Talk:Gargi College molestations

Request

Please don't defame the majority by writing - "Jai Shri Ram"... delete it DBigXray, DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3 would like to bring your attention here, if eyou could improve, modify or expand the article. Dey subrata (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't like using policies to justify a point, but here I think I will - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTADIARY. DTM (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, I think this topic will pass LASTING due to sustained coverage of the case in the national media. [1] [2] [3] Based on the coverage it does look like a high profile case. DBigXrayᗙ 10:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata, coverage is already thin. But anyway no need to carry on about that... I created a template for "Campus violence in India" and placed Gargi College molestations in it too. This indirectly helps the ORPHAN issue mentioned below, helping to integrate it into the encyclopedia. DTM (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, agree. Thanks for solving the issue. you are right that this would need time before WP:LASTING can be demonstrated. But the signs are positive and I would let the article stay . DBigXrayᗙ 08:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please fix the WP:ORPHAN issue, I have added links from Gargi college, see if there are more.

DBigXrayᗙ 10:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Tagging the article

Dee03, may I know where have you find materials are direct copy. Please specify para or lines. Secondly, this is a article on crime, we should not add our own versions just for the sake of copyvio (according to one user). You have added the DU Beat reference as your concerns, wherever its used there is not direct lines taken from it. Please explain your concerns regarding these tags.

Lastly, you could have used the talk page to resolve any issues with the article. This article is just 2-3 days old, and could have several issues, directly asking for investigation is harsh for any editor, I realised that the starting sentence of the Aftermath was direct copy, I ahve missed it while creating the article, but other than that there is no direct copy, talk page are after all resolving issues. But asking for a investigation shows as if I didn't accept that there is no copy, for such things you need not to bring an investagtion, anyone could have copyedited the section, but you did not give a chance for that. Dey subrata (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Use this tool [4] to check for close paraphrasing from the DU source. Regarding copypasting from sources, here is an example from the LEAD:

Source says: According to Delhi Police, an inspector of Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell has also been designated as investigation officer in the case and Additional DCP (South) has been designated as inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into all aspects related to the case.

The article says: Delhi Police said an inspector of Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell has been designated as investigation officer in the case and Additional DCP (South) has been designated as inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into all aspects related to the case.

• directly asking for investigation is harsh for any editor - The investigation is to remove copyrighted content and hide edit history containing it. It has nothing to do with being harsh on an editor.
• but you did not give a chance for that - Where have I stopped you from editing the article? Dee03 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Dee03, Thanks for your help in improving this article. Dey subrata, the article is not deleted yet. You can save a copy of it in your email, if you want a backup version. Everything has to be written in own words even if it is a crime, only the direct quotations can be copied, nothing more. Please take time and review the reports and fix the problems. once you are done, you can ask Dee for a fresh review. DBigXrayᗙ 19:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dee03 That was a bogus example, there was nothing to change in that line, except the South to South Delhi, a person appointed by an authority, what you expect to change in that. And I have run that tool before also, and I don't see any potential copyvio and after recent changes i don't find anything left to argue 1,2, 3, 4, 5 6 And yes I feel harsh as you have tagged the "Aftermath" section and I don't see any scope to edit the section, which would have needed just minutes to deal with the copyvio issues, if you had bring the issue here before tagging. DBigXray I am not talking about deletion, but the Aftermath section which I don't see any scope for anyone to edit. Dey subrata (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dee03 You can remove the tags from the article as per my above comment. There is no copyvio left. And for DBigXray, can anything be done now? Dey subrata (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That is one epic copyvio tag! (I know this comment doesn't really help the conversation but I really had to say it) DTM (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, indeed that was my first thought. Dey, please wait for User:Dee03 to respond. DBigXrayᗙ 14:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have already responded. The issue still stands despite what Dey subrata thinks. There is nothing epic about the tag either, that is the standard copyvio template. Dee03 14:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Dee03, Dey had made some copy edits after starting this thread. Which is why he was asking for a fresh review. Can you please confirm if you have reviewed the current version ? DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Dee03 ? DBigXrayᗙ 14:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Dee03 I have not given my thoughts here, but I have given you reasons and comparisons of the article with the references, there is no such copyvio left in the article. There is no point of keeping the tag. Dey subrata (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

These edits, which are being asserted as copyediting, superficially modify a word here and a word there from the copypasted source material, in clear violation of WP:CLOP:

• Source: While the entry for boys was strictly through passes and supposed to close after 4:30 pm, the gates remained open till late, and there was no checking for identification either.
• Article: the entry for men was strictly through passes and supposed to close after 4:30 pm. Reportedly the gates remained open for a longer time, and there was no checking for identifications

• Only two phrases which I've changed. Dey subrata (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Source: An anonymous source reports that the men did not break the gates initially. An admin official had consciously opened the gates to let a car enter. Once the gates were opened, a pool of men, including many non college students, flooded in. The influx continued till late.
• Article: Some reports say that the men did not break the gates initially. An admin official had opened the gates to give entry to a car. Once the gates were opened, due to overcrowding, the mass including many non college students, rushed inside. The influx of the crowd continued for hours.

• Only first line, I made some changes, the rest is no violation. Dey subrata (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Source: Several members of the Public and Media Relations and Students’ Union volunteers tried their best to help the students. They went out forming human chains and getting the girls from the crowd
• Article: Several members of the Public and Media Relations and Students’ Union volunteers made every effort possible to help the girl students. They went out to form human chains to help the girls out of the crowd.

• First line are the names of student bodies and no need to change anything and the second line is no violation. Dey subrata (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you are still unconvinced and need more examples. I would recommend an editor to write the article afresh in their own words without copying "creative expressions" and sentence constructs from source material. Dee03 15:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So basically, you tried your best to find out small phrases for WP:CLOP to justify your logic to keep the paraphrasing as well as copyright tags. No I am not impressed by your point out and we are not taking the article for any nomination like GA or FA, it has been kept as "C" which itself shows that it will need copyedits. But these tags are useless when hardly any CLOP or Copyvio is there. Dey subrata (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your above reply made me chuckle. Lifting dozens of sentences from other sources and calling it "small phrases". Good one. I don't care if I impressed you or offended you; my only intention is to improve the encyclopedia. I have better stuff to do IRL than to follow up with your COPYVIO and CLOP additions over here on a daily basis. Your persistent denial of the problem and bad faith attacks on me have only highlighted your IDHT, OWN and CIR issues. I'll have a closer look at your contributions when I have the time. Goodbye. Dee03 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe

I guess the text in this image is too faded to place in the article. "JMI STANDS WITH GARGI". This is at the Jamia campus itself which sort of gives the pic a bit more value over here... DTM (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, you can say that in the caption. dont use all caps though. It is a good pic. I can do some local edits in contrast to make it more visible but I think it would not be appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 14:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This pic itself has a little colour correction. I 99% never edit pics I upload to Wikipedia but this seemed like it needed a bit. So whatever was possible with Snapseed without overdoing it. DTM (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Archiving references

Gog the Mild, need some archiving here. Drat8sub (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)