Talk:2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election

Parties & alliance

@XYZ 250706

In your recent edit in this section how are you defining major party? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 14:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Candidates

@XYZ 250706

Why you have removed the content of 20 candidates of JLKM from Candidate section? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@RITWIK MAHATAWhy are you adding them? Only candidates of major parties/alliances (major contender) can be added as per Wikipedia Rules. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A party with 20 candidates is not that?How are you defining major party/contender? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@RITWIK MAHATA Lots of parties / alliances give 20 candidates or more. They are not major contender for winning the election. If JLKM performs very well and wins seat, it will definitely be added in results section. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706

JLKM is going to contest in 53 seats or more out of 81 seats.So JLKM should be added in the Candidates section. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 09:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Many parties give candidates even in all 81 seats. They are not major. For example, BSP is not a major contender in Jharkhand election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706

JLKM is new party here emerged from Bhasha-Khatiyan movement and is going to contest 53 seats or more out of 81 seats. That's why JLKM is major cotender in this election. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 10:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, many parties contest many seats. That doesn't make any party major contender. Do you know the meaning of major contender? XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@RITWIK MAHATA How do you defining JLKM as major contender? XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie

Should one political party be cosidered as one of the main contestants where that political party is one of the only two political parties who have announced 50+ candidates in an assembly election with 81 assemblies? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Announcing candidates is just a formality. A party becomes a main contender when IT WINS SEATS, not by fielding candidates. Even AAP can field 81 candidates in Jharkhand or even Shiv Sena can do it. Does that make them strong contenders? That way every party which contests more than 30-40 seats would have to be added which is not possible. Therefore, if JLKM WINS seats, it will be added in results section. However, at this point, JLKM candidates cannot be mentioned in the candidate section. FlyJet777 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@FlyJet777

This is not the case here. See previous arguments.One party become one of the main contestants before election not after election. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument isn't valid. How can a party become a main contestant without even contesting the election & winning seats? WINNING SEATS is the main criteria to become a strong party. Just because JLKM has risen from a local movement doesn't mean it has become one of the strong contenders. First let JLKM win seats, then it can be added. FlyJet777 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@FlyJet777

Winning seats in the previous election can not be the only criteria to be one of the main contestants for a new party who has emerged from Bhasha-Khatiyan movement.

JLKM is one of the only two parties who are going to contest in 50+ assembly out of 81 assemblies.

Bhasha movement was local but Khatiyan movent was state-level movment. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 22:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is still invalid. It doesn't matter whether the party has risen from Bhasha movement or Khatiyan movement or any other movement. The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN POLITICS is WINNING SEATS.

Take this example. The farmers protest gained huge popularity across India and even gained traction across the world. That prominent protest gave rise to parties like Sanyukt Samaj Morcha & Sanyukt Sangharsh Party. So does that make these parties eligible to be noteworthy as INC or AAP or Akali Dal? No. In the recent Haryana elections, the SSM contested on several seats.

1) Were their candidates listed? No.

2) Did they win any seat? No.

3) Are they a strong contendor? Again, no.

Therefore, the same applies to JLKM. Till it doesn't win seats, it cannot be considered a major contestant. JLKM is still a new party and it needs to prove its worth (by winning seats) that it is a major contender. I hope everything becomes clear now. FlyJet777 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@FlyJet777

Farmers protest was against union government. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 22:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. So how do national/state level movements matter in politics is all I am asking. You said because JLKM rose from a state level movement hence it has become a major contender. Well, no it hasn't. Just like SSM & SSP haven't become major contenders because they rose up from a NATIONAL level movement, JLKM CANNOT be a major contender just because it has come from a STATE level movement.

Whether it is a national movement/protest or a state level movement/protest, the only thing that matters in politics is WINNING SEATS. Nothing else. FlyJet777 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@FlyJet777

1. JLKM who has emerged from a state-level movement is going to contest the recent assembly election in that state.
2. JLKM is one of the only two parties who are going to contest in 50+ assembly constituencies out of 81 assembly constituencies.

Is there any reason for not listing JLKM's candidates in Candidate section where two alliances' candidates are listed?

Is there any reason for not adding JLKM in infobox election template where two alliances are added?

How much contest JLKM will give to other alliances will be decided in the election. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 23:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@RITWIK MAHATA

JLKM is not even recongnised as state party by Election Commission of India. ECI recognised national parties and state parties should be considered as main parties.

As per ECI, To become a state party :

• A party should secure at least six per cent of valid votes polled in an election to the state legislative assembly and win at least two seats in that state assembly.
• A party should secure at least six per cent of valid votes polled in an election to Lok Sabha and win at least one seat in Lok Sabha.
• A party should win at least three per cent of the total number of seats or any fraction thereof allotted to that state.

ECI does not consider number of seats contested by a party in an election to recognise them as state party. Why should we conisder a non state party as a main contender? Let JLKM become a recognized state party first by fulfilling above criteria. Then they will be considered as one of the main parties. Sachin126 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MrMkG,

Issue of adding JLKM candidates was discussed in article talk page and was also reported to admins. Except the person who wanted to add JLKM candidates, no other editors(XYZ 250706, FlyJet777 & me) were in favour of adding them. Please go through the above discussion. JLKM is not even recognized as state party by Election Commission of India, it is a newly formed political party and has no represenation in Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. Adding JLKM candidates and portraying them as main contender may mislead the Wikipedia readers. There are many other political parties in Jharkhand, who are older than JLKM and had representation in Jharkhand Assembly. We cannot add all those parties candidates list. I request you to provide valid reason for adding JLKM candidate list back. If not, i request you to please revert back your edit. Thanking you. Sachin126 (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@FlyJet777@RITWIK MAHATA@Sachin126 Major contenders can also be decided logically. Even if the Left parties contains parties having national/state status, they are not major contender in Jharkhand. Even if JLKM wins 1/2 seats, it can't added to infobox because it was not major contender before election and because JLKM is unrecognized. If it wins some seats, it will definitely be added to Results section. Besides continually arguing for adding JLKM to infobox and candidate list is indicating biased editing and self-promotion like acts. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sachin126 @XYZ 250706 Sorry, I was not getting notifications on mobile so couldn't reply earlier. But yes I agree with this that whom to add or not should be decided on the basis of specific circumstances, using logic. CPI(M), CPI are not major player in Jharkhand even though they have national and state party status so they shouldn't be included. I think JLKM can be added though, we don't know how many seats they will get, it could be 1-2 or 10 or more. I think the most similar point of comparison to them is JJP in 2019 Haryana which imo sufficient to have them included in the list of candidates.

If we want to be more objective about it, then we can look at secondary coverage which is what Wikipedia policies also point towards to determine how much importance or weight we should give to something, not what the official status is. For JLKM, we have secondary sources treating them as a major contender. (link) Irrelevant parties don't get this level of attention, no one really talks about Janmat for comparison. MrMkG (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

As you know, there are hundreds of political parties in Jharkhand. Because of the coverage JLKM got from few media, they have been added to the top of the list in the "Others" section(subsection of the "Parties and alliances"). Issue was about portraying JLKM as main contender by adding them along with main contenders Mahagathbandhan and NDA in "Parties and alliances" section, And also adding JLKM candidates list along with the main contenders, Which i think will mislead the Wikipedia readers. Reliable sourcing isn't sufficient for notability, Please see WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:SUSTAINED. Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi got 6.92% votes in 2019 Indian general election in Maharashtra and 4.58% in 2019 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election and they have more media coverage than JLKM, but still they haven't been able to win any seats and no one conisders them as main contender in Maharashtra. In my opinion, instead of deciding ourselves, based on the previous election results we should determine who are the main contenders. Sachin126 (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

These policy pages are about notability for whether there should be an article on a subject or not. I am also not talking about the amount of coverage but the kind of coverage which treats them as a major contender. We have the PJP alliance in the parties section for the current MH election.

But it's fine, we don't need to add this here. It is very borderline imo anyway. But one thing I will say is that some kind of subjective judgement will be necessary in some cases. How would one have treated AAP for its 2013 election if we only ever base it on previous elections, we need to see how reliable sources are discussing them. MrMkG (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

JANMAT

@MrMkG

For candidates of Janmat what will be the the most independent source than the Election Commission of India? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 17:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ECI lists every party and contender, including those who will get 1 vote. That's their job. It can't be the basis of who we add or not. We can't add everybody who contests. They are a primary source and a part of the election process. MrMkG (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Election

@OrthosKral

Recently you have removed some content about JLKM (party with 6.31% vote share) from infobox election template. What is the reason? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

no photo of sources that they got 6.3% votes and they got only 1 seat which means they are not recognised state party as you need minimum 2 seats to be recognised OrthosKral (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The vote share of JLKM is not 6.31%. It is 5.78%.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/jlkms-remarkable-entry-into-jharkhand-politics-a-game-changer-in-the-elections/amp_articleshow/115632937.cms You can calculate from total vote count.

What is the criteria for a political party to be included in infobox election template? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 08:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be included. 5+% VS parties usually are. MrMkG (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

ISSUES - of the election

Hello @MrMkG,

You recently removed the ISSUES section, citing "POV", and another section, stating it was based on "one source." However, that’s not accurate—the section has multiple sources. I agree that adding more sources would enrich the section, and I've already included additional references, with plans to add more as I find them.

All the sources used are WP:RELIABLE. Please discuss any concerns before removing content from this section. You’re welcome to contribute further by adding information supported by reliable sources.

Thanks SpunkyGeek (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Read VNO: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate.Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

What you wrote is based on one source in reality with other sources being decorative. The big problem is also that these are written like BJP's talking points which is why it's POV. This is new content and this is disputed content, it is your responsibility to consensus before it you can readd it. MrMkG (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you specifically demonstrate how the information I added regarding the Election Issues "fails to improve" the article, rather than quoting policy in general. You’ve also claimed that the content relies on one source and that others are "decorative." What exactly do you mean by "decorative"? Are you suggesting this violates WP:RS? If so, please provide clear and specific reasoning rather than vague assertions.

If your concern is that it reflects a particular POV, I would ask you to point out exactly which sentences you believe are problematic and how they are pushing a POV. A blanket accusation without specifics does not facilitate constructive discussion, see WP:TALKPOV.

Lastly, this marks your second revert. I would kindly remind you to uphold the decorum and avoid engaging in edit warring. As per policy, I initiated a discussion on the talk page to address the matter collaboratively. I encourage you to contribute constructively to the discussion instead of resorting to reverts. SpunkyGeek (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The point of quoting the policy WP:VNOT is to tell you that it is your responsibility to get consensus for content that you add when disputed before you can add it again whether there are citations or not.

You added the section which was reverted. Your content was disputed. You should have stopped there and had a discussion. The policy does not mean you immediately revert after opening a talk page section. But that is exactly what you did, you added it again, immediately.

I removed it after citing the above policy since disputed content should not be retained assuming you did not know it. But you have not wasted time, adding it again, immediately after giving this (partially incoherent) response. This is the third time. It is you who is edit warring. There is a week's gap between my two reverts.

I am not reverting anymore either as it is apparent that you don't intend to follow the policy but I will be leaving a warning on your talk page in this regard. I might also restructure and modify the section instead, for reasons given in my next comment. MrMkG (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Coming to the issue at hand. What is problematic exactly? Practically speaking the full section is. "POV section" in short. It is mostly structured and written in essence to highlight BJP's talking points and disguise them as "issues". There is only one real source as mentioned (and a source which seems to have just plagiarised it) with other sources added for decoration. If you are unable to understand what is meant by decoration (I don't know how you would be since you added them), it means they don't support the content and have inserted there for appearances. It doesn't matter if your "source" is reliable or not if it does not support the content you write now does it?

Some example of the above issues :–

The first sub-section headlined "bangladeshi and rohingya infiltration" is cited to this source. The source contains no secondary analysis and is a summary of Modi's speeches. That this is an "issue" is a statement made by Modi and you have given wikivoice to it through structure like section and sub-section headings even if you call the claim contained within "alleged". The rhetoric and campaign related to this is well documented as a highly inflammatory one in various other sources.

There is a sub-section about split within the tribal vote. There is a decorative source that is even directly contradicting it as it speaks of polarisation between tribals and non-tribals with each polarised towards one side. This isn't even a potential "issue" as much as it is pre-election speculation on voter behavior. Speculation that was also horribly wrong, the election was the most one sided in the history of the state in ST seats with MGB winning 27 and NDA winning 1 seat.

There is a sub-section going "Corruption charges have taken center stage..", linking to a source about the arrest of Hemant Soren and other opposition leaders (from other states) during the national election back in February. No mention of it being a issue for the Jharkhand election or even a mention of a Jharkhand election in the source. The source also says that the counter-accusation was that the government was using central agencies to target opposition leaders before the election unlike what you wrote. MrMkG (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Finally!, we're getting to the core of the discussion rather than just assertions.

Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration: I have already provided Sources

1 and 2 that substantiate this claim. The third source, which mentions BJP or Modi raising the issue, was added to provide additional context. However, it can be removed if necessary. The core point here is that the content is backed byreliable sources(WP:RS). Are you disputing that this is a legitimate issue?

Tribal vote section: I am open to rewording this section. If you have concerns with the current phrasing, I invite you to propose an alternative version. Let’s collaborate on this and finalize the wording we both agree upon.

Corruption charges: Are you saying the corruption allegations are a "non-issue "? but again, I have already provided sources supporting this point. Here's an additional source from The Hindu.

If you want modifications in these sections please propose them: Let's collaborate! SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Source 1 is the only real source. Source 2 is plagiarism, every other source you have added in the page is decorative and doesn't directly support the text. The entire section needs to be rewritten which I'll do shortly. MrMkG (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

And what about The Hindu - source.

I request you to not modify the content - and propose the modifications here. SpunkyGeek (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This source linked here isn't linked in the page for anything. MrMkG (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)