Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder

Undiscussed moves

Justanother2 please stop moving this article without discussion. You need to establish consensus first when making a move, especially when someone else contests your claim. There's already been multiple discussions about moving this article on this talk page here (see above). Soni (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Thewikizoomer, Please see above. There has been quite a lot of discussion about the landing page for this article. I am not fully opposed to 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder incident but you need to start a new WP:RM and discuss first before moving. This being a Good Article, we'd like to establish greater caution to keep the article quality too. Soni (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW land. Consensus is clearly against. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

---

2012 Delhi gang rape and murder → 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder incident – Not specific. Gang rape and murder what? case? incident? Hence move requested. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Also incident because, the case is already elaborated in the incident article. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. The current title of the article summarizes it pretty well, but as far as I can tell, the article refers to it as "the incident" or some variation. Adding "incident" to the title seems a bit unnecessary. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also the article talks more than just about the incident itself. James Goner (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Proposed title is weirdly phrased, current one is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per template:Rape in India, I don't think we should revisit this across all events. This event has been prominently known for over a decade, it doesn't need the additional qualifier of 'incident' now.Schwinnspeed (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Schwinnspeed's logic. No need to change this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The title is clear and concise. No need to add 'incident' to it. Waqar💬 17:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• oppose: same as above. 103.52.220.237 (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neither "rape" nor "murder" needs "incident" appended to it. They stand alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Feels like only yesterday I was here debating whether this page should be titled "Murder of [victim's name]" (as I preferred at the time). The current title is fine as is, adding "incident" really doesn't add anything other than an extra word and perhaps confusion. Paris1127 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutral. There is no need to change the tile as the original one has clearly summarised the entre "incident" happened. Each word is concise and key, excepting "incident". Emiya-Morrison (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (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.

Requested move 23 August 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closure (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

2012 Delhi gang rape and murder → 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder incident – Not specific. Gang rape and murder what? case? incident? Hence move requested.

Also the article includes aftermath, so, 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder is not specific. Also most of the article covers about the case and this incident leading to forming a law. So 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case also would be specific.

Relisting for proper consensus. Non-admins are requested not close this request atleast for 7 days to facilitate proper discussion. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer If you want to challenge closures, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Making a new move request will be procedurally closed immediately. Soni (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse suggestion says new discussion can be opened. - Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-DandelionAndBurdock-20240822061800-Thewikizoomer-20240822055000. Do you differ? Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Then let's get this farce of a move request over and done with. WP:SNOW is an understatement for the above closure, but if this puts this to bed and forever stops something like this, then let's do it. Ravensfire (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Misinterpreting one teahouse editor's subjective opinion on things does not automatically allow editors to just ignore established procedure. This is how we waste everyone's time. I will rather just undo my close than have editors just decide to spend 7 days trying to redo an RM because they do not understand how WP:CLOSECHALLENGE works. Soni (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above discussion. There is no good reason to add incident at the end of the title, it reads awkwardly and is just not needed. This should be withdrawn and the consensus above respected. Ravensfire (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing has changed in the 24 hours since the previous discussion was closed per WP:SNOW. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't it sound it like it's the gang rape and murder of Delhi here? According to - Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#c-ZimZalaBim-20240823132800-2A00:23EE:1928:8C3:951B:C401:3A56:519A-20240816151700

  Or else is this because the article 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder is an incident that happened long ago? Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course there's inconsistency across a variety of articles - it's Wikipedia and once a page has been named a certain way for a while it tends to stick. I would point out that the move discussion you noted is trending towards removing "incident" from the page title. Looking at {{Rape_in_India}}, there's once time that incident is used, the rest use "case" or nothing at all. A larger discussions to get consistency may be helpful but that's something that should really be on WT:INDIA. Ravensfire (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about the rape and murder. Adding more words to the title is unnecessary. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adding the word incident makes it seem like you're using air quotes, and diminishes the seriousness of the case. Further, OP is clearly not listening to the consensus, so doubly oppose. Mason (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the last RM consensus. "Incident" adds no clarity to the title. Paris1127 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree that adding "incident" does not add anything of note as already mentioned. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (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.

Name of the victim

The victim name should be removed from this and other similar articles (similar incidents that took place in India) as per the Indian law.

Statement given by WMF, on similar issue is here. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The parents have disclosed the name [1], I see sources using it [2] [3]. You flat and squarely misunderstood what WMF statement reads — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The point here is as per the Indian law, the name shouldn't be mentioned publicly in any manner 1, even if the parents disclose the name, it shouldn't be mentioned. You failed to notice the "Indian law" term above. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikipedia by WMF is based in the US where Indian law does not have jurisdiction? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 12:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Totally, but WMF is not insensitive to laws of other countries which they themselves admitted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please just read some of our policies first:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

...to begin with — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer yes we understand that the victim's parents have disclosed the name and it's inline with the rule to use her name. And we understand that Wikipedia is based in the US and Indian law may not have jurisdiction there. However, Wikipedia follows ethical guidelines that prioritize the privacy and dignity of individuals globally. The Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, as well as other privacy-related rules, encourage editors to avoid disclosing sensitive information, especially in cases where it could cause harm. In the case of rape victims, even though Indian law may not apply directly, respecting the privacy of victims aligns with Wikipedia’s broader commitment to ethical practices, and I think they should be excluded to maintain the integrity of the platform. Can we have a similar discussion at Talk:2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder if you're interested. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We name the name here because it's widely disseminated in the secondary reliable sources as the time passed by — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 20:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer Yes, this article is in line with the law and is well-supported by reliable sources, and I agree with you on that. However, I’m referring to other articles in general, where there are instances of misuse, such as in the Hyderabad case. I.Mahesh (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh Then this discussion should not be in this talk page. The discussion for individual articles should be on their talk pages, and for the entire general discussion to be on a noticeboard. Either an RFC on WT:WikiProject India or a Village Pump or similar. Soni (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Soni I did respond to the statement regarding WMF's compliance with Indian laws, which was brought up in discussions on this talk page. I also suggested the user continue the discussion on the Hyderabad talk page if they are interested, as the content of both discussions is the same. I’m not sure what went wrong here. Could you clarify? I.Mahesh (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure either, maybe I am misreading the discussion. The WMF opined on this article since here is where the court case is. And we can reference that statement on other discussions as needed.

But generally you cannot establish a consensus for another article on another article's talk page. So if you are trying to make the case for other articles here, no matter what, we will have to have the same discussion again in another venue. In Hyderabad's article talk page if we only want to discuss that case. Or in a broader venue if we want to make a general precedent for "How articles like this should be generally handled". Soni (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Soni Thank you for clarifying. I understand that our stance on this article is tied to the court case, and that this specific discussion applies only here. I agree that establishing a consensus for other articles would require separate discussions. My earlier suggestion was meant to address the similar concerns in the Hyderabad article, but I see now that it would need to be discussed directly on that talk page or in a broader forum if we’re aiming for a general policy on how such cases should be handled. I appreciate the insight! I.Mahesh (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Except our stance on this article is not tied to the court case. We had a discussion. WMF weighed in. But the actual decision was done based on Wikipedia policies. There are a lot of policy considerations, such as "How have reliable sources been describing the victim", which will differ from article to article. WMF's recommendations will generally apply to most similar articles (so we should quote it) but it's not the same as being "tied to the court case".

This distinction is important as sometimes Wikipedia policies will not match a country's law. Then WMF will have to answer to that country's govt. But until they do any Office Action, the editors (Indian or not) will mostly use Wikipedia policies only to decide if this is reasonable to add or not. Soni (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

+1. In general a country's laws or a court case are not considered by Wikipedia editors. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee @Soni, I understand that WMF isn't bound by a country's laws due to its headquarters being in the USA and Wikipedia's policies. However, when it comes to articles like this, which deal with events tied directly to a specific country, in this case, India, it’s important to consider the intent behind those laws. Indian laws, particularly in cases like these, aim to protect the privacy and dignity of victims, not censor information. As Wikipedians, I believe we should strive to follow such practices, not just because of legal requirements, but because it’s the ethical thing to do.

Additionally, this article works fine but, in other cases a direct statement was given by the court to Wikipedia (ex: recent Kolkata case), requesting the removal of sensitive data. Ignoring such orders can reflect poorly on the platform, and in my view, it’s more about respecting judicial authority and showing that we, as a community, value good practices in sensitive cases. That being said, we can leave this discussion here for now, and I’ll start a broader conversation on WikiProject India after we reach a resolution on the Hyderabad article. I think it will be helpful to establish a clear guideline for future cases. I.Mahesh (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh, yes, and editors here decided we should consider cultural norms when weighing the value the content provides to the readers vs. the distress it might cause to the survivors, and that sometimes laws are a clue to those cultural norms. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The statement by WMF was referenced above so that users who are getting ready to type WP:NOTCENSORED get a headsup. Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with DaxServer, the parents have disclosed the name and asked for it to be used, and it's subsequently been used by other media. At that point I don't think the Indian cultural norms (much less the laws) are relevant to this article. Valereee (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)