Talk:Sallekhana

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sallekhana/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 01:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I know nothing about this topic so I am reviewing this article as someone who is looking to learn about sallekhana with very little background. I see this was part reviewed and then the reviewer retired. They review a bit differently than me in as much as I don't demand changes. I think of them more as suggestions and am willing to be convinced that the way you have it currently formed is the correct way. You know more about the topic than me afterall. Anyway reading through the previous part review I think most points are addressed or are not a major concern to me (some were useful though and I have raised some similar concerns below). There are also some comments by Nizil Shah on the talk page below this review. Some mirror ones I was already thinking and I think they should be at least responded to as part of this review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Made some minor changes as I read the article. Overall I thought it was nicely written. I went from knowing nothing to having a good idea on what sallekhana involves. Have left some specific comments below regarding some wording and sentences. I thought the lead was great as an explanation, but the overview was not really adequate. That is probably my main gripe with this criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources generally look good. Very well organised. Found [1] which may be of some use if you want to use it. Overall the quality looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Definitely focused, but felt it was lacking a bit more on the history of the vow. What lead to the vows being used? Who started the practice (was it Chandragupta Maurya - this is not really made clear)? Were there any developments along the way. It appears to be a very old practise so I would be surprised if there wasn't more information about its historical development.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Just share the concern about the suicide section. Comparisons with suicide is almost entirely about how it is not. It needs some info about why it is sometimes compared to suicide for context at least. Don't need much and am more than happy to keep the majority on why it is not.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A over year old discussion regarding suicide in the lead, which was resolved to consensus. Nothing stands out in the edit history.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Imagaes are good. The Ratna Karanda Sravakachara text is hard to read at that size so not sure how useful it is (you can click on it to enlarge it so it does have vale). All images seem to be correctly licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few little things to discuss, but quite enjoyed reading this article.

General Comments

• I am a bit unsure of the guide you are following when italicising sallekhana. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Same with capitalising the s. Done now consistently Sallekhana.
• The overview did not really explain what sallenkhana is. It says to thin out, but does not explain what this means. ----rewrote lead  Done
• The Doddahundi nishidhi inscription, a hero stone from Doddahundi, 18 km from Tirumakudalu Narasipura in the Mysore district, Karnataka state, India. Is this sentence incomplete. --- Rewriting  Done
• In both the writings of Jain Agamas and the general views of many followers of Jainism, due to the degree of self-actualisation and spiritual strength required by those who undertake the ritual, sallekhana is considered to be a display of utmost piety, purification and expiation almost an exact repetition. --- moved and removed repeatation.  Done
• Death is for compunds whose dissolution is termed Is compunds a typo. It is a quote so if it is present as such in the quote it should stay, but needs a [sic] so the readers know  Done
• Too much WP:proseline in legality section --- I think it is solved but please check. --- Rewrote and merged section with Comparision with Suicide.  Done
• The petition extends to those who facilitate individuals taking the vow of with aiding and abetting an act of suicide. Is sallenkhana missing here. --- added  Done
• Clarification needed tag needs to be resolved. Done

Source check

• Copyviochek using [2] revealed a few close matches. A closer look showed that this was de to the use of quotes or pretty common phrases so I am not concerned with this at all
• Random source check
  • 37 He died on 18 September 1955. Don't think the convenience link leads to the right place. Found it through google books and it supports that statement.
  • 6 According to Jain texts, sallekhana leads to ahimsā (non-violence or non-injury), as a person observing sallekhana subjugates the passions, which are the root cause of hiṃsā (injury or violence) Can't read page (stopped at 115 typically) so assuming good faith
  • 56 Silent march were carried out in various cities. Should be marches. Source supports statement
  • 2 The vow of sallekhana is observed by the Jain ascetics and lay votaries at the end of their life by gradually reducing the intake of food and liquids Three cites for this statement. This one would probably is fine.
  • 11 Jain ethical code also prescribes seven supplementary vows, which include three guņa vratas and four śikşā vratas Pretty similar, but with such a simple statement it would be hard not to.

Reply

I've tried and resolved them. Please have a relook and let me know what more need to be done. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the article does not meet the stability criteria at the moment. Capankajsmilyo and ‎Nizil Shah, could one of you leave a note at my talk page when you have finished. I am taking it off my watchlist as it is drowning everything else out. AIRcorn (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Once its done, we will inform you. Regards and thanks for drawing me here.--Nizil (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Final comments

I think this is very close. Just a few points.

• Made a few edits as I read. As always I will not take offense if these are reverted. Especially if they change the context or the point of what you are trying to say too much.
• means 'to thin out', 'scoure out' or 'to slender' should that be "scour out"
• Properly thinning out the passions and the body through gradually abstaining from food and drink is called Sallekhana. This got a little repetitive with the "this is called Sallenkhana", but I think is important to mention. How about "Properly thinning out the passions and the body is accomplished through gradually abstaining from food and drink".
• History is much better, the explanation of what it is is clearer and I am happy with the suicide comparison. Flow could be improved, but it meets the 1a GA criteria as far as I am concerned. AIRcorn (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo and Nizil Shah: AIRcorn (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Done-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. Passing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Aircorn. And thank you, Capankajsmilyo for nominating and helping me on every stage.--Nizil (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn and Nizil Shah for GA. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:34, 4 May 2017 (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 · 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 · 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 · 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  Done now. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the section Nizil Shah -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · 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.  Done
• 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.  Done -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.-- Done

Reworded.  Done--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:

 Done--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  Done

Capankajsmilyo, 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 Capankajsmilyo, 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)

Aircorn, 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. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Source checks

@Capankajsmilyo:, @Nizil Shah:, 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)