Jump to content

Talk:2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title of the article

[edit]

Note I went ahead and renamed the article and the AfD to 2019 Hyderabad gang rape, (along the lines of 2012 Delhi gang rape) mainly due to the WP:BLP concerns on the privacy of the victim and her family, also it is against the Indian laws to name a rape victim. Moreover in my opinion the case is notable not the subject. other options for the title are 2019 Shamsabad gang rape or 2019 Shamsabad murder case or 2019 Hyderabad veterinary murder case--DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: There is another article which went viral in India regarding the death of a 2 year old boy Death of Sujith Wilson. But that is different. Is it always required to not to include the name of the victim? Then I have noticed articles like Rape of Iryna Krashkova, Rape of Yasmin Akhter. Can you clear my doubts. Abishe (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:INDENT your talk page comments. The subject is not a notable individual and we should not take the name per Wikipedia:BLPNAME. Rape cases are different and local laws prohibits media from disclosing the name of the individual. We on Wikipedia have to choose WP:COMMONNAME from among the ones used by the media. I would not comment on WP:OSE regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understand the convention of naming the article title as the subject is about a non notable person. I regret for my mistakes. Abishe (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding Abishe. May I also request you to remove the subject's name from your last comment above. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree upon the laws and removed it. Abishe (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--DBigXrayᗙ 08:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News article with detailed coverage

[edit]

User:Gravestep I found that Gulfnews has a detailed coverage of the event. you can refer this link for more info, since you are helping to improve the page. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real Name of victim

[edit]

Name of victim can be taken if they’re published in RS. See Kathua case or Nirbhaya case. All case have names of victim namely Asifa Bano and Jyoti Singh. DBigXray, I agree with page move but not with removing name of victim. Hope it clarifies,— Harshil want to talk? 15:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169, No I am against using the name of the victim per the privacy reasons of WP:BLP as it directly impacts the family. One IP updated the article that the local police are now using a fictional name Disha to refer to the victim. For now I see no problem is using "Victim" wherever needed. All resposible Media houses like the Hindu are referring to the victim as Veterinary instead of taking her name. I dont see any good reason, nor have you named any, to start adding the real name of the victim. If you want to convince me to allow the real name, you will need to give me a good reason to do so and a policy that allows it. Please note WP:BLP policies are rather strictly applied so whenever there is a conflict among policies, BLPs are given prominence. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Harshil169 Please read this article and then let me know your thoughts. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, Please see 2012 Delhi gang rape which clearly mentions name of Jyoti singh. See Kathua rape case which mentions name of Asifa Bano. The fictional name Disha should be included but many outlets have already disclosed identity, so, there’s not any major problem to write it as it is. Harshil want to talk? 16:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Harshil169 If you have any argument other than WP:OSE, then I would be happy to respond. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, OSE clearly states These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. I’m pinging @Kautilya3: to know whether it is valid to take name of rape victim or not. Thanks, Harshil want to talk? 16:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Harshil169, yes it is invalid here. You can ping as many people as you like, unless you have a strong argument in your favour, you wont be able to generate any WP:CONSENSUS--DBigXrayᗙ 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, my argument is same that WP:NOTCENSORED and there’s no particular policy which objects the use of name. Other pages also use it because RS used it. My argument is this and if you don’t want to take then it’s okay but name is already known. Let’s wait to gain consensus or ask people what they think. Harshil want to talk? 16:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you are wrong. Please read the Privacy policy on WP:BLP, I am surprised that you have not read it so far, specially WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. You are free to remove the name from other places. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that only the names of public figures can be mentioned on Wikipedia, as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They’ve changed the name of the girl to DISHA as per GOI rules for rape victims.--Unknown3599 (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown3599 Why did you add it anyway? I've reverted it until we can get a consenus over naming. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 12:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown3599, Adding that "fictional name" is unnecessary in the lead. Although using the fictional name is allowed, and I am not against using it but I dont see any extra purpose being served here. I feel User:NonsensicalSystem was right in reverting your change. As far as mention of the fictional name is concerned, I had already mentioned it in the section on 2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape#Aftermath, and that is all that is needed. I suggest we all should focus on improving the article and the discussion on the AfD than getting fixated on the real name or the fictional name. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with DBigXray, this is petty. We should probably sort out the AfD discussion instead. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 12:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I'm not a registered editor, just a user passing through. My perspective is that Wikipedia looses its core appeal when a quick google search can turn up more in-depth/accurate info on a story than the Wikipedia article can. I think of Wikipedia as the place I come to learn more about a story that I've merely gotten a surface level understanding of from news websites, but intentionally obscuring information, as you're doing here, creates the opposite dynamic. Finally, I feel like the policy you're citing for this is being misapplied here. Look at any other Wikipedia article about high-profile crime cases for a sharp contrast on depth-of-information concerning the victims. For example, Wikipedia's article about Russell Williams (criminal) lists the full names of both of his rape/murder victims.2601:18A:8300:1920:7C37:5576:622F:7518 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the victim nor the suspect are well known person. hence WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME applies here. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Death of (victim’s name)

[edit]

I would suggest article title being changed to Death of (name of victim) as is the naming convention.  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such convention, please link me to such a policy that you are talking about because I haven't yet heard of it. Here is the article from CNN today, notice that even 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." On the contrary, to what you claim, there is WP:BLPCRIME. Read the threads above instead of wasting everyone's time--DBigXrayᗙ 05:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victim's name

[edit]

Is there some reason why the victim's name is not mentioned in the article? I assume that there is. At the same time, however, I found her name mentioned seven times in the "references" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro yes, per WP:BLPNAME see the discussion above for more. You are welcome to replace the refs with the ones that don't explicitly name the victim. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of not naming it (the name) in the article ... and then explicitly mentioning it (the name) seven times in the references? If you (Wikipedia) are trying to keep the name hidden, mentioning it seven times will not achieve that goal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs are from the time, when the article still had the name. Please understand that WP:WIP. No one is opposing your replacement of those refs with the ones that dont mention the name. Now, instead of arguing over this be WP:BOLD and replace the refs. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Joseph A. Spadaro I have replaced all those refs in the article now.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am not arguing about anything. I was simply pointing out an oddity that I noticed. I don't work on this article. And I have little interest in it. I just happened to stumble across the article, and I noticed the name "discrepancy" (that I mentioned above). So, I wanted to mention this to the editors who regularly edit this page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, I am very thankful to you for pointing this up on the talk page. Keep up the good work. cheers. DBigXrayᗙ 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting the matter. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of the attempt to communalise the issue.

[edit]

I have some links from reliable sources which proves how this issue was used by some frimges to communalise the issue. We should add it. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot User:Edward Zigma for immediately starting the talk page discussion. I think the content you added was deserved but it was badly written. Even I would have reverted your content addition. Can you please add all the sources that you have and then write the paragraph here on the talk page to discuss ? Once we review it and make necessary changes to polish it, I believe it can be added back into the article. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Links on the issue. *Link 1, Link2, Link3 These are the links that I have provided in support of the section I had added previously.Edward Zigma (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit - Some BJP MLAs inclding MLA Raja Singh and party supporters tried to give this incident a false communal spin and trivialise the issue by blaming it on the muslim community, for which DCP Prakash Reddy had to release a statement saying,“It is absolutely not communal in nature as the accused are of all communities so it is incorrect to say it is anything related to religion."[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/bjp-mla-supporters-give-hyderabad-rape-case-a-false-communal-spin

And user Harshil169 (talk · contribs) next time instead of again reverting my edits and falling into the disputes for which we both are known about, try to have a discussion in the talk section. I add things with minute care and precautions and again falling into the disruptive behaviour which you have reverted once again, try to have a cool n calm composition. I have added the link with explicitly naming BJP MLAs.Edward Zigma (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my name from the proposed para. give me a few mins, I will review the sources. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Zigma, Read WP:PROVEIT. It’s your responsibility to provide source, not mine. Harshil want to talk? 01:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my proposed version, let me know if you have any comments about it. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Version2 Out of the four accused, there were three Hindus and one Muslim. BJP MLA Raja Singh, BJP’s IT Cell chief Amit Malviya and some party supporters tried to give the incident a false communal spin by selectively focussing on the Muslim accused. Hyderabad Police stated that it will take action against such people and the DCP stated "It is absolutely not communal in nature as the accused are of all communities so it is incorrect to say it is anything related to religion."

If they were all of one religion, does it make it ok to say such stuff? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it seems Mr Raja and his party were trying to get political mileage out of it. do you have any suggestions on the V2, Kautilya3 ?--DBigXrayᗙ 20:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like saying something like "efforts were made to single out one Muslim out of four perpetrators of the crime and paint it as Muslim violence". I would also cite our favourite reliable source for it. No such wishy washy language like "communal colour", whatever that means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I would make a slight tweak, "efforts were made to single out one Muslim out of four perpetrators of the crime and paint it as violence by Muslim against a Hindu girl" I dont see any point in adding the swarajyamag link. is there any ? here is the version below. I added the line so that it explains what communal spin means. I feel it is self descriptive. comments/tweaks welcome. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Version3 Out of the four accused, there were three Hindus and one was Muslim. BJP MLA Raja Singh, BJP’s IT Cell chief Amit Malviya and some party supporters tried to give the incident a false communal spin by selectively focussing on the Muslim accused. Efforts were made to single out one Muslim out of four perpetrators of the crime and paint it as violence by Muslim against a Hindu girl. Hyderabad Police stated that it will take action against such people and the DCP stated "It is absolutely not communal in nature as the accused are of all communities so it is incorrect to say it is anything related to religion."

I stand by my phrase "Muslim violence" (generalised). That is how they are painting it. For example:

Madhu Kishwar who frequently shares fake news and communal and sensitive content tweeted the above Swarajya story claiming, "And they tell us we shouldn't be #Islamophobic If this is what they do when they are a so called minority, imagine our fate when they morph into a majority."[1]

References

  1. ^ Twitter Users Give Communal Hue To Hyderabad Vet's Gang Rape And Murder
This is not sympathy for a Hindu girl. This is pure bullshit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, version2 and 3 are okay but should be streamed though. Harshil want to talk? 01:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Next time instead of again involving in disruptive reverting edits, care to involve in discussion with me.You did the same thing this time.I have provided the sufficient sources, so instead of again blatantly reverting my edits, try to have a converdation and discuss it.Edward Zigma (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Zigma, cool down, There is nothing wrong with what User:Harshil169 did. Drop it please and read WP:BRD and strictly follow it now onwards. Lets focus on the content now --DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: instead of "Painting as a muslim violence" we should use "Painting as a Hindu-muslim communal issue" would be better. First one seems more biased. Otherwise itd perfect Edward Zigma (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I agree that it is not a sympathy for the girl. between the Muslim violence vs Hindu-muslim, I think the one closer to what the sources are saying is "Hindu-muslim" so I am preferring the latter. I will now move version 3 to the article. Any further cosmetic changes or improvements can be discussed here on this thread. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can live with that. Thanks guys! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kautilya3, your comments and additions were very useful. But all these work will amount to nothing if the article gets deleted. Please do share your opinion on the AfD page since you seem to be familiar with the case now. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Words by Venkaih Naidu

[edit]

@DBigXray: Vice-President of India Venkiah Naidu said, "What is required is not a new bill. What is required is political will, administrative skill, change of mindset and then go for kill of the social evil." Can we add this statement directly to Discussion in Parliament section or should I change it into passive voice?--Unknown3599 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown3599, yes, you may add it as a quote. although I personally would have skipped it. He is basically saying, Let us not do anything about it. DBigXrayᗙ 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown3599, please check out this article from the Hindu, Here the main argument of everyone is added. Here Naidu seems to speak something else that is opposite in the sense to what was said in the line you added. He is asking for "change in our legal and judicial system"--DBigXrayᗙ 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray I've seen those words in this article of India Today and also in RajyaSabhaTV. Since youtube isn’t a reliable source and we got a direct quote of a Vice-President from a reliable source, can it strengthen the article?--Unknown3599 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown3599, Thanks for the link. Naidu's comment is lacking any substance. GK Reddy talks about doing something concrete, we should better add that in the Para on Lok Sabha. If after adding all the major points if there is space then we can possibly add Naidu's line, but for now lets avoid it. DBigXrayᗙ 19:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people want to delete this?

[edit]

Why do people want to delete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1MM (talk • contribs)

Because, some of the editors here, believe this is a small crime incident that has no long term relevance. I disagree with them and have raised my voice at the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Hyderabad gang rape. C1MM You are welcome to participate there. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afd concensus

[edit]

The article has been nominated for Afd since 1 December 2019 and I think possibly it will be closed on 7 December 2019. But the issue is why can't we have WP:Non-admin closure for controversial topics. Here most most of them have voted to keep the article. But my issue is I would like to take this article to ITN news section as the accused people have been shot dead. So if we delay further we might not able to nominate the article to the main page. I think the article deserved to be nominated as it is well sourced with abundant information. I don't see copyediting issues here. Abishe (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe, This is not a WP:SNOW keep case. Such AfDs cannot be closed by non admins. and AfD are kept open for 7 days. see HELP:AFD. I wanted to nominate this on ITNC myself, but then I stopped since it has the AfD template which will be removed in 2 days, but it will gather oppose votes on ITNC nom. ping User:Spencer and User:MSGJ for advice on how to proceed for ITN. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and nominated this at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape. Abishe, you can add your name and suggests alt blurbs if you have things in mind.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nominating DBigXray, I also had similar type of blurb in my mind and that is possibly the only blurb to quote there. I don't know whether fellow Wikipedians would agree with the blurb. Let's see how it goes. Thanks for your work in updating this article. Abishe (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet in this format...suitable?

[edit]

Is a tweet in this format suitable for the article? I have taken reference to the first line from the section Attempt to communalise:

Avatar of Cyberabad Police
Avatar of Cyberabad Police
 Cyberabad Police
@cyberabadpolice
 X logo, a stylized letter X

...All the accused not belongs to one religion. One is Muslim and remaining 3 are Hindus....

5 Dec, 2019[1]

DTM (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ @cyberabadpolice (5 Dec 2019). "Cyberabad Police responding about the accused" (Tweet) – via Twitter.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
DTM There are two questions here. 1. Is a quote box merited here. 2. Is a Tweetbox instead of a quotebox more useful. I have made a few changes. I think you can add it. If someone removes it then we can discuss the same. I dont see any harm in adding this. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes valid questions. I added the box. And yes, as you said if someone removes it, it can be discussed. DTM (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am reconsidering the use of a tweetbox. It doesn't look so good on mobile devices (my andriod at least). It would be better as a quotebox or as some other format which highlights the text. DTM (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change. DTM (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok. no objections --DBigXrayᗙ 09:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New language for the new India

[edit]

"The accused have been encountered. And I feel very happy," she said. [1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 we are discussing this on User_talk:Harshil169#Nom_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape, please join there.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kautilya3 Reuters' headline should shame everyone. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

clarification on Encounter

[edit]

Does encounter refer to any killing by police, or is it an extrajudicial, i.e. not part of legal process, killing? The Encounter killings by police article, The Guardian and The New York Times seem to say encounter reders to extrajudicial killings. But the police state they were in self-defense. Is that an encounter, or an alleged encounter?—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --valereee (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it in both places while we discuss, but the change in the lead is maybe injecting confusion as there's no explanation there, just the wikilink --valereee (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, --valereee, I am a speaker of Indian English. FYI, any killings done by the police, whether in self defence or extrajudicial is considered encounter. Police are not allowed to kill, that's court's job, so if they kill someone, it is encounter killing. If it is a staged killing, it is further classified as Fake encounter or staged encounter. If there is a gunfight between the police and criminals, then that will also be called an encounter between the police and the criminals. I think this is the reason, why all the indian newspapers are using "encounter" without alleged, while the foreign ones like Reuters are using "alleged". I think using alleged is ok, it keeps things on the safer side.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray thanks for that. So would Hyderabad shootout genuine or fake? allow us to insert that there have been questions raised about whether it was a staged or fake encounter? --valereee (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes. I think you can use that ref to state that. In the above video at 1:18 you can see the reporter directly calling it "Police encounter" and not alleged encounter. Which agrees with whatever I said above.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, okay, I think we can remove alleged before encounters, then --valereee (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Since there is no question that this was an encounter, you should remove alleged. If there was a claim that it is a fake encounter, then writing "alleged fake encounter" will make sense. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Can there be a police encounter without a killing? In the lead source at Encounter killings by police, it says Malir saw 195 police encounters from January to October 2012, in which 18 people were killed and 276 arrested[2], i.e. fewer killings than encounters. In that usage, it seems like standard English usage of encounter.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba yes, there can be. But the common usage of the word drops the killing. A statement that "x was encountered by cops" means x was killed in an encounter with the cops. "Encounter specialist Sajjanar would be understood as encounter killing specialist. DBigXrayᗙ 05:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Thanks. Perhaps Encounter killings by police needs rewording from Encounter killing ... is a term used in South Asia ... to describe extrajudicial killings by the police if they are not all necessarily extrajudicial. I imagine quite a few non-Indian English speakers would not know. (Even better if reliable sources that explain this can be cited)—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba I am not an expert in law, but my understanding of extrajudicial means outside the ambit of the judicial system (i.e. something not already approved by Judicial system.) These encounters are clearly not approved by any court, and frowned upon by the court, so I think it is acceptable to call all of them extra judicial. Teh article currently states "All four accused were killed in an "encounter", a term used in India for extrajudicial killings by police," I think this is just fine. Here are some sources that can be added. [1][2] --DBigXrayᗙ 09:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Explained: What NHRC, SC have said on encounter killings". The Indian Express. 7 December 2019. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  2. ^ Anandan, Arabhi (7 December 2019). "Fake Encounter Killings : An Anathema To Rule Of Law". livelaw.in. Retrieved 7 December 2019.

Names of the killed suspects

[edit]

I have removed the names of the suspects as the non notable accused were not convicted and hence naming them will be a violation of WP:BLPNAME. accordingly I have reverted User:Justlookingforthemoment. Folks can share their opinions on the same in this thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about the names of the criminals in the Kathua Rape Case and the 2012 Delhi gang rape? Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Justlookingforthemoment, In both these cases the accused were convicted. so they are not the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

User:Kautilya3 based on the discussion with you at GCG's talk page, I felt a background section is merited here. I think it is a common thought that comes to the mind, what is happening in India. so I felt this section was needed. Feel free to expand it with relevant content that suits the background. Several news articles on Hyd rape also had background section. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DBig. It looks good. I removed a tangential fact, but otherwise it is a nice summary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the background section is a good addition. This rape did not occur in a vacuum, the response was so wide because of other events. Hippeus (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Priyanka Reddy Rape Case" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Priyanka Reddy Rape Case. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing victim's name and personal data

[edit]

I would like to reopen the conversation regarding the inclusion of the victim’s name in the article. According to Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, the name of a rape victim should never be disclosed on any website or in the media. Why are we not adhering to this? Isn't this considered a violation of court rulings? I.Mahesh (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a discussion happening across several articles, rather than have multiple discussions it's probably best to start a discussion on WP:BLPN about when victim's names should be included in articles like this in countries where media is legally bound not to use their names, if this changes over time, if it changes when sources in that country start to use the name, same for sources outside the country. Ravensfire (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire Thank you for the suggestion. I agree that it would be more effective to have a centralized discussion about the inclusion of victims’ names across multiple articles. I’ll consider starting a conversation on WP:BLPN to address the broader question of whether victim names should be included in articles, especially in cases where local laws explicitly prohibit it, as in this case with Indian law. It’s important to clarify how we should approach this across Wikipedia, both for articles related to India and potentially for other jurisdictions as well. I appreciate the input, and I’ll move forward accordingly. I.Mahesh (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire Can we focus the discussion specifically on this article? Upon reviewing it, I noticed that the victim's name is mentioned only in the title of one citation. The titles of other citations do not include her name. Since it doesn't add significant value in this context, could we consider replacing it with wording similar to how other sources present it? Some news articles upon google search of this case do mention her name in the body, only a few include it in the title. Under WP:CRIME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I don't see how the name contributes positively to the article, but rather could potentially cause distress to the living members of the victim's family. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I.Mahesh: But who told you that we are supposed to follow "court rulings" of India? Sources outside India have also used the victim's name.[3][4] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "only" referencing court rulings in this matter, please read the follow-up also. Even CNN, BBC avoids mentioning the victim's name, as do all our go to standard references. There was a prior discussion on this page, and following consensus, the victim's name was removed from the article and all references (except one, which was later addressed). However, another user added the name back without discussing it on the talk page, so I had to remove it again. Regarding adherence to "cultural issues", consider the Kolkata incident, where the victim's name was removed after community agreement, respecting the country’s cultural complexities. I.Mahesh (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape_and_murder&oldid=1260770054"