Talk:16th Lok Sabha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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

talk) 02:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relevant discussion is at
Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Constant removal of MPs with criminal_background. —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you,
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)[reply
]

Some information on the members

Criminal cases

Case-wise distribution of the 542 members of the 16th Lok Sabha.[1]

  With serious criminal cases (20.66%)
  With non-serious criminal cases (13.47%)
  Without any criminal cases (65.87%)

About one-third of all members have at least one criminal case, with some having serious criminal cases.[2]

Political party Total no. of members No. of members with criminal cases[3] Percentage of members with criminal cases No. of members with serious criminal cases*[4] Percentage of members with serious criminal cases*
Bharatiya Janata Party 281 97 35% 61 22%
Indian National Congress 44 8 18% 3 7%
AIADMK
 37 6 16% 3 8%
Shiv Sena 18 15 83% 8 44%
All India Trinamool Congress
 34 7 21% 4 12%
Others 128 52 41% 33 26%
Total 542 185 34% 112 21%

* Criteria for "serious" criminal cases:[5]

  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.[6][7]

Financial background

Asset-wise distribution of the 542 members in the 16th Lok Sabha.[8]

  Assets > ₹ 100 million (24.35%)
  Assets between ₹ 50 million and ₹ 100 million (12.92%)
  Assets between ₹ 10 million and ₹ 50 million (44.46%)
  Assets < ₹ 10 million (18.27%)

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.[9]

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

Political party No. of members Average assets per member[10]
Bharatiya Janata Party 281 ₹ 115.9 million
Indian National Congress 44 ₹ 167.1 million
AIADMK
 37 ₹ 64.7 million
All India Trinamool Congress
 34 ₹ 25.1 million
Others 146 ₹ 250.0 million
Total 542 ₹ 147.0 million

Other details

Education-wise distribution of the 542 members in the 16th Lok Sabha.[11]

  Class 12 pass and below (23%)
  Graduate and above (75%)
  Other (2%)

Age-wise distribution of the 542 members in the 16th Lok Sabha.[12]

  25 to 50 years (37%)
  51 to 70 years (55%)
  71 years and older (8%)

Gender-wise distribution of the 542 members in the 16th Lok Sabha.[13]

  Male (89%)
  Female (11%)
Education Number of members[14]
Illiterate 1
Class 12 or below 126
Graduate or above 405
Age range Number of members[15]
25 to 50 years 203
51 to 70 years 298
71 years or older 41
Gender Number of members[16]
Female 62
Male 480

— Preceding

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]
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
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. --
talk) 08:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
This repeated spamming of this content across multiple articles and talk pages is getting out of hand. I've collapsed it now. —SpacemanSpiff 08:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dharmadhyaksha: Now, I must do the work of other editors? Fine.
Firstly, the previous discussion on
Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Constant removal of MPs with criminal background. 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
Indian general election, 2014
, most seemed to focus on the following:
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
talk) 19:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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. --
talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read
WP:WALLS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
My previous post is long mainly because it summarizes a much longer discussion on
talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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
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. --
talk) 14:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply
]

@
Intelligentguy89: 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)[reply
]
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. --
talk) 03:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't your personal soapbox, I suggest you go on to create a blog somewhere, blogspot and wordpress are good options. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --
talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  2. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/a-third-of-mps-have-criminal-cases-shiv-sena-tops-list-report-398609
  3. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  4. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  5. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  6. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  7. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/lok-sabha-elections-2014/news/Every-third-newly-elected-MP-has-criminal-background/articleshow/35306963.cms
  8. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  9. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  10. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  11. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  12. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  13. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  14. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  15. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners
  16. ^ http://loksabha.adrindia.org/lok-sabha/analysis-of-criminal-and-financial-background-details-of-winners

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:16th_Lok_Sabha&oldid=1195708002"