Talk:Uniform Civil Code/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clarify meaning and article title

The first sentence in the History section contains this phrase. "... it inserted a colonial administration the seeds... "". Could original editors please clarify this as the meaning is unclear. On looking at the article for the first time, I think that the title should indicate that the Uniform Civil Law being described is that of India. Colinvlr (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I truly wish that whoever added the extensive list of references had cited them in the text. Would it be appropriate, in light of them, to remove the original research tag? If not, perhaps someone could point out the parts that are original research and unverified claims. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a anti-hindu sentiment running through the article and it needs to be checked for its neutrality.Most of the references provided are from muslim speakers and personalities. there is no reference from a christian or a hindu or a buddhist. The talk page is testament this . There are no tax benefits for hindus seperate from muslims. Unfortunately civil laws regarding income tax are more or less the same. The only fair point toward a uniform civil code that was made was the subsidy of hajj while hindu pilgrimages are not given the same consideration. The article lacks encyclopedic tone and reads more like a tabloid. Please do the needful Drarvindr (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)drarvindr 21/10/08

How odd. I didn't see the anti-hindu sentiment at all, I thought it was vaguely pro-hindu. Indeed, I thought it tried very hard to wind its way through a complex topic that involves the personal lives of millions and millions of people, their property, sex lives and marriages without too many neutrality problems. Of course, when it comes to gendered relationships, it is sometimes hard to find neutrality - so I will try, once the copyedit is done, to get rid of any blatantly pro-feminist or anti-hindu or anti-muslim tone. I think the tone issue is almost fixed, and the neutrality issue can still be focused on.Levalley (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy edits to history section

Made grammar and sentence structure edits. Will wait for feedback on these changes and proceed from there with further edits. Tried not to alter original meaning and I express no opinion on the veracity of the claims edited. Marginalman (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I too have applied copy edits, and think the article is beginning to read very clearly. I think the article reads as fairly neutral, given the complexity of the subject (it's an excellent article), but that the part about polygyny being so harmful to women should be taken out. It may or may not be. Maybe marriage in general is harmful to women. Maybe polygyny (what in this article is called polygamy, as that's what's allowed in India, although in practice it is of course polygyny) is detrimental to some men, too. This article shouldn't get into the psychological or other evaluation of the practice - only focus on the maze of laws and inequities established by "personal law" in India. I am confused as to whether UCC should be capitalized or not - it is, through part of the article, and it isn't, in part of the article. To me, it should be capitalized if one exists, but not if one is only proposed (the capitalization makes it refer to an actual code, not a proposed one). We copyeditors can't help you there. When I finish my pass through, I'm going to take down the copyedit part and allow the neutrality part to be worked on.Levalley (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The title is in error. This article is not about "Uniform civil code" in general, it is about Uniform civil code in India (as it states in its body). I'll try to learn how to fix that. Probably not as easy as it should be, but good learning experience for me.Levalley (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems proper to use lower case "uniform civil code" when speaking of a non-existent, potenteial civil code, and to use upper case Uniform Civil Code for a code that exists. I am not expert in this field at all, so I can't always tell which is intended, and it would be great if one of the original editors could fix that. I'm going to go through it one more time and do my best at figuring out which might apply. It seems to me that since the article is about both things (the emergence of one out of the other - first a non-existent code, then a code arises), that the main title is correct (especially since Wikipedia titles tend to have only the first letter capitalized most of the time, unless a proper name is involved).Levalley (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I found lots of little (minor) editing problems, fixed them. I used Article with a capital when a specific legal provision was mentioned. I fixed what I believe are the tone problems; the neutrality problems I cannot fix - but I believe the article is relatively neutral on a subject that is by its nature controversial and complex. I really like this article. I'm going to make sure it's not orphaned as well. I added links to the Dowry Act page, and one citation. I added fact tags in several places, trying to place them where one citation would help out an entire set of assertions. I believe the cited works provide all those facts - but inline citatations of some sort are needed. There does not appear to be opinion in this article as much as there is logical thinking (the conclusions drawn are logical, not opinion). I am going to remove the copyedit flag, as I do not think there's any more that can be done in terms of pure copyediting - the rest is about neutrality, although I've weighed in with my view, and I do know a little about the subject (I teach a college class on the anthropology of gender).Levalley (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The article appears to be a bit too pro-UCC. Firstly, the section title 'Towards a Uniform Civil Code' and most of the content clearly reveal an overwhelming bias. Secondly Wikipedia is no place for biased, unverifiable, inaccurate phrases such as 'Despite these reasoned arguments...' and 'The debate in India itself seems to have gone the way of the secularists' and 'The code creates equality. While other personal laws have undergone reform, the Muslim law has not. The Hindu Nationalists contend that it makes little sense to allow Muslims, for example, to marry more than once, but prosecute Hindus or Christians for doing the same', et cetera.

Maybe users who identify as 'Hindu Nationalists' (or any other '[Religion] Nationalists') shouldn't be allowed to impose their views upon 'the FREE encyclopaedia', the articles of which should be NPOV and of NEUTRAL perspective.Hendrick 99 (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's funny Hendrick because yes, there are clearly NPOV issues but at the same time this is one of the best written Wiki articles I have ever read, it reads like a well written academic monograph (absent a few obvious insertions by the usual wikipedia morons). But the fact that it is so smooth and well written actually makes me mildly suspicious: was it copied from a book? 162.205.6.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've read through it, article is quite neutral and informative. I suspect that it might be based too closely based on the number of references which have been provided. Also the lack of inline citations is the biggest problem here as well as authoritative tone, I've replaced the tags accordingly. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

BJP

As long as the Uniform Civil Code is pursued only by the BJP and its associates (RSS and VHP), the minorities—Muslims and Christians alike—will see it as Hindu law being stuffed down their throat. Have a set of laws that not only shows little respect for Muslims and Christians, but seek laws that reflect Hindu society at its worst, creating a patriarchal, feudal, casteist, set-up. How can it ever be expected that religious heads will make liberal laws? Some years ago, a Shankaracharya even justified the caste system, and in the year 2002 when 2000 Buddhist were reconverted to Hinduism by RSS, they were declared as schedule cast. When people look at the Muslim personal law, they just see a few things. Polygamy, triple talaaq, and not giving maintenance to divorced women, but they don’t see that widows and divorcees don’t commit suicide among Muslims, that Muslims don’t kill their daughters, brides are not killed because of dowry, and they don’t kill their children because of poverty. Enlightened Muslims should come up and speak. They should move with the forces of progress and give up all provisions in the personal laws that are anti-modern and unjust. Uniform civil code can be implemented in India when all religions are considered otherwise it will be a Hindu law for Brahaman supremacy.

According to Hindutva the Constitution of India is not a uniform civil code ("Hindutva also advances a strong critique of secularism in India, which it dubs pseudo-secularism, because of different standards for Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The subject of a Uniform Civil Code, which would remove special religiously-based provisions for Muslims and Christians from the Indian Constitution, is one of the main political planks of Hindutva."), yet according to this article it "lays down the administration of a uniform civil code for its citizens as a Directive Principle." Anyone know whats what? Hyacinth 19:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "Directive Principles of State Policy" in the Indian Constitution is a set of goals (or ideals) that the framers added (and which were impractical at the time the constituion was created) and which the Government should try to achieve through legislation, social change etc. The constitution does not impose a time limit for achieving these objectives, however. In addition to Uniform Civil Code, I think it also contain "Universal Secondary Education". Not sure what else it has though. Shameer 23:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The entire article though very exhaustive and informative is a bit biased.

One important point this the article fails to mention( either deliberately or due to lack of knowledge) is that Hindus are also opposed to the UCC. This is because once the UCC comes into force the tax benifits accuring due to the HUF (Hindu Undived Family) in the Income Tax acts will become untennabe constitutionaly.

Another thing about the subsidies given to Muslims for Haj, there are some Hindu equivalents. For instance Hindu Pilgrims to Amarnath get subsidies amounting to Rs 5000.

It is not just that subsidies are given to Muslims or Hindus alone, Indian secularism, as it is based on the principle of Sarva Dharma Samabhav (all religions are equal) provides equal promotion to all the religions. Case in point is Maha Kumbh Mela and Amamrnath subsidies along with security arrangements provided by the Indian government, as well as subsidy for Shri Nankana Sahib Yatra for Sikhs. It seems the article is edited by both Hindu and Muslim rightists, and it requires a thorough overhaul. Shanukk (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, under the title Muslims and Uniform Civil Code, it says "However, in response to this, there exist Article 14 which guarantees the Fundamental Right of equality before law,Article 15 which prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and Articles 25-29 providing religious and cultural freedom", which is half-baked truth. Article 15(1) says that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. The word only is specifically mentioned because the discrimination should not be on the basis of these criteria alone, but it can be one of the criteria for discrimination. For example, State has provided reservations for women in public employment. This is not based on the sex alone, but due to the fact that women are not adequately represented in public employment. Likewise, a Muslim has a different personal law not because he/she is Muslim alone, but due to his/her belief. Here being a Muslim is not the only criterion, his/her belief is another criterion. Shanukk (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass clean-up

I'm planning to go WP:BOLD in the near future and remove these entire unsourced chunks of original research as per WP:BURDEN. This article has remained unsourced for long enough and I will put whatever I remove here just in case, and try to, if possible, make a way smaller sourced and informative article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this entire article was written like this in March 2006 with this edit.

Redid the entire article here and unfortunately, I had to remove a lot of content which lacked any inline citation, seemed closely paraphrased to the original references and lacked an encyclopaedic tone. These links can be used to find anything useful and sourceable from the older revisions. With whatever resources I could find, the article is now much smaller and comprehensive but there is room for expansion. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Misc template, images, map

I notice that these three were (or keep getting) removed

1. File:Use of Sharia by country.svg - is quite relevant here given that nearly 1/3 rd of the article discusses the Muslim Personal law. I've put this and the only objection I have is that it duplicates what's in Application of Islamic law by country, though there's no guideline against this. Any mention of this is really important here and I've thus put it "and putting it among the nations legally applying the Sharia law." with a link to that list in the lead as a fair compromise. But I still won't mind putting it back if anybody feels the map is relevant as well.
2. {{Hindu politics}} was used as a nav template there as well. Nav templates need to have the article in its links, which this one has. This article and even the BJP discuss this as well and is well-established. The family law template here doesn't even have it (nor should it). I'm getting the feeling this gets removed due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If someone questions the template itself, nominate it for deletion.
3. Rajiv Gandhi's image in the Bano section, maybe be Nehru's. Both were put here with captions supplementing the article text. Don't see why they should be removed.

Regarding such miscellaneous things in general, this topic doesn't have any better images for instance, and is in need of such supplementary additions--which make it more interesting or draw more readers. Heavily questioning the relevance (which is very subjective when it comes to these discussions) of what little there is added here is unwise. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The template {{Constitution of India}} is decently relevant but does not have a link to this article as required per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I do not no of its relevance to the template but if it does, the entire portion pertaining to the Directive Principles needs to be added there. If that's the case, then it can be added here but there is almost no need to replace it existing {{Hindu politics}}, we can have both. As I said in point 2. above, it's relevant here. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

UCC is not a political agenda

After reading above opinions from my fellow wiki editors, it seems clear that they are pointing to and accusing a specific political party or community of strongly supporting UCC. If supporting UCC is political in any manner then the constitution is more political because it clearly says in it's 44th article that "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India." which isn't the case.

So I think this article should not point to any religious politics and the template {{Hindu politics}} should be removed or replaced with {{Constitution of India}}.

OverThinker (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@OverThinker: Have you read this article or Bharatiya Janata Party? It states that it is, contradictory to what you say with ample reliable sources and even details why i.e the BJP was the first to use it as an election promise etc. Now the WP:BURDEN is one you to prove that isn't a political issue. Both the major parties of India are on either side of it. The template is relevant here as in any WP:NAVBOX, containing the link to UCC; that's how we generally go by, these editing guidelines and policies, not because simply we personally dispute it. This article also states it is part of the Directive Principles, so the constitution template is relevant as well. The constitution template, technically cannot be put per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as of now since there's no mention of Directive Principles and I said what needs to be done (above section) if it needs to be added. Despite this issue, I'm going for a WP:COMPROMISE and putting both. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I already cited the constitution in my first comment to prove that its a constitutional matter not a political one. Why is it political if a party comes forward to implement a concept proposed by the constitution itself? And for the sake of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL I added 'Uniform civil code' as a related topic to the {{Constitution of India}} template. OverThinker (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is both. Never did anyone doubt the constitution part. When I said it ought to be there in the previous section, I didn't say then shoehorn it there just so that it could be put here. It isn't directly in the it, it's part of the Directive Principles. Some sort of restructuring or relevance checking is required.

The entire article keeps basically keeps reminding the reader how this topic is political...without any reliable source to back you up, your dispute is seems to be like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Anyway, this minor issue of template is blown out of proportion. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(To blow it even more out of proportion) the constitution is certainly a political document. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uniform civil code. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909000000/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

History of Stand of RSS and Jana Sangh being removed repeatedly

Despite being substantiated with proper references, the following links are getting removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_civil_code&oldid=939394709#Opposition_by_Indian_Indigenous_Peoples_Organizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_civil_code&oldid=939394709#BJP,_RSS_giving_up_their_original_stand_on_Uniform_Civil_Code

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_civil_code&oldid=939394709#BJPs_and_its_allies_current_stand_on_Uniform_Civil_Code

This should remain there to let readers the time line of events and stands by various sections in arriving at supporting or denouncing Uniform Civil Code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sriramadas.mahalingam, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for opening a discussion. Your content was removed because it does not meet the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and reliable sources. You need to do the following:

• Add WP:Full citations for all your references so that we can decide whether whether they are reliable sources. Please ensure that you understand WP:RS.
• Excise any unsourced portions in your contribution or find reliable sources for them.
• Finally, you also have the WP:ONUS to argue why this content is needed on this page.

You are welcome to use your WP:sandbox for drafting and cleaning up your content. You cannot reinstate the content here without achieving a WP:CONSENSUS. WP:Edit warring can get you blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, References to sources are already provided through the link in the relevant sections. In addition to that I would provide scanned copies of from the book itself as mentioned earlier. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srimadas.mahalingam (talk • contribs)

Those scanned copies are not reliable sources. You need to read the policies that have been cited to you, and understand what is being asked. You have not done any of the three things I have asked for. You also should not reinstate contested content until WP:CONSENSUS is achieved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I understand what is being asked. And I have provided valid sources also. It seems you don't want other opinions on the topic to be known to the readers. There are people who have expressed in favour of the topic and those who expressed against the topic. The article has details of those who expressed in favour of the topic. Those who expressed against Hindu Code Bills are Golwlakar his Organization RSS, Puri Sanakaracharya. Organization that is working currently against Uniform Civil Code is Sarvadharma. Just like BJP that works in favour of the topic, those who work for alternate solutions also deserves their place and get listened. All details are already given. User:Bishonen Please tell to whom should I escalate it further as User:Kautilya3 isn't in a mood to take cognizance of other side opinions and is keeping on removing the related sections.

User:Bishonen I would be happy to listen in another one day's time. Kautilya3 shows only his bias and is not objective enough to narrate specifically what problem he has with authenticity of the sources. If you have specific queries after going through the removed contents from the history of article on the authenticity of the references provided, you can ask me and I would be happy to provide the same. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3

How do you say they aren't reliable sources? They indeed are reliable sources. The excerpt itself from book published by Rastriya Swayamsevvak Sangh on the 100th Centenary Celebrations of Guruji Golwalkar. Please note you haven't given proper reason for removing the sections. Please note perhaps, you are mis-using your privileges to forbid viewers from reading views different from what you want them to read?

Also you have removed a new Section related to Puri Sankarachharya that I have added and his opinions of Uniform Civil Code, with proper reference. Please note you are acting with foregone conclusion here.

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3

Please get consensus before removing the sections where proper sources are given. You are blindly removing the sections that is not at all expected out of a experienced user. I may have to escalate it to Wikpedia Admins for further actions, if you continue to do it this.

The activities of Sarvadharma Indigenous Peoples Organiation are available from their officical facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/hindu.sarvadharma

The comments of Puri Sankaracharya are availale from their official youtube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQgYH0jzHqHFWLKvzcgCmWw

The video link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXQVDTYRIEg Their website: http://sarvadharma.net

Please note you are mis-using your privileges. Kindly get consensus before removing them any further stating why you consider them as un-reliable. I am using the pages from the book itself now in the article due to your repeated behavior.

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3

Please note this page that talks about People of India publication is by Anthropological Survey of India a Government of India department. You are making a sweeping statement that it is not a reliable source. How? Read this link: https://ansi.gov.in/people-of-india/

Volumes of book are available for purchase also. Kumar_Suresh_Singh page describes about the person behind the work. Read about him also at: https://web.archive.org/web/20110611204439/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2312/stories/20060630006312500.htm

How do you say these are not reliable sources? Please arrive at consensus before removing the sections, bluntly. Thank you.

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

POV

Sections that give neutral, un-biased both side opinions on the topic and information on activities not in favor of the topic were being continuously removed. Proper justification isn't provided also. Unless non-favourable sections are again allowed into the topic, the tag shall remain.

Sections removed are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_civil_code&oldid=939394709#Opposition_by_Indian_Indigenous_Peoples_Organizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_civil_code&oldid=939394709#BJP,_RSS_giving_up_their_original_stand_on_Uniform_Civil_Code

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_civil_code&oldid=939394709#BJPs_and_its_allies_current_stand_on_Uniform_Civil_Code

Without these sections only one side of the information would reach the audience.

Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-writeup

I feel there is need to rewrite the lead and change layout of the article. Since I have no one to collaborate, I will be single handedly changing lead, replace news sources with journals & books and split/merge sections in a more efficient way. Any suggestions will be embraced. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What are the issues with the current lead and/or layout? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You can have a look yourself on write up. Write-up here, opening sentence initiates with "UCC is an ongoing point of debate" than definition & so for significant unsourced or in supported material throughout the article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)