![]() | 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 |
Mohammed Afroz is named in numerous media sources. The name is out there. It doesn't really matter what Indian law allows or does not allow. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
He's named only in text of a video. Besides his name propped up many years ago and other possible names are known as well. Hardly any can be considered reliable source. Also please notice this user thinks if someone editing and reverting then that means isn't a consensus, see his comment here where he also makes fun of me making mistakes and posting a message correctly after eight attempts: [1]. Even though those edits were mostly by the same disruptive user and ofcourse Spacecowboy420 who clearly doesn't follow rules and makes his own. A consensus is a compromise achieved through discussion and it was clearly against including the name here on talk page: discussion. Also in his edit summary he claims I'm trying to impose Indian law on Wikipedia, even though it is Wikipedia rules itself that are against including the names omitted intentionally (such as the rape victim's name of Delhi gang rape) under WP:BLPNAME. Not to mention the rape victim's name was not added in the article earlier as well and added only after her family gave consent to reveal it. This person clearly doesn't know the rules nor does he follow it, instead he's making up his own rules about it as is visible from his comments and actions. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Type the name "Mohammed Afroz" into google and see how many results you get. Once again, that isn't how consensus works. You obviously don't have consensus, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Did you request the opinion of those editors who were trying to add the name to the discussion? No? Then it's not consensus. And I'm sorry, but I still think it's ironic that it took you eight attempt to post a message on my talk page, in which you were lecturing me on my lack of wikipedia related knowledge.
Spacecowboy420 (
talk) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The results I get are from Hindu supremacist anti-Muslim websites. Looks like you don't clearly check anything. Besides I wasn't even there at the time of the discussion. Anybody can add their own opinion and as visible from the talk page, only the disruptive IP supported it. Did you check that? You should have. And you clearly are poking fun at me both here and at your [ page]. Please continue with your behaviour, it shows you don't belong here. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 14:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
On the topic of the supposed consensus;
So I count 3 against inclusion and 3 no vote. Any disagreement here? Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I am not entirely sure if pinging an IP editor works, but, I'll make an attempt at it anyway. Only reason I am pinging you is to facilitate discussion and not have to leave notices on your talk page. Here; @ 103.232.148.4:. Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is what is actually happened:
I count 5 editors. And this is not including the multiple editors who removed the name (including me) from the article. So the way anyone can see it, the consensus is definitely not in your favor even by Spacecowboy420's standards. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude here are the facts; 1. Five people voted against the name (that's not including the multiple who have removed the name from the article) 2. The sockpuppet was blocked after his vote and he did not use multiple accounts (sock) in the discussion and unlike your claim there is nothing that says a sock does not get a vote.
Consensus can change but most of the people seem clearly against including the Afroz name. Therfore I am afraid the consensus is outright against what you want. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 12:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
A compromise has been reached, so I hope nobody has to argue over this issue now. Thank you for your time. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr rnddude and User:Spacecowboy420: Instead of repeatedly arguing lets find common ground. The basic objective of consensus is a compromise. I have come up with this compromise: Instead of simply calling him Mohammed Afroz we can say that - The juvenile defendant whose name according to some reports was Mohammed Afroz, was declared as 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which relied on his birth certificate and school documents. The JJB rejected a police request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his age.
Thank you too Mr rnddude and Spacecowboy420. The discussion started on a bad footing and seemed to go nowhere but ultimately it turned outto be productive. I'm glad that this dispute is finally solved amicably by taking everybody's concerns into account. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr rnddude and User:Spacecowboy420: There is still the problem of the infobox. I have 3 compromises that might cover all concerns: 1.) Either we leave the infobox as it is without mentioning the name. Or 2.) Simply change "Unnamed juvenile defendant" to "1 juvenile defendant" without mentioning the name. Or 2.) We mention the name is Mohammed Afroz according to some reports as I recently done on the article as I did in the "juvenile defendant section". In the convicted section "Unnamed juvenile defendant" can be changed to "1 juvenile defendant (Mohammed Afroz according to some reports)".
I've added it. I hope it seems fine. With this, I think and hope the issue has been resolved. I'm glad this dispute was worked out. Thank you for the discussion friends. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see this article needs some work since there's no episode list, but right now I am watching a special called India's Daughter about Jyoti Singh which says its original air date was 20 January 2016 so should we mention this? I don't know if any other full-hour episodes were dedicated to discussing this case. Ranze ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
When I searched the name mentioned in TPE to find the name the redirect is Jyoti Singh Pandey but I don't see any mention of Pandey here, were no sources found to support it? Ranze ( talk) 10:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Delhi Gang Rape Photo Shoot seems not much notable in other contexts, so better merged with 2012 Delhi gang rape. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 12:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the choice of words and tone in this article is rather informal. This may, however, just be a difference between regular English and Indian English.
If doing so is found to be acceptable, I will attempt to correct the tone and word choice of the article.-- Rainythunderstorm ( talk) 12:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on 2012 Delhi gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed info with no source for the third time. Please discuss before adding again. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Binksternet you have restored the outdated info "Four adult convicts sentenced to death by hanging on 22 January 2020" repeatedly into the article. Care to explain why ? FYI See the new dates -- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Binksternet I see you have repeatedly removed the section headings without feeling the need to explain why ? Please explain or self revert. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The predictions about the Sewing Machine never happened. User:Binksternet either produce a reliable source that says it happened or self revert and remove this misleading prophecy. see WP:CRYSTAL-- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that this case is now most often referred to in the English-language press of India as the "Nirbhaya case" or a similar variant. Opinions? William Avery ( talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
William Avery, thanks for bringing this up. I've put a lot of thought into the name change and have decided against it. Remembering back when I did so much research for this article I was aware that even here in the U.S. women are reluctant to report a rape, and for good reason. But I had no idea that our own stats would show how poorly we were doing here in the U.S. I was quite stunned. It was not until the Me Too movement came along that big improvements are being made in the U.S. The Me Too movement says "Here is my name and I'm no longer ashamed to say it". So when this young woman's mom and dad said that they gave their permission to use her name in hopes that other women would be less afraid to speak out, they spoke out for the movement even before there was one, and we should go along with their wishes: We should use her name not "Fearless One", which would be a step backwards. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Should I remove it? Is it verified somewhere else? TryKid ( talk) 20:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The victim has not been publicly identified due to India's laws against naming sexual assault victims." -- DBig Xrayᗙ 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Was the victim named in any of the official documents?
If not, why her name is not replaced with Nirbhaya.
A sexual criminal should never have been categorised as juvenile in the first place. But that is subjected to the current status of law, so one cannot argue. Akhilesh1019 ( talk) 05:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
per WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME and Indian laws, I have removed the name of male victim. The sources have been taken down already. I dont see any benefit in taking the name. The reliable sources all refer to the him as "the male victim" or "her friend"-- DBig Xrayᗙ 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was the victim's name written on the page? It is prohibited by Indian law. Simba20042016 ( talk) 08:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | 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 |
Mohammed Afroz is named in numerous media sources. The name is out there. It doesn't really matter what Indian law allows or does not allow. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
He's named only in text of a video. Besides his name propped up many years ago and other possible names are known as well. Hardly any can be considered reliable source. Also please notice this user thinks if someone editing and reverting then that means isn't a consensus, see his comment here where he also makes fun of me making mistakes and posting a message correctly after eight attempts: [1]. Even though those edits were mostly by the same disruptive user and ofcourse Spacecowboy420 who clearly doesn't follow rules and makes his own. A consensus is a compromise achieved through discussion and it was clearly against including the name here on talk page: discussion. Also in his edit summary he claims I'm trying to impose Indian law on Wikipedia, even though it is Wikipedia rules itself that are against including the names omitted intentionally (such as the rape victim's name of Delhi gang rape) under WP:BLPNAME. Not to mention the rape victim's name was not added in the article earlier as well and added only after her family gave consent to reveal it. This person clearly doesn't know the rules nor does he follow it, instead he's making up his own rules about it as is visible from his comments and actions. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Type the name "Mohammed Afroz" into google and see how many results you get. Once again, that isn't how consensus works. You obviously don't have consensus, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Did you request the opinion of those editors who were trying to add the name to the discussion? No? Then it's not consensus. And I'm sorry, but I still think it's ironic that it took you eight attempt to post a message on my talk page, in which you were lecturing me on my lack of wikipedia related knowledge.
Spacecowboy420 (
talk) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The results I get are from Hindu supremacist anti-Muslim websites. Looks like you don't clearly check anything. Besides I wasn't even there at the time of the discussion. Anybody can add their own opinion and as visible from the talk page, only the disruptive IP supported it. Did you check that? You should have. And you clearly are poking fun at me both here and at your [ page]. Please continue with your behaviour, it shows you don't belong here. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 14:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
On the topic of the supposed consensus;
So I count 3 against inclusion and 3 no vote. Any disagreement here? Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I am not entirely sure if pinging an IP editor works, but, I'll make an attempt at it anyway. Only reason I am pinging you is to facilitate discussion and not have to leave notices on your talk page. Here; @ 103.232.148.4:. Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is what is actually happened:
I count 5 editors. And this is not including the multiple editors who removed the name (including me) from the article. So the way anyone can see it, the consensus is definitely not in your favor even by Spacecowboy420's standards. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddude here are the facts; 1. Five people voted against the name (that's not including the multiple who have removed the name from the article) 2. The sockpuppet was blocked after his vote and he did not use multiple accounts (sock) in the discussion and unlike your claim there is nothing that says a sock does not get a vote.
Consensus can change but most of the people seem clearly against including the Afroz name. Therfore I am afraid the consensus is outright against what you want. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 12:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
A compromise has been reached, so I hope nobody has to argue over this issue now. Thank you for your time. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr rnddude and User:Spacecowboy420: Instead of repeatedly arguing lets find common ground. The basic objective of consensus is a compromise. I have come up with this compromise: Instead of simply calling him Mohammed Afroz we can say that - The juvenile defendant whose name according to some reports was Mohammed Afroz, was declared as 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which relied on his birth certificate and school documents. The JJB rejected a police request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his age.
Thank you too Mr rnddude and Spacecowboy420. The discussion started on a bad footing and seemed to go nowhere but ultimately it turned outto be productive. I'm glad that this dispute is finally solved amicably by taking everybody's concerns into account. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr rnddude and User:Spacecowboy420: There is still the problem of the infobox. I have 3 compromises that might cover all concerns: 1.) Either we leave the infobox as it is without mentioning the name. Or 2.) Simply change "Unnamed juvenile defendant" to "1 juvenile defendant" without mentioning the name. Or 2.) We mention the name is Mohammed Afroz according to some reports as I recently done on the article as I did in the "juvenile defendant section". In the convicted section "Unnamed juvenile defendant" can be changed to "1 juvenile defendant (Mohammed Afroz according to some reports)".
I've added it. I hope it seems fine. With this, I think and hope the issue has been resolved. I'm glad this dispute was worked out. Thank you for the discussion friends. 103.232.148.4 ( talk) 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see this article needs some work since there's no episode list, but right now I am watching a special called India's Daughter about Jyoti Singh which says its original air date was 20 January 2016 so should we mention this? I don't know if any other full-hour episodes were dedicated to discussing this case. Ranze ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
When I searched the name mentioned in TPE to find the name the redirect is Jyoti Singh Pandey but I don't see any mention of Pandey here, were no sources found to support it? Ranze ( talk) 10:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Delhi Gang Rape Photo Shoot seems not much notable in other contexts, so better merged with 2012 Delhi gang rape. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 12:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the choice of words and tone in this article is rather informal. This may, however, just be a difference between regular English and Indian English.
If doing so is found to be acceptable, I will attempt to correct the tone and word choice of the article.-- Rainythunderstorm ( talk) 12:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on 2012 Delhi gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed info with no source for the third time. Please discuss before adding again. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Binksternet you have restored the outdated info "Four adult convicts sentenced to death by hanging on 22 January 2020" repeatedly into the article. Care to explain why ? FYI See the new dates -- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Binksternet I see you have repeatedly removed the section headings without feeling the need to explain why ? Please explain or self revert. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The predictions about the Sewing Machine never happened. User:Binksternet either produce a reliable source that says it happened or self revert and remove this misleading prophecy. see WP:CRYSTAL-- DBig Xrayᗙ 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that this case is now most often referred to in the English-language press of India as the "Nirbhaya case" or a similar variant. Opinions? William Avery ( talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
William Avery, thanks for bringing this up. I've put a lot of thought into the name change and have decided against it. Remembering back when I did so much research for this article I was aware that even here in the U.S. women are reluctant to report a rape, and for good reason. But I had no idea that our own stats would show how poorly we were doing here in the U.S. I was quite stunned. It was not until the Me Too movement came along that big improvements are being made in the U.S. The Me Too movement says "Here is my name and I'm no longer ashamed to say it". So when this young woman's mom and dad said that they gave their permission to use her name in hopes that other women would be less afraid to speak out, they spoke out for the movement even before there was one, and we should go along with their wishes: We should use her name not "Fearless One", which would be a step backwards. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Should I remove it? Is it verified somewhere else? TryKid ( talk) 20:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The victim has not been publicly identified due to India's laws against naming sexual assault victims." -- DBig Xrayᗙ 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Was the victim named in any of the official documents?
If not, why her name is not replaced with Nirbhaya.
A sexual criminal should never have been categorised as juvenile in the first place. But that is subjected to the current status of law, so one cannot argue. Akhilesh1019 ( talk) 05:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
per WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME and Indian laws, I have removed the name of male victim. The sources have been taken down already. I dont see any benefit in taking the name. The reliable sources all refer to the him as "the male victim" or "her friend"-- DBig Xrayᗙ 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was the victim's name written on the page? It is prohibited by Indian law. Simba20042016 ( talk) 08:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).