જગદીશ ઠાકુર.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

AAP

@Joe de Jointe you need to check 2021 Gujarat local elections. It is third largest party in 2021 Gujarat local elections based on vote share and number of seats. AAP alliance has 2 seats in the Assembly, and most importantly media coverage of this party is on par with BJP or Congress. Please discuss your objections on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover please discuss your edit. Venkat TL (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover, @Ok123l There is no such 5% rule. Reliable sources are giving AAP prime coverage alogn with BJP and Congress. AAP has substantial presence in local bodies. See above comments. Please do not remove this without consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why in Punjab Assembly election NDA alliance was not shown because it has less than 5% votes according to your prediction but infact BJP has got more seats Het666 (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 Due to media coverage. See WP:Reliable source Venkat TL (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

What sources are you talking about? Het666 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You can pick up any reliable source about 2022 Guj Election. Example : [1] and [2] Venkat TL (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Content removed without giving reason

@Ok123l I have reverted your unexplained removal of sourced content while adding new content. Please don't remove existing content while you add new ones. Follow chronology while adding new content and do not copy paste. Venkat TL (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Dont use Twitter as a source on Wikipedia

User:Ok123l I have Remove twitter links used as source that you had added. Twitter is not a reliable source. If no reliable source reported this info, then it is not important enough and this does not belong on Wikipedia. Also note that WP:TOI is not reliable Venkat TL (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What better source can you get about Congress' promises than Congress itself? Ok123l (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Godi media wont cover stuff, thats the media's problem Ok123l (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l Wikipedia prefers Secondary and tertiary source instead of primary sources. Read WP:PSTS to understand what it means and why. Twitter is not considered reliable at all. Please do not restore twitter as source. I agree that Godi media cannot be used as source, but there are non godi media sources too. You can use more reliable sources, like NYT, BBC, NDTV, TheHindu Indian Express etc. If it is notable, they will cover it. Venkat TL (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Order of Sections

@Dhruv edits, we should follow the order of sections as given on MOS:INDELECT. The issues section and campaign section will have some overlap and should be together. The Manifesto section should be before Campaign section. This is the standard in other international election articles too. What is the reason for putting manifesto, in between issues and campaigns? Venkat TL (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Congress copied AAP promises

Aam Aadmi Party announed Mohalla clinics for Gujarat along the lines of those it built in Delhi, Congress copied the promise and announced to open 'Janata Dawakhana' (Public pharmacy).

Ok123l what is your objection with this line, it is reliably sourced. Where do you think it should be mentioned if not in Manifesto section? Venkat TL (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe add a subheading controversies on manifesto Ok123l (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, Mohalla clinics offer basic health facilities in a community, India has probably has such things in the past before the AAP introduced it. Ok123l (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l I am not going to discuss benefits of Mohalla clinic on this thread, suffice to say that Reliable source say it has received international acclaim. Creating a controversy section for one line is an overkill. Since it is about manifesto, it is in the intro of manifesto section. another option is to include it in Congress manifesto section. I am ok for both. Venkat TL (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL It is looking very out of place in intro of the section. Should be included under Congress subsection. Dhruv edits (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits ok. I am fine with the move. Venkat TL (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Translated this article to Hindi

I've translated this article to Hindi, check it out: Translated this article to Hindi, check it out. If you're interested, please help me improve the page. Ok123l (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

https://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4_%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5 Ok123l (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Translated article to Gujarati

I've translated this article to Gujarati: https://gu.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AA%97%E0%AB%81%E0%AA%9C%E0%AA%B0%E0%AA%BE%E0%AA%A4_%E0%AA%B5%E0%AA%BF%E0%AA%A7%E0%AA%BE%E0%AA%A8%E0%AA%B8%E0%AA%AD%E0%AA%BE_%E0%AA%9A%E0%AB%82%E0%AA%82%E0%AA%9F%E0%AA%A3%E0%AB%80,_%E0%AB%A8%E0%AB%A6%E0%AB%A8%E0%AB%A8 Ok123l (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No. It was only expanded with machine translation. Please don't add translation unless you are fluent with the Gujarati language. -- Kartik Mistry ^talk 06:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Gautam Adani

Why Gautam Adani is being referred as Narendra Modi ally sourced through a Jeff Bezos owned media ? Mundra port was developed by Adani during Congress rule in Gujarat, Adani has also been involved with Congress governments like in Maharashtra MVA and Gehlot led Rajasthan government's solar projects, and even the Hansdeo forest coal projects under the Congress led government in Chhattisgarh? Even the communists in Kerala have given some projects to Adani. How does the RNDTV takeover indicates that Gautam Adani is "Narendra Modi ally" ? सत्यान्वेषी (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I will not debate Washington Post's authenticity as it is widely known for publishing factual news (See WP:RS/P). It is very clear that Adani is very close aide of Modi as his government has been waiving off gigantic loans of Adani. Now even if Adani got Mundra port during Congress, today they are a Modi ally. In the Washington Post's article, they didn't link NDTV takeover to Adani. They basically just said he is already a Modi ally and he is taking over an independent news channel. And what if Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos? Is he putting fake news in it? No. So that's a useless claim. If the Washington Post isn't enough, TheGuardian and DW News. Ok123l (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If waiving loans makes Adani an ally of Modiji then what about the cheap land made available to Adani by the Congress governments of Gujarat ? Also the frustration of Congress workers is clear as they are losing control over all the institutions and governments and will be routed soon in Gujarat too, people know it better, and for the part of RNDTV, the meltdown in Gujarat results will be a pleasing sight of a landslide victory of BJP, and about China lover Washshitton post, its love for communists is not hidden, Thanks

सत्यान्वेषी (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate whether BJP will win or not but the fact that Adani is an ally of PM Modi is widely known and properly sourced by a reliable news source so it's not a baseless claim. Period. Ok123l (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l One IP user has removed this again. I suggest it should be added into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I re-added it. Dhruv edits (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Dhruv edits @Venkat TL Ok123l (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't why Gautam Adani is shown as Narendra Modi's ally nor he is affiliated with any of the political party how can he be ally of a political leader nor he is only working for Narendra Modi Het666 (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is based on reliable source and relevant to this page. See above. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The article referenced is about Advani's acquisition of ndtv media then how can it be related to Gujarat Het666 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Are all sourced data relevant to any topic Don't put any information which has no link to 2022 Gujarat Assembly election Het666 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Opinion poll survey

Closing section created by a sockpuppet per WP:SOCKSTRIKE EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Opinion poll survey is added and somebody reverted without any reason. OPiniion polls and surveys are included in various related wiki pages see below for reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election#Opinion_polls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidua (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC) can somebody create an infobox for the same @Bishonen Gidua (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Huh..? The article has an infobox. But I looked, and, Gidua, do you realize that your latest revert restored the IP's edit also, i.e. you restored their removal of a good reference? That seems like a seriously bad idea. Altogether, you shouldn't be edit warring over your insertion, but first wait for possible consensus for it here in this discussion you've opened. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC). thanx for adding the infobox Gidua (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC) There is no consnsus to add the survey opinion poll data. Please refer to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics/Election: Article structure#Surveys and polls. Only reputed polling agencies who are transparent and released their sample size error % data can be added. The error percentage is not a range but a number. That itself is a sign that this is another fraud poll by C Voter. C Voter has been accused by all parties of being biased for a particular party, moreover C Voter has not released their sample size or error % so they should not be added. CVoter has been established to have conducted fraud polls see The Fraud Called Opinion Polls. All political parties and the Election Commission of India have called these opinion polls as fraudulent. Wikipedia should not be used to promote these paid news and fraud polls. In any case Please do not restore this section without a clear consensus. If internationally reputed polling agencies (e.g. Nielson) conduct polls and release data they can be suggested to be added. CVoter is neither trusted nor reputed, in fact they have a history of being caught manipulating. Please do not add it again. See WP:ONUS. Venkat TL (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Political parties in India always blame opinion polls if the result of the poll are not in there favor. So the reliability of opinion polls are an invalid argument. @Venkat TL keep ranting about C Voter is a fraud and paid poll without giving any credible evidence. It seems only @Venkat TL is not in agreement with this addition Gidua (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC) @Gidua Look it is not me who is ranting. ALL political parties except one have called out these Opinion polls fraudulent. Let alone parties, Even the Constitutional Body, Election Commission of India have called it as fraudulent and asked for ban on it. See below. Election Commission of India (ECI) (2014) "We have reminded the Union government a dozen times since we made our first request to ban opinion poll and exit poll surveys in 1997…Opinion polls influence unlettered and undecided voters. They can misguide young voters, too". The Election Commission (EC) of India cannot ban opinion polls ahead of elections; all it can do is remind the Union government about its long-pending request. Source (2014) In a communication to the ministries of Corporate Affairs and Information and Broadcasting, the EC has said the matter involves allegations of conspiracy to prepare false reports/polls for publishing misleading information on consideration of illegal payment of money in return. "Therefore, it is requested that this complaint may be looked into urgently for appropriate action at your end," K Ajaya Kumar, the Principal Secretary of Election Commission of India wrote to the secretaries of the two ministries. "The allegation is that the organisations have agreed to manipulate the results of opinion polls by tweaking figures for publishing to the general public," the poll panel noted. "Congress cries foul over manipulation of opinion polls, Election Commission urges Centre to act". The Economic Times. There is no consensus to add the controversial and fraudulent polls. Please dont misrepresent consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC) It was all hunky and dory until the same pollster predicted an AAP sweep in Punjab and Delhi. It was neither controversial nor fraudulent. I barely saw any section highlighting BJP's campaign or Manifesto, until now. I added a section detailing BJP's campaign today, and suddenly the page is semi-protected. I think its time Wikipedia comes out of the garb of being neutral and shows what it truly represents. Iamashu95 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC) I was about to give the same arguement. @EvergreenFir didnt even bother to give a look at the arguements given in the talk before reverting. C Voter was used as relible source untill today. But now today it is unreliable ? As an admin @EvergreenFir need to make sure that its reliability shall be discussed at appropriate forum which is WP RSN. This is not expected from an admin Gidua (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Stopping disruption is an admin's job. Edit warring is disruptive. If consensus forms on the talk page to add that content, then it will be added. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Pinging Bishonen EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC) I can understand that you have stopped the disruption by protecting the page for 2 days., and thats OK. But you have reverted an edit which is centre of dispute is questionable. Gidua (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC) C Voter has been used as RS multiple times. But i can understand that any body can question its reliability at any time. But the appropriate place to raise a dispute regarding its reliability is WPRSN, as an admin EvergreenFir you have to act neutrally by pointing @Venkat TL towards a right course of action . But you have failed in thatGidua (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Since Evvie pinged me in the hatted section above, I'll mention that I was just writing up a sharp warning to Gidua about their varied disruption at this article. But I see they have now been indeffed as a sock by a checkuser. Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC).

Opinion polls

Why opinion polls are not added to this page? Like recently ABP made a poll with almost 60000+ people. That should be added. 106.77.79.170 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

because Election Commission of India (ECI) says that they are fake polls. [3] [4]. Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL To be fair, they did not mention C-Voter specifically. Ok123l (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Who do you think they are talking about? This particular incident about CVoter was all over the news. Others are also doing the same. Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Auto driver arm twisted into submission incident

In Bharatiya Janata Party section, the incident about the auto driver being arm twisted into submission incident was added without context. Normally I think it is trivial and not fit to be added. If someone thinks it is worth adding then they should add the entire incident and his interactions for full picture. Even then I am skeptic how this helps reader. So I have removed it. Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

How did you know the auto driver is arm twisted , do you have any reference for that or its your imagination? I think its a crucial piece of info and shall be added in the Incidents section. Jinnah47 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock.

@Bishonen I am assuming you are the Mod here. Can you please suggest the path on this. Arm Twisting has been assumed by Venkat when it hasn't been proved. If I refer bias here you'll again suggest blocking me.

Am I missing something ? Venkat can assume arm twisting and delete my content. If the auto driver hadn't joined the BJP would the writeup not be included even then ?

Reverting to the previous version Iamashu95 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Venkat TL,

I'm sure you have some resources handy that can prove that the "auto driver was arm twisted into submission" . Please can you share them with us.

An auto driver proclaiming support to AAP and inviting the party chief for dinner and within few days supporting the rival party suggesting that he was following the orders of the union is a key incident in itself.

I can definitely add a separate section like you suggested, but I personally don't think the incident was as big, yet it is not insignificant to be ignored. Iamashu95 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've been pinged here, but the way it's discussed above makes it rather difficult for me to understand what bits of text you're referring to (both of you), with the removals back and forth. If you can supply enough diffs to your own and the other person's edits for me to follow the argument, I'll be glad to comment. Iamashu95, if you have trouble creating diffs, Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide should be heplful (unlike Help:Diff which is overly technical for most inexperienced users. IMO). Bishonen | tålk 02:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC).

  Hi @Bishonen,

  @Iamashu95 added the content on October 5, with the reason "Added details related to BJP in the Incidents section". (diff)

  @Venkat TL objected to it and removed it on October 6, with the reason "Remove the Auto driver arm twisting into submission incident, see talk page". (diff)

  @Iamashu95 re-added a few hours later, saying "Undid revision 1114442979 by Venkat TL (talk) Please prove arm twisting / coercion by citing resources" (diff)

  And that's what they're arguing about right now. Ok123l (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no consensus to add this. Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Instead of throwing dart in the dark by saying there is no consensus. You reply to the genuine question as asked by @Iamashu95 that how did you know the "auto driver was arm twisted into submission" did you have your reference or its just your imagination? The scenario has already been explained to @Bishonen there intervention may helpJinnah47 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC) sock

  I see. Thank you, Ok123l. In my opinion, the incident is utterly trivial, regardless of any possible coercion, and should be left out of an article about the election. How is it relevant to the election? But I'm not speaking as an admin here, and I've no intention of admin-wise favoring one over the other. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC).

Bad faith + off-topic. User blocked. Abecedare (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Buddies. I started editing these pages recently as I thought that most of these pages had details related to opposition parties and to bring neutrality I added details related to ruling party as well. I was under the impression that this was a miss or at worst they expect someone else to write for the ruling party. Gradually my fears of this platform being biased have substantiated over time. Even the moderator thinks that the auto driver issue is "utterly" trivial when the AAP party itself made it a massive talking point. AAP's current vote share is 0.01%, yet it has been shown as a major stake holder on this page. I added a section called "Controversies" on Rajendra Pal Gautam and the opposition's comments was removed by @Venkat TL stating that it was "unnecessary". I fail to understand how does mass conversion not merit a separate section and how are opposition's comments "unnecessary" ? Delhi is still part of India and it still is a democracy. Here's a separate section on Tirath Singh Rawat highlighting even his views as controversies and opposition's comments have been mentioned too. So, you are not fooling anybody with all this "unnecessary" talk @Venkat TL I don't have time and energy for all this insert and revert as I am just a student and hence I quit. @Bishonen I understand you may have your commitments and sides to cater to. But, please do take my concerns to higher authorities(if there are any) and try to make this a neutral platform. The general trend is that poorly managed and biased platforms haven't survived for long. Please feel free to block me now, as I am pretty sure all 3 of you are biased and "arm twisting" anyone who tries to override your ideology. Good Luck Iamashu95 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC) @Iamashu95 I guess you've quit and probably won't see this, but for what it's worth, all of the sources in Tirath Singh Rawat's "Controversies" section were sourced with reliable news sources, such as NDTV, Al Jazeera, Hindustan Times and more, whereas the source you added on Rajendra Pal Gautam was News18 India, an unreliable source which has produced false news on multiple occasions. Ok123l (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Regions of Gujarat : Changes in Constituency numbers without any references

Regions of Gujarat	No. of Constituencies
	General	SC	ST	Total
Central Gujarat	48	3	10	61
North Gujarat	26	3	3	32
Saurashtra – Kutch	48	6	0	54
South Gujarat	20	1	14	35
Total	142	13	27	182

@Cosmo Sarjak You have made many changes without any references. Please do not. Please refer to the election commission site and gujarat CEO site for such information. List_of_constituencies_of_the_Gujarat_Legislative_Assembly also has the references. Please check. Venkat TL (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We need to verify the regions of Gujarat table, it keeps changing on this page and who knows if it's correct. Might find some things on Regions of Gujarat which shows the region's districts, and the district's individual pages show the constituencies in them. There is also this to check and verify it. Ok123l (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok123l Cosmo Sarjak see my comment above. We should use CEO gujarat site. User:MPGuy2824 any help? Venkat TL (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Regions of Gujarat is essentially unsourced, since the single source present there redirects to the home page of the site. If the definition of which district is in which region is in the GujCEO site, or any Gujarat government site, then go ahead and use it, otherwise we can skip this section altogether. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL @MPGuy2824 @Ok123l Official sub-divisions of states in India is called 'Divisions'. Gujarat does not have any divisions. Regions are unofficial, probably used for administrative purposes. Unless Gujarat SEC or Gujarat CEO website has provided region wise election results/statistics, they can be removed. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Regions of Gujarat says they are officially shown by the website of the Government of Gujarat. We can check it with its archives on Wayback Machine. Ok123l (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l That would be of no use. Regions can only be added on this page if there is region-wise list of constituencies available (including reserved seats). You can check Gujarat SEC and Gujarat CEO websites for it. Dhruv edits (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits I found this, http://www.gujenvis.nic.in/PDF/demo.pdf. GEC ENVIS seems to be an organisation founded by Gujarat's Forest and Environment department: (source1, source2). The PDF mentions Gujarat regions in pages 1-2. Ok123l (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ok123l Information is outdated as there are 33 districts in Gujarat now. Similar info is at List of districts of Gujarat#List of districts by regions but without any reference. I believe the table mentioning regions should be removed since in the absence of info from an official source, there always will be doubts about the number of constituencies in each region and has potential for edit wars. Also since there is no mention of regions on Gujarat state or Gujarat CEO website, these sub-divisions seem unofficial. @Venkat TL Final thoughts? Dhruv edits (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dhruv edits @Ok123l @MPGuy2824 I understand the confusion. I had added this table of regions, I did not know it was controversial. But now that I knowI think removing it till we get a reliable source is the right thing to do. I support removal of that small table of regions. Venkat TL (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I had added the table first in the article, I have now moved the table to this thread. When there are reliable source for the data, the table can be added back into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Last revert

Venkat TL Can you please enlighten me as to how rearranging the infobox the conventional way based on the number of votes and seats that parties gathered in previous elections is non-constructive? TheWikiholic (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1115634371/1115702415, Special:Diff/1116064204 removing content from Infobox and Edit warring against talk page consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any consensus on this talk page or anywhere else. And FYI we don't use the voting percentage or number of seats of local elections on Wikipedia pages of state elections or general elections. TheWikiholic (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please point me to the rule that you are following. As far as I am aware Wikipedia articles are written on what Reliable sources say. Not speculations by Editors. Venkat TL (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I never cited any rules here. I was talking about a common practice that has been followed and maintained by the community over the years. If you have any doubt you can verify that by checking the categories of different elections of the legislative assembly. An infobox is not a place to project the speculation of either editors or the media. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly you must have misunderstood the practice. The only rule is to follow and publish what the reliable source say. Not what you believe. No media source is calling BTP as a contender to win the election. Venkat TL (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Kautilya3 Do we have any policy that allows the info box to project speculations based on media reports? The Wikipedia infobox related to Indian elections has been arranged based on either the number of seats or the percentage of votes that a party got in their previous election. However, Venkat TL has been inserting AAP into the infobox of this page and this page even though APP has never won any single seat or a minimum of 1 percent vote in the 2017 previous Gujarat election. Parties like BTP and NCP also got more votes and seats in the previous election than AAP in the previous elections. Even though  I told him infobox is not a place to project the speculation of either editors or the media, and that these kinds of projections can be added to the section opinion poll, he kept insisting on restoring the edits of multiple editors.  What are your thoughts on this?— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a dispute about whether the AAP is listed alongside the other two parties in the infobox? Because if so, that is indeed based on whether reliable sources treat it as a serious contender for seats. I have no opinion on whether that is in fact the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

What media houses are saying saying shall not be considered but last result and position of that party in current assembly shall be considered not speculation by media BTP shall be in infobox or keep only two alliance NDA and UPA Het666 (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Without consensus so many sourced information removed Het666 (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 is right in his comment, "that is indeed based on whether reliable sources treat it as a serious contender for seats." You can pick up any reliable source about 2022 Guj Election And it will discuss AAP as a contender in this election along with BJP and Congress. Example : [5] and [6] None of the reliable source claim that NCP or BTP is a serious contender for winning the election. TheWikiholic is making up his own rules and trying to enforce them on this page. When I challenged him to point me to the rules, he then made hand waves claiming them as practice and has now canvassed editors to this discussion thread. Venkat TL (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

BTP

BTP should be shown as third party not AAP because it has got more votes percentage than AAP Het666 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. The results of 2022 have not been declared yet. Venkat TL (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Based upon last page on 2017 Gujarat Legislative Assembly Election only two party is shown AAP is not even shown in that list Het666 (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not 2017 election article. This is 2022 article. AAP is among the top three parties in 2022 Gujarat election. See the section above for more. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So AAP shall not be considered as third party BTP has 2 MLAs in Gujarat election and has significant impact on Tribal areas of Gujarat so added and basis on municipal election results is irrelevant too Het666 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 The article has excessive numbers of sources calling AAP top 3 parties in Gujarat. Find me one source that says BTP is in top three today. Venkat TL (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly give your sources Het666 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Also no sources are saying about is getting significant voting percentage Het666 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I think so many sources would also have said AAP will election too are election results declared And also during Punjab assembly election NDA alliance also not shown because it would get 5% or less votes Het666 (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

See the section #AAP above. Also read these references. [7] and [8] Venkat TL (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is arranged based on the previous election results not on media reports/speculations or projections. If the media says AAP is the third biggest party it should be added to the section of opinion polls, not in infobox. TheWikiholic (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic Please point me to the rule that you are following. As far as I am aware Wikipedia articles are written on what Reliable sources say. Not speculations by Editors. Venkat TL (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I never cited any rules here. I was talking about a common practice that has been followed and maintained by the community over the years. If you have any doubt you can verify that by checking the categories of different elections of the legislative assembly. An infobox is not a place to project the speculation of either editors or the media. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly you must have misunderstood the practice. The only rule is to follow and publish what the reliable source say. Not what you believe. No media source is calling BTP as a contender to win the election. Not sure from where you are getting such hints even. Venkat TL (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh from this article it's just a Speculation and it has only references which has been made by Kejriwal ohimself how that can make third or second or single largest party ? Personal opinion of AAP is not considered nothing in that article is saying AAP is significant party in Gujarat election Het666 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

And about municipal election results which don't have influence since it covers only Municipal Corporations Het666 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is better that BTP which has two MLAs in Gujarat assembly shall be considered as party and mentioned in article Het666 (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 Please provide reliable source that says BTP is a serious contender for winning this election. you have not provided such a source. Your opinions are not reliable source. I do not support adding it. Since there is no consensus Please do not edit war to add it without getting WP:CONSENSUS, Please check WP:ONUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, if you continue to edit war this, you will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Nor i have reverted or edited about AAP and admin also has said the same about you nor i have made any disruptive editing not i m engaged in any war Het666 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Just quuoying satatement of AAP doesn't mean a reliable source and I m not giving opinion it's based on past result of Election and from other election pages last time the same is done on Punjab Election too where you have said the same about minimum 5% vote criteria for party in inbox Het666 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Het666 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Het666 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Het666, The second link you posted only mentions 3 party in Headline. AAP, Congress, BJP. There is no BTP in headline. Do you know why? --Venkat TL (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Second one is about AAP is not a third party three party doesn't mean third party btw Het666 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Please indent your post. Here is the headline, अनवर, तारिक (14 October 2022). "गुजरात के ओपिनियन पोल में किस पार्टी को बहुमत? जानें- BJP, कांग्रेस और AAP का हाल". www.abplive.com (in Hindi).. Clearly AAP is mentioned in headline and no BTP, why ? Because BTP is not a serious contendor of winning Gujarat election. Or else they would have mentioned BTP also in the headline. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok but are mentioning three parties compulsory look 2022 Himachal Legislative Assembly Election Het666 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Jagmal Vala's remarks on Alcohol

AAP candidate has supported Alcohol in Gujarat therefor included because which is related to Alcohol issue. Het666 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the significance? is this party position? Most importantly you have added this 3 times and you have been reverted. It should be obvious to you that there is no consensus to add this and yet you keep edit warring to add this here? Venkat TL (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't get complaint about it and I have put that data because it is ralted to Alcohol issue Het666 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 when you add something and it gets removed. It is a complaint. you need to stop adding it and get consensus on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If this then Same also apply to Narendra Modi's ally too Het666 (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Issues section is related to problems about government, not opposition. Also there has already been consensus to add Narendra Modi's ally; check here. Ok123l (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 also you can't just remove something then not start a section on the talk page about, say no consensus and hope everybody forgets it. Ok123l (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not opposition it's contrary Het666 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 I have asked some questions to understand why you believe it is important for this article. you have not answered. I have read the reference and the content and I do not support adding it. Since there is no consensus Please do not edit war to add it without getting WP:CONSENSUS, Please check WP:ONUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, if you continue to edit war this, you will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Status Quo version of 11 October restored

WP:STATUSQUO version by Cosmo Sarjak is restored for now. I have Reverted back to last consensus version that was acceptable to all, before recent controversial edits that were introduced without discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Please follow WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION and only make controversial edits after gaining consensus. Same applies to content removals. Regarding the full protection, this is an ongoing event and full protection is unworkable because the article gets frozen with no updates. This is a WP:controversial article and 'any user' who refuse to follow the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and WP:CONSENSUS policies to push their edits without consensus would need to follow the rules or should be blocked for editing warring without consensus. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your restoration is somewhat welcomed since there is no consensus yet. But you seem to have reverted many other edits which were updated, rightly sourced and had no disputes from any editor, including you, friend. And since I don't have thousands of edits like other editors here, I can't correct them once again till next year. Request you to add back things which had no dispute, were rightly sourced & are irrefutable. Thanks FofS&E (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

FofS&E I had to pick a version from past that is not my own, and before the addition of controversial content. In the next few edits, I have already added back most of the uncontroversial edits. Some of the edits that are controversial or were sourced to unreliable source like WP:TOI have not been restored. They would need better sources and consensus. If you think I missed some relevant noncontroversial content in the revert, then please reply below in new thread and we can restore it back with consensus. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)