Talk:Sallekhana/Archive 1

untitled
62.206.18.190 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)good

Not suicide bias?
The conclusion of Questions regarding legality reads alittle in favour of the opinion that Santhara is not suicide.

The sentance "Viewed from this perspective, Santhara cannot be termed suicide and, hence, there should be no question regarding its illegality" doesn't really need to be said as thats an obvious conclusion from a person of that opinion but in this context it reads as a conclusion as if this was an essay on the subject.

The definition of suicide as "When a person commits suicide, it is usually in anger or depression. The act of suicide is conducted by isolating oneself from the world and the purpose can be given in a suicide note." is all unsubstaniated and probably should needs a citation thing.

Prehaps the defintion of suicide from Indian law and other countries should be quoted.

Max white (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say this. The legal controversy section is very obviously slanted; needs work.

110.174.132.150 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

These statements doesn't appear now. Nimit (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sallekhana. 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/20120507140804/http://www.omc.ca:80/omni/archives/000036.html to http://www.omc.ca/omni/archives/000036.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So...what the heck is it?
After reading all the way down to the bottom of the page, I gather that this is an ascetic practice of refusing food and drink when you are terminally ill. Maybe the lead should actually explain that?68.147.177.68 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead do mention what it is and also conditions which should be satisfied in order to observe this vow. Still, I will try to improve it further.-जैन (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead does NOT mention that this is a fast unto death, in fact it seems to be (somewhat defensively in my opinion) trying to divert from a directly stated mention of exactly that. 217.38.163.99 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, I had to follow the link for Fasting in Jainism, which had a single line on Sallekhana elaborating it as a fast unto death to actually find this out. I would think this would need to be rather prominently featured in the article lead? It can be a highly respected practice and also be a fast unto death / suicide. 217.38.163.99 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Suicide
The practice this article refers to meets the English-language definition of suicide, so it is inaccurate to edit the article in such a way as to imply that it is not suicide. That the Jain religion has an alternative conception of suicide that does not encompass Sallekhana that bears mentioning, but it does not justify expunging references to the common English-language conception.GideonF (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court of India stayed the order that wanted sallekhana to be treated as suicide. So the matter is in court, and both view points are mentioned in the article. No need to call it suicide just because you can't understand the practice. The vow can observed for no less than 12 years. So how does it suit the definition of suicide? Regards, -जैन (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't India, this is the English-language Wikipedia and in the English language it is suicide. Suicide is intentionally causing ones own death. Apologies if you are a non-native English speaker. If you have no further arguments to make I will restore the removed information and treat further attempts to remove it as unconstructive.GideonF (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the complete statement. Now, please first discuss.-जैन (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what there is to discuss. The article is about a kind of ritual suicide, everyone except you agrees that it is, and you are trying to edit it in such a way as to make it unclear. Why?GideonF (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "What's there to discuss"? That also you will decide? And it was a hot issue and not only me, but most newspaper editorials supported the view that the lower court has made a mistake, which was corrected by the order of the Supreme Court of India.-जैन (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which other Wikipedia editors support your attempts to remove factual content from this article? The Supreme Court of India has no jurisdiction here and its opinion is irrelevant.GideonF (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Factual? So you want to say that what you believe is right and the opinion of eminent personalities like Judges and editors of esteemed newspapers is not important? You have done very much wrong in adding a wrong wikilink in the lead. This is clear Vandalism.-जैन (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you are unclear about what the word "suicide" means in English. It may be that a word in your native language which genuinely does not apply to Sallekhana has been mistranslated as suicide and that is the source of your confusion, but in English intentionally causing ones own death is called suicide regardless of whether religiously motivated. Accusing people of vandalism does nothing to help your case.GideonF (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Linking the concept of voluntarily ending one's life with suicide is perfectly acceptable.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It may seem suicide to a person who is not aware of its objective and peculiarities. But shouldn't we consider the opinion of those who have the required knowledge of the practice in question. A person shouldn't make any comment (if solution is what one desire) without referring to the available literature. Regards,-जैन (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in the unlikely event you can find anyone who agrees with you, you can't mandate that only people who agree with you comment.GideonF (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Someone needs to put the stick down.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm no one to mandate or stop anyone from joining the discussion. I just want that the literature regarding this practice should be considered.-जैन (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Jainist [Jain], but as I see it, since Jain scripture says that Sallekhana is not suicide, equating Sallekhana to suicide by the use of a Wikilink in the first sentence of the article is an insult to Jainism and is not promoting a neutral point of view. The link should be moved to later in article where the word suicide is actually used. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Failing to equate Sallekhana with suicide is a violation of NPOV, because suicide is what it is regardless of what Jain scripture says. Judeo-Christian scripture says bats are birds, but Wikipedia correctly describes them as mammals.  Sallekhana is a way of intentionally ending ones own life, and a link to the parent article that describes the whole topic of self-inflicted death, of which Sallekhana is an example, is wholly appropriate.  The fact that Jains differentiate it from other forms of suicide is noteworthy and should be mentioned.  What would be useful would be to know the Prakrit word that is actually used in the Jain scriptures to refer to forms of suicide other than Sallekhana, since English does not observe the distinction.GideonF (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How many Christians and Jews seriously argue that bats are birds? None that I've heard of. I also don't think that refusing to eat food is necessarily suicide. What about refusing medical treatment, such as chemotherapy? Is that also suicide? A distinction could be made between actively ending one's life and passively refusing to extend it. In any case, in my opinion the Wikilink which you added is needlessly provocative and should be moved to later in the article. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one who brought scriptures into it, not me. Intentionally starving oneself to death is suicide . Sallekhana is a sub-category of the larger category of suicide and the lead is the correct place for a link to the article about the broader category to which Sallekhana belongs. Jains do observe a distinction between Sallekhana and other forms of suicide, and it is important that it be mentioned; but we need to know the word Jains actually use to refer to other forms of suicide that is being mistranslated as "suicide".GideonF (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The dictionary definition of "suicide" which you cited doesn't necessarily support the idea that Sallekhana is suicide. "The intentional taking of one's own life" is a positive action, whereas not eating food is passive. Instead of creating a Wiklink to suicide for the words "facing death voluntarily at the end of one's life", which is contrary to the admonition in WP:NPOV to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, it would be better to add a statement in the lead section such as "There is a dispute in the Indian courts about whether Sallekhana is a form of suicide and is therefore illegal." Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a seriously contested assertion. This is a translation problem, not an argument about whether Sallekhana is suicide. It is.GideonF (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any reference to support your claim that sallekhana is suicide. Those who have researched about the practice, have acknowledged the fact that it's not suicide. I request you to first go through the books on the subject. Also, it's unfortunate that while the discussion is on here, you have added the "suicide bar" to the page. -जैन (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello I see you have recently reverted my edit. Can you please help us understand why do you want to add a navbox to this page, which doesn't even contain any link to this page in first place? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

- I'm reminded of the old saw: "Question - If you say that a dog's tail is a leg, how many legs does the dog have. Ansser - 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Deciding not to eat, is an active decision, as opposed to the folks who don't have the choice and starve to death. While the argument can be made (and has been above), that not eating is a passive action, the decision to do that is an active one, which results in the person's death. Researched it. Definitely suicide. The fact that it has a spiritual component is irrelevant as to whether or not it's suicide. And, the taking of one's life is suicide, regardless if it is by passive or active means. If someone does not move out of the way of a moving train, that's suicide.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please avoid such statements. Might I remind you that we are not scholars here. We are mere editors using Wikipedia to Express the views of scholars with references. Please avoid WP:POV and WP:SYNTH. Let the readers decide whether it's suicide or not based on the cited views of scholars. Let's just stick to what we are here for. Further please elaborate the what is the need for adding a controversial Navbox that doesn't even contain any link to this article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well, a dictionary definition is a pretty darn good scholarly cite. In fact, in my opinion, it pretty much trumps opinions of anyone, scholarly or not. Interesting to note that you consider my comments above synthesis and yet are mute on the large majority of the comments of other editors who try to interpret that dictionary definition. Finally, I have no clue as to what you are talking about regarding the addition of a "controversial Navbox". Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether sallekhana is or is not suicide, my main objection to 's edits is that equating sallekhana to suicide using a Wikilink assumes a fact which is under dispute within the context of Jainism. It's like editing the Book of Genesis article and changing a citation of Genesis 1:1 to say "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". I think we should show more neutrality when discussing religious issues, regardless of our personal beliefs. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No religious group nor any government gets to alter the English language wholesale. The Indian government may make a legal decision that it is or isn't suicide by legal definition in their country but that does not change anything for the world at large. Arguments may not be constrained to the narrow confines of India. Purporting to the rest of the world that they don't get it because they are not Jain may be countered with the converse statement that it is the Jain who don't get that it is suicide regardless of what they happen to convince themselves. After looking at sources on both sides, I'm not convinced that it isn't suicide. In a nutshell, this argument is about whether a group which have created a distinction for themselves can sell it to the rest of the world.
 * Jains perfectly understand what sallekhanā is. Such statements are not needed here. Why instead of focusing on references, everyone is giving out his/her own opinion (as if they have understood "Jainism" and its philosophy without reading a word about it)? Also, Rajasthan High Court's order was stayed by "The Supreme Court of Inida". So, no need to cite it. -जैन (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "stay" is temporary pending further evaluation. The ruling has not been overturned and indeed citable. This is now an RfC and consensus will decide what should happen here regardless of what scholars and judges have stated elsewhere. POV references may well be dismissed by a consensus of editors which is why we will also be discussing common sense issues. Just because you are seeing the Emperor's New Clothes doesn't mean that the rest of us are. I'm neutral...clearly you aren't as you have a POV and cherry-picking your sources. So far, your sources haven't convinced me and you will need to convince others here as they arrive for the RfC.
 * I'm just asking people to first understand the philosophy and read some literature available on the practice. Also, my POV doesn't matter and I've cited sources which are way better than the sources you've cherry-picked. A person (that too a High court Judge) who has authored a book on the subject will obviously be having more knowledge of the practice than any random article writer. Also, a look at Justice Katju's opinion (on other matters) will make you say: "Hey! he can't be trusted." For example, he wrote in one of his blog post that beloved Netaji was a Japanese agent.-जैन (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to put the discussion in context, I would like to point out few things. Jain philosophy condemns suicide as the biggest crime and the person commiting such act is said to be reborn in 7th (worst) hell. Sallekhana, on the other hand, is considered a pious practice which only spiritually supreme person is capable and allowed to do. Further, those arguing that it's suicide are commenting on only partial thing. Sallekhana is practising fast unto death when end is near. Ignoring fast and end is near and only cherry picking practicing death is not justified. In the last, suicide would be better linked to the word suicide which has ample appearance in article. Linking a whole phrase to the word is equivalent to ignoring the subjective nature of it. And the Suicide sidebar is highly out of context here since Sallekhana is not there in the sidebar, nor does it appear in the article Suicide. Please consider these things once and reply. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  04:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The sidebar links to suicide methods which links back here. You can't expect every single suicide method to be listed in the sidebar.GideonF (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, the sidebar is already there at suicide methods. It is not needed here. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How's that work?GideonF (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sallekhanā is not suicide
I have created this separate section for quoting eminent personalities (Judges and scholars) who have studied the practice of sallekhanā and found that it can't be termed suicide.-Nimit (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A complete book on this subject: Sallekhanā Is Not Suicide by Justice T. K. Tukol. "My studies of Jurisprudence, the Indian Penal Code and of criminal cases decided by me had convinced that the vow of Sallekhanā as propounded in the Jaina scriptures is not suicide."

- Justice T. K. Tukol


 * Mr. Shiv Visvanathan on Sallekhana


 * Santhara a component of non-violence: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India


 * M. Pabst Battin (Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, at the University of Utah) writes : "Sallekhana is not be conflated with suicide in any usual sense, and is to be done without striving, without passion, and without emotional arousal or turmoil of any form."

- M. Pabst Battin



...however other scholars and judges say that it is: — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sallekhana: the ethicality and legality of religious suicide by starvation in the Jain religious community from NIH.
 * "retired Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju says the Jains are free to continue the ritual even though he believes that it is illegal" from NPR.
 * The high court in Rajasthan ruled it was suicide from BBC.

Sallekhanā and suicide - Polar opposites
Some posters to help understand the practice better. -Nimit (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the word you are translating as "suicide"? In English, suicide doesn't mean any of those things.GideonF (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Jains distinguish between suicide and Sallekhanā. Therefore, to write in this context of Sallekhanā as a "form of suicide" is simply an abuse of language. Maproom (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if Jains distinguish it, English does not.GideonF (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for your information, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not Dictionary. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there some kind of point you're trying to make?GideonF (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia works on references which is not anywhere in your this edit. I hope, this clarifies your confusion. You should have atleast paid attention to this, as said by . Yet you keep reverting again and again. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not every single word needs to be individually referenced. If the references say it is a person deliberately ending their life, no additional reference is needed to say it is suicide any more than if the references say a number is two plus two an additional reference is required to say it is four. I have already provided the dictionary definition of suicide for the benefit of non-native English speakers who are confused about its meaning, but you insist on not paying attention to it.GideonF (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think you're the only authority on English language? Judges, Philosophy professors, Social scientists and other scholars who have said that "Sallekhanā is not suicide" also know what the word suicide means. You've failed to understand both: "suicide" as well as "sallekhanā". -Nimit (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only authority on English, but I'm a native speaker, unlike the people you're referring to. Do you know the correct word Jains use in their native language to refer to the forbidden forms of suicide? That's the word we should be using for what Sallekhana contrasts with rather than the English word suicide, which covers both.GideonF (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

, I'm a native speaker of English, and in English it's not always clear whether death caused by a refusal to eat food is suicide. Take the Bobby Sands hunger strike, for example. Was his death suicide or was it a protest carried out to the ultimate limit? As I pointed out before, the dictionary definition which you provided doesn't settle the question because it's talking about actively "taking one's own life" rather than passively refusing to prolong it. Within the context of this article I think the question of whether sallekhanā is suicide should be left open, since it's a matter for debate. As I understand it, the Wikipedia edit cycle is supposed to be BRD: boldly edit, revert, discuss. You boldly edited the article to equate sallekhanā with suicide, your change was reverted, and now we're discussing it. Continually restoring your reverted edits is edit warring. You should get a consensus first, and as far as I can see you don't have it. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a bold edit at all, it's a common-sense edit that's being opposed by religiously motivated POV-pushers.GideonF (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I find myself agreeing with here. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that as far as consensus is concerned, you're not even close. I believe it is time to Put the stick down and move on. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  16:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Some points on improvement

 * Legality: This landmark case sparked debate in India, where national bioethical guidelines have been in place since 1980.
 * What is in "national bioethical guidelines"? How it relates to Sallekhana? Please clarify.
 * Legality of Sallekhana is unclear now as India decriminalised "attempting suicide" itself in 2017. Attempting suicide is now considered as a mental health issue. So what happens to Sallekhana being considered as a suicide and so crime by the court?? The relevant provision of the Mental Healthcare Bill states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code." --Nizil (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added accordingly but more updates on issue needed.--Nizil (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You whole argument is based on the assumption that Sallekhana is suicide and covered under section 309, which is not the case yet as per supreme court judgement. So, I would suggest, either, add a source which specifically discuss Sallekhana in light of latest amendment, or ignore the amendment in regards to legal status of Sallekhana altogether. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Rajasthan High Court banned the Sallekhana citing it as an attempt to suicide under IPC 309. The Supreme Court has not pronounced it judgement yet and the subject matter is still sub judice. The Supreme Court has lifted the ban until the final judgement is pronounced by the Supreme Court. Now the IPC 309 itself is decriminalised in March 2017. So attempting suicide is not crime anymore. So is Sallekhana crime now? The Rajasthan Court considered Sallekhana as suicide and so crime. But now issue itself is unclear until the Supreme Court pronounce its judgement. --Nizil (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Stay on Rajasthan High Court implies that Sallekhana is not covered in section 309, till Supreme Court uphold the decision of High Court. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole case was built up on IPC 309. I chose to wrote "unclear" because now IPC 309 is struck down so the Rajsthan Court decision seems void. I think adding the case is now Sub judice would be helpful.--Nizil (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess there is no need for that. The article already mention the fact that case has gone to supreme court and it has imposed a stay on HC order. Further, if anyone go through Sallekhana / Santhara in present legal framework, he / she is not guilty of any crime. So, legally Sallekhana is not a crime, nor it is covered under section 309 in present scenario. If Supreme Court rules otherwise, then the legal status will change and we can add that it is illegal. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I have reorganised some sentences for better readability. Can you please check "national bioethical guidelines" issue mentioned before? What is it? Relevant here? --Nizil (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is already removed. Thank for lively discussion. Legality section seems ✅ now. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the section -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Other points
 * Comparison with suicide:
 * The points on why it is not suicide is made with references. But why it is considered as suicide by some is not made. Why it is considered as suicide by the High Court is not told. I think opinion of opposite side is also needed for NPOV. --- Expnaded, legal views included. ✅
 * In practise: In around 300 BC, Chandragupta Maurya (founder of the Maurya Empire) undertook sallekhana atop Chandragiri Hill, Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa, Karnataka.[28][29][30] Chandragupta basadi at Shravanabelagola (a chief seat of the Jains) marks the place where the saint Chandragupta died.[31] This clearly tells that Chandragupta undertook Sallekhana but Chandragupta Maurya article tells that the accounts unproven but plausible. So it is not clear and proven historic truth that Maurya actually undertook Sallekhana. This sentences should be written differently to include this too.
 * Rewrote sentence. Now under History. ✅ -Nizil (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedure: The duration of the practice could be up to twelve years or more. I think this sentence is misleading. What does it mean? Sallekhana can be of varying length; from few days to years. It depends on how one undertook it; giving up food quickly or gradually. Reword it.--✅
 * Reworded. ✅--Nizil (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * History: History of practice should be included in In Practice section. It should be also included that the practise in not general and practical goal among Svetambara Jains. See ref:
 * ✅--Nizil (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ethics: Sallekhana is an additional or supplementary vow to 12 main vows. So why do we need a textbox and information regarding those 12 vows? It seems irrelevant. I think detailed info on them is already covered in Ethics of Jainism. So we should focus here only on Sallekhana with relevant links for detail.-- Reduced ✅


 * , please note above points and make changes accordingly. Thanks for working on such complex topic. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Final points before GA review
Dear, I have some work for you. Would you do it? Please go through article and point if you have any issues. The article have gone through complete overhaul and reorganisation. Please check for grammar, tone and other WP:MOS issues. And go through reference cross-check once to verify that all refs are verifiable. In Legality section and elsewhere, please remove refs (while cross-checking) which are not needed, less reliable or says the same point again without adding anything so it does not become WP:OVERCITE. If possible, please bring one native English speaking editor for quick copyediting as it will cleanup any grammatical mess left by me. Feel free to bring more editors to look at the article. Once its done, we will ping Aircorn for GA review. ---Nizil (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , please go for quick look and point issues. So I can correct before you go for full fledged GA review. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing jumps out, but as the article has changed quite a bit I will probably have to do a reasonably in depth second review. Will be busy this weekend unfortunately, but will see if I can squeeze a review in. AIR corn (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Source checks
,, others: The Tukol source has only two pages, and no page 5 etc as cited and alleged. Please fix. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this and expanding article further. I will look into Tukol ref later. Looking at your edits, I found that the text added by former editors need serious reference cross-check. I edited and expanded History and Suicide/Legality sections and rearranged text but did not cross-checked refs for texts already cited. I was involved only after it was nominated for GA by other editor and I gave some points on improvement on which I worked later. Thank you for taking pain in all this. I feel bad that I should have checked all this refs before GA pass. Regards and thanks, -Nizil (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , in Tukol correct Google books link added. I have also added some info and reorganised some text. Have a look.--Nizil (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This open access thesis, Sallekhana: A philosophical study, can be helpful in adding philosophical aspect of sallekhana. --Nizil (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. We need to be careful with a college thesis, as parts of them are WP:Primary sources and some present novel non-mainstream speculations. Secondary, mainstream sources are better. Similarly, it is inappropriate to write "sallekhana is not allowed...." based on a primary paper in a psychiatry publication. That is inconsistent with mainstream religious texts and scholarship. Sallekhana is recommended for both layperson and mendicants in many Jain texts, with due preparation. Jain religious texts do not say "is not allowed" or "only allowed" (if you believe they do, identify them please)! This article needs to reflect the mainstream sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ps) Nizil: See this note by admin Nyttend on journalists as RS. I concur with Nyttend, and we need to be careful on when and what parts of a newspaper article to summarize in this or any other wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do understand your concerns regarding PhD thesis and News sources. Both are bit less reliable sources (in context of scholarly studies). The bibliography of thesis may point to some useful sources. Regarding allowed, I understood your clarification and agree with it. Feel free to remove it or reword it.--Nizil (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)