Talk:Ishrat Jahan encounter killing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The above statement saying that P.P. Pandey is now a redirect to this page is no longer true, as the P.P. Pandey article was recreated on 28 December 2020‎.

Please no revert wars[edit]

please discuss proposed changes here.

--vvarkey (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PUCL reference[edit]

http://www.pucl.org/ seems to be politically biased website. It cannot be considered as an authentic reference due to its affiliation and information which is a polotical opinion without citing any research, news article. Hence by making this website as a reference, it will curtail the fact and genuinity of the article. by the way. Ignornat people are using Wikipedia's misinformation on this page to discuss the recent finding of the Special Investigation Team that [this was a cold blooded murder on Times of India website http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ishrat-Jahan-encounter-fake-says-SIT-report/articleshow/10816072.cms]

Ok.. Lets forget what prashant said, lets forget who was Ishrat Jehan. Lets talk about who were those two peoples died with ishrat jehan. as per wikipedia, I beleve they were pakistani nationals. What she was doing with those 2 peoples. Secondly acording to her mother, she was discussing about put an end to their financial problem, from where the money was coming. A 19yr old girl, going to pune to work with, where office were not yet setup. Before she was assassinated she was in Nasik, and a new person came to pick her up. Some stories says, gujrat police picked them from mumbai, why a team of police came to mumbai to pick some one specific. After reading the whole theory in wikipedia and other articles, I found something fishy. If all these theories are correct, I will give benefit of doubt to the police who killed. If these are wrong, then there are lot many truths are yet to come.

Raj (Bangalore) replies to bidhu 21 Nov, 2011 08:04 PM Reas the report! Encounter occured in the previous night and all of them were dumped together in a car.


India (India) replies to bidhu 21 Nov, 2011 07:45 PM But the question is, who should decide if they were terrorists or not. Had this been police, we would have seen another pakistan in place of India.

bidhu replies to India 21 Nov, 2011 08:10 PM SIT itself. why not. If SIT can say Ishrat jehan was killed in a fake encounter, then SIT has to tell us the identities of the her 2 fellow passengers. This was clear that, there were 3 peoples killed, why no one is asking about other 2 peoples. They were also humen beings. If they were from any radical group or any terorists, then I must ask what ishrat jehan was doing with them. No metter whats your religion is, if you are doing any crime or has a motive and planning to do, you should be tried in the court of law and get appropriate punishment.

Raj (Bangalore) replies to bidhu 21 Nov, 2011 07:41 PM Yes, there so many hidden truths in the state of Gujarat that no one believe that they occured in the past 9 years. One by one and all of them will come out in the next one or two years. Once they come out, it will set fire on butts of those who are ruling there.

Samastipura (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Please don't put up your political opinions here (Raj, Bangalore). Better to air them with the political people. The PUCL and its website cannot be made as a reference since it is not a news site, nor a news agency. It is a politically motivated and biased group having its own propoganda, which air its political opinion on its website. This cannot be put up in this article to maintain the truthfulness of this article. Terms like "they say" also cannot be taken as a part of this article, when "they" are carrying on with a propoganda. [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ http://combatlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/The%20state%20of%20insanity.pdf

Requested move to eliminate word "Fake" till judicial verdict[edit]

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 Death of Ishrat Jahan. The circumstances of her death are still being debated in the legal system, so the title of our article should not prejudge who is right. In any case 'fake encounter' is a tautology because 'encounter' already has the meaning of a killing staged by police. It is possible that discussion about the title may continue, but at least this puts the article at a neutral title in the mean time. Two people objected to the regional word 'encounter' since Wikipedia has a world-wide audience. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case → Ishrat Jahan encounter ''or'' Ishrat Jahan – the word "fake" is creates a biased statement of the article, as the issue is under legal proceedings and nothing concrete is coming out. its politically coined word does not fit to the WP:NPOV. Unless and until it is proved, no offensive word supposed to be used, which may tile the public opinion. sensitive issues of specific geography supposed to be taken care. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Bheemsinh (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support : reason mentioned above Bheemsinh (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support changing the title to remove the word 'fake' in it, as it gives a biased perception of the case. 202.173.169.241 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Kuljit[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't see any bias here, let alone a political one, and no NPOV. Fake encounter is common term used for Encounter killings, which has been established in Gujarat High Court judgement of 2011, now arrests have already started, shift made only after the arrests started in 2013. Media has been using this term for long now. Check out.--Ekabhishektalk 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless or until court convict, wikipedia has no right to convict Indian police, or pass the judgement. wikipedia is based on references not rumors. this is not as per WP:NPOV Bheemsinh (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the above: These titles are all confusing. Please find a title that does not refer to a killing as an "encounter", and especially please find a title that does not refer to a real killing as a "fake encounter". The readership of Wikipedia is world-wide. Surely, people outside of India have no idea what these terms mean. (This whole article is very confusing for someone outside of India to try to read.) The title should use the ordinary definition of words as found in a general-use dictionary. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed .... my concern about offensive title. any appropriate word can be substituted. title should meet WP:NDESC policy. Bheemsinh (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Four-person police killing in Gujarat", "Four-person homicide case in Gujarat", or "2004 four-person police killing in Gujarat", or something similar? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whether or not the encounter was fake does not matter. The incident is commonly known by reliable sources (cf. [1], [2] and endless others) as "Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case" and that's what we should use per WP:UCN. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia can not pass the judgement. Many different versions of encounter are there. Even if some media outlets do so, it can't be done on Wiki. Media is known for passing judgement.Vivekmandan (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support The facts so far point to a fake encounter. But what happens if the higher courts find otherwise? Will a possible misleading title be changed according to how a case proceeds? I suggest that 'fake" be put in quotes. NarasMG (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just declined a move protection on this article. A more neutral title would be the way foreward here, me thinks. Wouldn't something like "Ishrat Jahan killing incident" be acceptable? The use of the term "encounter" for these things is a very specific use of the word only common in India afaik, but not used like this in the rest of the world. Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from but I don't think that's a good idea. The incident is almost universally known with the term 'encounter' and, per WP:UCN, we should use that. Morphing titles merely to satisfy Wikipedia editors is not a good idea and is definitely not compliant with policy. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an idea from an outsider (and I thought we could have used the other mentioned article-titles as redirects), but that is not my field of expertise anyway ; incidentally this could be closed now, as there seems to be no consensus for a renaming. Lectonar (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not clear what "fake" means in this context. An "encounter" is an extra-judicial killing by the police. But what is a "fake encounter"? One where the victims weren't really killed? Or where the killers wen't really police? or which wasn't really extra-judicial? If the title is to be retained, the article should at least explain what "fake" means. Maproom (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present title is not only questionable on the grounds of neutrality, but practically devoid of meaning to anyone unfamiliar with euphemisms confined to South Asia. Given that it is questioned whether this was an 'encounter' killing at all, I don't think that WP:UCN applies: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That clause is applicable only if there are multiple candidates from reliable sources (that section goes on to say When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. In this particular case, there are no other common names. --regentspark (comment) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is a bit of a mess. Not one supporter indicated what they want the title to actually be. Let's just go with Death of Ishrat Jahan, following the move of Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter to Death of Soharbuddin Shiekh. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a good idea, not only because of WP:UCN, but also because of the fact that the incident involved the death of four people, not just Ishrat Jahan. The current title is what the incident has come to be known by and I can't see any good reason why, if almost every reliable source uses this title, we should be trying to make up something new. We judge neutrality through reliable sources and when all the sources are in agreement, that's what becomes our neutral title. --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As matter is sub-judice, we should not categorize it. rkamatar (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
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.

Offensive image?[edit]

I find that the image in this article is offensive. I am not sure what other thinks about it. I do not know what is policy of wikipedia regarding offensive images. I would request other experienced editors to give a thought about it and to remove the image if rules / guidelines says so. Thanks -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being I am removing the image now. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the image for the time being, you don't get to remove the image before arriving at a consensus here, have patience. Please explain why do you think it is offensive to you, as per the Wikipedia:Image use policy. The article is about an encounter killing... --Ekabhishektalk 11:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing offensive in the image. Even if the image is offensive (though it is not), Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. --Tito☸Dutta 16:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall have no objection if community here accepts the image. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its sort of useless image as none of the subject's faces are seen. Also it doesnt show bodies the way they fell but shows them when they were placed after all panchnama had finished. But there is no reason to remove it unless some better replacement is available. Do you wanna suggest some other image? Don't suggest this one. That i would personally not like. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Being a doctor, I do not find any image as offensive. I was worried about lay person. It has been observed that generally people dont like offensive images. But if community here 'okeys' the image, I shall have no issue with it. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[edit]

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: move. -- tariqabjotu 13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ishrat Jahan → Ishrat Jahan case – Two reasons. First, per WP:UCN the encounter is not known by this name. A mere 41,000 results for this title most of which don't use this phrase as a tile but merely contain the words strung together inside the article.[3]. Second, the story is about the death of four people, not just about Ishrat Jahan. Her particular death has merely become a handy description of the encounter. The proposed title, Ishrat Jahan case comes up with over 14 million hits, a large proportion of which explicitly use this as a title so it satisfies WP:UCN. It also clarifies that the article is about a case or encounter rather than about her death. And, finally, it should satisfy the neutrality concerns that prompted the previous move. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 17:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 07:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC) regentspark (comment) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose No one is arguing "Death of Ishrat Jahan" under WP:COMMONNAME. It's simply a neutral, descriptive name. You say you're concerned that the current title doesn't represent the other deaths involved, but neither does your proposed name. Most importantly, the current title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, specifically other articles about people notable primarily for the circumstances of their death. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. I'm arguing against "Death of Ishrat Jahan" under UCN. Or are you suggesting I'm a nobody :) --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On a more serious note. Almost no one refers to this as the Death of Ishrat Jahan. And, that title is way too specific. OTOH, we have a common name title that is perfectly neutral and doesn't focus on her death alone so I'm not sure why you consider it neither neutral nor descriptive enough? --regentspark (comment) 17:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I Think you misread the earlier comment. I read that as that no one was arguing that Death of Ishrat Jahan be the title of the article because it was common name but because it was more neutral opposed to that no one was suggesting that was not the common name.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It seems very strange to have a title that refers to only one person being killed. Four people were killed. It is better to have an article name that avoids implying otherwise. The suggested title is perhaps not ideal (see, e.g., my prior suggestions), but it is an improvement. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but as long as we're only mentioning one person in the title, does the proposed form really address it? --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it partially addresses it. When I hear "Death of Ishrat Jahan", I expect to learn about the death of one person. When I hear "Ishrat Jahan case", I only think it is some case involving Ishrat Jahan. I don't necessarily think Ishrat Jahan will be the only person involved in the case. I think the title modification changes the interpretation from being exclusive to being inclusive (sort of like using which instead of that). But, like I said, although I think it's an improvement, I'm not saying it's ideal. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The even is not only about Ishrat Jahan. The reason her name is cited in many Indian news because her family were first to request a probe.--Benfold (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Shovon (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ishrat Jahan case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ishrat Jahan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The record of that RM discussion can now be found at Talk:Ishrat Jahan (lawyer). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of court case(s)[edit]

Has there been a final court ruling that declared that the killings were unlawful? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ishrat_Jahan_encounter_killing&oldid=1210343914"