Talk:Manu Sharma

message: I have reverted this version  for three reasons:
# Blogs links are not encyclopedic
# Fair use images are unwarranted
# Addition of extra text on this page is a duplicate of the court case. That text belongs to Murder of Jessica Lall. This is a biography page.
=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good reversion (and good work on improving the article generally). The editor who added the link, text and image is someone who has ignored BLP and copyright policies for a while, despite numerous warnings. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Sorry that the article was delisted. I disagree with many of the reasons given and think that any others could have been easily fixed. I enjoyed the article very much as it provided an interesting insight into an aspect of Indian political life not normally encountered. It contained the information relevant to what I wanted to know without unnecessary detail that would have detracted from the article's focus on how this forensic incident was handled in India. Thanks for resuscitating it.  —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 1a can be easily fixed, but if the reasons are that it is not "comprehensive" enough, I would have to disagree. As an encyclopedia, we hold ourselves responsible to reliable sources, so if no reliable sources are available, the comprehensiveness criteria should be relaxed. I'm not too worried about the GA demotion. All in a day's work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comprehensiveness is not mentioned in the GAR, so I am guessing that is not the issue.  (Often the "comprehensiveness" complaint comes from the article not meeting some stereotyped idea of what should be in a GA, e.g. that a obscure Olympic athlete article does not contain enough Personal history.) Perhaps it just needs a prose fix-up.  —Mattisse (Talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting as GA 

message: An OTRS complaint ( # 2009042010061033 ) was filed regarding this article and the status of Manu Sharma's appeal.  I have reviewed the article contents and the sources.  The listed reference source was: http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=570289, and editor User:Mamta dhody additionally recommended review of original source documents at Indian supreme court website, which include (dates in day-month-year) latest order of 12/05/2008, previous orders of 11/4/2008, 02/04/2008, 27/11/2007, and 22/02/2007.
The issue was whether Manu Sharma's appeal was dismissed, or pending.
On review, Damta dhody's statement appears to be correct.  The Outlook India article and the original source documents at the supreme court of india website agree - There were two parts to the appeal, the first a request for bail and release from prison, and the second the primary appeal of the criminal conviction itself.
Both sources agree - the request for bail was denied, as no good reason was given and the primary appeal of the conviction will be heard in reasonable time.  Quoting from Outlook India:
:"'No case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out,' a Bench headed by Justice C K Thakker said, while dismissing Sharma's petition."
:"The court said the appeal against the conviction is already admitted and likely to be heard within a reasonable time."
Similarly, the order from 12/05/2008:
:"No case is made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Application for bail is dismissed. It is clarified that the Court may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter one way or the other and all the observations made in the judgment should be taken as confined to dealing with the prayer of the applicant-appellant under Section 389 of the Code. As and when the main matter i.e. criminal appeal will come up for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations in the judgment."
Please assume good faith that overenthusiastic new editors may have some factual accuracy to claims of mistakes in articles, particularly BLP articles.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of appeal 

message: The person don't hold high importance and please consider to delete this biography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.17.49 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be deleted 

message: *Note: Cross-posted from my talk page as the information is relevant to the article.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you are trying to add is already summarized through the use of secondary sources. Your addition of court document excerpts is both excessive and against Wikipedia policy which is very clear on the subject: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person".--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

text: You are incorrect, the article is a biography of a living person. This is evidenced by that fact that 1) it's a biography article and 2) the person is living. If the article itself does not convince you, please see the category tags and project tags on both the article and its associated talk page. You can differ as much as you like, however you cannot change facts to suit your purpose. There is an article that specifically covers the crime at Murder of Jessica Lal, however this article also falls under the BLP umbrella as many of the individual's involved are still alive. The court case is already covered extensively in the Manu Sharma article through the use of secondary sources as is required by policy. Edit warring to restore verbatim sections of the court documents violates this policy.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, as an intervenor in this case you should not be directly editing the article at all. Wikipedia depends on verification through reliable sources, not via individuals attempting "to bring truth in the eyes of the public". --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court documents 

message: Pkraji (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pkraji: To request an edit, you need to specify what you want change and what sources support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014 

message: Musabahmadkhan (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014 

message: "The court has acquitted them because the Delhi police failed to sustain the grounds on which they had built up their case. The police failed to recover the weapon which was used to fire at Jessica Lal as well as prove their theory that the two cartridges, emptied shells of which were recovered from the spot, were fired from one weapon".
As a long retired appellate judge I have to say, I've never read such a nonsensical statement in all my time. Thank God there are courts of appeal and justice was served. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manu Sharma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607192411/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=239728&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=239728&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22
*Added  tag to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990506/ige06079.html
*Added  tag to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main16.asp?filename=Ne030406Manu_Not.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=570289
*Added  tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Manu-Sharma-granted-5-day-parole/Article1-769854.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)