Talk:Hadiya case

The issue only relates to her marriage in the Supreme court not about her religious conversion.Girdlast888 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Added the statement of National Investigation Agency .Girdlast888 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of unnecessary information regarding PFI. Discoraccoon (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How is PFI a "stakeholder" in Hadiya's court case? Discoraccoon (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through the citations and a lot of them link to websites that do not support the claim being made. I have just removed a bunch of uncited information about Sathya Sarani. Whoever has written this into the article seems to be pushing an agenda. Discoraccoon (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the pieces in the article are clearly cited by the IP.Please assume Good faith to all .PFI is involved particularly after National Investigation Agency statement about it in the Supreme court in this case which is clearly sourced which is important as it is main investigation agency in India and is looking at it with a terrorist angle .Girdlast888 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I've only removed sentences where PFI and ISI links were not reported, or established. Please link to those documents instead of others.

Neither this nor this have this statement given and mention any feminist group and leader's name.Girdlast888 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discoraccoon (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note copied IP's comments

I noticed your changes at Hadiya court case. Please slow down. Please understand article lead is not the place to put all the information. As per wiki guidelines, put the details in the body of the article and lead should be condensed summary. Some of your edits are adding too much details to the article lead which is unacceptable for the encyclopedia article. Also use due balanace guideline of wikipedia. Also statement made outside the court can not be included e.g. opinion by some police or fringe theories and allegations outside do not carry enough WP:BALANCE, submissions made to court under oath (verbal or affidavit) caryr much more weight than the noise outside, hence inclusion of some allegation against some hindu org (there was nothing submitted against those in the court, incldue them back in future if and when an under oath evidence is submitted against those in this case). NIA statement to SC under oath/affidavit during this case regarding PFi, SDPI, Shafin and Zaina, etc meet all the criteria, Please slow down while I restore earlier edits. You are welcome to add to the main body, if fact is encylopedic. Try a bottom up approach for new facts, i.e. add to the body of article and if they have "due balance" then summaris ein the lead, but avoud your current practice of adding everything to the lead itself (e.g. Hadiya appeared in Hijab, etc these are already covered in main body (hapened outside court and she did not submit anything about this to the court) and it is not worthy of inclusion lead as she already said in the court she converted on her free will (this is worthy of inclusion in lead and it is already there). Please avoid too much rework, this is not holy war. I dont care religion, etc but I wish to see a fact based balanced article. Blanaced is not balance of hindu vs muslims, but balance of hard verifiable facts of the court case, specially the ones submitted under due weight, otherwise it leads to avoidable edit warring and will have to get logged in admins to revert my all changes. Look forward to a constructive collaboration. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with what IP said here copied it here so that all issue related to this page is here.Girdlast888 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)