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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DYK nomination[edit]

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)

Did you knowDYK comment symbol nomination

This review is transcluded from Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019. You may review or comment on the nomination by clicking here.

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.
  • Symbol confirmed.svg 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 (tc) 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)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg 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[edit]

@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)