Talk:Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 introduced by the Indian Parliament was met with protests and criticism by the transgender community? Source: Colleges join hands to protest against Transgender Bill 2018
  • ALT1:... that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019 introduced by the Indian Parliament has met with protests and criticism by the transgender community? Source: Trans Bill 2019 passed in Lok Sabha: Why the trans community in India is rejecting it
  • ALT2: ... that the transgender community has protested and criticized the the bill for protection of their rights introduced by the Indian Parliament?

Created by Tamravidhir (talk). Self-nominated at 14:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

• Reviewed: Exempted, in absence of required number of DYKNs.
• Comment: Content copied from user-space to main-space on the same date as article creation.

• QPQ not needed. New enough, plenty long enough, with a cited and present hook. As a note for the future, reference citations go after periods when placed at the end of sentences and after commas at the end of a clause. This is ready to go. Raymie (t • c) 04:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Raymie: Thank you. I shall certainly keep note of that. To state, I am in favour of ALT1 or ALT2, out of the three, going on the main page and wanted to hear from you about that. Lastly, could we have this on the main page on 6 September 2019, given the date marks a year since the judicial mandate decriminalising homosexuality in India? --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm, I think 6 September is too late, almost half a month away, I am cool with ALT1/2 up on the main page before that. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: Instead of repeating the word "transgender" in ALT1, say something else. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the 2019 Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill introduced by the Indian Parliament has met with protests and criticism by the queer community?" - does this look fine? -Tamravidhir (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. I re-piped the link. Restoring tick for ALT3 per Raymie's review. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing information template

@Colin M: This is with regards to your addition of missing information template. The section on statutory provisions has all the provisions mentioned. What would you suggest to be added more? --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Also the provisions in discussion are of the 2019 bill as they are pari materia to those of the 2018 bill minus the changes following protests and criticism. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC) edited: Tamravidhir (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was referring to. Other parts of the article allude to provisions in earlier versions of the bill that were later removed, e.g. in the "Criticism and reactions" section: The 2019 bill did away only with few of the criticised provisions of the 2016 and 2018 bills, such as the District Screening Committee and the criminalisation of begging. I think it would be clearer if these were described in the "Statutory provisions" section (possibly in a little more detail). Even though the title is Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, the article is about the whole history of the bill, including its earlier iterations. Colin M (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: I understand. I will add a para discussing the 2018 bill's provisions. Quite late here today but surely over the weekend. Thanks for pointing it out--Tamravidhir (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: I have added the 2018 provisions at Transgender_Persons_(Protection_of_Rights)_Bill,_2019#Statutory_provisions. I haven't removed the maintenance template until you review the same. --Tamravidhir (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, I've removed the template. I think it might be easier to read if it were organized into subsections (per provision - e.g. begging, anti-discrimination, transgender children, certification), or maybe if it had a bulleted list? But that's just a minor quibble. Colin M (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: I understand that. The only reason I chose to not do that is that it may not be stylistically the best. Hence, I chose to focus the first paragraph on controversial provisions of the 2018 bill and then moving on to provisions of the 2019 bill, while drawing parallels with the 2018 version. It would indeed be of help if you choose to edit the section to make it more understandable and coherent. --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title

Since the Bill is now an Act, someone please rename the title. Claydsouza99 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MJL (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   You're missing a few full stops. Run through the whole thing and please add them as needed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig gave a false positive, but it's good. I would just be careful more and make sure you add quote marks when you are directly quoting something in the bill.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article is certainly on the shorter side. However, this seems to be because there really are only three aspects to the topic: the background, the bill's provision, and the criticism of it. There's no doubt that to me that this meets the broad in its coverage criteria of GA, but this might be a significant barrier if the article were to try to make it to Featured class.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There's some minor language cleanup that needs to happen for this phrase: amidst chaos in the house over

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   You might consider using File:Hijra Indian entertainers (c. 1865).jpeg instead of File:Hijra and companions in Eastern Bengal.jpg since the latter is already found in two other places on English Wikipedia, but that's your call. You may also consider uploading the text of the bill to commons and link feature it like I did here.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please fix the remaining issues, and you should be all set. 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS issues

I'm just going to list them here. Feel free to just cross them out using <s></s> as you address them.

• Law Ministry is capitalized but doesn't link to anything. If it is a proper noun, then please link to the primary topic, but otherwise I think that it probably needs to be lowercase per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
• The first instance where Rajya Sabha comes up should be linked (MOS:BTW), but it should be linked once in the lead per MOS:REPEATLINK. Same thing goes for the term President of India.
• District Magistrate should be replaced with district magistrate. The following terms should be lowercase as well:
  • District Screening Committee
  • Opposition
  • Expert Committee
  • Standing Committee
• Per WP:ELPOINTS, links should never be found in the articles prose. On 5 December 2019 it was signed into law by the President of India.
• National Council for Transgender Persons can bolded if you want per MOS:BOLDSYN (I redirected it to the page). Strictly optional, though.

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Closing

Had to close this per this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir and MJL: I'm about ready to pass this article. I came across a lot of grammatical problems, but I was able to solve them. Unfortunately, I also came across a factual issue, which I've tagged with {{clarify}}. I think I could do it, but then I don't know if I could continue this review. So, I'd like you, Tamravidhir, to clarify how in what specific ways the 2014 bill is more progressive. After that I can pass this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I am afraid I am not happy with some of the edits that have been made and unfortunately presently I do not have time to look into this. At best I might take a week or so to get back to this. It's that every time when I am able to make out time to sit for a GA review the article gets picked up months later. This a general observation and not one against you. I would want to clarify the 'progressiveness' of the 2014 bill. That's a good clarification. When I mean that the 2014 bill was progressive, I want to refer to the fact that neither does it provide for a mechanism of certifying transgender persons not does it stay silent on the civil rights of transgender persons, including but not limited to, reservations. Tamravidhir (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: It was inappropriate for you to revert my changes wholesale, as there were many small changes in all areas, just see the diff. I'm glad you self-reverted, as that was very offensive. It is not just you who waits months for GAN's to be reviewed. We're all volunteers and there is no deadline for anything. If you have time to revert me and write that paragraph, you can make the requested change, which will only be a few words. I will then pass this as a GA, and you can make whatever other edits you see fit afterwards. Waiting a week is not an option, and will cause this to be failed again, after which I strongly recommend you not renominate because in the case of another failure so far two editors, MJL and I, have wasted their time assessing your work when you have no intention of sticking around. You should in future pull your nomination if you're taking a wikibreak. But really, you do have time to make the change, as you wrote me ten times the amount of words the change would be. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: See, when MJL had last started with the review and I couldn't coordinate, I had failed to provide a time during which I would be able to look into the suggestions. Like you wrote, and I quote, "(w)e're all volunteers and there is no deadline for anything". I fail to comprehend why waiting a week will not be an option, when I am not saying that I will not cooperate. I merely request, give me a week I will look into your changes by the end of it. A GA review is a process of collaboration and I am willing to cooperate if you are willing to cooperate and give me a week. As you said, "no deadline". Lastly, my replying to you cannot be equated with me having time to look into your edits. For while the latter requires scrutiny and fetching for resources, the former exercise lacks a requirement of the same. I request you to give me a week, I will get back to you. Tamravidhir (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Sorry, I'm still kind of new to this. I thought that the seven day rule stated on the template {{GANotice}} is a hard rule. But, actually, you are correct, WP:GA/I#R3 is much more forgiving—about seven days. I've only done one GA review before, Chafin v. Chafin, and had one of my articles reviewed, Deseret alphabet. To be honest, I was also put in a bad mood due to your revert of many hours of my work on fixing the citations/grammar of the article, (I even read almost all the cited sources,) but you undid your revert so we can move on. Yes, I can wait a week. See you then. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I have made some changes and updates to the article that I felt were required. I noticed that while changing the language you inadvertently introduced a few factual errors, that I have rectified. However, thanks for going through all the references and making changes where required. One thing I noted while editing was that you seemed to have overlooked the WP:OVERLINK guideline. I saw 'reservations in India' linked more than twice and one link to a page that redirect to the subject-article. Further, I do not feel words or phrases such as 'discrimination', 'begging', or 'gender identity' need to be liked. Let me know your views and any other changes if required. Tamravidhir (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Remember, it's allowed and encouraged to repeat links at the first occurrence after the lead per MOS:REPEATLINK. We shouldn't assume readers are familiar with India, nor that they'll read the whole lead. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I would not mind having some links, say to the elections or the party names or the House, repeated at the first occurrence after lead. But I am not in favour of having links to reservations or begging or discrimination or gender identity. I do refer to the the WP:OVERLINK guideline here. Tamravidhir (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Do let me know, we could agree on a solution. :) Tamravidhir (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: Sure, no problem about begging, discrimination, or gender identity. I do think that "reservation" should be linked because it's not called that in every country. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Hi, sorry I could not reply earlier. Thank you for passing the article! I have also incorporated your recommendations to the article (check here). Take care, and thanks again! Tamravidhir (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

And I do understand that your initial stress on my cooperating with you in the review process was done in good faith. Bumpy start but I hope no hard feelings remain. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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

---

@Tamravidhir: I am pleased to pass this excellent article. I recommend that you nominate it for a WP:DYK, which all good articles have the right to do within seven days of promotion. There are many possible good DYK hooks in this article. (Sorry, not possible because it's been on DYK before. Didn't see that somehow!) I'm sorry we got off to a bit of a bumpy start, thank you for being patient. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   I'm quite impressed that you took one of these photos yourself!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: