The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Oppose – I don't like this proposal. "2024 Kolkata rape and murder" sounds like it should be a list or discussion of all the rape and murder that has happened in Kolkata this year. I vote to leave "incident" in the title. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed.. The title of "2024 Kolkata rape and murder" could refer to many incidents not just this one. I oppose this move. "2024 rape and murder at RG EnneDee (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In most of the ones ending with 'case' in [:template: rape in india]] the case is prominently covered and a large part of the focus of the article itself (see: 2009 Shopian rape and murder case or 2014 Birbhum gang rape case. There are many, many ones where there is no 'case' or 'incident' in the title. Most of the ones that reached national/international notoriety and the level of outrage we're seeing now (i.e., 2012 Delhi or 2020 Hathras, don't mention 'case' or 'incident' in the title. Schwinnspeed (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support per precedent in Template:Rape in India or other similar pages. The word "incident" adds nothing to the description or searchability, and WP:CONCISE suggests we should drop it. I'd have moved it back already, given the undiscussed move first (per WP:BRD) but it might be worse for current discussion.
Also, there may be WP:ENGVAR issues in play since "Rape and murder" is a perfectly acceptable noun, but I think it's percieved by some commenters as an adjective. If this fails, I prefer moving to 2024 Kolkata rape and murder case instead, it's the other keyword similar articles share. Soni (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would be a bad precedent to put Murder of Moumita Debnath or Killing of Moumita Debnath as the title. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so I agree on not removing the name from the article. But nearly no Indian sources will identify her by name, so it cannot be the primary landing page simply because people will not use it. Legal concerns aside, the utility of the article is strictly worsened by having her name be part of the title and I would strongly oppose any title with her name in it.
The coverage of this incident is probably differing significantly based on Indian and Western sources, and I'd suggest deferring to former when it comes to title at keast. I suspect most editors supporting this move are viewing it from a latter lens Soni (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Weak Support Wouldn't it be better to name the article Rape and Murder of Moumita Debnath? When searching for the article, would this not be the most recognisable name? EmilySarah99 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support I think "2024 Kolkata RG College Rape and Murder" would be even better. But I vote to strike "incident" out. I don't think most media outlets are using the victim's name at the moment too prominently to avoid revictimizing her family at the moment. Cononsense (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support per all above. The undiscussed move was totally unnecessary. The addition of 'incident' is superfluous and is not in accordance with the main template. As Soni suggested, other crimes can be covered under a different title. Till another similar incident (God forbid) occurs in Kolkata which garners enough SIGCOV and warrants another article title, we can change the title then.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The other precedent on this other than template above is listed at Category:Violence against women in India template (Neither template is exhaustive but both are large, depressingly so). The term "murder case" or "rape case" appears semi consistently in the articles, but not enough to establish a clear precedent. So I am also okay with us trying to establish a consensus for "case" and switching everything to it. Soni (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Soni, Looking through the articles listed under the Category, seems like there is some previous precedent to say 'murder of xx', though most of articles titled in that way are not related to rape. I still support the original request (and would be ok to move add 'case' given previous precedent), but 'murder of___' seems to be building momentum below. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I forgot to reply to this, but there is precedent for it only if the victim's name is widely used. Nirbhaya and Murder of Jyoti Singh are not the primary titles, 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder is. And that's arguably the most famous case in recent Indian history.
If a vast majority of sources were actively identifying this case by her name, I'd say there's precedent to add "Murder of Xx". I don't believe they are, and so it's comparing two completely different scenarios. There is very few precedents where the media at large (legal reasons or otherwise) chooses not to primarily use a specific name, and we overrule it anyway. Soni (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Technically speaking @Bait30, I don't think it would be a good idea. The individual is notable to the case of rape and murder only and doesn't have separate article about herself due to one-event case (r&m). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)06:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Weak Support per nom and above arguments. I'd like to also point out that her name is more trending than "Kolkata rape" or "Kolkata murder" respectively, according to the Google Trends. Therefore, adding her name to the article would make more sense. Personally, I haven't seen anyone using her pseudo name i.e. Abhaya, on my social media feed. Unlike 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, everyone is using her real name and picture for the protests. ParallelLife (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support – the removal of "incident". Oppose "Killing/Murder of [name]" since the victim's name is mentioned in just one of the headlines of the sources used, and she is not even the main subject there. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support I don't think "Incident" is a great word to use to refer to such a horrific crime. Some sources are using the word "Case" instead Rainsage (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, I believe Killing of Moumita Debnath to be a better alternative to either title, being both concise and specific. rariteh (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
minor comment a more formative title then that would be Murder of Moumita Debnath
Comment: It is too soon to call this a "Murder of ..." article, for WP:BLPCRIME reasons, because a conviction for murder is required. But WP:KILLINGS indicates Killing of Moumita Debnath is an acceptable title at this stage in the court proceedings. I would support a title that starts "Killing of ...", for now, with an understanding that a second move to "Murder of ..." would happen if any perpetrator is found guilty and convicted for murder at a later date. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cameron Dewe Then why does the current title have the word murder in it then?
@Daisytheduck: Good question. The original title applied the event naming convention which includes a succinct description of "when", "where" and "what" in the title. The news media have reported the "what" aspect of this event as a "rape and murder", which makes that a commonly recognizable name. While the police are investigating this crime as a murder, and have laid murder charges, they have yet to prove that a particular person was murdered, by securing a conviction. This is about different standards of proof needed for laying charges, which only need a suspicion or allegation, verses a conviction in a fair court trial which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard. Like many British Commonwealth related jurisdictions, Indian law allows the court to convict for manslaughter, rather than murder, if intent to cause death cannot be proved, but a "culpable homicide" can be. Until the trial is finished, Wikipedia cannot say if the named victim was murdered or not, although she is dead in violent circumstances. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cameron Dewe I get your point, but most of the of the reliable sources (which wikipedia relies on for articles such as this) all call it as a murder and thus should reflect that consensus.
@Cameron Dewe the "when", "where" and "what" title formulation is only really necessary when more than a year has passed since the event in question. But i see your point maybe a comprimise is to happen perhaps a redirect is for the best ;)
Oppose purely on grammatical grounds; "2024 Kolkata rape and murder" is ambiguous, "rape and murder" functions as an adjective of 2024 Kolkata, it can imply that the article is about rape and murder in Kolkata throughout 2024. (Has there only been one murder in Kolkata in 2024? One rape?). "2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident" is unambiguous, referring to a specific event for which the article focusses. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose — It's essential to include "incident" in the title. It's not just a crime story, there's a big impact in the aftermath of the crime. STSC (talk)
Support --- As I said over on the discussion when someone tried to move the 2012 Delhi case to a page with incident in the title, it adds nothing other than an extra word. "Incident" is unneeded. Paris1127 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support --- Primarily based on empirical evidence that has been shared by Schwinnspeed above. Although the term incident is more specific and technically correct, its absence would not adversely affect the average Wikipedia reader who comes here for some form of clarity and explanation about what happened. In times of confusion, having access to the unbiased, uncensored information written in a neutral tone is what helps the reader. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that outrage directed towards the region is what encourages better practices by the governments and bureaucrats. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - the entire structure of the title is both misleading and arbitrary. Was "Kolkata" someone who was raped and murdered? For an uninformed user, there's no way to recognize this is referncing a geographic location. And why is the focus on the location? It should be on the subject. Further, why are we including the rape element of the case, and not anything else that might have happened to the victim? I agree with other suggestions that Killing of Moumita Debnath is more suitable (can't say "murder" until a conviction, IMO). --ZimZalaBimtalk13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Incident is awkward phrasing and not needed here. Having the location gives this a way to distinguish from other events (tragically, that happens way too often) that don't generate the impact that this is having. Oppose using the victims name at this point unless it becomse widely used. Ravensfire (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support :Another gang-rape-to-death in India... The word "incident" is unnecessary, and its use in the title subtly minimizes the lethal natures of the crimes. An even better 'searchable' title would be Kolkata Hospital rape and murder. When an agreement is reached that the quantity of collected semen signifies that a gang rape occurred (more culturally common than a lone rapist), then the title can be changed to Kolkata Hospital gang rape and murder. Unfortunately. Metokpema (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would argue this is a borderline BLP case based on using her name in the title. It's always dicey when legally speaking it's not possible to use her name without risking some clash with Indian law, but it does seem very much in the spirit of BLP violations (It has the potential to cause direct harm). It's hard to say though, there really aren't that many cases that have "Some sources prefer using the name" amidst a larger ongoing censorship.
Support a move strongly . Wikipedia must be consistent with respect to other incidents and the title isn't syntactically sound , in other words it just sounds weird. And for those who say that it will sound like multiple rapes or murders have been committed , its just plain wrong, the title itself would say "rape and murder" i.e singular Nohorizonss (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that this isn't a "People are wrong" problem but an WP:ENGVAR case. Rape and Murder singular does feel icky to me based on Indian English principles I have learnt over my life. I understand it's grammatically acceptable worldwide, but that does not make people who disagree "plain wrong" Soni (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree and Disagree
I agree that the name should be changed. It's not an incident as someone was killed. An incident usually implies that something happened with no deaths.
I do not support a move though as what would the pretense the move be?
I believe the name should be changed to the Killing of Moumita Debnath but if we are going to make this page stay then it should list every single murder or rape that's occurred.
Not that those pages don't exist as there are pages such as the list of murders by amount, etc.
Support as proposed, but prefer move to Killing of Moumita Debnath. We often name the victim in the titles of such articles. Enough sources mention the name that there is no concern with us doing so. I recognize that Wikipedia may not match the consensus of Indian media, but also, there is no consensus in Indian media to match. It is fine for Wikipedia to use its own naming precedents. Bluerasberry (talk)15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose moving to Murder of Moumita Debnath This is a recent death BLP, and I think we are applying our naming conventions and Western ideas of respect somewhat blindly. Western convention is to name victims, out of a sense of respect. But in India, as evinced by Indian RS, there is a convention against naming victims so as to not bring harassment on their families (unfortunately rape victims are extremely stigmatized). The requests asking us to remove the name is evidence of this too. The name of a murder victim is not inherently the best way to cover a murder. I suggest as an alternative: 2024 Kolkata doctor rape and murder so as to be more specific, but would be fine with a variety of approaches that aren't based on her name. I agree that appending "incident" is not helpful. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I like that suggestion. I also oppose publicizing the victim's name. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and decent people do not publicize personally identifying information about rape victims. It's one thing if a rape victim (or their family) says they're willing to go public. It's a completely different thing when media outlets try to make money and whip up sectarian outrage by revealing personal information.
I remember disputes around the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. The archives are full of people talking about whether to name the alleged victim and repeatedly, over the course of years, deciding that it was against the BLP policy. I'm pretty sure this has been our standard practice for years. If you decide to look through the archives, I suggest looking for some of the longer explanations from @Nightscream. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment The proposed title, "2024 Kolkata rape and murder" reads like a general overview, so I disagree with those who say that incident is superfluous. "2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident" reads like it was the only such incident. I'm inclined to agree with Woodensuperman (talk·contribs) above, i.e., Killing of Moumita Debnath being both precise and concise. I respect the point made by CaptainEek (talk·contribs) about not stigmatizing the victim, however, we wouldn't be discussing it if it hadn't been widely publicized already. Buffalkill (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The shorter proposed name logically means "rape and murder incidents in Kolkata in 2024 in general", which is not the scope of the article (about a specific incident). The present name may actually be too vague, but the proposed rename is even worse. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Edit page link for National Task Force for safety of medical professionals at the workplace
The two articles should not be merged because of the following reasons:
1. The National Task Force (NTF) for safety of medical professionals at workplace deals with all forms of violence against healthcare professionals at work. It is not only for sexual violence. The Supreme Court of India, which has instituted this taskforce, has made this very clear in its order of 20 August 2024. Check here:[1]
2. The NTF is not investigating the Kolkata rape and muder case. Although that incident triggered the creation of the NTF, the NTF is looking at a broader issue of all forms of workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare professionals all over India. Thus the two articles cannot be merged as they are different issues. Again do refer to the Supreme Court order of point (1).
3. There have been many other serious violence against medical personnel in India. Refer Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug and Vandana Das cases as two examples. All these have led to the need for the creation of this NTF.
4. There have been several attempts to bring in legislation in India to deal with all types of workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare professionals but none have succeeded. This NTF report could lead to a comprehensive law against WPV for medical personnel in India. Again do refer to the Supreme Court order of point (1). HorizonNew (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Points 2 and 4 are unsourced. Point 3's crucial led to the need part is unsourced.
NTEMP says you need to prove that this task force will still be remembered and covered by newspapers after some time passes. There need to be sources saying it will continue to exist and achieve something, and be different from the millions of non-notable short-lived task forces that sat around and did nothing. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
Newspaper source (apart from the primary Supreme Court order) for my Points 1 and 2 that this NTF is dealing with all kinds of workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare professionals:
"According to the terms of reference, the national task force will prepare an action plan categorised under two heads: a) prevention of violence against medical professionals and providing safe working conditions; b) providing an enforceable national protocol for dignified and safe working conditions for interns, residents, senior residents, doctors, nurses, and all medical professionals."[2]
Source for Point 3:
"Women are at particular risk of sexual and non-sexual violence in these settings. Due to ingrained patriarchal attitudes and biases, relatives of patients are more likely to challenge women medical professionals. In addition to this, female medical professionals also face different forms of sexual violence at the workplace by colleagues, seniors and persons in authority. Sexual violence has had its origins even within the institution, the case of Aruna Shanbag being a case in point." From Supreme Court of India order dated 20 August 2024 (refer my earlier PDF link).
Source for Point 4:
"Several States, such as Maharashtra4 , Kerala5 , Karnataka6 , Telangana7 , West Bengal8 , Andhra Pradesh9 and Tamil Nadu10 have enacted legislation to protect healthcare service professionals from violence and damage to property. All these enactments prohibit any act of violence against medical professionals. The offence is non-bailable and punishable with three years of imprisonment. However, these enactments do not address the institutional and systemic causes that underlie the problem. An enhanced punishment without improving institutional safety standards falls short of addressing the problem effectively." From Supreme Court of India order dated 20 August 2024 (refer my earlier PDF link).
Note: The Supreme Court is the most important source since the NTF was created based on its order dated 20 August 2024.
Does the last sentence of the previous comment "There is no indication that it will exist or achieve anything, or be different from the millions of non-notable short-lived task forces that sat around and did nothing" mean that every taskforce in this world will be "non-notable" and "short-lived" and "do nothing"? I am sure there is no reliable source/proof for this conclusion. HorizonNew (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. The primary source for point 3 and 4 is still weak, but you have addressed my INHERITORG concern by using Hindustan Times.
I should have phrased my last sentence better. Basically, I think we should wait until the task force actually achieves a few results before we write an article about them. After that, we want to make sure newspapers still care about this task force in like 6 months. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do not merge. It is a task force created not for making suggestions and reforms at one specific hospital. It is an overall task force created for making nationwide suggestions. Its activities are not just related to the one incident. Albeit the Kolkata incident triggered the making of the task force, but the task force itself is a prominent body. Similar examples are September 11 attacks, 9/11 Commission. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Merge - The taskforce is not a parliamentary or statutory or permanent or legal entity, but an ad-hoc task force to submit its report/suggestions. It will automatically be dissolved once its submits its report/suggestions. As it has stemmed from the cognisance of 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, it should be merged there until substantial content is there for a standalone article. WP:CFORK. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indian law can prohibit naming rape victims, but Wikipedia is not under Indian jurisdiction. Moreover, sources like ABP News and News18 are under Indian jurisdiction, yet they are publicly using the name. So, why can’t Wikipedia? GrabUp - Talk03:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
ABP News and News 18 have obtained a stay order from Bombay High Court and also Chennai High Court against complying with the intermediary provisions of the Indian IT Act and its Digital Media Rules 2021. Wikimedia Foundation have no such injunction in their favour. In any case this article (and the disobedient Indian editor) has been (Redacted) and the hearing is scheduled for 12th September 2024 before the Task Force. 49.36.178.228 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Came across this in some news, I'm not opposed to including quality facts here such as victim names; but perhaps having the victim name in the lead (which is often scraped by Google, etc) isn't the best way to present this? — xaosfluxTalk19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the note, I'm not advocating for removing this content from the page at all - just looking at where the prominence is placed. — xaosfluxTalk20:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would strongly suggest removing the name of the victim and mention clearly the reason (compliance with Indian laws). Wikipedia does follow certain local legal conventions like not naming someone charged with a crime unless they are convicted (in Germany) although the US and UK laws allow naming suspects once they are arrested or charged. So, I would suggest that it might be better to use the commonly used name for the victim. Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Being charged with a crime but then being found not guilty is a different story because it can be detrimental to a person's life. But how is being the victim of a murder possibly detrimental to the victim's life?
Personally, I don't see any need to publicize the name of a rape victim without consent, especially so soon after the rape, even if she's dead (in which case, the consent should come from her family). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You forgot to mention that the link you provided is about a completely different case. It's about editors making defamatory edits about a news agency, where the news agency had filed a suit. It's completely unrelated to this rape and murder case. Furthermore, the court said that they will ask the government to block Wikipedia. Whether the government will actually respond with a block, is another question. But this case also illustrates that Wikipedia does not provide information on its editor's identity. (I also don't know how Wikipedia could provide such info; it's not like Wikipedia has our names and addresses or anything other than our IP, which can be rather useless information depending on the country you live in.) Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually the counsel for Wikimedia Foundation (Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar) had consented before the court to hand over details of the 3 editors (so damages could also be claimed from them) to ANI on instructions of WMF and the judge directed it to be done in 2 weeks. When these directions were not complied with, ANI filed a contempt petition on which the Court passed those remarks asking WMF either to comply with Indian law or to leave the country. Unless WEMF appeals the single bench direction, it will have to be complied with before the next date in early October 2024. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's the point of consenting to provide the data, if you end up not providing it after all? Wikipedia can't provide details on editors. Does Wikipedia know your name? Your address? No? Then there's not much information to provide to the court. And ANI can't claim damages from Wiki editors for citing what BBC wrote about ANI. If ANI wants to claim damages, they'll have to go after BBC etc.
it's important to distinguish between primary sources (the autopsy report in the public domain) and secondary sources (reports about the report in the news media citing anonymous sources) EnneDee (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Concur - we rely on "media reports" for large amounts of information in articles. Hmmm, so Indian film articles that report budgets or box office information should now be "media reports that..." and that can easily be taken to lots of other places. Clearly that's rubbish. So it's more about WP:WIKIVOICE - should we state something in Wikipedia's voice that's been covered by multiple reliable sources or still attribute it? The autopsy report DOES NOT need to be in the public domain - reporters regularly get information that's not publicly available either officially or unofficially and publish it after editorial staff review. That's normal, and that appears to be what's happening here. With multiple sources covering this, I don't see any need for attribution. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we really don't need to report on every single day's activities regarding the protest responses to this incident. I think this should be trimmed considerably, as it current has more details than most of the rest of the article and seems unduly focused on this one consequence. --ZimZalaBimtalk17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago18 comments9 people in discussion
WMF has agreed to comply with India's law and WMF's grievance officer appointed under Indian law shall appear before the Delhi High Court early next month. In the meantime the Supreme Court's constituted National Task Force for Doctors Safety is hearing Indian NGOs objecting to Wikipedia's publishing of Rape/Murder victims name, on 12th September 2024. It is sincerely hoped that the name of the victim is completely removed by then, including from the archived historical versions (revdelled) so that editors (including editors on this talk page objecting to the name's removal citing WP:NOTCENSORED etc.) are not summoned and prosecuted. The URL of one of the complainants in the matters is (Redacted). Cheers. 49.36.178.188 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"The other non Indian reliable sources mentioning the name of the victim are Business Standard,Pakistan Today and SIN. They can be used as the references for that. The IP claiming to prosecute the editors for pointing out Wikipedia guidelines must figure out a way to stop these too. " Doug Wellertalk15:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I will be removing the victim's name in the Wikipedia page of the article. This is due to allegations and complains raised for alleged non-compliance of Indian laws specifically under my name and also my own consicence. I am a proud Indian national who will not and cannot act against my law. The Supreme court today (9 september) officially asked all private and public social media handles to delete the pictures and names of the victim. While they had been used by many prestigious news and media outlets who have thus deleted it. I have repeatedly said and maintained that the edit pertaining to the name has been edited multiple times after me and each time I have edited the article, I have not touched the name section. As an Indian National and a youth, I don't intend to take such legal and moral risks. If anyone disagrees, please do not revert my edit, but instead opt to other means. I hope the Wiki community will understand. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The WMF can and does take WP:OFFICE actions clearly labelled as such. If they wish to do so here, I think the community will accept that, perhaps grudgingly for some people, but I doubt any experienced editor is going to revert an office action to remove the name unless the WMF agrees to it. However until and unless the WMF does so, there's no point talking about what the WMF has or has not agreed to. It's irrelevant to us as editors, and definitely not something to talk about on this page. (Perhaps WP:VPWMF.) The inclusion or exclusion of the name needs to be based on our policies and guidelines not based on what the WMF may do. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
And if any editor is concerned about personal consequences for themselves, I'd recommend they cease editing this article and talk page. IMO it would also be fine asking for revdeletion of their edits to the article or talk page if they think it will help protect them although I'm not an admin so they'd need to convince an admin of that. Note that this is a separate issue from continued inclusion of this name. For better or worse, it's unlikely the community will agree to remove the name just to protect editors. Anyone who is considering editing this article and talk page should operate under the assumption the name is going to appear in it rather than assume it will be removed, let alone revdeleted from all existence; and then consider my first point i.e. cease editing if they feel it's risky for themselves or otherwise aren't comfortable doing so when the name appears. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also I removed the link to that email as a BLP violation and outing. Please do not publish such utter nonsense anywhere on wikipedia or expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You've done nothing wrong. People are just concerned that the Indian government request has revealed your personal details, but they seem to be no more detailed than what's already on your userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah sorry for the confusion, it seems there's no concern about the details about you, I should have checked before commenting on outing. Still there are other reasons for the removal, in fact I initially removed it for BLP before noticing the possible outing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No I redacted the email link in the IP's (49.) original post because I don't consider it something acceptable to link to on Wikipedia for BLP reasons. The email is crazy and repeats some crazy conspiracy theory about several named people. I'm not actually sure if it's supporting said conspiracy theory, but it doesn't matter there's no reason to go around linking to discussion of it unless it's in context of adding such content to an article. I had outing concerns for you as well, but looking more carefully, it looks like it's only repeating details you posted on your userpage so it's probably not an issue although you might want to consider if you want to keep these details public. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note: IP range blocked. IP 49.36.178.228, on the same tiny range as 49.36.178.188 above (49.36.178.128/25), has attacked Doug Weller very nastily on his page, and been blocked for their trouble. The range 49.36.178.128/25 is obviously used by one individual only. I've blocked it for two weeks (same block length as Zzuuzz gave 49.36.178.228). If it turns out the individual or their mates have access to a larger range, I'll block that too, within reason. Bishonen | tålk21:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC).Reply
Procedural close per WP:RFCBEFORE. If anyone from Indian government is really opposing the mention of the name then tell them to come here and initiate a proper discussion in line with WP:FOC and without any threats. That hasn't happened yet. Ratnahastin(talk)16:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how this fails RFCBEFORE. Previous talkpage and BLPN discussions have been inconclusive on the issue. A number of editors in good standing who have not obviously been pressured by the Indian government are objecting to including the name, so this is a worthwhile discussion to have. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then you should have supplied links to those discussions, either in your RfC statement or soon after it. We should not be expected to hunt them down for ourselves. Without a reasonable demonstration that RFCBEFORE has been exhausted, an RfC is premature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The filer may have not been aware of them. I only learned about the case when I saw the deletion request on Commons two weeks ago. However, it looks like so far admins did not find it necessary to remove the name. And neither did other language Wikis. Nakonana (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Govt of India does not comment or partcipate on foreign websites, especially those websites which blatantly refuse to comply with India's laws.As the WMF coming under Indianlaw matter is sub-judice and WMF has appeared before the court in India, WMF will either have to comply with India's laws or stop their activities in India or obtain an appellate stay order not to disclose the partculars of their 3 editors for further prosecuition. Under the UNCITRAL on which India's IT laws are based, India's laws have extra-terriorial jurisdiction and all signatory nations will extend reciprocal assiatance, as was similarly done for the Delhi High Court orders in Baba Ramdev defamnation matter. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please clarify. I am discussing whether or not WMF is to comply with India's laws for all content, including this article. The court has indicated that they will pass a judgment externing WMF and blocking all WMNF websites within India if WMF fails to comply wityh India's IT and media laws - which includes disclosing particulars of their users for further prosecution. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yup, I'm sure it is, GrabUp. The account is already blocked, admittedly only for legal threats, but if it gets unblocked, please let me know and I'll most likely block for block evasion. IP/Blaxstocatamazon, there's little point in trying to pressure the WMF to 'disclose particulars of their users'; the foundation doesn't even know those particulars. (Not that I have any notion they'd throw us under the bus in any case.) Nearly all of us are anonymous. Bishonen | tålk15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC).Reply
Include name since widely reported in RS, and there is no privacy/protection interest identified with regard to the victim or family thereof. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Include name - If WMF need to take an office action, they will, and that has nothing to do with an RFC. Outside of that, wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and we don't remove well sourced information from articles. Fieari (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exclude name - I don't see the benefit of naming the victim, it doesn't help the reader have a better understanding of the topic of the article. And the fact we had to resort to obscure sources to include it shows how desperate we are. I can't even find her name in the ref being used in the infobox, so that appears to fail verification, and in the body of the article where her surname is being used, the two refs at the end of that sentence don't use her surname, so that appears to fail verification. Even though this is not technically a BLP, we should be using high-quality sources. An encyclopedia should not be the leader in situations like this.Isaidnoway(talk)08:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Include name - good number of sources that include the name (thank you GrabUp for updating the sources!). I'm somewhat against not mentioning it in the lead, if we're going to include it, include it throughout the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I would like to cite all Indian News sites which mentions the victim's name, ABP Live, News18, The Indian Express, The Times of India, NDTV2, OneIndia (multiple times), OpIndia (Rightwing pro BJP-Gov site)[www.opindia.com/2024/08/calcutta-hc-lambasts-west-bengal-govt-over-vandalism-of-rg-kar-hospital-asks-cbi-to-probe-the-attack/], BollywoodLife. The last three cited sources are unreliable (per Wikipedia consensus), but they are still Indian. There are many non-Indian sources that mention the name, but I have filtered out only Indian mainstream sources. Although these sites are under Indian jurisdiction and can publish the name, Wikipedia, which is not based in India, cannot include it. GrabUp - Talk16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note: the Indian government has asked for the name to be suppressed, but the name has been widely reported by international publications. I am not clear on what the family's position is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The BLP exists to prevent harm to living individuals, and to a limited extent, those close to them. We extend that protection (in the more extreme cases) up to 2 years post-death. But the key thing here is to prevent harm, and I have yet to see any credible argument that a deceased victim of a horrific crime could be at risk of further harm by their identity being exposed. I can hypothesize a situation where her close family would come into receipt of abuse or governmental pressure because India is an absolute cesspool when it comes to both the general public's social media actitivies and government interference, harrassment & censorship. There is potentially a risk to them and the question is do we want to mitigate that on our own, or wait for her family's wishes to become clear? Personally I would rather fall on the side of taking responsibility to do what we can without adopting a wait and see approach. (The question of the Indian governments wishes is completely irrelevant.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks like the court is (or the Wikipedians who are demanding the removal or WMF [supposedly] are) quite selective in having the name removed:
The current French Wikipedia article, for example, mentions the name[4], and there were / are zero concerns raised about that on the talk page, literally, there isn't a single thread on anything on that talk page[5]. Kashmiri Wikipedia mentions the name with zero attempts to remove it on the talk page[6]. Chinese Wikipedia has the name in the lede and there are also zero discussions about it on the talk page[7]. Same story on the Korea Wiki[8]. Indonesian Wikipedia is no exception to that either[9]. Neither is the Hausa Wiki[10]. Same for Romanian Wikipedia[11]. The Hindi (!!!) Wiki mentions the name in the infobox (मृत्यु मौमिता देबनाथ[1]) and no discussion on the talk page about removing it[12]. Asamese Wiki has the name in the infobox[13]. It's also in the infobox on Punjabi Wiki[14]. And it's in the infobox and lede of the Tamil Wiki[15]. The Tamil Wiki has a talk page thread regarding the removal of images, but not the name. The Sat (Sanskrit?) Wiki has the name at least in one of the reference URLs[16] (I can't tell whether it's mentioned in the article body/infobox or not because Google Translate refuses to translate that language). Thai Wikipedia mentions the name[17]. And Simple English Wikipedia also mentions the name and there are zero discussions on the talk page[18].
The Urdu, Bengal, Telugu Wikis are the only ones that don't have the name.
If WMF has indeed agreed to comply with the Indian law, as has been alleged above[19], then there sure are a lot of Wikis that didn't get the notice. It's also odd that the removal is pursued so selectively. You'd think that people would at least care to have the name removed from Indian local language Wikis, but it looks like it's only the English Wikipedia where this issue is being raised. Nakonana (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hundreds of million of Indians speak English, which is an official language of the country. The English language Wikipedia also gets by far the most views of and Wikipedia version (see [20] and [21] which shows that the English language wiki gets by far the most views of any version). It is therefore not suprising that the Indian government/users care more about what goes on in English Wikipedia than other smaller and much less viewed wikis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand that, but I'd still think that it would be more crucial for Wikis like the Hindi Wiki to have the name removed because those articles were likely written by Indians who'd risk actual legal consequences, unlike people from Europe who could edit the English article. And if there was a WMF decision (as claimed above) it would certainly need to be followed by all language versions of Wikipedia, not just the English Wiki.
You also asked about a consensus: if we take the other Wikis into account, plus, the inaction of admins on Commons and the administration noticeboard, then it rather looks like the majority of people, who have participated in discussing or writing about this case, are in favor of including the name. Nakonana (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Frankly, I found something interesting. The pro-BJP government, right-wing media outlet OpIndia, also mentioned the name.
@Blaxstocatamazon: I have cited many mainstream media sources that mention her name, as you can see in the responses section above. I would like your comment on this: do they not fall under Indian law? They are based in India, yet they are not following the law. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not based in India, but we still have to comply with it? GrabUp - Talk02:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: See #Name of the victim --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
