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)

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)

@Ms Sarah Welch:, in Tukol correct Google books link added. I have also added some info and reorganised some text. Have a look.--Nizil (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This open access thesis, Sallekhana: A philosophical study, can be helpful in adding philosophical aspect of sallekhana. --Nizil (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Thanks. We need to be careful with a college thesis, as parts of them are WP:Primary sources and some present novel non-mainstream speculations. Secondary, mainstream sources are better. Similarly, it is inappropriate to write "sallekhana is not allowed...." based on a primary paper in a psychiatry publication. That is inconsistent with mainstream religious texts and scholarship. Sallekhana is recommended for both layperson and mendicants in many Jain texts, with due preparation. Jain religious texts do not say "is not allowed" or "only allowed" (if you believe they do, identify them please)! This article needs to reflect the mainstream sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• (ps) Nizil: See this note by admin Nyttend on journalists as RS. I concur with Nyttend, and we need to be careful on when and what parts of a newspaper article to summarize in this or any other wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns regarding PhD thesis and News sources. Both are bit less reliable sources (in context of scholarly studies). The bibliography of thesis may point to some useful sources. Regarding allowed, I understood your clarification and agree with it. Feel free to remove it or reword it.--Nizil (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories

@Nizil Shah: : can you explain why you reverted the inclusion of categories Category:Religion and suicide and Category:Deaths by starvation ? jnestorius^(talk) 14:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jnestorius:. Category:Deaths by starvation lists people who died of starvation so it is irrelevant. Category:Religion and suicide is removed because equating Sallekhana with suicide is discussed at lenghth here:Talk:Sallekhana/Archive_1#Suicide. 1. Jain scriptures and followers of Jainism clearly differentiate between suicide and Sallekhana. 2. Indian judiciary has not pronounced its final judgement to consider it suicide. The issue is sub judice. In both ways, sallekhana is compared with suicide but not considered as suicide except by the activists who has litigated in courts. So placing it under Category:Religion and suicide is like accepting it as suicide. The article is already placed in its parent category Category:Religion and death which is OK. Hope this clarifies. Regards, :) -Nizil (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

List of people who died of starvation is a list, but Category:Deaths by starvation is not a list, it is a category. Most of the articles are biographical articles (about people who died by starvation) but some are not. Deaths by Sallekhana are deaths by starvation. Placing Sallekhana under Category:Religion and suicide does not imply that Sallekhana is a form of suicide; it implies that the article discusses religion and suicide. jnestorius^(talk) 23:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)