Talk:Indian Supreme Court: unconstitutional to bar women of certain age group from entering Sabarimala temple

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Though the article cites the constitution of India, reviewers are free to use s:Constitution of India/Part III if they choose to, or even as an aid.
•–• 19:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

"[...] and women were barred from entering the kitchen or a temple during the menstruation cycle" may need attribution. It appears to come from a quote from a woman to a BBC reporter. Would suggest two options:

  • "Some women" instead of "women" needs to be said, and an "according to a report by BBC" needs to be added at the end.

or

  • A more factual sentence needs to be written, perhaps with reference to the findings by TISS, with attribution.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am in a better position to know this because I am living in this society. The everyday things, which apparently everyone knows, it is still cited because this is not what a reviewer would know. If it wasn't for the global audience, of if the reviewer was from India, it is likely that they would not need a source.
117.222.95.171 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this information is your own knowledge, adding 'according to Wikinews' and an {{OR}} tag may be appropriate. Gryllida (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not too trivial to not add a source to help the reviewer, but it is too trivial to tag it for an OR.
•–• 07:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a celibacy"[edit]

To "Ayyappan was considered a celibacy", a clarification may need to be added. In Wikipedia an "the state of voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for religious reasons" explanation is provided, followed by "it is often in association with the role of a religious official or devotee", leaving me confused about the position of Ayyappan in the story. --Gryllida (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews is not a dictionary to provide explanation for such common words. It is the temple of Ayyappan. And legends say that he took the oath.
117.222.95.171 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not from India and I never heard of this word in my life before (the same with 'Ayyappan'). Gryllida (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wiktionary is at your disposal. And FWIW, the article clearly mentions it is the temple of "lord" Ayyappan. Imagine saying, "I am not from Saudi Arabia, I don't know about 'Allah'."
•–• 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Ayyappan is as central to the Indian religion as Allah to Muslim? It looks like there are multiple dieties in India ("He is a synthetic deity, the son of Shiva and Mohini – the female avatar of Vishnu.", for instance, from w:Ayyappan, and I do not know of Shiva or Mohini and did not hear these words ever in my life before) and there is absolutely no way international audience would know of them off-hand... --Gryllida (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That really sounds dumb. "Indian religion"? What is that supposed to mean? And wikilink by itself does not explain shit. The only change that was made is that it went from "Lord" Ayyappan to Lord Ayyappan linking to the same page. If the former did not convince an "international reader", how can the later convince them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 05:19, 23 July 2018 (talk • contribs) Acagastya
Acagastya, please don't be harsh with Gryllida for saying my edit was helpful ;-).  I think I understand Gryllida's point; it's to do with what the presentation suggests to the reader about the identity of the referent (Ayyappan), and it's basically why I made that edit. The scare-quotes on "Lord", and the exclusion of the title from the link, both discourage a reader from an exclusively monotheistic culture from thinking of Ayyappan as a sacred being. A tricky, profound conceptual gap can occur —I'm aware, though I think a great many people in either kind of culture are not— between monotheism and polytheism, over the concept of deity. Not that I can explain the gap easily; but I'm aware of it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinking 'Lord Ayyappan' (instead of 'Ayyappan'), and this change, make it clearer. Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the name is "Ayyappan", even on the target page. He is often called "Swami Ayyappan", where "Swami" is translated to "lord”, but that is not his name. And it is a foreign word which needs translation. It is not a proper noun like "Swami vivekananda". I would still prefer lord to be in double quotes.
45.122.126.87 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putting quotes around lord is confusing to readers unfamiliar with the culture involved. However, using the title swami would have been fine, presuming a note were left concerning the appropriateness of the term (since I don't think it's supported by the sources). --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, by removing the quotes and calling him Lord, you endorse religious belief in Ayyappan, but by keeping the quotes, you show skepticism. To be neutral you might omit "Lord" altogether, and just put Temple of Ayyappan, but mention in the lead that the temple in question is devoted to Ayyappan just so we know it's the same temple. The one thing that is not clear from the article is whether it's the only temple, or one of many, or a special one? 96.83.66.44 (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All titles are a matter of respect, when you get down to it; respect by somebody. Some people are called by a title because a government says they're entitled to it, some people (or, supposed beings) because a religion says they're entitled to it. In most, though not all, situations we don't have to endorse that in order to use the title and be understood. There are a lot of situations where it would be okay for us to refer to Jesus Christ, and Christ is a title. --Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titles are abolished per the Indian constitution. And read the line just below this message.
45.122.127.247 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 several versions of Bible uses a different font for the word "Lord". YCMTSU.
•–• 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the petitioners"[edit]

When reading "Ravi Prakash Gupta, who was one of the representatives of the petitioners, ...", it is not clear what the petition is. Nothing was said of it above in the story (or below, either). Perhaps information about the petition goal(s) and timeline could be relevant to the news story at hand, and adding it may be sensible. --Gryllida (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: there is a reference to it in the second paragraph, where it says "public interest litigation filed by petitioners including the Indian Young Lawyers Association". However the reader is left wondering of the geographical scope and timing of the petition and other similar background. Did the number of signatures in the petition need to pass a particular threshold for it to be accepted as a Court filing? Or did the petition only serve as a means to attract attention of the public, while its role in the Court paperwork was only illustrative? (These two questions seem to be worded in a poor and vague manner, but I am hopeful that they successfully convey the point.) --Gryllida (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a change.org petition you find in your inbox. The article explicitly points out that it was PIL making it very clear what it was. Demanding any further explanation is just like asking to explain what a senate is.
117.222.95.171 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"PIL"? Gryllida (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
public interest litigation. That is the first three words of what you quoted above, Gry.
•–• 07:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the US Supreme Court, the petitioner is (if I understand correctly) the party that is appealing from the decision of a lower court, and being the losing party at the previous stage, may be either the plaintiff or the defendant in the original litigation. I do not know if the terminology in India means the same thing, and this article does not say much about the prior history of the case. 96.83.66.44 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4421090 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4421090 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Regarding the quoted passage about "a biological factor exclusive to the female gender": This ruling appears to have been narrower than that. The petitioners seem to have been pushing for something broader, but courts usually seek to make narrow decisions (making it easier for past decisions to stand while future decisions cope with other specific factors that didn't come up in the particular case; thus making the accumulated body of rulings more stable). The source passage containing that quote appears, ambiguously, to be about a larger context of currently pending petitions, followed by a passage more specifically about age and that temple. The function of the sentence in our article seemed to be identifying the specific concern addressed on Wednesday; so I toned it down.
  • Regarding the practice having been observed by the temple for centuries: One of the sources does say 800 years, which is a good long time; but one would need stronger evidence to safely support an assertion that that precise age range, 10–50, has been in force for 800 years. After a bit of hunting around for a general sense of the traditional attitude involved, I adjusted the phrasing to keep everything about the sentence except the precise bounds on the age range.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4421090 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Regarding the quoted passage about "a biological factor exclusive to the female gender": This ruling appears to have been narrower than that. The petitioners seem to have been pushing for something broader, but courts usually seek to make narrow decisions (making it easier for past decisions to stand while future decisions cope with other specific factors that didn't come up in the particular case; thus making the accumulated body of rulings more stable). The source passage containing that quote appears, ambiguously, to be about a larger context of currently pending petitions, followed by a passage more specifically about age and that temple. The function of the sentence in our article seemed to be identifying the specific concern addressed on Wednesday; so I toned it down.
  • Regarding the practice having been observed by the temple for centuries: One of the sources does say 800 years, which is a good long time; but one would need stronger evidence to safely support an assertion that that precise age range, 10–50, has been in force for 800 years. After a bit of hunting around for a general sense of the traditional attitude involved, I adjusted the phrasing to keep everything about the sentence except the precise bounds on the age range.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Supreme_Court:_unconstitutional_to_bar_women_of_certain_age_group_from_entering_Sabarimala_temple&oldid=4422550"