Jump to content

Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 165.121.80.142 (talk) at 07:27, 2 January 2013 (→‎Was the bus stolen?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Expansion

Major expansion of the Victim and the Prosecution section is required.Regards, theTigerKing  18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done to the article

  1. References must be trimmed out to remove any with overlapping info and to include just the most reliable ones
  2. References must be properly mined so all the necessary info is added to the article
  3. The language of the article must be corrected to meet Wiki standards.
  4. Excessive linking must be removed from the latter portions
  5. I doubt all the information given is relevant. List of names of all those who gave their opinions on the case is not needed IMO.
  6. Update it with regard to the candle marches and other places where the outrage has spread

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David F (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

This title should be changed to something more specific. Delhi has seen more than 5 gang rapes in 2012, this is not the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.26.10 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly the only one with widespread international coverage. Letthe article remain as is. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally called the Bus Rape Case, but I changed it to Gang Rape Case. Was I correct? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the title is very misleading. Rape is a horrific crime of personal violation......this was something else on an even worse plane of horror. This was a horrific crime beyond description. Makes me sick. We need a suitable title for this that conveys the visceral violent live evisceration this poor soul was subjected to. She was eviscerated! whil alive!!!!! Monsters like this shouldn't be allowed to walk around. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing notes

Over the past couple of days many edits have had to be reverted, some of the problems include:

  1. BLP violations -- The perpetrators are also covered by our WP:BLP policy, please note that while adding any information. Information added in violation will be removed.
  2. Copyright violations and close paraphrasing of external sources -- Wikipedia content can not be copied from elsewhere and will have to be reworded significantly to not follow the structure of the external sources (without a loss in meaning).
  3. Original research and opinions -- Any content added should be verified by external sources. Wikipedia articles are not to publish personal opinions or to encourage activism.

While this is not all-inclusive, the above represents many common problems and will help you understand. Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Capital Punishment in India

I think this statement needs to be changed: "Many protestors have also been demanding death penalty for the accused, which, however, is not currently permitted by the Indian constitution."

There is capital punishment in India reserved for the rarest of the rare scenario. The wiki article on Capital punishment points out that India does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NagaSrinivas (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capital crimes are murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the nation, and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. Capital punishment is not possible on India for rape. The only way that could be possible is if the parliament passes a new law allowing for capital punishment for the accused 6. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and if Indian law fundamentals did not prohibit ex post facto laws, which it seems they do prohibit, though the meaning of the last sentence of the second paragraph here is unclear. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charges against the accused include "Murder", and the victem has passed away. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why protests?

It is not clear from the article what the protestors are protesting about. I am sure any decent person deplores the incident − but why has it induced them to protest, and to attack the police? Do they believe the police mis-handled the incident? If so, the article ought to say so. Maproom (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant history and background to rape-sexual assault in India which is required to make sense of events. See Rape in India and rape culture - India. I would recomend adding in multiple related links under "See Also" and move the "Socio-economic issues in India" and "Sexual Abuse" templates to the see also section as well. This was done under edit [At This Diff ] and then undone. It may also encourage some updating of content in related pages which have suffered under neglect and Systematic Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.226.240 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I normally wouldn't have read the article, but I too came here to find out why this was unusual or significant enough to make ITN and to cause widespread protests. From the quoted stats for NCT of 2.8 rapes per 100,000 people in 2011, using a population of 16 million, the crime is, unfortunately, committed more than once per day. As sad as any such event is, I believe the article needs an early paragraph describing why this event is so significant, not just references to more long articles (and could probably use less duplication of the details of the event itself). I would imagine this question has been raised and written about in a WP:RS somewhere. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not clear in the article, to me at least, what the protesters were protesting. The section just begins by stating that protests occured and then describes reactions to the protests. There should be some explanation of what they were protesting in the first sentence. 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.91.104 (talk)

The reaction may be because this particularly gruesome event was a proverbial Straw that broke the camel's back, kind of like how the self immolation of Bouazizi sparked the Jasmine revolution. Coming on the hills of other deaths of Indian women in Ireland and the Jacintha Saldanha incident may have contributed, but I am not familiar enough to say for sure.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Wiki style guidelines for use of national varieties of English are given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Certain changes to this article inserted regionalisms later revised to Standard English. For example, "invoking charges" versus Standard English "laying charges." Suggest editors making wording changes use Standard English. David F (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the editors here are Indian, and are unsure of how Standard English works. Some editors are required to keep updating the article's English and keep it correct. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The British variety of English should not be automatically considered more "correct" than the English spoken by a larger number of English speakers in India. We've been through this with North American versus British spellings and variations in terminology. See WP:ENGVAR. Edison (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "automatically" considered thus. Despite the inroads that US English has made, the influence of the British Raj remains strong in India, right down to phrases that in modern Britain are considered archaic. Basic principle: this article started out in one version of English and should stay in that unless there is consensus for change. Replacing British imperial colonialism with US corporate colonialism - or however you want to phrase it - is pointless. Similarly, dmy rather than mdy dates. It is bad enough that systemic bias affects what we can source etc for Indic articles on en-WP without us also getting into the more specific nuances of US-centric bias. Sitush (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem appears to have emerged with this edit by Yogesh Khandke. A unilateral change. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Edits are problems. Why not have it written on wet concrete, then we would have no further problems. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Dikshit quote

I have reintroduced the Sheila Dikshit quote as I believe it represents a significant component of media concerns and should not be censured. It is important to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and represent all perspectives (please see: WP:BALANCE). Placing it within the paragraph on parliamentary proceedings, similar to reactions of her colleagues, makes sure that it is not WP:UNDUE. Ramwithaxe 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its now added. But it may be removed again by others if found inappropriate. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congress deviousness and nsui goons

Why no mention of Congress deviousness and Nsui goons?[1][2] the later source is a Madhu Purnima Kishwar opinion piece. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First source is not reliable. Second is also not reliable; but TOI was talking about it. So added. Next time please bring credible sources. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Kishwar not reliable? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see which sources are reliable and which are not. Many sources, especially the non famous ones, will be considered unreliable as they make unsubstantiated claims without backing it up. Which is why BBC is reliable, but not India TV. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Share diff of discussion or Wikipedia policy which relates fame to reliability? "The more famous the more reliable"... Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TOI discuss the same issue[3][4] NBT too discusses the issue[5] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First source added. Second does not speak of your claims. Third is unreliable. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the justification for this edit?[6] The change in the deaths section. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of unnecessary information and non-reliable sources. There is no point adding eyewitnesses' comments when they do not come from reliable sources. Until further information comes out, keep it short and simple. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IANS/ yahoo news not reliable? The sup. of RML hosp. not reliable? Huh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IANS- May be reliable, but depends on what is being said. If claims are unsubstantiable, its always more prudent to wait. Yahoo - NO. Not reliable. Superintendant - Again not reliable; unless he/she is quoted saying the same by a reliable source. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated according to whom? You? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was just chasing the protesters and collapsed. Now thats one claim that needs credible sources before its added (again). Unsubstantiated or not, I leave it to you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sup. is quoted by IANS a RS as you admit. Did you check before you deleted? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honest answer - Not really (On the sources that is). A cursory view was all I gave, after which I had to remove large amounts of confusing text. Add anything you want, and then we shall see which one of those claims are genuine, and which must not be talked about currently. My opinion is to add sources, but not add many more statements unless there is something important thats missed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "Nsui goon" ? 'Goons' from the National Students Union of India I presume? - 220 of Borg 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goonda. I've not actually read that article but to my knowledge they are commonly, but not necessarily exclusively, associated with right-wing Hindutva groups. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My new-word-for-the-day 'Goonda'. Thanks Sitush. - 220 of Borg 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just amended my explanation above: not necessarily is what I intended. You can add stupid typo to your list of new-phrases-for-the-day, although I suspect you are already as familiar with it as I am <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar

It is not clear how Tomar died, not fair to have his death in the lead attributed to violence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His death was very much related to the protests. What remains under question is whether or not his attack was caused by the protesters. I have altered the sentence to remove incorrectness. How does it look now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not lead material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly is. Until it becomes clear whether or not he died because of being assaulted by the protesters, or was it a normal heart attack case mixed up in this incident, this death is very much a part of the protests. There have been several clashes already over his death, and all of them are directly connected to the protests. There is no reason not to mention the death. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar's death section says that the fracture was due to incorrectly administered CPR. This is incorrect. There is a high risk of rib fracture during CPR [[7]]and the RML Hospital has gone on record to state that the fractures occurred after hospitalization when the CPR was administered by them. 115.112.231.107 (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Citation for doctor from RML admitting that fracture may be due to them [8] 115.112.231.107 (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article look now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that the lies regarding Tomar's death from injuries are not repeated on Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lies? Do you know that they were or is that just your pov? Best to keep it neutral, obviously, but if it was sourced and there are different opinions then who are we to call A or B liars? - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do anyone want evidence that they are lies. That injuries sustained were during rigorous CPR. I am old enough here to differentiate between my views (which have no place here) and what we hear from reliable sources. It is a pity that others have trouble rising above their own POV, and check the world outside their own wells. The machinations of the Congress have been exposed. It is all over the place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No article in Indian Languages?

Except a couple of them, we dont have the article in the other Indian languages.! There is the article in Russian, but not in Hindi? Wow. Can any regular to those pedia please create the corresponding articles? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will consider your request, and will do the same in Hindi and Tamil Wikipedia (stubs) asap. Thanks for highlighting this. While, you are also welcome to create the same in your mother tongue. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, already there in Tamil Wikipedia. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Gujarati: gu:૨૦૧૨ દિલ્હી બળાત્કાર ઘટના. Will do Hindi. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Delhi protests?

Does anyone have an appropriate self made picture of the Delhi protests (or has someone found one online with the required licence), to be uploaded on Wiki Commons? Wiki-uk (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities section

If the "Celebrities and notable people" section really necessary? It seems to be common in Indian current events articles but it is rent-a-quote stuff. I'd rather see it gone. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. but I would personally rather wait until another editor removes it himself. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we do not see any opposition here in the next few hours, I am going to be bold. This is a high-traffic article. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am going to remove it within the next hour or so. It is undue weight and the likes of Bachchan seem to have a quoted opinion on practically every controversy in India. Perhaps some of these people should consider (or again consider, in at least one case) entering politics. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The recent US school massacre and even a related dedicated article (I don't know it is there or culled) is full of such fashionable tut tutting, Yet OSE, I agree with Sitush, Wikipedia isn't the place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the MOM award though. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Esp. as many of these male actors have made a living playing "taming the shrew roles", and we have a life imitates art incident here. I remember reading a NRA statement that the US in not violent because of easy gun availability but because of the thousands of hours of exposure of violence in the media. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sources

One of the problems with {{sfn}} is that sometimes sources end up in the bibliography section but are not or are no longer cited. That has happened here, big time. I am about to remove those uncited sources from the article but, in the interests of mining information, I'll dump them here for now. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- that's the lot for now. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- two more that are now uncited. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- two more moved from the article. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- three more - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- source moved here from the article. No longer cited and, per the discussion below re: the Man of the Match award, is presently unlikely to be reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the bus stolen?

I dont think I saw any sources which said that the bus was stolen. Can anyone check if it was actually the case or not? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some saying that it was a joy ride, IIRC, but the problem is that the references are quite badly mangled. For now, I'd leave the statement with the {{cn}} that I added recently. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
- Sitush (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe by joy ride, the sources meant it was a non-authorised(not sure what the correct word is) ride taken by the driver. Like a normal drive, but only on a bus.
Lets keep the word stolen out until other sources can be found which say it was stolen. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done that, hence the resolved tag. I wouldn't try to interpret "joy ride": just say it as the source says it. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Stolen does not mean Authorized
"Boarded a bus" implies that the bus was a regular commercial bus (either public or privately owned) and thus libels the bus company or Delhi generally that a bus company authorized there would permit such conduct; "five passengers already aboard" libels the citizens of Delhi that any group of ordinary passengers would happen to be so criminal that they could be persuaded to take part. The 18 Dec Mandhana and Trivedi article http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/outrage-in-delhi-after-latest-gang-rape-case/ clearly specifies that the bus was not authorized, the driver was not a public bus driver for the company, and the couple mistook the bus for a regular one. Many sources mention "joyride" as the equivalent was probably mentioned by Ram Singh in his statements, but "joyride" in English is always a crime. Check the article; To joyride is to drive around in a stolen vehicle. The only difference is whether temporary stealing is theft under Indian law. Would someone like to check that and edit the Joyride_(crime) article? For now correcting lead paragraph to reflect nature of crime.165.121.80.108 (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this part is confusing for Western readers. It seems to refer to a difference in municipal transit in India that doesn't translate well. Are private buses common in India? Was it a Delhi municipal bus that was taken? 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a private bus which wasn't stolen. Yes, Private buses are quite common. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a private bus which was stolen, at least at that time. See http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/delhi-gang-rape-case-bus-with-tinted-windows-driver-with-a-record-307230. The owner wouldn't have let them go out and earn loose change endangering his charter business. Although in the UK the crime may be TWOC, in the US most "joyrides" are not returned intact to their owners, and it would be up to the defendant to prove that he was going to return it undamaged; hence "Grand Theft Auto".165.121.80.142 (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

I believe the best way to add references in the main article is after the sentence is complete. Adding them midway through the sentence creates a lot of confusion, and takes the reading flow away, especially if there are several references being used. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You cite sources for specific points otherwise it can become a hunt through multiple sources to find that point. This is pretty basic stuff. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths removal of sub heading

The sub heading "Deaths" can be removed and matter added to body, since reason for his (police) death is yet to be confirmed, so highlighting "deaths" by a subheading seems unnecessary.Rayabhari (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused or Suspect

I have raised the question on Template talk:Infobox news event. The infobox should have an option of Accused instead of Suspect(s) as both are different. --sarvajna (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think they will be accused only when the charge sheet is filed, till then they are suspects during the time the investigation is in progress. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protests and reaction

We are now duplicating info in the Public protests and Government reaction sections. I have to go out soon: does anyone fancy tidying this up? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see much of duplicate info apart from the info about closing metro stations and section 144. Let me try --sarvajna (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Yuvraj MoM?

I think Yuvraj Singh's dedicating MoM award to the victim must be inserted somewhere in the article at least. IMO its signifant information/news which must be added. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it significant? What is so special about that cricketer and that award? Why not include the comments and actions of every other sportsperson and the numerous other celebrities? I have no reason to question the guy's sincerity but, really, why? Is it going to change anything? - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Are not newsworthy. But dedicating the award to her - Newsworthy according to me. We have several sources stating it already. And I do not think that any other celebrity has doen anything except to comment and support. Which makes this act something to be mentioned. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think that the dedication is itself a comment? It is a gesture with no tangible merit except, if one were to be cynical, to reflect well on the person who made it. I'd like to think that this sort of support provides comfort to families etc but, honestly, it is usually well-intentioned but empty. We are an encyclopedia, not some sort of emoting website or - given recent announcements of increasing despair - a place of memorial. Will people really look back in a year's time and say, "wow, what a significant thing it was that Yuvrai Singh dedicated his MoM award"? I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, it should not be added now. Withdrawing request. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You meant well and these things can be tricky. I don't think that her death affects any discussion relating to this point, so if you change your mind then feel free to continue it. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of these should be included. Even this tweet by Anand Mahindra would fall into the same category: https://twitter.com/anandmahindra/status/285269156453044225 --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit

I have edited the lead to make it flow better, removed excessive medical details, the part about pseudonyms, the statement "who were friends of the driver" as it was unsourced, and made it very clear that the victim has now died. I also added that 6 men have been arrested. Diff here

Hope this looks better. I don't edit leads that much. - 220 of Borg 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The qualification "who were friends of the driver" is very important in the lead paragraph, as otherwise the article implies that a group of ordinary passengers could do such a thing. This fact was sourced in the Alleged perpetrators section at the time it was included; will re-source.165.121.80.108 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charges

The charges in the box do not match the charges in the body, the latter of which adds attempted murder. Agent Cooper (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because she has just died and, presumably, the charges will be amended? I'm inclined to remove the charges stuff from the infobox for now because the situation is very fluid and, well, the legal system can and often does reframe charges. I'll leave it to someone else to do, but that would be my preference until the matter actually hits a full court hearing. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change to murder

Does anyone have thoughts about changing the name of the article to "2012 Delhi gang rape murder case"? Ramwithaxe 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it is called a murder by the Indian legals etc then you may have a case. Until then, you do not. Daft, perhaps, but we work off sources and, in this instance, WP:BLP applies big time. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but wanted to put it out there so we were cognizant. I expect that the name will ultimately evolve to something entirely different as events unfold. You are truly omnipresent Sitush! Ramwithaxe 01:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually get involved in current events stuff - too much like hard work, especially when it comes to Indian current events ;) "Turn up a fortnight later and clean it up" is my more usual mantra ;) - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words. Ramwithaxe 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The victim died, murder charges have been filed[9] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, its a rape case and unfortunately the victim died. Its still a rape case where the victim was murdered. --sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism of bowel injury

I removed what had been written there, as it was likely vandalism, and a description I have not seen in the dozens of articles I have read thus far. If anyone can provide a reference, as unlikely as that would be, please do so. Ramwithaxe 02:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's back, and referenced, but I continue to object to this level of detail. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspects/accused

Below is copied from User talk:Canoe1967. My apologies for opening a discussion there when it should have been raised here.

start copy----

Hi, I don't understand this edit by you. The source, which is reliable, clearly states the charges being faced. I know that WP:BLP is a minefield at the best of times but this seems not to be speculative. Well, it is not speculative if you understand Indian English. Could you perhaps clarify, as I'm presuming some sort of WP:CRYSTAL might underly your quote of BLP. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With current events that are still unfolding it is best to remove contentenious material then seek consensus as to what if any should be added back. Possibly facing charges is wp:crystal, yes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not contentious. The only contention is whether the charges will become more serious (ie: murder). As for the "suspects", there is a thread on the talk page that explains the problem relating to the infobox template - "suspects" vs "accused". These named people are in the Indian criminal justice system, no-one else is being sought, some have already admitted guilt/complicity etc. I think that in this instance you are being over-cautious and, believe me, I am usually cautious <g> Maybe we should take this to the article talk page? It being 0330 here, I'm off to bed shortly anyway but, honestly, unless you want to strip all the names etc out of the thing then this looks like a well-intentioned but poor application of BLP. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll copy this entire thread over to the article talk page. My apologies for raising it here - it really is not the best venue, and I suspect it may end up at WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

end copy----

- Sitush (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why it should be The five adults accused could face charges under the Indian Penal Code. These people have already been charged. --sarvajna (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chargesheet hasn't been filed. First stage is case is booked, that has been done, then the Chargesheet is filed, that will be done in this case apparently on Jan. 3. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, either, but no-one seems to be paying much attention to this talk page at the moment. Probably because of the volume of traffic/maintenance required to keep out clearly inappropriate stuff. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use British English?

Why is this article under British English and not Indian English? The subject of this article clearly has strong ties to India per MOS:TIES. -- KTC (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#National_varieties_of_English above. This is common on Indian articles: far more use BE than IE. Since this was originally BE, it should not have been unilaterally re-tagged as IE, regardless of WP:ENGVAR. The differences between IE and BE are mainly wrt phrasing, not spelling ("cops" is commonly used for "police", "breathed his last" for "died" etc). - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your response seems to imply I had unilaterally re-tagged the article... :/ KTC (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was not intended and is why I linked to the prior discussion, where the diff of retagging is clearly noted. Sorry if this has caused confusion. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much difference between BrE and InE. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, although WP:WORDS often raises its head in those differences, as with the "breathed his last" that I mention above. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Indian English the subject being Indian. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia is not only edited by Indians.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is also edited by Americans, Japanese people etc. So it is better to go with the Subject's nationality in case of BLP.--sarvajna (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between BrE and InE is spoken/oral wrt pronunciations. There is negligible difference in writing as pointed out by Sitush. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charges

Now that the victim has (unfortunately) died, will charges be upgraded from rape to murder? If so, is the death penalty applicable? These facts should be added into the article, if anyone has any knowledge about this. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. But I would rather wait than add it. Let some sources verify it before we jump into it. Especially since we cannot be sure what the Govt stance will be- to go for murder or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Apparently, they already have been charged with murder. They also face the death penalty. See this link: India Gang Rape Case: Attackers To Face Murder Charge. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her family's caste

The Hindu Nation ref for the female victim's family says they belong to the Kurmi backward-caste community. I changed that to link to Kurmi agricultural community, where the 20th-century section refers to the Congress-backed Backward Class Federation, which article does not yet exist. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited out reference to her family's caste without giving a reason here, but perhaps thinking it irrelevant in an international context without considering its relevance in the victims' native India context. While the other editor was deleting, I found the link, Backward class, which goes to an explanation of the significance of the term backward-caste community in an India context with regards to the victims' poignant reach for higher education, should a consensus develop to restore the reference to the Hindu Nation's report on the family background. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction?

There has been significant international reactions to these events. What are your thoughts on the developing an international reactions section of the article?Casprings (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I remember reading about a tweet by Malala. That also should be added here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Do go ahead and start. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Please watch the contributions of this IP editor. I've already removed two of their edits over WP:CV concerns.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that the user has been given a final warning. If user makes another such edit [even after it becomes January 2013], I Guess and ARV should be filed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive the page

Some sections on the page are resolved, and attract comments which come without realising that they are resolved (See the "Capital Punishment in India" section). Maybe we should archive all the sections which are not needed, and unnecessarily lengthen the page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an archive bot group that handles that. Aren't they archived if no one has posted to that section in X days?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
en:wp may wish to add a template like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Section_resolved --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will put it in place henceforth, but we need to determine how many days after the last post should pass before archiving. GotR Talk 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have set the archive size to 100 KB (any more and the archives begin to become unnavigable IMO). GotR Talk 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 days says me. We can adjust if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer manually archiving only the resolved sections. There are probably older unresolved sections which must stay. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Auto archival isn't necessary right now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, 90 days should give enough time for the initial furore (perhaps not the trial) over this incident to die down and resolve any lingering sections. GotR Talk 17:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teek hain

Comments on Teek hain were removed. Likely censorship, as they were referenced by major news outlets. Removal not discussed on talk page. Will be restoring them. Please advise, Ramwithaxe 22:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any removal without consensus is akin to Vandalism. Feel free to Restore deleted content. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Canoe1967 has removed [10] the Teek hai stuff, in a way he is correct that this should belong to the article of Manmohan Singh but because this is very much related to this incident we need to include it here as well.--sarvajna (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Context?

The contents of sub heading "social context" are largely irrelavant to thecontext of the article - the same may be summarised in one or two lines at the end of lead section. The para may be edited and I request other editors to comment on this.Rayabhari (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. I had infact moved it to the last (whoever created had made this the 1st section) so we can discuss and remove the section totally. Vamsisv (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder&oldid=530882030"