![]() | 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 |
This has been added to the lead:
On 16 December 2013, a novel titled 'I'm a Woman & I'm on SALE' was released and dedicated to Nirbhaya in her memory. [12]
I hate to be a meanie, but I think it needs to go... Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I modified the opening sentence. It originally said ...rape and murder... I felt it was incomplete and changed it to subsequent, then consequent, before replacing it with resultant. Could someone tell me their opinion on this? I feel that a word is required between and and murder, but help is needed here. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
Should the victim's name be mentioned in the article? Abecedare ( talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
See earlier RFC on topic where the consensus was "against including the alleged victim's name at this time", and doubts were also expressed whether the name being mentioned was the correct one. The new development, motivating this RFC, is the release of a BBC documentary India's Daughter on the subject of this article in which the victim's name is used, including by the father who says (BBC's trans. from Hindi) "We have no problem in revealing her name. In fact we are happy to reveal it." Abecedare ( talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I support naming the victim without reservation as explained below; I also see statements of support above from User:Ronki23, User:109.144.229.171, User:Gandydancer, below from 86.187.18.204, and via recent direct editing from User:Cupidvogel, User:Aditya.XMR, and 61.16.142.166. There is no consensus to censor here. I don't even see many people for it. Please stop claiming one. Wnt ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ronki23 ( talk) 04:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)ronki23
Another reason is that people should know about the goings on in India (India itself considering it was blocked there) and the documentary is now trending globally with " #Indiasdaughter "
Ronki23 ( talk) 04:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)ronki23
Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.NebY ( talk) 12:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok if you are in UK its legal to watch this on BBC iplayer [1] The section of interest here is very near the end and begins about 55 mins 28 seconds in with the shot of a river. Her father speaks on voiceover in what I assume is Hindi. The subtitles at this very point begin with the words "Our daughters name is Jyoti Singh" & continue "We have no problem revealing her name", The next caption says "In fact we are happy to reveal it" & he continues about how she has become a symbol & wants her memory to bring light into the world etc as the camera shows a candle amongst flowers being lit & floating down a river at dawn/sunset.
It is a tad 'overly cinematic' & one cant help but suspect that the film makers wrote some of it, or suggested it & clearly the issue of naming her & thus breaking her honour/modesty/privacy is a 'scandalous' one for many in Indian culture etc
But even so its clear that whatever reservations the family may have had about publicly naming her they've now put them aside most emphatically for whatever reason.
86.187.18.204 ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC) avsp 5th march 2015 21:54-ish
Maybe for full verification we should confirm that his words have been translated correctly/fully? I dont know what the protocol for that is, but I've yet to see Indians on twitter complaining about the translation But I suppose this is verging a possibly rather specious 'no evidence, thus proof' kind of deal, which probably is judged as 'sound methodology' or something here. Maybe? 86.187.18.204 ( talk)avsp 5th march 2015 22:20-ish — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW other wiki articles name her & one of the cites names her in the footnotes.
My view is that its not a neutral position to hide her name as this is being used as a justification for banning the documentary by some ppl in India who I'd argue are doing so purely coz of some petty political party squabble.
But then for pretty much the same can be said about arguing that for including her name.
There is no neutral position.
The name is in the public domain
There is a clear statement from the father using the phrase 'our daughter' and seemingly no record of the mother disagreeing & the doc begins with a caption card saying it was made with the cooperation of both the mother ~& father who are both named individually.
What possible reason is there to exclude it apart from the non-neutral position of partisan support in some, to me, arcane seeming political party squabble in India?
And were the father's prevarications such that he was totally opposed to her name being public anyway?
Standard wiki practice is to name ppl unless there's a good reason not to, isn't it? I can see no reason other than political party partisanship in this case.
I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise, but arguing that there isn't clear support from her family seems a very weak position to me.
I mean what evidence would be acceptable?
Would the family have to come here & edit it in themselves or what?
& even if the parents divorce & fall out & the mother publicly takes a contrary view at a later date it could be edited out then maybe, surely?
Sorry to ramble
86.187.18.204 ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) avsp 6th march 2015 01:52-ish
Given all the father's prevarications, & the seeming significance the naming issue has in Indian politics it almost at a point where the naming issue should have a section in the article maybe?
86.187.37.123 ( talk) 13:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)avsp 6th march 2015 13:00-ish
So any consensus? It seems only one member is opposing this ( @Lukeno94 ) even though several newspapers and the FAMILY THEMSELVES have broadcast her name and photograph on the BBC documentary. Her father was giving conflicting statements but that was BEFORE this documentary.
Ronki23 ( talk) 02:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
In Jan 2013, according to this news, father of that girl himself disclosed the name and wanted the world to know her name.
Now in March 2015, according to this news, he warned that he will take 'legal action' since the name was disclosed in the documentary. It seems that he has either become unstable or he does whatsoever suits him. If disclosing the name suits him to get attention, he does that and if someone discloses that, he warn to take legal action to make news headlines again. What so ever case may be - but In the view of this latest new, it would now be illegal to publish the name of that rape victim (despite the fact that it is known to entire world, and published a million times in all sort of reliable sources). This rfc may be closed at this point with the conclusion to NOT publish the name. Period. Educationtemple ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, name her as "Nirbhaya" as the Government of India has been doing and close tis discussion. Educationtemple ( talk) 03:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(Personal information removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronki23 ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not used to using wikipedia to edit. Where are the archives regarding this article?
The links I sent show that the victim's Father wanted people to know.
Again, i'm not wikipedia-savvy
Ronki23 ( talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Ronki23: I looked into the question, and it seems that the victim's father has issued contradictory statements (or at least statements that have been differently interpreted, which is not surprising in a media melee) on the question of whether the victim's name should be released. While the articles you linked earlier, dated around Jan 5 2013, said that the family was eager to have the name used publicly since the victim had done nothing to be ashamed of, subsequent articles refute that. For example,
this BBC article dated Jan 7 2013 says that, "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published." and also "He told BBC Hindi last week that he would have no problem with her name being used on a new law against rape."
Given the murky picture, and out of an abundance of caution, we should continue to keep the name out of the article. Hope that helps explain why the name is being removed from the article. See
WP:BLP and
WP:BLPNAME for the principles and policies involved.
Abecedare (
talk)
02:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Her parents took part in this documentary and her name was on it. How can you make an excuse not to put her name on?
(link redacted... again)
Ronki23 ( talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
in the bbc storyville doc "India's daughter", her name is used repeatedly & in the last few minutes her father explicitly states that not only is he happy for her name to be public but that the family actively want here name to be known. this is whilst a candle & flowers float down a river with talk of 'light', 'the whole world' etc
Thus it seems a bit silly not to use it here.
It could be argued that not using it is supporting the mindset that seeks to keep women quiet & having them viewed as 2nd class citizens, objects not people etc & as such Isn't 'neutral
Equally it can could be argued that its also not neutral to name her as thats near enough campaigning for the adoption of a more 'progressive' mindset etc.
But, the normal 'neutral' view on wikipedia, surely, is to name people not suppress their identification once their identity is common public knowledge anyway, regardless of, say, the parents wishes?
12:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) 109.144.229.171 ( talk)avsp 5th march 2015
Guess wikipedia is a forum after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.229.106 ( talk) 07:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
The article makes the following claim: In the 33-page charge sheet, the Delhi Police described the juvenile as the most brutal of the six accused. The following articles are used as citation:
Now, I found a later article that has not been used:
So, it seems that the accusations of brutality were directed at Vinay Sharma who was tried as an adult and not the unnamed juvenile. The incident has also been described in the judgement but the juvenile has not been accused of any extra brutality. I think the original editors have had a mistake confusing Vinay Sharma with the unnamed juvenile. I think we should remove the sentence about brutality, until we can examine the actual police chargesheet or the verdict of juvenile court, because media reports are confusing.
- Kenfyre ( talk) 11:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Altamas Kabir, on Saturday said that it was not yet proven that the juvenile, sixth accused in the Delhi gang-rape case, was the most violent. "Branding the juvenile as the most violent is but a creation of media as of now. At this stage, we don't know who did what in the brutal gang-rape of the student, but everything will become clear soon. Till then, we all should wait," said the CJI
The section entitled "Incident" is very confusing. It keeps referring to "Pandey" and then to "Pandey's friend". Furethermore, the male victim is named "Pandey" and so is the female victim, apparently. The manner in which this section is written is very confusing. I suspect, early on, one of the victims was named by the media and the other was not named. Hence, the use of "Pandey's friend" as a frequent moniker in that section. This needs to be fixed and clarified. I have no idea who is being referred to (when the article mentions "Pandey" and "Pandey's friend"). So, I cannot make the edits. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk)
Actually the woman's name is Jyoti Singh and not Jyoti Singh Pandey.
[1]
There must have been a confusion about the fact that the man who was with her that night was her friend and not her husband. Besides, I don't understand why the woman should be named by her family name and not her first name, and why Awindra Pandey is often referred as "her friend".
Mouchoir78 (
talk)
14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pl. don't change the psudoname to a muslim name.. muslim won't rape any women do not hide a religion give the culprit real hindu name
Arien 74 ( talk) 09:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jyoti Singh is referred by the name Pandey in the later sections of the article. It is ambiguous as her male companion's name is Pandey too and referred as Pandey in most references to him. Please have her name as Jyoti or Singh instead of Pandey. Baacheey ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
From the article: "The accused, Muhammad Afroz alias Raju [81][82][83][84][85] was declared as 17 years and six months old" I did not find any authoritative source that referred to his name as Afroz. The 1st reference does not have any name mentioned, and the rest are blogs which have not cited their source. Has his name been released by any official source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostly Clueless ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked sock. User:Lakhbir87 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rasikow ( talk) 09:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the accused names is VINAY not Mohammed Afrose. Please change it
Here is the proof:
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please change Mohammed Afroz to 17 years old juvenile accused because Indian Government did not release the name of the Juvenile in any Public Newspaper. The name of the 17 year old accused is still unknown. So kindly delete the name of that accused in the article in the below two places
1. Convicted Duryodhana 2. The accused, Duryodhana was declared as 17 years 80.76.172.60 ( talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The valid secondary, authoritative source on the real name of the juvenile accused in now found: It was published in India Today, both in the form of video (where the name is pronounced) as well as text. See the title below video on this page on the website of India Today - His name is written in the lines as follows: Accused Md Afroz alis Raju has been brought to Delhi for further interrogation, police is likely to formally announce his arrest. [1]
In the light of this reference, I recommend to update the real name of the person at 2 places and this reference can be assigned. Thanks
115.98.133.250 ( talk) 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
User Sangatamil ( talk · contribs) seems to be obsessed to remove the name of the rapist. He/she illegally edited my comment above and changed the name of the accused to the word - "No Name" ! I just reverted it here. This user was trying to dilute my suggestion and confuse the reviewers. I ask you Sangatamil - Can you change it on the website of IndiaToday????? Learn how to behave on wiki, and then start editing. Thanks. I invite @ Gandydancer: to see this. 115.98.133.250 ( talk) 17:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Juvenile defendant: The accused name referred as Akbar but there is no name of the accused is revealed by the Indian Govt not in any trusted media so this name should be changed with immediate effect, the previous editor has mentioned a silly cause to changing the name that in the same article there is another name sunil used hence to avoid confusion this accused name changed to Akbar(Pseudonym Name) so please use different appropriate Pseudonym Name as Duryodhana this must be the best Pseudonym Name, the name Akbar used is putting more pain on the minority community people living in india, so please consider this simple name change Sangatamil ( talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this IndiaToday Video as well as the text below video. The Real name of the person is given there. IndiaToday is a valid secondary source to support this and wiki dont need ONLY the Govt of India to release first, it could be any valid secondary source such as IndiaToday, which is sufficient as per wiki policy. 115.98.133.250 ( talk) 13:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 20 external links on
2012 Delhi gang rape. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Is the time of incident written correctly?I think that was night time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.98.2 ( talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (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 |
This has been added to the lead:
On 16 December 2013, a novel titled 'I'm a Woman & I'm on SALE' was released and dedicated to Nirbhaya in her memory. [12]
I hate to be a meanie, but I think it needs to go... Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I modified the opening sentence. It originally said ...rape and murder... I felt it was incomplete and changed it to subsequent, then consequent, before replacing it with resultant. Could someone tell me their opinion on this? I feel that a word is required between and and murder, but help is needed here. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
Should the victim's name be mentioned in the article? Abecedare ( talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
See earlier RFC on topic where the consensus was "against including the alleged victim's name at this time", and doubts were also expressed whether the name being mentioned was the correct one. The new development, motivating this RFC, is the release of a BBC documentary India's Daughter on the subject of this article in which the victim's name is used, including by the father who says (BBC's trans. from Hindi) "We have no problem in revealing her name. In fact we are happy to reveal it." Abecedare ( talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I support naming the victim without reservation as explained below; I also see statements of support above from User:Ronki23, User:109.144.229.171, User:Gandydancer, below from 86.187.18.204, and via recent direct editing from User:Cupidvogel, User:Aditya.XMR, and 61.16.142.166. There is no consensus to censor here. I don't even see many people for it. Please stop claiming one. Wnt ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ronki23 ( talk) 04:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)ronki23
Another reason is that people should know about the goings on in India (India itself considering it was blocked there) and the documentary is now trending globally with " #Indiasdaughter "
Ronki23 ( talk) 04:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)ronki23
Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.NebY ( talk) 12:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok if you are in UK its legal to watch this on BBC iplayer [1] The section of interest here is very near the end and begins about 55 mins 28 seconds in with the shot of a river. Her father speaks on voiceover in what I assume is Hindi. The subtitles at this very point begin with the words "Our daughters name is Jyoti Singh" & continue "We have no problem revealing her name", The next caption says "In fact we are happy to reveal it" & he continues about how she has become a symbol & wants her memory to bring light into the world etc as the camera shows a candle amongst flowers being lit & floating down a river at dawn/sunset.
It is a tad 'overly cinematic' & one cant help but suspect that the film makers wrote some of it, or suggested it & clearly the issue of naming her & thus breaking her honour/modesty/privacy is a 'scandalous' one for many in Indian culture etc
But even so its clear that whatever reservations the family may have had about publicly naming her they've now put them aside most emphatically for whatever reason.
86.187.18.204 ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC) avsp 5th march 2015 21:54-ish
Maybe for full verification we should confirm that his words have been translated correctly/fully? I dont know what the protocol for that is, but I've yet to see Indians on twitter complaining about the translation But I suppose this is verging a possibly rather specious 'no evidence, thus proof' kind of deal, which probably is judged as 'sound methodology' or something here. Maybe? 86.187.18.204 ( talk)avsp 5th march 2015 22:20-ish — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW other wiki articles name her & one of the cites names her in the footnotes.
My view is that its not a neutral position to hide her name as this is being used as a justification for banning the documentary by some ppl in India who I'd argue are doing so purely coz of some petty political party squabble.
But then for pretty much the same can be said about arguing that for including her name.
There is no neutral position.
The name is in the public domain
There is a clear statement from the father using the phrase 'our daughter' and seemingly no record of the mother disagreeing & the doc begins with a caption card saying it was made with the cooperation of both the mother ~& father who are both named individually.
What possible reason is there to exclude it apart from the non-neutral position of partisan support in some, to me, arcane seeming political party squabble in India?
And were the father's prevarications such that he was totally opposed to her name being public anyway?
Standard wiki practice is to name ppl unless there's a good reason not to, isn't it? I can see no reason other than political party partisanship in this case.
I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise, but arguing that there isn't clear support from her family seems a very weak position to me.
I mean what evidence would be acceptable?
Would the family have to come here & edit it in themselves or what?
& even if the parents divorce & fall out & the mother publicly takes a contrary view at a later date it could be edited out then maybe, surely?
Sorry to ramble
86.187.18.204 ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) avsp 6th march 2015 01:52-ish
Given all the father's prevarications, & the seeming significance the naming issue has in Indian politics it almost at a point where the naming issue should have a section in the article maybe?
86.187.37.123 ( talk) 13:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)avsp 6th march 2015 13:00-ish
So any consensus? It seems only one member is opposing this ( @Lukeno94 ) even though several newspapers and the FAMILY THEMSELVES have broadcast her name and photograph on the BBC documentary. Her father was giving conflicting statements but that was BEFORE this documentary.
Ronki23 ( talk) 02:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
In Jan 2013, according to this news, father of that girl himself disclosed the name and wanted the world to know her name.
Now in March 2015, according to this news, he warned that he will take 'legal action' since the name was disclosed in the documentary. It seems that he has either become unstable or he does whatsoever suits him. If disclosing the name suits him to get attention, he does that and if someone discloses that, he warn to take legal action to make news headlines again. What so ever case may be - but In the view of this latest new, it would now be illegal to publish the name of that rape victim (despite the fact that it is known to entire world, and published a million times in all sort of reliable sources). This rfc may be closed at this point with the conclusion to NOT publish the name. Period. Educationtemple ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, name her as "Nirbhaya" as the Government of India has been doing and close tis discussion. Educationtemple ( talk) 03:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(Personal information removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronki23 ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not used to using wikipedia to edit. Where are the archives regarding this article?
The links I sent show that the victim's Father wanted people to know.
Again, i'm not wikipedia-savvy
Ronki23 ( talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Ronki23: I looked into the question, and it seems that the victim's father has issued contradictory statements (or at least statements that have been differently interpreted, which is not surprising in a media melee) on the question of whether the victim's name should be released. While the articles you linked earlier, dated around Jan 5 2013, said that the family was eager to have the name used publicly since the victim had done nothing to be ashamed of, subsequent articles refute that. For example,
this BBC article dated Jan 7 2013 says that, "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published." and also "He told BBC Hindi last week that he would have no problem with her name being used on a new law against rape."
Given the murky picture, and out of an abundance of caution, we should continue to keep the name out of the article. Hope that helps explain why the name is being removed from the article. See
WP:BLP and
WP:BLPNAME for the principles and policies involved.
Abecedare (
talk)
02:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Her parents took part in this documentary and her name was on it. How can you make an excuse not to put her name on?
(link redacted... again)
Ronki23 ( talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
in the bbc storyville doc "India's daughter", her name is used repeatedly & in the last few minutes her father explicitly states that not only is he happy for her name to be public but that the family actively want here name to be known. this is whilst a candle & flowers float down a river with talk of 'light', 'the whole world' etc
Thus it seems a bit silly not to use it here.
It could be argued that not using it is supporting the mindset that seeks to keep women quiet & having them viewed as 2nd class citizens, objects not people etc & as such Isn't 'neutral
Equally it can could be argued that its also not neutral to name her as thats near enough campaigning for the adoption of a more 'progressive' mindset etc.
But, the normal 'neutral' view on wikipedia, surely, is to name people not suppress their identification once their identity is common public knowledge anyway, regardless of, say, the parents wishes?
12:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) 109.144.229.171 ( talk)avsp 5th march 2015
Guess wikipedia is a forum after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.229.106 ( talk) 07:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
The article makes the following claim: In the 33-page charge sheet, the Delhi Police described the juvenile as the most brutal of the six accused. The following articles are used as citation:
Now, I found a later article that has not been used:
So, it seems that the accusations of brutality were directed at Vinay Sharma who was tried as an adult and not the unnamed juvenile. The incident has also been described in the judgement but the juvenile has not been accused of any extra brutality. I think the original editors have had a mistake confusing Vinay Sharma with the unnamed juvenile. I think we should remove the sentence about brutality, until we can examine the actual police chargesheet or the verdict of juvenile court, because media reports are confusing.
- Kenfyre ( talk) 11:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Altamas Kabir, on Saturday said that it was not yet proven that the juvenile, sixth accused in the Delhi gang-rape case, was the most violent. "Branding the juvenile as the most violent is but a creation of media as of now. At this stage, we don't know who did what in the brutal gang-rape of the student, but everything will become clear soon. Till then, we all should wait," said the CJI
The section entitled "Incident" is very confusing. It keeps referring to "Pandey" and then to "Pandey's friend". Furethermore, the male victim is named "Pandey" and so is the female victim, apparently. The manner in which this section is written is very confusing. I suspect, early on, one of the victims was named by the media and the other was not named. Hence, the use of "Pandey's friend" as a frequent moniker in that section. This needs to be fixed and clarified. I have no idea who is being referred to (when the article mentions "Pandey" and "Pandey's friend"). So, I cannot make the edits. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk)
Actually the woman's name is Jyoti Singh and not Jyoti Singh Pandey.
[1]
There must have been a confusion about the fact that the man who was with her that night was her friend and not her husband. Besides, I don't understand why the woman should be named by her family name and not her first name, and why Awindra Pandey is often referred as "her friend".
Mouchoir78 (
talk)
14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pl. don't change the psudoname to a muslim name.. muslim won't rape any women do not hide a religion give the culprit real hindu name
Arien 74 ( talk) 09:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jyoti Singh is referred by the name Pandey in the later sections of the article. It is ambiguous as her male companion's name is Pandey too and referred as Pandey in most references to him. Please have her name as Jyoti or Singh instead of Pandey. Baacheey ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
From the article: "The accused, Muhammad Afroz alias Raju [81][82][83][84][85] was declared as 17 years and six months old" I did not find any authoritative source that referred to his name as Afroz. The 1st reference does not have any name mentioned, and the rest are blogs which have not cited their source. Has his name been released by any official source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostly Clueless ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked sock. User:Lakhbir87 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rasikow ( talk) 09:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the accused names is VINAY not Mohammed Afrose. Please change it
Here is the proof:
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please change Mohammed Afroz to 17 years old juvenile accused because Indian Government did not release the name of the Juvenile in any Public Newspaper. The name of the 17 year old accused is still unknown. So kindly delete the name of that accused in the article in the below two places
1. Convicted Duryodhana 2. The accused, Duryodhana was declared as 17 years 80.76.172.60 ( talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The valid secondary, authoritative source on the real name of the juvenile accused in now found: It was published in India Today, both in the form of video (where the name is pronounced) as well as text. See the title below video on this page on the website of India Today - His name is written in the lines as follows: Accused Md Afroz alis Raju has been brought to Delhi for further interrogation, police is likely to formally announce his arrest. [1]
In the light of this reference, I recommend to update the real name of the person at 2 places and this reference can be assigned. Thanks
115.98.133.250 ( talk) 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
User Sangatamil ( talk · contribs) seems to be obsessed to remove the name of the rapist. He/she illegally edited my comment above and changed the name of the accused to the word - "No Name" ! I just reverted it here. This user was trying to dilute my suggestion and confuse the reviewers. I ask you Sangatamil - Can you change it on the website of IndiaToday????? Learn how to behave on wiki, and then start editing. Thanks. I invite @ Gandydancer: to see this. 115.98.133.250 ( talk) 17:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2012 Delhi gang rape has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Juvenile defendant: The accused name referred as Akbar but there is no name of the accused is revealed by the Indian Govt not in any trusted media so this name should be changed with immediate effect, the previous editor has mentioned a silly cause to changing the name that in the same article there is another name sunil used hence to avoid confusion this accused name changed to Akbar(Pseudonym Name) so please use different appropriate Pseudonym Name as Duryodhana this must be the best Pseudonym Name, the name Akbar used is putting more pain on the minority community people living in india, so please consider this simple name change Sangatamil ( talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see this IndiaToday Video as well as the text below video. The Real name of the person is given there. IndiaToday is a valid secondary source to support this and wiki dont need ONLY the Govt of India to release first, it could be any valid secondary source such as IndiaToday, which is sufficient as per wiki policy. 115.98.133.250 ( talk) 13:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 20 external links on
2012 Delhi gang rape. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Is the time of incident written correctly?I think that was night time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.98.2 ( talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)