Talk:The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

The Lokpal Bill, 2011

How can I improve the page (The quality of the page so that it could feature as FA). Feedback needed. Also, can we use the images from the web in the Wikipedia by acknowledging the publisher of the document in which it appears. I tried to use one of the images by uploading it in Wikipedia, but I am asked to drop an email for confirming the originality of the image. Hence, it is bounded to be deleted very soon [As per Wikipedia's rules]. What needs to be done in such a case? Suggestions Awaited. theTigerKing 17:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Vaibhav Gupta, 4th June, 2012

I can't help with FA, but no, acknowledging the publisher for images found on the web is not sufficient - images can only be used if there is proof that they are not under any restrictive copyright (there are exceptions for fair use, but that is unlikely to be applicable in most cases). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. Just make sure you have a fairly complete article, with high quality reliable sources and consistent formatting, as well as good grammar. Once you have that, try and bring the article to peer review for further feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The page is not getting diaplayed in the search listings/results of any search engine. How to deal with it? theTigerKing 21:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please give it time, most major search engines sweep Wikipedia within three to four days. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been more than ten days now since this article was created. I am skeptical why the web crawlers are not able to show it in search results.theTigerKing 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not have any control whatsoever over the various search engines of the world. Timing, server load, and luck all come into play on their end. For our part, there is no technical reason that I can see in the article that would prevent it from being indexed. The best I can do is ask you to be patient. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions before peer review

Having had a quick look at the article, you might want to work on:

• WP:LEAD, generally the lead doesn't need footnotes as this information should be discussed in more detail in the main text of the article and cited there (see the section WP:LEADCITE).
• WP:Citation overkill, there are many sentences which are followed by a large number of footnotes. It is important to try balance the need to reference with the readability of the page. Generally any more than two references after one sentence could be considered excessive citation clutter.
• Use Dabsolver on the toolserver to fix and correct the links to disambiguation pages (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links) (there are currently 4: Washington, resolution, Amar Sigh, directorate)

All the best, France3470 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions before FA candidacy submission

Hi All,

I am finding check-link errors while using Checklinks tools. I need to know how to solve them. I want to submit the article for FA ASAP.

Link No4->Changes sub-domain and changes path-Highlighted in Green
Link No96->Soft 404-Highlighted in Red-
Link No95->Changes domain and redirect to-Highlighted in Green /
Link No120->Soft 404-Highlighted in Red
Link No127->Changes sub-domain and changes path-Highlighted in Green

Thanks in Advance,Regards, theTigerKing  06:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
theTigerKing 10:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) You should just edit the article in the normal way, changing the URL'S Mdann52 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

FAC?

I see this currently has both a nomination at WP:GAN and a nomination at WP:FAC template here, though no actual listing at FAC yet that I can find. I just reopened the peer review as there had been very few comments.

Please note that if this is listed at FAC, it cannot also be listed at GAN and PR (as the FAC rules do not allow it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the FA nomination anywhere - can you provide a link?? Mdann52 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright edit request

I had submitted a request for copyright edit request. How do we get to know whether the request has been serviced or not? RegardstheTigerKing (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhavgupta1989, Can you please provide context, such as link or at least an explanation of what copyright edit request was made and where? It is not obvious from your edits. I see there was a copyright-related post by you to Talk:Pranab Mukherjee, though I don't see a request per se, and it would be confusing for you to be talking about that edit to the talk page of another article on the talk page of this article. After looking, I thought maybe you don't mean "copyright edit request" at all but a "copyedit request" which couldn't be more different, but now I'm just guessing, which brings us full circle to... again... please provide context. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I had made a copyedit for this article in the month of June (WP:COPYEDITORS). I regret for the typos (I had mentioned copyright but I meant copyedit)

1) How do we get to know whether the request has been serviced or not?
2) Also, how long does it take it takes to get the request serviced?
3) Do I need to ask each member personally to help edit the article? Or, is that the only people with knowledge in this topic can provide me inputs?(This article is about a law pending before the parliament of India)
4) This page is not appearing in the search listings of any of the browsers. I was given the opinions previously that indexing of the article takes time. It has been more than 20 days now since the article was last created. Is there something that needs to be done on my part? Why it is happening so?

Thanks & Regards,
theTigerKing 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The last copyedit request I made for an article I was working on took 3 months to be acted upon. As you can see from the main page, there are "2,767 articles currently in the backlog". While you might just get lucky with someone not going linearly in order from oldest to newest requests, I think these backlog numbers mean, realistically you should expect that it will be a minimum of a number of months. Typically, the person who performs the copyedit will inform the requester on his or her user talk page. It doesn't hurt at all if the person is familiar with the topic but they do not necessarily need to be familiar. A copyedit is not normally a rewrite, requiring intimate knowledge of the subject, although sometimes copyeditors can go above and beyond a simple copyedit. When you ask whether you need to "ask each member personally to help edit" I'm not sure I understand: do you mean ask each member of the guild of copyeditors? If so, no, the backlog is worked on by members of the project, no prompting required. On the other hand, the squeaky wheel get the grease. Regarding search engines, they are finding it fine: It is the second link that comes up on Google, and the first on Yahoo and Bing and no, there's nothing I know of that you can do to speed up search engine spidering, though that issue appears moot here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Regarding the last part of my query, this article is not showing up in the search results. Type in the title of the article in the search box. It gives Jan Lokpal Bill or the Lokpal Bill as the search results. But not the article intended. theTigerKing18:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I thought you meant external search engines. This article shows up fine for me, as the first result in Wikipedia's internal search. I'm not sure if it could have something to do with your computer. Maybe try dumping your cookies and clearing your cache and try again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant external search engines. :)theTigerKing 18:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I'm confused as I've stated that I'm finding it find both in the internal search engine and the three major external search engines—as far as I know that covers all the bases!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

This artcle is by the name The Lokpal Bill 2011. When anyone types this in the external search engines, the search results shows up The Lokpal and The Jan Lokpal Bill, which are two different pages, and not the The Lokpal Bill, 2011. :)theTigerKing 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But Vaibhavgupta1989, I have already explained that my mileage is differing from yours; that using the internal search engine, this article not the others you've mentioned, is the first result when I search, and when using the three major external search engines, Google, Yahoo and Bing, I am finding this article not the others you've mentioned, as respectively the second, first and first results. By the way, I know for a fact that Google at the least will show different results for different people based on it's tracking of various factors, and cookies. So go dump your browser's edit history and cookies and try again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried other domains of google(uk,au) etc, and it appears in the search results. But for other domains it does not. Thanks for the help :) theTigerKing 20:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --theTigerKing 14:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I want to present a few facts.

1) The article The Lokpal Bill, 2011 is abut a bill pending before the parliament of India by the same name. This bill has been created by the Parliament of India and is currently pending before the upper house of the Parliament (The Rajya Sabha).

2) The article Jan Lokpal bill has been drafted by a civil society group named India Against Corruption. It is a just a draft anti-corruption bill which the group wanted it to be passed by the Parliament of India. The demand was out-rightly rejected to by the Parliament of India.

3) The bill once signed into a law by the President of India, would have contents which cannot be included into the unofficial versions of the bill ( In this case, The Jan Lokpal Bill). In such a case, the contents in the Jan Lokpal Bill article would have no bearing on the law already created in India. Hence, there would be no more edits possible in the article Jan Lokpal Bill.

4) The Jan Lokpal Bill was one of the many bills considered to by the recognized bodies and institutions set up under the Constitution of India (The parliament of India, The Parliamentary Standing Committee).

5) The article Jan Lokpal Bill is highly biased in favour of the unofficial version of the bill. It contains references to the activities performed by the organisation India Against Corruption to self-promote their versions of the bill (like conducting referendums, surveys etc.). They surely can't be mentioned in the official versions of the bill(anti-corruption) as these activities are conducted by self-promoted and unofficial groups whose views can't be subscribed to by the Government of India. Whereas the article The Lokpal Bill, 2011 has been written keeping in mind the official versions of the bill. Even the contents of the Jan Lokpal Bill have been written in a style which promotes the unofficial version (The Jan Lokpal Bill).

6) The article does not contain references and/or contents of the other unofficial anti-corruption bills. The article (The Lokpal Bill, 2011) has been written keeping in mind their very presence in the background. The drafts have been attached to in the extra reading section of the article.

7) The other drafts (non-official versions), processes (widespread public protests) and the people (Civil society groups not only the India Against Corruption) find their space in this article as they form a background to this bill.

8) The contents of the bill passed by the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Parliament) and that referred to by the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha for consideration are different not only from each other but also from the unofficial version of the bill, the Jan Lokpal Bill. Even, through the official documents presented to before the house of the Parliament of India by the government of India, the final version of the bill is surely going to be different from the Draft Jan Lokpal Bill.

9) This article, The Lokpal Bill 2011, contains a brief history of all the lokpal bill, the events circumscribing the drafting of this bill, a brief description of the official draft of the bill, the journey of the bill through both the houses of the Parliament, the views of the prominent industrialists of the country on the lokpal bill, 2011 and the contents of the bill (in brief) as passed by the Lok Sabha and that taken for consideration by a committee of the Rajya Sabha. The contents of the bill as passed by the Lok Sabha has been described in brief as it is very likely that the bill would need to passed again in the Lok Sabha considering the events that transpired in the Rajya Sabha. The article does full justice with the official versions of bills. And provides references to all the anti-corruption bills (one of the being The Jan Lokpal Bill) considered to by the official bodies of India and known to the people of India and provides them as documents for extra study in a separate section

Before writing this article, I was aware of the very existence of the article, The Jan Lokpal Bill. I decided to write this article after taking into account all possible aspects/scenarios and the challenges the bill Jan Lokpal Bill could possess on the official law/bill article in Wikipedia.

I should also draw a point that the activities of unrecognized bodies (In this case the body is India Against Corruption and the activity being drafting a bill Jan Lokpal Bill), can in any way serve as a substitute to the democratic and constitutional bodies and the activities they are bounded to perform under the constitution of India in a parliamentary democracy named India. This article is an improvement to the Jan Lokpal Bill and there exists similarities between the two pages because of the reasons mentioned in the below comment. The neutrality of the article Jan Lokpal Bill on it's talk page is inconclusive with no plausible reasons provided for in its talk page. Also, there is no point in expanding that article or contributing to its talk page, as they refer to two separate entities sharing a portion of a common history. However, the existence of two separate and mutually exclusive articles is justified, though they may be referring to some common content. Also, there is no point in referring to the portions of the Jan Lokpal Bill as they have been written in a biased manner.

Hence, I believe there should not be any figment of imagination of considering to delete this article at first place. Once the bill is passed by both the houses of the parliament of India and is signed by the President of India, a brief description and the contents of the law would find a space in this article to help wiki-readers help understand the bill better. The contents of this article would be expanded in the near future depending upon on the events that unfold in the floor of the Parliament of India. The contents of this article are not guided by unofficial organizations (India Against Corruption) but by the organizations responsible for carrying out the task of law making (The parliament of India and the Government of India).

Regards, theTigerKing 14:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your opinion. It is, however, nothing but your opinion. The articles are about the exact same subject: a series of draft bills being considered by the Indian government. None of them have passed. We need exactly one article that covers the entire legislative history of one bill. You are theorizing this bill will pass, but that is nothing but your opinion. As such, unless there is a better explanation of how these are separate, independent subjects, I will boldly redirect this article to the other one. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have presented facts and not my personal opinions. I believe you have not read my points clearly. In case you had, they would have had provided you with all the answers to all of your doubts that you are having right now. If you still have any doubt left that they refer to my opinions, please give me the pointers for the same. I will provide you with credible citations. You have misrepresented facts. The Lokpal Bill, 2011 is a bill created by the Lower House of the Parliament of India and is being referred to by the Rajya Sabha. It is an intellectual property of the Parliament of India. The Jan Lokpal bill is a draft anti-corruption bill created by a prominent civil society group in India and ‘considered’ to by the Parliamentary Standing Committee while it invited opinions from the general public. I am writing this article as it should be written ,that is, like any other government bill. It can't be written like an unofficial bill. This explains your third line. I have already explained why the Lokpal Bill, 2011 and the draft Jan Lokpal bill, 2011 are different while contesting the deletion of this article (I hope you have read that as well). I am not theorizing anything. Nor, I had. I have already written why these two articles should be kept separate and why these two articles can't be merged. Also, I had mentioned previously why this article can't be added to the Jan Lokpal Bill. In the GA review of this article, another editor has maintained the same fact that I wish to convey to you. You had nominated this page previously for speedy deletion which was out-rightly rejected. I would be obliged to contest your other claims as well, as I have done previously. I am confident your 'claims' would stand 'invalidated' and 'rejected'. I believe, you are not having even faint idea/information on these subjects (Jan Lokpal Bill, The Lokpal Bill, 2011) and hence making unfounded and baseless comments.theTigerKing 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --theTigerKing 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, In this comment, I would be presenting the reasons why there are similarities between the articles The Lokpal Bill, 2011 and the Jan Lokpal Bill.

1) The articles contain the word Lokpal in their titles.

2) A few of the events mentioned in both these articles are pointing to the same sources or situations.

3) The articles contain some of the references which are common to both of them. All of these sources are websites of either newspapers or the electronic media. This has happened because they are pointing to the same events. Even the texts from these sources have been referred to in both these articles by acknowledging the references in citations. It in no way duplicates the article Jan Lokpal Bill.

4) The very existence of both these articles is justified as they point to two different and unrelated entities.

I have requested a copy-edit for this article (The Lokpal Bill, 2011) as well, to help in drafting this article like other laws or official bills, which exist in the Wikipedia.

I would urge the administrators to have a look at both of my comments. I would appreciate their viewpoints. I would urge them to provide me the reasons which remain unexplained, if any. I would try to provide valid justifications before them.

Regards, theTigerKing 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lokpal Bill, 2011/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be writing a review shortly. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. theTigerKing19:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend holding off on any GA review, given that I will be pushing extremely hard to, at a minimum, merge this content into the previously existing Jan Lokpal Bill or, more likely, simply redirect this there as a certain WP:CONTENTFORK and likely WP:POVFORK. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why GA review should be put on hold. If there is one, please enlighten everyone with the plausible reasons. And yes, I have already put up my views in the talk page of the The Lokpal Bill, 2011. I would be obliged to contest your other claims as well.theTigerKing12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I m holding this for 1 week. If User:Qwyrxian believes that it should be re-directed or merged then please do propose it on the article and if wants it to be deleted then go for AfD. After the span of 1 week, I'll start the review and also this is very very (extremely) less likely to be merged or redirected because this totally differs from Jan version. This is a different proposal formulated by different people and there is no reason to merge according to me. →TSU ^tp* 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Not worth my time. I'll take the page off my watchlist, but consider this as you ponder a GA review: Wikipedia does not usually have articles on individual drafts of proposed laws. Instead, we have one article on the final, passed version of a law, with sections in that article briefly covering the legislative history. I also strongly caution the reviewer when reading the sources: many of the sources may not refer to this particular draft, because the Indian press is not regularly careful about distinguishing between different versions, and just because an article talks about the "Lokpal Bill" doesn't mean they aren't talking about the "Jan Lokpal Bill". Finally, let me state that if this law does not pass, it should be merged into one omnibus article about all draft versions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with your last line Qwyrxian. But, I am confident that something like this is not going to happen ever, whatever the final outcome of the bill be - passed into a law or not. theTigerKing 20:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

Lets start slow. I'll raise minor concerns first and then will move to bigger.

• Please add WP:ALT to images. Already done

 Question: I just verified that all the images used in the article are having alt property in them.

• In "Eight and Ninth Draft Meets" sub-section, there is a clooapse box. Please remove the collapse and let the table be open as we want it simpler and not complicated. Normally collpaose is not used in article as it looks odd at articles.

 Done

• "External links" - this consists of so many links about lokayuktas. This is not proper and nor of use. Right now, none of the links are relavent like other articles have so remove all of those and find or add a centralized link.

 Done The Lokayukta section now appropriately put up in See Also Section.

• "See also" section should be moved to above "Notes" section.

 Done

Response for GA Review by theTigerKing 19:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC) →TSU ^tp* 05:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Failure

I never had a good look at the article but now as I have done it, this is a quick fail. Here are few reasons for it:

• The 1st paragraph in the lead is no where near neutral and is also unsourced

The references have been mentioned in the infobox. Hence, I found no reason why it should be included in tne first paragraph. Please explain "near neutrality". all the sources in the lead section are either of respected journals or official documents of government of India. Most of the featured articles hardly contain any references in the lead section. They are either provided in the infobox or in the latter parts of the article. Only those references are and have been provided in the lead section whose account has not been mentioned in the latter parts of the article. theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• 4th paragraph in the lead goes off-focused and off-topic

This paragraph deals with the need to have the law passed at the earliest. It also contains the latest rankings of India in the Corruption Perceptions Index and the estimates of loss because of public-corruption.Also it is no reason for quick-fail.theTigerKing16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article is full of grammatical errors as well as copyediting is needed

Please provide the pointers for the grammatical errors. I have applied for the latter.Again, no reason for quick-fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutrality is disputed. Many sentences are so much in favor of anti-govt. thing.

Please provide pointers for the same. There is no anti-govt. thing as such, I believe.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Less mention about the controversies with the team anna is there.

There are already separate pages for the same(Jan Lokpal Bill, 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement) You previous point talks about being anti-govt. I had risked calling it anti-govt, had I included them in the article. Again, no reason for a quick-fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Refs need publisher, name of author etc.

95% of them have publisher, name of author mentioned. In certain situations, they do not contain the name of the author.(Examples->Official drafts of the bill, Some Indian News Websites(They include words like Agencies like in them.)theTigerKing16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• External links have nothing to do with this article and all of them should be removed

I believe we could have discussed them. I have mentioned the official websites of the law making agencies, the organizations whose drafts have been mentioned in the article. Again, no reason for a quick fail.theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Section headings like: "Journey through The Lok Sabha" itself is causing neutrality problem

We could have discussed them. "Neutrality problem" please explain.theTigerKing16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but have to fail it for now →TSU ^tp* 15:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please have a thorough look theTigerKing 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality fail

Okay, I had a look again. Neutrality will still be my main reason to quick fail it. This issue can be fixed in 1 month then could be re-nominated. The source provided to the statement in the lead is a primary source. Also, if it were nor a PS, then also one should not include such statement in the lead at all. WP:LEAD should summarize the whole article and should be neutral and should be in own words.

When you are writing an article about a bill, it should not be compared like it has been done in "Eight and Ninth Draft Meets". This is clearly a copyvio of the source. The source provided says that it is from Forbes and it is not infact. It is not even a WP:RS as that page is edited by editors like us. It is WP:OR.

Section headers like: Journey through The Lok Sabha looks as if we are reading a book related to the topic not an encyclopedia.

Corruption is an emotional issue in India, where at least 12 whistle-blowers were killed and 40 assaulted after seeking information under a new Right to Information Act aimed at exposing local graft, according to data compiled by Bloomberg L.P. from January 2010 through mid-October 2011. - focus failed

Lead should not introduce new topics and should contain some details of every content-section in the article. Sorry, but it has failed now. I'd like advise that seek help from someone who is active in GAs and then go for a nom after 2-3 weeks after addressing the issues. You can even ask me if you want me to make this article better (I have 2 GAs and 3 are just about to get GA status). →TSU ^tp* 03:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Split the article

At the current stage the article has grown too long and focuses more on the historical background and context rather than the legal provisions which have been incorporated in the Bill passed by the LS and RS. I propose to split the article and move most of the content to a new article which can be titled like Historical background to the Lokpal Bill or History of Lokpal Bill. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

address of lokayuktas

tell me add of lokayuktas in new dehi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohd azhar khan (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)