Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Status of Jainism as a Distinct Religion


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Nomination withdrawn after article was re-written. utcursch | talk 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal Status of Jainism as a Distinct Religion


An unwikified essay, the bulk of which is copied from other websites. Original research via synthesis. Salad Days 03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw rewritten. Salad Days 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It needs proper formatting. State which parts are "copied from other websites". Most of it are original quotes from the Supreme Court of India's two judgments. Most of the comments are "analytical". Legalese 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Re-written. The article is written in a slightly POVish manner as if the author is bent on proving that Jainism is recognized as a separate religion. But, anyway I've cleaned up the article and wikified it. The article includes content copied from various websites. This might be CSD G12, blatant copyright violation, but I will desist from deleting it and give author some time to improve article . As the author has pointed out, the article quotes Court judgements, which is not coypvio. Will cleanup and wikify. utcursch | talk 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- Mereda 11:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Legalese 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Analysis of Legal Provisions is based on the judgment dated dated 15th of September, 2000, filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2684/2000, HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, Appellants: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Respondent: Vijay Shanti Educational Trust

Legalese 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 1. http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-patil271106.htm. Please see this link published in the "Counter Currents". This article deals with the two judgments and has comments by a member of the State Minorities Commission and an author of a few books on Jainism.

2. I am trying to scan my own copy of the Unreported Jugdment of Rajasthan High Court, on which my "analysis" is based, I'll upload it once it is done. Whichever chunk has been "pasted" has been duly referenced. A Supreme Court's judgment would have to be "quoted". Illustration's noted by the Supreme Court could not be "narrated" by me, but it is best to reproduce them verbatim.

Legalese 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I am aghast. The claim that there could be a "blatant violation of copyright in this article" is completely unfounded.

I explain the constitution of the whole article as below. The article presently has four sub-headings.

* 1 The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism * 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA * 3 Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case * 4 Jainism and Other Religions: Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India

I'll deal with each one in detail.

* 1 The Recent Legal Debate on Jainism This sub-heading covers the following: >>The Bal Patil Judgment It quotes from the Supreme Court's judgment. Quoting from a Supreme Court jugdment cannot be a violation of copyright.

The rest of the comments have been written by me. Check, by googling, if you can find any websites from which it has been claimed that

>>U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Judgment This para has been written by me. Check by googling if its been copied even a least bit.

* 2 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The first para merely quotes the Article 25 of the Constitution of India in original. It is a provision of law, and there is no violation of any copyright in reproducing it.

The second para has been written by me. You can check, by googling it, if it appears anywhere else, it would have name "rishabh sancheti" or the link "legalese" [my wiki name].

* 3 Criticism of the Supreme Court's Decision in Bal Patil's Case This has been authored completely by me, with the help of certain legal provisions. Again, citing the legal provisions cannot entail any violation of a copyright. The veracity of such legal provisions may be checked at , Government of India's official law database, by feeding the name of the Act.

The explanations appearing below each of the Acts have been authored by me. One can verify by googling.

* 4 Jainism and Other Religions: Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India This fourth part may give an impression on a superficial reading that it is made up of several parts which might be claimed to have been copied. However, I submit with deference that such claim is baseless, and would prove to be so, if any one may be diligent enough to verify. Infact this part is a summary of the illustrations noted by the Supreme Court of India in the UP Shiksha Parishad Judgment, the original link of which has already been given. Click on the link, and it would open a page on the Judis Database of the Government of India, having this judgment. Do a simple CTRL+F to locate these paragraphs there.

As I'v stated above, there could be no copyright violation in quoting from a Court's judgment along with its proper reference. I have not claimed that I have authored this part, the heading itself clearly reads "Illustrations noted by Supreme Court of India". The para numbers in this part are the original para numbers of the Judgment, which has already been mentioned in the beginning of this part.

Now.........how is there any copyright violation?
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article needs massive copyediting, but seems reasonable otherwise. WilyD 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have any strong opinion one way or another on this, though I'm leaning towards the opinion that this isn't completely beyond hope. If kept though it needs a massive cleanup effort to wikify, reformat, copyedit, and expunge all of the original research analysis in the article.  I've posted a more in-depth comment on what needs to be fixed if this is kept at Talk:Legal Status of Jainism as a Distinct Religion.--Isotope23 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Legalese 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Thanks for your comments @ Isotope, harsh is good as long as it is on the content and not against the person, which thankfully is the case here. I am in appreciation of your approach. I understand that the section on Hindu Personal laws debate appears to be in conflict with the WP:OR policy. However, as I have mentioned above, it is based on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court, which unfortunately is not available on net. If required, and it seems it is pertinent now, I will try my best to give a para-wise reference so as to make it clear that this article is not wholly in defiance of WP:OR. However, I do admit that a bit of it needs to be "cleaned up" by me, so that it strictly conforms to the aforesaid policy. Regarding the other things you pointed out, yes, the debate is recent and if I may say, unfortunate. The debate has actually been generated as a result of a strife between some fundamentalists of either religions. The matter went to the Courts and has been resolved largely. Thus, it gains importance and I felt it important to bring it on wikipedia if any researcher is looking for a point to begin with on the debate. Also, there are several other sources available on the internet which substantiate this article, however I admit that the fault lies on my part not to have referenced in detail. I must also state at the same time that I am only a beginner and am yet to be too well versed with WIKI, I hope thus the formatting errors could be done away with by more experienced users, or else I'll need to put some extra hours on few weekends and understand the whole deal, to do it myself.


 * Keep: The topic itself is encyclopaedic, and whatever OR exists can be removed. Hornplease 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.