Jump to content

Talk:Indian National Congress

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

I want to add the name of the founder of Indian national congress

Wizwiki234 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contains the name of Hume. If you mean somebody else, you need to provide more specific information. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

Remove the statement "The most corrupt party in the world" from this article. That's completely biased an opinion. In a realm like wikipedia which is to be neutral, such comments are not encouraged. 196.15.16.101 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Seems a fair statement backed by reference placed in relevant section. Neutrality doesn't mean blanking criticism. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Factions

After Independence, the Congress split for the first time in 1969. What happened to Congress (O) faction? Who has the right to the two bullocks symbol ? Then Mrs. Gandhi split the party again in 1978. What happened to the "Non-Indira" fsction ? ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Congress (O) quickly became irrelevant, and what was left was merged into the Janata party in 1977, along with the other faction led by Charan singh etc that broke away in 1977. When the Janata party broke up in 1980, these two entities didn't really re-emerge like some others did. You're right, this stuff should be inserted, but the page is such a mess, that I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add information on when and how was Congress(I) able to call itself Indian National Congress. Does the Election Commission of India plays a role in the name a party can use ? Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wrong flag

hand is not in indian nation congress flag,hand symbol is only their election symbol.The flag of the Indian National Congress shall consist of three horizontal colours: saffron, white and green with the picture of a Charkha in Blue in the Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.185.218 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


CONSTITUTION & RULES OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (As amended upto 83rd Plenary Session, 18-20 December 2010) Article II-A Party Flag

The flag of the Indian National Congress shall consist of three horizontal colours: saffron, white and green with the picture of a Charkha in Blue in the Centre. It shall be made of certified Khadi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.185.218 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of paragraph that is in wrong context

The paragraph under the heading Corruption scandals that says, "A 2011 survey conducted by Outlook and a television news channel CNN-IBN in the wake of the 2G Spectrum scam and the 2010 Commonwealth Games Scam found that Indian voters ranked corruption as the second most important issue facing India (inflation was the first) and ranked politicians as being the most corrupt." is in wrong context. The referenced material says, "A total of 1,633 adult respondents (1,037 males and 596 females) in eight cities —Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Calcutta, Lucknow and Mumbai—were interviewed between January 8-10 for the survey." India is a country with a population of 1.237 billion. How could a feedback by just 1,663 people that too in 2011 be relevant today and tag a political party as the most corrupt one? It is simply a survey and the results of such surveys change often. Further, the article also says, "Worse, more than half of those surveyed said that none of the political parties had the wherewithal to deal with corruption.". So, it can be deduced that half of the respondents felt that other parties are equally corrupt as they do nothing to curb it, right? A piece from survey has been used in the wrong context and sending out the wrong message. I request everyone on board to consider it and remove this paragraph.Learner (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there is anything in the survey that refers specifically to the Congress, then it should be mentioned. As it now stands, we are drawing conclusions about the Congress from something that doesn't mention it, and that is OR, and should be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could be elaborate more, Vanamonde? I only agree that it's a bit misplaced, having its own subsection is too much...a bit POVish. But is its complete removal justified? As it stands, I see that it's worded per the source given: this Outlook report. It can be shortened a little and merged to the part just after the two corruption incidents which it talks about are mentioned, for better flow. I think it's important to show the impact on the people's confidence in the party during that time. About the background of this survey, we really can't judge since we can only reflect what the source says (Outlook is reliable enough). There has to be more different reports documenting this, if not the same specific survey—this makes atleast one statement pertaining to this relevant in the article. What do you think? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies my friend, I guess I didn't make myself very clear. I am not suggesting the removal of the entire "controversies" section; most of that info is decently sourced. Personally, I am in favour of integrating it into the article instead of a separate section, but that is a different matter. My objection here is only to the intro paragraph of the section, about corruption being the biggest issue facing Indian voters. THAT source does not mention the Congress, and thus including it is OR. I think that is what this TP post was about. Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then it's all fine. If I'm not mistaken the OP meant blanking the entire statement completely by this edit. In any case, now that you intend to fix it...I think we all (both of us atleast) agree on the same thing. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ugog Nizdast and Vanamonde93 for understanding and taking swift action. I appreciate your time and involvement. Thanks once again!Learner (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

All the uncited paragraphs in this article constitute an attempt to malign the Indian National Congress and revise history.

Please change --

In 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose, the elected president in both 1938 and 1939 was expelled from the Congress for his socialist views and the Congress was reduced to a pro-business group financed by the business houses of Birla and Bajaj. At the time of the Quit India movement, the Congress was undoubtedly the strongest revolutionary group in India, but the Congress disassociated itself from the Quit India movement within a few days. The Indian National Congress could not claim to be the sole representative of the Indian people as other parties were there as well notably the Hindu Mahasabha, Azad Hind Sarkar, and Forward Bloc.[citation needed]

-- To --

In 1939, Subhas Chandra Bose, the elected president in both 1938 and 1939 resigned from the Congress over the selection of the working committee. The Indian National Congress was not the sole representative of the Indian polity and other parties existed at the time, notably the Hindu Mahasabha, Azad Hind Sarkar, and Forward Bloc. 

-- CITATION: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/subhas-chandra-bose


98.180.39.88 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dmelc9 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the missionairy visa project to mass convert hindus allowing european and american christians/catholics to stay in india

This caused the congress party to nose dive after this new missionary visa was created in secret behind closed doors, also the catholic cross coins raised more tenstion in india with the added insult of the ganges river being left to be polluted while the sikhs golden temple and all catholic and christian owned buildings got yearly up keep.[1][2][3]82.38.160.153 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)ve[reply]

  1. ^ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/foodgrains-meant-for-floodhit-villagers-rotting-in-uttarakhand-godowns/442366-3-243.html
  2. ^ http://creative.sulekha.com/sonia-gandhi-s-cong-s-blitzkrieg-christianization-of-india-through-rbi_247154_blog
  3. ^ http://en.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2012/11/9/Indian-Secular-Govt-officially-issues-visa-for-Christian-Missionaries.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_National_Congress&oldid=593550899"