Talk:Jan Lokpal Bill

propose to merge both the articles Lokpal and Janlokpal bill in to one

Lokpal is a proposed ombudsman, constituted by passing a bill in Indian parliament. There are differences on ambit of the said ombudsman and the provisions of the bill, between the government and the civil society. Civil society labeled their version of the draft of bill as Jan Lokpal Bill and government version labeled as Lokpal bill. Ultimately when constituted, the ombudsman should be call as Lokpal (Sanskrit words "loka" (people) and "pala" (protector/caretaker)). Therefore it would be confusing for the readers since we have two articles for same subjects. I propose to merge both the articles Lokpal and Jan Lokpal Bill in to one – Lokpal -- . Shlok _{talk .} 08:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood at first. Well, I just removed about 2/3 of the other article, because much of it was either a copyright violation (copied from our own articles without attribution) or unsourced personal opinion. In fact, I'm not sure that there's anything there that isn't already here. So, yes, that article should be merged into this one, if there is anything there that isn't here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am Chinmay. I want to note that Lokpal bill(Govt version) is in Indian Sansad. And it is much different than Jan Lokpal (Anna Hazare Team Version) .

So we do not need to merge, but to give tags Govt version to Lokpal & Anna Team Version to other. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHINMAY123456 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the top-level merge between Lokpal and the present article is complete. The resulting article still needs some work -MK 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Names

Let's please discuss the issue before adding more names of supporters. That section is already long enough, and it is WP:UNDUE to simply list everyone who's been quotes as supporting. If someone really wants to make a case for a particular new inclusion, please explain here. Known personalities as supporters provide real context. Please include Narayana Murthy, Anupam Kher, Chetan Bhagat as supporters of the Janlokpal bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.183.170 (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Differences in versions

All information in Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. While I didn't look at the details of the most recent change to this section, since it switched from using an actual reliable source to using a self-published version, I had to revert the whole thing. Please don't replace reliably sourced material with unreliably sourced or unsourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edits from 61.11.125.231, You mentioned that "The prime minister was included in govt's draft in April but was removed later. The times source is old and outdated" is the reason for your edit. But that is exactly the point, why your addition should go into a different section rather than the place you are putting it in (as I mentioned earlier). The existing differences section is for the bill from 2010 and the Jan Lok Pal bill provided for historic reasons. The current bill by the government is different, it is 2011 version. Rather than removing the previous item to add PMs issue (which will take away the historic content), it can go in a new section describing the current bill. The content is correct and truthful, but the location where it is put is not the right place. Also there are far better references than Bhasker.com --Kijacob (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "draft version" listed in that section is outdated, then the whole section should be removed. Wikipedia doesn't need to report on the differences between a very old version of a bill and an old version of the bill. Such a level of detail goes beyond what we should provide. To be honest, I don't even think we need a differences section at all--we merely need to state what the current bill is. This would solve a lot of the understandable confusion in editing that section (by simply removing the section). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the last statement, in fact at this time there is no Jan Lokpal bill. But this is probably the wrong time to make those changes - seems like political passion is running high now, from what I see from newspapers. Maybe after a week. ps. my earlier comment was for 61.11.125.231 if he/she happen to read it. --Kijacob (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Difference between Draft Lokpal Bill 2010 and Jan Lokpal Bill" section contained descriptions from the current bill and the draft bill from 2010. Modified so that all the entries are consistent for 2010. 2011 comparison is given below that, whatever form it takes, after the resolution. --Kijacob (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete differences section debate

The section "Complete differences" is based on the info present on the IAC website dated June 23, 2011]. This is the latest info, as per my understanding.Veryhuman (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the whole section. We never say, "Well, this source is unreliable, but it's the best we have, so here's what it says". If we have no reliable source, we do not add the info to Wikipedia--it's that simple. If someone finds a reliable source comparing the old version and the new version, or the government version and the Hazare version, or any other comparison that is relevant to the current version(s), then include that. Until then, it may not be there. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this is not reliable. It is from one of the very parties involved in the very debate, explaining in detail each of the differences between the bill. It is as reliable as it can get!. Our job is to add the neutral POV, not blanket-delete the whole thing. Veryhuman (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, in fact, it's the exact opposite of reliable. First, that site is just a generic hosting site--there is no evidence that the document was certainly uploaded by any of the parties in question--for all I can tell, it could have been written by a random person, or even by the government to make the other side look band. Second, even if you were to verify it's posted by the IAC, that makes it a self-published source and most certainly does not meet the very limited exceptions for self-published sources as found in WP:ABOUTSELF. This is because it is highly self-serving, is a claim about a third party, and there is reason to doubt its authenticity. Unless you can find a neutral, independent source that compares the different versions, this information may not be in the article. If you think I'm wrong, take the issue to WP:RSN (or, if you haven't taken issue to noticeboards before, let me know and I can do it). But please not re-add the info because including a source from one side and acting as though it's reliable information not only violates WP:V, it also violates WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

IAC is an interest group and what they say is not a reliable source for a neutral account - it is biased towards their objectives.--Kijacob (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is issue with WP:NPOV, but I do not agree it is a non-reliable source. This information is from the very drafters of the bill - it is certainly not unreliable. IAC activists drafted the Jan Lokpal Bill. As for NPOV, one can always remove the comments and opinions in the differences, but as editors of Wikipedia, it is important to provide BOTH points of view and not filter our views based on our own assumptions and beliefs. I agree for now that the opinions can be taken out, but the differences between the bills is very much reliable. Veryhuman (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution to this issue is adding more references to each of the issues in the table, but most certainly, NOT blanket-deleting it. This seriously compromises the quality of this article and is based on wrong assumptions. If this section is not deleted, it will give me time to satisfy the NPOV condition better. So I request not deleting it. Veryhuman (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not understanding. By the rules in WP:V and WP:RS, that source is definitely not reliable. It's good that you verified the authenticity of the document, but please read WP:ABOUTSELF. Self-published sources are never reliable to provide information about third parties. Since you're not understanding, I'll raise this on the reliable sources noticeboard to get clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a request for input at WP:RSN#Source on Jan Lokpal Bill. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the WP:ABOUTSELF issue. However, I think it is important to understand that deleting something is an easy power and should be exercised wisely. Please refrain from blanket deleting...in cognizance to the issues you raised, I am adding additional references to each of the statements and "constructing" anything takes time. I'd request patience and not rush into deleting things...I am adding references to address the WP:V issue, if you take a look at the section again. Veryhuman (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see this in The Hindu - but this is also in the opinion section </ref> --Kijacob (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kijacob. I have read several sections of both bills and the table is correct. In addition, the Hindu article also notes the specific clauses where there are differences. I think thats quite sufficient. Thanks for bringing this to the notice. Veryhuman (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Veryhuman, I am fine with the table of differences (the first three columns), but I am also struggling to find a good neutral reference to satisfy the requirement, and having a bit difficult time. If we can find a good reference, we might want to modify the comments section to appear them to have come from a neutral person, rather than one group criticizing the other. You put in a lot of work in this page, very commendable. --Kijacob (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Found another neutral source of differences Times of India. But I agree, the section needs to be "Worked Upon" to make it more NPOV... Veryhuman (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - that one is a neutral source. One thing we should decide is whether to keep the highlight section - that is from last year comparing the government bill they proposed in 2010- I worked on that earlier this year. Although the Jan version remained more or less the same, the government has changed somewhat. So if we are going to keep the highlight section for historic reasons, we should make it clear that it is about the old version, and the one you introduced are the differences in the current version. We can get rid of the highlights, although I rather keep it to see how the government version has changed--Kijacob (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Am moving this discussion to another section (see below) Veryhuman (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Times of India citation is excellent. I would be exceedingly happy if you removed any differences (lines/rows) from that table that are not covered in the TOI source, and, once that's done, removed all links to the IAC page, since it is an advocacy page and does not meet WP:RS (it doesn't even meet WP:EL, and should not be linked at all in this article). If you want to "save" those lines rather than delete them, moving them to a userspace draft/sandbox is perfectly fine. I have other concerns about the table, but those can wait. The first thing is to make sure we are not including an unsourced information. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the source, since it's no longer needed (the news sources are sufficient). Now, there's a problem with the "commentary". We cannot include commentary primarily from one side. It is not correct that we can include the one sided criticism and "wait" for other criticism to appear. That's a very disingenuous taking of NPOV. In fact, we shouldn't have so much commentary anyway--our job is not to provide a detailed list of every single position of each side on every single point. That's the job of an advocacy site, or a political information site, or one of the partisan sites. What I'm going to do is to copy the table as it currently stands to a sub page, then I'm going to remove the two rightmost columns from the article. If anyone wants to recover very important (i.e., meeting WP:DUE opinions, and integrate them somewhere other than the table, fine. Finally, after that, I'm going to go through and fix the descriptions--right now, one side's description is long and verbose, and the other side is highly simplistic. This itself presents a POV (as if one side has thought out its arguments far more). I don't know if I can finish all of that now, but I will try. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind--I'm putting it here in a collapse box rather than on a subpage for easier access:

Table as of 05:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Detailed The following table details differences between the Jan Lokpal Bill being offered by the Government and the one offered by Anna Hazare's team, as described in The Hindu and Times of India. Issue The Jan Lokpal Bill Government's Lokpal Bill Comments by critics (India Against Corruption) of Lokpal Comments by critics of Jan Lokpal Prime Minister Lokpal should have power to investigate allegations of corruption against PM. Special safeguards provided against frivolous and mischievous complaints PM kept out of Lokpal’s purview. As of today, corruption by PM can be investigated under Prevention of Corruption Act. Government wants investigations to be done by CBI, which comes directly under him, rather than independent Lokpal. The PM, as the head of the state, should not be allowed to be probed by an extra-constitutional body. That undermines existing bodies set up constitutionally to investigate that Judiciary Lokpal should have powers to investigate allegation of corruption against judiciary. Special safeguards provided against frivolous and mischievous complaints Judiciary kept out of Lokpal purview. Government wants this to be included in Judicial Accountability Bill (JAB). Under JAB, permission to enquire against a judge will be given by a three member committee (two judges from the same court and retd Chief justice of the same court). There are many such flaws in JAB. We have no objections to judiciary being included in JAB if a strong and effective JAB were considered and it were enacted simultaneously. Having Lokpal investigate the Judiciary fouls the existing structure of the judicial review process. This is dangerous MPs Lokpal should be able to investigate conduct of MPs in Parliament, including allegations that any MP had taken bribe to vote or speak in Parliament. Government has excluded this from Lokpal’s purview. Taking bribe to vote or speak in Parliament strikes at the foundations of our democracy. Government’s refusal to bring it under Lokpal scrutiny virtually gives a license to MPs to take bribes with impunity. According to Article 105 of the Constitution of India, MPs have certain legal protections for their actions in the Parliament. Lokpal cannot supercede this clause Grievance redressal Violation of citizen’s charter (if an officer does not do a citizen’s work in prescribed time) by an officer should be penalized and should be deemed to be corruption. No penalties proposed. Government had agreed to citizen activists' demand in the Joint committee meeting on 23rd May. It is unfortunate they have gone back on this decision. CBI Anti-corruption branch of CBI should be merged into Lokpal. CBI to be completely controlled by the Government and the Prime Minister. CBI is misused by governments. Recently, govt has taken CBI out of RTI, thus further increasing the scope for corruption in CBI. CBI will remain corrupt till it remains under government’s control Selection of Lokpal members (Selection committee) 1. Broad based selection committee with 2 politicians, four judges and two independent constitutional authorities. 2. An independent search committee consisting of retd constitutional authorities to prepare first list. 3. A detailed transparent and participatory selection process. 1.Five out of ten members from ruling establishment and six politicians in selection committee (PM, Leaders of ruling party in two House, Leaders of Opposition in two houses, Minister for Home Affairs). Others bring two judges and President of National Academy of Sciences 2. Search committee to be selected by selection committee 3. No selection process provided. It will completely depend on selection committee. Government’s proposal ensures that the government will be able to appoint its own people as Lokpal members and Chairperson. Interestingly, they had agreed to the selection committee proposed by us in the meeting held on 7th May. There was also a broad consensus on selection process. However, there was a disagreement on composition of search committee. We are surprised that they have gone back on the decision. Who will Lokpal be accountable to? To the people. A citizen can make a complaint to Supreme Court and seek removal. To the Government. Only government can seek removal of Lokpal With selection and removal of Lokpal in government’s control, it would virtually be a puppet in government’s hands, against whose seniormost functionaries it is supposed to investigate, thus causing serious conflict of interest. Integrity of Lokpal staff Complaint against Lokpal staff will be heard by an independent authority. Lokpal itself will investigate complaints against its own staff Government’s proposal creates a Lokpal, which is accountable either to itself or to the government. We have suggested giving these controls in the hands of the citizens. Method of enquiry Method would be the same as provided in CrPC like in any other criminal case. After preliminary enquiry, an FIR will be registered. After investigations, case will be presented before a court, where the trial will take place CrPC being amended. Special protection being provided to the accused. After preliminary enquiry, all evidence will be provided to the accused and he shall be heard as to why an FIR should not be regd against him. After completion of investigations, again all evidence will be provided to him and he will be given a hearing to explain why a case should not be filed against him in the court. During investigations, if investigations are to be started against any new persons, they would also be presented with all evidence against them and heard. Investigation process provided by the government would severely compromise all investigations. If evidence were made available to the accused at various stages of investigations, in addition to compromising the investigations, it would also reveal the identity of whistleblowers thus compromising their security. Such a process is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence anywhere in the world. Such process would kill almost every case. Lower bureaucracy All those defined as public servants in Prevention of Corruption Act would be covered. This includes lower bureaucracy. Only Group A officers will be covered. One fails to understand government’s stiff resistance against bringing lower bureaucracy under Lokpal’s ambit. This appears to be an excuse to retain control over CBI because if all public servants are brought under Lokpal’s jurisdiction, government would have no excuse to keep CBI. Lokayukta The same bill should provide for Lokpal at centre and Lokayuktas in states Only Lokpal at the centre would be created through this Bill. According to Mr Pranab Mukherjee, some of the CMs have objected to providing Lokayuktas through the same Bill. He was reminded that state Information Commissions were also set up under RTI Act through one Act only Whistleblower protection Lokpal will be required to provide protection to whistleblowers, witnesses and victims of corruption. No mention in this law. According to govt, protection for whistleblowers is being provided through a separate law. But that law is so bad that it has been badly trashed by standing committee of Parliament last month. The committee was headed by Ms Jayanthi Natrajan. In the Jt committee meeting held on 23rd May, it was agreed that Lokpal would be given the duty of providing protection to whistleblowers under the other law and that law would also be discussed and improved in joint committee only. However, it did not happen. Special benches in HC High Courts will set up special benches to hear appeals in corruption cases to fast track them. No such provision One study shows that it takes 25 years at appellate stage in corruption cases. This ought to be addressed. CrPC On the basis of past experience on why anti-corruption cases take a long time in courts and why do our agencies lose them, some amendments to CrPC have been suggested to prevent frequent stay orders. Not included Dismissal of corrupt government servant After completion of investigations, in addition to filing a case in a court for prosecution, a bench of Lokpal will hold open hearings and decide whether to remove the government servant from job. Lokpal can send the matter to the appropriate authority for prosecution - Lokpal only has recommending powers. The competent authority will initiate proceedings and forward report of actions to Lokpal. Often, they are beneficiaries of corruption, especially when senior officer are involved. Experience shows that rather than removing corrupt people, ministers have rewarded them. Power of removing corrupt people from jobs should be given to independent Lokpal rather than this being decided by the minister in the same department. Punishment for corruption 1. Maximum punishment is ten years 2. Higher punishment if rank of accused is higher 3. Higher fines if accused are business entities 4. If successfully convicted, a business entity should be blacklisted from future contracts. None of these accepted. Only maximum punishment raised to 10 years. Financial independence Lokpal's 11 members collectively will decide how much budget do they need Will be paid through the Consolidated Fund of India (Finance ministry will decide the quantum of budget) This seriously compromises with the financial independence of Lokpal Prevent further loss Lokpal will have a duty to take steps to prevent corruption in any ongoing activity, if brought to his notice. If need be, Lokpal will obtain orders from High Court. No such duties and powers of Lokpal 2G is believed to have come to knowledge while the process was going on. Shouldn’t some agency have a duty to take steps to stop further corruption rather than just punish people later? Tap phones Lokpal bench will grant permission to do so Home Secretary would grant permission. Home Secretary is under the control of precisely those who would be under scanner. It would kill investigations. Delegation of powers Lokpal members will only hear cases against senior officers and politicians or cases involving huge amounts. Rest of the investigative work will be done by officers trained by and working under Lokpal The Central Government shall make available investigation officers and other staff from its Ministries or Departments, as may be required by the Lokpal, for carrying out investigation under this Act. This is a sure way to kill Lokpal. The members, if they cannot hire investigative officers, will not be able to handle all cases. Within no time, they would be overwhelmed. NGOs Only government funded NGOs covered All NGOs, big or small, are covered. A method to arm twist NGO False, Frivolous and vexatious complaints If false complaint against member of Lokpal is proved, Lokpal can sentence complainant. Only fines on complainants (limit Rs. 1 lakh). Lokpal would decide whether a complaint is frivolous or vexatious or false. Two to five years of imprisonment and fine (Rs. 25000-2 lakh). The accused can file complaint against complainant in a court. Prosecutor and all expenses of this case will be provided by the government to the accused. The complainant will also have to pay a compensation to the accused . This will give a handle to every accused to browbeat complainants. Often corrupt people are rich. They will file cases against complainants and no one will dare file any complaint. Interestingly, minimum punishment for corruption is six months but for filing false complaint is two years. References

Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem during clean up: The information about who is on the selection committee is not consistent across the Times of India and Hindu Times articles. We need to present the info, but we have to state what both of the sources say, which is tricky. I've temporarily removed the info, to work on later (or someone else can). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done for now; there's still some info in HinduDiff that isn't included (the definitions), though we don't actually have to include every single detail, plus the Selection part needs to be written. One real problem with all of this is that, ultimately, it's a massive waste of time. Once any given bill is chosen and voted on, then this comparison is wholly frivolous and should be removed from the article--per WP:NOT, we are not trying to collect every little detail, only those with lasting value. On other pages about laws (in India and other countries), we don't list all of the details in all of the different drafts.

Actually...gah...why did I go through all of that work. It's very likely that this entire section should be removed per WP:RECENTISM. There is no lasting value in comparing to versions of the law. Yes, I get that it matters right now, but in 6 months it won't matter at all, because only one (or zero) of them will be law. This is pure WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Unless someone can demonstrate to me that these differences have lasting encyclopedic value, I'm highly inclined to remove them entirely, even though I just spent 90 minutes revising them....argh.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS

Couldnt add on to your comment in previous section.

Thanks for the great job of rewriting the section. Also, I feel that although it is WP:RECENTISM, it also satisfies WP:EVENT, according to which "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". The section satisfies both criterias of notability - Notable event and significant & diverse coverage. In addition, for a recentism-affected article, WP:10YT suggests comprehensive rewrite after the edits have died down, which I think is the optimal route here. Also see Wikipedia:10YT#Recentism_defended. So I'd suggest keeping the information for sometime. If further drafts do not satisfy WP:EVENT, then they need to be summarized rather than elaborated with specifics. In any case, at some point, this info needs to be summarized. Veryhuman (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article should be deleted, or that the bills are not notable. I'm saying that the difference between the two versions is only informative now, and by definition cannot have lasting significance. Except to the very narrow field of historians of law-making (not our target audience), there will never be a time in the future where someone will need to know exactly what state the bills were in in August 2011. Again, I'm not suggesting that the Jan Lokpal Bill isn't notable; rather, I'm suggesting that the difference between the two is WP:UNDUE. Note that while WP:Recentism is an essay, you're misinterpreting WP:10YT. That section is not saying that you should let in everything and anything during the period of heightened interest; rather, it's saying that, at some point, you need to cut out the fluff. You can wait, but nothing says you have to. Remember WP:UNDUE is a policy (part of WP:NPOV), and my argument is that a list of differences between two specific draft versions of a law, almost certainly neither of which will actually become law (if anything passes, it will be a compromise version), is undue to the general topic of the Jan Lokpal Bill. I could live with a 1 paragraph comparison, focusing on the fact that there are differences, the differences sparked controversy, and broadly stating what those differences are in prose. The massive table gives way too much prominence to what is only slightly more important than trivia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. The most distracting part, however, are the first three sections - Key features, Differences (2010) and Latest differences. They, together, end up consuming a huge amount of space with redundant info which, as u say, can be summarized in prose. I'm all for deleting/super-summarizing the first two sections. However, I also feel that people have been coming to this page very frequently the last two days, most possibly to understand the salient features and what the whole protest is about. The difference section forms the crux, the soul of the protests raging across India. Thats my argument for keeping the table form, for now - its much more clearer and easier to udnerstand. Again, I understand this is not ideal for an encyclopedic format. So, you decide... Veryhuman (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lokpal first introduced in 1968 or 1977

I've just noticed that the background section says the bill was first drafted in 1968 by Shanti Bhushan. But article on Shanti Bhushan says he did it in 1977? It also ties with the fact that he became the law minister from 1977. --MK 12:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1968. This is the most trustworthy source - Minutes of meeting of the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lokpal Bill. See Page 3, point 6 Veryhuman (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wicked! I knew it'd be useful to post here. Thanks. --MK 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be called Lokpal Bill?

The more I read about this, the more I realize that the bill itself is called Lokpal Bill. However the version that is being put by the activists is called Jan Lokpal Bill (or the the People's Lokpal Bill). Would it make sense for this article to be renamed to the Lokpal bill and the lead modified to mention the above? --MK 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea MK. However, I think several things need to be revamped so that it becomes clear we are talking about two different versions. Currently, it looks like a huge mishmash. Maybe the article can be moved to another name at some later point Veryhuman (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the Lead accordingly. --MK 18:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider revising title of section

the current title of the section "Complete set of differences between Jan Lokpal and Government's Lokpal bill (2011)" may be abbreviated as it is too long and unwieldy. Any suggestions? Veryhuman (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we think alike. I've demoted the highlights and differences to subsection. Hopefully this should make it a bit better reading --MK 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Great MK..Thanks! Veryhuman (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Old vs new version of Lokpal Bill

One thing we should decide is whether to keep the highlight section - that is from last year comparing the government bill they proposed in 2010- I worked on that earlier this year. Although the Jan version remained more or less the same, the government has changed somewhat. So if we are going to keep the highlight section for historic reasons, we should make it clear that it is about the old version, and the one you introduced are the differences in the current version. We can get rid of the highlights, although I rather keep it to see how the government version has changed--Kijacob (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Moved by Veryhuman (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was checking out the differences. Suo moto difference still holds (Chapter VII, pt 23 of Lokpal Bill). If I understand correctly, "on receipt of a complaint" means no suo moto. Advisory Body difference has changed slightly (?) (Chapter III, pt. 15). "no police powers and no ability to register an FIR". This has changed, but see "Method of Enquiry" in Detailed section and (Chapter 3, pt 13(2)). "CBI and Lokpal" still holds. I think the highlights should be the most important points of the current version (even in the future) or could be taken off, while the previous version differences can be rewritten in text form. Veryhuman (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're engaging in original research again--looking at the laws directly and comparing them is you looking at 2 primary sources and making an interpretation of the differences. It's simply not allowed. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know...thats why I didnt make any changes to those sections on the main page, nor did I propose to make comments about evolution of the two bills. I just proposed summarizing the previous version/eliminating it.  :) Veryhuman (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Small fix needed: "nearly over" should simply be "over"

The opening paragraph has the text: "has failed to become law for nearly over four decades." "Nearly over" doesn't make sense. Either it's nearly (under but close), or it's over. In this case, it's 42 years, which is over 40.

I don't have permissions to edit this, could someone please fix it? Benkc (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done It was I who wrote it and I see your point. Corrected. --MK 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Difference Between Govt Bill & Jan Lok Pal

This needs a NPOV tag. Opinions are one sided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak23 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I fixed that by removing the opinions; does that answer your concern? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. NPOV doesnt mean not providing opinions, but providing both points of view. It is important to note why each bill is proposing what it is proposing and vehemently opposing the other bill's provision. I propose putting in only those opinions which have both sides' versions available - like PM, Judiciary, MPs - as had been mentioned previously. This may even be written in text form below the table. Veryhuman (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think NPOV tag is needed but the differences need to be expanded to include points which have been raised against Jan lokpal bill like exclusion of NGOs from the scope. - abhi (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

CBI

CBI can mean many things. Rather than linking to that, CBI should link to the federal agency of India that serves as a criminal investigation body, national security agency and intelligence agency. This would be accomplished if, in the article, this

! [[CBI]]
| The CBI will be merged into the Lokpal.<ref name=ToIDiff/>
| The CBI will remain a separate agency.<ref name=HinduDiff/>

were changed to this

! [[Central Bureau of Investigation|CBI]]
| The CBI will be merged into the Lokpal.<ref name=ToIDiff/>
| The CBI will remain a separate agency.<ref name=HinduDiff/>

This is my request for an edit to a semi-protected page. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done I actually changed it to spell out the name in the title so that people who don't know what it is will understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My understanding is that a combo FBI-NSA-CIA is unlikely to be mooshed up into the ombudsman, but who knows? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing the protests section

I feel this is an article about the Bill and the protests section is more suited for the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement article. I think the whole section needs to be summarized or merged with other sections, more so since WP:NOTNEWS. If no one objects to this, I will go ahead Veryhuman (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Shrinking the section would be OK, keeping the link to the protests article. I think eliminating the section would be bad. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - but also second retaining the section to hold prominent events --MK 13:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Done Veryhuman (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article appears to discuss Lokpal, the government's Lokpal Bill and the Jan Lokpal Bill. All there are seperate and notable individually. They should have seperate articles. Some of the criticism is ambiguous. Does it refer to Lokpal (the actual committee)? Or the government's Lokpal Bill? Or the Jan Lokpal Bill? I suggest that the article be split into at least three articles (Lokpal, and the two bills), or even more, if any of the individual bills ('71, '77, '85, etc.) are notable enough on their own. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Lokpal is the name of the proposed ombudsman body, Lokpal bill is the official name of the bill, the Jan lokpal bill is the activist-driven title under which the peoples changes are being suggested. This split would make more sense after more details on each of these entities make it to the article --MK 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Split will make more sense after the functions of Lokpal are more clear. Veryhuman (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. There would be nothing to write in "Lokpal", because the organization may never exist, and, if it does, we don't know in what form. We should not have separate articles about the two competing bill forms; however, I'm not sure which title we should use for this article. Personally, it's not wortht he effort anyway since eventually all of this is going to get folded into "Lokpal" or whatever is the final, actually legal result. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I started out supporting it, then I changed my mind. Keep it the same for now. There is another proposal call Aam jan lokpal bill. That can be added to the comparison table as well. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. We should either split the article or we should rename the article. Jan Lokpal bill is the name of version drafted by IAC and having a article with the name of one version is not very neutral. - abhi (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should, but you could unmerge it. It was merged about a week ago - see the top of talk here. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I find this very informative and readable when all in one place, and have forwarded this to many as a source of reference for our discussions. Hence I am against splitting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.136.36 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename. This should simply be renamed as Lokpall Bill, looking at its history and also the name it would get when enacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romilsworld (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of this talk page

How about archiving some of the older discussions that are no longer relevant. If no one objects I will do this --MK 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the same thing. Gr8! Go ahead :) Veryhuman (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll turn on auto-archiving, set at 30 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Iacvanilla, 21 August 2011

Difference between Government and activist drafts under tables 'Highlights' and 'Details' are not properly columnised leading to confusion. Please put Jan Lokpal in first column under both tables. Iacvanilla (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: From what I'm reading here only the one was called the Jan Lokpal Bill whereas the other was just called the Lokpal Bill. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a bill?

AFAIK, a "bill" is a proposed piece of legislation being considered, or scheduled to be considered in order to be voted up or down by a legislative body in charge of promulgating legislation upon its charges, as defined by the body's charter and/or constitution.

The Jan Lokpal Bill, for all its virtues, has neither been introduced nor is scheduled to be introduced in front of such a body. In light of this, a title of Jan Lokpal Bill is misleading. This article should be renamed to Jan Lokpal Bill (proposed) or something similar.

अभय नातू (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Any responses or views? अभय नातू (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that there is a problem with the name in a technical sense, but almost all of our sources call them both Bills. The problem I have is that this article talks about both bills, but only includes the name of one. Perhaps the correct title is something more like "2011 proposed anti-corruption laws in India". And, of course, leave redirects from the other names. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Source list removed

I just removed the following long list of sources that was at the top of the "Support for the Bill" section; we don't just provide a bunch of sources without text to support them. These appear to mostly be news reports, and as such, would not qualify as External links. If someone wants to use any of them as references to support some text, feel free to move them back to the right place. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Just to clarify, based on the section below--it looks like what was done was that the person added all of the refs to the very beginning of one section, then used ref names for each of the inline citations. When using inline, ref name citations, the best approach is that the first time the source appears, add the full citation, then, all subsequent times, use just the name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

I have just removed the controversies section. Most of that has nothing to do with the bill itself. Truthfully, much of this article should be removed (especially the bulk of the Support and Criticisms section). Some of this info may belong in 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, but not here. Everyone needs to remember: we are not a news feed trying to provide every piece of information about the bill and all of the actions and people in India that are somewhat related to it. We are trying to preserve an encyclopedic summary of the view, with perhaps a little bit of information about he events surrounding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

References 64 to 74 in the article are screaming red errors now. Would you be willing to revert and then be more careful? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even look at the ref section, though I definitely should have. I have just re-added the controversy section for now; actually moving over all of the references is going to take a bit of work, so I'll do it later and then re-deleted the section. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually had to undo both of my edits, since the references were scattered throughout them. Ah, I see that it's actually that big list of references just hanging out at the top of the Support section. Again, I'll move over the refs later and then scrap the section and refs that don't belong. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixing one's own blunders isn't all that common - usually someone else gets to clean up the mess. I am impressed! Perhaps this would help prevent such an unpleasant chore: when editing a section, I can eyeball the references by appending {{reflist}} to the section in preview, however this does require me to never fail to get rid of my little {{reflist}} helper before saving the change. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered, I believe this is now taken care of by Qwyrzian's self-reverts Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

arkshn

sir kya janlokpal bill ane se  sc/st reservation band ho jayega plz reply  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.49.68 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 

No, this is an anti-corruption bill and has no direct relationship with the the reservation system --MK 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)