Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies B‑class This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Delhi B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi. This article was last assessed in January 2013. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 December 2012.

It is requested that an image or photograph of 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Delhi may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

• In several places, the article mentions a "male friend." We now know http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9771480/Indian-rape-victim-was-planning-to-marry-man-she-was-attacked-with.html that this person was in fact the victim's fiancé.

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

• No, I don't think we have finalised that yet. Mirror reports it this way "Badri said Jyoti’s friend Awindra was not her boyfriend – just a very brave friend who tried to save her." Not sure why Telegraph is misinterpreting sources. We might have to find a video of the Victim's father (Badri) confirming this. Just in case

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289 The Ajan (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News, which is generally more reliable than the Mirror, is also reporting the person being very specifically not a boyfriend nor fiance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 84.159.187.93 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is certainly the only one with widespread international coverage. Letthe article remain as is. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally called the Bus Rape Case, but I changed it to Gang Rape Case. Was I correct? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the title is very misleading. Rape is a horrific crime of personal violation......this was something else on an even worse plane of horror. This was a horrific crime beyond description. Makes me sick. We need a suitable title for this that conveys the visceral violent live evisceration this poor soul was subjected to. She was eviscerated! whil alive!!!!! Monsters like this shouldn't be allowed to walk around. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is significant history and background to rape-sexual assault in India which is required to make sense of events. See Rape in India and rape culture - India. I would recomend adding in multiple related links under "See Also" and move the "Socio-economic issues in India" and "Sexual Abuse" templates to the see also section as well. This was done under edit [At This Diff ] and then undone. It may also encourage some updating of content in related pages which have suffered under neglect and Systematic Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.226.240 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I normally wouldn't have read the article, but I too came here to find out why this was unusual or significant enough to make ITN and to cause widespread protests. From the quoted stats for NCT of 2.8 rapes per 100,000 people in 2011, using a population of 16 million, the crime is, unfortunately, committed more than once per day. As sad as any such event is, I believe the article needs an early paragraph describing why this event is so significant, not just references to more long articles (and could probably use less duplication of the details of the event itself). I would imagine this question has been raised and written about in a WP:RS somewhere. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear in the article, to me at least, what the protesters were protesting. The section just begins by stating that protests occured and then describes reactions to the protests. There should be some explanation of what they were protesting in the first sentence. 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.91.104 (talk)

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

I felt that there were two strands to the cause of the protests, the main one being that this was a particularly bad rape, finally a rape made the news, rather than being routine, and ignored. The news upset a lot of people due to the the victims injuries. Either the reporting was sensationalist, or an atrocity took place, for example, The Times of India ( http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-27/delhi/36021027_1_nirbhaya-delhi-gang-sexual-assault-case ) reported that the victims guts were spilling out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.152.244 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most of the editors here are Indian, and are unsure of how Standard English works. Some editors are required to keep updating the article's English and keep it correct. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British variety of English should not be automatically considered more "correct" than the English spoken by a larger number of English speakers in India. We've been through this with North American versus British spellings and variations in terminology. See WP:ENGVAR. Edison (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "automatically" considered thus. Despite the inroads that US English has made, the influence of the British Raj remains strong in India, right down to phrases that in modern Britain are considered archaic. Basic principle: this article started out in one version of English and should stay in that unless there is consensus for change. Replacing British imperial colonialism with US corporate colonialism - or however you want to phrase it - is pointless. Similarly, dmy rather than mdy dates. It is bad enough that systemic bias affects what we can source etc for Indic articles on en-WP without us also getting into the more specific nuances of US-centric bias. Sitush (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem appears to have emerged with this edit by Yogesh Khandke. A unilateral change. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Edits are problems. Why not have it written on wet concrete, then we would have no further problems. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English seems the most suited variety of English for this article, as per Wikipedia:Ties policy. Of course it would be absurd to demand that every en:wiki editor be able to write in every English national variety, so it is natural to leave everybody edit as he/she can and then leave the language standardization to Indian English expert writers --89.97.208.106 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Will consider your request, and will do the same in Hindi and Tamil Wikipedia (stubs) asap. Thanks for highlighting this. While, you are also welcome to create the same in your mother tongue. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, already there in Tamil Wikipedia. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Gujarati: gu:૨૦૧૨ દિલ્હી બળાત્કાર ઘટના. Will do Hindi. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the Malayalam version : ml:ഡെൽഹി കൂട്ട ബലാത്സംഗ കേസ് (2012) -- Netha (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are some saying that it was a joy ride, IIRC, but the problem is that the references are quite badly mangled. For now, I'd leave the statement with the {{cn}} that I added recently. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe by joy ride, the sources meant it was a non-authorised(not sure what the correct word is) ride taken by the driver. Like a normal drive, but only on a bus.

Lets keep the word stolen out until other sources can be found which say it was stolen. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done that, hence the resolved tag. I wouldn't try to interpret "joy ride": just say it as the source says it. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Stolen does not mean Authorized

"Boarded a bus" implies that the bus was a regular commercial bus (either public or privately owned) and thus libels the bus company or Delhi generally that a bus company authorized there would permit such conduct; "five passengers already aboard" libels the citizens of Delhi that any group of ordinary passengers would happen to be so criminal that they could be persuaded to take part. The 18 Dec Mandhana and Trivedi article http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/outrage-in-delhi-after-latest-gang-rape-case/ clearly specifies that the bus was not authorized, the driver was not a public bus driver for the company, and the couple mistook the bus for a regular one. Many sources mention "joyride" as the equivalent was probably mentioned by Ram Singh in his statements, but "joyride" in English is always a crime. Check the article; To joyride is to drive around in a stolen vehicle. The only difference is whether temporary stealing is theft under Indian law. Would someone like to check that and edit the Joyride_(crime) article? For now correcting lead paragraph to reflect nature of crime.165.121.80.108 (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this part is confusing for Western readers. It seems to refer to a difference in municipal transit in India that doesn't translate well. Are private buses common in India? Was it a Delhi municipal bus that was taken? 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a private bus which wasn't stolen. Yes, Private buses are quite common. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a private bus which was stolen, at least at that time. See http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/delhi-gang-rape-case-bus-with-tinted-windows-driver-with-a-record-307230. The owner wouldn't have let them go out and earn loose change endangering his charter business. Although in the UK the crime may be TWOC, in the US most "joyrides" are not returned intact to their owners, and it would be up to the defendant to prove that he was going to return it undamaged; hence "Grand Theft Auto".165.121.80.142 (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why is it significant? What is so special about that cricketer and that award? Why not include the comments and actions of every other sportsperson and the numerous other celebrities? I have no reason to question the guy's sincerity but, really, why? Is it going to change anything? - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Are not newsworthy. But dedicating the award to her - Newsworthy according to me. We have several sources stating it already. And I do not think that any other celebrity has doen anything except to comment and support. Which makes this act something to be mentioned. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think that the dedication is itself a comment? It is a gesture with no tangible merit except, if one were to be cynical, to reflect well on the person who made it. I'd like to think that this sort of support provides comfort to families etc but, honestly, it is usually well-intentioned but empty. We are an encyclopedia, not some sort of emoting website or - given recent announcements of increasing despair - a place of memorial. Will people really look back in a year's time and say, "wow, what a significant thing it was that Yuvrai Singh dedicated his MoM award"? I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it should not be added now. Withdrawing request. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You meant well and these things can be tricky. I don't think that her death affects any discussion relating to this point, so if you change your mind then feel free to continue it. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these should be included. Even this tweet by Anand Mahindra would fall into the same category: https://twitter.com/anandmahindra/status/285269156453044225 --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO It may be added either here or on Yuvraj Singh's page if the contribution touches huge news in the coming days. Let us archive the link for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ajan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

When it is called a murder by the Indian legals etc then you may have a case. Until then, you do not. Daft, perhaps, but we work off sources and, in this instance, WP:BLP applies big time. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but wanted to put it out there so we were cognizant. I expect that the name will ultimately evolve to something entirely different as events unfold. You are truly omnipresent Sitush! Ramwithaxe 01:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually get involved in current events stuff - too much like hard work, especially when it comes to Indian current events ;) "Turn up a fortnight later and clean it up" is my more usual mantra ;) - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words. Ramwithaxe 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The victim died, murder charges have been filed[1] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, its a rape case and unfortunately the victim died. Its still a rape case where the victim was murdered. --sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not make any move until the media changes the title on their newspapers. This Rape/Murder case is being referred as "Delhi Gang Rape" among everyone in the media circles. The Ajan (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, firstly it *is* a murder case. Secondly, it is called a murder case by Indian "legals" (you probably mean legal professionals by thi sisolated adjective). Thirdly, the accused are now formally charged with murder (see the charge sheet), which is the leading and principal crime (as Ratnakar refuses to acknowledge). Change the title now, finally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.187.93 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Rape by FORWARD CASTE to showoff their hegemony.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/world/asia/a-village-rape-shatters-a-family-and-indias-traditional-silence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

• Rape by BC/SC/ST/MC to let off their hatred.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/after-protests-lockdown-in-delhi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thaugust1932 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get the caste information back in requires waiting for those who keep removing it to explain why. Assuming food faith, it may be lack of sources relating the rape to her caste: the one we have only relates to the caste's difficulty in getting higher education. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what relevance the caste of her family has to this specific incident: we should not synthesise from generalised sources etc, and especially not unless there is full context (eg: what caste were the alleged perpetrators, given the links above to such generalised sources). Also, WP:BLP does apply to recently-dead people and unless she self-identified her caste then it is probably best left out. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Caste information and other caste related crimes would change the drift of the article, it was not a Caste based crime. The article and this entire incident is based on the Gang Rape and revolves around the lack of protection or safety for Women in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ajan (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

better not to relate this article with caste as some leaders may found opportunity to play politics on this heinous crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.36.155 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think there is an archive bot group that handles that. Aren't they archived if no one has posted to that section in X days?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

en:wp may wish to add a template like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Section_resolved --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will put it in place henceforth, but we need to determine how many days after the last post should pass before archiving. GotR ^Talk 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have set the archive size to 100 KB (any more and the archives begin to become unnavigable IMO). GotR ^Talk 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 5 days says me. We can adjust if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer manually archiving only the resolved sections. There are probably older unresolved sections which must stay. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Auto archival isn't necessary right now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, 90 days should give enough time for the initial furore (perhaps not the trial) over this incident to die down and resolve any lingering sections. GotR ^Talk 17:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this page grows the need for some sort of archive also grows. 90 days will I fear be too long, can we not set it at 30, the archive will have a search facility. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Any removal without consensus is akin to Vandalism. Feel free to Restore deleted content. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canoe1967 has removed [2] the Teek hai stuff, in a way he is correct that this should belong to the article of Manmohan Singh but because this is very much related to this incident we need to include it here as well.--sarvajna (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I will keep removing it an claim a BLP 3RR exemption. This article is about the incident, not political gaffes made by the PM about the incident. It does not belong here but in his article or the gaffe one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants you to breach 3RR, don't worry. I am just trying to get different opinions here after all consensus does matter. --sarvajna (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acting stubborn and aggressive about isn't the way in Wikipedia. Pls try to get everyone's opinions Vamsisv (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what made you remove it when a discussion was already going on here, you want consensus for adding it, while another user had added it just few hours ago and had also started a discussion here to arrive at some consensus. --sarvajna (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the controversy around #theekhain deserves a mention in this article since the entire statement and the controversy that followed are in view of this incident. It will be imprudent to mention in Manmohan Singh article since there are 100s of statements that he would have made during his tenure and those cannot be mentioned in his article. For example, his speech after 2008 Mumbai attacks has to be mentioned on that incident article and not his individual article. Vamsisv (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe1967, it is very much relevant to the context the article. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to agree to include it if consensus is reached. I think we should seek opinions from wp:blpn first though. As well you may wish to read wp:topic. This article is about the incident, not a forum to shed bad light on your leader. The 2008 Mumbai attacks have a seperate article Aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. It may be time to create one for this article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by some of the comments here, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies by some contributors - in particular, describing deletion as 'vandalism' and 'censorship' is entirely inappropriate. I'd draw everyone's attention to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in particular (which applies to all living individuals discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, not just in articles written about them). If there is any doubt about material complying with this policy, it is not only not 'censorship' or 'vandalism' to remove it, it is the expected behaviour of contributors. As to this particular issue, wp:topic may well be relevant - though without seeing the source(s) cited, and the edit proposed based on the source(s), it is hard to tell. If someone could please provide the necessary details, we can discuss it here, with due regard to policy considerations. 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversy arose when, after delivering the written speech live on television, the Prime Minister was heard asking his staff theek hai? (is it all right?), while still on air. Social media flooded with satirical posts criticizing the sign-off of the Prime Minister. The hashtag #TheekHai became the top trending term on Twitter in India for that day. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-29/india/36050197_1_theek-hai-dd-tv-channels --Canoe1967 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agree with you. I had infact moved it to the last (whoever created had made this the 1st section) so we can discuss and remove the section totally. Vamsisv (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The protests who demand reforms and application of the current laws are directly relate to the Indian social context: misogyny, sexual harrasments, police neglect and rudeness. Not only to the rape incident itself. Yug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.14.60.210 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - But needs to be refined Social Context will bring coherence between Incident, Prosecution and Reaction (Protests, Government Reaction to Protests, Parties, International Reactions). But it needs to be more refined to present incident. Advischaitanya (talk) 16:40, 02 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the sources I added (from CNN) to that section directly refer to the social/law enforcement context as reasons for the present rape and protest. Yug (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to edit this section and removed or reworded many points which were plain PoV or generalization with no direct reference to the links cited. But the content still seems right out of a blog and not fit for wikipedia. Vamsisv (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a dedicated sub-section of prosecution titled "Timeline of prosecution", instead of cramping everything in one section. The prosecution would take time and the section would become huge as the fast track court would be hearing the case on a daily basis. We could also have a separate page for the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators, if at all, is needed. What say?Regards, theTigerKing  14:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about creating a separate page right now, as it could be done later provided the sub-section becomes large. Your proposal is reasonable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page, NO. Section, yes. The idea sounds good. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President of India, PM of India, former Presidents of India Pratibha Patel and Abdul Kalam, spiritual gurus like the Dalai Lama and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had commented on the incident. Can we have the reactions of these notable people on the article page? I believe it deserve them.Regards, theTigerKing  16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think PMO and POI is needed. Not after the Theek Hai gaffe. Pratibha Patil being quoted by Zee News sounds good enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have the suggestions of UN Human Rights chief in the article? I feel they are notable comments. Regards, theTigerKing  19:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   "The only other passengers were five men who were friends of the driver,
   who then assaulted the pair."

Who then assaulted the pair -- the driver, or the five men? Context and logic would suggest the latter, but the wording is fuzzy. Toddcs (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the sentence, please look into it and make necessary changes if needed. Naveed (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote that, but was unhappy with the wording and tried to correct it a few days ago but was reverted. The probem is worse than just the English, in that the term "driver" is ambiguous. The original reports refer to Ram Singh, the regular daytime driver of the bus, but later police statements make it clear that his brother was driving at the time of (most of, at least) the attacks by Ram Singh and the others. Until the actual charges are released it will remain unclear whether they stopped to switch places; until they did so, the actual driver could not have physically participated in the assults. Will try an intermediate wording. Any need for the date in the paragraph following? It would seem better to leave that paragraph about its main subject.165.121.80.217 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wish to add this additional information into section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Incident

"Policemen responding to the incident arrived 20 or so minutes after they were called. Once after arriving the scene, instead of helping the couple immediately, they wasted even more time fighting among each other over whose responsibility to pick the victims" http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Chunk-HT-UI-IndiaSectionPage-DelhiGangrape/Delhi-rape-victim-s-friend-says-cops-kept-fighting-about-jurisdiction/Article1-985067.aspx http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/people-stared-at-us-and-left-but-didnt-help-delhi-gang-rape-victims-friend_820801.html http://zeenews.india.com/videos/braveheart-s-friend-on-zee-news_19337.html

I added the video of interview as well in ref.

I don't mean to get into edit war here is discussion with one of editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FreeKnowledge123#Thanks.21_Please_advise

Let me know if you have any objection/comment/suggestion. Thanks! FreeKnowledge123 (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, your sourcing of the statement is totally unreliable. The Banner talk 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Some more sources : http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/314133/delhi-police-refutes-allegations-of-bravehearts-friend.html (will add more later) FreeKnowledge123 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is name of the victim (Jyoti Singh Pandey) not updated? Is there a Wikipedia policy that prevents it?

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

And her friend's name (Awindra Kumar Pandey) too?

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/zee-news-limited-ready-to-offer-help-to-delhi-s-braveheart_820853.html

The names are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.240.116 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the name of the Victim, her Father's name as well as the Male Victim's name.The Ajan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the page perhaps be renamed Murder of Jyoti Singh Pandey now that we know her name? Paris1127 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, falls in line with pages like, Murder of Jessica Lal. Can also be, Jyoti Singh Pandey murder case. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just have 2 issues: 1. only British sources have identified her as Jyoti Singh Pandey (I'd like to see some official statement printed in an Indian newspaper) and 2. should the fact that she was raped be in the title? Like "Rape and Murder of Jyoti Singh Pandey"? Your idea would work too. Paris1127 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder be renamed and moved to Death of Jyoti Singh Pandey. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2012 Delhi gang rape case → Death of Jyoti Singh Pandey – PatGallacher (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Comment, How about Jyoti Singh Pandey murder case? It is a case under investigation. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: appears WP:COMMONNAME is clear Tiggerjay (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Common name. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

I've just updated the article to reflect the fact that we now have a reliable source giving both victims' real names. (This had already been done in the lede and in the Victims section, but most references were still simply to "the victim", "the female victim", "the male victim", etc.) The problem, though, is that, since they have the same last name, I've been forced to mostly refer to her as "Jyoti", not "Pandey", which would sound more encyclopedic (especially because in cases like these there's always an urge to treat the victim on familiar terms, on an empathetic level). So, if anyone can find a way to slightly reduce the frequency of this, that would be nice. Also, I'm not highly familiar with Indian naming conventions, so I wasn't sure if the "Singh" is akin to a western middle name (something you'd only mention in the first reference, for 90% of people), or to a hyphenated/compound last name, or the like. Erring on the side of caution, I referred to her by her full name when I wasn't simply saying "Jyoti", but if someone knowledgeable on the subject says that we can drop the "Singh" most of the time, that would go part of the way to a solution. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we can drop Singh but lets keep the full name in the first line, as you said referring to the victim as just "Pandey" would be confusing so I guess we can just stick to Jyoti. --sarvajna (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least that opens up referring to her as "Jyoti Pandey" a few more times, since the shorter the full name we use, the less odd it is for readers to see it used over and over again. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti had already been used for her as a pseudonym in the Indian media, several days or perhaps some weeks before the name was made public as her real first name. This article, some days ago, mentioned it first among the "pseudonym names" that were in use. Jyoti means light in Hindi, which would have made it look apt as a cover name, though as it turns out, it also was the real name.83.254.151.33 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us use "Jyoti" or "Jyoti Pandey" for the female victim and "Awindra" or "Awindra Pandey" for the male victim. 'Singh' and 'Pandey' are common last names for Sikhs in India. Usually 'Pandey' is seen as a Man's name and not a woman's name most of the time. So, I suggest we use the first names of the victims to talk about them. I agree with the User:Francophonie&Androphilie "the shorter the full name we use, the less odd it is for readers to see it used over and over again". Besides that, it looks like the Indian Media either knew the real name and were hinting it to us or might've stumbled across it. - The Ajan (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given this situation, why not go back and rephrase to avoid using any name or descriptive subject term at all in as many places as possible, so it reads the best?165.121.80.210 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would look overly formal and cold to have most sentences running like, "the doctors noticed that the raped woman had been penetrated several times and hit with a blunt rod", "it was decided to transfer the victim to Singapore" etc. Referring to her in such a way when it's about a time when she was still alive and fighting for her life would sound rather objectifying, even if this wasn't the intention. And the name will soon be widely used in the media. I haven't checked WP's detailed policy on names of people but it is indisputable that Jyoti Singh has become a person who's widely known and notable, and very likely she will remain that way and the real name will hang around, at least in India. In those circumstances, I think the normal course of action here is to provide the actual name. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, say "The examination found injuries consistent with several penetrations by a blunt rod..." or "The ministry decided to send her by air ambulance to Sinapore" (and use a previous sentence to reference "her"). I don't have a specific opinion on using the name sometimes, but the two Pandeys problem means that "Pandey" should be avoided whenever possible, and first names are poor style.[for 165.121.80.210]165.121.80.134 (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how these two statements relate: ...'Pandey' are common last names... and Usually 'Pandey' is seen as a Man's name and not a woman's name.... Does "last name" mean something different than we think it does (surname or family name)? If not, and a family's name is Pandey, and they have a daughter, is her last name not also Pandey (and how, then, is the second statement correct)? Or are you saying Pandey is also used as a given name (first name)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Pandey is used both by men and Women alike, Singh is not just common among Sikhs (Jyoti Singh Pandey is not a Sikh) but also few others like Rajputs..etc. Also Sikh men use Singh and Women use Kaur as their last name (I know this is offtopic).--sarvajna (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sikh men use Singh and Women use Kaur"; not off-topic here, useful background information. Article or references?165.121.80.77 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:AlanM1 Allow me to give you an example, "Jackson" can be a Man's first name as well as a family name (in some case)s. But, you can't name the first name of a woman to be 'Jackson'. So, Paris Jackson (Daughter of Michael Jackson) is a woman but with a Masculine last name. A woman being called 'Pandey' is similar to a Man having a middle name of 'Victoria' or 'Muriel' (Which is not unheard of). Naming conventions are different in different cultures. Its hard enough to explain without explaining the culture and/or story behind the Name. Pandey can be a Hindu Brahmin (usually last) name as well. Hope that hasn't confused you. And as for your last question Or are you saying Pandey is also used as a given name (first name)? YES!! That is what I'm saying :) - The Ajan (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a BBC news item, "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published."

Any suggestions of what to do? Keep in mind WP:BLP still applies, per WP:BDP. Thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 11:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very tricky, few in Indian media like [thehindu.com The Hindu] has a note from editor that Victim's name will not be used and I don't see many media reports using the victim's name. I would like to see comments by other editors, not using the name can be an option. --sarvajna (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who originally added the majority of the references to her name, I support removing them, and may very well do it myself in just a moment. There is a strong precedent against disseminating the name of an individual who wishes (or of a decease individual whose family wishes) that it be kept private, as encapsulated in WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing it for now since there is a controversy as to whether or not it should be made public. If her name becomes common knowledge, we can always add it back. There is no hurry and it is usually better to err on the side of privacy. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main topic of the article is not the name of the victim, that's for sure. I also support removal.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'll also see if I can get someone to put up an editnotice reminding users not to reference her name without obtaining a consensus here first. In retrospect, I should've probably waited for a slightly more reliable source to confirm before doing it myself. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 Delhi gang rape case, courtesy of Riley Huntley (talk · contribs) (fun fact: Account creators have the ability to create and edit editnotices). So people will now see that whenever they click "edit". I also threw in some hidden text notes. Should hopefully solve the matter for the time being. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the victim's name is public knowledge, removing it and inserting edit notices suggesting omitting it seem ill advised. David F (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the editnotice, this is all based on policy. See also Star Wars kid, Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, and any number of similar articles. As for the editnotice, that's standard practice for situations where you might have repeated good-faith attempts to insert material against policy or against consensus (in this case both). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia WP:BDP policy states, "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning the dead." It does go on to say "contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people." OK, but since the name of the rape victim is now public knowledge and no longer private, it is no longer contentious nor questionable. David F (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name now is, as you say, public knowledge, I'd suggest that those readers that feel the name is very important can easily read it in our many sources. Since it does seem, as far as I can tell, that in India the name of the woman is not released without permission of the victim or her family and we are not certain that permission has been granted, I'd suggest that we wait till we are certain about the family's wishes. Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about policy, see WP:BOLD. If it is about certitude see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289. David F (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about certitude; it's about whether or not there's a need to release potentially sensitive information. That is your burden in a discussion like this. As for boldness, see WP:BRD - we're already discussing this, so saying to be bold in this case is really just code for "ignore consensus". Also, for the record, according to the BBC article at the top of this thread, that story is apparently fictitious, though her name probably isn't, — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as referenced by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs) above, The Hindu has stated that it will not be publishing the victim's name, and even notes that it would be a criminal offense for them to do so. This isn't a matter of verifiability or anything like that - it's a matter of journalistic ethics (because, whether we like it or not, when it comes to events like this we become journalists, in a way), and it's enshrined in policy that we should take this into consideration. According to WP:BLPNAME, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. What context do we lose by not including her name? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So The Hindu, a paper unable to put two English sentences together without making a mistake in grammar, diction, or syntax, has declined to publish the names? Making a point about good journalism requires a better example. And WP:BLPNAME does not apply to the deceased. David F (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a dead person, Jyoti Singh Pandey, has become public knowledge and per WP:BDP can appear in Wikipedia articles. Indian law, "journalistic ethics", discussion, and consensus are not relevant. However, if every other Wikipedia editor thinks the name Jyoti Singh Pandey should be excluded from Wikipedia articles, so be it. David F (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Why_names_removed.3F David F (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Rules_and_laws_governing_content_and_editor_behavior, Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the United States and of the U.S. state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located, not the laws of India. David F (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat neutral about this naming dispute. On one side, only Indian or resident-in-India Editors should be wary of the Indian Law, while most of us are immune from it; moreover, I agree with David F and other editors about compliance to wiki policies. On the other side, I agree with Gandydancer and other ones about the victim name adding very little to the story, and that a reader who really wanted to know it would not sweat much in order to do so.

However, I like to add here two remarks, for everybody's consideration:

1) according to the a/m Hindu newspaper note [3], their reason for not publishing the victim's name is not because they have any doubt that the father actually asked for it to be revealed publicly, but because the Indian Law dictates a very particular and detailed procedure according to which parents are required to stick in order to give such authorizations, and apparently her father had not done it that way yet. A matter of letter-of-the-law rather than spirit-of-the-law.

2) Somebody else at the same newspaper did a research finding that the Indian police itself frequently neglects to apply this same law about not disclosing crime victims' names [4]

LNCSRG (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David F, suggesting that consensus is "not relevant" is likely to land you in hot water rather quickly. That's not how we do things here on Wikipedia.

However, given that the Times of India is now happy to name her (links further down this page), the case for suppressing the information is weaker. (I can't think of any obvious reason to claim that the Times of India is less sensitive to local mores or the feelings of the family than the BBC is.)

But, there may still be an argument for suggesting that if major outlets like the BBC feel that the sensitive approach is not to name her, Wikipedia should adopt an equally sensitive approach per WP:BLP. A slight complication is that the BBC don't appear to have bothered updating any of their news articles on this since lunchtime GMT on Monday. Their approach might change dramatically as their news writers get going in the next few hours, now that they will be aware the name is widely circulated in reliable sources in India itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is some twist in tale now, according to this "Times of India" report the girls father has permitted the use of her real name, however many news articles that I checked "Times of India" still use "Delhi rape victim" or "Nirbhaya" etc, may be we can wait till the usage of the victim's real name becomes common in the media. --sarvajna (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think this question is worthy of an RFC? Andrew³²⁷ 08:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request David F., and everyone else, let us not name the Victim until the Indian Govt. thinks appropriate. I haven't come across any credible Indian Newspaper that has obtained sufficient permission from the Victim's parents to publish her name. The victim is a hope for every Woman in India, the protests are still going on FYI. They call her "India's Daughter" so that every Indian woman/girl can relate to her plight of getting raped or molested. David F the Wiki servers are in USA, . No one denies that. But the Wikipedia is subject to US COPYRIGHT LAWS and nothing else. Don't make a moral discussion into a legal one. Firstly, there is a procedure to reveal the name of the Victim, and that has yet to be followed. Secondly, any one who knows how to use a search engine can find out the name of the victim. However, let us keep Wiki clean and neutral. The Ajan (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection, policy-based or otherwise, to giving her name once it's clear that this is the direction that the press is going. I don't think we need an RFC on this unless the press's decision is still unclear in a week or so. Clearly, there will always be holdouts (e.g. 60 Minutes interviewing "Mark Owen" in disguise, despite CNN's already having released his real identity), and if it comes to a situation where some sources name her and some sources refuse to, I think it would make sense to defer to the most detailed description. But as long as things are up in the air as to whether the family has consented or what the majority of media sources plan on doing, I think it's best to continue to refrain from identifying her.

Incidentally, Ferrierd (David F), it's becoming rather difficult to debate this with you, as you keep on coming up with new arguments, and ignoring parts of mine. To be clear: WP:BDP means that we should treat this exactly as we would a BLP; WP:BLPNAME says that if there's a reason not to name someone (in this case, that it's unclear if the family has consented, at least in such a way as to satisfy the press on an ethical basis), and no good reason to name them, we should not. Please respond to the actual policy-based argument, not to any straw man arguments. Thank you. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the criterion to decide what is "the direction that the press is going" ? I tried a world research on google news with the poor girl's name, and found more than 24k occurrences, most of them in English, but also in other languages [5]. However, I also had a look on several online versions of famous world newspapers, and I found that most of them did not mention her name. So what? 89.97.208.106 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Francophone. We don't need an RfC and once the press stop pussyfooting around her name, we can include it here as well. This is an encyclopedia and not a news site and we should follow behind the news rather than lead it. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)‎[reply]

In order to avoid such problems moving forward, I just requested temporary move protection for this article. Andrew³²⁷ 16:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258306/Delhi-gang-rape-Five-men-charged-Jyoti-Singh-Pandey-murder-appear-court.html

http://www.indiatimes.com/bollywood/bollywood-salutes-jyoti-singh-pandeys-father-53616.html

http://www.capitalbay.com/headline/292592-india-gang-rape-friend-says-jyoti-singh-pandey-was-lured-into-the-bus-ride-from-hell.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_want-world-to-know-daughter-jyoti-singh-pandey-was-delhi-braveheart-father_1786106

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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.165.121.80.134 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victim-jyoti-1521178

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/indian-gang-rape-victims-father-1522185

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

Appears credible. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does anybody find this man babbling worth of mention on the article? [6], [7], [8]? LNCSRG (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can add it in the reaction section but we should also think whether we need to give importance to every comment made by every person also this guy Asaram Bapu is neither head of a political party or someone in government so I personally would not like to give importance to his statements, rest it depends on the consensus. --sarvajna (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this man has his own Wikipedia article, which includes a section about the a/m controversial statement and relevant reactions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaram_Bapu#Statements_about_Delhi_rape_victim_-_07_Jan.2C_2013
89.97.208.106 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No comments on inclusion or exclusion. But if excluded, some trimming on excessive overdue text at Asaram Bapu would be good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victim's father has confirmed that he has given permission to publish name - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-gang-rape-I-gave-permission-to-disclose-name-Nirbhayas-father/articleshow/17931879.cms

Only Delhi police claims otherwise...

Victim's friend also came out in open and himself gave interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.240.116 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original source of her name http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289 "their loved ones do not wish" in edit note no longer holds good. her name is Jyoti Singh Pandey. Ideas river (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet, it's known that her father revealed her name so other victims know that Jyoti was not another story and one more number. Septrya (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this, in regards to why the names have been removed. Thanks, — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]