Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape

Active discussions
2012 Delhi gang rape has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
July 10, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
January 18, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
February 10, 2014Good article nomineeListed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on [24, 2012], and [13, 2013].
Current status: Good article

Naming the juvenile convictEdit

I noticed that content about the erstwhile juvenile's possible names and accompanying citations had been removed. While the rationale for removal isn't mentioned in the edit summaries, the probable reason is that it is illegal in India to publish the name of a juvenile accused or convict. I have reverted those edits in keeping with the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. The convict is no longer a juvenile and wasn't one when the trial happened. However, I would like to invite discussion on this topic if anyone disagrees with this rationale. pinging @Isamarshad: -- Rohini (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that protracted discussion on this topic has already taken place. I had opposed the inclusion of the juvenile's name and/ or aliases at that point in time because the trial (of the adult convicts, not the juvenile) was still underway. Also, there weren't enough WP:RS references about his name on board, which doesn't seem to be the case now. -- Rohini (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The juveniles identity has been changed and including his changed name doesn’t help with the facts. Thebetaman (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just remove his name from the article Thebetaman (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source

I have removed the name. I dont see any benefit in mentioning the unconfirmed name, Reliable sources just name him the juvenile accused and that is what wiki should be using. Besides naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME and Indian laws that prohibit the naming. Any young man with that unconfirmed name can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. So there are strong reasons for not adding this name. --DBigXray 09:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The name of the juvenile convict is very well confirmed by media sources. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, so that's what we look at for guidance. In any case, the person is no longer juvenile, and has taken a new name, hiding from his past in a distant location, so revealing his birth name doesn't pose any further problem to him.
I am emphatically against whitewashing this article to make it friendly to rapists and murderers. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, I would like to actually see what "well confirmed media sources" you are referring to. Please provide the links. (2) The BLP issues still hold valid. FYI, a juvenile rape accused's name is not publicized even after he becomes a major. There is no whitewashing here, there are issues that need to be addressed and I would appreciate if you keep your comments focussed on the topic of the thread, instead of getting into WP:RGW DBigXray 22:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The first naming of Afroz, the juvenile convict, came on 21 December 2012, in a video news item published by India Today.
Afroz was named again in Lenta, a Russian-language online newspaper, the article published six years ago in January 2013. A machine translation of the article says "The sixth man on the bus and arrested in the rape case is Mohammad Afroz. According to his certificate of education, he is now 17 years old and 8 months old. Accordingly, his case will be examined separately in a special court for minors. According to police , Afroz was one of the most violent accomplices in the crime: he is suspected of having personally raped the girl twice, tore her intestines and offered to throw her out of the bus. However, he is the only one to whom the death penalty cannot be applied - because of his age. Moreover, according to the International Business Times, under current Indian law, the maximum sentence for a minor is three years in prison."
Raveena Tandon also talked about Afroz while she was working on the film Maatr in March 2017. She said, "...But how can rapists be dissuaded when the most brutal of the Nirbhaya rapists Mohammad Afroz was declared a juvenile, treated with kid’s gloves in jail..."
Afroz was also named in May 2017 in a piece in the India Times, talking about how he was now working as a cook under a different name. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, you are expected to provide WP:Reliable sources (And very solid ones since this is a BLP). India today is one. Raina Tandon is not and neither is you have to understand that when the topic is current, several media houses publish unconfirmed reports and later correct it when they are found wrong. FYI India today updated all their articles to remove this unconfirmed news and none of their recent articles on the case name the suspect. Please produce links if you disagree. DBigXray 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I am saying that it is not clear/confirmed if his name is Afroz. No official confirmation, no legal docs, no reliable sources. You are failing to realize this obvious lack of a BLP requirement on solid sourcing. There are political parties and their cyber cells in India that work to malign muslims, taking advantage of these incidents for political gains. see 2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape#Attempt_to_communalise DBigXray 23:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
[1] here is the recent article from India today. Where is the name? And notice the outrageous claims on most violent. --DBigXray 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You yourself said that India Today is a reputable source, which means I have answered your request. It doesn't matter that India Today no longer names the juvenile: they did so in December 2012. Their reasons are unstated for not using the name in later issues; my best guess would be they wanted to comply with Indian law about juvenile crime suspects, not because the name shown in December 2012 was false information. You complained about the reliability of but without reason or argumentative leverage. It's clear that Penske Media Corporation owns and runs the news site. It's not self-published or otherwise unreliable – it's mainstream. And the article's author, Shubhang Chauhan, is a professional journalist working for So that's two good Indian sources for the name of the juvenile, plus the Russian language news item.
Your admission above that "There are political parties and their cyber cells in India that work to malign muslims, taking advantage of these incidents for political gains" shows that you have a non-neutral position on the topic. I have no political position in India, so I'm neutral on the topic. I haven't seen anything in this 2012 gang rape article that mentions Muslims, so your concern appears to come from thin air. If you know something about the rapists being Muslim, that would be news to me. In any case, you have shown yourself to be involved politically. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, It only shows that you have a questionable understanding of a controversial topic. I would suggest you stop making baseless bad faith accusations against me and keep your comments focussed strictly on the topic of this thread. If you continue making off topic comments and observations on me then I will be forced to seek admin intervention. You have already been sufficiently warned on your talk page against continuing this despicable behaviour along with the relevant DS alerts. DBigXray 12:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am from Oakland, California, a city with a converted Black Muslim population where the name Mohammed does not necessarily equate with the Muslim religion or even religious views at all. I know a guy who was named Mohammed by his converted parents but grew up atheist. So I'm assuming nothing about the juvenile rapist, Mohammed Afroz.
Speaking of assuming, Wikipedia's assume good faith behavioral guideline applies to the first encounter with another editor. After the first encounter, the assumption of good faith is gradually replaced by evidence supplied by the person's words and actions. You and I both started with assumptions of good faith, but now we are looking at each other with more experience. So when I call out your non-neutral involvement, a concern about retaliation to Muslims that appears nowhere in the article, I am not violating the AGF guideline. And I based my accusation on your own words, so my accusation cannot be "baseless." Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, This article is not about you but on Indian subjects where the name Mohammad FOO "always" refers to Muslim male. I dont really give a shit what you think of me. As long as you keep your thoughts out of the article talk pages. If you think you have solid evidence you should move and post at ANI. You cannot accuse me of nonsense or attack on my personality on this talk page or any talk page. You can only discuss me on an ANI or similar noticeboard. "Comment on the content not the contributor". I hope I have made this clear by now. DBigXray 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape/Archive_3#Juvenile_criminal.27s_name Dated December 2015 has the consensus among several editors for not naming the juvenile accused. In the thread, Lakhbir stated
  • "Except the video I haven't seen anyone naming him except the video of IndiaToday earlier tagged there and as far as I remember the Delhi police never revealed his name. So I am highly doubtful. Despite whatever his name is, WP:BLPNAME prevents from naming someone whose name has been intentionally omitted officially including in court records and isn't allowed to be named publicly. In the case of a rape victim, the family can reveal the name and the family of Nirbhaya did. However the juvenile isn't allowed ti be named under Juvenile Justice Act. Additionally the victimisation and probable threat on his life if his name is revealed also makes another case why his name shouldn't be there whether the name the sources gave might be wrong or true. Therefore, I am in agreement the previous edit versions containing all the various versions of his real name whatever they are should be deleted."

  • This thread from 2016, is between 3 editors who end up agreeing on a middle ground with attributed name.
  • WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.
  • Privacy of names

  • Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

This is the single event where this individual is being discussed.
  • 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.

The individual has not been named in any public documents official case records, court documents, news articles. We have only 1 India today article based on initial reports and India today since then has not named the subject in any of its article. An Article from same publication IndiaToday from 2017 about this juvenile does not mention the subject's name.
The name has been intentionally concealed this being a court case involving juvenile.
Using "juvenile suspect" like the reliable sources instead of the claimed name does not result in any loss of context.
  • When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

There are no secondary sources or scholarly journals or work of recognized experts that name the subject.
  • the name of the juvenile has not been officially revealed in a public forum and has been kept confidential since the the law necessitates that a juvenile’s identity is not to be disclosed. The name thus floating on social media is mere speculation. Source - (A fact checker site)

  • based on above, clearly it is inappropriate to use an unconfirmed name in the Wikipedia article. We dont know if this is the real name or a name some one made up to victimize the person with this name.
  • Reliable sources just name him the juvenile accused and that is what wiki should be using. Besides naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME that prohibit the naming.
  • There other real life based security concerns as well in using this unconfirmed name. As seen in the Altnews article above, there have been open public calls to harm the subject. Any young man with that unconfirmed name is a target who can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. Especially since there are [ frequent cases of mob lynching happening in India.
  • So considering all these reasons, IMHO there are strong reasons for not adding this name. --DBigXray 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
That's all in the past, discussions based on old information. Today, the once-juvenile rapist is now an adult living elsewhere under an assumed name. His birth name was widely publicized on social media by angry people, and he chose to abandon it for his safety. He's not using the name, so if we tell it to the reader, he's not endangered any additional amount. WP:BLPNAME has an exception for names that have been widely disseiminated, which I have shown is the case here. WP:BLPCRIME protects only the accused, not the convicted. Afroz was convicted. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, Past discussion and consensus does not get lost into oblivion. I am pointing that you are editing against past consensus here. Just because blogs and social media users are posting something does not mean Wikipedia should follow the same, this is an extremely poor excuse. Yes, there is always a risk of someone connecting him with his old identity via someone he knew in past. Moreover I am saying that any young man in that age group with this name will be a target of mob lynching. And Wikipedia is adding to this risk, by explicitly naming the subject on the basis of one link with questionable reliability since it was published when the news was breaking.
Again you are falsely claiming it "widely dessiminated" when you yourself could not manage more than 1 link about the name. So your last part is baseless. Right now it is disputed what his real name is. So you cant claim as such. You have still ignored several points I made above. DBigXray 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
"Widely disseminated" because of the India Today piece in December 2012, the Lenta piece in 2013, the piece in May 2017, and the well-known case of social media trying to out Afroz with an apparently incorrect photo, reported by the fact-checking website last month. So the name is well known. Nobody disputes what his real name is. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, is not a reliable source. Again you are misrepresenting Altnews. Altnews nowehere claimed that this is the name of the juvenile. I am disputing your claim that this is his real name. DBigXray 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where is judged not reliable, so I don't accept your conclusion. And linked to the India Today piece inside the sentence "While the juvenile’s name was not released, it was reported by the media." So acknowledges that the name has been published. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Coming here from BLPN, I agree with the exclusion of the name per WP:BLPNAME if it's only been published in 2 or 3 sources. Sources which mention it has been published elsewhere obviously don't count for much. I have not see any reason articulated why we should include the name when it's clear it's not widely published. Disgust for rapists while understandable, is obviously not a reason. P.S. Let's remember that this case had an extreme amount of media attention, both from Indian media and world media. The fact that people are only able to dig out 2 sources, and one of them is Russian speaks volumes for how poorly published this is. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Link to the discussion on Biographies_of_living_persons/NoticeboardEdit

There was an overwhelming consensus to remove the "alleged" name of the juvenile defendant from the article. Editors must not add it back. --DBigXray 06:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Victim's name: Ref 3 doesn't say anything about her name, even in the archives.Edit

Should I remove it? Is it verified somewhere else? TryKid (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay so I found a Guardian ref saying her name is Jyoti Singh. Nothing for the Pandey part yet. At least put the correct source in the correct place. TryKid (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
per Indian laws it is illegal to name a rape victim. This is why a pseudonym Nirbhaya was invented. WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME policies ask us to be sensetive in naming a non notable individual. For encyclopedic purpose the name Nirbhaya is enough. I don't see any benefit in taking the name. The reliable sources all refer to her as Nirbhaya. I am aware that her mom is open to taking her name, So I will leave it there, but I will replace all other instance of the name, to match with WP:COMMONNAME used in the reliable media.--DBigXray 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please don't rush into this. Give people a little time to consider. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer you are right that Nirbhaya is not her real name, but we really dont need the real name in the lead. Nirbhaya is the name by which everyone knows this person. And that is what should be used. If you feel that Nirbhaya cant be used, then I propose not using it at all in the lead. the name is not encyclopedic. the case is. --DBigXray 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is the article about a recent rape case in India, notice that even a reliable source such as CNN does not name the victim and clearly states "The victim has not been publicly identified due to India's laws against naming sexual assault victims." --DBigXray 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
And here is the article about Supreme Court direction against the naming. Media houses have been fined for its violation in India. There should be a very good reason for violating it on Wikipedia, if you want to violate it. And I dont see a strong reason for using the uncommon real name as against the widely used common name. --DBigXray 20:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it should be in the lead and maybe not. What should NOT be done is to remove it from the lead of a GA of many years standing just because you don't agree with it. BTW, is this the first time you have worked on this article and have you worked on other rape articles in India or elsewhere? Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have pinged User:Binksternet. Gandydancer I see that you have reverted me, I expect a policy based and reasonable justification from you for reverting me here on this talk page. So far you have not given me the reason inspite of clearly asking. If you dont have a good reason, you should just self revert yourself right away. --DBigXray 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
here is another thread Talk:2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape#Real_Name_of_victim that shows clear consensus for not naming Indian rape victims. --DBigXray 20:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Her name has been in the public for six years, ever since November 2013 when her mother spoke out and revealed her name. I see no problem putting her name prominently in the article. Wikipedia is not beholden to India's laws, which gallantly protect the innocent rape victim, but in this case the victim is dead and needs no protection. Her family would be the next beneficiaries of anonymity, but they spoke out to the media and have not remained anonymous. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note that there are 3 seperate names being discussed here and you are expected to discuss all three names on their respective threads here. Please explain what benefit does the article gets in using the (hardly used in media) name as against the commonly used pseudonym for the subject Nirbhaya--DBigXray 21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Was the victim named in any of the official documents?

If not, why her name is not replaced with Nirbhaya.

A sexual criminal should never have been categorised as juvenile in the first place. But that is subjected to the current status of law, so one cannot argue. Akhilesh1019 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I agree that the victim's name should be mentioned as Nirbhaya wherever needed.DBigXray 16:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Akhilesh1019 said nothing like that. You're grossly misrepresenting the position of Akhilesh1019. 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the gross "representation" of his second line ? --DBigXray 17:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You're reading your own preference into it. The comment by Akhilesh1019 is not clear by itself, as it is missing a word or two, and cannot be interpreted with finality. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet, probably for you, but not for a speaker of Indian English. --DBigXray 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Male VictimEdit

per WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME and Indian laws, I have removed the name of male victim. The sources have been taken down already. I dont see any benefit in taking the name. The reliable sources all refer to the him as "the male victim" or "her friend"--DBigXray 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I can't see how WP:BLPNAME would apply. What Indian law might that be? Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Apart from 1 or 2 news sites, no one had disclosed the name of the male victim. I see that you have reverted me, I expect a policy based and reasonable justification from you for reverting me here on this talk page. So far you have not given me the reason. If you dont have a good reason, you should just self revert yourself right away. --DBigXray 20:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was a GA for me and at the time there never was any question about using his name and it was used in most sites that told the complete story. Is the fact that one no longer finds that to be the case a good reason for WP to remove it as well? I don't know. But I do know that WP asks us to first discuss such changes if we hope to work in harmony with our fellow editors. Since you are an experienced editor and feel that you are in the right to BOLDLY remove it I will revert my changes. (Though I don't like it and it pisses me off.) Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the self revert. Actually the name should not have been added here in the first place. Someone did, no one objected and it lingered. WP:BLPNAME is a real and valid concern here. I can't really imagine what that man would be facing from others. Probably humiliation for (1) taking wrong decisions and getting them into that unsafe situation where the worse that could happen did happen (2) being unable to save his friend from rapists. The bottom line here is that this man is non notable. Using his real name adds no special value to the article. and per WP:BLPNAME there are good reasons for not taking the name. On Wikipedia article here, we should follow what the reliable media sources are using to refer to this person. --DBigXray 21:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have become an instant expert on what this article has been through, which is a lot. As luck would have it, an Indian editor worked with me and a few others to help with the cultural differences aspect of the case. It definitely was not a case where oh, someone just added the name and oh well so then nobody seemed to mind sort of situation. Actually it is insulting for you to suggest that. Again, at the time the friend's name was widely used. There may be good reason to no longer use it and I'm open to that as well. Gandydancer (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, People may have varied opinions. I dont think it appropriate to comment on their opinions. We have a subject to discuss and I would appreciate if you would avoid commenting on my expertises and opinions and focus on the topic of the thread. DBigXray 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I did strike my comments. Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Binksternet we have already discussed this and You have made a blanket revert restoring the name. I would suggest self revert if you do not have strong justification for your edit restoring this removed name. --DBigXray 13:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with the exclusion of the name, per both WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Again, if it's not widely published, and the removal of the name doesn't lose any real context then we should exclude it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done Thanks for citing the relevant wiki policies. I have now removed the name. DBigXray 07:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Victim's nameEdit

Why was the victim's name written on the page? It is prohibited by Indian law. Simba20042016 (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Both the mother and the father said that they would like to use her name with the hope that other women and girls would be more willing to come forward to report rape and sexual abuse.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please send the link of the news article saying so?
Also, it is a Supreme Court directive, and has to be followed, whether someone agrees to it or not. Simba20042016 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Simba20042016 I think this is the correct section for your comment, so I've moved it (and indented it) - apologies if I've misunderstood. On the issue of the Supreme Court - I'm no legal expert, but this is a US-owned website, hosted on US servers,I don't see why the directives of an Indian court would have any bearing on our content. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Where Wikipedia's servers and Headquarters are is irrelevant - what matters is that Wikipedia is an international site, and as such takes care to step on any jurisdiction - foreign or domestic. In the New Zealand case of the murder of Grace Millane the convicted perpetrator still has name suppression in New Zealand, and Wikipedia respects that, as does much the UK press (Grace was a British tourist in New Zealand, so the UK's interest in the case is understandable). All I'm seeing is a different standard being held for this case, by virtue of it being India ... I've my own opinion as to why this is, and it aint pretty. Fanx (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines : Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names. Also, does it make sense, that the Juvenile convict has NOT BEEN NAMED on the page, but the victim has been named and identified?! I understand what you are saying, nothing personally against you. But the stigma and sensitivity surrounding such incidents in India, Naming the victim is prohibited. Wikipedia pages are visible to everyone, then what is the point of the SC ruling if everyone knows the victims name? What do you think? Simba20042016 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The Indian law is meant to protect living victims, but the victim died, so it doesn't make any sense. The victim's family wishes her name to be known.[2][3] Finally, Indian law doesn't impinge on US-based Wikipedia. In another case, Wikipedia hosts images of Mohammed even though the Koran prohibits them. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright. Let's not take this any further. I'm an amateur editor, so you must know better. Thanks! I'm still learning. :) Simba20042016 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to "2012 Delhi gang rape" page.