Talk:Jan Lokpal Bill/Archive 1

Reminder to all editors
I've just completed a massive overhaul of this article. All editors are reminded that Wikipedia policy requires that all information be verified by reliable sources and that it be neutral in tone. Furthermore, note that the sourcing requirement is especially stringent for any information about living people. Everyone should feel free to continue to add to the article, but please do so only with verified, neutral information. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the "Criticism" be expanded. Personally, i think that the Jan Lokpal will be just another corrupt bureaucratic failure. In this case, we are investing special powers to a select few outside the government, and not answerable to anyone. It certainly doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that they will almost certainly misuse it. Joyson Noel   Holla at me!  17:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to retract most of my previous statements. This fellow is a genius! Joyson Noel   Holla at me!  15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Either way, this discussion does not belong here. First, this page cannot be used to debate the quality of the Bill; rather, it may only be used to discuss what should or should not go into the article. Second, we cannot add or subtract information based on our own personal views.  If there is verifiable criticism that is of due weight, we should include it, regardless of whether or not we "agree" with the Bill.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got carried away that day! I have, however, added a para, hence expanding it somewhat. Joyson Noel   Holla at me!  06:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Need To Update
Lokpal Bill is one of the hottest subject in India and lot of remarks and news coming out from different corners.To make this topic live we need constent updation with reliable sources.Shankarr1977 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do be careful, though, not to focus too much on recent news, per WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia should not be an up to the minute report of every single breaking story; instead, only issues of encyclopedic, long term interest should be included.  It's fine right now, but just wanted to add that for a longer term perspective.  Also, new threads go to the bottom of talk pages, so I moved this down. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN THE MAIN TOPIC -JAN LOKPAL BILL and the following matter in 'See Also'???
1. Sarva siksha matri bhasama nadinu sukshma gatima das banaunu. 2. Matako dudh sisulai siksha matri bhasama, prabhav parchha sristilai prakashko gatima. 3. Sodharthile sodh patra matri bhasama bujhaunu, janma siddha adhikar ra kartavya ho. 4. What mother's milk is to baby, mother tongue is to education. 5. Research scholars should be given the option to submit thesis in their mother tongue.

Shankarr1977 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like another editor correctly removed that info. You're right that it doesn't appear to have anything to do with this article (and isn't in English, as it would need to be to be here).  When you see irrelevant information, you're welcome to be bold and remove it yourself.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that we merge Prominent personalities supporting Jan Lokpal Bill into this article. However, when we do so, I propose that we do not merge the entire list, person for person. Instead, we choose some of the most notable, and describe the rest in summary prose. For example, regarding the entertainers, we would say something like "A number of entertainers have also expressed support for the Bill, such as..." then list 2 or 3 of the most prominent. Additionally, we should, if possible, find notable opponents (either people or groups) and include those as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been about 9 days since I proposed this; unless I hear otherwise, I'll run this merge through in about 2 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Joyson Noel   Holla at me!  09:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - just do it. The list may become a magnet for trivial additions but anything is better than the present arrangement. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have completed the merger. Note that I only brought over a few select names, as providing a big long list here would (in my opinion) violate WP:UNDUE.  Perhaps if we had a list of people in opposition, we might include more, but having a big long list (especially in bullet format, which make the list physically very long), it implies that there are just a massive number of supporters and no major opposition.  If anyone thinks that any of the names I left out are particularly important, feel free to post here (say, if there's an entertainer that was on the old list who is particularly known for being influential in politics) and we can evaluate addition. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about recent addition to Criticism section
I'm concerned about the newly added paragraph to section 7.3 (you can see the addition in this sequence of edits by Kijacob). For one, some of it appears to potentially be original research. Anytime we're looking at the primary text of a law, and interpreting what it may or may not mean, that's original research. It's a little unclear to me how much of this paragraph is based on the secondary sources, and how much is based on Kijacob's own interpretation. Second, I'm concerned that not all of the sources are reliable--some appear to be opinion pieces, not factual reporting. Third, I don't even see how it's criticism--that is, it just seems to be the different groups' perspectives on the bill. I'm not going to revert it though, as I think there may be a core there that is useful, and I may even be wrong in my assessment. Opinions of others? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, thank you for your careful review! On your first point, I debated whether I should add more references, but decided not to clutter with too many references. After reading your comments, I think I should add more references, which I will do when I get sometime. On sources, from what I understand, they are all major newspapers in India. Ref 39 is in the opinion section, others are news or news analysis. About your last point, I was reluctant to put only criticisms (on any issues), so I added statements that are critical and tried to balance with opinions from the other side (ref 39 is one of them) - just to give a balanced view. I can take out all the statements other than criticisms, then it might look somewhat one sided, since we do not have a section to give only the interpretations of the supporters. This bill is rather ambiguous, so most commentaries and interpretations we see now are going to evolve with time. But if there are concerns with the section I added, I would be happy to remove or modify it. Will wait for opinions. kijacob (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Drafting of the Bill
We currently have this: "The bill was collaboratively drafted by Shanti Bhushan, retired Indian Police Service officer Kiran Bedi[citation needed], Justice N. Santosh Hegde, advocate Prashant Bhushan, and former chief election commissioner J. M. Lyngdoh, in wide public consultation with the leaders of the India Against Corruption movement and civil society. The original bill was mooted[clarification needed] by the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) in its delegated committee.[citation needed]" However, I am unable to find Kiran Bedi, or Shanti Bhusan. For example, from http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/what-is-the-jan-lokpal-bill-why-its-important-96600 "Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde (former Supreme Court Judge and present Lokayukta of Karnataka), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Arvind Kejriwal (RTI activist), the draft Bill envisages a system where a corrupt person ..." and "Retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi and other known people like Swami Agnivesh, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Anna Hazare and Mallika Sarabhai are also part of the movement, called India Against Corruption." We probably need to change that part unless we can find appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kijacob (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree--unless we have sources that verify each of the names, we need to remove them. Since we have a whole section on the Draft Committee, I'm going to remove the entire paragraph, and replace it with something that matches what we have verified in that section. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the resulting organization is called Lokpal, and the bill by the civil group is Jan Lokpal, the bill that is being drafted is a compromise bill. Minor changes to reflect these, please verify. I will see whether I can find a dependable history of the Jan Lokpal version of the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kijacob (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

propose to merge both the articles Lokpal and Janlokpal bill in to one
Lokpal is a proposed ombudsman, constituted by passing a bill in Indian parliament. There are differences on ambit of the said ombudsman and the provisions of the bill, between the government and the civil society. Civil society labeled their version of the draft of bill as Jan Lokpal Bill and government version labeled as Lokpal bill. Ultimately when constituted, the ombudsman should be call as Lokpal (Sanskrit words "loka" (people) and "pala" (protector/caretaker)). Therefore it would be confusing for the readers since we have two articles for same subjects. I propose to merge both the articles Lokpal and Jan Lokpal Bill in to one – Lokpal --<span style="font- weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 1px; padding: 1px 3px;"> .  Shlok  talk. 08:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood at first. Well, I just removed about 2/3 of the other article, because much of it was either a copyright violation (copied from our own articles without attribution) or unsourced personal opinion.  In fact, I'm not sure that there's anything there that isn't already here.  So, yes, that article should be merged into this one, if there is anything there that isn't here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am Chinmay. I want to note that Lokpal bill(Govt version) is in Indian Sansad. And it is much different than Jan Lokpal (Anna Hazare Team Version).

So we do not need to merge, but to give tags Govt version to Lokpal & Anna Team Version to other. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHINMAY123456 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the top-level merge between Lokpal and the present article is complete. The resulting article still needs some work -MK 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Differences in versions
All information in Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. While I didn't look at the details of the most recent change to this section, since it switched from using an actual reliable source to using a self-published version, I had to revert the whole thing. Please don't replace reliably sourced material with unreliably sourced or unsourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the edits from 61.11.125.231, You mentioned that "The prime minister was included in govt's draft in April but was removed later. The times source is old and outdated" is the reason for your edit. But that is exactly the point, why your addition should go into a different section rather than the place you are putting it in (as I mentioned earlier). The existing differences section is for the bill from 2010 and the Jan Lok Pal bill provided for historic reasons. The current bill by the government is different, it is 2011 version. Rather than removing the previous item to add PMs issue (which will take away the historic content), it can go in a new section describing the current bill. The content is correct and truthful, but the location where it is put is not the right place. Also there are far better references than Bhasker.com --Kijacob (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the "draft version" listed in that section is outdated, then the whole section should be removed. Wikipedia doesn't need to report on the differences between a very old version of a bill and an old version of the bill. Such a level of detail goes beyond what we should provide. To be honest, I don't even think we need a differences section at all--we merely need to state what the current bill is. This would solve a lot of the understandable confusion in editing that section (by simply removing the section). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the last statement, in fact at this time there is no Jan Lokpal bill. But this is probably the wrong time to make those changes - seems like political passion is running high now, from what I see from newspapers. Maybe after a week. ps. my earlier comment was for 61.11.125.231 if he/she happen to read it. --Kijacob (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Difference between Draft Lokpal Bill 2010 and Jan Lokpal Bill" section contained descriptions from the current bill and the draft bill from 2010. Modified so that all the entries are consistent for 2010. 2011 comparison is given below that, whatever form it takes, after the resolution. --Kijacob (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete differences section debate

 * The section "Complete differences" is based on the info present on the IAC website dated June 23, 2011]. This is the latest info, as per my understanding.Veryhuman (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just removed the whole section. We never say, "Well, this source is unreliable, but it's the best we have, so here's what it says".  If we have no reliable source, we do not add the info to Wikipedia--it's that simple.  If someone finds a reliable source comparing the old version and the new version, or the government version and the Hazare version, or any other comparison that is relevant to the current version(s), then include that.  Until then, it may not be there. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand why this is not reliable. It is from one of the very parties involved in the very debate, explaining in detail each of the differences between the bill. It is as reliable as it can get!. Our job is to add the neutral POV, not blanket-delete the whole thing. Veryhuman (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, in fact, it's the exact opposite of reliable. First, that site is just a generic hosting site--there is no evidence that the document was certainly uploaded by any of the parties in question--for all I can tell, it could have been written by a random person, or even by the government to make the other side look band.  Second, even if you were to verify it's posted by the IAC, that makes it a self-published source and most certainly does not meet the very limited exceptions for self-published sources as found in WP:ABOUTSELF.  This is because it is highly self-serving, is a claim about a third party, and there is reason to doubt its authenticity.  Unless you can find a neutral, independent source that compares the different versions, this information may not be in the article.  If you think I'm wrong, take the issue to WP:RSN (or, if you haven't taken issue to noticeboards before, let me know and I can do it).  But please not re-add the info because including a source from one side and acting as though it's reliable information not only violates WP:V, it also violates WP:NPOV.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IAC is an interest group and what they say is not a reliable source for a neutral account - it is biased towards their objectives.--Kijacob (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is issue with WP:NPOV, but I do not agree it is a non-reliable source. This information is from the very drafters of the bill - it is certainly not unreliable. IAC activists drafted the Jan Lokpal Bill. As for NPOV, one can always remove the comments and opinions in the differences, but as editors of Wikipedia, it is important to provide BOTH points of view and not filter our views based on our own assumptions and beliefs. I agree for now that the opinions can be taken out, but the differences between the bills is very much reliable. Veryhuman (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution to this issue is adding more references to each of the issues in the table, but most certainly, NOT blanket-deleting it. This seriously compromises the quality of this article and is based on wrong assumptions. If this section is not deleted, it will give me time to satisfy the NPOV condition better. So I request not deleting it. Veryhuman (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding. By the rules in WP:V and WP:RS, that source is definitely not reliable.  It's good that you verified the authenticity of the document, but please read WP:ABOUTSELF.  Self-published sources are never reliable to provide information about third parties.  Since you're not understanding, I'll raise this on the reliable sources noticeboard to get clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request for input at WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the WP:ABOUTSELF issue. However, I think it is important to understand that deleting something is an easy power and should be exercised wisely. Please refrain from blanket deleting...in cognizance to the issues you raised, I am adding additional references to each of the statements and "constructing" anything takes time. I'd request patience and not rush into deleting things...I am adding references to address the WP:V issue, if you take a look at the section again. Veryhuman (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see this in The Hindu - but this is also in the opinion section --Kijacob (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kijacob. I have read several sections of both bills and the table is correct. In addition, the Hindu article also notes the specific clauses where there are differences. I think thats quite sufficient. Thanks for bringing this to the notice. Veryhuman (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Veryhuman, I am fine with the table of differences (the first three columns), but I am also struggling to find a good neutral reference to satisfy the requirement, and having a bit difficult time. If we can find a good reference, we might want to modify the comments section to appear them to have come from a neutral person, rather than one group criticizing the other. You put in a lot of work in this page, very commendable. --Kijacob (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Found another neutral source of differences Times of India. But I agree, the section needs to be "Worked Upon" to make it more NPOV... Veryhuman (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent - that one is a neutral source. One thing we should decide is whether to keep the highlight section - that is from last year comparing the government bill they proposed in 2010- I worked on that earlier this year. Although the Jan version remained more or less the same, the government has changed somewhat. So if we are going to keep the highlight section for historic reasons, we should make it clear that it is about the old version, and the one you introduced are the differences in the current version. We can get rid of the highlights, although I rather keep it to see how the government version has changed--Kijacob (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Am moving this discussion to another section (see below) Veryhuman (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Times of India citation is excellent. I would be exceedingly happy if you removed any differences (lines/rows) from that table that are not covered in the TOI source, and, once that's done, removed all links to the IAC page, since it is an advocacy page and does not meet WP:RS (it doesn't even meet WP:EL, and should not be linked at all in this article). If you want to "save" those lines rather than delete them, moving them to a userspace draft/sandbox is perfectly fine.  I have other concerns about the table, but those can wait.  The first thing is to make sure we are not including an unsourced information. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the source, since it's no longer needed (the news sources are sufficient). Now, there's a problem with the "commentary".  We cannot include commentary primarily from one side.  It is not correct that we can include the one sided criticism and "wait" for other criticism to appear.  That's a very disingenuous taking of NPOV.  In fact, we shouldn't have so much commentary anyway--our job is not to provide a detailed list of every single position of each side on every single point.  That's the job of an advocacy site, or a political information site, or one of the partisan sites.  What I'm going to do is to copy the table as it currently stands to a sub page, then I'm going to remove the two rightmost columns from the article.  If anyone wants to recover very important (i.e., meeting WP:DUE opinions, and integrate them somewhere other than the table, fine.  Finally, after that, I'm going to go through and fix the descriptions--right now, one side's description is long and verbose, and the other side is highly simplistic.  This itself presents a POV (as if one side has thought out its arguments far more).  I don't know if I can finish all of that now, but I will try. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind--I'm putting it here in a collapse box rather than on a subpage for easier access:

Detailed
The following table details differences between the Jan Lokpal Bill being offered by the Government and the one offered by Anna Hazare's team, as described in The Hindu and Times of India.

Lokpal first introduced in 1968 or 1977
I've just noticed that the background section says the bill was first drafted in 1968 by Shanti Bhushan. But article on Shanti Bhushan says he did it in 1977? It also ties with the fact that he became the law minister from 1977. --MK 12:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1968. This is the most trustworthy source - Minutes of meeting of the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lokpal Bill. See Page 3, point 6 Veryhuman (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wicked! I knew it'd be useful to post here. Thanks. --MK 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider revising title of section
the current title of the section "Complete set of differences between Jan Lokpal and Government's Lokpal bill (2011)" may be abbreviated as it is too long and unwieldy. Any suggestions? Veryhuman (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like we think alike. I've demoted the highlights and differences to subsection. Hopefully this should make it a bit better reading --MK 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great MK..Thanks! Veryhuman (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS
Couldnt add on to your comment in previous section.

Thanks for the great job of rewriting the section. Also, I feel that although it is WP:RECENTISM, it also satisfies WP:EVENT, according to which "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". The section satisfies both criterias of notability - Notable event and significant & diverse coverage. In addition, for a recentism-affected article, WP:10YT suggests comprehensive rewrite after the edits have died down, which I think is the optimal route here. Also see 10YT. So I'd suggest keeping the information for sometime. If further drafts do not satisfy WP:EVENT, then they need to be summarized rather than elaborated with specifics. In any case, at some point, this info needs to be summarized. Veryhuman (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the article should be deleted, or that the bills are not notable. I'm saying that the difference between the two versions is only informative now, and by definition cannot have lasting significance.  Except to the very narrow field of historians of law-making (not our target audience), there will never be a time in the future where someone will need to know exactly what state the bills were in in August 2011.  Again, I'm not suggesting that the Jan Lokpal Bill isn't notable; rather, I'm suggesting that the difference between the two is WP:UNDUE.  Note that while WP:Recentism is an essay, you're misinterpreting WP:10YT.  That section is not saying that you should let in everything and anything during the period of heightened interest; rather, it's saying that, at some point, you need to cut out the fluff.  You can wait, but nothing says you have to.  Remember WP:UNDUE is a policy (part of WP:NPOV), and my argument is that a list of differences between two specific draft versions of a law, almost certainly neither of which will actually become law (if anything passes, it will be a compromise version), is undue to the general topic of the Jan Lokpal Bill.  I could live with a 1 paragraph comparison, focusing on the fact that there are differences, the differences sparked controversy, and broadly stating what those differences are in prose.  The massive table gives way too much prominence to what is only slightly more important than trivia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. The most distracting part, however, are the first three sections - Key features, Differences (2010) and Latest differences. They, together, end up consuming a huge amount of space with redundant info which, as u say, can be summarized in prose. I'm all for deleting/super-summarizing the first two sections. However, I also feel that people have been coming to this page very frequently the last two days, most possibly to understand the salient features and what the whole protest is about. The difference section forms the crux, the soul of the protests raging across India. Thats my argument for keeping the table form, for now - its much more clearer and easier to udnerstand. Again, I understand this is not ideal for an encyclopedic format. So, you decide... Veryhuman (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be called Lokpal Bill?
The more I read about this, the more I realize that the bill itself is called Lokpal Bill. However the version that is being put by the activists is called Jan Lokpal Bill (or the the People's Lokpal Bill). Would it make sense for this article to be renamed to the Lokpal bill and the lead modified to mention the above? --MK 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea MK. However, I think several things need to be revamped so that it becomes clear we are talking about two different versions. Currently, it looks like a huge mishmash. Maybe the article can be moved to another name at some later point Veryhuman (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I have changed the Lead accordingly. --MK 18:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Small fix needed: "nearly over" should simply be "over"
The opening paragraph has the text: "has failed to become law for nearly over four decades." "Nearly over" doesn't make sense. Either it's nearly (under but close), or it's over. In this case, it's 42 years, which is over 40.

I don't have permissions to edit this, could someone please fix it? Benkc (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done It was I who wrote it and I see your point. Corrected. --MK 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

CBI
CBI can mean many things. Rather than linking to that, CBI should link to the federal agency of India that serves as a criminal investigation body, national security agency and intelligence agency. This would be accomplished if, in the article, this ! CBI were changed to this ! CBI This is my request for an edit to a semi-protected page. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The CBI will be merged into the Lokpal.
 * The CBI will remain a separate agency.
 * The CBI will be merged into the Lokpal.
 * The CBI will remain a separate agency.

Done I actually changed it to spell out the name in the title so that people who don't know what it is will understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My understanding is that a combo FBI-NSA-CIA is unlikely to be mooshed up into the ombudsman, but who knows? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Old vs new version of Lokpal Bill
One thing we should decide is whether to keep the highlight section - that is from last year comparing the government bill they proposed in 2010- I worked on that earlier this year. Although the Jan version remained more or less the same, the government has changed somewhat. So if we are going to keep the highlight section for historic reasons, we should make it clear that it is about the old version, and the one you introduced are the differences in the current version. We can get rid of the highlights, although I rather keep it to see how the government version has changed--Kijacob (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Moved by Veryhuman (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was checking out the differences. Suo moto difference still holds (Chapter VII, pt 23 of Lokpal Bill). If I understand correctly, "on receipt of a complaint" means no suo moto. Advisory Body difference has changed slightly (?) (Chapter III, pt. 15). "no police powers and no ability to register an FIR". This has changed, but see "Method of Enquiry" in Detailed section and (Chapter 3, pt 13(2)). "CBI and Lokpal" still holds. I think the highlights should be the most important points of the current version (even in the future) or could be taken off, while the previous version differences can be rewritten in text form. Veryhuman (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're engaging in original research again--looking at the laws directly and comparing them is you looking at 2 primary sources and making an interpretation of the differences. It's simply not allowed.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know...thats why I didnt make any changes to those sections on the main page, nor did I propose to make comments about evolution of the two bills. I just proposed summarizing the previous version/eliminating it. :)  Veryhuman (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing the protests section
I feel this is an article about the Bill and the protests section is more suited for the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement article. I think the whole section needs to be summarized or merged with other sections, more so since WP:NOTNEWS. If no one objects to this, I will go ahead Veryhuman (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrinking the section would be OK, keeping the link to the protests article. I think eliminating the section would be bad. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - but also second retaining the section to hold prominent events --MK 13:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Done Veryhuman (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of this talk page
How about archiving some of the older discussions that are no longer relevant. If no one objects I will do this --MK 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the same thing. Gr8! Go ahead :) Veryhuman (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll turn on auto-archiving, set at 30 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Iacvanilla, 21 August 2011
Difference between Government and activist drafts under tables 'Highlights' and 'Details' are not properly columnised leading to confusion. Please put Jan Lokpal in first column under both tables.

Iacvanilla (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: From what I'm reading here only the one was called the Jan Lokpal Bill whereas the other was just called the Lokpal Bill. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a bill?
AFAIK, a "bill" is a proposed piece of legislation being considered, or scheduled to be considered in order to be voted up or down by a legislative body in charge of promulgating legislation upon its charges, as defined by the body's charter and/or constitution.

The Jan Lokpal Bill, for all its virtues, has neither been introduced nor is scheduled to be introduced in front of such a body. In light of this, a title of Jan Lokpal Bill is misleading. This article should be renamed to Jan Lokpal Bill (proposed) or something similar.

अभय नातू (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * p.s. Any responses or views? अभय नातू (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say that there is a problem with the name in a technical sense, but almost all of our sources call them both Bills. The problem I have is that this article talks about both bills, but only includes the name of one.   Perhaps the correct title is something more like "2011 proposed anti-corruption laws in India".  And, of course, leave redirects from the other names.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Source list removed
I just removed the following long list of sources that was at the top of the "Support for the Bill" section; we don't just provide a bunch of sources without text to support them. These appear to mostly be news reports, and as such, would not qualify as External links. If someone wants to use any of them as references to support some text, feel free to move them back to the right place. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, based on the section below--it looks like what was done was that the person added all of the refs to the very beginning of one section, then used ref names for each of the inline citations. When using inline, ref name citations, the best approach is that the first time the source appears, add the full citation, then, all subsequent times, use just the name.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversies
I have just removed the controversies section. Most of that has nothing to do with the bill itself. Truthfully, much of this article should be removed (especially the bulk of the Support and Criticisms section). Some of this info may belong in 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, but not here. Everyone needs to remember: we are not a news feed trying to provide every piece of information about the bill and all of the actions and people in India that are somewhat related to it. We are trying to preserve an encyclopedic summary of the view, with perhaps a little bit of information about he events surrounding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * References 64 to 74 in the article are screaming red errors now. Would you be willing to revert and then be more careful? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't even look at the ref section, though I definitely should have. I have just re-added the controversy section for now; actually moving over all of the references is going to take a bit of work, so I'll do it later and then re-deleted the section.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually had to undo both of my edits, since the references were scattered throughout them. Ah, I see that it's actually that big list of references just hanging out at the top of the Support section.  Again, I'll move over the refs later and then scrap the section and refs that don't belong. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixing one's own blunders isn't all that common - usually someone else gets to clean up the mess. I am impressed!  Perhaps this would help prevent such an unpleasant chore:  when editing a section, I can eyeball the references by appending  to the section in preview, however this does require me to never fail to get rid of my little  helper before saving the change. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking as answered, I believe this is now taken care of by Qwyrzian's self-reverts Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill will be passed
Someone ought to mention it immediately. <FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT> <FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me!</FONT>  16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/absolutely-says-parliament-to-anna-no-vote-required-fast-ends-at-10-am-129474
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Anna-Hazare-wins-Parliament-passes-resolution-on-Lokpal-Bill/articleshow/9760064.cms
 * The Bill has gone to some standing committe. -http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/text-of-parliament-resolution-on-annas-demands-129491. "We have won half the battle," - said Anna. Rest is "A series of impressive speeches".<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011  19:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that definitely doesn't say "will be passed". In fact, the ToI article says that the Hazare team felt "betrayed", because all they did was a "sense of the House" vote (which, as far as I can understand, means they all voted to say that maybe they kinda think this might be a good idea sometime, so could you please stop fasting?" I'll look for a place to add it soon. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, y'all got it already! Minor tweak coming from me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarity of section "Timeline of Lokpal and cost"
There's no indication or any introductory sentence describing what these years and funds mean. Clarification would greatly help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrobeaver-alpha (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Names
Let's please discuss the issue before adding more names of supporters. That section is already long enough, and it is WP:UNDUE to simply list everyone who's been quotes as supporting. If someone really wants to make a case for a particular new inclusion, please explain here. Known personalities as supporters provide real context. Please include Narayana Murthy, Anupam Kher, Chetan Bhagat as supporters of the Janlokpal bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.183.170 (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia had first carried information on Lokpal with the right heading under LOKPAL, but it is mischievous or prejudicial to merge Lokpal with Jan Lokpal. It is not the same. Wikipedia should refrain from subversive acts and thoughts of such nature. I would like to edit this page as urgently as possible as it is highly misleading. Jan Lokpal is a suggested document which is forced by a dubious group of people which has a well-oiled propoganda machinery with all dubious funding that has misappropriated public space and has done so in this space as well. I appeal to Wikipedia to rise to the occasion and not allow any mischievaous propaganda to substitute Lokpal with Jan Lokpal. We will try to expose Wikipedia and the source of such propoganda that Wikipedia supports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.36.203 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sure you can provide reliabe sources to back up your claims?  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 17:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Split
The result was no consensus. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to discuss Lokpal, the government's Lokpal Bill and the Jan Lokpal Bill. All there are seperate and notable individually. They should have seperate articles. Some of the criticism is ambiguous. Does it refer to Lokpal (the actual committee)? Or the government's Lokpal Bill? Or the Jan Lokpal Bill? I suggest that the article be split into at least three articles (Lokpal, and the two bills), or even more, if any of the individual bills ('71, '77, '85, etc.) are notable enough on their own. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Lokpal is the name of the proposed ombudsman body, Lokpal bill is the official name of the bill, the Jan lokpal bill is the activist-driven title under which the peoples changes are being suggested. This split would make more sense after more details on each of these entities make it to the article --MK 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Split will make more sense after the functions of Lokpal are more clear. Veryhuman (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There would be nothing to write in "Lokpal", because the organization may never exist, and, if it does, we don't know in what form.  We should not have separate articles about the two competing bill forms; however, I'm not sure which title we should use for this article.  Personally, it's not wortht he effort anyway since eventually all of this is going to get folded into "Lokpal" or whatever is the final, actually legal result.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I started out supporting it, then I changed my mind. Keep it the same for now. There is another proposal call Aam jan lokpal bill. That can be added to the comparison table as well. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. We should either split the article or we should rename the article. Jan Lokpal bill is the name of version drafted by IAC and having a article with the name of one version is not very neutral. - abhi (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should, but you could unmerge it. It was merged about a week ago - see the top of talk here. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I find this very informative and readable when all in one place, and have forwarded this to many as a source of reference for our discussions. Hence I am against splitting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.136.36 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename. This should simply be renamed as Lokpall Bill, looking at its history and also the name it would get when enacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romilsworld (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Split. Once the watchdog Lokpal has been created, split it. There is a Wikipedia article for States Reorganisation Act of 1956 and there are articles for each state such as Haryana, Karnataka, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tri400 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 August 2011
 * Oppose : Jan Lokpal bill is the name given to the version of the bill proposed by the activists and has been given a different working name only to differentiate it from the governments official version. Splitting the article into makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouraces (talk • contribs) 11:37, 29 August 2011