Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2021 and 23 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sairamaret.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other violence

[edit]

Please update the narcoanalysis paragraph. It has no citations and is clearly written in a bogus fashion. Moreover, narconalysis (against the will of the accused) was banned by the Supreme Court (the higher court of land). http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_supreme-court-makes-narco-lie-detector-brain-mapping-tests-illegal_1379213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.84.64 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

human rights in india

[edit]

implementation schime ? of human rights in india

OBCs, Dalits and Sachar Committee report

[edit]

While I'm not doubting the validity of statements in this article they need to be moved to a more relevant section such as Caste in India, or Economic status of minorities. Human rights refers primarily to things like freedom of speech, religion etc and not to economic status. Muslims, Dalits, OBCs are poor but that's for another article. If they are also oppressed (by the state or by other groups with state support or lack of legal enforcements) for being Muslim, Dalit etc then that comes under human rights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.177.246 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop the overly broad mass reversions

[edit]

I have fixed many typos and grammar errors several times now, and reversions continue to undo that work. I can't imagine anyone actually disagrees with those edits, so please leave them alone.

I have tried to explain the copy and paste plagiarism problem in edit summaries, but apparently I was insufficiently clear. It doesn't matter whether you link to the source from which you have copied -- it's still a copyright violation. I have added templates to encourage others to examine this issue; please do not delete the templates.71.174.94.146 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Take a look at WP:NOR a bit more closely. The whole purpose of wikipedia is to cite and quote from other sources. As long as it isn;t unattributed mass-copying it isn't "copyright violation" or whatever, unless, of course, a troll wikilawyers to push a political agenda. And please don't troll the article again. If you have any issues take it to WP:DR.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined WP:NOR and find nothing there that says that you should use others' words and represent them as our own. Of course we should cite reliable sources, but if we wish to quote them, we should do so sparingly, and explicitly attribute the quote. Merely including a link to the source you have copied from is insufficient.
I ask you for the fourth time, please stop calling me a troll. I have no political agenda, and do not know why you would think that I do.71.174.94.146 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. WP:NOR and WP:ATT state that we are not supposed to interpret other's work, but cite them as is. Now, of course, that does not mean going in the opposite direction and copy-pasting their stuff into the article in copyright violation. The right thing to do is to strike a middle ground. Quote them somewhat and attribute tothem, but do not just copy-paste every thing. I have done so. Putting attributed quotes is not plagiarism (see purdah for instance, where extensive quotes are used as well, much more direct than in this case). Like I said, if you have issues, please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point by mass-tagging the article. Doing so, especially by an anonymous ip address, is an indication of trolling. If you're a serious editor who wishes to raise concerns about copyright violations then why not discuss each point in this talk page and suggest ways of modifying the text to remove any perception of copyright violations. Instead of doing that, you first mass-blanked the text and made the article unbalances, then proceeded to vandalize the article with tags. Continuation of such behaviour places serious doubts on your credibility or intentions.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are copying your sources' work directly into the article. An attributed quote has quotation marks aka inverted commas around it. Mixing sentences that the source wrote with sentences that you wrote without distinguishing between them is not appropriate. I am in no way suggesting that we violate the strictures against original research or proper attribution. We don't need to copy our sources verbatim to avoid original research.
I hardly mass-blanked the text; I carefully excised a handful of sentences that were copied directly from the sources. Regarding my tagging, three templates, one for each instance of unattributed quotes, hardly qualifies as mass tagging. I am not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; I am trying to avoid violating the copyrights of others. A few appropriately placed tags do not constitute vandalism nor trolling, and allowing copyright violations to persist jeopardises the entire project.71.174.94.146 (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I just examined the purdah article. The article is dominated by two enormous quotations, and has already been appropriately tagged for its unencyclopaedic nature. Even more importantly, those quotations have giant speech marks around them, clearly identifying them as not merely based on the cited sources, but directly copied therefrom.71.174.94.146 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please list exactly what has been allegedly "directly copied" and from where below, based on the current revision of the article. i emind the reader that this edit of the anon [1] is clearly vandalistic in nature, given that there was no "mass copying" and all attributed statements are clearly in quotesGhanadar galpa (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have quite recently fixed the first instance of plagiarism with this edit [2]. It would have been much better to paraphrase the first time around, and never inserted copied sentences at all. It would also have been better to fix it the first, second or third time that I pointed it out rather than edit warring until the fourth round, and even better if you had not called me a vandal and a troll. The fact that you specify "the current revision of the article" shortly after finally fixing a problem makes it appear that you already recognize your actions as plagiarism and are being disingenuous -- this appearance is making it harder for me to assume good faith.
The edit you call "vandalistic" included the deletion of the phrase "many different variables" which was directly taken from a quote of Mark Lagon in the CNN article [3] (seventh paragraph of first section). This is especially obviously inappropriate, as the very next sentence is also a quote of Lagon, but this time acknowledges him as the originator of those words. I removed the stolen words, and joined the two sentences into one to maintain readability and grammar. Hardly the act of a vandal.
I then removed the sentence "U.S. Assistant Attorney-General, Alexander Acosta, said that India faced a handicap in the fight against such crimes due to the lack of an adequate federal law enforcement agency." This was lifted from the article in the Hindu [4] (last sentence of second paragraph). Again, no attribution of the quote to either the author or the newspaper. The copied sentence is nestled in between two apparently original sentences, and no attempt is made to differentiate the copied sentence from the original ones. This deletion was accompanied in the same edit by a few typo fixes. When was the last time you saw a vandal fix typos?71.174.94.146 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. This has got to be the most ludicrous level of wikilawyering I have ever seen. You first rampage the article, accusing everybody under the sun and moon of "plagiarism". Then you claim that I have copied one sentence verbatim, and jump to the conclusion that it is an egreggious copyright infringement that will propel wikipedia into some sort of lawsuit. It is your motives that are suspect here, and, frankly, border on WP:POINT. Taking a sentence from an article does not constitute a copyright violation. If that were the case, most of the internet would be a copyright violation and lawsuits would shut down every server in existence. Copyright violation is when entire masses of text are copied without attribution. That clearly has not happened here. So "many different variables" is "plagiarism"? This is ridiculous. You need to consult a dictionary as to the meaning of the word Mr Wikilawyer. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend that user Ghanadar galpa modify his/her tone as per the etiquette guideline and the civility policy. — Athaenara ✉ 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion
[edit]

A third opinion was requested. My first opinion would be to ask the two editors to stand-down for a few hours to cool-off. Then I suggest that the IP user make all of his/her clerical edits and the contact Ghanadar and request him/her to review those. After you both can achieve consensus on those issues, lets' tackle the alleged copyright violation. In the interim, I don't see a gross violation which requires immediate action, if at all. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but why don't you let him make the minor clerical changes and then you and I can verify his work. It looked like he has a keen eye for grammar and spelling. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion is not as formal as mediation etc. It is a first step in problem solving. I'm happy to help where I can to keep this on track and if it seems ot get out of hand I'm happy to help with involving stronger remedies. At this point I have no bias in the topic, just a bias toward offer good accurate information to our readers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rights

[edit]

This article doesn't address any women's rights or gender issues in India. I think this would be important in understanding the human rights situation. This came to mind after I looked at Panoramio pictures of New Delhi and realized that there were many more men out on the street than women. I'm not sure if this is accurate or just a coincidence, but I think more information on the situation of women in India would help me especially, and maybe others who are curious. Paxuniv (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severe and Unchecked Bias

[edit]

The articles on human rights in India produce half-truths and,quite shockingly so,seem to shift most of the blame for religious violence in India on Muslims...Including the 2002 Gujarat massacres!Also,the issue of human rights in Indian Administered Kashmir are downplayed.All of the incidences of rape,burning down of villages and massacres of innocent civilians are summarized as follows;

"Several international agencies and the UN have reported human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. In a recent press release the OHCHR spokesmen stated 'The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is concerned about the recent violent protests in Indian-administered Kashmir that have reportedly led to civilian casualties as well as restrictions to the right to freedom of assembly and expression.'"

THERE IS NO MENTION OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED ON PART OF THE INDIAN ARMY AGAINST THE KASHMIRIS!!!

Sadly,we can't edit these articles,update them or make them more realistic.That is,to remove the facade of peace and tolerance the 'socialist' republic of India displays,and the unfair imagery of Pakistan being a hostile state wherein minorities have no rights.This is no fair,even though we can produce proper references and verifiable sources,including UN reports.Squeezing the entire story into one pitiful sentence leads to,as in its Pakistani counterpart,implied misinformation.the only difference in between the two being that the Pakistani article damages the Pakistan's reputation unlike in the Indian article,wherein it serves to honey India's reputation and the implied information contained therein is severely misleading(example sighted above).The real reason women's rights in India is not mentioned is because their plight in the villages would have to be mentioned and in rural areas there are few rights for them.While urban women are somewhat liberated and work,rural women are mostly treated as a commodity....the current trend of farmers selling their wives to make ends meet is proof of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanyusufmian (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any Government Censorships?

[edit]

Are there any significant government censorships regarding incidents of government policies and/or forces vs regional or ethnics groups? Such as against the Sikhs and the Kashmirs? MOre info plz Children of the dragon (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 210.89.41.145, 3 December 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} LGBT Rights Until the Delhi High Court decriminalised consensual private sexual acts between consenting adults on June 2, 2009, should read Until the Delhi High Court decriminalised consensual private sexual acts between consenting adults on July 2, 2009,

Please change to July 2, 2009 Thanks Sridhar Rangayan

210.89.41.145 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for catching that! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in India

[edit]

14.96.193.118 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC) The first para says that India is a "secular democratic republic". This information is incomplete. After 42nd amendment 1976, the Indian constitution declares India as a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". For any discussion on human rights, this statement is important.[reply]

Human Rights in India

[edit]

14.96.193.118 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC) The first para says that India is a "secular democratic republic". This information is incomplete. After 42nd amendment 1976, the Indian constitution declares India as a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". For any discussion on human rights, this statement is important.[reply]

Health Ministry of Govt. of india not giving benifit of 5th & 6th CPC recommendation for Medical Officers and Asst. Research officers working in National Institute of Homoeopathy more tha 25 years.

[edit]

Homoeopathic doctors of National Institute of Homoeopathy, kolkata are deprived for more than 25 years.They are working there as Medical officers and Asst. Research officers more than 25 years but there is no promotional avenue for them but Dept. of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & F.W is not iplementing DYNAMIC ACP for them.Some of them already retire from service.It is regrate to say that one doctor was posted for 25 yeras and retiring from same post and scale.There is no proper justice for us and still we are the citizen of india and giving honour to our democracy.Who will bell the CAT?

Merger proposal

[edit]

I'm copying this information over from the source article so that discussion can be centralized here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I propose that Police use of torture in India be merged into Human rights in India. A separate article is unnecessary. A section within the destination article would best serve visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge. After I removed the unreliable sources, or misrepresented sources in the other article, very little was left. As such, I think it needs to be merged in here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, merge. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me too. Do the merge. Jeff Ogden (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense. Shovon (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think the same info also belongs in Law enforcement in India. I can put it there as well after this merge is (likely) completed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I'm not going to merge it into Law enforcement in India right now, since they were never informed of the discussion; I'd want to find a way to not just duplicate the info, so I'll worry about it later. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working Group on Human Rights in lead

[edit]

A few days ago an IP editor added info about a Working Group on Human Rights (that's a division of the United Nations) report that found human rights in India to be "dismal" (an actual quote from the report) to the lead. Today, an IP removed that info from the lead, claiming that "The problem with putting the opinion of some activists in the lead is that it provides insufficient context." In a sense, I agree with the IP, that if activists had produced a report with this opinion, it wouldn't belong in the lead. The problem is, neither the UN in general nor its subgroup the WGHR are in any way activists; in fact, they're very nearly the definition of an independent, neutral observer. As such, I believe the information does belong in the lead. However, rather than edit war about it, I'd like other opinions (including a clearer explanation from the IP). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, though, I did revert the IP a second time on the info about the UN from the Caste section, as the same concerns about WP:UNDUE don't apply there, and it's inappropriate to leave out such a high profile analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is debatable whether the UN is a neutral group with regards to India or not, since the UN does not recognize India's sovereignty over Sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh, despite the majority of Sikkim choosing by electoral referendum to federate with India. It can be argued that these frankly unprofessional and decontextualized claims by some UN activists are a propaganda effort to undermine whatever progress the country has made in these areas so far.
In any case, this info definitely does not belong in the lead, where far more civilized sources are used. The claims made by the UN activists need to be balanced out by the fact that Reservation in India for Dalit and other ethnic folk is at an all time high (with over 50% of all government quotas reserved for Dalit folk), though I doubt that you will do this.14.139.193.45 (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That too one sourced from a right-wing British publication like "the independent" known for it's racial hostility to Indian immigrants to the UK (resentment over their successes), no less! 14.139.193.45 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That some parts of the UN have political decisions which you or some or even a majority of Indians don't like doesn't make them an activist group. That's like saying that Pakistan and China are activist groups because they have border disputes with India--it's just an irrelevant statement. The Independent is merely reporting neutrally on what the UN said; I imagine we can find an alternative source for the same information, if you prefer. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral? In what universe is "dismal" a neutral word? "Poor", perhaps, or <some number or index>, perhaps. But using a loaded word like "dismal" destroys any claim of neutrality by a right-wing newspaper, especially one known for stirring up racial hatred against Indian minorities.14.139.193.45 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, first start with an alternative source other than the British version of Der Sturmer, then we can discuss how to word it. You still haven't responded to my request to include information on Reservation in India.14.139.193.45 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for sources another day. I don't watch/edit Reservation in India (in fact, I think this is the first I've ever heard of it), so you'll have to take it up with editors there. If you feel like you need outside opinions, try the dispute resolution process. Qwyrxian (talk)
I'm not asking you to get involved there. I'm asking you to include information on reservations in THIS article as a counterbalance to the UN's screeds. The fact that you know nothing about this means that maybe you should first do some research instead of using wikipedia to promote racial bigotry against Indian minorities.14.139.193.45 (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I missed that sentence in your earlier comment that suggested adding info to this article. If you think that info should be included, please provide reliable sources; of course, be sure that they relate directly to human rights--we can't synthesize information that's related and add it here to counterbalance, as that would be original research. Lastly, please don't accuse me of trying to promote racial bigotry. I usually ignore personal attacks directed at myself, but am not pleased with the idea that you think my edits are anything other than an attempt to include neutral information in line with our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mother,s rights

[edit]

Hi

I am holding british nationality. I have got one child baby daughter. I have to leave my daughter in india in care of my elder sister for study . Now my sister and my ex husband made my daughter against me . I was the one who was looking after fiancialy and visiting her every year. My sister took so much money from me and forcing me to grant her as my daughter,s mother which will help her to come to england with her whole family. On my refysal my sister made my daughter against me. I went to the Royal court of justice in uk but i have to agree my daughter, wishes to study n india. i have not seen my daughter for last 3 years. She was 11 years old whe taken away from me.

Any help Manju — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.52 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this page is only for people having discussions to improve the article on Human rights in India. We aren't specialists in law, and so can't really advise you. Technically, you can ask at the WP:Reference desk, but since you're basically inquiring about legal advice, they probably won't be able to help. You'll need to contact a lawyer in India. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim women's rights

[edit]

@Verisimilitudepov:, instead of making separate section only for muslim women, please make section for "Women rights", that will be better, and kindly write shortly, don't make sub-sections within it, see other sections, they are written very short but fruitful. Kindly make changes in you recent edits or it will get reverted, it is not upto standards of wikipedia or requirements of this article. No need to go through history, just mention current situation of Muslim women in 4-5 lines and reliable sources, and write about non-muslim women also. Thank you. Cheers --Human3015 00:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes. The article would be more insightful if the level of detail was heighten on the violations of human rights of women, the elderly, people in poor health, and people of a lower socio-economic status. Currently, the human rights violations of children is overly-represented. Asj'a Thompson (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in India

[edit]

Human rights in India 2402:3A80:1616:E89B:CEB2:B4FF:98AD:D7C1 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unduly high weightage given to CAA riots and 2002 riots

[edit]

There has been unduly high attention given to the 2 riots and many of the other post independence riots are completely ignored or have been given less attention.

For example, 1984 riots have been given way less coverage than 2002 riots. This is despite the fact that 1984 riots victims have been systematically denied justice by the subsequent congress govts. The number of deaths in Anti Sikh riots is also downplayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factpineapple (talk • contribs) 06:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we see wikipedia page of list of riots in India, there have been much more vicious violation of human rights than during CAA riots

List of riots in India Factpineapple (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disability rights

[edit]

Please elaborate the rights of a disabled person and Autistic person.

Notably, Indian government and different public sector and railways, use ableist language such as 'mental retardation' in spite of public petition. The railways repeatedly forbid assistance for intellectual disabilities which are not immediately appearing.There are complaints that in spite of formally diagnosed disability certificate, those person with hidden disabilities are repeatedly fake-claimed by government officials. Also in order to get a disability certificate or a support, there are a TOLL of Gatekeeping practices. Self diagnosis also heavily shamed by professional. Because professional bodies and doctors held a belief that they understand more than the patient.

Indian constitution ensures fundamental rights for race and religion, but do not ensure fundamental rights for disability. Disability is seen as a disease, and not as an identity. People are forced to get "corrective measures" (Such as ABA/ Antipsychotics/ conversion therapy) instead of accepting people as they are. Eugenics is sometimes taught in college and university zoology and genetics courses where Eugenics is shown in a positive light.

2409:40E0:1035:5930:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was placed directly into the article, and the section was unreadable. Whoever did this please do not do this again. The entire section is uncited, and honestly should be scrapped. You even left in "Please elaborate the rights of a disabled person and Autistic person". This is completely unacceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.153.31.120 (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_India&oldid=1240979986"