![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As of 6 Jan 2013 a muslim name has now been added to the accused list in the wikipedia page. No Muslim was involved in the crime so the police have told the person to confess as muslim. If there was even a single muslim involved nobody in hindu india would have waited so long and his name would be plastered all over the news media, forums and comments section, instead his real name raju was used till the police could come up with another name for him. No doubt his family has received the necessary payments from the police. This is not the first time indian police has done such a thing. Countless times in the past when there was a major crime, the police would come up on the scene and give a made up muslim name to a hindu person. RSS and indian police at it yet again. Fake Indian Police Confessions ( talk) 06:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
|}
Do you think we should add the Steubenville Rape Case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School#Steubenville_rape_case) in the "International Reaction"? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257996/Ohio-football-rape-girl-boy-filmed-joking-laughing-fate-16-year-old-apologises.html
DailyMail quotes "The backlash has echoes of the international outrage triggered by the death of 23-year-old Jyoti Singh Pandey, who died as a result of the massive injuries sustained during a brutal gang rape at the hands of six men in Delhi, India." referring to the protests in Ohio. - The Ajan ( talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The title is wrong. In identifying grave criminal cases, the severest crime is generally cited first. In this case, the accused are tried for murder and for dacoity with lethal effect, which two crimes also bear the gravest punishment. The rape is tertiary in legal nature, also as to the punishment going with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.187.93 ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This title should be changed to something more specific. Delhi has seen more than 5 gang rapes in 2012, this is not the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.26.10 ( talk) 23:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The infobox has a spot for injuries. Currently only the one fatality is listed. Should the injured male victim be counted as well? Andrew 327 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have twice attempted to change the opening sentence of this section to read, "Widespread misogyny[109][110] as well as "Eve teasing" and rape are some issues..." but it has been reverted called it "weasel wording". I believe that it must be kept in mind that Eve teasing to most English readers is very much as odd sounding as any foreign phrase and the English meaning of segregation has little comparison to the word misogyny, which I believe is more appropriate to use per the references provided. I'd like to see a reason for the two reverts of my changes. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Useful source, possibly. http://www.smh.com.au/world/victims-in-delhi-rape-case-are-to-blame-defendants-lawyer-says-20130110-2ch95.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure if SMH is reliable news source now, they have twisted the article and added other useless information in the article. I'd rather suggest the NYTimes one, http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/three-accused-in-delhi-gang-rape-case-to-plead-not-guilty/ 134.219.227.30 ( talk) 13:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Delhi gang rape case → Death of Jyoti Singh Pandey – PatGallacher ( talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that her name has become generally known, I think this is consistent with similar cases. "Murder of" is better avoided because of BLP issues with trials pending. PatGallacher ( talk) 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1st bad URL used: http://http://www.emirates247.com/news/delhi-gang-rape-accused-was-on-reality-tv-show-2013-01-12-1.489766 2nd bad URL used: http://http://http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/india-rape-delhi-accused-juvenile-ramsin-idINDEE90B01S20130112
3. Content: Bad sources (non working URLs) are being used to support claim "a Juvenile whose name yet to be confirmed people dont even know his real name they used to call him Raju" under the section "Alleged Perpetrators"
There is no confusion about the name and his name has been mentioned by various credible media sources. I request that the older edit that named the accused using this reliable source ( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/delhi-gangrape-fifth-man-md-afroz-nabbed-badaun-uttar-pradesh/1/238782.html) be reinstated.
The juvenile is also verbally named in this video report http://au.sports.yahoo.com/video/delhi-gangrape-case-fifth-man-065022645.html NicM99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicM99 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an "Image requested" flag on this Talk page. What are some images that we would consider appropriate? Andrew 327 21:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
IMO These are the images we need
Suggestions? The Ajan ( talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
These are not for inclusion in the article, but for general interest.
Hrishikes ( talk) 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I find this obsession with not revealing the names of the victims in this article to be totally unjustified, against standard practice in ALL other similar wikipedia articles, and a major factor that lowers the overall quality of this article. Top Indian newspapers (DNA), Indian news magazines (India Today which is India's largest selling weekly) as well as foreign media (Daily Mail, Mirror, The Australian, etc) have extensively quoted the names of the female victim of the rape-murder (Jyoti Singh Pandey), her father (Badri Singh Pandey) as well as the male companion (Awindra Pratap Pandey) who was also a victim of physical assault while trying to protect the deceased victim. The "gag order" of the Delhi police applies ONLY to Indian media, and DEFINITELY NOT to Wikipedia. And especially, hiding the name of even the male victim (who has even publicly appeared on Indian TV news channels without any hiding of his face etc) makes absolutely NO sense at all! There is NO "gag order" from the Delhi police against revealing the male victim's identity, and the man himself is perfectly fine with revealing his identity (as I said, he has appeared in public interviews on TV channels). So there is just NO good reason why even the male victim be not being named in the article. I would also like to reopen the debate on naming the female victim. - 115.248.114.51 ( talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil. Now: There's very little doubt about the authenticity of their names. The fact of the matter is that when there's concern about ethics and our status as a serious encyclopedic project, the standard best practice is to follow the most reliable sources' decision on the matter. It is not for us to determine whether the family wishes for her name to be released; all that matters is that the editorial boards of all major respected international newspapers feel that it is inappropriate to release it as of yet.
As for Awindra Pandey, he's alive, so it's entirely his call. I just did some digging, and it appears that he may have opened up to the press. If you can find multiple reliable sources saying he's consented to be named, I, for one, would have no objection against including his name. Until then, though, what goes for Jyoti goes double for him: He can suffer major real-world consequences if his name is released against his will (from being stalked by the paparazzi to being mocked by assholes for having been assaulted... and also probably death threats, because pretty much everyone involved in something like this gets death threats, even the good guys), and we should have no part in it until the respectable media outlets are comfortable about the ethical situation. The day an ultimately inconsequential detail like the name of a private citizen becomes more important than people's rights and wishes is the day that I scramble my password.
And, finally: I, too, noticed that several other Wikipedias have used their names. I encourage any Wikimedians active on any of them to make the same arguments that I and others have made here. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 17:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
An eerily similar rape has happened again. Should this article be renamed 2012-13 Indian gang rape cases? Or should we create a new article for the new rape, if it gains enough notability? VR talk 05:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The expiry of Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 Delhi gang rape case has been extended to indefinite. If other editors disagree with this, they're welcome to say so; additionally, this heightens the need for optimal phrasing, so I encourage anyone who sees room for improvement to submit an edit request, or just do what I do and track down an admin or account creator on IRC. — PinkAmpers &(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The article's first reference to "suspects" is in this first sentence in the section Alleged perpetrators:
"Police found and arrested some of the suspects within 24 hours."
I ask: some of what suspects???
Although this phrasing is very common in bad newspapers, it makes no sense to refer to "the" suspects when no suspects have been referred to previously in the article. Only perpetrators have been previously referred to.
As long as Wikipedia is going to be careful about describing suspects as "alleged perpetrators" — as it certainly should unless and until they are found guilty — then it is entirely inappropriate to talk about "the" suspects in the very first reference to any suspects. Because the phrasing "some of the suspects" carries the innuendo that these persons are the perpetrators.
And so I am changing that sentence to read:
"Police found and arrested some suspects within 24 hours."
(Please do not mistake this post for an expression of sympathy with the actual perpetrators, whoever they are!!! I have none.) Daqu ( talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like commentary on the material in this section, specifically the first few sentences in the first paragraph. While they have improved vastly in the last few weeks, concerns still remain as to issues of Original Research, Sythesis and Coatracking in the claim that there is some sort of "social context" for the rape incident, especially the implicit claim that Indians are inherently prone to rape. The claims are based on an op-ed whose notability is questionable. It has also been criticized for "native informant' racism by academic sources such as Jadaliyya [4]. The paragraph does not present contrasting views that the cultural stuff is disproportionally highlighted in the media ( Orientalism) [5]. Handyunits ( talk) 07:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text as it is right now. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sexism,India-specific article [1] [2] sexual harassment (known in India as Eve teasing [3]), rapeIndia-specific article and other crimes against women are problems faced by women in India. Spiritual guru, Asaram Bapu, was reported to have said that the victim was to blame for her own assault because she could have stopped the attack if she had "chanted God's name and fallen at the feet of the attackers". [4] Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the pro-Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that underpins the country's main opposition political party, said rapes are the result of women adopting western lifestyles as has happened in Indian cities. Manohar Lal Sharma, lawyer for one of the accused attackers, blames the couple for being on the street at night, using public transportation, and states that he has never heard of a rape of a "respected lady". He further finds the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman". [5] According to an online survey conducted by YouGov, 47% of Indian respondents think that the victim bears part of the blame in the attack. [6]
- ^ Mangaldas, Leeza (2013), Misogyny in India: We are all guilty, CNN.com
- ^ Mangaldas, Leeza (2012), Teenager raped in India commits suicide, CNN
{{ citation}}
:|format=
requires|url=
( help)- ^ "Review of Laws and Legislative Measures Affecting Women by National Commission for Women (NCW), No.9. Eve Teasing (New Legislation)". National Commission for Women, New Delhi, India.
- ^ "Asaram Bapu's view on Delhi rape raises anger, but shared by many". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
- ^ Victims in Delhi rape case are to blame, defendants' lawyer says
- ^ Will Delhi’s Coldest Night Dawn an Indian Spring?
Are the extent of the male victim's injuries known? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 07:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand post signing but I think note 117 ending the section on Justice Verma Commission is very misleading. The findings appear to have been completely sidelined as the women's groups in India maintain. The Finance Minister former Union Sec P Chidambaram openly stated that the cabinet cannot push through the reforms suggested by the Verma Report on AFSPA reform for example because the Army will not allow it. The rushed through new anti-rape ordinances ask for things not found in Verma. Simple directives for medical practitioners to stop the two finger test (it would be called finger fucking in the west but someone will object to the term not the procedure) and then call them forensic reports must be stopped as they are illegal. I accept the Cabinet are making positive noises about it though they are unlikely to accept any of Justice Verma's proposals or adopt the spirit of his reforms ie demanding equal respect for women from low castes tribals and minority indian communities. i am adding four tildas now but I presume that's wrong desmond coutinho DesmondCoutinho ( talk) 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This section has been removed with the comment, "rm. rfC consensus is that an op/ed by an actress is not notable":
Speaking to CNN, Leeza Mangaldas, actress and founder of Evoke India, a forum devoted to open dialogue in India said, "Unfortunately, in India rape is inextricably linked by men -- and women -- to shame: the ultimate desecration. Many victims are murdered by their rapists or choose to commit suicide. It is also not uncommon for the parents of rape victims to kill themselves. Thus, most victims don't speak up about what happened to them, lest their families be ostracized, lest they never find a husband or be shunned by their friends."
However, it is my understanding that that rationale is not what the "rfC" concluded. I agree that it was not proper to make statements about the extent of rape, etc., in India and use this woman as the authority to back it up. But for her to speak for herself is another thing and there is no reason that her opinions should not be included in this article. As to her notability, I believe that if CNN considered her notable enough to ask her to write an op-ed she is notable enough to comment here. I'm going to return her comment. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This news report from Headlines Today, states that the name of the fifth accused was Mohammad Afroz (aka Raju). I propose that we state the accused's actual name as we have done for the other perpetrators.
http://www.istream.com/news/watch/242433/Delhi-Gangrape-Fifth-accused-arrested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustymill ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Per a discussion I had with Luke, I will be nominating this article for GA. Anyone is welcome to review it/ to join in the nomination. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 10:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll take this review. I'm extremely sorry to see you're leaving, Soni. With luck, this will only need minimal tweaks that I can do myself to pass. Thanks for your work on it--I've had my eye on it as one of the top 50 articles for WP Human rights.
Anyway, comments to follow later today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Going to have to take a break for now, but hope to finish this one later tonight... -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
So after poking around on Google News, it seems that the trial of the adult defendants is happening this very week. [10] One of the quickfail criteria used to be "a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint", which this is, but we no longer have that criterion listed. I've asked at WT:GAN for input on how to proceed, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts there.
My own initial thinking is that we probably can't get this article stable enough to pass it until the end of the trial--there's no sense in passing it as a GA if it will require a major update in a few weeks' time. Probably the best thing to do for now is for the three of us to collaborate on having the article as ready to go as possible; when the trial verdict and sentences, and accompanying reactions, are in, we can renominate. I'll wait to hear from you and some opinions at WT:GAN, though, before taking any action. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is in overall good shape and is close to meeting the criteria in most respects. The biggest concern here is that a thorough copyvio check is needed; at least one paragraph seemed to be close paraphrasing of the source. (This is common in current events articles like this assembled by a large number of editors, but is a serious issue that we'll need to address.)
Since the trial is ongoing, however, this can't be considered stable enough to meet the GA criteria; the verdicts and sentences, and reactions to them, will require a major expansion and rewrite. For that reason I'm closing the review for now, but without prejudice to future renomination once the trial is complete. (I might renominate it myself, in fact, if Soni's not back to do it.) -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I changed all the versions of fast-track/fast track courts to fast track courts (though I think I missed one due to terrible experience with visual editor) using this site: [11] Gandydancer ( talk) 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What would the other editors think of expanding the "Results of protest" section a little? There is plenty of information at the articles already included and the Punjab information that was deleted from another section for copy vio could be used as well. [16] Gandydancer ( talk) 14:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Speaking from a long-time feminist's POV, I think that the quote from the woman's father is important to the article. He said:
We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn't do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter.
This quote has been criticized because it was disclosed to the Daily Mirror, however it has been repeated here [17] and in several other sources that I believe are RS.
I believe that her father's statement is very important. Even today it is the woman who suffers from shame after a rape and that is true not only in India, but in every country in the world. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Enough of the drama please. TransVannian and others, please feel free to approach ANI or other forums if there is a dispute. If there isnt, lets just drop it.
TheOriginalSoni (
talk)
14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
I don't know why there's so much drama over the victim's name. Just because a victim's family doesn't want the victim to be named doesn't mean we won't provide his/her name if we know. Besides Nirbhaya's father has himself told the media to release the name of the victim. Don't you even know that? Not naming her isn't gonna bring her back nor does it mean you are respecting her memory. By the way Wikipedia is not the media or the newspaper that we won't name her. Our goal is to provide complete accurate information. Also respecting the victim and his father's wishes I'm naming her here. She did not do anything great to deserve a bravery award but still every person's memory should be honored. Her name was redacted: stop listing this and may god grant her eternal peace. TransVannian ( talk) 10:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
How dare you censor my comment. No user has a right to censor or remove even a single part of other user's comment on an article talk page. You're not only violating the freedom of speech but also violating Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia says that the editor should be bold. I'm just providing info and not damaging Wikipedia in any way but am actually helping it. If you think there is even a single policy that prevents me from mentioning her name I suggest you post it here. Every user has the right to paste information. Not only that this a talk page not an article. I don't need any source to mention any info here. One final thing just type redacted and you'll find a lot of media websites which confirm she was the victim. You'll even find her photo on Google. TransVannian ( talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You're doing the right thing Gandydancer. However restrictions cannot be imposed on a talk page. It is completely against Wikipedia policies. Also Lukeon94 called my edit summary comments were outrageous and disgraceful. However what I said was the truth and I have complete respect to her. What I meant was that while people publicized that poor girl's tragic death. But multiple soldiers fie everyday defending us the public and our borders. What I said was that while this girl's death was publicized there are thousands of families of martyred soldiers who have been waiting for at least some of compensation from the government but they have received nothing at all even though those brave soldiers who died defenfing our frontiers belong to these families. Not only that no one even asks how they are boding let alone try easing their suffering. I ask all fellow editors. Does my comment seem outrageous and disgraceful to you? I couldn't mention this in edit summary because the edit summary comments have a word limit. TransVannian ( talk) 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll like to ask Khazar to please provide proof that all the talk page policies he's talking about are indeed true. Until then I can't tell whether you are speaking the truth. So please provide a proof. Also I never compared the girl and the soldiers in my statement. I made that statement because I've myself seen a soldier be killed by a militant. I request you to understand my condition too. My comment was made to show that how much of a hypocrite the government and people are. You had completely misunderstood my edit summary comment. I'm discussing this subject to improve the article and Wikipedia. I hope all fellow users know and understand that. TransVannian ( talk) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2 has himself accepted that some reliable sources do mention the name of the victim. Not only that her father had directly requested to reveal her name. You can search the name of the victim which I pasted here on Google and you'll find many reliable sources that mention the same name and it is on direct request of her father.As we know any information even controversial can be included on Wikipedia if it is verifable. Also it was stated in the article that her name should not be mentioned until her family itself grants permission to the media outlets to reveal her name. Both the requirements of verification and permission have been met. Even after this you do not allow her name to be shown on Wikipedia then you are blatantly violating Wikipedia policies. Just because most sources use pseudonyms instead of her real name does not mean that we too cannot use her name. There is no such Wikipedia policy. I hope this would have completely clarified everything. TransVannian ( talk) 05:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
User:Abhinavname had moved the page to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case without any consensus so I have moved it back . P.S: I guess I did not use the correct way of moving the page, I did it because my browser sometime has some issues and I don't see few options correctly. -- sarvajna ( talk) 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Some more links i am providing the girl needs to be named to set an example that rape victims need not to be ashamed.Even Oprah Winfrey was also raped in childhood. and now she is a great lady. The article should be movd to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case .see these links:
http://www.indiatimes.com/bollywood/bollywood-salutes-jyoti-singh-pandeys-father-53616.html
User talk:Abhinavname 18:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link abt Jyoti Singh Pandey and her friend Awindra Pandey, 28 revelead by Jyoti's Singh Pandey.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victim-jyoti-1521178
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victims-father-1522185
User talk:Abhinavname 14:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I found the following sources to meet WP:VERIFY standards:
ENeville ( talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the consensus apparent here is that the information should be listed. I would also note that surviving family members of the female victim have said that they want their daughters name to be known, and the male victim has voluntarily spoken to the press multiple times without anonymity, so the information should be included in Wikipedia. ENeville ( talk) 14:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia policy is to refrain from identifying an individual if they are only notable for being the victim of a crime and they do not wish (or, in this case, their loved ones do not wish) for them to be identified. To that end, please do not insert any material naming the victim of this crime without first obtaining consensus at this article's talk page. That doesn't mean that you can't cite sources that happen to name the victim, but you are asked to not include the name in the actual text of the article, until and unless there is a consensus otherwise. This also applies to the male victim of the assault.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier it was reported the name of the rape victim was revealed on the request of her father but later it was reported that the father never gave permission to reveal the name. Should this unproven name be included in the article? TransVannian ( talk) 07:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:*Also, close this RfC as bad-faith disruption This user has devoted hundreds of edits at this point to agitation and disruption on this topic, and is only an hour or two off an administrative block for this. Their first edit to this page was to slander the victim in an edit summary, which had to be removed by an administrator.
[19] It's not unreasonable to have an RfC on this topic, but it seems clear that this RfC is simply a vehicle to continue putting the victim's name on this page as prominently and repeatedly as possible. --
Khazar2 (
talk)
08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME policy for recently deceased victims of gruesome crime - There has been a lot confusion regarding how this policy applies to recently deceased victims of gruesome crime. No user has cared to mention it in detail so I'll mention it here. The minimum time limit for not including the name anywhere on Wikipedia is six months. After six months a consensus can decide whether victim's name should be included on Wikipedia. The maximum time limit is two years however if a consensus agrees on including the name it can be included. If it does not then the name cannot be included till two years have passed from the date when the crime happened, in this case December 29, 2014. After that the name can be included however there must be reliable sources that back up that name. Also as we already know many news and media outlets say that JSP (these are the initials for the name) is her name. News websites are much more reliable than other sources so saying that we should wait for more reliable sources is incorrect. Many news websites mention the given name as the victim's name. Also later it was said that the father did not grant permission to reveal the name which also might mean that the name JSP might not actually be the victim's name. I still doubt whether WP:BLPNAME applies in case of an unproven name. Thank you. TransVannian ( talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I request all users not to delete the word unproven name and insert victim's name instead to the heading of the RfC section. By doing this you are changing the topic of an RfC filed by another user which is strictly not allowed. TransVannian ( talk) 08:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Lukeno94. I guess I was wrong about you being disruptive. But please enough is enough. It was me who filed that RfC. You can't change the heading of an RfC just as you can't change the heading of a discussion at DRN whether you think it's biased or not. Any more change to the heading and I'm complaining about all of those who change the heading at ANI. TransVannian ( talk) 11:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Also The Banner should realize that comments should not be posted in Survey section please post them in this section only. Also the RfC was always about the unproven name and there is nothing in WP:RFC that says when an RfC is invalid. TransVannian ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello I am an uninvolved user here. I came through here from talk page of Transvannian. Although I have never used an RfC, I have carefully read through WP:RFC after noticing that he was blocked for disruptive editing here. While he is right on the account that other users cannot change the heading of the RfC whether they view it's incorrect or biased, he is completely wrong on that he has a right to change the heading of the RfC if he wishes to. He cannot. That's why I've restored the original heading. I've noticed that he has not only displayed disruptive behavior here but on his talk page too by calling admin Bbb23 a power abuser. Although I've changed the heading I will not participate in the survey (or vote should I say) since it will make me an involved user. I seriously think this RfC requires an uninvoled user. If you think I am doing something wrong then please do notify me and how can I correct it. Thank you and happy editing or should I say polling :). Cheers! KahnJohn27 ( talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The RFC was closed with consensus, and this additional issue is over. It's time to drop the stick and move forward. Let's focus on improving the article now, please.
TheOriginalSoni (
talk)
10:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
If the consensus thinks the name should not be included for the time being then I can understand. Therefore, the name should not be included until the time limit of 2 years has expired. My agreeing with the consensus proves that I was never trying to enforce my views as incorrectly said by some editors. I ask them to please apolgise. TransVannian ( talk) 12:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
For those of you don't know maximum time limit for "questonable material" including name according to WP:AVOIDVICTIM is two years. After that it can be added. I'm going to add the name when the limit expires even if you kill me after that. I am not going to let you violate Wikipedia policies just because you think it is a so-called "disrespect" to the victim. Seriously who are you fooling? I know you don't give two hoots about her or her respect. You're only doing this because not revealing a victim's name is more acceptable in the society and if you will support including her name you will chastised for it and will be threatned by everyone just like I have. I'll tell you this once I'm not a coward and I don't blindly follow what the majority says is right. I follow only that is actually right. Unlike most people I'm not a dumb drone and I care less what the society thinks about me. If I help someone I just go away from there because I don't want to waste my time listening to their thanks and I don't care what they think about me. I'm going to add the unproven name after time limit expires because there is actually a policy for it. And your consensus doesn't have a say in it irrespective of what you might think. So I advice you to just deal with it. TransVannian ( talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry the policy is actually WP:BDP. According to this policy- The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. There does exist a policy related to questionable material related to a recently dead victim. And two years is the maximum extension for not adding questionable material beyond the date of death. Hope this clears up everything. Thank you. TransVannian ( talk) 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop creating a dramaEnough of it already. The user TransVannian has already been blocked. This talk page for discussion on how to improve the article and not to discuss somebody's behavior. I ask all users to stop creating such a drama over this article and stop arguing again and again since by doing this you are being disruptive yourself. Also I ask them to move on to other things since the RfC has already been closed and the name will not be included. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 08:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
|
The article has been rearranged with a heading "Juvenile defendant" followed by two sections. I don't care for it at all and prefer the previous arrangement. I'd also rather see a "Verdict and sentencing" section rather than separate sections for the adults. I'll leave it alone and hope that other editors will agree...or not. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I just saw this on the Main Page, and after looking it up, I find the name very surprising. As described, this wasn't a gang rape - it should be something more like the 2012 Delhi gang rape and mutilation murder. It should have a clearer title so that it is clearer why a gang rape led to death sentences, and because as currently named it gives the impression that people are obsessed with the "sexual" part of it rather than the monstrously horrible killing part. Wnt ( talk) 16:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure why people actively showing up for a protest should be tagged as not wanting to be seen μηδείς ( talk) 03:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to 2012 Delhi gang rape. Kaldari ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
2012 Delhi gang rape case →
2012 Delhi gang rape – As mentioned above by other editors, it seems redundant to have the word "case" on the page title name. Sources seem to be following this particular name, or its variants. Hence it appears to be the best choice for renaming.
TheOriginalSoni (
talk)
08:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have renominated this article for GA considering the main verdicts for the accused has been given out; and we would not be expected an extremely high number of edits. Likewise, the expected viewcount is set to decrease in the next few days, giving even lesser likelihood of major editing. The article certainly seems good enough to get there. Hopefully it will not face any major hurdles.
Khazar2, ping.
As always, I would not be available full time to get through all issues that arise during the GA. Hopefully someone can get that covered.
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 02:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As of 6 Jan 2013 a muslim name has now been added to the accused list in the wikipedia page. No Muslim was involved in the crime so the police have told the person to confess as muslim. If there was even a single muslim involved nobody in hindu india would have waited so long and his name would be plastered all over the news media, forums and comments section, instead his real name raju was used till the police could come up with another name for him. No doubt his family has received the necessary payments from the police. This is not the first time indian police has done such a thing. Countless times in the past when there was a major crime, the police would come up on the scene and give a made up muslim name to a hindu person. RSS and indian police at it yet again. Fake Indian Police Confessions ( talk) 06:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
|}
Do you think we should add the Steubenville Rape Case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School#Steubenville_rape_case) in the "International Reaction"? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257996/Ohio-football-rape-girl-boy-filmed-joking-laughing-fate-16-year-old-apologises.html
DailyMail quotes "The backlash has echoes of the international outrage triggered by the death of 23-year-old Jyoti Singh Pandey, who died as a result of the massive injuries sustained during a brutal gang rape at the hands of six men in Delhi, India." referring to the protests in Ohio. - The Ajan ( talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The title is wrong. In identifying grave criminal cases, the severest crime is generally cited first. In this case, the accused are tried for murder and for dacoity with lethal effect, which two crimes also bear the gravest punishment. The rape is tertiary in legal nature, also as to the punishment going with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.187.93 ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This title should be changed to something more specific. Delhi has seen more than 5 gang rapes in 2012, this is not the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.26.10 ( talk) 23:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The infobox has a spot for injuries. Currently only the one fatality is listed. Should the injured male victim be counted as well? Andrew 327 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have twice attempted to change the opening sentence of this section to read, "Widespread misogyny[109][110] as well as "Eve teasing" and rape are some issues..." but it has been reverted called it "weasel wording". I believe that it must be kept in mind that Eve teasing to most English readers is very much as odd sounding as any foreign phrase and the English meaning of segregation has little comparison to the word misogyny, which I believe is more appropriate to use per the references provided. I'd like to see a reason for the two reverts of my changes. Thanks! Gandydancer ( talk) 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Useful source, possibly. http://www.smh.com.au/world/victims-in-delhi-rape-case-are-to-blame-defendants-lawyer-says-20130110-2ch95.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure if SMH is reliable news source now, they have twisted the article and added other useless information in the article. I'd rather suggest the NYTimes one, http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/three-accused-in-delhi-gang-rape-case-to-plead-not-guilty/ 134.219.227.30 ( talk) 13:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Delhi gang rape case → Death of Jyoti Singh Pandey – PatGallacher ( talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that her name has become generally known, I think this is consistent with similar cases. "Murder of" is better avoided because of BLP issues with trials pending. PatGallacher ( talk) 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1st bad URL used: http://http://www.emirates247.com/news/delhi-gang-rape-accused-was-on-reality-tv-show-2013-01-12-1.489766 2nd bad URL used: http://http://http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/india-rape-delhi-accused-juvenile-ramsin-idINDEE90B01S20130112
3. Content: Bad sources (non working URLs) are being used to support claim "a Juvenile whose name yet to be confirmed people dont even know his real name they used to call him Raju" under the section "Alleged Perpetrators"
There is no confusion about the name and his name has been mentioned by various credible media sources. I request that the older edit that named the accused using this reliable source ( http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/delhi-gangrape-fifth-man-md-afroz-nabbed-badaun-uttar-pradesh/1/238782.html) be reinstated.
The juvenile is also verbally named in this video report http://au.sports.yahoo.com/video/delhi-gangrape-case-fifth-man-065022645.html NicM99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicM99 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an "Image requested" flag on this Talk page. What are some images that we would consider appropriate? Andrew 327 21:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
IMO These are the images we need
Suggestions? The Ajan ( talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
These are not for inclusion in the article, but for general interest.
Hrishikes ( talk) 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I find this obsession with not revealing the names of the victims in this article to be totally unjustified, against standard practice in ALL other similar wikipedia articles, and a major factor that lowers the overall quality of this article. Top Indian newspapers (DNA), Indian news magazines (India Today which is India's largest selling weekly) as well as foreign media (Daily Mail, Mirror, The Australian, etc) have extensively quoted the names of the female victim of the rape-murder (Jyoti Singh Pandey), her father (Badri Singh Pandey) as well as the male companion (Awindra Pratap Pandey) who was also a victim of physical assault while trying to protect the deceased victim. The "gag order" of the Delhi police applies ONLY to Indian media, and DEFINITELY NOT to Wikipedia. And especially, hiding the name of even the male victim (who has even publicly appeared on Indian TV news channels without any hiding of his face etc) makes absolutely NO sense at all! There is NO "gag order" from the Delhi police against revealing the male victim's identity, and the man himself is perfectly fine with revealing his identity (as I said, he has appeared in public interviews on TV channels). So there is just NO good reason why even the male victim be not being named in the article. I would also like to reopen the debate on naming the female victim. - 115.248.114.51 ( talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil. Now: There's very little doubt about the authenticity of their names. The fact of the matter is that when there's concern about ethics and our status as a serious encyclopedic project, the standard best practice is to follow the most reliable sources' decision on the matter. It is not for us to determine whether the family wishes for her name to be released; all that matters is that the editorial boards of all major respected international newspapers feel that it is inappropriate to release it as of yet.
As for Awindra Pandey, he's alive, so it's entirely his call. I just did some digging, and it appears that he may have opened up to the press. If you can find multiple reliable sources saying he's consented to be named, I, for one, would have no objection against including his name. Until then, though, what goes for Jyoti goes double for him: He can suffer major real-world consequences if his name is released against his will (from being stalked by the paparazzi to being mocked by assholes for having been assaulted... and also probably death threats, because pretty much everyone involved in something like this gets death threats, even the good guys), and we should have no part in it until the respectable media outlets are comfortable about the ethical situation. The day an ultimately inconsequential detail like the name of a private citizen becomes more important than people's rights and wishes is the day that I scramble my password.
And, finally: I, too, noticed that several other Wikipedias have used their names. I encourage any Wikimedians active on any of them to make the same arguments that I and others have made here. — Francophonie&Androphilie( Je vous invite à me parler) 17:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
An eerily similar rape has happened again. Should this article be renamed 2012-13 Indian gang rape cases? Or should we create a new article for the new rape, if it gains enough notability? VR talk 05:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The expiry of Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 Delhi gang rape case has been extended to indefinite. If other editors disagree with this, they're welcome to say so; additionally, this heightens the need for optimal phrasing, so I encourage anyone who sees room for improvement to submit an edit request, or just do what I do and track down an admin or account creator on IRC. — PinkAmpers &(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The article's first reference to "suspects" is in this first sentence in the section Alleged perpetrators:
"Police found and arrested some of the suspects within 24 hours."
I ask: some of what suspects???
Although this phrasing is very common in bad newspapers, it makes no sense to refer to "the" suspects when no suspects have been referred to previously in the article. Only perpetrators have been previously referred to.
As long as Wikipedia is going to be careful about describing suspects as "alleged perpetrators" — as it certainly should unless and until they are found guilty — then it is entirely inappropriate to talk about "the" suspects in the very first reference to any suspects. Because the phrasing "some of the suspects" carries the innuendo that these persons are the perpetrators.
And so I am changing that sentence to read:
"Police found and arrested some suspects within 24 hours."
(Please do not mistake this post for an expression of sympathy with the actual perpetrators, whoever they are!!! I have none.) Daqu ( talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like commentary on the material in this section, specifically the first few sentences in the first paragraph. While they have improved vastly in the last few weeks, concerns still remain as to issues of Original Research, Sythesis and Coatracking in the claim that there is some sort of "social context" for the rape incident, especially the implicit claim that Indians are inherently prone to rape. The claims are based on an op-ed whose notability is questionable. It has also been criticized for "native informant' racism by academic sources such as Jadaliyya [4]. The paragraph does not present contrasting views that the cultural stuff is disproportionally highlighted in the media ( Orientalism) [5]. Handyunits ( talk) 07:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text as it is right now. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sexism,India-specific article [1] [2] sexual harassment (known in India as Eve teasing [3]), rapeIndia-specific article and other crimes against women are problems faced by women in India. Spiritual guru, Asaram Bapu, was reported to have said that the victim was to blame for her own assault because she could have stopped the attack if she had "chanted God's name and fallen at the feet of the attackers". [4] Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the pro-Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that underpins the country's main opposition political party, said rapes are the result of women adopting western lifestyles as has happened in Indian cities. Manohar Lal Sharma, lawyer for one of the accused attackers, blames the couple for being on the street at night, using public transportation, and states that he has never heard of a rape of a "respected lady". He further finds the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman". [5] According to an online survey conducted by YouGov, 47% of Indian respondents think that the victim bears part of the blame in the attack. [6]
- ^ Mangaldas, Leeza (2013), Misogyny in India: We are all guilty, CNN.com
- ^ Mangaldas, Leeza (2012), Teenager raped in India commits suicide, CNN
{{ citation}}
:|format=
requires|url=
( help)- ^ "Review of Laws and Legislative Measures Affecting Women by National Commission for Women (NCW), No.9. Eve Teasing (New Legislation)". National Commission for Women, New Delhi, India.
- ^ "Asaram Bapu's view on Delhi rape raises anger, but shared by many". Retrieved 15 January 2013.
- ^ Victims in Delhi rape case are to blame, defendants' lawyer says
- ^ Will Delhi’s Coldest Night Dawn an Indian Spring?
Are the extent of the male victim's injuries known? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 07:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand post signing but I think note 117 ending the section on Justice Verma Commission is very misleading. The findings appear to have been completely sidelined as the women's groups in India maintain. The Finance Minister former Union Sec P Chidambaram openly stated that the cabinet cannot push through the reforms suggested by the Verma Report on AFSPA reform for example because the Army will not allow it. The rushed through new anti-rape ordinances ask for things not found in Verma. Simple directives for medical practitioners to stop the two finger test (it would be called finger fucking in the west but someone will object to the term not the procedure) and then call them forensic reports must be stopped as they are illegal. I accept the Cabinet are making positive noises about it though they are unlikely to accept any of Justice Verma's proposals or adopt the spirit of his reforms ie demanding equal respect for women from low castes tribals and minority indian communities. i am adding four tildas now but I presume that's wrong desmond coutinho DesmondCoutinho ( talk) 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This section has been removed with the comment, "rm. rfC consensus is that an op/ed by an actress is not notable":
Speaking to CNN, Leeza Mangaldas, actress and founder of Evoke India, a forum devoted to open dialogue in India said, "Unfortunately, in India rape is inextricably linked by men -- and women -- to shame: the ultimate desecration. Many victims are murdered by their rapists or choose to commit suicide. It is also not uncommon for the parents of rape victims to kill themselves. Thus, most victims don't speak up about what happened to them, lest their families be ostracized, lest they never find a husband or be shunned by their friends."
However, it is my understanding that that rationale is not what the "rfC" concluded. I agree that it was not proper to make statements about the extent of rape, etc., in India and use this woman as the authority to back it up. But for her to speak for herself is another thing and there is no reason that her opinions should not be included in this article. As to her notability, I believe that if CNN considered her notable enough to ask her to write an op-ed she is notable enough to comment here. I'm going to return her comment. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This news report from Headlines Today, states that the name of the fifth accused was Mohammad Afroz (aka Raju). I propose that we state the accused's actual name as we have done for the other perpetrators.
http://www.istream.com/news/watch/242433/Delhi-Gangrape-Fifth-accused-arrested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustymill ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Per a discussion I had with Luke, I will be nominating this article for GA. Anyone is welcome to review it/ to join in the nomination. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 10:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll take this review. I'm extremely sorry to see you're leaving, Soni. With luck, this will only need minimal tweaks that I can do myself to pass. Thanks for your work on it--I've had my eye on it as one of the top 50 articles for WP Human rights.
Anyway, comments to follow later today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Going to have to take a break for now, but hope to finish this one later tonight... -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
So after poking around on Google News, it seems that the trial of the adult defendants is happening this very week. [10] One of the quickfail criteria used to be "a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint", which this is, but we no longer have that criterion listed. I've asked at WT:GAN for input on how to proceed, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts there.
My own initial thinking is that we probably can't get this article stable enough to pass it until the end of the trial--there's no sense in passing it as a GA if it will require a major update in a few weeks' time. Probably the best thing to do for now is for the three of us to collaborate on having the article as ready to go as possible; when the trial verdict and sentences, and accompanying reactions, are in, we can renominate. I'll wait to hear from you and some opinions at WT:GAN, though, before taking any action. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is in overall good shape and is close to meeting the criteria in most respects. The biggest concern here is that a thorough copyvio check is needed; at least one paragraph seemed to be close paraphrasing of the source. (This is common in current events articles like this assembled by a large number of editors, but is a serious issue that we'll need to address.)
Since the trial is ongoing, however, this can't be considered stable enough to meet the GA criteria; the verdicts and sentences, and reactions to them, will require a major expansion and rewrite. For that reason I'm closing the review for now, but without prejudice to future renomination once the trial is complete. (I might renominate it myself, in fact, if Soni's not back to do it.) -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I changed all the versions of fast-track/fast track courts to fast track courts (though I think I missed one due to terrible experience with visual editor) using this site: [11] Gandydancer ( talk) 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What would the other editors think of expanding the "Results of protest" section a little? There is plenty of information at the articles already included and the Punjab information that was deleted from another section for copy vio could be used as well. [16] Gandydancer ( talk) 14:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Speaking from a long-time feminist's POV, I think that the quote from the woman's father is important to the article. He said:
We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn't do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter.
This quote has been criticized because it was disclosed to the Daily Mirror, however it has been repeated here [17] and in several other sources that I believe are RS.
I believe that her father's statement is very important. Even today it is the woman who suffers from shame after a rape and that is true not only in India, but in every country in the world. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Enough of the drama please. TransVannian and others, please feel free to approach ANI or other forums if there is a dispute. If there isnt, lets just drop it.
TheOriginalSoni (
talk)
14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
I don't know why there's so much drama over the victim's name. Just because a victim's family doesn't want the victim to be named doesn't mean we won't provide his/her name if we know. Besides Nirbhaya's father has himself told the media to release the name of the victim. Don't you even know that? Not naming her isn't gonna bring her back nor does it mean you are respecting her memory. By the way Wikipedia is not the media or the newspaper that we won't name her. Our goal is to provide complete accurate information. Also respecting the victim and his father's wishes I'm naming her here. She did not do anything great to deserve a bravery award but still every person's memory should be honored. Her name was redacted: stop listing this and may god grant her eternal peace. TransVannian ( talk) 10:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
How dare you censor my comment. No user has a right to censor or remove even a single part of other user's comment on an article talk page. You're not only violating the freedom of speech but also violating Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia says that the editor should be bold. I'm just providing info and not damaging Wikipedia in any way but am actually helping it. If you think there is even a single policy that prevents me from mentioning her name I suggest you post it here. Every user has the right to paste information. Not only that this a talk page not an article. I don't need any source to mention any info here. One final thing just type redacted and you'll find a lot of media websites which confirm she was the victim. You'll even find her photo on Google. TransVannian ( talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You're doing the right thing Gandydancer. However restrictions cannot be imposed on a talk page. It is completely against Wikipedia policies. Also Lukeon94 called my edit summary comments were outrageous and disgraceful. However what I said was the truth and I have complete respect to her. What I meant was that while people publicized that poor girl's tragic death. But multiple soldiers fie everyday defending us the public and our borders. What I said was that while this girl's death was publicized there are thousands of families of martyred soldiers who have been waiting for at least some of compensation from the government but they have received nothing at all even though those brave soldiers who died defenfing our frontiers belong to these families. Not only that no one even asks how they are boding let alone try easing their suffering. I ask all fellow editors. Does my comment seem outrageous and disgraceful to you? I couldn't mention this in edit summary because the edit summary comments have a word limit. TransVannian ( talk) 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll like to ask Khazar to please provide proof that all the talk page policies he's talking about are indeed true. Until then I can't tell whether you are speaking the truth. So please provide a proof. Also I never compared the girl and the soldiers in my statement. I made that statement because I've myself seen a soldier be killed by a militant. I request you to understand my condition too. My comment was made to show that how much of a hypocrite the government and people are. You had completely misunderstood my edit summary comment. I'm discussing this subject to improve the article and Wikipedia. I hope all fellow users know and understand that. TransVannian ( talk) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2 has himself accepted that some reliable sources do mention the name of the victim. Not only that her father had directly requested to reveal her name. You can search the name of the victim which I pasted here on Google and you'll find many reliable sources that mention the same name and it is on direct request of her father.As we know any information even controversial can be included on Wikipedia if it is verifable. Also it was stated in the article that her name should not be mentioned until her family itself grants permission to the media outlets to reveal her name. Both the requirements of verification and permission have been met. Even after this you do not allow her name to be shown on Wikipedia then you are blatantly violating Wikipedia policies. Just because most sources use pseudonyms instead of her real name does not mean that we too cannot use her name. There is no such Wikipedia policy. I hope this would have completely clarified everything. TransVannian ( talk) 05:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
User:Abhinavname had moved the page to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case without any consensus so I have moved it back . P.S: I guess I did not use the correct way of moving the page, I did it because my browser sometime has some issues and I don't see few options correctly. -- sarvajna ( talk) 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Some more links i am providing the girl needs to be named to set an example that rape victims need not to be ashamed.Even Oprah Winfrey was also raped in childhood. and now she is a great lady. The article should be movd to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case .see these links:
http://www.indiatimes.com/bollywood/bollywood-salutes-jyoti-singh-pandeys-father-53616.html
User talk:Abhinavname 18:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link abt Jyoti Singh Pandey and her friend Awindra Pandey, 28 revelead by Jyoti's Singh Pandey.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victim-jyoti-1521178
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victims-father-1522185
User talk:Abhinavname 14:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I found the following sources to meet WP:VERIFY standards:
ENeville ( talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the consensus apparent here is that the information should be listed. I would also note that surviving family members of the female victim have said that they want their daughters name to be known, and the male victim has voluntarily spoken to the press multiple times without anonymity, so the information should be included in Wikipedia. ENeville ( talk) 14:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia policy is to refrain from identifying an individual if they are only notable for being the victim of a crime and they do not wish (or, in this case, their loved ones do not wish) for them to be identified. To that end, please do not insert any material naming the victim of this crime without first obtaining consensus at this article's talk page. That doesn't mean that you can't cite sources that happen to name the victim, but you are asked to not include the name in the actual text of the article, until and unless there is a consensus otherwise. This also applies to the male victim of the assault.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier it was reported the name of the rape victim was revealed on the request of her father but later it was reported that the father never gave permission to reveal the name. Should this unproven name be included in the article? TransVannian ( talk) 07:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:*Also, close this RfC as bad-faith disruption This user has devoted hundreds of edits at this point to agitation and disruption on this topic, and is only an hour or two off an administrative block for this. Their first edit to this page was to slander the victim in an edit summary, which had to be removed by an administrator.
[19] It's not unreasonable to have an RfC on this topic, but it seems clear that this RfC is simply a vehicle to continue putting the victim's name on this page as prominently and repeatedly as possible. --
Khazar2 (
talk)
08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME policy for recently deceased victims of gruesome crime - There has been a lot confusion regarding how this policy applies to recently deceased victims of gruesome crime. No user has cared to mention it in detail so I'll mention it here. The minimum time limit for not including the name anywhere on Wikipedia is six months. After six months a consensus can decide whether victim's name should be included on Wikipedia. The maximum time limit is two years however if a consensus agrees on including the name it can be included. If it does not then the name cannot be included till two years have passed from the date when the crime happened, in this case December 29, 2014. After that the name can be included however there must be reliable sources that back up that name. Also as we already know many news and media outlets say that JSP (these are the initials for the name) is her name. News websites are much more reliable than other sources so saying that we should wait for more reliable sources is incorrect. Many news websites mention the given name as the victim's name. Also later it was said that the father did not grant permission to reveal the name which also might mean that the name JSP might not actually be the victim's name. I still doubt whether WP:BLPNAME applies in case of an unproven name. Thank you. TransVannian ( talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I request all users not to delete the word unproven name and insert victim's name instead to the heading of the RfC section. By doing this you are changing the topic of an RfC filed by another user which is strictly not allowed. TransVannian ( talk) 08:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Lukeno94. I guess I was wrong about you being disruptive. But please enough is enough. It was me who filed that RfC. You can't change the heading of an RfC just as you can't change the heading of a discussion at DRN whether you think it's biased or not. Any more change to the heading and I'm complaining about all of those who change the heading at ANI. TransVannian ( talk) 11:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Also The Banner should realize that comments should not be posted in Survey section please post them in this section only. Also the RfC was always about the unproven name and there is nothing in WP:RFC that says when an RfC is invalid. TransVannian ( talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello I am an uninvolved user here. I came through here from talk page of Transvannian. Although I have never used an RfC, I have carefully read through WP:RFC after noticing that he was blocked for disruptive editing here. While he is right on the account that other users cannot change the heading of the RfC whether they view it's incorrect or biased, he is completely wrong on that he has a right to change the heading of the RfC if he wishes to. He cannot. That's why I've restored the original heading. I've noticed that he has not only displayed disruptive behavior here but on his talk page too by calling admin Bbb23 a power abuser. Although I've changed the heading I will not participate in the survey (or vote should I say) since it will make me an involved user. I seriously think this RfC requires an uninvoled user. If you think I am doing something wrong then please do notify me and how can I correct it. Thank you and happy editing or should I say polling :). Cheers! KahnJohn27 ( talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The RFC was closed with consensus, and this additional issue is over. It's time to drop the stick and move forward. Let's focus on improving the article now, please.
TheOriginalSoni (
talk)
10:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
If the consensus thinks the name should not be included for the time being then I can understand. Therefore, the name should not be included until the time limit of 2 years has expired. My agreeing with the consensus proves that I was never trying to enforce my views as incorrectly said by some editors. I ask them to please apolgise. TransVannian ( talk) 12:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
For those of you don't know maximum time limit for "questonable material" including name according to WP:AVOIDVICTIM is two years. After that it can be added. I'm going to add the name when the limit expires even if you kill me after that. I am not going to let you violate Wikipedia policies just because you think it is a so-called "disrespect" to the victim. Seriously who are you fooling? I know you don't give two hoots about her or her respect. You're only doing this because not revealing a victim's name is more acceptable in the society and if you will support including her name you will chastised for it and will be threatned by everyone just like I have. I'll tell you this once I'm not a coward and I don't blindly follow what the majority says is right. I follow only that is actually right. Unlike most people I'm not a dumb drone and I care less what the society thinks about me. If I help someone I just go away from there because I don't want to waste my time listening to their thanks and I don't care what they think about me. I'm going to add the unproven name after time limit expires because there is actually a policy for it. And your consensus doesn't have a say in it irrespective of what you might think. So I advice you to just deal with it. TransVannian ( talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry the policy is actually WP:BDP. According to this policy- The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. There does exist a policy related to questionable material related to a recently dead victim. And two years is the maximum extension for not adding questionable material beyond the date of death. Hope this clears up everything. Thank you. TransVannian ( talk) 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop creating a dramaEnough of it already. The user TransVannian has already been blocked. This talk page for discussion on how to improve the article and not to discuss somebody's behavior. I ask all users to stop creating such a drama over this article and stop arguing again and again since by doing this you are being disruptive yourself. Also I ask them to move on to other things since the RfC has already been closed and the name will not be included. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 08:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
|
The article has been rearranged with a heading "Juvenile defendant" followed by two sections. I don't care for it at all and prefer the previous arrangement. I'd also rather see a "Verdict and sentencing" section rather than separate sections for the adults. I'll leave it alone and hope that other editors will agree...or not. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I just saw this on the Main Page, and after looking it up, I find the name very surprising. As described, this wasn't a gang rape - it should be something more like the 2012 Delhi gang rape and mutilation murder. It should have a clearer title so that it is clearer why a gang rape led to death sentences, and because as currently named it gives the impression that people are obsessed with the "sexual" part of it rather than the monstrously horrible killing part. Wnt ( talk) 16:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure why people actively showing up for a protest should be tagged as not wanting to be seen μηδείς ( talk) 03:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to 2012 Delhi gang rape. Kaldari ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
2012 Delhi gang rape case →
2012 Delhi gang rape – As mentioned above by other editors, it seems redundant to have the word "case" on the page title name. Sources seem to be following this particular name, or its variants. Hence it appears to be the best choice for renaming.
TheOriginalSoni (
talk)
08:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have renominated this article for GA considering the main verdicts for the accused has been given out; and we would not be expected an extremely high number of edits. Likewise, the expected viewcount is set to decrease in the next few days, giving even lesser likelihood of major editing. The article certainly seems good enough to get there. Hopefully it will not face any major hurdles.
Khazar2, ping.
As always, I would not be available full time to get through all issues that arise during the GA. Hopefully someone can get that covered.
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 02:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)