Talk:Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

It bans peaceful arguments for secession
This is significant and is not clear from the entry as it stood. --GwydionM (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding criticisms of the latest version of the Act
This section has a lot of references available since the Act has been actively used a lot Vikram Vincent 09:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

non notable lecture?
Hi ! What is the criteria for "non notable lecture" that you mention here? Vikram Vincent 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi The Lecture Mentioned  Is Non Notable since it lacks adequate coverage and such types of lectures are common in legal fraternity. Pranhita (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * the question that you could also ask are 1. Is the speaker notable? And 2. Is the talk relevant to the topic on the page? I think you are using the term notable in an incorrect context. Vikram Vincent 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:QUOTES has some ideas on the use of quotations and that quote is in sync, specifically the section 'Recommended use' Vikram Vincent 19:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Isn't it ironical since the speaker is a lawyer and Many Lawyers have commented on the topic and the article is created by the speaker itself which lacks notability. I don't find any reference of the same on any other news or media sites. Pranhita (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The equivalent of Other stuff exists is not a good argument in this case. Livelaw and Barandbench are reliable sources for legal news in India. The quote is by a senior advocate who has a page of his own and the content is related to the article. It would be good to revert the delete unless there is a strong reason not to. Thanks Vikram Vincent 19:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just having a wikipedia page of his own isn't sufficient. Also, the article link mentioned is a premium article, thereby the detailed content cannot be verified. It's not a news, but a article by Mihir Desai Itself on his seminar. This should remain deleted. Pranhita (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You should have a look at WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works in the Unacceptable use of self-published works, then you will understand whats wrong in including that to the article. Also, if the event is very much noteworthy can you share some other news or media reference. Pranhita (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that "self-published" work?! The talk by a notable person was published in a reliable law journal and we dont need another one to support the first source. I dont understand what you are trying to convey actually. Can you please articulate your opposition a bit more clearly. Thanks, Vikram Vincent 07:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * have you seen the author of the article ? Suppose Mihir Desai Comments on Every act of the indian law and publishes an article by same on the regards, will it be considered notable? For every acts many notable lawyers publishes their opinion either pro or not about the act and the same is published by the site livelaw. However, seeing the author being self which covered the seminar organized by self and then publish it on a law journal without getting any significant coverage by other news or media site. I am not going into whether what he says is right or wrong, but such quotations clearly reduce the quality of article. It is clearly a case of self-published works.
 * Your argument is not a strong argument to support removal of the quote. It in fact sounds like I just don't like it because the only three criteria for inclusion on this page was 1. Is the author notable? Yes; 2. Is livelaw publication reliable for law? Yes; 3. Is the quote a criticism of the Act? Yes. Hence re-adding the quote.(PS: please sign your messages with four ~) Vikram Vincent 12:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey it looks like what you are doing is I just don't like it . I have clearly mentioned the clause of WP:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works in the Unacceptable use of self-published works so without resolving that concern any undo activity in such regards will be a clear result of unilateral action. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.   Pranhita (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

please see below for reliabllility of livelaw as a journal for legal reports. It is per Kerala HC. Please WP:listen Vikram Vincent 13:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Per the Kerala High Court order, "The Respondents shall not take any coercive action against petitioners for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Part 3 of IT Rules, as the petitioners are the publishers of law reports and legal literature", the interim order passed by Justice Asha stated http://livelaw.in/top-stories/kerala-high-court-new-it-rules-orders-no-coercive-action-issues-notice-on-livelaws-plea-170983 Vikram Vincent 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * since you are making a claim that the source is not reliable the WP:ONUS is on you to prove the same. You may scroll through the pages on law here on the wiki and you will find use of both Barandbench and Livelaw. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that your first argument was "non notable lecture" and now you are arguing about "self published works" neither of which have been supported by evidence. Further dispute resolution would arise if your arguments had strong evidence and my three points of 1. Is the author notable? Yes; 2. Is livelaw publication reliable for law? Yes; 3. Is the quote a criticism of the Act? Yes were not valid per WP:QUOTE and MOS:QUOTE. Vikram Vincent 14:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Livelaw is absolutely a reliable source for this, per VincentVikram, and I think the inclusion of the quote is fine. I am not clear on what the objections being raised against it are, and I would leave the quote where it is for now until objections can be more clearly and thoughtfully articulated. - Naushervan (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)