Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Bogus, No muslim involved so police telling person to confess as muslim

As of 6 Jan 2013 a muslim name has now been added to the accused list in the wikipedia page. No Muslim was involved in the crime so the police have told the person to confess as muslim. If there was even a single muslim involved nobody in hindu india would have waited so long and his name would be plastered all over the news media, forums and comments section, instead his real name raju was used till the police could come up with another name for him. No doubt his family has received the necessary payments from the police. This is not the first time indian police has done such a thing. Countless times in the past when there was a major crime, the police would come up on the scene and give a made up muslim name to a hindu person. RSS and indian police at it yet again. Fake Indian Police Confessions (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Mohammad Afroz is the sixth rapist. Raju is the nickname he sometimes uses. Several of the media houses have indeed identified him as Mohd Afroz alias Raju. His name did not get much coverage in the media because he is 2 months short of turning 18, and is therefore protected by juvenile-criminal laws of India. You entire frustrated BS above is factually incorrect and shamefully communally motivated. Disgusting. - (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum for lamenting bad things done by the Indian police, nor campaigning on behalf of the victims of such bad things. Which reliable sources discuss this behaviour of the Indian police? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Remember, mythomaniacs do exist. LNCSRG (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


International Reaction

Do you think we should add the Steubenville Rape Case ( in the "International Reaction"?

DailyMail quotes "The backlash has echoes of the international outrage triggered by the death of 23-year-old Jyoti Singh Pandey, who died as a result of the massive injuries sustained during a brutal gang rape at the hands of six men in Delhi, India." referring to the protests in Ohio. -The Ajan (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would not be appropriate for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


The title is wrong. In identifying grave criminal cases, the severest crime is generally cited first. In this case, the accused are tried for murder and for dacoity with lethal effect, which two crimes also bear the gravest punishment. The rape is tertiary in legal nature, also as to the punishment going with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly the only one with widespread international coverage. Letthe article remain as is. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
Absolutely. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
I would like to suggest "2012 Delhi disemboweling" I am really bothered that this is referred to as a rape. It was a murder by disemboweling. The rape was in some respects ancillary. At the very least, state in the first sentence that she was disemboweled. Eperotao (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reported injured"

The infobox has a spot for injuries. Currently only the one fatality is listed. Should the injured male victim be counted as well? Andrew327 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Just be sure to change the "victim" in the fatalities column to "female victim", and to list him as "male victim". (We may have grounds to give names within a few days, incidentally - New York Daily News and a blog at the Washington Post have named her now, but all of the most respected editorial boards are still holding out.) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I just made the change. Normally I'm pretty bold with my edits, but I'm showing full caution with this event for obvious reasons. Andrew327 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Social context section

I have twice attempted to change the opening sentence of this section to read, "Widespread misogyny[109][110] as well as "Eve teasing" and rape are some issues..." but it has been reverted called it "weasel wording". I believe that it must be kept in mind that Eve teasing to most English readers is very much as odd sounding as any foreign phrase and the English meaning of segregation has little comparison to the word misogyny, which I believe is more appropriate to use per the references provided. I'd like to see a reason for the two reverts of my changes. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gandydancer. Moreover, while the "Eve Teasing" expression is typically Indian, which is opportune, since it has been written this article should be written in Indian English, on the other hands the term (scarcely understood outside India — I read it here for he first time) has euphemistic implication, and also bear an implication the molested woman could be at least partially responsible for molester behaviour, which IMHO is offensive towards the memory of the poor victim. LNCSRG (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. In my experience the closest thing to so-called Eve teasing would be to call a woman a "cock teaser", however one would never use that phrase without the quotation marks and even then only as a comment made by an ignorant sexist. Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "Eve teasing" is a euphemism used only in some countries. The term "sexual harassment" is precise, factual, direct and universally understood. The English Wikipedia (and this article) is not solely for an Indian audience, so the latter term ("sexual harassment") is much more suitable for use in an encyclopedic article than "eve teasing". Also, "widespread misogyny" is a completely subjective opinion (the references cited are expectedly from some journalist's personal blog page and not a professional news report). Plain and factual "sexism" is again a better term to use. - (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
So should we use, "...sexism, sexual harassment and rape..."? I believe that your reasoning and opinion are correct and I would sure feel better if we get rid of the "Eve teasing" wording. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and change the article wording. Gandydancer (talk)
Ok, I see it has been done already. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I looked up the article "Eve teasing" and it does not refer to a particular action beter described diferently, such as "cock teasing", but seems more like a local terminology or technical term for the particular Indian practice or occurance. When relevant, as here, such terms should be included in the more general article to properly describe the vocabulary of the subject. So, how about "sexual harassment such as Eve teasing, rape..."? (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I certainly would not call rape merely "sexual harassment". I think almost every culture would agree on that! Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The comma was a quote from the article. "Sexism" isn't either. The article was listing crimes in order. So is not "Eve teasing" an Indian term for a form of sexual harassment? (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That's the way it looks to me, and as such 'eve teasing' doesn't seem relevant to include given it is appropriately covered by 'sexual harassment'. Lopifalko (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Linked article states: sexual harassment in India is termed "Eve teasing". The fact that it is government and common terminology, see "Delhi Prohibition of Eve Teasing Bill of 1984", although debated as terminology, makes it important to mention. It is not "covered" by the US/UK article, any more than an article discussing a UK event would be if it only used US english instead of UK-specific terms; linked article in fact has that definition in it. Ref. added to article. (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that it is appropriate as currently written: ...sexual harassment (known in India as Eve teasing[116]), rape and other crimes against women are problems faced by women in India. Gandydancer (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It is important to point out the linked article is India-specific Sexism in India. Current article has a work-around using superscript. Better style might be "Crimes against women including rape and sexual harassment (known in India as Eve teasing[ref]) are part of Sexism in India." For neutral POV, this needs a reference, one more general than the CNN ref (quotes of which might be incorporated in the article separately). (You could probably find a reference for the view that "Crimes against women who behave inappropriately are necessary to preserve traditional values".) (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Victims in Delhi rape case are to blame, defendants' lawyer says

Useful source, possibly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite useful, although such statements have been publicly made earlier too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I used it for two edits. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure if SMH is reliable news source now, they have twisted the article and added other useless information in the article. I'd rather suggest the NYTimes one, (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape caseDeath of Jyoti Singh PandeyPatGallacher (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that her name has become generally known, I think this is consistent with similar cases. "Murder of" is better avoided because of BLP issues with trials pending. PatGallacher (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment, How about Jyoti Singh Pandey murder case? It is a case under investigation. Ganeshk (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending formal identification by police or an Indian newspaper. I just want to be certain that this isn't a hoax. "Death of" is certainly more neutral, but I don't think you'll find many people who will argue this isn't murder; the cause of death is directly related to the rape. Paris1127 (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I think it is illegal for Indian media to identify the victim in a case under investigation. I don't expect them to publish it. Zee is currently in trouble for disclosing the identity of the male victim. Ganeshk (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the law says that the name may be released with victim or familial consent. Zee? Paris1127 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It's Zee News. See this BBC page, Meanwhile, police have opened an investigation into whether Zee News broke broadcasting laws relating to disclosure of the victim's identity. The Zee article is here. Ganeshk (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most importantly its a rape case so mere "Death of Jyoti Singh Pandey" will not be enough. --sarvajna (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Delhi gang rape is what has been majorly referred by media worldwide, hence prefer a common name. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose-It should not be moved.Instead a new page can be created like "Jyoti pandey rape case" who would redirect to this page.--Sandy (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: appears WP:COMMONNAME is clear Tiggerjay (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Common name. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per commonname and also that media uses 2012 delhi rang rape rather than the victim's name. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME as well as the media and public refer to this as '2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case', it has become more like a 'Freedom Movement' with all the protests The Ajan (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I support a change of title. I understand the rationale for calling it the Delhi rape case, but pulling someone's intestines out is not actually rape. It is a disemboweling or evisceration. She was disemboweled and died as a consequence. There's no reason to insist that the rape was the primary crime, somehow taking precedence over a particularly gruesome murder. Eperotao (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non Functioning URLs used as sources

1st bad URL used: http:// 2nd bad URL used: http://http://

3. Content: Bad sources (non working URLs) are being used to support claim "a Juvenile whose name yet to be confirmed people dont even know his real name they used to call him Raju" under the section "Alleged Perpetrators"

There is no confusion about the name and his name has been mentioned by various credible media sources. I request that the older edit that named the accused using this reliable source ( be reinstated.

The juvenile is also verbally named in this video report NicM99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicM99 (talkcontribs) 13:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


There is an "Image requested" flag on this Talk page. What are some images that we would consider appropriate? Andrew327 21:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO These are the images we need

  • Police battling the hooligans
  • Police behaviour on the Public/Women (Since a part of the article talks about how the Police used excessive force)
  • Peaceful Candle Light protests by the India Gate or such
  • The Accused
  • The Male Victim infront of the media/mic (Since he is the major witness)

Suggestions? The Ajan (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional pictures are available at, Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Delhi gang rape case in Delhi. Ganeshk (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, I like the image that is now on the article. Andrew327 17:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Some Images from Facebook

These are not for inclusion in the article, but for general interest.

Hrishikes (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the images so far. Does anyone have a photo of the same type of bus, white and with tainted windows? I can't find anything until now. Wiki-uk (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is even the male victim not named?

Frankly, I find this obsession with not revealing the names of the victims in this article to be totally unjustified, against standard practice in ALL other similar wikipedia articles, and a major factor that lowers the overall quality of this article. Top Indian newspapers (DNA), Indian news magazines (India Today which is India's largest selling weekly) as well as foreign media (Daily Mail, Mirror, The Australian, etc) have extensively quoted the names of the female victim of the rape-murder (Jyoti Singh Pandey), her father (Badri Singh Pandey) as well as the male companion (Awindra Pratap Pandey) who was also a victim of physical assault while trying to protect the deceased victim. The "gag order" of the Delhi police applies ONLY to Indian media, and DEFINITELY NOT to Wikipedia. And especially, hiding the name of even the male victim (who has even publicly appeared on Indian TV news channels without any hiding of his face etc) makes absolutely NO sense at all! There is NO "gag order" from the Delhi police against revealing the male victim's identity, and the man himself is perfectly fine with revealing his identity (as I said, he has appeared in public interviews on TV channels). So there is just NO good reason why even the male victim be not being named in the article. I would also like to reopen the debate on naming the female victim. - (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to see good sense prevail at the German and French Wikipedias, for example. The victims are named in both of those. I guess the entire world knows and freely quotes the names of the victims except for this particular page! - (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The two UK publications you name are tabloids who are considered problematic regarding BLP issues. I'm not familiar with the other publications you name, but high circulation isn't necessarily a guarantee of reliability. There are plenty of publications that have chosen not to name her (yet), just as there are some who have named her. Anyway, the question of whether to use the victim's name in the article is under discussion further up this page in the section "Victim's name". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The major U.S. and British news outlets are not using the victim's name yet. Someone (above) wisely said that we are to follow the news rather than lead them. When the NYTs and the Guardian use her name we can follow their lead. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, so Wikipedia must hold off updating "current event" articles (relating to India, no less) with the latest information till everything gets published in the NYTs and the Guardians, eh? That's ridiculous, frankly. Anyway, add the following to the ever-growing list of RESPECTABLE INDIAN NEWSPAPERS that have named the victims (Awindra Pratap Pandey in this one): the 130 year-old most widely circulated English daily in four north Indian states, The Tribune: [1] I'm sorry, but "we're not sure about the names authenticity" isn't a valid point anymore. There are just absolutely no good reasons to suppress or censor the names. - (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The question of "authenticity" is mentioned on this talk page only by you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 ?! Are you for real?! Just because nobody used that *word* does not mean that this question has not been put forward by anybody else. The whole debate of "this newspaper vs that tabloid" and "RELIABILITY" is one of media/information credibility. In any case, stop quibbling and baiting-and-switching, please just give me ONE GOOD REASON why the victims (AT LEAST THE MALE VICTIM) have not been named in this article. Thanks. - (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please try to remain civil. Now: There's very little doubt about the authenticity of their names. The fact of the matter is that when there's concern about ethics and our status as a serious encyclopedic project, the standard best practice is to follow the most reliable sources' decision on the matter. It is not for us to determine whether the family wishes for her name to be released; all that matters is that the editorial boards of all major respected international newspapers feel that it is inappropriate to release it as of yet.

As for Awindra Pandey, he's alive, so it's entirely his call. I just did some digging, and it appears that he may have opened up to the press. If you can find multiple reliable sources saying he's consented to be named, I, for one, would have no objection against including his name. Until then, though, what goes for Jyoti goes double for him: He can suffer major real-world consequences if his name is released against his will (from being stalked by the paparazzi to being mocked by assholes for having been assaulted... and also probably death threats, because pretty much everyone involved in something like this gets death threats, even the good guys), and we should have no part in it until the respectable media outlets are comfortable about the ethical situation. The day an ultimately inconsequential detail like the name of a private citizen becomes more important than people's rights and wishes is the day that I scramble my password.

And, finally: I, too, noticed that several other Wikipedias have used their names. I encourage any Wikimedians active on any of them to make the same arguments that I and others have made here. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals that the Washington Post [2] and The Australian [3] reported the victim's name 8 January 2013. Format (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I noted this above. It was only a blog for The Post that did so, and it was just repeating the same Daily Mail claims that the BBC called into question. And The Australian even notes conflicting reports as to the degree to which the father's consented to her being named. A blog post is subject to much less editorial scrutiny than a print article, and the Australian article was going off of an Agence France-Presse/Associated Press wire report. That's why I maintain that there remains no consensus among the major editorial boards. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We like to keep our reporting standards high as possible in regards to living people here . see WP:BLP to get a idea of that, in regards to living people we comment on it is a primary policy. I always ask, the BBC is considered one of the high quality reporters that is highly careful in reporting of names in such legalese situations - and if the BBC have named any of the involved people then I support naming them here, if not then, we can also report with care. - I did a search and the BBC are not yet naming any of the involved as yet, they even have an interview with the father and and he is not even named. - also, what other wikis report is irrelevant to discussion here, and the fact that her father 'allegedly' wants her named does not add weight to naming her here under our WP:Policies and guidelines. Also , this page is noindexed so spamming the names here will not show or be seen in search engine results and few people read wikipedia talkpages. Youreallycan 04:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I read them every other Tuesday. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ha, and I every other Saturday and on my tablet occasionally as its hard to decipher. Youreallycan 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Mate, that is not an argument that stands up under Wikipedia policy. Of course this article should not be primarily about the actual people involved, the unfortunate victim or her compadre, or the goons who violated her. It should be about the massive media frenzy which has made this a international story.
However, this article is not even remotely focused on the newsworthy aspects of the highly unfortunate case of the rape of Ms Pandey by the denizens of the Ravidass slum. It should be pruned down to the bare encyclopediac essentials, and among those are the names of the persons involved. She's dead, the male has been named by numerous independant sources, as have the criminals. If anyone wants to keep those facts out, they should cite actual Wikipedia policy that counsels against it. Nevard (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I've cited policy in the past, but it appears it's been archived away. The relevant policies are the ones linked to from the editnote, WP:BLPNAME as compounded by WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The fact that she's dead is irrelevant per WP:BDP. If you can show that either of the victims' names has received enough press coverage (and I think most of us are looking for sources like the New York Times or the BBC here) that it merits inclusion, I'll be the first to endorse naming them. But until then, there's a strong precedent to not name people who don't want to be named if it serves no purpose and might have real-world consequences - we even waited for Aaron Swartz's partner to personally confirm that she was comfortable with being named in his article, despite her having already issued a formal statement identifying herself. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another rape

An eerily similar rape has happened again. Should this article be renamed 2012-13 Indian gang rape cases? Or should we create a new article for the new rape, if it gains enough notability?VR talk 05:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That was in Punjab. Should not conflict with this Delhi article. Ganeshk (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ganeshk, however I did use the article to add to the section related to the protests since the woman's death. Gandydancer (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there an article on this case? -- (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Depending on the coverage received, a new one could be created. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
No. No international media frenzy. Nevard (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
International media frenzy isn't required. If it has gained significant in the Indian press, then it qualifies for WP:GNG and as such deserves an article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


The expiry of Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 Delhi gang rape case has been extended to indefinite. If other editors disagree with this, they're welcome to say so; additionally, this heightens the need for optimal phrasing, so I encourage anyone who sees room for improvement to submit an edit request, or just do what I do and track down an admin or account creator on IRC. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"The" suspects

The article's first reference to "suspects" is in this first sentence in the section Alleged perpetrators:

"Police found and arrested some of the suspects within 24 hours."

I ask: some of what suspects???

Although this phrasing is very common in bad newspapers, it makes no sense to refer to "the" suspects when no suspects have been referred to previously in the article. Only perpetrators have been previously referred to.

As long as Wikipedia is going to be careful about describing suspects as "alleged perpetrators" — as it certainly should unless and until they are found guilty — then it is entirely inappropriate to talk about "the" suspects in the very first reference to any suspects. Because the phrasing "some of the suspects" carries the innuendo that these persons are the perpetrators.

And so I am changing that sentence to read:

"Police found and arrested some suspects within 24 hours."

(Please do not mistake this post for an expression of sympathy with the actual perpetrators, whoever they are!!! I have none.)Daqu (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on 2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Social_context

I would like commentary on the material in this section, specifically the first few sentences in the first paragraph. While they have improved vastly in the last few weeks, concerns still remain as to issues of Original Research, Sythesis and Coatracking in the claim that there is some sort of "social context" for the rape incident, especially the implicit claim that Indians are inherently prone to rape. The claims are based on an op-ed whose notability is questionable. It has also been criticized for "native informant' racism by academic sources such as Jadaliyya [4]. The paragraph does not present contrasting views that the cultural stuff is disproportionally highlighted in the media (Orientalism)[5].Handyunits (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the disputed text as it is right now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexism,India-specific article[1][2] sexual harassment (known in India as Eve teasing[3]), rapeIndia-specific article and other crimes against women are problems faced by women in India. Spiritual guru, Asaram Bapu, was reported to have said that the victim was to blame for her own assault because she could have stopped the attack if she had "chanted God's name and fallen at the feet of the attackers".[4] Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the pro-Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that underpins the country's main opposition political party, said rapes are the result of women adopting western lifestyles as has happened in Indian cities. Manohar Lal Sharma, lawyer for one of the accused attackers, blames the couple for being on the street at night, using public transportation, and states that he has never heard of a rape of a "respected lady". He further finds the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman".[5] According to an online survey conducted by YouGov, 47% of Indian respondents think that the victim bears part of the blame in the attack.[6]

  • Keep or merge - I checked the sources. Unless I missed something, they all seem to focused on the Delhi rape case and it's ramifications. So I don't think there are any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH concerns here to speak of. If need be, a lot of the information could be merged into other sections. The first paragraph in particular could be inserted into the Reactions section. A lot of the rest are complaints issued by protesters, and the protests are covered in great detail throughout the article, so I'm sure we could find a place for it. Overall, it seems like good information to me, with the sources being directly about the nominal subject and information accurately pulled from them. WP:Notability does not apply to content per this section: WP:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article. The editorial you mention is for the first Wikilink in the section, which I think was poorly handled. I think those links should be moved to the See Also section, or perhaps into "further reading". The source itself isn't really necessary for anything. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. The parts of the section that are relevant to the body of the article can certainly be merged into the other sections, as you said. The issue of contention is the first paragraph, especially the first few sentences, that use an op/ed and a dubious online poll to advance a non-NPOV and Synthesized position. The material in the first para concerning the reactions of politicians is notable enough to remain in the article, but in the "reactions" section.Handyunits (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would definitely agree that the first sentence needs to go. Personally I kind of read over it because it doesn't actually state anything of any significance, but I can see how it can be read in such a way as to infer that the risks to women in India is especially bad, which is not supported by the source given. Op-eds are not considered reliable sources, and really should only be used to collect the sources that they themselves used. Those sources might be reliable. Anyway, yes, we should get rid of that and then decide what to do with the rest of the information. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems synth to me. The section starts with a statement that sexual harassment, rape etc. are problems in India, and that statement is sourced to an actress in India. The rest of the section, presumably in support of the first sentence, quotes a spiritual guru, an RSS leader, both likely to say such things regardless anyway. The clincher is an online panel survey which is scientifically dubious (people join yougov, so there is no question of this being a representative sample - it is not for nothing that we prefer secondary over primary sources). Opinions of RSS and spiritual leaders could make sense in a "reactions" section, but using them to support some sort of theory about misogyny or increased propensity to rape amongst Indian men is definitely synthesis. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have implemented the consensus among editors in the article. Diffs are here [6] [7][8].Handyunits (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

the male victim's injuries

Are the extent of the male victim's injuries known? -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


I don't understand post signing but I think note 117 ending the section on Justice Verma Commission is very misleading. The findings appear to have been completely sidelined as the women's groups in India maintain. The Finance Minister former Union Sec P Chidambaram openly stated that the cabinet cannot push through the reforms suggested by the Verma Report on AFSPA reform for example because the Army will not allow it. The rushed through new anti-rape ordinances ask for things not found in Verma. Simple directives for medical practitioners to stop the two finger test (it would be called finger fucking in the west but someone will object to the term not the procedure) and then call them forensic reports must be stopped as they are illegal. I accept the Cabinet are making positive noises about it though they are unlikely to accept any of Justice Verma's proposals or adopt the spirit of his reforms ie demanding equal respect for women from low castes tribals and minority indian communities. i am adding four tildas now but I presume that's wrong desmond coutinhoDesmondCoutinho (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Leeza Mangaldas op-ed comments

This section has been removed with the comment, "rm. rfC consensus is that an op/ed by an actress is not notable":

Speaking to CNN, Leeza Mangaldas, actress and founder of Evoke India, a forum devoted to open dialogue in India said, "Unfortunately, in India rape is inextricably linked by men -- and women -- to shame: the ultimate desecration. Many victims are murdered by their rapists or choose to commit suicide. It is also not uncommon for the parents of rape victims to kill themselves. Thus, most victims don't speak up about what happened to them, lest their families be ostracized, lest they never find a husband or be shunned by their friends."

However, it is my understanding that that rationale is not what the "rfC" concluded. I agree that it was not proper to make statements about the extent of rape, etc., in India and use this woman as the authority to back it up. But for her to speak for herself is another thing and there is no reason that her opinions should not be included in this article. As to her notability, I believe that if CNN considered her notable enough to ask her to write an op-ed she is notable enough to comment here. I'm going to return her comment. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that anyone would become notable because CNN asked her to write a op-ed. Well if that is the case there are many op-eds in the newspapers across India, should we include all of them here? --sarvajna (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please present some examples from the most notable papers. Some editors seem to believe that op-eds or blogs are not allowed to be used as references. That is actually not factual. They are allowable when used to offer a person's opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
An obvious bad faith attempt at promoting Mangaldas's views on wikipedia. I have balanced it out with academic citations and more reliable sources criticizing her position.Handyunits (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Perpetrators' Names.

This news report from Headlines Today, states that the name of the fifth accused was Mohammad Afroz (aka Raju). I propose that we state the accused's actual name as we have done for the other perpetrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustymill (talkcontribs) 01:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there is a legal distinction between suspect and accused, but accused and convicted have been added to the infobox, and can be used, as appropriate. Apteva (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I have changed it. I had requested for the addition to the template a very long time ago. Not sure how it is done. -sarvajna (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination


Per a discussion I had with Luke, I will be nominating this article for GA. Anyone is welcome to review it/ to join in the nomination. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In the "Victims" section, the two quotes supposedly from the father and brother are actually quotes from news reports. These should be properly attributed or, better yet, the expressed sentiments should be summarized. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
While looking for trial updates this morning I happened to come across the father's quote. I will get back to it later and fix that. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added the direct quote from the father. I think that someone will need to improve my ref to meet WP standards. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence is in terrible shape:
  • A seventeen year old Mohd. Afroz a juvenile from Badayun, Uttar Pradesh, was arrested at the Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi and Akshay Thakur, who had come to Delhi seeking employment, was arrested in Aurangabad.
Its severe grammar problems need to be addressed.
As well, the fact that the juvenile eventually gets identified raises the question of whether the article should continue to refer to him as the juvenile after he has been named. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Plural of cannon is also cannon.
  • The article should be thoroughly checked for American spellings and date styles, these to be changed to UK style. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Cannon Fixed TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
All date styles are now British. Fixed TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this review. I'm extremely sorry to see you're leaving, Soni. With luck, this will only need minimal tweaks that I can do myself to pass. Thanks for your work on it--I've had my eye on it as one of the top 50 articles for WP Human rights.

Anyway, comments to follow later today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Luke, I really appreciate it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. This is the sort of article that really should be done to a good standard, and it would be a shame to waste the work people have put in because Soni retired. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am more than willing to help as well. I agree that it is an important article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Terrific, thanks. I'll try to do a complete readthrough with comments this afternoon, and we'll see where we're at. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

  • "The rest of the accused remain on trial in a fast-track court." -- this seems like something that could change in a few months' time. I'd suggest writing "As of xxxx 2013" or some similar phrase here per WP:REALTIME.
  • So if the father did give permission, as stated here, was her name ever officially revealed?
  • Okay, I see the lengthy talk page discussion here. This perhaps can be revisited later, but I'm fine with not doing so for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "has been criticised for being purely political" -- It seems worth clarifying who did the criticizing here
  • "The "fortification" of Delhi was criticised by many, including the main opposition party of the country" -- the source doesn't seem to mention any criticism besides the opposition party. I'm also uncomfortable with "fortification" appearing before the context, and without a citation (it doesn't seem to appear in the given source). I'd suggest rewriting this as something like "The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the country's main opposition party, criticized the high security levels".
  • "The fast track court will conduct the trial of the accused" -- the lead stated that the trial was already underway; this should be reconciled.
  • "The juvenile, Mohd. Afroz, will be tried separately in a juvenile court." -- is this up-to-date that this trial hasn't yet started?
  • "Police claimed that peaceful protests..." -- rewrite "claimed" per WP:WTW
  • "The protests have been explained " -- better to say who's doing that explaining here ("A columnist for the South Asia Analysis Group explained the protests as...")
  • ""Wake up call"" -- this is implied to be an exact quotation, but isn't quite.
  • "The Delhi police force was accused of using excessive force against the protestors," -- better to say who made this accusation (in this case, the Hindustan Times)
  • The paragraph beginning "Since her death, the unprecedented protests..." seems like much too close a paraphrase of its source per WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, "Sexual assaults made headline news almost daily" may no longer be an ongoing thing. Are there up-to-date statements about this?
  • "After her death her father spoke to the press saying, “We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn’t do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter.”[110] Her father also said that "People should move ahead in the struggle to prevent a similar crime happening again as a tribute to her."[111]" -- this statement by the father has already appeared once in the article.
  • The "Reactions" section should be rewritten to avoid having many small subsections, per WP:LAYOUT. It's also a bit disjointed to have some events from the days of the protests (shut down train stations, etc.) moved down here.
  • Repeated links like Delhi and Uttar Pradesh should be delinked in their later uses (only linked once in lead and once in body) per WP:REPEATLINK, though this isn't an issue for GA

Going to have to take a break for now, but hope to finish this one later tonight... -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "The following day, in the Indian parliament, severe punishment was demanded for the perpetrators." -- the day following the attack? Or following the announcement"?
  • "The protests there have taken inspiration from the Indian protests, but are also focusing on local issues about rape and domestic violence." -- are these protests still ongoing? This probably should be in past tense now instead of present.
  • "also pointed out " -- could be rewritten more neutrally (stated, argued) per WP:WTW
  • "Similar criticisms were aired in The Massachusetts Daily Collegian" -- as a college newspaper, this seems like an incredibly trivial source to include here
  • I've shortened the US State Department citation for the victim, cutting out a sentence that simply recapitulates what happened. Is this all right with you two? I'm hoping this will make it flow better.
  • "which will be operated by the state police" -- is the tense still correct here--this not open yet?
  • "It will also suggest measures to make Delhi and the wider National Capital Region safer for women. The report was to be submitted within three months and will be tabled in Parliament along with action taken by the government" -- this seems like it needs updating; it's now been almost seven months since this began
  • "The task force may co-opt any such member/task force that it may deem fit" -- I don't understand what this part means
  • I notice that no sources in the article seem to date past February--has there been no news at all since then on the trials, or any of these committee reports, etc.? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
One Indian RS is giving frequent updates. I check them but it has not seemed possible to me to give a "blow-by-blow" account, so I have given no updates. I decided it was best to wait... Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's best. After the verdicts, international and national news sources should have recaps on the trials as a whole that we can use to update. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Current event

So after poking around on Google News, it seems that the trial of the adult defendants is happening this very week.[10] One of the quickfail criteria used to be "a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint", which this is, but we no longer have that criterion listed. I've asked at WT:GAN for input on how to proceed, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts there.

My own initial thinking is that we probably can't get this article stable enough to pass it until the end of the trial--there's no sense in passing it as a GA if it will require a major update in a few weeks' time. Probably the best thing to do for now is for the three of us to collaborate on having the article as ready to go as possible; when the trial verdict and sentences, and accompanying reactions, are in, we can renominate. I'll wait to hear from you and some opinions at WT:GAN, though, before taking any action. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I personally don't mind waiting a few weeks extra, if that's required - who knows, Soni might even have returned by then. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing review

This article is in overall good shape and is close to meeting the criteria in most respects. The biggest concern here is that a thorough copyvio check is needed; at least one paragraph seemed to be close paraphrasing of the source. (This is common in current events articles like this assembled by a large number of editors, but is a serious issue that we'll need to address.)

Since the trial is ongoing, however, this can't be considered stable enough to meet the GA criteria; the verdicts and sentences, and reactions to them, will require a major expansion and rewrite. For that reason I'm closing the review for now, but without prejudice to future renomination once the trial is complete. (I might renominate it myself, in fact, if Soni's not back to do it.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you do take it on when it is the right time--you are doing a terrific job! Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Mostly just polish so far, though. Face-smile.svg -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fast track courts

I changed all the versions of fast-track/fast track courts to fast track courts (though I think I missed one due to terrible experience with visual editor) using this site: [11] Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, heck. I just changed them all back without seeing your comment. Sorry about that. Most news sources do appear to use fast-track [12], [13], [14]. But I don't mind either and didn't mean to revert you. Feel free to change this to either, and again, I'm sorry for my sloppiness. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think that it is just fine either way. I found that web page when I was wondering which way to go, but I agree that in the news reports there was a slightly more frequent use of fast-track. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
While on this subject, I've wondered if there is a way to explain 1) what a fast track court is and 2) how monumental it is that this woman's death has changed the way that rape and such crimes will be affected by the implantation of trying them in fast track courts. According to this news report [15] "One of the biggest obstacles to winning justice for rape victims is the length of the trials, legal experts say. In an average case, it can take a court five to 10 years to reach judgment." I think an entire section would be good for the article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it could fit into one of the current sections, but I agree it could be expanded. Maybe we can see how widespread the coverage of this aspect is as we expand and work from there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Expanding "Results of protest" section

What would the other editors think of expanding the "Results of protest" section a little? There is plenty of information at the articles already included and the Punjab information that was deleted from another section for copy vio could be used as well. [16] Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote from woman's father removed...

Speaking from a long-time feminist's POV, I think that the quote from the woman's father is important to the article. He said:

We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn't do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter.

This quote has been criticized because it was disclosed to the Daily Mirror, however it has been repeated here [17] and in several other sources that I believe are RS.

I believe that her father's statement is very important. Even today it is the woman who suffers from shame after a rape and that is true not only in India, but in every country in the world. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the GA review, this quotation appeared in the article twice in full; I only removed its second appearance. I'm fine with it being in either place, but I don't see any reason to include it twice. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Opps, yes now I see it. My mistake. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia not a place for personal opinion

Enough of the drama please. TransVannian and others, please feel free to approach ANI or other forums if there is a dispute. If there isnt, lets just drop it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why there's so much drama over the victim's name. Just because a victim's family doesn't want the victim to be named doesn't mean we won't provide his/her name if we know. Besides Nirbhaya's father has himself told the media to release the name of the victim. Don't you even know that? Not naming her isn't gonna bring her back nor does it mean you are respecting her memory. By the way Wikipedia is not the media or the newspaper that we won't name her. Our goal is to provide complete accurate information. Also respecting the victim and his father's wishes I'm naming her here. She did not do anything great to deserve a bravery award but still every person's memory should be honored. Her name was redacted: stop listing this and may god grant her eternal peace. TransVannian (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors have had a great deal of discussion and done research re the use of her name in the article. At present the Indian press is not using her name and we have decided that that is the best way to go for our article. If you can provide information that suggests we should do otherwise, please do. I'm going to delete your inclusion of her name. Gandydancer (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the outrageously disgusting edit summary that TransVannian used in their last edit, I agree with removing their inclusion. Stop pushing your POV TransVannian, that is not what Wikipedia is for. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How dare you censor my comment. No user has a right to censor or remove even a single part of other user's comment on an article talk page. You're not only violating the freedom of speech but also violating Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia says that the editor should be bold. I'm just providing info and not damaging Wikipedia in any way but am actually helping it. If you think there is even a single policy that prevents me from mentioning her name I suggest you post it here. Every user has the right to paste information. Not only that this a talk page not an article. I don't need any source to mention any info here. One final thing just type redacted and you'll find a lot of media websites which confirm she was the victim. You'll even find her photo on Google. TransVannian (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will let another editor step in here... While there is a warning on the article page there is not one here on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've redacted the name again. TransVannian, I suggest you stop this now; consider this a warning, as I will seek administrative assistance if you keep this up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've posted at note at WP:BLP/N requesting input. I'm on semiwikibreak so can't really participate in this for now (I have mixed feelings anyway). I'd suggest that we err on the side of caution and not include the victim's name until this has been resolved, though. Thanks to all working on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You're doing the right thing Gandydancer. However restrictions cannot be imposed on a talk page. It is completely against Wikipedia policies. Also Lukeon94 called my edit summary comments were outrageous and disgraceful. However what I said was the truth and I have complete respect to her. What I meant was that while people publicized that poor girl's tragic death. But multiple soldiers fie everyday defending us the public and our borders. What I said was that while this girl's death was publicized there are thousands of families of martyred soldiers who have been waiting for at least some of compensation from the government but they have received nothing at all even though those brave soldiers who died defenfing our frontiers belong to these families. Not only that no one even asks how they are boding let alone try easing their suffering. I ask all fellow editors. Does my comment seem outrageous and disgraceful to you? I couldn't mention this in edit summary because the edit summary comments have a word limit. TransVannian (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Your edit summary was so bad it got RevDelled... need I say any more on how badly you worded it, regardless of intent? Restrictions can and do apply on talk pages, especially BLP ones - and BLP applies to recent deaths as well, in addition to obviously applying to the girl's family. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, your comment seems outrageous and disgraceful to me. While you're welcome to put all your opinions on your own blog, a Wikipedia edit summary is not the place for a diatribe on what you think of a dead woman's courage and how she compares to soldiers. You can see WP:NOTFORUM about this.
As for editing your talk page comments, of course your comments can be edited if you're naming people in a criminal case against talk page consensus. I'd suggest you talk out the issue with editors here first and post the name second, instead of the other way around. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll like to ask Khazar to please provide proof that all the talk page policies he's talking about are indeed true. Until then I can't tell whether you are speaking the truth. So please provide a proof. Also I never compared the girl and the soldiers in my statement. I made that statement because I've myself seen a soldier be killed by a militant. I request you to understand my condition too. My comment was made to show that how much of a hypocrite the government and people are. You had completely misunderstood my edit summary comment. I'm discussing this subject to improve the article and Wikipedia. I hope all fellow users know and understand that. TransVannian (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"My comment was made to show that how much of a hypocrite the government and people are." - And that's not what WP is for, TransVannian. If you want to discuss your political opinions go on Facebook, open your blog, whatever, but leave WP alone. -- cyclopiaspeak! 17:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Well alright maybe I shouldn't post the name of the victim here until a consensus is reached and her actual name( the name I posted was her actual name). Buy still no one has provided a proof to the Wikipedia policy about which Khazar2 talked about. You only seem to talk about my "outrageous" comment which in actual wasn't outrageous at all. I know Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions and I probably shouldn't have made that edit summary but what I said was completely true and there wasn't anything outrageous in it. While the victim was given a bravery award, hundreds of families of martyred soldiers haven't ever been asked by anyone how they are boding. That shows the media, the government and public are hypocrites. I could not fit all of this into edit summary since it has a word limit. I inserted what I thought was important. If truth seems outrageous to you then it's none of my fault. Instead it's you who have a habit of raking up controversy. But still this discussion wasn't actually for my comments. As I said earlier the victim's father has already granted permission to name the victim. You have said not to include her name until her family grants permission. But her family has already granted permission. So why are you removing the name? TransVannian (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2 has himself accepted that some reliable sources do mention the name of the victim. Not only that her father had directly requested to reveal her name. You can search the name of the victim which I pasted here on Google and you'll find many reliable sources that mention the same name and it is on direct request of her father.As we know any information even controversial can be included on Wikipedia if it is verifable. Also it was stated in the article that her name should not be mentioned until her family itself grants permission to the media outlets to reveal her name. Both the requirements of verification and permission have been met. Even after this you do not allow her name to be shown on Wikipedia then you are blatantly violating Wikipedia policies. Just because most sources use pseudonyms instead of her real name does not mean that we too cannot use her name. There is no such Wikipedia policy. I hope this would have completely clarified everything. TransVannian (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't have any respect for the victim, I guess? The Banner talk 05:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier I respect the victim. Maybe you didn't read my earlier comments in this section. But it doesn't matter whether you or I respect the victim. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion and I have stated this fact again and again. It is one of the main policies of Wikipedia. Besides can I ask how is keeping her name a secret going to protect her dignity? It is not the victims but criminals who hide their names. The girl had done nothing wrong but wrong was done to her. Why should her name be kept secret? People should know who that girl was. Revealing her name will be true respect to her. This was the same thing her father said too and you think that by hiding her name you are respecting her. No you are doing the total opposite.Not only that her name is completely verifable. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion but still revealing her name will inspire people. People made a publicity of her death and you say I'm the one disrespecting her. Looks it's easy to blame those weaker than you. If you really respected her you would have said that those who made her death a publicity event were the ones who didn't respect her. Tell me can you say to a political leader who is using her name for political agenda. Of course not because he's way more powerful than you. It's easier to blame the weak and tell them.they're doing the right thing but we can.never do that to those more powerful than us. Think again before saying that I don't respect her. Her father and I share the same opinion that revealing her identity will be true respect to her. Tell me will you say that her father does not respect her? TransVannian (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Her family wishes her name to be kept private; therefore, who are we to go against their wishes? Just drop this, it's blatantly obvious that you're not going to get the result you want. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually her family has asked that her name be made public. The previous discussion has some good information. Thinking that the Indian press had begun to use her name, I suggested that we begin to use it here. TransVannian, I can understand your thinking because I shared some of your feelings. WhatamIdoing made some comments above--I'm the one that invited her to this page to give feedback because I know she is wikiwise and intelligent. As it turned out, most of not only the Indian press, but the press in general has not used her name. I was willing to listen to the wisdom of others and you should be too. I've worked with groups for many years and I have found that always, when people are willing to listen to others, group consensus comes to the correct conclusion, as I believe that it did here. Gandydancer (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Lukeon94 is a buly and is trying to imppose his point of view. Apart from that there is no such policy that states a consensus cannot keep verifable information from being added and no I will not let you violate Wikipedia policies. All requirements have already been met and I've already said Wikipedia is not a media outlet'. We do not follow the style of media outlets here. By saying that a verified material cannot be added just because some users say no. This is not a Wikipedia policy. I'm not going to add her name because for now but will in future. But first I will try contacting some admins about this matter. TransVannian (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact you are the one who is a POV-pusher, TransVannian! And using personal attacks is not really helpful to get a long wiki-career... The Banner talk 13:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to take it to the administrator's noticeboard, I suppose. But I'm not sure what action you expect them to take. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course take it to the ANI. It just proves my point you are not discussing this issue in a civil manner. Lukeon94 has been talking about the edit summary comment again and again. He is saying that this comment proves that I'm pushing my POV. Tell me is trying to do what Wikipedia policies say is POV pushing. You have been talking about POV pushing TheBanner but tell me have you even once talked about the matter this discussion was started for? You said that I don't respect the victim and have falsely accused me without understanding anything. How is including the victim's name disrespecting her? TransVannian (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you're going to name me, User:TransVannian, then do it this way, so I get a notification (and, also, spell my name correctly please.) I told you a while ago; Wikipedia is about consensus. You're violating that consensus, which IS also violating policies. Simple. And I'm not saying your edit was POV-pushing - but your usage of edit summaries and this talk page as a soapbox for your views, which is ALSO a policy violation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You 're completely misunderstanding Wikipedia policies here Lukeno94. It is the verifiability of an info that is the most important policy. In case the info cannot be verified then a consensus should always be taken. And the name of thvictim is completely verifable and even the family has permitted her name to be revealed. I respect your and everyone's views but I respect Wikipedia policies too. I've never said that I'm going to include her name regardless of what other users think. I have instead said that I would like to prefer discussing this matter in a civil manner and that's what I have been doing. The main Wikipedia policy is adding verified information. Any verified information that is significant cannot be removed. But still I preferred discussion because I think it is probably the best thing to do. Last of all I would like to apologize to Gandydancer for misunderstanding his last comment. He actually stated that the name of the victim should be included in the article. Sorry for that friend. TransVannian (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(bwc) Wikipedia:Consensus! Please read this policy carefully. Especially the part: Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. Other policies of interest for you: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The Banner talk 14:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving the page

User:Abhinavname had moved the page to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case‎ without any consensus so I have moved it back . P.S: I guess I did not use the correct way of moving the page, I did it because my browser sometime has some issues and I don't see few options correctly. --sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)‎

In order to avoid such problems moving forward, I just requested temporary move protection for this article. Andrew327 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And the page is now move protected. If you want to move the page, please provide secondary sources that offer a specific alternative name. Andrew327 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more links i am providing the girl needs to be named to set an example that rape victims need not to be ashamed.Even Oprah Winfrey was also raped in childhood. and now she is a great lady. The article should be movd to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case .see these links:

User talk:Abhinavname 18:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This section of the talk page is about whether or not to change the name of the article. I highly recommend you visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask the good people there for advice. Andrew327 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I should clarify. The articles provided do no give a name to the series of events. If you want to use the victim's name, then you should make your case in the appropriate section of the talk page. It is common practice on Wikipedia to refer to name articles related to news events using the year it happened followed by a description.Andrew327 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The WP:common name for this seems to be from the press reports as we have it now - 2012 Delhi gang rape case - I don't support us creating a new name that included the victim at this time , if majority of press reports come to a new position that includes the victims name then we can look again then, until then, I oppose such a move - Youreallycan 07:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For the forseeable future, the identity of this case is going to be "Delhi rape case". Even after her name becomes widely known everywhere, it will not be as well known as the case itself; thus common name policy applies, and only a redirect page used if warranted. If a law is named after her and it becomes well known, then the titles of the real and redirect page could swap. (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
If at all, this article has to be renamed, let it be to 2012 Delhi bus rape case, the name it was originally created under. The need to add the victim's name to the title seems unneeded. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the authentic proof from UK tabloid Daily Mirror about Jyoti's name

Here is the link abt Jyoti Singh Pandey and her friend Awindra Pandey, 28 revelead by Jyoti's Singh Pandey.

User talk:Abhinavname 14:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Appears credible. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC).
Daily Mirror? Please NO. Get something more credible like BBC and The Guardian, not some silly tabloid. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian: [18] :) -- (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
How about Daily Mail? India Today? Daily News and Analysis (DNA)? The Australian? The list is endless ... the entire world knows and quotes the names of the victims, except for this goddamn wikipedia article ... - (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I found the following sources to meet WP:VERIFY standards:

ENeville (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I edited the page, but instead of the link from The Australian, I used this one that it referenced from The Times:
ENeville (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This information was removed from the article without justification. I will replace it. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. ENeville (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I see there's a giant banner on the edit page that says,

Wikipedia policy is to refrain from identifying an individual if they are only notable for being the victim of a crime and they do not wish (or, in this case, their loved ones do not wish) for them to be identified. To that end, please do not insert any material naming the victim of this crime without first obtaining consensus at this article's talk page. That doesn't mean that you can't cite sources that happen to name the victim, but you are asked to not include the name in the actual text of the article, until and unless there is a consensus otherwise. This also applies to the male victim of the assault.

Well, the consensus apparent here is that the information should be listed. I would also note that surviving family members of the female victim have said that they want their daughters name to be known, and the male victim has voluntarily spoken to the press multiple times without anonymity, so the information should be included in Wikipedia. ENeville (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I honestly don't think that policy applies. The names have been revealed in many sources, and there's even a specific mention of the fact that a newspaper was criticized for revealing the names. It makes the tone of the rest of the article seem weirdly censored and awkward. It really should be changed. It'll certainly have to be changed eventually anyway. 0x0077BE (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have edited the banner reference I quoted above to include the links therein. I would note that the first two links, to WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, are to guidelines about living persons, which are not applicable to the female victim (a fact itself very relevant to this case). ENeville (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The BLP guidelines also applies to recently dead person.--sarvajna (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it is, without question, time to begin to use the woman's name in our article. To not do so gives the impression that India is not giving her proper respect, which, judging from the outpouring of support clearly is not the case. Gandydancer (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We regularly ID the victims of serial killers in articles, despite the fact that they are only notable for being victims. But I have an idea; let's ask Jimbo Wales or the arbitration committee.--RM (Be my friend) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. We have clear consensus. There is no dispute to arbitrate, and as much as I respect him, Jimmy Wales can't override consensus anyway. You could ask him to participate in the discussion, but I don't really think he has any special knowledge that would justify that. I'd add the name in right now if I thought that I could do it seamlessly. If it's not added in 2 weeks and the consensus does not change, I'll add it if it's not added (I'll have time to do a good job in 2 weeks, I don't have time now). I highly recommend that someone else do it sooner than that, though. No one is opposed to the idea as far as I can tell. 0x0077BE (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
On the one hand, as the victim is dead, her name could be used in the article. That being said, I believe the Indian media is still banned from using her name, and it is illegal in India to publish a rape victim's name without consent of the victim or her family. While her family has indicated that they would like her name to be known, the name remains suppressed in India. Wikipedia is accessible from India, so it could be viewed by the Indian authorities that the publishing of her name is breaking the law. I support at least keeping the victim's name off Wikipedia at least until after the trial ends, out of an abundance of caution. Also, it does not appear that any of the Indian-language Wikis is using her name (Google couldn't translate all of them). Paris1127 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I was adding a note and we had an edit conflict. I thought that I have seen it in the Indian press...? Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I searched the name in The Statesman, The Telegraph, The Hindu, The Deccan Chronicle, and The Hindustan Times: not a single mention is made of the victim's name except in the comments in one DC article. The Times of India did have this article, but this appears to be the only example I can find. Those were as many English-language Indian papers as I could think of, I can't speak to ones written in India's other official languages (which I don't know). I do know that prosecutors moved against one Indian paper for publishing the name (this was before it was released by the family). Paris1127 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
[EDIT CONFLICT] I self-reverted and did some checking. It seems that Paris is correct in that the Indian press (at least as far as I could find) is not using her name. Thanks Paris! Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant. The Indian press are operating under laws that do not respect free speech the same way as it is understood in America, where Wikipedia is based - nor, for that matter, the way it is understood by the Wikipedia charter. This section here cites many, many users of her name. One of the citations on the page even mentions it. There is *no* reason to delay this. It is useful information and its absence is really making the article much, much worse. It needs to be added.0x0077BE (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "useful"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe that was an imprecise choice of phrase. It's something people want to know, and to the extent that they can identify other stories published using her name as referring to the same case, it is useful for people to know it, but I would say that the utility isn't the main issue. The main issues are the fact that the missing name is hurting the flow of the article, it smacks of censorship and it's information we have extremely well sourced and we are withholding it from people who will be curious about it. That's very anti-wikipedian, and given that there's no compelling reasoning for keeping the name out of this article whatsoever, it should be put back in. I still would have argued to add it months ago, as soon as we had sources for it, but at this stage it's just absurd that it's being kept out. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that satisfying the morbid curiosity of ghoulish or immature readers is an encyclopedic task. We use judgment and discretion, not censorship, to determine what's important; as a general rule, the names of innocent rape victims is considered unimportant. I don't agree that it hurts the article's flow, either.
Complying with WP:BDP, which extends BLP-level protection "in the case of...a particularly gruesome crime" for six or more months after the person's death, sounds like a "compelling reason for keeping the name out of this article" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


  • More to the point - Just because Wikipedia can give the name out doesn't mean it should. AFAIK, no Indian press has been banned from publishing her name and I would like to see some proof before I accept otherwise. Not only, I remember the victim's family stating they have no objections to the name being used.
Coming back to my original point, it is more of a common sense thing that we ought not publish the name of the victim unless there is a strong reason to do so. If there was any law named after her or if she was known using her own name, its a different case. But to use the name in defiance of the practice set by the media as well as common sense just sounds too much like The Mousetrap to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should get rid of the entire article then, since it's just gruesome details used to satisfy people's ghoulish curiosity about what happened. The point is - it doesn't matter why people want to know it, it's an encyclopedia, it is impartial about the information to be conveyed. The whole point is to document events neutrally. The fact that her name wasn't used was the first thing I noticed because every other article uses the names of the people involved. Saying, "the woman" in every place just makes it seem like we don't know who it was. It's bizarre. The name is being heavily used in the media, and just because it's policy that you don't have to give out the names doesn't mean that's a compelling reason. The whole point of that policy is so that we don't break the story ourselves and cause some kind of issue for the families. Her name is used in the references. Keeping it out of the text is just making the article weird.
I do not understand the mousetrap reference, but it doesn't matter what media convention has been. We're not a media organization (thank god), we're an encyclopedia, and like I said before, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to neutrally document things that have happened. The names of the victims have been released. They are well cited. It's information people will want to know. No one is being protected by keeping it out of the article. It's terrible what happened, but as far as we're concerned we're just neutral documentation robots. Part of that is ignoring our instinct to judge people who want information that we don't think they should want - like the name of a rape victim. The fact of the matter is it's part of the story, the hurdle of being in widespread use in the media has been cleared, we don't have to wait any longer. Plus - do you really think it matters if we add it to the article now or in 2 months? What is the point of the delay?
Oh, and to be clear, while I technically agree that there are times that one would withhold information - the default should be no restraint. That's the whole point of Wikipedia - open access to information. The burden is to show that it's actively harmful to release the information, and that should be a pretty high bar - and frankly, I think the bar is almost identical to WP:OR. Obviously we don't want people calling around that town and trying to find out the name of some victim so we can publish it, but once it's out there, the cat's out of the bag and it's pointless for us to ignore that information. The whole reason that open access to information is so amazing is that when you have such a large audience they do wonderful things with that information that you couldn't predict a priori. Just because we can't think of a good reason why someone would want to know some possibly distasteful thing doesn't mean that we should hold it back - it's hubris to think we've thought of all the scenarios, and as a rule (and this is the rule upon which open access is built) people will do better things with better information, not worse. 0x0077BE (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Everywhere? Could you provide some proof that it is indeed everywhere? The media of the country of the incident has refrained from naming her, and that is sufficient reason (for me) to not do the same; unless there is a very strong reason for the otherwise, which I still await. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it's actively harmful to provide this information (information which can be found on the wikipedia page if you do a Ctrl+F for "name"). That said, if you really need a "compelling reason" (which I think is a ridiculous burden):
"We want the world to know her real name," Badri Pandey, 53, told the newspaper. "My daughter didn't do anything wrong - she died while protecting herself.
How about the fact that her family (the only people that this could presumably hurt in some nebulous way) wants her name out there? It has significant news coverage (for example, the half dozen links at the top of this section). It's part of the story and it should be included. 0x0077BE (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It does seem odd to me that the Indian press are not using her name since her father has not only given permission but has said that he would like to see a hospital built in her name. As her father said, she did nothing wrong and the rape was, after all, not her fault (as is commonly suggested in not only India but here in the US as well). As far as I can see the UK is using her name but the NY Times (for instance) has not yet used her name. In my opinion to not use the name when permission has been granted is sexism and is adding insult to injury. Gandydancer (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
You say that every other article uses the names of the people involved, but Bitti Mohanty, Ajmer rape case, Jhabua nuns rape case, Jalgaon rape case, and Vachathi case don't name the rape victims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This issue has come up again and rereading this section I can see where it appears that I was not in agreement with the consensus. I was and I am now in agreement, based on the fact that almost no major news outlets are using her name. I think that Wikipedia should follow their decision, unfair as it may be to the family. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The father denied he had requested the victim to be named. If the father does not want his daughter to be named, why should we disrespect him and the victim by mentioning her name? The Banner talk 11:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
What if the father denied that he requested the victim to be name. I mean this is wikipedia, we write facts here and facts are fact.We cannot exclude anything about anyone if the concerned party does not agree to it, people may have various reasons social,religious and political whatsoever but we as a wikipedia editor should not be influenced by someone personal opinion .I mean what's wrong in naming the victim,not naming the victim indicate that victim is somehow responsible.There are many thing which are law prohibit but are still on wiki.Indian newspaper don't name her just because the law prohibit this,they too know that there is nothing wrong in it and now when the statement has been delivered i think it's time to include the victim name.Wiki article transcend does not belong to a particular region or country, what is prohibited in one region may not be in other, who are we to decide what is moral and ethical and what is not?.Prav001 (talk)

RfC: Should the victim's unproven name be included in the article?

I'm closing this RFC early, as it is abundantly clear that there is a consensus against including the alleged victim's name at this time. A considerable number of those who expressed opposition to inclusion based that opposition at least in part on doubts that the name is correct; as such, it would be entirely appropriate to open a new discussion on this matter if additional, reliable sourcing becomes available. Finally, as a procedural note, there isn't anything that can be done to render an RFC "invalid", though a closer should certainly consider irregularities in the conduct of the RFC when it comes time to close it. I don't think the irregularities that occurred here substantially influenced the outcome. Monty845 13:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier it was reported the name of the rape victim was revealed on the request of her father but later it was reported that the father never gave permission to reveal the name. Should this unproven name be included in the article? TransVannian (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


  • No. I can see both sides on this, but for now I think we should follow the lead of such sources as the BBC, The New York Times, and many others not using the victim's name. As a side note, I've redacted the victim's name, again; it's clear the only reason to include it in this thread's header was to continue TransVannian's bitter, disruptive war to promote it by any means necessary. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:*Also, close this RfC as bad-faith disruption This user has devoted hundreds of edits at this point to agitation and disruption on this topic, and is only an hour or two off an administrative block for this. Their first edit to this page was to slander the victim in an edit summary, which had to be removed by an administrator.[19] It's not unreasonable to have an RfC on this topic, but it seems clear that this RfC is simply a vehicle to continue putting the victim's name on this page as prominently and repeatedly as possible. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • No. WP:BLPNAME gives a clear mandate for erring on the side of privacy, especially in a sensitive case such as this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Still no. Even without the BLP mandate (I haven't been watching the news and didn't know the person died), erring on the side of privacy is still better in sensitive cases like this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support WP:BLPNAME only applies to living persons and not dead. Also the name is not actually her real name as proved by BBC. TransVannian (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No It is not necessary to the story. It is right to show respect to the victim and to her family. Her family are still alive, so the fact that the victim herself has died is not important here. The sensitivity of the entire topic of rape, and the refusal of some people to think that consent matters, are at the centre of why this case became notable. --AJHingston (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong no - BLP applies to all articles involving living people or the recently dead, and both apply here, also, the comment Also the name is not actually her real name as proved by BBC shows that it is INSANELY inappropriate to include a name that may not be correct in the article. I've redacted the names for the nine millionth time, and reworded the RfC heading so it is more of a valid question - and, in fact, you're more likely to gain support with this heading than with the old one... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, if it helps. The reasons are the same as the one detailed very very explicitly multiple times by myself and others. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Filer changed the wording of the question/statement in a significant way. To my opinion, this renders the RfC invalid. The Banner talk
  • No We should not publish it. However, perhaps an RfC is a good idea to get this settled once and for all. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Moral support - Per my reasons given in the DRN I personally believe that the name should be included in the article in a tactful manner. Moral support because I don't see this going that way for reasons I perfectly understand and respect Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 16:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No For the reasons mentioned above. The Banner talk 18:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Does mentioning the name break any Wikipedia policies?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No Wait until more reliable sources publish the name first.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No per Luke, and the myriad other comments. No need for me to repeat them. Begoontalk 02:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, per BLP and V. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No; let's err on the side of privacy here. Sumana Harihareswara 08:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME policy for recently deceased victims of gruesome crime - There has been a lot confusion regarding how this policy applies to recently deceased victims of gruesome crime. No user has cared to mention it in detail so I'll mention it here. The minimum time limit for not including the name anywhere on Wikipedia is six months. After six months a consensus can decide whether victim's name should be included on Wikipedia. The maximum time limit is two years however if a consensus agrees on including the name it can be included. If it does not then the name cannot be included till two years have passed from the date when the crime happened, in this case December 29, 2014. After that the name can be included however there must be reliable sources that back up that name. Also as we already know many news and media outlets say that JSP (these are the initials for the name) is her name. News websites are much more reliable than other sources so saying that we should wait for more reliable sources is incorrect. Many news websites mention the given name as the victim's name. Also later it was said that the father did not grant permission to reveal the name which also might mean that the name JSP might not actually be the victim's name. I still doubt whether WP:BLPNAME applies in case of an unproven name. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • If a name is unproven, it shouldn't be within a million miles of the article. How do you not see that? *headdesk* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If a name is unproven then it might mean that it is not the name of the victim. And since it might not be the name I think including it in the article does not violate any Wikipedia policies simply because frankly there is no policy for including or not including the unproven name of a victim of a gruesome crime. Still in these cases where there is no policy in actual a wide community consensus is preferred. That's the reason of filing this RfC. TransVannian (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Luke is correct, if the name is 'unproved' as you now claim (I originally thought this RfC was about including a sourced name which wasn't disputed) then it shouldn't be included. It's speculation. Claiming that it is unproven and, therefore, not included in the victim policy is close to wikilawyering to get round a policy. Consider accepting that it's unlikely to be included and concede gracefully and in good faith Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 09:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that's what this RfC is for. To decide whether the unproven name should be or not since there is actually no policy for it. If a consensus votes no then fine. Also an RfC is automatically closed after 30 days. Until then I think we should let everyone vote. TransVannian (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong policy, Wrong place: I might be an uninvolved user here but I have to say that WP:V only applies to the sourcing of a particular edit. The edit if reliably sourced can be included whether correct or unproven or incorrect. However it should be mentioned in the edit that the information is actually unproven. For example, if it is decided to include the name of the victim in the article you have to say that the name is unproven. You are simply applying the wrong policy in wrong place. Even unproven or wrong info can be included on Wikipedia but only if it is mentioned alongside that the info is unproven or incorrect. An easy example of this is the death toll in case of a natural disaster. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

I request all users not to delete the word unproven name and insert victim's name instead to the heading of the RfC section. By doing this you are changing the topic of an RfC filed by another user which is strictly not allowed. TransVannian (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

After your days of edit-warring and disruption, including an administrative block for your behavior, I can no longer take your comments in good faith. Just a day or two ago you were absolutely certain that we had the right name, and insistent that it appear in the article to avoid censorship. Now you suddenly claim the name is "unproven" or "false"--which the BBC source you quote absolutely does not say--so that you can plaster it over the talk page without (you claim) normal Wikipedia policies applying.
This RfC is a joke and I suggest it simply be closed and deleted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Dang, I didn't even read the rest of the stuff above. After reviewing everything, I agree with Khazar wholeheartedly. Literally just a few hours off of a block for poor conduct related to the issue and even jumping around with how the issue is being phrased. Something fishy is going on here...this RFC does appear to be an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In TV's (sort of) defense, the thread at WP:DR/N did close with an agreement to have an RfC. I just don't think that RfC was meant to be an excuse to add the victim's name one last time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The RfC is completely valid, and TransVannian was told to open it; so you cannot complain about that, and I suggest you retract your comment about it needing to be closed, Khazar. That said, the fact we keep having to redact the victim's name is very concerning, and TransVannian should not have included it, and certainly shouldn't edit war to include the name. It is perfectly possible to have a neutral RfC without including the name - the old headings were biased and actually less likely to gain support than the one I changed it to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Lukeno94. I guess I was wrong about you being disruptive. But please enough is enough. It was me who filed that RfC. You can't change the heading of an RfC just as you can't change the heading of a discussion at DRN whether you think it's biased or not. Any more change to the heading and I'm complaining about all of those who change the heading at ANI.TransVannian (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)As I said above, I wouldn't mind having a neutral RfC on this, and if TransVannian had formulated a valid RfC, I wouldn't have objected. But using it as a new platform to give the victim's name without consensus, and then edit-warring over that, makes the disruptive intent obvious. Even the summary of the issue atop the RfC is factually wrong. The BBC did not report that the father never revealed the name, as Trans states, only that the father didn't want it published. The name has been independently reported elsewhere, such as Der Speigel [20], which spoke directly to the father and gave his name as well. There's no reason to believe this name is "unproven or false"; it's been verified by multiple reliable sources and contradicted by none that I'm aware of.
It seems farcical to me to play this RfC out after so bad a start, and I stand by my earlier comment. But of course I don't mind that we disagree on it, Lukeno, and I appreciate your efforts to reshape this into something more reasonable. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely disagree with you, but the DRN process basically stated that TransVannian would be the one to open this, so, for better or for worse, here we are. Let it play out, because it'll almost certainly result in a "keep the name out vote", rather than canning this, filing another, and lengthening the process further, with further attacks flying around all over the place from various parties. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point. Striking my request. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
After reading through Khaxar's comments and realizing that BBC never meant the name was false I've red acted some of the words myself. Also I'm taking an RfC for the first time so it is expected that I will make mistakes but why am I being given a hard time because of that? TransVannian (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also The Banner should realize that comments should not be posted in Survey section please post them in this section only. Also the RfC was always about the unproven name and there is nothing in WP:RFC that says when an RfC is invalid. TransVannian (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Filer changed the wording of the question/statement in a significant way. To my opinion, this renders the RfC invalid. The Banner talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransVannian (talkcontribs) 12:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Filer should keep his hands off other peoples edits. When I put it in the vote-section, I do that because it is relevant for the vote. Stop your annoying disruptive behaviour! The Banner talk 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Other occurrences on Wikipedia

  • I hate to muddy the waters more in this RfC, but I wanted to raise the related issue of other places the victim's name occurs--other threads on this talk page, and in the headlines of two news articles quoted in our article. If we come to the consensus here that we are not including the name, do we scrub those occurrences as well? I don't have a good answer to this; not posting the full title of a news article seems inaccurate and censor-like, but posting the Mirror's headline adds the name to our article despite our decision here.
Perhaps a workaround would be to source the same information to news stories that don't give the name in the headline? The references in question are currently #25 and #27. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Absolutely not. While I strongly believe that we should follow the direction of, for instance, the New York Times and not publish her name, to then go even farther and decide to not publish the name of any news outlet that did publish it is going way too far. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Well, if it's okay with you, I'd like to err on the side of privacy for now and leave the non-name-in-headline source in the article. If the final consensus is that the name-in-headline source is strongly preferable for any reason, it can always be restored. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, that seems like a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this again, the quotation was easily sourced elsewhere, so I've gone ahead and done so for now. If it's decided that the victim's name should be included in the article, we can restore one of the original sources or just leave this one. (I don't think all three of the sources that originally appeared were needed anyway).
That still leaves the talk page mentions above, but those can easily be redacted at the close of this RfC if other editors feel that's appropriate. Another solution might simply be to archive it. Since the information is available via Google search, I don't think we need to scrub it from the edit history; I think we simply shouldn't actively present it, if that distinction makes sense. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Khazar2, there's no need to scrub the name off the talk pages. They're not in article space so not really accessible to the average reader and, besides, the information can be found quickly with google Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 16:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Heading restored

Hello I am an uninvolved user here. I came through here from talk page of Transvannian. Although I have never used an RfC, I have carefully read through WP:RFC after noticing that he was blocked for disruptive editing here. While he is right on the account that other users cannot change the heading of the RfC whether they view it's incorrect or biased, he is completely wrong on that he has a right to change the heading of the RfC if he wishes to. He cannot. That's why I've restored the original heading. I've noticed that he has not only displayed disruptive behavior here but on his talk page too by calling admin Bbb23 a power abuser. Although I've changed the heading I will not participate in the survey (or vote should I say) since it will make me an involved user. I seriously think this RfC requires an uninvoled user. If you think I am doing something wrong then please do notify me and how can I correct it. Thank you and happy editing or should I say polling :). Cheers! KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The only reason the heading and RfC question were changed was due to the BLP violation, and the fact TV had specifically been told to not use the name anywhere unless consensus went in his favour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I actually never talked about the name of the victim. Yes her name can be removed there is no problem with that. But you cannot remove the word unproven. As The Banner has already said by removing the word unproven you are significantly changing the whole reason behind this RfC because by removing it you are saying it is the actual name of the victim. However as you know many sources say that the family did not grant permission which maybe means that it might not be the name of the victim. You can remove the name. But neither you or other users or even the filer or even an administrator cannot remove the word unproven even if it's biased. Removing it is same as disrupting the RfC irrespective of the reason behind it. So please take care of that in future. Besides I'm sure this RfC will go in your favor. Cheers! KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closed

The RFC was closed with consensus, and this additional issue is over. It's time to drop the stick and move forward. Let's focus on improving the article now, please. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus thinks the name should not be included for the time being then I can understand. Therefore, the name should not be included until the time limit of 2 years has expired. My agreeing with the consensus proves that I was never trying to enforce my views as incorrectly said by some editors. I ask them to please apolgise. TransVannian (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oh for goodness sake TransVannian. YOU were the problem editor throughout this... you've misrepresented sources, you've made inappropriate comments and accusations, and now you're making up an arbitrary figure of when you intend to reopen this debacle. Stop wasting people's time, and drop the stick. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Calm down TransVannian. I can understand you were only trying to do the "right thing" by having a wide community consensus and it is good you have accepted the outcome regardless. Frankly if you think you have been treated unfairly then you can tell the other editors to apologize. However, I don't think they need to apologize to you because you have been uncivil multiple times with other users. You can insert the name after 2 years if that is the maximum time limit for not including the name of the victim. However there is no proof that the name is real. I can see that you might not have understood the policy clearly. According to the policy it is better not to include questionable material related to a victim of a gruesome crime. Instead it is better to discuss whether the questionable material should be included or not. After two years there is no problem with you or anyone adding the name as "unproven" in the article. However that is a long time away. So I honestly advice you to let this matter go for now and focus on other articles that need editing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No one is apologizing to you, TV, and it's quite silly of you to demand that. It's also a misuse of this talk page to post about something that has no relevance to improving the article--at this point, you seem to be simply trying to feed your desperate need for drama. There's still lots of articles on Wikipedia that need work; let's all get back to work and get on with our lives. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Where do you get that time limit of two years from? No = No, without any limitations. The Banner talk 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not the victim who asked that her name be withheld, but her family. So I agree that arbitrary time limits are unhelpful and inappropriate. --AJHingston (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

For those of you don't know maximum time limit for "questonable material" including name according to WP:AVOIDVICTIM is two years. After that it can be added. I'm going to add the name when the limit expires even if you kill me after that. I am not going to let you violate Wikipedia policies just because you think it is a so-called "disrespect" to the victim. Seriously who are you fooling? I know you don't give two hoots about her or her respect. You're only doing this because not revealing a victim's name is more acceptable in the society and if you will support including her name you will chastised for it and will be threatned by everyone just like I have. I'll tell you this once I'm not a coward and I don't blindly follow what the majority says is right. I follow only that is actually right. Unlike most people I'm not a dumb drone and I care less what the society thinks about me. If I help someone I just go away from there because I don't want to waste my time listening to their thanks and I don't care what they think about me. I'm going to add the unproven name after time limit expires because there is actually a policy for it. And your consensus doesn't have a say in it irrespective of what you might think. So I advice you to just deal with it. TransVannian (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Either you redact this now, or I'm taking you to ANI under WP:NOTHERE grounds. That post is so unbelievable that I can't understand how you can be so out of touch with reality or human decency. Yuck. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry the policy is actually WP:BDP. According to this policy-

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

There does exist a policy related to questionable material related to a recently dead victim. And two years is the maximum extension for not adding questionable material beyond the date of death. Hope this clears up everything. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case the rationale of many of us, at least, has been protecting the relatives, who are very much alive. --AJHingston (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Lukeno94, TransVannian is correct. WP:BDP policy applies to recently deceased persons. There is no wikilayering. You should retract your statement. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Now read the other posts by TransVannian, and you'll see what I mean by "wikilawyering". Instead of retracting their utterly obscene and outrageous statement, they tried to wikilawyer around and keep it. Now they're blocked, so that should bring this disruption to an end. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
"And your consensus doesn't have a say in it irrespective of what you might think."
If this is your attitude, that you have to do what you think is "true" despite what everyone else thinks, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Debates over content are settled by consensus according to guidelines, not how one editor interprets them. Your insistence on including this one fact, instead of moving on to work on other articles is puzzling and shows an intransigence that will not serve you well if you want to continue working in this environment. (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop creating a drama

Enough of it already. The user TransVannian has already been blocked. This talk page for discussion on how to improve the article and not to discuss somebody's behavior. I ask all users to stop creating such a drama over this article and stop arguing again and again since by doing this you are being disruptive yourself. Also I ask them to move on to other things since the RfC has already been closed and the name will not be included. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • If you want the drama to stop... why create this subsection? Now TransVannian's talk page access has been revoked, it would've stopped anyway. You've just shot yourself in the foot with this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know he had been blocked when I posted my comment. My apologies to everyone. (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Article changes...

The article has been rearranged with a heading "Juvenile defendant" followed by two sections. I don't care for it at all and prefer the previous arrangement. I'd also rather see a "Verdict and sentencing" section rather than separate sections for the adults. I'll leave it alone and hope that other editors will agree...or not. Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this was started by a new editor who created a level 2 header to add a sentence about "verdict", and another editor then rearranged the rest of the article to match this. I agree with you that this is rather awkward--there's no reason to have a subheader for a 2-3 sentence paragraph--so I've restored the old format. As for a separate verdict and sentencing section is needed yet, since we only have about five sentences on the two verdicts together, but if you wanted to try it out I'm game for seeing how it looks. If there's feeling here that I've reverted the format too hastily, always happy to discuss!
When this week's excitement dies down, btw, we should take another run at GA. Some of the defendants plan to appeal, but I think the situation can now be considered stable enough to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I can agree with a new section for verdict and sentencing as many readers are going to expect to see it and more reactions may be published. I think I would wait a week or two for a GA try as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have a different name?

I just saw this on the Main Page, and after looking it up, I find the name very surprising. As described, this wasn't a gang rape - it should be something more like the 2012 Delhi gang rape and mutilation murder. It should have a clearer title so that it is clearer why a gang rape led to death sentences, and because as currently named it gives the impression that people are obsessed with the "sexual" part of it rather than the monstrously horrible killing part. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(Come to think of it, 2012 Delhi gang rape and evisceration murder would be better, I think.) Wnt (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's discuss. --    L o g  X   16:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The BBC's headline for today is "Death penalties for Delhi gang rape", not murder. The New York Times headline is "4 Death Sentences in Rape Case That Riveted India". Al Jazeera's headline is "Death sentence for Indian gang rapists". This is consistent with how the case has been reported all along. We should follow the reliable sources, not the opinions of Wiki editors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If I do a news search for "Delhi rape" I do get many articles of that type, yes; but if I do a search for "Delhi murder" there is a seemingly inexhaustible flow of stories mentioning both. My feeling is that our article titles don't need to follow the conventions of newspaper headlines chosen for space considerations when printed in a big font - the fact that sources call it a murder is sufficient. I will admit, I don't see sources saying "mutilation" or "evisceration" in their headlines... yet the description seems reasonable. Is there any title you would agree to that includes the word "murder"? Wnt (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is at its common name. Agreed that the incident is really a gang rape as well as a murder, but we should stick to what reliable sources call it. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Wnt, since you seem to suggest I'm being selective, here's a more comprehensive look at today's major news sources:
  • Guardian: "Delhi rape: men sentenced to death"
  • Times of India: "Death sentence for all 4 rapists, Nirbhaya's parents say 'we are finally at peace'"
  • Washington Post: "4 sentenced to death by hanging in India bus rape"
  • Wall Street Journal: "Four Sentenced to Death in Delhi Rape"
  • BBC: "Death penalties for Delhi gang rape"
  • Al Jazeera: "Death sentence for Indian gang rapists"
  • New York Times: "4 Death Sentences in Rape Case That Riveted India"
  • CNN: "4 sentenced to death in India rape"
  • Fox News: "4 men sentenced to death in India gang rape case"
  • Hindustan Times: "Delhi gang-rape convicts get death: verdict in 3 minutes, 3 days after ruling"
  • Reuters: "Four convicted rapists get death penalty in India"
  • Xinhua: "4 rapists in Delhi gang rape sentenced to death"
  • Times of London: "Cheers greet death sentence for four over Delhi bus gang-rape"
  • RT: "4 attackers in Delhi gang rape case sentenced to hang"
  • Chicago Tribune: "Indian judge sentences Delhi rapists to die for 'gruesome crime'"
  • NBC News: "Four to be hanged for their roles in infamous India gang-rape"
  • CBC News: "India gang rape culprits sentenced to death"
  • "Four men to be hanged for Indian gang rape"
  • ABC news: "Delhi bus gang rapists sentenced to hang"
I found only one headline that called it a rape/murder case, in the Los Angeles Times: "Four sentenced to death in India gang-rape, murder case". Is there any news organization I'm missing that you consider important? The common name for this case seems to me super-clear per the above. If anything I'd suggest we add the word "bus" before we add the word "murder", but I don't think we need to add either. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As much as anything else, the proposed titles are incredibly clunky and way longer than is necessary. By all means, create redirects, but I don't agree with moving it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't see sources calling this a "case" at this point (or 2012, for that matter...) - they all say simply gang rape or gang rape and murder. Per [21] I can at least justify "gang rape and murder" (I'd omit "trial" from that source because this article, unlike the story, is about all aspects of the event). So can we have at least 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder? Wnt (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I would support cutting "case" from the title for brevity, but I don't see any policy basis to add "murder". This is clearly the common name, and adding more detail to the title isn't needed for disambiguation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. We should drop case from the title as unnecessary. "2012 Delhi gang rape" is precise and clear enough. --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've got no issue whatsoever with dropping the "case" bit from the title (in fact, I support it), but I don't agree with adding murder in to the title. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd strongly agree with suggestions to drop the word "case". I also feel strongly that the word "murder" would not be appropriate. "Murder" suggests that she died at the time of the rape rather than linger on for several days. Gandydancer (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I need to join some Olde English Wikipedia. "Murder" only applies if an attack leads to instant death? Abraham Lincoln wasn't murdered because a doctor had a chance to malpractice on him? Rape naturally leads to death, loss of intestines, and is done with a metal rod? (It reminds me of the people elsewhere who are insisting that you can be racist against Islam) I am not impressed with the new language. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Editors of this article have worked well together, without sarcastic remarks and attempts to belittle other editors. We've produced a good article through cooperation, and I'd guess that others have enjoyed their work here, as have I. Please take your insulting comments to another article where editors like to engage in this sort of talk. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a murder case, the title needs to reflect that fact. I think the proposal above is too wordy and misses the simple point which is this is a rape-murder case, the defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death. Append "murder" to the title, because that's what this article discusses. Shadowjams (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the page renaming discussion is really serious one, it should be done per WP:RM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's not uncommon to have move discussions on the page themselves, especially when highly trafficked pages. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Even with RM the discussion will take place here itself. Only then it will be transcluded at various locations for more audience visibility and proper admin closure at the end. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
When I created this page, it was under a different title. I subsequently shifted it to the current title. I considered renaming it to the 2012 Delhi bus gang rape case, but by then it had hit ITN already and I didn't want to bother. When all this happened; the girl was still alive. The article primarily deals with the rape along with what happened afterwards. I think the present name is fine enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I too disagree to the usage of the word "murder", and agree to removing the word "case" from the title. To that accord, I have started a new RM section to establish consensus for the move before someone actually moves the page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree, adding Murder to the title isn't needed. It wasn't murder per se, it was more of a homicide resulting from assault. While I'm not too clear with what the law says; this is my interpretation of the case. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

article image

I am not sure why people actively showing up for a protest should be tagged as not wanting to be seen μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have returned the appropriate image. There are hundreds of rapes in India including many in which the woman dies, but there has never been a rape that has resulted in a protest like this and the mass protests have even resulted in changes in laws regarding rape in India. Gandydancer (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
What's this "tagged as not wanting to be seen" nonsense? In the absence, obviously, of the rape, readers will expect to see an image of the scene or location (or the bus) where it took place. Seeing the picture of a small ragbag of protesters, in the infobox, one quick conclusion to draw is that the article is about the protests. But these were in fact secondary. I don't know which of the available pictures is the best for this article, but I'd argue the current one isn't. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The protests have been a huge part of the story from the early days; I think it's a reasonable infobox picture. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Given the fact that the rape did not occur in any specific scene or location, and I very much doubt that very many readers would expect to see a photo of a bus as the lead photo (or even a location, if there was one), I believe that what you term as the "ragbag" photo is the preferred one for the lead. First off, it is insulting to the protestors to be called a ragbag of protestors. It was the hundreds of such protests that brought justice for the victim and her family, and brought about what was called a consciousness raising event for the treatment of rape victims in India. In fact, in her initial statement after the sentencing, the mother of the victim thanked the protesters and the media. Of the five photos, I prefer the one we are using because it is an evening photo with most of the view of the protest signs and little view of the individual protestors. Perhaps in time we will have something even better such as a memorial event, but for now this is the best we have. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The Raisina Hill picture from later down looks more impressive for a summary photo. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
There are pics of the bus on the net. At the least I think a photo of the bus should be included in the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
KahnJohn, are any of those pictures public domain? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I just gave an advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2012 Delhi gang rape. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case2012 Delhi gang rape – As mentioned above by other editors, it seems redundant to have the word "case" on the page title name. Sources seem to be following this particular name, or its variants. Hence it appears to be the best choice for renaming. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - I agree. I don't know why I added case to the title in the first place. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:COMMONNAME and logic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a harmless but unneeded redundancy. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and lukeno94. --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This one i support. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support change. Gandydancer (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Common Name. RouLong (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Cut the case --    L o g  X   18:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - do it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Unless someone is planning an artice about the raps itself (and only the rape) there is no need for this article to use case.-- (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Since this article concerns about the whole incident and not just the case against the convicts I think the name of the article should be changed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA nomination

I have renominated this article for GA considering the main verdicts for the accused has been given out; and we would not be expected an extremely high number of edits. Likewise, the expected viewcount is set to decrease in the next few days, giving even lesser likelihood of major editing. The article certainly seems good enough to get there. Hopefully it will not face any major hurdles.

Khazar2, ping.

As always, I would not be available full time to get through all issues that arise during the GA. Hopefully someone can get that covered.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I can help once a list of what needs to be fixed is made. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Soni et al.--I'll be watching too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review is in progress. Pinging everyone who wanted to keep an eye out here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. I hope it passes this time. I'll watch the review, and fix whatever is needed, as far as I can. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)