Talk:Goa Forward Party

I have edited the article to make it more up-to-date. Since the 2017 Goa Assembly election are over with the results declared and the Government formed with Goa Forward as a member of the party, the following sections appear too elaborate and unnecessary:
 * 2017 results
 * Post alliance impact
 * Alliance plans with Congress

I have included the journey from Goa Forward's possible alliance to the formation of a government with the BJP, in a composite section called '2017 Assembly elections'. I have added a section called 'Government formation' to highlight what Ministries and Corporations the Goa Forward MLAs and supporters have been allotted.

As far as the section "Other issues" is concerned, the subsections except "Party promises" seem irrelevant and too elaborate as of date. I am including the "Party promises" subsection in the "Manifesto and agenda in 2017 elections" section.

Kindly let me now if there is any query or grievance about my edits, we could discuss it on the talk page.

Thank you for editing the article
Thank you for editing the article. I think you have managed to sweep under the carpet some inconvenient facts about this political party, and hence do a whitewash job (if not resort to censorship). I would request readers to check up the history of this article and see the "irrelevant and too elaborate as of date" matters which have been swept aside. fredericknoronha (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No such intention
Hi Fredrick Noronha! Thank you for the feedback. Please be assured that there was no attempt to whitewash or succumb to any censorship. You are free to make any changes in this article in necessary. The last edit by you was before the results of the 2017 elections. I have added some part of your details and re arranged the article in various sections and sub sections. However, please do feel free to make the changes if any.

Regards

Doesn't make sense to trim earlier content
The excuse that the "sections appear too elaborate and unnecessary" and hence need to be trimmed doesn't make sense and isn't justified in my view. This is just another way of getting inconvenient facts out of the way and, in a word, censorship. I would urge Wikipedia editors to look at this content and trend. fredericknoronha (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)