Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mohammed Afroz

Mohammed Afroz is named in numerous media sources. The name is out there. It doesn't really matter what Indian law allows or does not allow. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

He's named only in text of a video. Besides his name propped up many years ago and other possible names are known as well. Hardly any can be considered reliable source. Also please notice this user thinks if someone editing and reverting then that means isn't a consensus, see his comment here where he also makes fun of me making mistakes and posting a message correctly after eight attempts: [1]. Even though those edits were mostly by the same disruptive user and ofcourse Spacecowboy420 who clearly doesn't follow rules and makes his own. A consensus is a compromise achieved through discussion and it was clearly against including the name here on talk page: discussion. Also in his edit summary he claims I'm trying to impose Indian law on Wikipedia, even though it is Wikipedia rules itself that are against including the names omitted intentionally (such as the rape victim's name of Delhi gang rape) under WP:BLPNAME. Not to mention the rape victim's name was not added in the article earlier as well and added only after her family gave consent to reveal it. This person clearly doesn't know the rules nor does he follow it, instead he's making up his own rules about it as is visible from his comments and actions. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Type the name "Mohammed Afroz" into google and see how many results you get. Once again, that isn't how consensus works. You obviously don't have consensus, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Did you request the opinion of those editors who were trying to add the name to the discussion? No? Then it's not consensus. And I'm sorry, but I still think it's ironic that it took you eight attempt to post a message on my talk page, in which you were lecturing me on my lack of wikipedia related knowledge. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The results I get are from Hindu supremacist anti-Muslim websites. Looks like you don't clearly check anything. Besides I wasn't even there at the time of the discussion. Anybody can add their own opinion and as visible from the talk page, only the disruptive IP supported it. Did you check that? You should have. And you clearly are poking fun at me both here and at your [page]. Please continue with your behaviour, it shows you don't belong here. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And consensus doesn't mean everybody has to be in agreement with you, again read the rules. Don't make your own. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, sorry but I disagree with you heavily on your interpretation of BLPNAME. Exercising caution means not including names that are not tied strongly to an event or that are intentionally concealed. The name Mohammed Afroz is not concealed, it may have been in the court case, but, it's been heavily disseminated since then. I am for including the name in the article, there is no reason to censor an uncensored name. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with your interpretation of WP:Consensus. Three editors agreeing not to mention a name in an article does not equal consensus, a wide body of opinions and discussion between many editors does. The consensus of which you speak does not meet these requirements and as such, are liable to change. That change most likely won't be enacted by a single person, it'll take an actual discussion between more editors. Amend my comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus is not when you get two or three people who already supported a certain viewpoint, to publicly state that they support it. Consensus is achieved with discussion, compromise and agreement between people with different opinions. I have seen nothing on any of the talk pages that is even close to consensus. I agree that a name that is not publicly known, should be kept off articles in most cases, however this is not the same situation. I'm sure that there are millions of people who have read his name, from the multitude of online sources. It has been widely disseminated since the incident, it's not no longer a BLPNAME issue.

It's not that easy to have good faith in editors who support the victim being named, but want the rapist/murderer's name concealed. It's not easy to have good faith in editors who initially based their request to remove the name on Indian law, and now try to claim consensus falsely to remove it.

Mohammed Afroz isn't a minor now, there was no consensus, and there are sources with his name online. I failed to see one single reason to withold his name. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 him being a minor has nothing to do with. It has to do with 'victimsation" regardless of who he is. Also Mr rnddude and Spacecowboy 420 there are much more than 3 persons who supported not including his name. I suggest you recheck your count. Besides no it hasn't been widely disseminated. The only time it seems the name was released was before he went to trial in juvenile criminal court. Releasing his name is illegal under the law as the court (or family) never gave the permission to name him. So yes it is very much a matter of WP:BLPNAME since no permission was given for publishing his name. Also as I suggested do check the discussion about his name again and recheck your count of how many people are against publishing his name. I fail to see any sensible reasons behind your supposed justifications of mentioning the name. Besides I warn you not to assume good faith over your false allegations, that is against the rules. It has been said earlier as well that the victim's name was mentioned because permission has been given by her family. Instead of presuming bad faith, you should start a new discussion if you want the victim's name being withheld. People are not here to impose your POV of what should be there or not, but improve Wikipedia. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to recount, only three people gave explicit support against the inclusion of the name, several were pinged and did not respond and three others gave no verdict one way or the other. The law of India does not apply in the US, who do you think has jurisdiction over Wikipedia? "Besides I warn you not to assume good faith over your false allegations, that is against the rules", shall I place a warning on your page? I made no allegations (WP:ASPERSIONS) and you must assume good faith (WP:AGF) wherever possible. Finally "you should start a new discussion if you want the victim's name being withheld." and who has requested that victim's name be withheld? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of the supposed consensus;

1. Mostly clueless gave no opinion on the matter.

2. IP editor also gave no opinion on the matter.

3. Rohini opposed the inclusion of the name.

4. Lakhbir87 opposed the inclusion of the name. confirmed sockpuppet, vote does not count. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

5. Gandydancer opposed the inclusion of the name.

6. Rsrikanth05 gave no opinion on the matter.

So I count 3 against inclusion and 3 no vote. Any disagreement here? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I am not entirely sure if pinging an IP editor works, but, I'll make an attempt at it anyway. Only reason I am pinging you is to facilitate discussion and not have to leave notices on your talk page. Here; @103.232.148.4:. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is what is actually happened:

1. Mostly clueless said that he did not find any authoritative source that says his name is Afroz. Therefore yes it can be taken as outright opposition.

2. IP editor said according to reliable sources his name is Sunil. Against namingg him as Afroz.

3. Rohini opposed the inclusion of the name.

4. Lakhbir87 opposed the inclusion of the name.

5. Gandydancer opposed the inclusion of the name.

I count 5 editors. And this is not including the multiple editors who removed the name (including me) from the article. So the way anyone can see it, the consensus is definitely not in your favor even by Spacecowboy420's standards. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor's failure to find a reliable source, does not equal their opposition to naming him. Be aware that Wikipedia is not a vote. If content is reliable and correctly sourced, then it is included. Three editors opposed the inclusion of the name for the following reasons:

Rohini "Indian law (the Juvenile Justice Act) does not permit publicly naming a juvenile defendant or convict."

Lakhbir "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"

Gandydancer "Lakhbir87 seems to give good advice and I'm in agreement"

Complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules does not equal consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh and User:Lakhbir87 is a confirmed sock puppet, so his opinions are worth nothing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 please be aware that there is no such ruule that says a blocked editor's vote does not count. I suggest you do not make up your own rules for inching the consensus in your discussion. Therefore, Lakhbir87's opinion still counts as there is nothing that says opinion of a sock blocked later cannot count (unless he gave multiple opinions in discussion using multiple accounts which does not seem the case).

Oh and please note that you cannot decide what's correct or not based on your beliefs. Also both Mostly clueless and the IP do not believe there are reliable sources for his name. Just because you believe there are reliable sources doesn't mean others are at failure to find reliable sources, as there never was any reliable source anyway. Again you are deciding what's correct. Consensus is definitely not in your favor here and making up fictional reasons that don't even exist won't help you. It seems you are making up what is consensus by yourself instead of reading Wikipedia's rules about it. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, due to the above I now amend my comment, there are not three votes against but two. A sockpuppet does not get to vote, any vote they have given is struck from the record. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You're reading the wrong persons standards and clearly don't understand WP:Consensus. 1. Consensus can change, 2. A wider body of consensus overturns a smaller one (I quite clearly stated that one person would not override the position of not including) 3. My position is clearly supported by BLPNAME and Consensus, let me state my position since you're mis-attributing it; A wider body of discussion such as an RfC would clearly overturn the current "consensus" between a few editors on a small thread. Now, I am for inclusion of the name in the article and thus cast a vote to include the name in the article if a discussion does happen. No proper RfC has been opened and currently only three people are discussing (2 for and 1 against). Which actually brings me to your count of 5, I disregard the first 2. 1. Again, mostly clueless gave no explicit position on it and 2. the ip editor gave no explicit position on it either. I'll outline what a vote is 1. Oppose (or equivalent), 2. Support (or equivalent), but not 3. Comment (or equivalent). Both the IP and mostly clueless (who had a question, not even a comment) made a comment with no vote. Shall we open an RfC Spacecowboy420 and @103.232.148.4:, or are we going to go in circles? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude here are the facts; 1. Five people voted against the name (that's not including the multiple who have removed the name from the article) 2. The sockpuppet was blocked after his vote and he did not use multiple accounts (sock) in the discussion and unlike your claim there is nothing that says a sock does not get a vote.

Consensus can change but most of the people seem clearly against including the Afroz name. Therfore I am afraid the consensus is outright against what you want. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't presume to give me the facts, especially when you are wrong. Alright, this is turning into WP:IDHT. Five people did not vote, three did, one vote does not count because sockpuppet. This is going no where, I will open the RfC. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It is you who shouldn't presume facts and make up reasons just for adding something in an article. Learn to let go and move on. We are not here to get what we want here, but merely to improve articles. And I doubt adding a doubtful name is going to improve the article in any way. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My gripe with you isn't about the name or even the consensus. Again, explicit votes, but I'll let it slide. My gripe is your (likely unintentional) misrepresentation of facts, I am aware that including the name in the article has been a point of contention for months (at least). My comments are merely directed at the fact that the consensus to which you point is not broad consensus (or even as broad as you think (five votes of which one simply isn't to be counted and two which are !votes). I am also not forcing the inclusion of the name, only voting for it if an RfC is opened. That is all I am trying to say. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A compromise has been reached, so I hope nobody has to argue over this issue now. Thank you for your time. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A compromise

User:Mr rnddude and User:Spacecowboy420: Instead of repeatedly arguing lets find common ground. The basic objective of consensus is a compromise. I have come up with this compromise: Instead of simply calling him Mohammed Afroz we can say that - The juvenile defendant whose name according to some reports was Mohammed Afroz, was declared as 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which relied on his birth certificate and school documents. The JJB rejected a police request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his age.

This leaves open the possibility if his name might be something else or he might not have that name as the court, law or his family hasn't revealed his name. It also leaves open the possibility someone might want to add another of his names without removing Mohammed Afroz in case those names are well-sourced and as such. We can achieve all objectives through this way. What do you think, is it ok with you if such a statement was added? I hope we can all agree instead of constantly arguing over such a small dispute. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I'll leave a short comment in the other thread to respond to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's neutrally worded and seems like a good compromise that covers everything very well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we solved this dispute amicably. It is unnecessary to continuously argue over such a small thing and with this I'm confident we will reach all objectives. The video source can be added as well for the compromise even though I have doubts about it, as we can't add anything without a source to back it up anyway. Is it ok with you if I add the statement about the name myself now or would you like to wait and think it over? 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent compromise, and it's fine by me to add it now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh. and thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you too Mr rnddude and Spacecowboy420. The discussion started on a bad footing and seemed to go nowhere but ultimately it turned outto be productive. I'm glad that this dispute is finally solved amicably by taking everybody's concerns into account. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude and User:Spacecowboy420: There is still the problem of the infobox. I have 3 compromises that might cover all concerns: 1.) Either we leave the infobox as it is without mentioning the name. Or 2.) Simply change "Unnamed juvenile defendant" to "1 juvenile defendant" without mentioning the name. Or 2.) We mention the name is Mohammed Afroz according to some reports as I recently done on the article as I did in the "juvenile defendant section". In the convicted section "Unnamed juvenile defendant" can be changed to "1 juvenile defendant (Mohammed Afroz according to some reports)".

Which of these three do you agree with more? 103.232.148.4 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetically you could just put in a note, I think should work. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems ok with me Mr rnddude. User:Spacecowboy420 are you ok with Mr rnddude's proposal of making a note? 103.232.148.4 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree. A note seems to be pretty standard on wikipedia articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the input. I'll edit it now. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added it. I hope it seems fine. With this, I think and hope the issue has been resolved. I'm glad this dispute was worked out. Thank you for the discussion friends. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The Passionate Eye

I can see this article needs some work since there's no episode list, but right now I am watching a special called India's Daughter about Jyoti Singh which says its original air date was 20 January 2016 so should we mention this? I don't know if any other full-hour episodes were dedicated to discussing this case. Ranze (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Surname

When I searched the name mentioned in TPE to find the name the redirect is Jyoti Singh Pandey but I don't see any mention of Pandey here, were no sources found to support it? Ranze (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Delhi Gang Rape Photo Shoot

The article Delhi Gang Rape Photo Shoot seems not much notable in other contexts, so better merged with 2012 Delhi gang rape. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Don't merge Absolutely not. (I'm surprised that the article exists at all...) Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm trying to decide whether it'd be more appropriate to AfD it, or, to actually merge it here. It's an article about a sensitive topic and is directly related to this one, at most it should have a section on this page but not be a standalone article. I'd need a cogent argument to be formed to make an actual decision on which action is better though. I'll be revisiting this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is related to sensitive subject as on hands here , perhaps we should rename the article with pertaining controversial to make the article less demeaning . It's pretty notorious enough for creating outcry by other groups .108.54.189.28 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Gandydancer and Mr rnddude: Are you two suggesting it be deleted? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the others think, but in my opinion not merge but an AfD should be considered for the photo shoot. I do not think that article has notability of its own, while it has no relevance for this article. The Banner talk 07:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the other article standing on its own, so if the merge is opposed, send it to AfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Don't merge I am not comfortable merging this into the main article and I don't think this article should stay either. This particular photoshoot seems like an insignificant event and per WP:NOTNEWS, we don't add every single small detail to an article. I will look at it again, but I am leaning towards a delete without merging. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The tone of the article is somewhat informal.

I feel that the choice of words and tone in this article is rather informal. This may, however, just be a difference between regular English and Indian English.

If doing so is found to be acceptable, I will attempt to correct the tone and word choice of the article.--Rainythunderstorm (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This article has attained a GA standing and many thousands of people around the world have read it without complaints. That said, you may well have a point that I'm not aware of since I speak only English. What problems do you see? Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2012 Delhi gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/iap-condoles-death-of-delhi-gang-rape-victim_819606.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-gangrape-victim-regains-consciousness-next-48-hours-critical-561535.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/outrage-in-delhi-after-latest-gang-rape-case/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-gangrape-victim-narrates-the-tale-of-horror/article4230038.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rape-survivor-airlift-was-govt-not-medical-decision/article4246109.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Delhi-gang-rape-victim-writes-on-a-piece-of-paper-Mother-I-want-to-live/Article1-976798.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ibnlive.in.com/news/delhi-gangrape-accused-had-tried-to-mow-down-braveheart-under-bus-male-friend-saved-her/313386-3-244.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Delhi-gangrape-main-accused-sent-to-5-day-police-custody-refuses-identification-parade/Article1-974332.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/delhi-gang-rape-victim-is-fighting-for-life-on-ventilator-say-doctors-307131
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deccanherald.com/content/299074/delhi-gang-rape-victim-battles.html
• Added archive http://archive.is/20130620023319/http%3A%2F%2Farticles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com%2F2013-01-05%2Fdelhi%2F36160988_1_jantar-mantar-delhi-gang-babu-singh to http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-05/delhi/36160988_1_jantar-mantar-delhi-gang-babu-singh
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221165136/http://www.abshyderabad.org/events.html to http://www.abshyderabad.org/events.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Links from the Web Cite archive seem to be broken. The original URLs of some of the broken archived URLs are not dead at the time of writing. -- Rohini (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Source needed for info added

I have removed info with no source for the third time. Please discuss before adding again. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hanging on 22 Jan

User:Binksternet you have restored the outdated info "Four adult convicts sentenced to death by hanging on 22 January 2020" repeatedly into the article. Care to explain why ? FYI See the new dates --DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I fixed the problem I introduced. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, There are several things you introduced while doing en masse reverts. Please explain them or self revert if they were not intentional. DBigXrayᗙ 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Subsections headers in the trial section

User:Binksternet I see you have repeatedly removed the section headings without feeling the need to explain why ? Please explain or self revert. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dude. Give it a rest for a little while. Go outside and get a breath of fresh air. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, answer the question or self revert. DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The predictions about the Sewing Machine

The predictions about the Sewing Machine never happened. User:Binksternet either produce a reliable source that says it happened or self revert and remove this misleading prophecy. see WP:CRYSTAL--DBigXrayᗙ 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The prediction was in the news. It doesn't matter that it never worked out that way. In any case, we tell the reader he is now a cook, which is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, No. We tell the reader what happened, not what possible prophecies were published by tabloids trying to attract eyeballs. I see no reason to keep this trivia now that it is clear that this never happened. Please self revert and remove this. DBigXrayᗙ 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's part of the historical record. People became angry when the juvenile appeared to be getting preferential treatment. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, This was not a preferential treatment but something that the convict was legally entitled to as per the JJA 2000 law. I notice that you have conveniently hidden the legal requirements. You should either explain that this was legally mandatory or remove it entirely since that never happened. I suggest removing entirely. DBigXrayᗙ 23:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Did somebody hire you as advocate? I don't have any particular concern about whether Afroz got a sewing machine or not, or whether he was entitled to one by law. I looked at the newspaper source and saw it was correctly summarized. If you want to add something by way of explaining the situation, go ahead. But some people in India still got angry about a violent rapist getting money and a career boost for free from the government. That anger should be relayed accurately to the Wikipedia reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, You have already been sufficiently warned and these diffs have been saved to bring about a case against you, to end this ongoing series of personal attacks and harassment directed at me emanating from you. Aren't you supposed to provide the links if you are talking about an article ? DBigXrayᗙ 16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand how you can make multiple drastic changes to this article and then, IMO, when you meet objections go out of your way to try to create disharmony and then say you are collecting diffs to make a case against them! Looking at the TP of the article that you have suggested which shows how we should be going about correctly editing this article, it is my impression that you tend to use your WP experience to bully other editors to get your way. On that TP it worked quite well. The most important thing for our project is to put out good work for our readers, and the best way to get that done is to treat our fellow editors with respect. Please try to keep that in mind. Gandydancer (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, how about you two stop attacking me and focus your comments only on the content? Is it too much to ask for? DBigXrayᗙ 23:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Keeping on topic and attacking you??? Please see, for example, the above Possible move to "Nirbhaya case" section. Pretty much out of the blue you brought up the bite marks on her body with your reasoning as to why she bit her attackers. Your bringing that up and your reasoning just absolutely floored me; apparently Binksternet felt he needed to reply to that rather unusual assertion as well. So what do you do? You remind us, after it was you who drifted off topic, to get back on topic - even suggesting I (or we?) strike some of our words. Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, Just as i said above, it is obvious that you are incapable to avoid commenting on the contributor. see Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. I am not interested in any discussion other than the topic of this thread here. If you have nothing to say on the topic of this thread, then please dont comment here. DBigXrayᗙ 17:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't see any reason to remove the sewing machine pseudo-scandal. There would appear to be consensus for leaving it in. Deb (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It was not a scandal, but a plan as per the Indian laws. My point was it never happened, so why mention the sewing machine. If we want to keep it then we have to cover all the aspects of it. I will try and include more details to this. DBigXrayᗙ 18:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible move to "Nirbhaya case"

It seems to me that this case is now most often referred to in the English-language press of India as the "Nirbhaya case" or a similar variant. Opinions? William Avery (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I will try to find time to consider your suggestion. On the surface it seems OK. Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

We have redirects for the Nirbhaya case as well as Nirbhaya. I am neutral to this proposal. What is the WP:COMMONNAME used in the media ? I am not sure as I have been seeing both names, i.e. "Nirbhaya case" as well as "Delhi gang rape". Someone needs to thoroughly judge this before making a decision. DBigXrayᗙ 15:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

After a quick scan of the web I tend to think it's a good idea. On the other hand, what I would not like to see is this case turned into a mythic story of a heroic rape victim, a medical student at that!, bravely fighting off her cruel and vicious attackers but alas loosing the battle. So, I need to think about it... Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, " bravely fighting off her cruel and vicious attackers but alas loosing the battle." is a good one line summary of the incident. Not sure why you think that is a problem, as she fought bravely. All the rapists were arrested with bite marks on their body, that she probably inflicted to help the police as an evidence against them. DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In what world does a woman fighting for her life inflict bite marks to help the police? No, she's biting to try and save herself. It's a desperate measure. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, may be you are right. we can only guess. Any thoughts on the topic of this thread ? the article title ? DBigXrayᗙ 21:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Binster)Sorry but just for starters I find it pretty mind-blowing that you would think that the reason that she bit them was probably to produce evidence. But hopefully we won't get into an argument about that sort of subject on our talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, we can only guess. FYI, the police did use it as an evidence. Now can we get back to the real topic ? DBigXrayᗙ 21:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not bring up the bites, you did, but yes, let's not get into what a woman experiences while she is being raped. And BTW, it is not necessary for you to inform me about the investigation using the bite marks. Of course I am aware of that. As I said, this is a GA for me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I did not start this thread, so I would suggest striking the incorrect allegations. Any words on the thread topic ? DBigXrayᗙ 22:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

William Avery, thanks for bringing this up. I've put a lot of thought into the name change and have decided against it. Remembering back when I did so much research for this article I was aware that even here in the U.S. women are reluctant to report a rape, and for good reason. But I had no idea that our own stats would show how poorly we were doing here in the U.S. I was quite stunned. It was not until the Me Too movement came along that big improvements are being made in the U.S. The Me Too movement says "Here is my name and I'm no longer ashamed to say it". So when this young woman's mom and dad said that they gave their permission to use her name in hopes that other women would be less afraid to speak out, they spoke out for the movement even before there was one, and we should go along with their wishes: We should use her name not "Fearless One", which would be a step backwards. Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this question. The discussion revealed difficulties of tone, of which I was unaware when I made the proposal. William Avery (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, the article title is decided on policies such as WP:COMMONNAME among others and not according to someone's feelings or what you did several years back or what is happening in US. I think User:William Avery made a good proposal, and we should look at statistics to come to a decision. DBigXrayᗙ 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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." --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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--DBigXrayᗙ 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.DBigXrayᗙ 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 ? --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Male Victim

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"--DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. DBigXrayᗙ 07:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Victim's name

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)