Talk:Irom Chanu Sharmila: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 23 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Irom Chanu Sharmila article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

DesmondCoutinho (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Request edit on 21 October 2015

Paragraph 2 in the section The Fast and its Responses contains an unverifiable untruth "However, Amnesty International and the World Medical Association both dispute that a hunger strike is equivalent to suicide as hunger strikers "generally hope and intend to survive" That statement can be found nowhere in the Malta Declaration of the WHA which is provided as a reference for this made up statement. What the the WHA actually states is "Genuine and prolonged fasting risks death or permanent damage for hunger strikers and can create a conflict of values for physicians. Hunger strikers usually do not wish to die but some may be prepared to do so to achieve their aims." Amensty International India is alone in its belief that Hunger Strikers will stop from fasting if they are not force fed on the grounds as they say they generally hope and intend to survive. Can someone look at this and correct the statement,

I appreciate you won't go in the reasons for hte importance of this false statement and reference. But my understanding is that you people take encyclopaedias seriously and you have provided a quotation without verification falsely attributing the WHA Malta Declaration as backing for Amnesty International India's unique position. My name is Desmond Coutinho 2 Abbey Court, Portumna, Co Galway, Eire I am Sharmia's fiance and I have been given sole authority via a signed power of attorney form to speak on her behalf. That's who I am if you check the quotation you will see that it is unverifiable.

If you attribute it solely to Amnesty International India and provide a better summary of the WHA position that would better in terms of your enyclopaedia.

Thank you. I hope no one is going to get offended and demand I be barred from making comments coz I find that tiresome. No one is updating her story but I am told if I do offer anything you aren't a newspaper so i no longer bother.78.16.107.189 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the this. The sentence being where it was violated WP:SYN so I deleted it. Here is the sentence, if anyone wants to discuss:

However, Amnesty International and the World Medical Association both dispute that a hunger strike is equivalent to suicide as hunger strikers "generally hope and intend to survive".^[1]^[2]

References

^ "WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers". Retrieved 14 February 2015.
^ "Document - India: Government of Manipur must release Irom Sharmila Chanu". Amnesty International. Retrieved 14 February 2015.

- Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd request

Second request to edit in paragraph 3 of the fast and its responses you claim that under Indian Law anyone charged with IPC 309 "attempts to commit suicide ... shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with both] <redact> If anyone has an interest in updating please do so. I actually understand the case better than anyone else feel free to ask me what is going on or not. <redact> Desmond Coutinho83.71.21.137 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely sure what your point is here. I removed the bit of content identifying the law, is it was just just tacked on by someone and cited only the Indian code - there was no source saying this is the section of the code under which she was arrested or tried. As to the rest of what you write, if you want to propose changes to the content, with sources, please do so. I have redacted the part of your post that is just venting about her case or about Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers". Retrieved 14 February 2015.

[2] "Document - India: Government of Manipur must release Irom Sharmila Chanu". Amnesty International. Retrieved 14 February 2015.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ==2nd request==
-Second request to edit in paragraph 3 of the fast and its responses you claim that under Indian Law anyone charged with IPC 309 "attempts to commit suicide ... shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with both] but this is clearly not the case. Irom Sharmila Chanu was arrested last on 23 January 2016 and the magistrate the fifth one to whom this trial has passed ruled on 22 February that he had the right to extend the term of imprisonment and was doing so specifically he is ruling the period from 2 January 2016 until 8th February 2016 does not form part of the detention that may extend to one year. On 22 February he therefore ruled that he could detains her for 12 days more without releasing her and her detention would not be illegal. Although he does not rule out the possibility of farther extensions. I have no idea why he doesn't just release her and then rearrest her because no one has a case under Indian Law to challenge that. Although he hasn't himself heard the prosecution case because they rested before Xmas 2015 and he is not hearing the Defence case as they rested on 22 February he intends to hear final argument on 24 February and then give a verdict and then automatically release her based on time served because she will have served over 15 years on various forms of remand without conviction unless he revises this period again not to count as part of previous detention. I appreciate you are not a newspaper but your current analysis of the trial has little bearing on what has happened or what is happening to her. If anyone has an interest in updating please do so. I actually understand the case better than anyone else feel free to ask me what is going on or not. In addition in your summary of court cases you refer to a District & Sessions Court Judgement of August which was stayed by the Manipur High Court. The presentation of the trials given editors have claimed that they can't find reports of the trials is selective and untruthful. But that's wiki for you I have nothing farther to add. Desmond Coutinho[[Special:Contributions/83.71.21.137|83.71.21.137]] ([[User talk:83.71.21.137|talk]]) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
+Second request to edit in paragraph 3 of the fast and its responses you claim that under Indian Law anyone charged with IPC 309 "attempts to commit suicide ... shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with both] <redact> If anyone has an interest in updating please do so. I actually understand the case better than anyone else feel free to ask me what is going on or not. <redact> Desmond Coutinho[[Special:Contributions/83.71.21.137|83.71.21.137]] ([[User talk:83.71.21.137|talk]]) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
+:Not completely sure what your point is here.  I removed the bit of content identifying the law, is it was just just tacked on by someone and cited only the Indian code - there was no source saying this is the section of the code under which she was arrested or tried.  As to the rest of what you write, if you want to propose changes to the content, with sources, please do so.  I have redacted the part of your post that is just venting about her case or about Wikipedia. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)