![]() | 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 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Rape in India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have repeatedly tried to edit the introduction to the Rape in India article due to its repetitiveness, its misleading nature and its bad grammar. The initial text read as follows:
The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8]
As the text stands, we are making the same point three times "incidence of reported rapes in India are amongst the lowest in the world...compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India... India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape"", it contains grammatical errors, it says "concern that majority of rape" when it should be "concern that THE majority of rape cases" and it is highly misleading because you are comparing a country where the majority of the population lives in rural areas with no tradition of crime solution via the courts (instead they have informal village chiefs who do not register their cases with any official body), high rates of female illiteracy and lack of awareness of legal rights and a culture of shaming women who are raped by blaming them for the rape and in cases of inter-caste rape often excommunicating them. Finally, marital rape is not a crime in India and so marital rapes are not even registered in the crime statistics of India. To compare such statistics with e.g. reported rates of rape in Sweden, where the law is much stricter on rape, enforcement and court action is the standard expected route, legal literacy is high and marital rape is criminalised is highly misleading and the public deserves to be notified of the misleading nature of such a comparison. As a result, I edited the lead-in paragraph to read:
"Compared to other developed and developing countries, the number of reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India,[5] and India has been characterized by some as one of the countries with the lowest per capita rates for rape.[6][7] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.[8] Criminologists have warned that comparing reported rape rates across countries can be highly misleading due to the significance of underreporting, and the fact that the rate of underreporting can be vastly different between countries.[9]"
Providing a link to a WSJ article that explains some of the problems with comparing rape statistics across countries using reported rapes. Indeed, domestic violence surveys like the WHO ten country study show India to be in the middle and the National Family Health Survey conducted by the government shows a life time prevalence sexual violence of 8.5% among 19-49 year-olds which is way higher than the rate of reported rapes. However, instead of responding to the points I made on the talk page under the ==Lead-in== section, the page has now been put on full protection and blocked for "vandalism". If we cannot even have a conversation about this widespread societal problem without immediate blocking, I don't know if I am comfortable with the direction in which Wikipedia is now heading...
Best wishes
Bargolus ( talk) 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah this is great! Someone responded! Thanks for your points Human, I can see you have thought this through before. Sorry, I did not know that we had to have a consensus on here first - when people kept mentioning a consensus I couldn't find any on the talk page and I was wondering where it was. Anyways, it is a protected article now and we can't make any edits. In the mean time, I will think a bit more about your points before responding in more depth.
For now, as you say, rape is an endemic problem in many countries, both developed and developing. However, because rape is a problem in many countries and underreporting is potentially a big problem in many countries does not mean that rape statistics are automatically comparable. You know how in statistics, we have to drill into stats students again and again that absence of evidence for a difference does not mean evidence for the absence of a difference. In the same way, just because we have huge systematic errors potentially in both the US and India and we don't have a strong evidence for a difference in magnitude of systematic errors does not mean that we can automatically assume that the systematic errors have exactly the same magnitude. This makes it extremely problematic to compare reported rape statistics between countries. On the other hand, we CAN reduce the amount of variation in systematic error between countries by using standardized surveys such as the WHO multi-country domestic violence report or the Demographic Health Survey indicators that are routinely conducted across multiple countries on Earth in a standardized manner.
In terms of incidence/per capita rape, this may be a difference in our use of terminology. I was thinking in terms of "incidence risk" which is the risk of a single woman experiencing rape within a pre-specified time span, whereas "incidence rate" is what you are talking about, the total number of rapes aggregated over all women over a single time span. However, in that case, I think we should add the life-time prevalence of sexual violence reported in surveys like the DHS in India which puts lifetime prevalene of sexual violence at 8.5%. I am concerned that less well-educated people reading this article will conclude from quite misleading statistics that there is no need to fight for women's rights in India, which is opposite to the reality on ground. It also hurts India's economy as women's risk of rape prevents women from engaging in many public activities such as taxi-driving, waiting in restaurants and working in shops out of fear (yes there are plenty of women doing these jobs, but the potential is greatly reduced compared to what it could be). Bargolus ( talk) 13:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Another big point I wanted to make with the change is that we think we can let "numbers speak for themselves" and it's more objective to put out numbers than to put out words. This is also a big misconception - as they say "Garbage In Garbage Out", if you put in non-sensical numbers they can be just as misleading as words. Rape statistics, particularly reported rape statistics, are widely known to be extremely crude approximations to reality and it would probably be a more accurate statement to simply leave it at "Rape is endemic in India as in elsewhere in the world" without muddling up the reader with misleadingly reassuring statistics. But if we insist on keeping the numbers there, the reader should be pointed to the Wall Street Journal article at least in order to understand the implications of using the statistics. After all, the article is about Rape in India, it's not about Rape Statistics in India and at the moment, the introduction is entirely focused on the statistics rather than any other aspect of the problem such as societal sanction, meanings of rape, women's mobilization, the sexual politics of rape etc. etc. Bargolus ( talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Padenton you mentioned that surveys are not more accurate than reported cases of rape. But clearly if you ask the same question of women in two different countries using a standardized methodology you'll get more accurate estimates than if you rely on cases reported to the police if e.g. marital rape counts as rape in one country, but no in the other? It is a general principle of epidemiological surveillance that standardized, special-purpose surveys are more reliable than routine data which is full of noise and subject to all kinds of incentive-distortions since those same data are usually used as performance indicators simultaneously for the department responsible for that sector. I would be very interested in hearing what arguments you have that a well-conducted standardized survey would yield worse data than routine crime reports from differentially functioning police departments. Bargolus ( talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) − Regarding grammar, the sentence should definitely read "THE majority of rape cases". I know it is difficult, because in Hindi there are no articles and "THE majority" and "majority" are the same word in Hindi, Adhikansh, but in English you need an article in that sentence, otherwise it is Hinglish ;) Bargolus ( talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I put in a request at the Reliable sources notice board and they agreed that refs #5 and #7 are not acceptable:
I would like to change the para to read: India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape",[8] however parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Are there any objections? Gandydancer ( talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@ M Tracy Hunter: I've made an edit to clarify the UN numbers. Those rates are based on official statistics and reported crimes, but don't necessarily reflect the actual rate of the crime. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bargolus: - I have removed much of what you added, because most failed verification, or were primary/stale misinformation. There is a 1997 study summary note still in the section, which I couldn't verify, and ask you to provide a page number for it. Your contribution is welcome, but read WP:Primary, WP:RS, WP:WWIN, WP:Citing sources and other wikipedia policies and guidelines.
M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting page 494 of the NFHS source.
If you don't understand what original research and synthesis means, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. This talk page is not a forum. Read talk page guidelines.
M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 13:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
WIkipedia policy is to not pick sides in summarizing content, nor misrepresent sources, nor do synthesis by combining two or more sources, as you are doing above.
M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 14:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Rape_in_India#Legal_response took a lot of its content from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Rape in India#Potential abuse concerns took from [6]. Please review our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There are still problem with the lead. Prior 6 March. [7] It read probably better than how it is doing now.
@ M Tracy Hunter: and @ VictoriaGrayson:, what you have to say for Rape in India#Tourist advisories? It violates WP:NOTNEWS, and since it is having the opinions of politicians who are not expert in this field, it is also violating WP:SOAPBOX. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bgwhite: I'm afraid not, I am now not around for a few days and moderation of content is not my strong point. WormTT( talk) 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: While you were posting a message, I was busy following up per @Padenton message. Is there anyone who does not agree with the latest change? M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 02:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither reference supports the statement "Rape is the fourth most common crime in India." In fact this sentence used to be something else, with the same references. VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, Should this article be semi-protected or fully protected for a while? It weakens this article if IPs or new editors can copy paste copyright violations, insert soap derived from blogs and other unreliable sources, and freely commit other content guideline violations, while requiring experienced editors to discuss the copyright violations etc on this talk page then wait for days to reach a new consensus. This feels asymmetric. If revert of newly added questionable content by any editor needs to be discussed on the talk page, shouldn't the addition of new content by all editors be first proposed on this talk page for equivalent consensus? M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Black Kite got the facts right. This addition by Casey577 and re-addition by 216.81.94.72 is an obvious copyvio of 1, that also happens to be NOTRS. VictoriaGrayson is also right. The first sentence was indeed vandalized by 213.229.76.10 with this unexplained in January 2015. M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 22:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Casey577:, @ EvergreenFir: The cite that was already in the article, supports the original text. See page 5 of that publication. A gazette publication in India, by its Ministry of Law and Justice, is the final step when a bill becomes their law. Please discuss your WP:BRD concerns on this talk page (not your personal talk pages), and develop a consensus before changing it. M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 00:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
-- Casey577 ( talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)@M Tracy Hunter:
http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/132013.pdf
This is the most recent law....In the wiki article though it talks about criminal Ammendment act 2013, you guys had quoted the ordinace. First of all, I have deleted "any person" from line 148(as seen in the View History page of the wiki article)......in the present rape law only a woman can be raped; not "any person". I have also clarified the earlier rape laws and have mentioned that only a man can rape and that only a woman can be raped and that only a peno-vaginal intercourse would fall under this definition (as can be seen from Line 30 on the History page of the article). These things are mentioned in the previous law, ie the older section 375 and can be found in the original reference quoted on wiki page, ie ref no:17. The link is this: http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/IPC.pdf (note; its an existing wiki link)
Here is another link that clarifies the inadequacies of section 375 IPC as it existed earlier
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103956/
The clarification I mentioned are implicit within the wiki page itself, I really don't think u need to even refer these documents.
Now finally I have edited Line 58 on the wiki history -regarding same sex offences and the punishment. I edited and clarified this part to convey the message that same sex ofeences fall under section 377 and entrails punishment even if the act is consensual. Hence,forced sex between same sex members would also be punishable(obviously in a such a scenario, the offender alone would be punished). The previous wiki page (before my editing) seemed to convey that "forced sex" alone is punishable if the partners are of the same sex. That is incorrect-hence the edit. Also I pointed out a weird scenario in which, if a man forces a woman to have sex with another woman-that too could fall under the defintion of rape with the man being considered as the offender. This interpretation is just an interpretation, but its implicit in the 2013 Act. This being an interpretation may be deleted.....but my suggestion is to let it be, because it lends clarity to the existing laws.
Finally the issue of rape upon children is covered by "THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012"
You can add this apsect yourself in the article...I didn't do it, because I can't decide the appropriate place to do this .
One another thing....its regarding this link:
http://ncw.nic.in/PDFFiles/Amendments%20to%20laws%20relating%20to%20women.pdf
It is a reference from the wiki page itself.....In that reference its mentioned as a 204 article.....but the actualpdf file has no date....its taken presumably from the NCW's website.....but there also there is no date. I think its an amalgm of all current existing laws. ie 375 PLUS child sexual offences law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@RLoutfly @OccultZone
Plz explain to me why u guys deleted my edits. Let me summarize my edits for which u guys showed objection: 1)About older law being purely related to peno-vaginal sex alone 2)Again another issue related to the older law--ie Rape being an act that can be committed only by a man against a woman
These two points are explained by these links: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rape_laws.htm http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103956/ The wiki article says " Before 3 February 2013...A person is said to commit "rape"" This aspect of the article implies that a "person" (gender neutral) can commit rape.....thats incorrect....only a man can commit rape and that too only against a woman.....this is clarified in the above link (more easily found with the legalserviceindia website link). I must also add the wiki article is confusing to say the least. You quote references which actually says otherwise. For eg u quote section 375 and uses the term "a person" instead of "a man".....which changes the meaning altogether
Also plz understand the actual laws do not talk of "a person" its always "a man". i thereby accuse that the wiki wirters have quoted the correct references and then used words conveying wrong meanings ("a paerson" instead of "a man" for eg). The original articles aren't there anymore on the net because they have been ammended. However the articles are quoted in the links i have provide; including the supreme court judgement.
3)Section 377 being not restricted to forced sex between same sex couples. I wish to clarify that section 377 does not refer to forced sex alone. even consensual sex is a crime under section 377. The current wiki article says that " Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex remains a crime under Section 377 of Indian penal code". This is not correct at all. Here is section 377
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836974/ or this
Gaur, KD (2009). Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. Universal Law Pub. p. 684. ISBN 9788175347038.
The relevant pages of the book is available in google books preview and it is this book that is quoted in the wiki page. I don't understand...I am standing so much scrutiny (that too being correct), then how did someone saying "Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex......' was left uncorrected. The "forced" part is the conjecture. The actual act refers to only carnal act....meaning consensual sex is also a crime. Now read the references and edit the wiki page adequately without conveying wrong notions
I will wait for sometime for people to correct these errors otheriwse I will do it myself. If anybody has any objection....plz do a research or atleast ask me !
I might also add.....these references (atleasst most of the them) was quoted by me before attempting edit the last time......You people are not reading at all - Casey577
@ M Tracy Hunter Saw your edits....all are perfect....thanks....I am only a "sort of expert' in the legal definitions of rape and related acts (being in touch with forensic medicine). I can't comment about the other aspects of the article, but as of now legal aspects and gender issues seem OK. I wish to add that the original rape law was limited to peno-vaginal sex alone. A rape done by a man for example by using anal sex would fall under section 377 (and not within rape laws). But of course the man would have been additionally charged with "outraging the modesty" "unlawful confinement" etc....but not "rape". so if u would add "peno-vaginal" to the original rape law (ie the one prior to 2013), then the article becomes perfect. - Casey577
Rape is a crime, but what you think, why it is commenced and by whom. Rape is a unwanted activity in which girl not want to be sexualy with the any kind of a man or men. In the India why so much repe commenced by the men's, because the citizen of india know that there is so many way to escape from the case of rape. Because in india there is not a stick panel code about the rape on the behalf of this the rapist can face their crime.The rapist know that if he commenced a rape with a minor or a girl than he can be escape without punishment and that's why the crime of rape is rising and rising in india. In India there must be just only one punishment for the rapist which is that, the government of India must be hanged till be death in any situation whether the rapist is good in health or mentally ill because he just do the crime. So there must be just one punishment for rapist and that must be capital punishment(death).mail me if you are against the rape.
Ankit taak(Mukharji nagar Delhi) anktaak.sam@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.147.139 ( talk) 06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rape is a crime, but what you think, why it is commenced and by whom. Rape is a unwanted activity in which girl not want to be sexualy with the any kind of a man or men. In the India why so much repe commenced by the men's, because the citizen of india know that there is so many way to escape from the case of rape. Because in india there is not a stick panel code about the rape on the behalf of this the rapist can face their crime.The rapist know that if he commenced a rape with a minor or a girl than he can be escape without punishment and that's why the crime of rape is rising and rising in india. In India there must be just only one punishment for the rapist which is that, the government of India must be hanged till be death in any situation whether the rapist is good in health or mentally ill because he just do the crime. So there must be just one punishment for rapist and that must be capital punishment(death).Mail me if you are against the rape.
Ankit taak sahab (anktaak.sam@gmail.com) Mukharji nagar Delhi.
Indian editors have completely morphed the content of the huma rights article whichc mention Indian troops as the biggest cause of rape but have twisted it to divuldge all blaim from Indian troops to militant separatists using non notable single event in 1947 is UNDUE and breaks the flow of the whole paragraph. Rotunga ( talk) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, what IP says is actually disputed by our better article Rape statistics#By country which shows that there are enough reliable sources that estimate other countries having huge amount of rapes and they are not appeared in the list that IP user is talking about, India has 24,000 reported rapes yet the article shows a number of nations, more than just 2, having more amount of rape incidents. While there would be almost no argument against "no.1" candidate, dispute starts with "no.2", "no.3" and anything after that. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
3O Response: Please include the
WP:Diff in the discussion, and especially when requesting comments. Regarding this
diff, for most readers I think the useful ranking would be based on the best estimate of the rate of total rapes - not the absolute number of reported rapes. The IP is correct that Capital is incorrectly comparing estimates of total rapes with reported rapes to conclude that other countries rank higher than India. But this does raise the point that China and UK and other countries are apparently not in the U.N. data set being referenced for both the Times of India source and for the
Rape statistics#By country table. Especially having China omitted from the UN report makes the 3rd ranking suspect. Both because I don't think this ranking is especially noteworthy, and because the ranking is suspect, I agree that it should be struck from the article.
Grenschlep (
talk)
18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The graph used purports to show "Annual rape and all forms of sexual assaults per 100,000 people, for India compared to select nations" -- but it doesn't actually even try to show that. It doesn't attempt to show the prevalence of these crimes, but instead how often someone reports these crimes to the police.
This makes RATHER a lot of difference. There are many good reasons to think reporting-rates differ over a wide spectrum between countries, and while a low amount of rape would (of course!) be a good thing, a low reporting-rate ain't even remotely the same thing.
I think at a minimum the graph should be relabeled to say "Annual *reported* ..." because that's what it actually shows.
-- Eivind Kjørstad ( talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Capitals00: Are you going to explain this revert instead of edit warring? You've removed at least four references which are backed by the majority of independent secondary WP:RS, including the journal source itself. There better be a reason behind this removal, and an explanation for "unreliable" before I'm forced to escalate this. Mar4d ( talk) 04:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: It seems that CNN report on this recent edit linked to a rice institute report which linked to original report but it describes these stats as "women who experienced sexual violence by husbands was forty times the number of women who experienced sexual violence", this contradicts our last discussion with multiple editors that sexual violence is a different subject. Capitals00 ( talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
"India don't have marital rape law. so marital rapes don't get reported at all, so it can't be estimated"is not acceptable English. Vanamonde ( talk) 15:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I added back the relevant information with more references on the statistics and polling information. I did make edits so it was not a direct copy and also more fitted to the references. The material is well sourced and fits the topic of this article. ContentEditman ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I strongly disagree that the broad survey reported by the CNN and others is irrelevant. All sexual violence is not rape (especially not in the legal sense of the word) but that does not mean that sexual violence is not relevant in connection with rape, since rape is one of the most typical and serious forms of sexual violence. Since the CNN article directly and specifically discusses rape in India, I fail to understand how it was not considered relevant. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::I can't post on your talk page because you reverted me there and said I should discuss that here. You had never edited this article ever before this day. Your only edit was the edit which is now suppressed for being copyright violation. This is what I was referring in my above comment. As for the content I can only point out that I have significantly commented about it. Shashank5988 ( talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (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 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Rape in India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have repeatedly tried to edit the introduction to the Rape in India article due to its repetitiveness, its misleading nature and its bad grammar. The initial text read as follows:
The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8]
As the text stands, we are making the same point three times "incidence of reported rapes in India are amongst the lowest in the world...compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India... India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape"", it contains grammatical errors, it says "concern that majority of rape" when it should be "concern that THE majority of rape cases" and it is highly misleading because you are comparing a country where the majority of the population lives in rural areas with no tradition of crime solution via the courts (instead they have informal village chiefs who do not register their cases with any official body), high rates of female illiteracy and lack of awareness of legal rights and a culture of shaming women who are raped by blaming them for the rape and in cases of inter-caste rape often excommunicating them. Finally, marital rape is not a crime in India and so marital rapes are not even registered in the crime statistics of India. To compare such statistics with e.g. reported rates of rape in Sweden, where the law is much stricter on rape, enforcement and court action is the standard expected route, legal literacy is high and marital rape is criminalised is highly misleading and the public deserves to be notified of the misleading nature of such a comparison. As a result, I edited the lead-in paragraph to read:
"Compared to other developed and developing countries, the number of reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India,[5] and India has been characterized by some as one of the countries with the lowest per capita rates for rape.[6][7] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.[8] Criminologists have warned that comparing reported rape rates across countries can be highly misleading due to the significance of underreporting, and the fact that the rate of underreporting can be vastly different between countries.[9]"
Providing a link to a WSJ article that explains some of the problems with comparing rape statistics across countries using reported rapes. Indeed, domestic violence surveys like the WHO ten country study show India to be in the middle and the National Family Health Survey conducted by the government shows a life time prevalence sexual violence of 8.5% among 19-49 year-olds which is way higher than the rate of reported rapes. However, instead of responding to the points I made on the talk page under the ==Lead-in== section, the page has now been put on full protection and blocked for "vandalism". If we cannot even have a conversation about this widespread societal problem without immediate blocking, I don't know if I am comfortable with the direction in which Wikipedia is now heading...
Best wishes
Bargolus ( talk) 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah this is great! Someone responded! Thanks for your points Human, I can see you have thought this through before. Sorry, I did not know that we had to have a consensus on here first - when people kept mentioning a consensus I couldn't find any on the talk page and I was wondering where it was. Anyways, it is a protected article now and we can't make any edits. In the mean time, I will think a bit more about your points before responding in more depth.
For now, as you say, rape is an endemic problem in many countries, both developed and developing. However, because rape is a problem in many countries and underreporting is potentially a big problem in many countries does not mean that rape statistics are automatically comparable. You know how in statistics, we have to drill into stats students again and again that absence of evidence for a difference does not mean evidence for the absence of a difference. In the same way, just because we have huge systematic errors potentially in both the US and India and we don't have a strong evidence for a difference in magnitude of systematic errors does not mean that we can automatically assume that the systematic errors have exactly the same magnitude. This makes it extremely problematic to compare reported rape statistics between countries. On the other hand, we CAN reduce the amount of variation in systematic error between countries by using standardized surveys such as the WHO multi-country domestic violence report or the Demographic Health Survey indicators that are routinely conducted across multiple countries on Earth in a standardized manner.
In terms of incidence/per capita rape, this may be a difference in our use of terminology. I was thinking in terms of "incidence risk" which is the risk of a single woman experiencing rape within a pre-specified time span, whereas "incidence rate" is what you are talking about, the total number of rapes aggregated over all women over a single time span. However, in that case, I think we should add the life-time prevalence of sexual violence reported in surveys like the DHS in India which puts lifetime prevalene of sexual violence at 8.5%. I am concerned that less well-educated people reading this article will conclude from quite misleading statistics that there is no need to fight for women's rights in India, which is opposite to the reality on ground. It also hurts India's economy as women's risk of rape prevents women from engaging in many public activities such as taxi-driving, waiting in restaurants and working in shops out of fear (yes there are plenty of women doing these jobs, but the potential is greatly reduced compared to what it could be). Bargolus ( talk) 13:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Another big point I wanted to make with the change is that we think we can let "numbers speak for themselves" and it's more objective to put out numbers than to put out words. This is also a big misconception - as they say "Garbage In Garbage Out", if you put in non-sensical numbers they can be just as misleading as words. Rape statistics, particularly reported rape statistics, are widely known to be extremely crude approximations to reality and it would probably be a more accurate statement to simply leave it at "Rape is endemic in India as in elsewhere in the world" without muddling up the reader with misleadingly reassuring statistics. But if we insist on keeping the numbers there, the reader should be pointed to the Wall Street Journal article at least in order to understand the implications of using the statistics. After all, the article is about Rape in India, it's not about Rape Statistics in India and at the moment, the introduction is entirely focused on the statistics rather than any other aspect of the problem such as societal sanction, meanings of rape, women's mobilization, the sexual politics of rape etc. etc. Bargolus ( talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Padenton you mentioned that surveys are not more accurate than reported cases of rape. But clearly if you ask the same question of women in two different countries using a standardized methodology you'll get more accurate estimates than if you rely on cases reported to the police if e.g. marital rape counts as rape in one country, but no in the other? It is a general principle of epidemiological surveillance that standardized, special-purpose surveys are more reliable than routine data which is full of noise and subject to all kinds of incentive-distortions since those same data are usually used as performance indicators simultaneously for the department responsible for that sector. I would be very interested in hearing what arguments you have that a well-conducted standardized survey would yield worse data than routine crime reports from differentially functioning police departments. Bargolus ( talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) − Regarding grammar, the sentence should definitely read "THE majority of rape cases". I know it is difficult, because in Hindi there are no articles and "THE majority" and "majority" are the same word in Hindi, Adhikansh, but in English you need an article in that sentence, otherwise it is Hinglish ;) Bargolus ( talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I put in a request at the Reliable sources notice board and they agreed that refs #5 and #7 are not acceptable:
I would like to change the para to read: India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape",[8] however parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Are there any objections? Gandydancer ( talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@ M Tracy Hunter: I've made an edit to clarify the UN numbers. Those rates are based on official statistics and reported crimes, but don't necessarily reflect the actual rate of the crime. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bargolus: - I have removed much of what you added, because most failed verification, or were primary/stale misinformation. There is a 1997 study summary note still in the section, which I couldn't verify, and ask you to provide a page number for it. Your contribution is welcome, but read WP:Primary, WP:RS, WP:WWIN, WP:Citing sources and other wikipedia policies and guidelines.
M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting page 494 of the NFHS source.
If you don't understand what original research and synthesis means, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. This talk page is not a forum. Read talk page guidelines.
M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 13:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
WIkipedia policy is to not pick sides in summarizing content, nor misrepresent sources, nor do synthesis by combining two or more sources, as you are doing above.
M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 14:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Rape_in_India#Legal_response took a lot of its content from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Rape in India#Potential abuse concerns took from [6]. Please review our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There are still problem with the lead. Prior 6 March. [7] It read probably better than how it is doing now.
@ M Tracy Hunter: and @ VictoriaGrayson:, what you have to say for Rape in India#Tourist advisories? It violates WP:NOTNEWS, and since it is having the opinions of politicians who are not expert in this field, it is also violating WP:SOAPBOX. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Bgwhite: I'm afraid not, I am now not around for a few days and moderation of content is not my strong point. WormTT( talk) 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: While you were posting a message, I was busy following up per @Padenton message. Is there anyone who does not agree with the latest change? M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 02:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither reference supports the statement "Rape is the fourth most common crime in India." In fact this sentence used to be something else, with the same references. VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, Should this article be semi-protected or fully protected for a while? It weakens this article if IPs or new editors can copy paste copyright violations, insert soap derived from blogs and other unreliable sources, and freely commit other content guideline violations, while requiring experienced editors to discuss the copyright violations etc on this talk page then wait for days to reach a new consensus. This feels asymmetric. If revert of newly added questionable content by any editor needs to be discussed on the talk page, shouldn't the addition of new content by all editors be first proposed on this talk page for equivalent consensus? M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Black Kite got the facts right. This addition by Casey577 and re-addition by 216.81.94.72 is an obvious copyvio of 1, that also happens to be NOTRS. VictoriaGrayson is also right. The first sentence was indeed vandalized by 213.229.76.10 with this unexplained in January 2015. M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 22:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Casey577:, @ EvergreenFir: The cite that was already in the article, supports the original text. See page 5 of that publication. A gazette publication in India, by its Ministry of Law and Justice, is the final step when a bill becomes their law. Please discuss your WP:BRD concerns on this talk page (not your personal talk pages), and develop a consensus before changing it. M Tracy Hunter ( talk) 00:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
-- Casey577 ( talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)@M Tracy Hunter:
http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/132013.pdf
This is the most recent law....In the wiki article though it talks about criminal Ammendment act 2013, you guys had quoted the ordinace. First of all, I have deleted "any person" from line 148(as seen in the View History page of the wiki article)......in the present rape law only a woman can be raped; not "any person". I have also clarified the earlier rape laws and have mentioned that only a man can rape and that only a woman can be raped and that only a peno-vaginal intercourse would fall under this definition (as can be seen from Line 30 on the History page of the article). These things are mentioned in the previous law, ie the older section 375 and can be found in the original reference quoted on wiki page, ie ref no:17. The link is this: http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/IPC.pdf (note; its an existing wiki link)
Here is another link that clarifies the inadequacies of section 375 IPC as it existed earlier
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103956/
The clarification I mentioned are implicit within the wiki page itself, I really don't think u need to even refer these documents.
Now finally I have edited Line 58 on the wiki history -regarding same sex offences and the punishment. I edited and clarified this part to convey the message that same sex ofeences fall under section 377 and entrails punishment even if the act is consensual. Hence,forced sex between same sex members would also be punishable(obviously in a such a scenario, the offender alone would be punished). The previous wiki page (before my editing) seemed to convey that "forced sex" alone is punishable if the partners are of the same sex. That is incorrect-hence the edit. Also I pointed out a weird scenario in which, if a man forces a woman to have sex with another woman-that too could fall under the defintion of rape with the man being considered as the offender. This interpretation is just an interpretation, but its implicit in the 2013 Act. This being an interpretation may be deleted.....but my suggestion is to let it be, because it lends clarity to the existing laws.
Finally the issue of rape upon children is covered by "THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012"
You can add this apsect yourself in the article...I didn't do it, because I can't decide the appropriate place to do this .
One another thing....its regarding this link:
http://ncw.nic.in/PDFFiles/Amendments%20to%20laws%20relating%20to%20women.pdf
It is a reference from the wiki page itself.....In that reference its mentioned as a 204 article.....but the actualpdf file has no date....its taken presumably from the NCW's website.....but there also there is no date. I think its an amalgm of all current existing laws. ie 375 PLUS child sexual offences law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@RLoutfly @OccultZone
Plz explain to me why u guys deleted my edits. Let me summarize my edits for which u guys showed objection: 1)About older law being purely related to peno-vaginal sex alone 2)Again another issue related to the older law--ie Rape being an act that can be committed only by a man against a woman
These two points are explained by these links: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rape_laws.htm http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103956/ The wiki article says " Before 3 February 2013...A person is said to commit "rape"" This aspect of the article implies that a "person" (gender neutral) can commit rape.....thats incorrect....only a man can commit rape and that too only against a woman.....this is clarified in the above link (more easily found with the legalserviceindia website link). I must also add the wiki article is confusing to say the least. You quote references which actually says otherwise. For eg u quote section 375 and uses the term "a person" instead of "a man".....which changes the meaning altogether
Also plz understand the actual laws do not talk of "a person" its always "a man". i thereby accuse that the wiki wirters have quoted the correct references and then used words conveying wrong meanings ("a paerson" instead of "a man" for eg). The original articles aren't there anymore on the net because they have been ammended. However the articles are quoted in the links i have provide; including the supreme court judgement.
3)Section 377 being not restricted to forced sex between same sex couples. I wish to clarify that section 377 does not refer to forced sex alone. even consensual sex is a crime under section 377. The current wiki article says that " Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex remains a crime under Section 377 of Indian penal code". This is not correct at all. Here is section 377
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836974/ or this
Gaur, KD (2009). Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. Universal Law Pub. p. 684. ISBN 9788175347038.
The relevant pages of the book is available in google books preview and it is this book that is quoted in the wiki page. I don't understand...I am standing so much scrutiny (that too being correct), then how did someone saying "Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex......' was left uncorrected. The "forced" part is the conjecture. The actual act refers to only carnal act....meaning consensual sex is also a crime. Now read the references and edit the wiki page adequately without conveying wrong notions
I will wait for sometime for people to correct these errors otheriwse I will do it myself. If anybody has any objection....plz do a research or atleast ask me !
I might also add.....these references (atleasst most of the them) was quoted by me before attempting edit the last time......You people are not reading at all - Casey577
@ M Tracy Hunter Saw your edits....all are perfect....thanks....I am only a "sort of expert' in the legal definitions of rape and related acts (being in touch with forensic medicine). I can't comment about the other aspects of the article, but as of now legal aspects and gender issues seem OK. I wish to add that the original rape law was limited to peno-vaginal sex alone. A rape done by a man for example by using anal sex would fall under section 377 (and not within rape laws). But of course the man would have been additionally charged with "outraging the modesty" "unlawful confinement" etc....but not "rape". so if u would add "peno-vaginal" to the original rape law (ie the one prior to 2013), then the article becomes perfect. - Casey577
Rape is a crime, but what you think, why it is commenced and by whom. Rape is a unwanted activity in which girl not want to be sexualy with the any kind of a man or men. In the India why so much repe commenced by the men's, because the citizen of india know that there is so many way to escape from the case of rape. Because in india there is not a stick panel code about the rape on the behalf of this the rapist can face their crime.The rapist know that if he commenced a rape with a minor or a girl than he can be escape without punishment and that's why the crime of rape is rising and rising in india. In India there must be just only one punishment for the rapist which is that, the government of India must be hanged till be death in any situation whether the rapist is good in health or mentally ill because he just do the crime. So there must be just one punishment for rapist and that must be capital punishment(death).mail me if you are against the rape.
Ankit taak(Mukharji nagar Delhi) anktaak.sam@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.147.139 ( talk) 06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rape is a crime, but what you think, why it is commenced and by whom. Rape is a unwanted activity in which girl not want to be sexualy with the any kind of a man or men. In the India why so much repe commenced by the men's, because the citizen of india know that there is so many way to escape from the case of rape. Because in india there is not a stick panel code about the rape on the behalf of this the rapist can face their crime.The rapist know that if he commenced a rape with a minor or a girl than he can be escape without punishment and that's why the crime of rape is rising and rising in india. In India there must be just only one punishment for the rapist which is that, the government of India must be hanged till be death in any situation whether the rapist is good in health or mentally ill because he just do the crime. So there must be just one punishment for rapist and that must be capital punishment(death).Mail me if you are against the rape.
Ankit taak sahab (anktaak.sam@gmail.com) Mukharji nagar Delhi.
Indian editors have completely morphed the content of the huma rights article whichc mention Indian troops as the biggest cause of rape but have twisted it to divuldge all blaim from Indian troops to militant separatists using non notable single event in 1947 is UNDUE and breaks the flow of the whole paragraph. Rotunga ( talk) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly, what IP says is actually disputed by our better article Rape statistics#By country which shows that there are enough reliable sources that estimate other countries having huge amount of rapes and they are not appeared in the list that IP user is talking about, India has 24,000 reported rapes yet the article shows a number of nations, more than just 2, having more amount of rape incidents. While there would be almost no argument against "no.1" candidate, dispute starts with "no.2", "no.3" and anything after that. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
3O Response: Please include the
WP:Diff in the discussion, and especially when requesting comments. Regarding this
diff, for most readers I think the useful ranking would be based on the best estimate of the rate of total rapes - not the absolute number of reported rapes. The IP is correct that Capital is incorrectly comparing estimates of total rapes with reported rapes to conclude that other countries rank higher than India. But this does raise the point that China and UK and other countries are apparently not in the U.N. data set being referenced for both the Times of India source and for the
Rape statistics#By country table. Especially having China omitted from the UN report makes the 3rd ranking suspect. Both because I don't think this ranking is especially noteworthy, and because the ranking is suspect, I agree that it should be struck from the article.
Grenschlep (
talk)
18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The graph used purports to show "Annual rape and all forms of sexual assaults per 100,000 people, for India compared to select nations" -- but it doesn't actually even try to show that. It doesn't attempt to show the prevalence of these crimes, but instead how often someone reports these crimes to the police.
This makes RATHER a lot of difference. There are many good reasons to think reporting-rates differ over a wide spectrum between countries, and while a low amount of rape would (of course!) be a good thing, a low reporting-rate ain't even remotely the same thing.
I think at a minimum the graph should be relabeled to say "Annual *reported* ..." because that's what it actually shows.
-- Eivind Kjørstad ( talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Capitals00: Are you going to explain this revert instead of edit warring? You've removed at least four references which are backed by the majority of independent secondary WP:RS, including the journal source itself. There better be a reason behind this removal, and an explanation for "unreliable" before I'm forced to escalate this. Mar4d ( talk) 04:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: It seems that CNN report on this recent edit linked to a rice institute report which linked to original report but it describes these stats as "women who experienced sexual violence by husbands was forty times the number of women who experienced sexual violence", this contradicts our last discussion with multiple editors that sexual violence is a different subject. Capitals00 ( talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
"India don't have marital rape law. so marital rapes don't get reported at all, so it can't be estimated"is not acceptable English. Vanamonde ( talk) 15:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I added back the relevant information with more references on the statistics and polling information. I did make edits so it was not a direct copy and also more fitted to the references. The material is well sourced and fits the topic of this article. ContentEditman ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I strongly disagree that the broad survey reported by the CNN and others is irrelevant. All sexual violence is not rape (especially not in the legal sense of the word) but that does not mean that sexual violence is not relevant in connection with rape, since rape is one of the most typical and serious forms of sexual violence. Since the CNN article directly and specifically discusses rape in India, I fail to understand how it was not considered relevant. -- bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::I can't post on your talk page because you reverted me there and said I should discuss that here. You had never edited this article ever before this day. Your only edit was the edit which is now suppressed for being copyright violation. This is what I was referring in my above comment. As for the content I can only point out that I have significantly commented about it. Shashank5988 ( talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)