Talk:Legal status of Jainism as a distinct religion in India

message: Legalese 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Legalese 07:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Status of Jainism-Proposed Deletion 

message: This will probably sound a bit harsh, but this article basically needs a complete rewrite because (and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh) it is a complete mismash of quotes without any cohesiveness or clear sourcing.  Much of the problem is formatting, but some is content. The problems are almost too numerous to go into in one sitting, so let me just start with the low-hanging fruit:
# Article has no clear intro, it just starts out with the section "The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism".  Is this just a recent debate?  Has the legal status of Jainism as a religion separate from Hinduism always been legally debated?  There needs to be a clear intro here giving a bit of context into why this article and topic are in any way relevant.
#Sources are not formatted correctly - This is an easy fix once everything else is done.  It's just wiki formatting (and I'd be happy to help the creator with this if the article is kept as they are a fairly new editor and wikification isn't always intuitive).
#Flow - sections are seemingly randomly distributed.  For example the Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case is seperated from the judgement by a section on the Indian Constitution.  It makes for a much more difficult reading experience than this needs to be.
#Sections outside the margins - Formatting issue, easily fixed... but makes the article hard to read (again if kept I can fix this or I can show the creator how if he/she wishes).
#Sources and Reference sections need to be added.
#Original Research - Some sections appear to violate the No original research policy.  For example:
"The Sections of the various Hindu personal codes are quoted above for reader's own perusal and analysis. An explanation is put into the end to elucidate how the Hon'ble Court might have been erroneous."
(followed by quoted sections from various acts with explanations)
These sections are not clearly sourced to any external source and it appears these explainations are analysis by the author making this original research.  All of these sections need to be removed from the article.
Well that is a start on the cleanup that needs to be done to get this article up to snuff.--Isotope23 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always hope my criticism is constructive in nature because I'm not trying to destroy the article, just get it in line with standards here if it survives the current Articles for Deletion debate (and I'm not trying to WP:BITE you as a new editor; it took me quite a while to get the formatting of the wiki down).  If this survives the AfD I will fix the formatting problems myself (if you are interesting in what I did you can always look at the diffs and see the changes I made).  As for the Hindu debate section, if this is based on a judgement of the Rajasthan High Court (i.e. this is a summary of judgments and opinions published by that court) it can be referenced even if it is not online (it just needs to be cited in a similar manner as any offline source would be.  The problem though is that rather than just reprint their opinions wholesale, this should be rewritten into more of an article format with citations referencing the published opinions so it isn't WP:OR or just a reprinting of already existing material.  Like I said though I can help you with that.  If you need a "style guide" of sorts in reference to what I'm looking for Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill is a good example of how this should be laid out (from a formatting standpoint... content-wise that article needs a bit of work too).--Isotope23 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Legalese 12:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to second that... nice work Utcursch.--Isotope23 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Legalese 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Experts'" Opinion 

message: The article begins as follows: 
""Jainism is considered by many a reformist movement that is a part of Hinduism. Many others regard it as a separate religion. However, in 2006 the Supreme Court of India gave a rest to the diversity of contemplations in a judgment where it opined that "Jain Religion is indisputably not a part of Hindu Religion".""
I have cited above, how the scholars and Professors of Theology and Religion find Jainism to be a religion in its own right. The abovecited introduction does not give the correct picture. It is only a result of a misconceived debate. I propose to delete this introduction, and invite a discussion on such proposal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legalese (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest that you cite your sources using footnotes instead of including them in the main body of the text. Thanks, Addhoc 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Change 

message: In this discussion, there was a consensus to remove the original research. Following this discussion, there was ample time to find sources and format the text. The changes I made were extensive, however they did have consensus. Addhoc 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus for removal of [[WP:OR|original research]]

message: I'll remove the unsourced section in the next few days unless reliable secondary sources are included. Addhoc 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced section 

message: There is an wilfull attempt to subvert the truth on these pages in the name of "Unsourced section" and "original research". Bal Patil Court Judgement has been modified to advocate a NPOV and other court Judgement that proves Jainism as distinct judgement - Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir -  has been purposely deleted. I fail to understand why ? Where is the question of Original Research for court Judgement which are public documents. Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a Original research ? Then delete all Judgements from Wiki.--Anish Shah 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the above you said "Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a original research?" The answer is the court judgement is a primary source. My concern is that you are removing all the secondary sources and only using primary sources. Also, I have stylistic concerns - I suggest you have a look at WP:LEAD, for example. I've looked at some of your other contributions and you are clearly a good faith editor. Your edits to ahimsa were impressive, for example. In this context, I hope we can resolve this and find a compromise soon. Addhoc 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Was the court judgement considered to be significant - for example, was the ruling widely reported? If you can include secondary sources, then ok, however you should avoid your own commentary in accordance with the original research policy. Addhoc 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Could I suggest you carefully read the verifiability and original research policies, because you don't appear to understand them. In essence, articles should rely on third-party published sources including journals and newspapers, not vague mentions of web searches. Addhoc 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliberate attempt to subvert the truth

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Legal status of Jainism as a distinct religion in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311225548/http://judis.nic.in:80/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27962 to http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27962
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified