Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder

Mohammed Afroz

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)

And consensus doesn't mean everybody has to be in agreement with you, again read the rules. Don't make your own. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, sorry but I disagree with you heavily on your interpretation of BLPNAME. Exercising caution means not including names that are not tied strongly to an event or that are intentionally concealed. The name Mohammed Afroz is not concealed, it may have been in the court case, but, it's been heavily disseminated since then. I am for including the name in the article, there is no reason to censor an uncensored name. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with your interpretation of WP:Consensus. Three editors agreeing not to mention a name in an article does not equal consensus, a wide body of opinions and discussion between many editors does. The consensus of which you speak does not meet these requirements and as such, are liable to change. That change most likely won't be enacted by a single person, it'll take an actual discussion between more editors. Amend my comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus is not when you get two or three people who already supported a certain viewpoint, to publicly state that they support it. Consensus is achieved with discussion, compromise and agreement between people with different opinions. I have seen nothing on any of the talk pages that is even close to consensus. I agree that a name that is not publicly known, should be kept off articles in most cases, however this is not the same situation. I'm sure that there are millions of people who have read his name, from the multitude of online sources. It has been widely disseminated since the incident, it's not no longer a BLPNAME issue.

It's not that easy to have good faith in editors who support the victim being named, but want the rapist/murderer's name concealed. It's not easy to have good faith in editors who initially based their request to remove the name on Indian law, and now try to claim consensus falsely to remove it.

Mohammed Afroz isn't a minor now, there was no consensus, and there are sources with his name online. I failed to see one single reason to withold his name. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 him being a minor has nothing to do with. It has to do with 'victimsation" regardless of who he is. Also Mr rnddude and Spacecowboy 420 there are much more than 3 persons who supported not including his name. I suggest you recheck your count. Besides no it hasn't been widely disseminated. The only time it seems the name was released was before he went to trial in juvenile criminal court. Releasing his name is illegal under the law as the court (or family) never gave the permission to name him. So yes it is very much a matter of WP:BLPNAME since no permission was given for publishing his name. Also as I suggested do check the discussion about his name again and recheck your count of how many people are against publishing his name. I fail to see any sensible reasons behind your supposed justifications of mentioning the name. Besides I warn you not to assume good faith over your false allegations, that is against the rules. It has been said earlier as well that the victim's name was mentioned because permission has been given by her family. Instead of presuming bad faith, you should start a new discussion if you want the victim's name being withheld. People are not here to impose your POV of what should be there or not, but improve Wikipedia. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to recount, only three people gave explicit support against the inclusion of the name, several were pinged and did not respond and three others gave no verdict one way or the other. The law of India does not apply in the US, who do you think has jurisdiction over Wikipedia? "Besides I warn you not to assume good faith over your false allegations, that is against the rules", shall I place a warning on your page? I made no allegations (WP:ASPERSIONS) and you must assume good faith (WP:AGF) wherever possible. Finally "you should start a new discussion if you want the victim's name being withheld." and who has requested that victim's name be withheld? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of the supposed consensus;

1. Mostly clueless gave no opinion on the matter.

2. IP editor also gave no opinion on the matter.

3. Rohini opposed the inclusion of the name.

4. Lakhbir87 opposed the inclusion of the name. confirmed sockpuppet, vote does not count. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

5. Gandydancer opposed the inclusion of the name.

6. Rsrikanth05 gave no opinion on the matter.

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:

1. Mostly clueless said that he did not find any authoritative source that says his name is Afroz. Therefore yes it can be taken as outright opposition.

2. IP editor said according to reliable sources his name is Sunil. Against namingg him as Afroz.

3. Rohini opposed the inclusion of the name.

4. Lakhbir87 opposed the inclusion of the name.

5. Gandydancer opposed the inclusion of the name.

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)

An editor's failure to find a reliable source, does not equal their opposition to naming him. Be aware that Wikipedia is not a vote. If content is reliable and correctly sourced, then it is included. Three editors opposed the inclusion of the name for the following reasons:

Rohini "Indian law (the Juvenile Justice Act) does not permit publicly naming a juvenile defendant or convict."

Lakhbir "the victimisation and probable threat on his life if his name is revealed also makes another case why his name shouldn't be there whether the name the sources gave might be wrong or true. Therefore, I am in agreement the previous edit versions containing all the various versions of his real name whatever they are should be deleted"

Gandydancer "Lakhbir87 seems to give good advice and I'm in agreement"

Complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules does not equal consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh and User:Lakhbir87 is a confirmed sock puppet, so his opinions are worth nothing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 please be aware that there is no such ruule that says a blocked editor's vote does not count. I suggest you do not make up your own rules for inching the consensus in your discussion. Therefore, Lakhbir87's opinion still counts as there is nothing that says opinion of a sock blocked later cannot count (unless he gave multiple opinions in discussion using multiple accounts which does not seem the case).

Oh and please note that you cannot decide what's correct or not based on your beliefs. Also both Mostly clueless and the IP do not believe there are reliable sources for his name. Just because you believe there are reliable sources doesn't mean others are at failure to find reliable sources, as there never was any reliable source anyway. Again you are deciding what's correct. Consensus is definitely not in your favor here and making up fictional reasons that don't even exist won't help you. It seems you are making up what is consensus by yourself instead of reading Wikipedia's rules about it. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, due to the above I now amend my comment, there are not three votes against but two. A sockpuppet does not get to vote, any vote they have given is struck from the record. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You're reading the wrong persons standards and clearly don't understand WP:Consensus. 1. Consensus can change, 2. A wider body of consensus overturns a smaller one (I quite clearly stated that one person would not override the position of not including) 3. My position is clearly supported by BLPNAME and Consensus, let me state my position since you're mis-attributing it; A wider body of discussion such as an RfC would clearly overturn the current "consensus" between a few editors on a small thread. Now, I am for inclusion of the name in the article and thus cast a vote to include the name in the article if a discussion does happen. No proper RfC has been opened and currently only three people are discussing (2 for and 1 against). Which actually brings me to your count of 5, I disregard the first 2. 1. Again, mostly clueless gave no explicit position on it and 2. the ip editor gave no explicit position on it either. I'll outline what a vote is 1. Oppose (or equivalent), 2. Support (or equivalent), but not 3. Comment (or equivalent). Both the IP and mostly clueless (who had a question, not even a comment) made a comment with no vote. Shall we open an RfC Spacecowboy420 and @103.232.148.4:, or are we going to go in circles? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 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)

Please don't presume to give me the facts, especially when you are wrong. Alright, this is turning into WP:IDHT. Five people did not vote, three did, one vote does not count because sockpuppet. This is going no where, I will open the RfC. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It is you who shouldn't presume facts and make up reasons just for adding something in an article. Learn to let go and move on. We are not here to get what we want here, but merely to improve articles. And I doubt adding a doubtful name is going to improve the article in any way. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My gripe with you isn't about the name or even the consensus. Again, explicit votes, but I'll let it slide. My gripe is your (likely unintentional) misrepresentation of facts, I am aware that including the name in the article has been a point of contention for months (at least). My comments are merely directed at the fact that the consensus to which you point is not broad consensus (or even as broad as you think (five votes of which one simply isn't to be counted and two which are !votes). I am also not forcing the inclusion of the name, only voting for it if an RfC is opened. That is all I am trying to say. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:26, 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)

A compromise

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.

This leaves open the possibility if his name might be something else or he might not have that name as the court, law or his family hasn't revealed his name. It also leaves open the possibility someone might want to add another of his names without removing Mohammed Afroz in case those names are well-sourced and as such. We can achieve all objectives through this way. What do you think, is it ok with you if such a statement was added? I hope we can all agree instead of constantly arguing over such a small dispute. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I'll leave a short comment in the other thread to respond to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's neutrally worded and seems like a good compromise that covers everything very well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we solved this dispute amicably. It is unnecessary to continuously argue over such a small thing and with this I'm confident we will reach all objectives. The video source can be added as well for the compromise even though I have doubts about it, as we can't add anything without a source to back it up anyway. Is it ok with you if I add the statement about the name myself now or would you like to wait and think it over? 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent compromise, and it's fine by me to add it now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh. and thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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)".

Which of these three do you agree with more? 103.232.148.4 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetically you could just put in a note, I think should work. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems ok with me Mr rnddude. User:Spacecowboy420 are you ok with Mr rnddude's proposal of making a note? 103.232.148.4 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree. A note seems to be pretty standard on wikipedia articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the input. I'll edit it now. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

The Passionate Eye

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)

Surname

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)

Proposed merge with Delhi Gang Rape Photo Shoot

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)

Absolutely not. (I'm surprised that the article exists at all...) Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide whether it'd be more appropriate to AfD it, or, to actually merge it here. It's an article about a sensitive topic and is directly related to this one, at most it should have a section on this page but not be a standalone article. I'd need a cogent argument to be formed to make an actual decision on which action is better though. I'll be revisiting this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is related to sensitive subject as on hands here , perhaps we should rename the article with pertaining controversial to make the article less demeaning . It's pretty notorious enough for creating outcry by other groups .108.54.189.28 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)