Talk:India: Cabinet approves capital punishment for rape of girls under age twelve

Clarification

Some sources say rape of children, some say rape of girls. (both local and non-local sources) This is going to be tricky.
•–• 15:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"The document made no mention of the rape of boys or men."
•–• 17:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Th Hindu changed their content, which makes addition of the following source mandatory: {{source}}
•–• 17:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Monsoon

In the interest of the global audience, should "monsoon session" be explained further? --SVTCobra 21:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

According to en.wp, the Indian Parliament has three yearly sessions — budget, monsoon, and winter (which oddly reminds me of the five elements in Discordianism). The article does say the monsoon session starts in July; there doesn't seem to be much more that could be explained about it without significant digression. If we wikilink "monsoon" (perhaps to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia), it might make some readers more confused rather than less. --Pi zero (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

knowing when the bill is likely to pass is more important than knowing what happens in each session: upcoming session begins in July, and since it is rainy season in India, it is called Monsoon session. Winter Session starts in November. Since delay is way more important than when something so less significant to the story would start, it is not necessary to mention it. For the record, only thing one needs to know about Monsoon session on Indian parliament is that it starts in July. And that is something my teacher has taught the class — she is a lawyer by profession.
•–• 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4400891 [Not ready]

Revision 4400891 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The term "cabinet" needs to be explained for an international audience, imo. To elaborate: I'm pretty sure almost nobody in the US, anyhow, has a clue what "Indian cabinet" means in this context. Speaking as a pretty well-informed USian, to the best of my recollection I had never even heard the term Union Cabinet until I started sniffing around this article yesterday. In the US, the "cabinet" is just an abstract term for a bunch of especially-high-level presidential appointees; it has no legal status as a body in the Constitution. So if, as I now believe, this is talking about the Union Cabinet of India, the article should say that and throw in a few words explaining what the heck a Union Cabinet is — a very few words will probably do, but this is not something I have prior experience with, so that for me it would be intensive research combined with lack of great confidence, which is definitely not something an independent reviewer should be engaging in. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4400891 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The term "cabinet" needs to be explained for an international audience, imo. To elaborate: I'm pretty sure almost nobody in the US, anyhow, has a clue what "Indian cabinet" means in this context. Speaking as a pretty well-informed USian, to the best of my recollection I had never even heard the term Union Cabinet until I started sniffing around this article yesterday. In the US, the "cabinet" is just an abstract term for a bunch of especially-high-level presidential appointees; it has no legal status as a body in the Constitution. So if, as I now believe, this is talking about the Union Cabinet of India, the article should say that and throw in a few words explaining what the heck a Union Cabinet is — a very few words will probably do, but this is not something I have prior experience with, so that for me it would be intensive research combined with lack of great confidence, which is definitely not something an independent reviewer should be engaging in. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4400971 [Passed]

Revision 4400971 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4400971 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Delhi category

Is New Delhi and indeed the Union Cabinet not in the territory of Category:Delhi? --SVTCobra 06:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the question you have asked, talk page of that category would be the best place to ask this question.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really. I am wonDERing why IT was REMOVED from THIS article. Sorry ABout MY keybOARD. --SVTCobra 06:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Either ask the proper question or ask at the specific page; we don't need a guessing game here. Delhi is a Union Territory of India. Union territories in India (or speaking politically, Union of India) are those geographical areas which belong to the union, but are not in any state; just like Washington DC is not in any US State. New Delhi is a district and capital city, part of NCT Delhi. NCT Delhi is the union territory of India, and part of Delhi NCR. Delhi NCR is a collection of districts of three states and all the districts in NCT Delhi. this should explain.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Even IF we chanGE/rename THe category to Delhi NCT, thIS article still belongs in thE category. --SVTCobra 07:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The change will require NCT and NCR and just like what happened to Taliban category would happen.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

no, because the NCR is not an place worthy of a category. It just an area defined for planning purposes. --SVTCobra 07:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't have categories that overlap like that. Otherwise we could end up with various Tri-state area categories for the United States. --SVTCobra 07:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet we have Middle East, which includes counties from three different continents, and Oceania which includes territories from at least two continents (Baker Islands? Yes. Hawaii? Hell yes.)
223.237.234.180 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you Middle East, but Baker Island and Hawaii don't belong to any other continenT. Middle East is such an important geo-political region, that's probably why it is the exception. --SVTCobra 08:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hawaii is a US State, in Polynesian triangle, which is in Oceania. NCR is an important region, in India. So?
223.237.234.180 (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So? indeed. Several countries have territories in multiple continents. Metropolitan New York is important, too, but I don't want that as a category either. --SVTCobra 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews does not work the way SVTCobra wants it to work.
223.237.234.180 (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikinews is working pretty much like I want it to, but you want to change it for no good reason. Encyclopedic categories is not something I want to see. --SVTCobra 08:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

point out one category that is not encyclopaedic.
223.237.235.156 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, overly encyclopedic categories. Is that better? --SVTCobra 08:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"OvErLy EnCyClOpEdIc CaTeGoRiEs" and yet there is the Middle East. Tell me, why is this discussion happening on this talk page instead of the cat talk page? And whatever happens to Thousands gather in Jantar Mantar and other cities to protest against mob violence should happen to this article in terms of categorising (and vice versa)
223.237.235.156 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Because you removed a valid category from thiS article. What is so hard to understand? --SVTCobra 17:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I recommend less discussion of the discussion, all around.

For a moment I was distracted by the fact that the article text here only mentions New Delhi re 2012, which would not warrant Category:New Delhi; however, the image clearly establishes that protests this time around included New Delhi, so, fair enough. And New Delhi is contained in the NCT. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

it is not just that, the cabinet is seated in Delhi. --SVTCobra 18:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the thing discussed here is about having a geographical category on the project or not. Besides, there is no valid reason to keep that category. None that you have mentioned.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I started the discussion and it's about YOU removing category Delhi from the article. I should have just reverted your edit and not been so kind as to start a discussion at all. --SVTCobra 00:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Starting the discussion wasn't a bad thing. The discussion went sideways, though. --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The primary motives, as I understand it, for categorizing this under New Delhi are the image, and where the cabinet is seated. The image is peripheral to a clearly non-photo-essay article, so that seems very weak. We routinely cover stories about various actions by courts and parliaments and whatnot without categorizing the articles under the place where those governing bodies sit, though. So, after giving this a long time to perk, I don't think it ought to be under New Delhi. --Pi zero (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)