Talk:16th Lok Sabha

Criminal cases, financial background and other details of the members: important and relevant information that should be there in this article.
The section about Criminal and financial details of the 16th Lok Sabha members is definitely relevant for this article. Some users are trying to repeatedly delete it, because of some so-called consensus on the talk page of another article (Indian general election, 2014). Even if this information is not suitable for that article, it is not automatically evident that it is also not suitable for this article.

This is highly relevant and important information. It is supported by valid third-party references. And it is unbiased: several opposing political parties are being mentioned. It is not just one party or front that is being targeted. This article is about the "16th Lok Sabha" (and not the "Indian general election, 2014"). It is perfectly acceptable for such information to be here. Deliberately trying to prevent it from being presented here may count as not having a neutral point of view. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relevant discussion is at Talk:Indian general election, 2014. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Spaceman. We're all aware of the fact that User:Intelligentguy89 knows that discussions have beein taking place there as a logical extension of using this content on all related pages. There is absolutely no call for beginning from scratch on every article page when the nature of the content has been expressly argued against in total, not as content that may be appropriate on case by case basis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Criminal cases
About one-third of all members have at least one criminal case, with some having serious criminal cases.


 * Criteria for "serious" criminal cases:
 * 1) Offence for which maximum punishment is of 5 years or more.
 * 2) If an offence is non-bailable.
 * 3) If it is an electoral offence (for eg. IPC 171E or bribery).
 * 4) Offence related to loss to exchequer.
 * 5) Offences that are assault, murder, kidnap, rape related.
 * 6) Offences that are mentioned in Representation of the People Act (Section 8).
 * 7) Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
 * 8) Crimes against women.

Compared to the 15th Lok Sabha, there is an increase of members with criminal cases. In 2009, 158 (30%) of the 521 members analysed had criminal cases, of which 77 (15%) had serious criminal cases.

Financial background
Out of the 542 members analysed, 443 (82%) are having assets of ₹ 10 million or more. In the 15th Lok Sabha, out of 521 winners analysed, 300 (58%) winners had assets of ₹ 10 million or more.

The average assets per member are ₹ 147 million (in 2009, this figure was ₹ 53.5 million).

Other details
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligentguy89 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 June 2014‎

Discussion
So now that the stuff has been pasted here, what is that Intelligentguy89 wants to make happen? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. While I'd suggest that he should keep it in his own sandbox if he wants to retain a record of it, my only reaction is to collapse it as WP:SOAP until it's archived. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of including the latest version of this section here is to enable a proper discussion regarding its inclusion in this article (as the section is being repeatedly deleted from the article, without proper discussion here). Saying that "relevant discussion is at Talk:Indian general election, 2014" is not a valid argument, since that discussion only points to whether or not this content should be included in Indian general election, 2014, and not this article.
 * The section is presenting notable, encyclopedic content about members of the 16th Lok Sabha, and this article is about the 16th Lok Sabha. The information is supported by valid third-party references. So what is the problem in including it here?
 * The section is using the phrase "criminal cases", and not "criminals", so all those who are concerned with protecting the politicians' image should take note of this: a criminal case does not automatically make someone a criminal. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is being honored here. And the if the ADR website is not a valid reference, then I am afraid most of Wikipedia should be deleted on similar grounds, since most of other articles are also dependent on (in fact, require) similar third-party references. (Will you only be satisfied if such information comes directly from the Indian Parliament? That is not third-party for this purpose.)
 * This is just information, valid for an encyclopedia, just like any other information in a Wikipedia article. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you list down the reasons given to you by other editors on the other talk page for exclusion of this stuff over here? We are no mood to do that all again over here. So if you want re-discussion, please make a bullet-list of all the opposition points put there. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This repeated spamming of this content across multiple articles and talk pages is getting out of hand. I've collapsed it now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Dharmadhyaksha: Now, I must do the work of other editors? Fine.
 * Firstly, the previous discussion on Talk:Indian general election, 2014 was regarding earlier versions of this section that, initially, had only the criminal details, and later expanded a bit to include financial details, of winners of the election. The latest version adds some information on education, age and gender of the 16th Lok Sabha members, and no discussion has occurred till now, regarding this information.
 * Secondly, there was not much discussion on Talk:Indian general election, 2014 on why this section should not be included in 16th Lok Sabha. Discussion there mostly focuses on whether or not the section should be included in Indian general election, 2014. Some editors just mentioned that the "same rationale" and "policy and guideline based arguments" (used to exclude the section from Indian general election, 2014) can be used to exclude it from 16th Lok Sabha. And among the reasons given for excluding the section from Indian general election, 2014, most seemed to focus on the following:
 * The members just have "criminal cases", and are not proven "criminals". Principle of "innocent until proven guilty", etc. But this issue is already addressed, as the section clearly uses the words "criminal cases", and not "criminals". No where in the section is it being explicitly stated, or implied, that a person becomes a "criminal" by having criminal cases. The section is just presenting some facts that can not be denied.
 * The sources are not reliable / analysis on "flimsy raw data" / ADR source not being peer-reviewed / only primary reference used, etc. These are not valid points, due to the following: Analysis is not on "flimsy raw data". It is based on the sworn affidavits submitted by election candidates to the Election Commission of India. And Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is an award-winning, notable organization that is thoroughly peer-reviewed by other organizations, including news agencies. It is a neutral, third-party NGO whose analysis is reliable and notable. Besides, this information is not reported by just ADR. Some is also reported by other sources: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/Every-third-newly-elected-MP-has-criminal-background/articleshow/35306963.cms, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/the-numbers-story-list-of-mps-facing-criminal-charges/, http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/a-third-of-mps-have-criminal-cases-shiv-sena-tops-list-report-398609, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/over-30-of-mps-mlas-face-criminal-charges/article4938403.ece and several others. References for this content meet requirements of reliable third-party sources of information, as required by Wikipedia. If these sources are not satisfactory, then I think not many sources will be satisfactory, and majority of Wikipedia should be deleted on the same logic.
 * "Biographies of living persons" (BLP) issues. There should not be any BLP issues, as no person (alive or dead) is being directly mentioned by name in the section. However, even if there is information about certain specific living person(s) (mentioned directly), the WP:BLP-related policy would be followed as the content satisfies the required criteria: it supports a neutral point of view (not one, but several political parties, including the two major opposing parties: Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress, are being mentioned; also, the content is not excessively negative or positive in nature); is verifiable (through all the valid references mentioned); and contains no original research. This is just a description of the members of the 16th Lok Sabha, suitable for this article.
 * Not relevant for Indian general election, 2014, undue weight being given, etc. That is not relevant here. This discussion is about including the section (or some form of it) in the 16th Lok Sabha article, and not Indian general election, 2014 (though it may be suitable, in some form, for the latter article too).
 * This reference-backed, important information describes the members of the 16th Lok Sabha, so it is relevant for an encyclopedia article about the 16th Lok Sabha. Not including it may be a case of not complying with the neutral point of view policy. I am not insisting that it should be presented in exactly this form. Changes, improvements, etc. can be made. If it must be presented in a briefer way, that is also fine. But before commenting, other editors should at least carefully go through the entire section, and consider its relevance for this article. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User:SpacemanSpiff: This is not spamming. It is discussion of content, on the talk-page of a Wikipedia article. If the section is collapsed like it was earlier, then it will not be visible on the mobile version of the website. It is necessary (and only fair) that all concerned editors can see not only the discussion, but also what exactly the discussion is about. And please remember: this is the talk page of the article, not the article itself. Even if the content is later determined to be unsuitable for the article, it is acceptable for it to be displayed on the talk-page, to facilitate discussion, and also to later enable all readers (not just editors) to see what the discussion was about. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:WALLS. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My previous post is long mainly because it summarizes a much longer discussion on Talk:Indian general election, 2014 You asked for "reasons given by other editors", etc. That should in fact be done by those "other editors" themselves. Anyway, now you have it. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that calling a person criminal violates BLP but calling a bunch of people criminals doesn't? And the most important one; why is all this relevant? Why is there no pie chart of bald men vs gray haired vs died hairs vs natural black? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are still not getting it. No one is being called a criminal here. Only statistics of criminal cases (along with some other information) are being presented. And I never said or implied that "calling a person criminal violates BLP but calling a bunch of people criminals doesn't." Whether the information is about one person or several people, WP:BLP policy is not violated if the information is from a neutral point of view, is verifiable and has no original research. That is the case here. All information is true, backed by valid references, and is relevant for the article because it is important descriptive information about members of the 16th Lok Sabha. (By the way, no living person is being mentioned by name here, so bringing up WP:BLP seems strange.)
 * Finally, there is no pie chart for hair-related statistics as that information is not important. Most would agree that hair-related information (and anything else like it) is definitely not as important as information on criminal cases, financial background, education, etc. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You have already taken all your pacmans to User:Intelligentguy89/sandbox. So just keep them there. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remove your wall of graphs from this article talk page as you were instructed to do at the latest ANI. Rather than following advice from administrators, you have attempted to resurrect the same issues and ignored warnings. Next time, you won't get the chance to hide until the ANI has been archived (rather conspicuously, only a matter of an hour or so after its being archived). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There was no "instruction" from any "administrator", ever, to remove any content from any talk page. As I pointed above for User:SpacemanSpiff, I will point it out again for you: "This is discussion of content, on the article's talk page. It is necessary (and only fair) that all concerned editors can see not only the discussion, but also what exactly the discussion is about. And please remember: this is the talk page of the article, not the article itself. Even if the content is later determined to be unsuitable for the article, it is acceptable for it to be displayed on the talk-page, to facilitate discussion, and also to later enable all readers (not just editors) to see what the discussion was about." It is really strange that now you are also having issues with legitimate content appearing on talk pages.
 * By the way, I am not "hiding" from any thing. Just because I have been inactive on Wikipedia for some time, does not been that I am "hiding". It just so happens that I am not one of those people who have a lot of free time, and spend almost all of it online. Fortunately, I have got better and more important things to do in life. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't your personal soapbox, I suggest you go on to create a blog somewhere, blogspot and wordpress are good options. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see the problem in including this content on the article. It seems legitimate enough. Some editors really seem to be behving strangely, by wanting it to be removed from not only the article, but also the article's discussion page. Are they the politicians' PR and image management guys? :P --103.21.127.76 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:SpacemanSpiff: Yeah, this is not anyone's personal soapbox. It is the talk-page of a Wikipedia article, where we are discussing about certain content. It is important that that content is visible to everyone. There is no need to collapse it like that. Importantly, collapsing the content does not make it visible on the mobile version of the website, which may the way many readers access Wikipedia now. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:16th_Lok_Sabha. I have pointed out all this again and again, but you just do not seem to get it. You are being so fussy about what appears on a talk-page, and starting edit wars for talk-pages, which is all ridiculous. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Secretary Generals
As per this- http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Secretary_GEN.html, the 16th Lok Sabha had 4 Secretary-Generals (SGs), & since there is no separate article on SGs, I propose that at least here we may add their names. Please all give your opinions. Seomelono (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Telangana's existance in the 16th Lok Sabha
Telangana as a state was not founded until 2 June 2014 - https://www.telangana.gov.in/about/state-profile/, and as such all official election results for the 16th Lok Sabha do not refer to it. This means all the constituencies which are in modern day Telangana were in Andhra Pradesh at the time of the election. This means that the constituency numbers for Andhra Pradesh are not correct in this article, as they should have the constituencies Adilabad to Khammam as 1 to 17. One need only look at any official election results published by the ECI to see that Telangana is not included, and the constituency numbers begin with Adilabad as number 1 - see this or even one of the sources linked in this article. I suggest that Telangana is removed from this article and its constituencies placed under Andhra Pradesh, as they were at the time of the election. Patrickbwinter123 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)