Jump to content

Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Question on addition of the novel released in December

This has been added to the lead:

On 16 December 2013, a novel titled 'I'm a Woman & I'm on SALE' was released and dedicated to Nirbhaya in her memory. [12]

I hate to be a meanie, but I think it needs to go... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I modified the opening sentence. It originally said ...rape and murder... I felt it was incomplete and changed it to subsequent, then consequent, before replacing it with resultant. Could someone tell me their opinion on this? I feel that a word is required between and and murder, but help is needed here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How about, "...rape and brutal attack that resulted in death"? (the death was the result of the attack, not the rape)Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Brutal doesn't exactly sound like a neutral word. I think maybe ..rape and subsequent assault that lead to her death..? How does it sound? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
How about "rape and assault that led to her death..."? Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that if virtually anyone who understands English and knows about the attack would call it "brutal", then it's a neutral word. The word "brutal" is a severe understatement. Using a "more neutral" word than a word like "brutal", in this case, actually results in distorting what in fact happened.
For that matter it is true that if an attack leads to death that would not have occurred without the attack, then the crime of murder has been committed. I do not understand why the title of this article does not read "2012 Delhi gang rape and murder".Daqu (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should the victim's name be mentioned in the article?

After reading the RFC I find that there is consensus to include the name of the victim. WP:NOTCENSORED was the majority argument, and I find a lot of the replies either directly quoted it or followed its logic. The only policy based dissent is based on WP:BLP and subsections of it. This is a minority viewpoint, and since the victim is dead, WP:BLP is not applicable. AlbinoFerret 19:25, 5 April 2015 (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.

Should the victim's name be mentioned in the article? Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Background

See earlier RFC on topic where the consensus was "against including the alleged victim's name at this time", and doubts were also expressed whether the name being mentioned was the correct one. The new development, motivating this RFC, is the release of a BBC documentary India's Daughter on the subject of this article in which the victim's name is used, including by the father who says (BBC's trans. from Hindi) "We have no problem in revealing her name. In fact we are happy to reveal it." Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey

To be clear, I support naming the victim without reservation as explained below; I also see statements of support above from User:Ronki23, User:109.144.229.171, User:Gandydancer, below from 86.187.18.204, and via recent direct editing from User:Cupidvogel, User:Aditya.XMR, and 61.16.142.166. There is no consensus to censor here. I don't even see many people for it. Please stop claiming one. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion. As can be seen in the above section I was against including the name while the family's wishes were unclear (since inclusion of the name is not central to the article). However the father's explicit statement in the BBC documentary naming the victim and expressing support for her name being used; and, both parents participation in that documentary as well as in numerous subsequent discussions about the event and the documentary on Indian TV; allay my concerns in that regard. Secondly, media sources across not only UK, Germany, Spain, Australia, Taiwan, US etc, but also in India (eg mainstream news sources, such as The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Economic Times etc) have begun using the name. While there are still some hold-outs (ironically including BBC News website), I believe the weight of editorial judgment favors inclusion of the name. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - [1] and [2] show that the father has consistently been conflicted on whether the victim should actually be named or not. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the other family members actually support the victim being named; indeed, in the latter link, evidence to the contrary existed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: Whether or not her family wants her to be named has no bearing on whether Wikipedia should include her name. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say her name is. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: The entire family doesn't matter. Only the next of kin matters. That's the mother and father. They have released the name to many news sources, including the documentary India's Daughter (as many others have also stated). Rajthapar (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support name is used by international Anglophone media, including BBC and The Telegraph. Wikipedia takes the POV of credible, international Anglophone media, not what individual editors, from their own original research, consider appropriate. The Wikimedia guidelines on contoversial content lay out a principle that "restrictions to intellectual openness will not as a rule be made when demanded by institutions ... They will be made, when they are, in response to clear and documentable responses by large numbers of individual users, unmoved by ulterior motives, when deemed legitimate under terms and conditions determined by members of the Wikimedia community"
The documentary India's Daughter mentions that families of rape victims face a culture of shame, and many feel that it's better for rape victims to be killed than have to face social stigma. In my opinion, the goal of Wikipedia is not to pander to that kind of mindset, even if that upsets people in the short term. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A combination of IAR, BLP and common decency goes against your viewpoint. A Meta "study" from five years ago has no relevance on this Wiki. It is common for, in sensitive cases such as this one where the family object to having the victim named, for that name not to be included. This goes for both Wikipedia and most respectable news media as well (although the latter has been caught out by the contradictory statements by the father). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: First of all, IAR only applies to improving the encyclopedia. In this case, we might make a few people mad, but that is outweighed by our dissemination of knowledge to the population. Using IAR like that is saying we should ban drawings of Muhammad because some people don't like them. Secondly, BLP states that biographies of living persons should always take the utmost care in making sure that the article is true. The name of the victim is currently not in doubt. Thirdly, you argue "common decency". That argument falls afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED, as we do not censor content based on whether people like it or not. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Jyoti Singh is named in the third paragraph of India's Daughter. Note that a reference in this article is from 5 Jan 2013. You aren't arguing to remove this ref, I hope, so all you're arguing over is what prominence her already released name gets. You argue there should be "ethics" but the strong consensus for showing the name means this is really just a personal opinion. If the international media has used the real name as far back as Jan 2013 there's really no point trying to limit the visibility of it. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking to me, or Lukeno94? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm going to wait a few more days before I decide. In the past it has been my belief that the family had decided that they did not object but I preferred to wait for better evidence. As for now, I wouldn't make a decision on anything that was said in the past as it is understandable that the parents may have wavered in their decision, and furthermore it can be hard to trust press reports when it comes to any sensational news reporting - after the more recent death of the two girls who supposedly hung themselves there were a least a half a dozen different versions of the incident flying around in the press. After I watched the documentary (before YouTube deleted it) where I heard/saw the parents clearly say that they wanted her name published I was ready to support WP's use of her name. But reading the #1 link above, I've decided to wait to see if anything more is published re her name before I decide. Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC) BTW, just to throw it out there, the use of a victim's name remains problematic for the press--see: [3] Gandydancer (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronki23 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)ronki23

  • Support Because the victims parents broadcast her name on the documentary. So if her parents broadcast it, and the rest of the world (bar India and countries that banned youtube) know it, I find it silly not to have her name on here. Just to be clear I joined wikipedia as the victim's name still not being on here 2 years after the crime was a pet peeve of mine

Another reason is that people should know about the goings on in India (India itself considering it was blocked there) and the documentary is now trending globally with " #Indiasdaughter "

Ronki23 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)ronki23

  • Support inclusion Of course her name should not be used in any disrespectful way - but, at this point, I don't see any sense in exclusion since the victim's name is now widespread public knowledge. Her name is also in public court records and numerous press articles. Both her parents refer to her directly in interviews recently broadcast on NDTV (in connection with the documentary). In those interviews both parents objected to the banning of the documentary - so, if we are concerned about their wishes, why should Wikipedia prohibit the use of her name which is used in that documentary? Chris Fynn (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support inclusion Being that the parents (next of kin) have released the name to multiple media outlets (including the documentary India's Daughter, where victim's father explicitly states that not only is he happy for her name to be public, but that they actively want her name to be known), there is no reason for Wikipedia to feel apprehensive about including the name. In addition, there is a new anti-rape law being written that bears her name. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an independent information outlet and, as Chess stated, what the family wants is irrelevant to the factual integrity of Wikipedia. And since the name is publicly available anyway, this is a moot point. Mikestaks (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support inclusion It's simply a fact that her name has already been posted all over the internet and in documentary films. People, in general, come to Wikipedia for information. Censoring information does a disservice to it's users and harms Wikipedia's reputation. Place it in different context, if a person was found guilty of a crime but they were really popular and the consensus was that we shouldn't list the crime in their wiki bio would this seem logical in any way shape or form? The genie is out of the bottle. Get with the program or continue to have people think less and less of Wikipedia as a true source of unbiased information.
  • Strongly Support inclusion. Totally concur with the above and will only caveat that it appears to me that consensus has been reached. There are many reliable sources including today's article [1] that clearly state the wishes of the parents to have their daughters name known to the public. If 90% of wiki editors think it should be included then it would seem pretty logical to include it. By the way, if you google her name it links to this page (among others).LogicalLarry (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mild support If the name is generally known then it should be a candidate for inclusion and the only arguments for exclusion should be for encyclopedic reasons. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The fact that a few newspapers publish the name, more or less against the wishes of the father, is no permit to publish it here too. Common decency alone should already prevent mentioning her name. The Banner talk 02:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if you care to check the links below, the parents clearly stated (very recently) that they want their daughter's name known. So much for that argument.LogicalLarry (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Note - I was one of the commenters of the original RFC (where the discussion ended with a decision to withhold the name)) I do not see sufficient proof that publishing of the name has been agreed upon by the father. There continues to be conflicting sources stating both that he agrees to and that he does not agree to the name being made public and until such time as that matter is resolved (whether by unambiguous statements from the father or by other members of the family), the name of the victim should not be added to the article.
While WP:BLP (Privacy of names) does not currently apply on the article, it seems to be the closest example to the relevant policies to be followed in this particular case. Hence taking this policy as a general guideline for this case, my own personal understanding is that the privacy issue still exists, and without sufficient evidence that the family members agree to the name being made public, the matter is in favour of not publishing the name.
Lastly, the (only) major argument from the Support side that I have noticed is that "The name is now in public domain/knowledge" and that "The name has been mentioned in multiple sources". Given the relatively sensitive nature of this topic, I do not think WP:NOTCENSORED should be taken as a stand-alone argument simply because the issue here is not of objectionable content. I suggest the closing admin take note of these and the strength of the arguments rather than a simple !vote.
Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 01:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  1. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/03/10/rape-documentary-banned-by-india-premieres-in-new-york/?intcmp=latestnews
  2. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/03/10/rape-documentary-banned-by-india-premieres-in-new-york/?intcmp=latestnews
    • I can verify that the father does explicitly say the name followed by the text I quoted in the background section, 56 minutes into the documentary. Not linking, since I am not certain of the copyright status of the video. Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Without knowing about the particular source in the question, we cannot decide about the inclusion. I understand the problem behind the status of the copyrights and still if we are going to add anything about the name we would require a source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The father, if I remember correctly, is the one that has been quoted as changing his mind a few times. I'd rather have a solid message that the whole family (or at least the majority of it) wanted the name out there before supporting any inclusion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In his interview to PTI, he said "Despite clearly telling them not to make the name and photo of our daughter public, they have gone ahead with it and this is not right.. we will take legal action against this"--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course. I'm astounded that people are contemplating censoring this name. It is public knowledge. That's all that matters when deciding what Wikipedia should cover. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that tells us we have to conceal well known facts. Our job is to guide the reader to the facts, not to play God and decide what is best for him to hear or not to hear. I should add that I am interested in seeing the juvenile's name here also, though I am having some trouble finding a source on the first search. This source suggests the boy may be lynched when he gets out of juvenile jail, so obviously a lot of people already know who he is; it's just a matter of finding the right sources. Any suggestions? Wnt (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What a hugely cold-hearted comment that has very little to do with BLP. Just because a "lot of people already know who he is", does NOT mean we should include the name. If the family at large do not want the name in the public eye for their own privacy reasons, then we should not include the name, no matter how many "reliable sources" decide to flout the family's wishes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about what the family wants, what the company wants, what the government wants --- it's about providing the information. You have fallen gravely into error when you start thinking more about control over the information than providing it. This is what "the sum of the world's knowledge" is about - the sum, without subtractions. We should try to be a reasonable competitor of Google, not its shackled shadow. And as for the boy? Well, with or without us, people apparently know who he is, so either way, I suppose he will just have to be careful, like a woman after dark. That's not our fault. Wnt (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not have to include every single fact about something. There is something called human decency, which apparently is something you lack a shred of, or even a comprehension of what it is. It's one thing for an obscure news site to mention a criminal's name - it's another entirely to include that name here on Wikipedia. This is doubly extended if the family of the victim do not want her name to be public knowledge - BLP absolutely applies to them, And if you're going to make the fucking disgraceful comment "I suppose he will just have to be careful, like a woman after dark. That's not our fault." then you have no place in this discussion, or anywhere else. Women only have to be "careful" after dark in certain parts of the world due to attitudes like that, where they are fair game to sickos. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think I want women to have to be careful after dark, then you understand nothing at all. My point is that just as a woman should not be held to blame if she fails to worry about when she goes out and what she wears, Wikipedia should not be held to blame if we fail to worry about whether a defendant might someday be lynched. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Even when we edit Wikipedia, we remain human and continue to have simple human responsibilities such as the one spelt out - as policy - in WP:AVOIDVICTIM: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. NebY (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok if you are in UK its legal to watch this on BBC iplayer [1] The section of interest here is very near the end and begins about 55 mins 28 seconds in with the shot of a river. Her father speaks on voiceover in what I assume is Hindi. The subtitles at this very point begin with the words "Our daughters name is Jyoti Singh" & continue "We have no problem revealing her name", The next caption says "In fact we are happy to reveal it" & he continues about how she has become a symbol & wants her memory to bring light into the world etc as the camera shows a candle amongst flowers being lit & floating down a river at dawn/sunset.

It is a tad 'overly cinematic' & one cant help but suspect that the film makers wrote some of it, or suggested it & clearly the issue of naming her & thus breaking her honour/modesty/privacy is a 'scandalous' one for many in Indian culture etc

But even so its clear that whatever reservations the family may have had about publicly naming her they've now put them aside most emphatically for whatever reason.

86.187.18.204 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC) avsp 5th march 2015 21:54-ish

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05534p0/storyville-20142015-19-indias-daughter

Maybe for full verification we should confirm that his words have been translated correctly/fully? I dont know what the protocol for that is, but I've yet to see Indians on twitter complaining about the translation But I suppose this is verging a possibly rather specious 'no evidence, thus proof' kind of deal, which probably is judged as 'sound methodology' or something here. Maybe? 86.187.18.204 (talk)avsp 5th march 2015 22:20-ish — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for providing that evidence. I no longer strongly oppose the name being included, based on that evidence; however, given the father's apparent conflicting decisions based on this, and the questions surrounding the ethos of the documentary itself, I'm going to remain neutral. I see no evidence for why we should include the name of the teenage perpetrator, however, and will continue to oppose that inclusion until we do have evidence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, there was no need to wait for that. The 2013 article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/exploring-the-lives-of-the-rape-victim-and-suspects-in-india-a-879187.html explains that "But her father decided to release the name of India's daughter -- his daughter. He wanted the world to know her name. It was Jyoti Singh Pandey." The article also names the friend Awindra Pratap Pandey. By being willing to look at who these people are, this article also notes that they were not engaged because they were of different castes, the man the highest, the woman a lower caste. What it doesn't say, would be interesting to know, is if the difference in caste would be apparent to the rapists and might have influenced their behavior. Wnt (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The position in that article seems to only be in the context of a new law, but the Spiegel source I cite is from two weeks after yours. Still... I'm not personally eager to get into this because as I've said I don't actually care if the father is for or against it - I don't believe that historical facts are personal property. It's only that some expressed reasoning here seems to care. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is precisely why I wanted to hear from the whole family/majority of the family, rather than the father; he's already taken apparently conflicting stances on this matter, and, for that matter, ones the rest of the family haven't agreed with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
What are we supposed to do? Wait until 20 different newspapers have published about whether the father/brother/son/whatever of any given crime victim (or even perpetrator?) authorizes us to use the name or not? Take it out every other week when they change their mind again? Add it back the week after? Or just have every article be titled The Crime Against Somebody and not provide any biographical detail and chop out the sources that provide too much information? No. We should just do what we're here to do, provide the facts and help people navigate the most informative sources. Wnt (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Totally concur with the above and the below editor apparently doesn't follow current news as there was an article a couple days ago where the father clearly stated that he wanted his daughter named. There's a link down below. Calling someone a "Troll" just because they don't agree with you or defer to your "authority" is more childish than actually being a troll. IMHOLogicalLarry (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you're not going to contribute anything beyond trolling, then go away and go to a less controversial topic. Common decency says that if a family don't want a victim named (when they were not a public figure beforehand), that you don't name them. When one family member is giving out conflicting information, and no other family member has ever voiced anything publicly other than "we don't want her named", then that's the position we should take. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW other wiki articles name her & one of the cites names her in the footnotes.

My view is that its not a neutral position to hide her name as this is being used as a justification for banning the documentary by some ppl in India who I'd argue are doing so purely coz of some petty political party squabble.

But then for pretty much the same can be said about arguing that for including her name.

There is no neutral position.

The name is in the public domain

There is a clear statement from the father using the phrase 'our daughter' and seemingly no record of the mother disagreeing & the doc begins with a caption card saying it was made with the cooperation of both the mother ~& father who are both named individually.

What possible reason is there to exclude it apart from the non-neutral position of partisan support in some, to me, arcane seeming political party squabble in India?

And were the father's prevarications such that he was totally opposed to her name being public anyway?

Standard wiki practice is to name ppl unless there's a good reason not to, isn't it? I can see no reason other than political party partisanship in this case.

I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise, but arguing that there isn't clear support from her family seems a very weak position to me.

I mean what evidence would be acceptable?

Would the family have to come here & edit it in themselves or what?

& even if the parents divorce & fall out & the mother publicly takes a contrary view at a later date it could be edited out then maybe, surely?

Sorry to ramble

86.187.18.204 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) avsp 6th march 2015 01:52-ish

Given all the father's prevarications, & the seeming significance the naming issue has in Indian politics it almost at a point where the naming issue should have a section in the article maybe?

86.187.37.123 (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)avsp 6th march 2015 13:00-ish

So any consensus? It seems only one member is opposing this ( @Lukeno94 ) even though several newspapers and the FAMILY THEMSELVES have broadcast her name and photograph on the BBC documentary. Her father was giving conflicting statements but that was BEFORE this documentary.

Ronki23 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe that the entire post-incidence demonstrations and agitations in India were not for a single named girl, victim of that specific incidence of gang rape, rather these agitations were in honor of the "Daughters of the Nation". Not only the one who is dead, but for millions of them who are still alive and looking forward for a safe place to live with dignity! That was the reason, at most of the places the name of that specific girl was not used, rather the name "Nirbhaya" "Damini" etc were used. Even the fund which was set by GOI was not after her name, rather it was "Nirbhaya" fund. New laws were enacted - again not after the name of that girl, but as "Nirbhaya Act".
Then using the real name of that girl, or not using it does not make any difference at all. If there is a "legal" permission to do so, go ahead and if not, just don't. We can not go by emotions here on wiki.
In order to decide whether there is a "legal" ban on use of her real name, one has to search if it was banned in any court ruling in India or abroad. Also we have to see that it was not banned by her "Parents" by specific requests to court or media. If both the cases are not there, her name can be disclosed as usual, if there is support from reliable source as per WP standards to verify the name (which of course is) - this however will not have much impact on the content of this article and world-wide discussion about "Women Safety and Honour". Educationtemple (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, bans in other countries have absolutely no effect on what can be published in Wikipedia. That line of thinking is preposterous. That's like saying "well, it's banned in Iran so we can't publish it". It's also directly contrary to Wikipedia's rules. Attempting to censor something on Wiki just because it's censored somewhere else on the planet is beyond silly.LogicalLarry (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Then there's this [1]LogicalLarry (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/msjyotisinghpandey
Since when did Facebook become a Reliable Source? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Goes to show that support for releasing the victims name has been given by friends and family. You don't get personal photos of family members and their supportive comments on the internet if they are against something. It also shows that the name is most definitely in the public domain and hence the only people still censoring is, well, you.LogicalLarry (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
How do you that the page is even a genuine one set up by family and friends? I'm not censoring anything here. I'm only trying to work within policies. If they don't suit you, it isn't my fault. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to ignore all the other articles as well? All of them mention the name. It's clearly in the public domain. In fact, whether the page is genuine or not doesn't really matter. It reflects as to the widespread nature of the knowledge of the name. It isn't a reliable source to point to while mentioning the name, but it does have weight from the point of view of this RFC. Shashwat986 → talk 03:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In Jan 2013, according to this news, father of that girl himself disclosed the name and wanted the world to know her name.

Now in March 2015, according to this news, he warned that he will take 'legal action' since the name was disclosed in the documentary. It seems that he has either become unstable or he does whatsoever suits him. If disclosing the name suits him to get attention, he does that and if someone discloses that, he warn to take legal action to make news headlines again. What so ever case may be - but In the view of this latest new, it would now be illegal to publish the name of that rape victim (despite the fact that it is known to entire world, and published a million times in all sort of reliable sources). This rfc may be closed at this point with the conclusion to NOT publish the name. Period. Educationtemple (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your reference talking about it being illegal to publish the name of the victim. Shashwat986 → talk 07:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I dont care, do whatsoever you wish to do. If it is wrong, someone will take care. I am off this discussion since I dont repeat the same thing twice. Educationtemple (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
We're at 28 days in now; I think it's time to close this in support of inclusion. The next thing to find out is if we're going to have any troubles including reference to Mohammad Afroz (aka Raju), who is unnamed by most but not all RSes in India (exceptions: [4][5] because he was 17 years 8 months at the time of the attack. It's not clear to me whether anyone will invoke any of the text about "prolonging the victimization", though my feeling nowadays is that Wikipedia will censor anything censored anywhere in the world, except China or "rogue states". Wnt (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wnt, pardon me if I am mistaken but how does censorship fit into this picture? It is easy to portray this issue as a clearcut WP:NOTCENSORSHIP case, but I do not believe those who voted for Support did so for the sake of censorship. I agree it is time to close this but my personal judgement would lean towards an Oppose/No conclusion because it is safer to err on the side of caution when a sensitive case like this comes up (With respect to the father's stance). However, of course the closing admin will hopefully have a sound enough judgement and read-through of all the arguments and weigh them appropriately, not need our views on how it should be closed. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, name her as "Nirbhaya" as the Government of India has been doing and close tis discussion. Educationtemple (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to introduce information re use of her name into the article. I have been hoping for an article that actually discusses it but AFAIK nothing has come out. Also, AFAIK the story in The Hindu is the only one that states that the parents object. I can only guess that this story is a plant as can happen with the press. Any thoughts or improvements to what I presented are welcome. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Gandydancer, On a casual search I found IBN and India Today at the very least. The same story has been covered in multiple newspapers. The question of the story being a plant is speculation and can go either way, so I will with-hold judgement on that. But for the moment, we can definitively agree that the father has certainly made comments both ways, so its a controversial judgement call, whichever way you look at it. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Going through all the arguments here i am in support of including her name. The name is in public domain. It is used by multiple news sources. Wikipedia reflects knowledge, not in anyway censor it. And the Indian law was made because we have a culture of shame here. It was made to protect victims but not to censor them and their voices.It is 2 years now and she is no longer in this world, but we have to keep knowledge of her name/her memory. We can not censor knowledge just because of the law of particular country or what someone wants. In the discussion above many editors are in support of inclusion of her name, So i strongly support we should include it.--Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 18:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "And the Indian law was made because we have a culture of shame here." Being from India myself, I very strongly disagree with Haccom's sentiment on this. Not that it really ought to have been relevant how the law, if there is any, was made. As far as I know, there is no arguments to censor because of Indian laws, but rather it is a choice based on sensiblities, especially given how the family might be affected by the inclusion of the name. Once again though, it is not a !vote, so I hope it is not closed as one. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 22:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Soni: If it wasn't for the "culture of shame" and social stigma around rape victims, we wouldn't need that law. Talking about "sensibilities", i don't think we should censor any knowledge just because someone will be affected. By that logic Wikipedia should censor all the info related to ISIS. AFAIK wikipedia does not work on the emotions of people. We reflect knowledge. And that we have to do here. Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 07:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Haccom: Regarding the culture of shame, yours is a direct assumption I don't agree with, so I guess we'll agree to disagree, even though that point has nothing to do with the discussion here. As for the other "censorship" point, I never suggested taking into account the emotions of anyone here. One of the main reasons the name is being considered to be with-held is because the family members will be directly affected, privacy wise. It's similar to (for a hypothetical example, albeit a more severe one) the names of undercover agents working in a warzone would not be here (even if there would be sources mentioning the name). Once again, that would fall under a matter of prudence but not emotions about people. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 21:34, 4 April 2015 (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.

Why is victim's name / photo still not on here?

(Personal information removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronki23 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronki23: Consensus was to keep the victims name out. Please check the archives of this talk page. Also, the image is not there because of a lack of free images. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(Consensus of whom?)LogicalLarry (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently undid an edit that added the victim's name to the wikipedia article, due to BLP concerns. If the victim and her family have expressed willingness/eagerness to be publicly identified I don't have standing or any personal objection in the matter. However I hope that the decision to include the name in the article is taken with due deliberation to make sure that the victim's opinion and wikipedia policies are clear, and not rushed into. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if you had a local talk page consensus to keep the name out of this article, that does not give you powers to remove all mention from the talk page. Either there is policy against providing the information or there isn't. There isn't; what there is is WP:WELLKNOWN - which isn't even needed to be raised for someone who has been dead for three years. Wnt (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not used to using wikipedia to edit. Where are the archives regarding this article?

The links I sent show that the victim's Father wanted people to know.

Again, i'm not wikipedia-savvy

Ronki23 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronki23: I looked into the question, and it seems that the victim's father has issued contradictory statements (or at least statements that have been differently interpreted, which is not surprising in a media melee) on the question of whether the victim's name should be released. While the articles you linked earlier, dated around Jan 5 2013, said that the family was eager to have the name used publicly since the victim had done nothing to be ashamed of, subsequent articles refute that. For example, this BBC article dated Jan 7 2013 says that, "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published." and also "He told BBC Hindi last week that he would have no problem with her name being used on a new law against rape."
Given the murky picture, and out of an abundance of caution, we should continue to keep the name out of the article. Hope that helps explain why the name is being removed from the article. See WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME for the principles and policies involved. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Her parents took part in this documentary and her name was on it. How can you make an excuse not to put her name on?

(link redacted... again)

Ronki23 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia operates on consensus, not the demands of one user. Also, that documentary is itself extremely controversial. You must not list the name anywhere on Wikipedia until there is a general consensus to do so. Nor should you ever link to something that makes a claim about the name without consensus. Is that clear enough? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
How many do you need to have a "general consensus"? Just curious because if you look at the survey below you have an overwhelming majority of editors who feel the name should be listed. You can't "hide" information from people and be respected, no matter what your crazy logic is for doing so. It's a simple fact, not something that's subject to interpretation. That's the main problem with Wikipedia, so many people that think that they are "in charge" and that their opinions are so much more "valid" than others. SMHLogicalLarry (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

in the bbc storyville doc "India's daughter", her name is used repeatedly & in the last few minutes her father explicitly states that not only is he happy for her name to be public but that the family actively want here name to be known. this is whilst a candle & flowers float down a river with talk of 'light', 'the whole world' etc

Thus it seems a bit silly not to use it here.

It could be argued that not using it is supporting the mindset that seeks to keep women quiet & having them viewed as 2nd class citizens, objects not people etc & as such Isn't 'neutral

Equally it can could be argued that its also not neutral to name her as thats near enough campaigning for the adoption of a more 'progressive' mindset etc.

But, the normal 'neutral' view on wikipedia, surely, is to name people not suppress their identification once their identity is common public knowledge anyway, regardless of, say, the parents wishes?

12:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)109.144.229.171 (talk)avsp 5th march 2015

IMO the release of this doc signals a time to move forward and use her name. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have started a new RFC on the topic below to judge if the consensus on the topic has changed. Please weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Guess wikipedia is a forum after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.229.106 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@190.2.229.106: No, Wikipedia is not a forum. The talk page is meant for constructive discussion to generate/build consensus. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Censoring history shouldn't even be part of a consensus. This is not a encyclopedia, this is a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.35.7.19 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: I think the juvenile convict was not the brutal one.

Of those responding, there is clear opposition to inclusion --slakr\ talk / 10:41, 30 June 2015 (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.

The article makes the following claim: In the 33-page charge sheet, the Delhi Police described the juvenile as the most brutal of the six accused. The following articles are used as citation:

  • 4 January 2013, Fox News: "The paper reported that a charge sheet on the case suggests the juvenile suspect assaulted the female student twice and pulled out her intestines with his bare hands. The juvenile—who Delhi police have not identified while they determine his exact age—also wanted to strip the victim naked and throw her off the moving bus."
  • 4 January 2013, Hindustan Times: "Two days after he was nabbed on December 28, the police had applied to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for a bone ossification test of the juvenile -- who, according to police, had subjected the victim to the most inhuman physical and sexual torture. The Delhi Police, at the moment, is treating him as a juvenile purely on the basis of a school leaving certificate obtained from a school in Badaun, UP."
  • 27 December 2012, Hindustan Times: This article makes no mention of any brutality by the juvenile.
  • 3 January 2013, The Hindu: This article makes no mention of any brutality by the juvenile.

Now, I found a later article that has not been used:

  • 21 January 2013, The Indian Express: "...it was revealed today that a bone ossification test of Vinay Sharma, one of the six accused, has proved that he was not a juvenile, and therefore, could be tried under the existing laws governing rape cases in the country. Law enforcement and forensic authorities said that as per the tests, Sharma is 19 and not below 18 as he had earlier claimed."

So, it seems that the accusations of brutality were directed at Vinay Sharma who was tried as an adult and not the unnamed juvenile. The incident has also been described in the judgement but the juvenile has not been accused of any extra brutality. I think the original editors have had a mistake confusing Vinay Sharma with the unnamed juvenile. I think we should remove the sentence about brutality, until we can examine the actual police chargesheet or the verdict of juvenile court, because media reports are confusing.

-Kenfyre (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If Vinay Sharma was the 'unnamed juvenile', who's the sixth suspect? Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, Vinay Sharma was not the 'unnamed juvenile'. Around 27 Dec, all were arrested, 5 of 6 accused were named by the media as Ram Singh, Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Singh and Pawan Gupta and 6th was not named because he was a juvenile. Around 22 Jan, Vinay Sharma began claiming he was juvenile too, so media stopped naming him. Later, it was revealed that Vinay Sharma was not a juvenile by a bone test and media began naming him again. -Kenfyre (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Kenfrye, something is wrong with the dates you suggest since the Hindustan Times article, which is the main source for the juvenile being the most brutal attacker, was published on January 3rd 2013, which appears to be before the time Vinay Sharma started claiming to be a juvenile (do you know the exact date for that? It can't be Jan 22, 2013, since his claims were already rebutted by Jan 21, 2013). More importantly the Hindustan Times mentions that "the juvenile" was arrested at the ISBT station, which matches the information for the actual juvenile on page 7 of the court judgment; Vinay's arrest is mentioned separately in the verdict.
To summarize: it seems that the juvenile = most brutal attacker (according to HT) = arrestee at ISBT ≠ Vinay Sharma.
That said, if the Hindustan Times article is the only source we have claiming that the juvenile was the most brutal attacker, I am fine with removing that detail from the article as possibly undue/uncorroborated (Note that the Fox news article is based on the HT article, and so is not an independent source). Abecedare (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It is 22 January, but it was written by a British site, so it was late to pick up the news, but it was about Vinay Sharma. I have a 21 January article that says the bone test was yet to be conducted. The article also says that it was the first time the Vinay's lawyer made the claim in court. It also talks about the juvenile's brutality but nothing concrete. -Kenfyre (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Altamas Kabir, on Saturday said that it was not yet proven that the juvenile, sixth accused in the Delhi gang-rape case, was the most violent. "Branding the juvenile as the most violent is but a creation of media as of now. At this stage, we don't know who did what in the brutal gang-rape of the student, but everything will become clear soon. Till then, we all should wait," said the CJI

So setting aside the issue of whether we are mixing up "the juvenile" and Vinay Sharma (I don't believe we are), we should remove the claim that "In the 33-page charge sheet, the Delhi Police described the juvenile as the most brutal of the six accused." from the wikipedia article as uncorroborated and a BLP violation (I realize the irony). It can be re-added if we find better and more recent sources making a similar claim, especially if they are based on court findings and not just accusations by the police, lawyers, media etc. Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It was one of my points that we should not make any conclusions until we read the verdict of the juvenile court. So, that settles it. -Kenfyre (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And this should settle the issue:
Smriti Singh; Manoj Mitta (3 October 2013). "Nirbhaya case juvenile wasn't 'most brutal'?". Times of India. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
The only question is whether we should mention in the wikipedia article something along the lines, "Initial police and media reports suggested that the juvenile defendant had been the most brutal of the six attackers, but this was found to be unwarranted "media hype" by the juvenile justice board that tried and sentenced him." Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion - After glancing at this, it appears that the 4 January 2013, Hindustan Times reference is the only one that really supports the sentence. If it's in question, and can't be referenced elsewhere, I'd just exclude it. I'm neutral on the media hype. I don't think it would really add much for a reader. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was brought here via RfC, and from what I can see in the sources and relevant text, I don't see any cause to include Delhi Police described the juvenile as the most brutal of the six accused in the article. Reliable sources don't seem to verify that "Delhi Police described the juvenile" as such, only that the media themselves did in a few instances. If this can be clearly and unambiguously clarified by reliable sources that would be one thing, but short of that I don't think it needs to be included in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion I've been with this article from the start and helped to bring it to a GA. Anywhere in the world when such an alarming event emerges to the attention of the public the press generally do a lot of irresponsible reporting of the facts. Working on this article, it was my impression that this was particularly true of the Indian press. Thanks to the editor that brought this up and I agree that it should be removed. It's a very strong statement and thus should be very strongly sourced. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion as per Aoidh's comment. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal to close Since there is consensus unanimity to not include the (false) claim that the juvenile was the most brutal of the attackers and it has already been removed from the article, I propose that this RFC be closed as resolved. Will wait for a day in case there are any objections. Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion per the comments above. It doesn't seem to be a solid enough claim to warrant inclusion in the article. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (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.

Incident

The section entitled "Incident" is very confusing. It keeps referring to "Pandey" and then to "Pandey's friend". Furethermore, the male victim is named "Pandey" and so is the female victim, apparently. The manner in which this section is written is very confusing. I suspect, early on, one of the victims was named by the media and the other was not named. Hence, the use of "Pandey's friend" as a frequent moniker in that section. This needs to be fixed and clarified. I have no idea who is being referred to (when the article mentions "Pandey" and "Pandey's friend"). So, I cannot make the edits. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)


Actually the woman's name is Jyoti Singh and not Jyoti Singh Pandey. [1] There must have been a confusion about the fact that the man who was with her that night was her friend and not her husband. Besides, I don't understand why the woman should be named by her family name and not her first name, and why Awindra Pandey is often referred as "her friend". Mouchoir78 (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

Pl. don't change the psudoname to a muslim name.. muslim won't rape any women do not hide a religion give the culprit real hindu name

Arien 74 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Not a valid request. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

Jyoti Singh is referred by the name Pandey in the later sections of the article. It is ambiguous as her male companion's name is Pandey too and referred as Pandey in most references to him. Please have her name as Jyoti or Singh instead of Pandey. Baacheey (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Juvenile criminal's name

From the article: "The accused, Muhammad Afroz alias Raju [81][82][83][84][85] was declared as 17 years and six months old" I did not find any authoritative source that referred to his name as Afroz. The 1st reference does not have any name mentioned, and the rest are blogs which have not cited their source. Has his name been released by any official source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostly Clueless (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

From the article: As on record in Wikipedia from the trusted resources the Juvenile criminal's name was known as Sunil[81][82][83], the name has been updated by any unknown users/unregistered users as Akbar now and hence editing the link with the open source login has blocked until Dec-30, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.150.10 (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Indian law (the Juvenile Justice Act) does not permit publicly naming a juvenile defendant or convict. His name (or what is supposedly his name) is present in different versions of the edit history of this article as well as on the Talk page. Those edits need to be either hidden or deleted. Tagging @Diannaa: @Rsrikanth05: and @Lakhbir87:. -- Rohini (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Blocked sock. User:Lakhbir87
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Except the video I haven't seen anyone naming him as Mohammed Afroz except the video of IndiaToday earlier tagged there and as far as I remember the Delhi police never revealed his name. So I am highly doubtful. Despite whatever his name is, WP:BLPNAME prevents from naming someone whose name has been intentionally omitted officially including in court records and isn't allowed to be named publicly. In the case of a rape victim, the family can reveal the name and the family of Nirbhaya did. However the juvenile isn't allowed ti be named under Juvenile Justice Act. Additionally the victimisation and probable threat on his life if his name is revealed also makes another case why his name shouldn't be there whether the name the sources gave might be wrong or true. Therefore, I am in agreement the previous edit versions containing all the various versions of his real name whatever they are should be deleted. Lakhbir87 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Gandydancer: --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Lakhbir87 seems to give good advice and I'm in agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Please avoid referring to any name, regardless of its WP:RS nature, on the Talk page as well. -- Rohini (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rohini: Oh sorry, was a mistake. Lakhbir87 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

Rasikow (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the accused names is VINAY not Mohammed Afrose. Please change it

Here is the proof:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Nirbhaya-accused-found-guilty-of-gang-rape-murder/articleshow/22470345.cms

 Not done Vinay Sharma is already mentioned. Total six men accused in the case are Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta, Mohammed Afroz (juvenile) and Ram Singh (dead). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: and @Rasikow:, please avoid naming the juvenile convict on the Talk page and article. Refer to the discussion juvenile criminal's name. -- Rohini (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

"Please change Mohammed Afroz to 17 years old juvenile accused because Indian Government did not release the name of the Juvenile in any Public Newspaper. The name of the 17 year old accused is still unknown. So kindly delete the name of that accused in the article in the below two places

1. Convicted Duryodhana 2. The accused, Duryodhana was declared as 17 years 80.76.172.60 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - by another - it now refers to "Sunil (Pseudonym Name)" - but what the Indian Government did, or did not do, does not control our article - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I note that the juvenile was released on the 20th to an undisclosed location and that there is ample RS to cover it and the reactions of the parents, etc. I will add it as I have time or perhaps others will add the info. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, my comment is related to his release and has nothing to do with his name. I don't have much time right now but from the little that I have looked at we will not be using his name. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid naming the juvenile convict on the Talk page and article. Refer to the discussion juvenile criminal's name. -- Rohini (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

The valid secondary, authoritative source on the real name of the juvenile accused in now found: It was published in India Today, both in the form of video (where the name is pronounced) as well as text. See the title below video on this page on the website of India Today - His name is written in the lines as follows: Accused Md Afroz alis Raju has been brought to Delhi for further interrogation, police is likely to formally announce his arrest.[1]

In the light of this reference, I recommend to update the real name of the person at 2 places and this reference can be assigned. Thanks

115.98.133.250 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User Sangatamil (talk · contribs) seems to be obsessed to remove the name of the rapist. He/she illegally edited my comment above and changed the name of the accused to the word - "No Name" ! I just reverted it here. This user was trying to dilute my suggestion and confuse the reviewers. I ask you Sangatamil - Can you change it on the website of IndiaToday????? Learn how to behave on wiki, and then start editing. Thanks. I invite @Gandydancer: to see this. 115.98.133.250 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Have warned the user. Will go thru the source today when I leave work and work on the edit, if any. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid naming the juvenile convict on the Talk page and article. Refer to the discussion juvenile criminal's name. -- Rohini (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tyagi, Ankit. "Police arrest fifth accused in Delhi gangrape case". IndiaToday. Living Media India Limited. Retrieved 24 December 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

Juvenile defendant: The accused name referred as Akbar but there is no name of the accused is revealed by the Indian Govt not in any trusted media so this name should be changed with immediate effect, the previous editor has mentioned a silly cause to changing the name that in the same article there is another name sunil used hence to avoid confusion this accused name changed to Akbar(Pseudonym Name) so please use different appropriate Pseudonym Name as Duryodhana this must be the best Pseudonym Name, the name Akbar used is putting more pain on the minority community people living in india, so please consider this simple name change Sangatamil (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see this IndiaToday Video as well as the text below video. The Real name of the person is given there. IndiaToday is a valid secondary source to support this and wiki dont need ONLY the Govt of India to release first, it could be any valid secondary source such as IndiaToday, which is sufficient as per wiki policy. 115.98.133.250 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid naming the juvenile convict on the Talk page and article. Refer to the discussion juvenile criminal's name. -- Rohini (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on 2012 Delhi gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Is the time of incident written correctly?I think that was night time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.98.2 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder/Archive_3&oldid=1142390255"