Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Expansion

Major expansion of the Victim and the Prosecution section is required.Regards, theTigerKing  18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing notes

Over the past couple of days many edits have had to be reverted, some of the problems include:

1. BLP violations -- The perpetrators are also covered by our WP:BLP policy, please note that while adding any information. Information added in violation will be removed.
2. Copyright violations and close paraphrasing of external sources -- Wikipedia content can not be copied from elsewhere and will have to be reworded significantly to not follow the structure of the external sources (without a loss in meaning).
3. Original research and opinions -- Any content added should be verified by external sources. Wikipedia articles are not to publish personal opinions or to encourage activism.

While this is not all-inclusive, the above represents many common problems and will help you understand. Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Capital Punishment in India

I think this statement needs to be changed: "Many protestors have also been demanding death penalty for the accused, which, however, is not currently permitted by the Indian constitution."

There is capital punishment in India reserved for the rarest of the rare scenario. The wiki article on Capital punishment points out that India does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NagaSrinivas (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Capital crimes are murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the nation, and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. Capital punishment is not possible on India for rape. The only way that could be possible is if the parliament passes a new law allowing for capital punishment for the accused 6. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

... and if Indian law fundamentals did not prohibit ex post facto laws, which it seems they do prohibit, though the meaning of the last sentence of the second paragraph here is unclear. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Charges against the accused include "Murder", and the victem has passed away. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheila Dikshit quote

I have reintroduced the Sheila Dikshit quote as I believe it represents a significant component of media concerns and should not be censured. It is important to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and represent all perspectives (please see: WP:BALANCE). Placing it within the paragraph on parliamentary proceedings, similar to reactions of her colleagues, makes sure that it is not WP:UNDUE. Ramwithaxe 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Its now added. But it may be removed again by others if found inappropriate. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Congress deviousness and nsui goons

Why no mention of Congress deviousness and Nsui goons?[1][2] the later source is a Madhu Purnima Kishwar opinion piece. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First source is not reliable. Second is also not reliable; but TOI was talking about it. So added. Next time please bring credible sources. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is Kishwar not reliable? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see which sources are reliable and which are not. Many sources, especially the non famous ones, will be considered unreliable as they make unsubstantiated claims without backing it up. Which is why BBC is reliable, but not India TV. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Share diff of discussion or Wikipedia policy which relates fame to reliability? "The more famous the more reliable"... Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

TOI discuss the same issue[3][4] NBT too discusses the issue[5] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First source added. Second does not speak of your claims. Third is unreliable. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• NBT unreliable? Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the justification for this edit?[6] The change in the deaths section. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary information and non-reliable sources. There is no point adding eyewitnesses' comments when they do not come from reliable sources. Until further information comes out, keep it short and simple. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IANS/ yahoo news not reliable? The sup. of RML hosp. not reliable? Huh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IANS- May be reliable, but depends on what is being said. If claims are unsubstantiable, its always more prudent to wait. Yahoo - NO. Not reliable. Superintendant - Again not reliable; unless he/she is quoted saying the same by a reliable source. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated according to whom? You? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He was just chasing the protesters and collapsed. Now thats one claim that needs credible sources before its added (again). Unsubstantiated or not, I leave it to you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The sup. is quoted by IANS a RS as you admit. Did you check before you deleted? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Honest answer - Not really (On the sources that is). A cursory view was all I gave, after which I had to remove large amounts of confusing text. Add anything you want, and then we shall see which one of those claims are genuine, and which must not be talked about currently. My opinion is to add sources, but not add many more statements unless there is something important thats missed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What is a "Nsui goon" ? 'Goons' from the National Students Union of India I presume? - 220 of ^Borg 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Goonda. I've not actually read that article but to my knowledge they are commonly, but not necessarily exclusively, associated with right-wing Hindutva groups. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My new-word-for-the-day 'Goonda'. Thanks Sitush. - 220 of ^Borg 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just amended my explanation above: not necessarily is what I intended. You can add stupid typo to your list of new-phrases-for-the-day, although I suspect you are already as familiar with it as I am <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomar

It is not clear how Tomar died, not fair to have his death in the lead attributed to violence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

His death was very much related to the protests. What remains under question is whether or not his attack was caused by the protesters. I have altered the sentence to remove incorrectness. How does it look now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not lead material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly is. Until it becomes clear whether or not he died because of being assaulted by the protesters, or was it a normal heart attack case mixed up in this incident, this death is very much a part of the protests. There have been several clashes already over his death, and all of them are directly connected to the protests. There is no reason not to mention the death. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomar's death section says that the fracture was due to incorrectly administered CPR. This is incorrect. There is a high risk of rib fracture during CPR [[7]]and the RML Hospital has gone on record to state that the fractures occurred after hospitalization when the CPR was administered by them. 115.112.231.107 (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Citation for doctor from RML admitting that fracture may be due to them [8] 115.112.231.107 (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How does the article look now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am happy that the lies regarding Tomar's death from injuries are not repeated on Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lies? Do you know that they were or is that just your pov? Best to keep it neutral, obviously, but if it was sourced and there are different opinions then who are we to call A or B liars? - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Do anyone want evidence that they are lies. That injuries sustained were during rigorous CPR. I am old enough here to differentiate between my views (which have no place here) and what we hear from reliable sources. It is a pity that others have trouble rising above their own POV, and check the world outside their own wells. The machinations of the Congress have been exposed. It is all over the place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Delhi protests?

Does anyone have an appropriate self made picture of the Delhi protests (or has someone found one online with the required licence), to be uploaded on Wiki Commons? Wiki-uk (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities section

If the "Celebrities and notable people" section really necessary? It seems to be common in Indian current events articles but it is rent-a-quote stuff. I'd rather see it gone. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here. but I would personally rather wait until another editor removes it himself. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we do not see any opposition here in the next few hours, I am going to be bold. This is a high-traffic article. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to remove it within the next hour or so. It is undue weight and the likes of Bachchan seem to have a quoted opinion on practically every controversy in India. Perhaps some of these people should consider (or again consider, in at least one case) entering politics. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The recent US school massacre and even a related dedicated article (I don't know it is there or culled) is full of such fashionable tut tutting, Yet OSE, I agree with Sitush, Wikipedia isn't the place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the MOM award though. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Esp. as many of these male actors have made a living playing "taming the shrew roles", and we have a life imitates art incident here. I remember reading a NRA statement that the US in not violent because of easy gun availability but because of the thousands of hours of exposure of violence in the media. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unused sources

One of the problems with {{sfn}} is that sometimes sources end up in the bibliography section but are not or are no longer cited. That has happened here, big time. I am about to remove those uncited sources from the article but, in the interests of mining information, I'll dump them here for now. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Delhi gangrape very upsetting incident: PM". The Indian Express. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• "Delhi gang rape victim battles on, undergoes fifth surgery". The Times of India. Press Trust of India. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• "elhi gangrape: doctors say victim is off the ventilator, has 'immense fighting spirit'". Hindustan Times. Press Trust of India. 21 December 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• "Delhi gang-rape: Parliamentary Standing panel to meet on December 27". The Economic Times. Press Trust of India. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• "Victim critical, three confess to crime; one more detained". Hindustan Times. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• "High Court slams Delhi Police for its report on gang rape case". MoneyLife. Press Trust of India. 21 December 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• "Five fast track courts approved for Delhi rape cases". Deccan Herald. New Delhi. IANS. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
• "Delhi Bus Gang Rape Sparks Angry Protests". Sky News. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• "Police team questions Delhi rape accused's father, brother". Zeenews. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• "Delhi gang-rape victim given symbolic name 'Damini'". DNA. IANS. 23 December 2012.
• Ghosh, Palash R. (21 December 2012). "Delhi Gang-Rape: Fifth Man Arrested, Police Seek Life Imprisonment". International Business Times. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Joshi, Sandeep (21 December 2012). "Women will be safe in Delhi: R.K. Singh". The Hindu. New Delhi. Retrieved 22 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• "India Rape Protests: Reporter 'Shot Dead'". Sky News. 23 December 2012.

- that's the lot for now. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Gang rape on bus triggers outrage, protests across India". Fox News Channel. Associated Press. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.

- two more that are now uncited. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sanyal, Prasad (18 December 2012). "Delhi gang-rape: Rapists wanted to 'teach girl a lesson', say police sources". NDTV. Retrieved 23 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vaidyanathan, A.; Mukherjee, Ashish (19 December 2012). "Delhi gang-rape: Not just VIPs, other people need security too, says Supreme Court judge and mother of three". NDTV. Retrieved 19 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

- two more moved from the article. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Delhi gang-rape: Shah Rukh Khan, Big B voice their ire". Zeenews. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• "Delhi gang-rape protests: Government may consider death penalty in rarest of rare rape cases". Zeenews. 22 December 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• "Reactions on Twitter to the Delhi gang rape". Reuters. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.

- three more - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Yuvraj Singh dedicates man-of-the-match award to Delhi gangrape victim". The Indian Express. 21 December 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2012.

- source moved here from the article. No longer cited and, per the discussion below re: the Man of the Match award, is presently unlikely to be reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

I believe the best way to add references in the main article is after the sentence is complete. Adding them midway through the sentence creates a lot of confusion, and takes the reading flow away, especially if there are several references being used. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. You cite sources for specific points otherwise it can become a hunt through multiple sources to find that point. This is pretty basic stuff. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Deaths removal of sub heading

The sub heading "Deaths" can be removed and matter added to body, since reason for his (police) death is yet to be confirmed, so highlighting "deaths" by a subheading seems unnecessary.Rayabhari (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Accused or Suspect

I have raised the question on Template talk:Infobox news event. The infobox should have an option of Accused instead of Suspect(s) as both are different. --sarvajna (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, that. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think they will be accused only when the charge sheet is filed, till then they are suspects during the time the investigation is in progress. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Protests and reaction

We are now duplicating info in the Public protests and Government reaction sections. I have to go out soon: does anyone fancy tidying this up? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not see much of duplicate info apart from the info about closing metro stations and section 144. Let me try --sarvajna (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead edit

I have edited the lead to make it flow better, removed excessive medical details, the part about pseudonyms, the statement "who were friends of the driver" as it was unsourced, and made it very clear that the victim has now died. I also added that 6 men have been arrested. Diff here

Hope this looks better. I don't edit leads that much. - 220 of ^Borg 01:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The qualification "who were friends of the driver" is very important in the lead paragraph, as otherwise the article implies that a group of ordinary passengers could do such a thing. This fact was sourced in the Alleged perpetrators section at the time it was included; will re-source.165.121.80.108 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Charges

The charges in the box do not match the charges in the body, the latter of which adds attempted murder. Agent Cooper (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Because she has just died and, presumably, the charges will be amended? I'm inclined to remove the charges stuff from the infobox for now because the situation is very fluid and, well, the legal system can and often does reframe charges. I'll leave it to someone else to do, but that would be my preference until the matter actually hits a full court hearing. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mechanism of bowel injury

I removed what had been written there, as it was likely vandalism, and a description I have not seen in the dozens of articles I have read thus far. If anyone can provide a reference, as unlikely as that would be, please do so. Ramwithaxe 02:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's back, and referenced, but I continue to object to this level of detail. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspects/accused

Below is copied from User talk:Canoe1967. My apologies for opening a discussion there when it should have been raised here.

---

start copy----

Hi, I don't understand this edit by you. The source, which is reliable, clearly states the charges being faced. I know that WP:BLP is a minefield at the best of times but this seems not to be speculative. Well, it is not speculative if you understand Indian English. Could you perhaps clarify, as I'm presuming some sort of WP:CRYSTAL might underly your quote of BLP. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

With current events that are still unfolding it is best to remove contentenious material then seek consensus as to what if any should be added back. Possibly facing charges is wp:crystal, yes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not contentious. The only contention is whether the charges will become more serious (ie: murder). As for the "suspects", there is a thread on the talk page that explains the problem relating to the infobox template - "suspects" vs "accused". These named people are in the Indian criminal justice system, no-one else is being sought, some have already admitted guilt/complicity etc. I think that in this instance you are being over-cautious and, believe me, I am usually cautious <g> Maybe we should take this to the article talk page? It being 0330 here, I'm off to bed shortly anyway but, honestly, unless you want to strip all the names etc out of the thing then this looks like a well-intentioned but poor application of BLP. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll copy this entire thread over to the article talk page. My apologies for raising it here - it really is not the best venue, and I suspect it may end up at WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

---

end copy----

- Sitush (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why it should be The five adults accused could face charges under the Indian Penal Code. These people have already been charged. --sarvajna (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Chargesheet hasn't been filed. First stage is case is booked, that has been done, then the Chargesheet is filed, that will be done in this case apparently on Jan. 3. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't, either, but no-one seems to be paying much attention to this talk page at the moment. Probably because of the volume of traffic/maintenance required to keep out clearly inappropriate stuff. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Use British English?

Why is this article under British English and not Indian English? The subject of this article clearly has strong ties to India per MOS:TIES. -- KTC (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#National_varieties_of_English above. This is common on Indian articles: far more use BE than IE. Since this was originally BE, it should not have been unilaterally re-tagged as IE, regardless of WP:ENGVAR. The differences between IE and BE are mainly wrt phrasing, not spelling ("cops" is commonly used for "police", "breathed his last" for "died" etc). - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response seems to imply I had unilaterally re-tagged the article... :/ KTC (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That was not intended and is why I linked to the prior discussion, where the diff of retagging is clearly noted. Sorry if this has caused confusion. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much difference between BrE and InE. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, although WP:WORDS often raises its head in those differences, as with the "breathed his last" that I mention above. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be Indian English the subject being Indian. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not only edited by Indians.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

True, it is also edited by Americans, Japanese people etc. So it is better to go with the Subject's nationality in case of BLP.--sarvajna (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The main difference between BrE and InE is spoken/oral wrt pronunciations. There is negligible difference in writing as pointed out by Sitush. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Charges

Now that the victim has (unfortunately) died, will charges be upgraded from rape to murder? If so, is the death penalty applicable? These facts should be added into the article, if anyone has any knowledge about this. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. But I would rather wait than add it. Let some sources verify it before we jump into it. Especially since we cannot be sure what the Govt stance will be- to go for murder or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Apparently, they already have been charged with murder. They also face the death penalty. See this link: India Gang Rape Case: Attackers To Face Murder Charge. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

International Reaction?

I think you should add the reaction of prominent human rights activist , william nicholas gomes,visiting fellow at Centre for Applied Human Rights in University of York, UK. he wrote a letter rahul gandhi , in his letter he mentioned "I am quite sure if your mother Sonia Gandhi or your sister Priyanka Gandhi were victims of such heinous incident like the innocent girl did, you would not just end up in sharing condolences, nor your fellow friends and perverted politicians like Congress MP Abhijit Mukherjee.http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january062013/india-rape-wg.php

I want to ask every Indian, is this what they disserve? If not, then what is the meaning of independence and of sovereign existence?

It is time when every citizen should call upon the government and demand each bit of that dream the founding fathers of the nation promised." There has been significant international reactions to these events. What are your thoughts on the developing an international reactions section of the article?Casprings (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I remember reading about a tweet by Malala. That also should be added here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Do go ahead and start. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Please watch the contributions of this IP editor. I've already removed two of their edits over WP:CV concerns.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticed that the user has been given a final warning. If user makes another such edit [even after it becomes January 2013], I Guess and ARV should be filed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why protests?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Was the bus stolen?

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)

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)

Resolved

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Teek hain

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)

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

User:Canoe1967 has removed [9] 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

Social Context?

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)

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)

• Agree with you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

Timeline of Prosecution

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)

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)

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

Reactions to Death

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)

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)

UN Human Rights

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)

Ambiguity in first paragraph

   "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)

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

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)

Adding first hand witness account (which is far more authentic than other speculative references)

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)

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

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)

Name

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)

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)

Move

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)

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)

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)

National varieties of English

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Mention Yuvraj MoM?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Her family's caste

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archive the page

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

No article in Indian Languages?

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)

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)

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

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

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

Article name change to murder

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The victim died, murder charges have been filed[10] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Victim's name

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [11], 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 [12]

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Better safe than sorry

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)

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 [13]. 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)

• 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)

Why names removed?

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)

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)

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)

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

Off topic discussion thread

What needs to be done to the article References must be trimmed out to remove any with overlapping info and to include just the most reliable ones References must be properly mined so all the necessary info is added to the article The language of the article must be corrected to meet Wiki standards. Excessive linking must be removed from the latter portions 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. Update it with regard to the candle marches and other places where the outrage has spread TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 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) Inaccurate. Please disregard. David F (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) Two Pandeys 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) "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) @ 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) Asaram Bapu Does anybody find this man babbling worth of mention on the article? [14], [15], [16]? LNCSRG (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) (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) I don't think we need any more Babas or Bapus talking about this, the more we mention about them, the more they gain unnecessary popularity. Let us stick to the statements of people who matter. Read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABLITY for why we would not like to name the person if he is not inherently notable. The Ajan (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)