Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images to be added

Please add an image of the college building and/or protesting medical fraternity and/or candlelight vigils being held for the victim. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to protect the article from fake news and bad writing

I've been watching this article since yesterday reverting several edits with misinformation or fake news while also correcting the numerous Grammatical Errors made by inexperienced editors. I suggest protecting this article atleast till it is under heavy media coverage. Nickuwunj (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You shall raise a request at WP:RFP. -- Macrobreed2 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving the article name to "2024 Kolkata gang rape and murder"

As per the reports (dated 15/08/2024) the case seems to be a gang rape and murder case. 1. I recommend moving the article name from "2024 R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital rape and murder" to "2024 Kolkata gang rape and murder" for clear understanding.

Other article name references:

• 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder case
• 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder

Macrobreed2 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This would need to be established more strongly than "seems to be". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you here. Nickuwunj (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Seems to be" .. Not confirmed.

Arijit Kisku (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Reportedly"

I've been removing a ton of POV-ridden content that largely is from sources where something was "reportedly" the case. This isn't what an enecylopedia is for. Take your specultative opinions elsewhere, please. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal Of content

Why was the timeline of the incident under the arrest section removed ? Nickuwunj (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the editor gave this reason, "Wikipedia is not a true crime show". As much as I agree with the statement, however, few substantiated fats about the accused and few crucial incidents could have been kept in my opinion. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you say about this, ZimZalaBim? Can't we keep few substantiated facts about the arrested accused? VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not own this article. If there is consensus to include verifiable facts that improve the article, then edit it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim 👍 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2024 Meyeder Raat Dokhol Movement into 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Where is the proof this is an established "movement" that deserves its own encyclopedia article? This should just be merged and redirected to 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident where the aftermath is sufficiently covered. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

the meyeder raat dokhol movement or women reclaim the night should be elaborated as it is a major revolution being brought about. the slogan of the movement being "WE WANT JUSTICE" 103.101.213.119 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. If the protest section gets long enough later then we can only make it an article. Mehedi Abedin 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• yes 103.101.213.119 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

THEY NEED NOT BE MERGED 103.101.213.119 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BECAUSE THE PROTEST THAT STARTED ON 11.30 PM ,14TH OF AUGUST HAS INFACT IN ONE NIGHT MADE A KIND OF HISTORY INDIA HAS NOT SEEN BEFORE WHERE WOMEN FIGHT FOR WHAT IS THEIR RIGHT , WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED SINCE AS LONG AS ONE CAN REMEMBER AND ASK FOR JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM . IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK? AND IT CERTAINLY IS LONG ENOUGH TO BE AN ARTICLE 103.101.213.119 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't WP:SHOUT; this is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

--ZimZalaBimHOW DO YOU ASSUME I AM SHOUTING...BUT IF YOU THINK SO I APOLOGISE ...MY WRITINGS ARE IN CAPTALS AS MY KEYBOARD IS MALFUNCTIONING... 103.101.213.119 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The protests are the aftermath of the incident. They may not need another article. The information can be looked up in the article page itself. Protests occurred after the 2012 gang rape too. But as it is related to the incident, we can include that in the main article. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. No standalone notability per WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Merge As of now Meyeder Raat Dokhol Movement is not mentioned by any national media which questions it's notability. However, I'm in support of merging it with 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident. ParallelLife (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Not Merge This movement protest is in wide range discussion across the media in India. The several developments to happen only in this article. So I don't think this should be merged. So I am against merging it.

  VNC200 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

* Not merge – This is an established movement, by a lady named Rimjhim Sinha. Please search it. I don't think this article deserves to be merged with it. More development is yet to come, along with the reactions. I am against merging of it.

VNC200 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge- Merge for now. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. It hasn't been covered extensively. As someone previously mentioned, a separate article is only justified if the protest section becomes substantial enough

DangalOh (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@VSankeerthSai1609 protests held during the 2012 Delhi gang rape have a separate article elaborating the protests in it's Wikipedia page. And the protest having a name makes it all the more necessary to have a separate article to it. We must keep expanding the articles as the protests progress. I stand against merging it. 103.101.213.119 (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@103.101.213.119 If the article has a scope of expanding, then do not merge it. And could you please link the 2012 Delhi protests wiki page, I am not able to find it. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@VSankeerthSai1609 sure

2012 rape case hyperlink – Search (bing.com) 103.101.213.119 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape and murder#Public protests 103.101.213.119 (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@103.101.213.119 Yeah, that's not a separate article. It's a section of the main article. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Marge. The two incidents are related enough that two seperate articles should not exist on them individually. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. Please merge both the articles. Protests were held after the 2012 Delhi gang rape too, but they were related to the incident. This is the same case. Just because the protests occurred with a name doesn't necessarily mean it is a movement. If further protests and demonstrations in this name occurs, we may consider expanding the article. But for now, please merge it. User: VSankeerthSai1609
• Merge. There's a lot of overlap and as it has already been mentioned in its current state the article does not meet the standards for a standalone page. Keivan.f^Talk 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per above all. Waonderer (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Completing the merge

I finished merging the articles. There did not seem to be anything pertinent that 2024 Meyeder Raat Dokhol Movement covered that's not already here. If anyone finds images or text from that article that needs to be merged here, please feel free to. Soni (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of the Trinamool Congress Government

The section is largely unsourced and unattributed, citing only TOI and a YouTube video as sources. The section frequently mentions the ‘ministry,’ but this claim is entirely unsourced, as the cited references do not mention it. Additionally, it states, ‘It has also been alleged that the ministry deliberately tried to fabricate the case as a suicide.’ However, the cited source, TOI (an unreliable source), discusses Rahul Gandhi’s comments and does not mention ‘suicide’ at all. Furthermore, it claims, ‘Additionally, Udayan Guha, Trinamool politician and cabinet minister for North Bengal Development, has been accused of using his political power to suppress the voices of the parents and the protestors by discouraging their participation in the protests,’ but the cited source is a YouTube video. I noticed that this section was added by Shawn110. Please cite reliable sources here, or I will have to remove the section. GrabUp – Talk 13:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello GrabUp, thanks for reverting. I've found a source by News 18 but it is blacklisted. Please inform if it can be used for citation if not then last paragraph can be removed.

However the first paragraph has been cited from another source and I've made appropriate change to the text as it was modified by others. Shawn110 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn110: News18 is not a blacklisted source. Please mention the source you are referring to. GrabUp – Talk 15:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The source is News 18 only but thik the issue is with the url containing google.amp extension as per the error due to which is the issue is occurring. Shawn110 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn110: Can you copy and past the actual headline. GrabUp – Talk 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure this is the headline: 'Don't Call Me If Your Husband Beats You': TMC Minister's Remarks On Women's Rally For Kolkata Doctor Sparks Outrage, BJP Reacts Shawn110 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn110: Here is the article from News18; Please explain me where the sources says what you added; “Additionally, Udayan Guha, Trinamool politician and cabinet minister for North Bengal Development, has been accused of using his political power to suppress the voices of the parents and the protestors by discouraging their participation in the protests,” GrabUp – Talk 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The source does not accuse anyone, nor does it mention that anyone accused him. The source merely covered his comments and nothing more. The source says ‘BJP reacts,’ but it does not include what the BJP’s reaction was or how they reacted. GrabUp – Talk 17:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that part earlier. Please don't bother. Shawn110 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn110: Anything with 'google.amp' or other should not be used as URL for source, as they are just a kind of preview of original website. Use the original URL. There should be some square and arrow which takes you to real website, which could be named after News18 in this case. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor thank you for informing. Shawn110 (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Victim's "name" included in article with invalid source

Has anyone actually looked at the complete nonsense link that supposedly gives the name of the victim? You consider that source reputable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotRodHundley (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The name is under the photo of the hospital. Knitsey (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my point isn't that the victim's supposed name isn't literally on the page. HotRodHundley (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean the name is correct but the source isn't good? Knitsey (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

HotRodHundley, the name of the victim is clearly mentioned in the page and India Today is a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:RS/P. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The source is not India Today, it's "hindipatrika.com", which is certainly not a reliable source, as even the slightest cursory review will make clear. HotRodHundley (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It also appears to be literally the only source of this name. Completely invented. HotRodHundley (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If this negligence is going to be left up then remove the protection. What's the point of it? HotRodHundley (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

HotRodHundley, I'm not sure which link you are referring to. I'm talking about the India Today reference given in the infobox of the page, in the lede. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Also called 'Nirbhaya 2'

Suggestion to add the phrase that this is also referred by some as 'Nirbhaya 2', as the similarities in national level rallies and condolences. Danish AMC (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Danish AMC, Please provide multiple reliable sources supporting your claim for verifiability. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Soumitra Biswas

We should mention the 2001 Soumitra Biswas incident somewhere in this article (I would add a link to OpIndia but I can’t get it to successfully post for some reason) Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Overlordnat1, Relevance? (See WP:RELEVANCE and WP:DUE) It can be mentioned in section called history, but I really doubt there is any notability for that. This article is about the 2024 incident, not other issues related to the college. That can be put in the medical college article with relevant reliable sources. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1: OpIndia is considered unreliable source and thus it is deprecated (blocked) from being used on Wikipedia. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Under the "Arrest" subsection, change the following grammatically incorrect sentence:

"He is a trained boxer and close to few higher officials at the Kolkata Police"

to

"He is a trained boxer with connections to a few high-ranking officials in the Kolkata Police." 2405:201:D002:319D:E1AB:F865:25D4:535A (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

SC Hearing

Can we add the members of the 9 membered task force set up by the Supreme Court of India in a table? VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

VSankeerthSai1609, it will be undue weight to an article on the incident. Reactions and aftermath can mention the task force, but there is no point in mentioning the task force members, unless they are highly notable individuals. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay! VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding Dr. before name

Why is it just Debnath, and not Dr. Debnath ? Is this some wiki policy? -- Parnaval (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Parnaval, WP:MRS is associated with it. You can see WP:DOCTOR also. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rally by State CM

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee held rally. I suggest including this, as she herself is CM and still held a rally, so this should be notable. -- Parnaval (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Parnaval (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Grammar error

In Incident the text says "discovered in one of college's seminar rooms" but the text should say "discovered in one of the college's seminar rooms" Fivework (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Need a background section

This article needs Background section like other articles. Mehedi Abedin 11:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mehedi Abedin, You may add one yourself or if possible, find out references from reliable sources for the same. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The background section should include some of the numerous high-profile cases of rape and murder in India, such as the 2023 Brazilian tourist that was gang raped and survived (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68444993.amp&ved=2ahUKEwib552E-YyIAxWzU2wGHQNpMccQyM8BKAB6BAgFEAI&usg=AOvVaw05aTtNa8Xxa4VxMmZDhJ47) and (https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/asia/2024/03/04/spanish-woman-gangrape-india-dumka-jharkhand/); and an overview with links to other sources of high-profile rape and murder cases, "India's rape problem" which is surging (https://amp.dw.com/en/what-is-behind-indias-rape-problem/a-51739350). Metokpema (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion for Revision of Short Description

I believe a more specific description would help provide better context for readers. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions are not seen by readers of the article, and are not intended to "provide context" (what does that even mean?) -- see WP:SHORTDESC. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have knowledge about writing short descriptions, which help users identify the desired article and provide a concise explanation of the page's scope. I think the word 'murder' should be added to the short description. Arijit Kisku (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The short description does not need to repeat information that is already in the title of the article. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Parent's Release of Information

I didn't see mention of the parents' release of information. If it happened as mentioned in another Talk topic attached below, it's notable information and should be included in the page, inserted when it occurred relative to other activities.

Multiple sources have reported, via release of information from the parents, that the the autopsy report says 150 milligrams of semen was found in the vaginal swab. Using 1.0173 g/mL as density, that is 0.1475 millilitres, or around one-twentyth of one average ejaculation of 3.4 mL This is how much was found in a swab, during the autopsy. The sources don't state how much is typically found in a swab, but a doctor is quoted in one source "That quantity cannot be of one person. It suggests the involvement of multiple people" Metokpema (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED

I came from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sort-of legal threat by IP user. Would anyone using WP:NOTCENSORED as an argument please have a read of that link. It is totally inappropriate to use NOTCENSORED as a reason to include someone's name. Other policies apply (WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BDP etc.) as well as editorial judgment (WP:CONSENSUS). The NOTCENSORED slogan could be regarded as an abbreviation for the idea that contributors here don't care about Indian law. However, that is not what NOTCENSORED says. Regardless of the IP's motivations, editors should be aware that their basic point is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not following your argument here. There have been numerous requests here to remove the vicitims name solely due to Indian law, and WP:NOTCENSORED appears to clearly apply as a counter to such an argument. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Suppose UK law said that Joe Citizen's name must never be mentioned. Would that be a reason to mention it? Obviously not. Possible reasons to mention a name are as given in my message above. When reverting an edit, NOTCENSORED is not a suitable edit summary or reason. An alternative would be "per consensus at [link to talk page section]". We don't mention a name because Indian law prohibits it. A careful reading of NOTCENSORED shows that it says nothing about national laws. A careful reading of the WP:TOS shows that individuals are responsible for what they post. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that we must mention the name due to NOTCENSORED, which seems to be what your hypothetical suggests. Rather, when editors say we cannot mention the name due to Indian law, NOTCENSORED is helpful in pointing out that Wikipedia is only subject to restrictions that might be placed by US law. And yes, whether or not it is appropriate to include the victim's name at all is irrlevent to NOTCENSORED, and I think the useful arguements made various times over these weeks have pointed to the fact that numerous news reports and reliable sources (including from India) include her name. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Almost every reliable indian news source cited has deleted the name under user pressure or their own norms. 49.36.181.149 (talk) 49.36.181.149 (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident → Murder of Moumita Debnath

This is the standard naming, see this list of similarly named articles.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kolkata police didn't follow prescribed procedural norms of CRPC

SC flagged serious lapses, procedural flaws in Kolkata Police's probe. Please somebody include it. This article is currently pretty biased in its omission of key facts. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/rg-kar-hospital-horror-case-sc-flags-serious-lapses-procedural-flaws-in-kolkata-polices-probe/videoshow/112710902.cms 103.52.220.109 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The supreme Court called these lapses disturbing. For the sake of fairness, include it.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/supreme-court-to-kolkata-police-why-was-fir-registered-14-hours-after-discovery-of-body/amp_articleshow/112720114.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.220.109 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

CRPC is not in force. BNSS is in force. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

“150gm semen” is misinformation

Semen is measured in ml, average male can ejaculate 5 ml of semen. 150gm of semen means it involves 100 people. So this is a clear misinformation. There was no info of 150gm semen in postmortem report 2406:7400:C4:7D17:0:0:0:100 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Provide a source that disputes the info presented in sources that are already cited within the article. Keivan.f^Talk 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just a misreading: the article says mg (milligram), not gm (gram). --JBL (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, look at this source: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/west-bengal/kolkata-doctors-rape-murder-autopsy-report-reveals-horrific-details-of-injuries-on-victims-body-most-on-face-and-neck-3157440 151 g is the weight of the genitalia sample taken from the body. Tosha Langue (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added this, please review! Tosha Langue (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have also archived this at the wayback machine here

thanks,

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources have reported, via release of information from the parents, that the the autopsy report says 150 milligrams of semen was found in the vaginal swab. Using 1.0173 g/mL as density, that is 0.1475 millilitres, or around one-twentyth of one average ejaculation of 3.4 mL

This is how much was found in a swab, during the autopsy. The sources don't state how much is typically found in a swab, but a doctor is quoted in one source "That quantity cannot be of one person. It suggests the involvement of multiple people" 147.147.154.28 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 147.147.154.28 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

"The Kolkata police termed the march illegal and erupted barricades around..."

Was probably intended to read: "The Kolkata police termed the march illegal and erected barricades around..." 57.140.28.47 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 (2)

please correct usage of word "disburse" when "disperse" should be used in last paragraph of "Protests and strikes" section

"Lathi charges, water cannons and tear gas were used by law enforcement to disburse the crowd after which the protestors resorted to stone pelting."

should be replaced with:

"Lathi charges, water cannons and tear gas were used by law enforcement to disperse the crowd after which the protestors resorted to stone pelting." Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Make a different page for the protests?

With the clash on 27th and a "Bandh" (a general strike) on 28th I think this protest should have a different page. Unknown545 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Unknown545, I don't think there is enough significant coverage with independent standalone notability for that outside the scope of this article. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Jharkhand tourist rape case

I can't find the Jharkhand tourist rape case article, someone please help. 119.155.202.144 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:SEARCH? Otherwise, WP:CREATE might be helpful. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Removing Victim's Name

Hi ZimZalaBim, Thank you for your guidance. I agree that this is an important discussion that should take place on the article's talk page.

I understand that creating a pseudonym is not the right approach according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I appreciate your guidance on this. Given the sensitivity of this issue, I agree that the best course of action is to discuss this matter on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. My primary concern remains the ethical implications of including the victim's name, especially in a case involving such a severe crime. As mentioned earlier, while the name may be public, it does not necessarily mean it is appropriate to include it on Wikipedia, especially when doing so might cause further distress to the victim's family or inadvertently encourage the spread of such sensitive information.

Arijit Kisku (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the name has been published in the following media articles: [1] [2] -- Macrobreed2 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The colleagues of the victim have used the name on various platforms, even the images of the victim are being used for candlelight protests across. The victim being a medical student and the fact that the parents have also used her name and are active litigants in court can justify the usage of her real name. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about WP's policies but in India, printing or publishing the name or any other information that reveals the identify of a rape victim is forbidden even under the authorization of the next of kin. [3] ParallelLife (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

YES !

"The Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Section 228A, forbids printing or publishing the name or any other information that reveals the identify of a rape victim (section 376, 376 A-E of the IPC). Both adults and minors should be aware of this." Nickuwunj (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Nickuwunj, WP:NOTCENSORED can shed some light on this. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

But the law exists solely to protect the identity of the victim, a purpose that would be defeated in this case.

I would suggest reffering to similar cases for a better insight. Nickuwunj (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Nickuwunj, Wikipedia doesn't come under the jurisdiction of Indian laws. 2012 Delhi gang rape case is another such example. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay understood. Thanks. Nickuwunj (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM IN THE KOLKATA GANG RAPE CASE HAS BEEN DISCLOSED ...SECTION 228A DOES FORBID USING THE NAME OF A RAPE VICTIM BUT IF THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM HAS AGREED TO DISCLOSE THE NAME WHICH SO HAS HAPPENED IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL TO USE IT A VERY PERPETUAL EXAMPLE BEING THE NIRBHAYA CASE WHERE THE FAMILY HAS REVEALED THE NAME OF THE VICTIM. 103.101.213.119 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove the name. It is immoral and unlawful SayaniReneePaul (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not subject to Indian laws. As for "immoral", you may need to explain a bit what you mean by that. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have no morals? Can't you respect the deceased? SayaniReneePaul (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and respectful to other editors, even when discussing what is obviously a distressing and emotive topic.

It is not clear to me why hiding the victim's name is the respectful thing to do here; her family have released her name, and I don't think anyone would accuse them of being amoral or disrespectful in that regard. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone has a right to privacy, and for victims of such heinous crimes, this right is paramount. In some countries, laws specifically protect the identity of rape victims to prevent them from being exposed to the public. For families of murder victims, the public disclosure of their loved one’s identity can cause ongoing pain and grief. They may be repeatedly confronted with news reports, social media discussions, and public curiosity, all of which can hinder their ability to grieve and heal in private. If victims believe that their identities will be disclosed, they may be less likely to report the crime. This is particularly concerning in rape cases, where victims might already be hesitant to come forward due to fear of not being believed or being blamed. Also the family's identity is blurred during interviews and they didn't reveal her name. I have watched interviews, they speak in bangla so Ig you won't be able to understand but if you do I hope you understand the situation. Thank you. God bless SayaniReneePaul (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Other people in this thread have said that the family have disclosed the name, though. And it is being repeated in media. Wikipedia wouldn't be revealing anything new; the information is already out there. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They haven't revealed the name, the media in the state have used pseudo names to protect the identity. Please remove it. 2405:201:8011:35:8901:DAF1:8907:6E69 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Its literally tending on twitter so @AntiDionysius is right. Nickuwunj (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

trending*** Nickuwunj (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The family did not mention the name anywhere please follow the news 2405:201:8011:35:8901:DAF1:8907:6E69 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The reference next to the victims name contains her name. Knitsey (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And there are numerous other news outlets publishing the name. As noted numerous times, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED nor subject to Indian law. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remove victim's name, and give the needed privacy to the family. None of the Indian news channel is mentioning it. If you need to give a name, please pick the one used in the media house. Mrikapa (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that the name has been published. But it is a case under investigation, and it is good practice to anonymise the victim until the investigation is completed. Wikipedia is not under Indian laws, but the case in discussion is under Indian legislation, so it would be best to at least hide the victim's name for the time being. Rhopalocera2023 (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Rhopalocera2023, If Wikipedia is not under Indian jurisdiction, then why to censor the name. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. The name is in accordance to Wikipedia policies and if you want to hide it, you have to provide a Wikipedia policy stating so. Not other points. Furthermore, the name has been disclosed by the family itself and just like 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, this article also follows the same principle. Remember that Wikipedia is a not a news channel or newspaper. This is an encyclopedia which provides information. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The name should be published 103.101.213.119 (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The name should be published 103.101.213.119 (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Also agreed. There is no benefit in hiding the name. 98.194.78.91 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

if you to follow the rules of the land. please remove it. Mrikapa (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove the victims name! You are against the law in revealing her identity!

revealing name of victim of rape is a crime in India. Section 72 of BNS. 74.98.224.45 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates under the laws of the United States, not India. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2024

Please remove victim' name from the post as there is court's order not to reveal victim's identity. Instead use "Tilottoma" as is being used in media same like "Nirvoya" 2409:4060:31A:74C5:B38B:4229:C830:7840 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia is not subject to Indian law. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2024 (2)

You cannot give victims photo as it goes against the law Binitjeje (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also see above edit request's answer. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The mention of her name

I humbly request to remove her identity (i.e her photo and name) completely, Thanks. 103.157.211.16 (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

103.157.211.16, Refer to the red editnotice box on top of this page. Wikipedia is not censored nor is it under Indian jurisdiction. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the aversion some people have to the publishing of her name, firstly the family has stated they want her name to be known, and they would now if that wasn't what she would want. Secondly, she did nothing wrong, while I understand privacy, by not publishing her name you are acting like her memory was stained or in other cases, there is something to be ashamed of. PaienPaien (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

do not mention the girls name as per gag order

116.88.232.227 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see the banner at the top and the discussions in the previous sections. Soni (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remove Victim's name and other personal details from this Wiki entry. Thanks. Mrikapa (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mrikapa, not gonna happen. I'm local resident where the incident happen. I also understand the cause as Indian citizen. But the portal and the organization is under US jurisdiction, not India's. So no further discussion on this matter. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You claim to be a local resident of the incident location. You also have a registered WMF (not Wikipedia) account. You show know the latest Indian Laws for such news distribution through "social media". Under the new Indian Laws, not only is Wikimedia "social media" and a "news aggregator", but they have also failed to comply in appointing a Grievance Officer for India, leaving each and every one of their Indian users who have edited the article in mainspace liable for punishment under Indian laws. Indian high courts are now directing WMF to hand over their user details. The hammer will fall when WMF's extremely lax user registration practices, to facilitate anonymous defamation, get exposed very soon. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Indian WikiMedians are legally liable for publishing name of Rape victim.

Indian employees / contractors of WMF are legally responsible for publishing name of Rape/Murder victim based solely on an OPIINION blogpost in The Business Standard. To cite an example or 2, Runa Bhattacharya (WMF) is from Kolkata as is Tito Dutta (CIS-A2K). Thus, kindly delete the name of the victim immediately and stop painting this as a US free speech issue, because it will have real life consequences in India. Submitted by HinduRakshaDal. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see the banner at the top of this page. Wikipedia is not censored, and it operates under the jurisdiction of the united states, not india, per the header of this talk page. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Indian Law has just as much extra-territorial reach as US laws do. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but just 2 days ago WMF threw 3 of their EN:WP admins under the bus and is going to hand over their details for prosecution under Indian laws.Delhi High Court WIKIMEDIA INC 20 August 2024 -- 49.36.176.122 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you think that filing indicates, but it has no affect on the fact WP:UNCENSORED applies here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not a filing. It is a DIRECTION / ORDER to WMF by India's 2nd most powerful court. WMF counsel has agreed to comply and turn the user details over for service of court summons/notice. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, WP:UNCENSORED is not a "fact". It is a local policy of a single WMF"community" and is subject to WMF Terms of Use, which acknowledges application of local laws on the users/editors. The WMF terms of Use are unambiguous that every editor is responsible for their edits under local laws. Having said that, Indian laws additionally and specifically allow for WMF employees and contractors to be arrested for acts of WMF outside India in breach of Indian law. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This diff is highly problematic for the Indian user @VSankeerthSai1609: concerned. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@49.36.176.122 I am against the picture of the victim being put but that is not in my hands. As far as the name is concerned, yes the Supreme Court ordered various social media platforms to not publicly release the name however news outlets like India Today had published the name. The friends and co-medicos of the victim have openly used the name. My version of the page as far as the name is concerned has been edited multiple tines including adding of the Dr. prefix by senior editors who are more familiar with the wiki code of conduct. I am entirely relying on the experience and guidance of senior editors here. But, having watched the interviews of the victim's parents and family, they have not voiced any concern about this particular issue. About 7000 people in Kolkata were marching paying respects to her on the night of 17 August with few of them having her picture and directly using her name. If the family had been against this, they would have voiced some concern. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

All responsible news media outlets in India have promptly deleted the names from their news articles / reports. All your justifications have no place in Indian law and under WMF Terms of use. As a fellow Indian, I request you to kindly read WMF terms of Use carefully and not get misguided by editors cherry picking from WP:UNCENSORED. You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on the Projects, your reuse of content on the Projects, your use of the APIs, and your use of our services more generally. For your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid taking any actions that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America and the State of California. For other countries, this is determined on a case-by-case basis. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn users—particularly the editors, contributors, and authors—that non-U.S. authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. We generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification against the application of such laws. WMF is not going to help you in any potential legal proceedings since you had been properly warned. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@49.36.176.122 My edits with regard to the name of the victim have been repeatedly edited after me, including removal of the Dr. prefix and others. I have edited the article but have not again touched the name of the victim as the controversy is going on. Your advice and caution is duly noted. Will remain vigilant with regards to the legalities of the statements in the articles I edit. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And adding to the legal prospects, all my edits wrt the name have been made before the honourable courts' orders similar to the media houses. However, unlike the media houses, deletion of the name isn't solely in my hands. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For those interested in a bit more detail on the case the IP mentioned, see [4]. Very, very early in the case. Ravensfire (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I observed the proceedings in the court. Seeing the posturing of WMF's senior advocate Mr. Nayyar, WMF is certain to throw its editors (admins) under the bus because of India's draconian new Information Technology Rules, which WMF has not complied with. WMF is only concerned with preserving their safe harbour immunity by blaming their users. Indian editors should be concerned, especially if they used their identifiable real life names. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@49.36.176.122 Am I missing something... any specific case details? VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does WMF have to abide by the laws and orders of India, other than fears of geo-restrictions? Doesn't seem like the foundation has recognized affiliations with India anymore. Rather than censoring the girl's name, wouldn't a simpler solution would be to advise Indian editors to avoid editing this page? — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not everything happens through the courts in India. You are correct about geo-blocks. This link may be useful in that context.

Govt acts on Hindu Samaj complaint IAS Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla is CIA asset 49.36.176.122 (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh man that's some funny stuff there! Ravensfire (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What does this link show? We're talking about article contents and censoring a name from an American website under an Indian gag order, not bribery of government officials. Also, did WMF even comply with that order? You state that WMF is going to hand over the details of 3 EN:WP admins to Indian officials for prosecution, where did you get this information from? Seems like only 1 administrative action has been taken on this page. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@BerryForPerpetuity I am not at all sure that any person out of India would even bother to follow the latest details of the case and update the article. Indian editors can edit the article but should avoid controversial sections. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I for one will continue to update the article, but will not touch the sections with the name of the victim because of the controversy. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A safer course of action for you, given in good faith, is for you to remove the name of victim which you inserted, and then let any other editor reinsert it. That way your ass (sorry "arse" / "butt") is fully covered <wink>. 49.36.176.122 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@49.36.176.122 I dont know... Younahve supported your point with lot of out of context and unrelated matters. Anyways, the last edit wrt the name isn't from me. And as I have said, I made the edit before the Court's statement. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@49.36.176.122 And if you could place the link of the italics content here on in my talk page, please do. I want to the read completely and avoid any out of context conclusions. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Terms of User are at wmf:Policy:Terms of Use/en (or clicking the "Terms of Use" link at the very bottom of most pages). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim Thank you VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A WP:V argument

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2024 inadequate sourcing

Please actually add Macrobreed2's sources as footnotes in the lead section or the next section. [5] [6]

Without these sources, we would need to remove the name. Contentious or questionable material about the "dead" victim need to be confirmed dead by reliable sources plural. I checked sources 1-20 and only tbsnews mentions the name. If it's because news ... in India ... deleted the names, that casts even more doubt as to the factual accuracy of the victim's identity. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Post-ER

The name should be kept because Wikipedia just says what reliable sources say. These are Indian sources. WP:RSN considers India Today and News18 more or less as reliable as other Indian sources.

The legal threats against Wikipedians are empty because the police will go after Indian newspapers first. As long as there are multiple newspapers in India reporting the name, Wikipedia should also confidently report it. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Category:2024 murders in India should be replaced with Category:2024 crimes in India because there is no murder conviction. 2A00:23EE:2948:4976:ADBA:EDD9:A93F:4FF7 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit page link for National Task Force for safety of medical professionals at the workplace

Please change "national task force" to "national task force". (This page is for the Supreme Court-constituted National Task Force (NTF) for safety of medical professionals at the workplace.) HorizonNew (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Autopsy Report

Autopsy report is not in the public domain. The references quoted are reported second hand at best, from unreliable sources and social media. Orthopodspace (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Orthopodspace: You mean India Today, Livemint are unreliable sources? GrabUp - Talk 02:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

it's important to distinguish between primary sources (the autopsy report in the public domain) and secondary sources (reports about the report in the news media citing anonymous sources) EnneDee (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@EnneDee: Wikipedia finds secondary sources more reliable compared to primary sources. GrabUp - Talk 03:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.. But the text imo instead of saying "An autopsy revealed.." should say "Media reports about the autopsy reveal..." EnneDee (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

or "media reports say that the autopsy revealed..." EnneDee (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps 'According to unconfirmed media reports, the autopsy report revealed...' would be more appropriate? 73.134.148.192 (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

yup... That seems most accurate EnneDee (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 2601:14B:407E:BFA0:A041:83B7:E98F:1EAC (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a weasel term to me. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Call it what you like, but if wiki has to publish unsubstantiated reports, it should at least be accompanied by a disclaimer to save its reputation. 2601:14B:407E:BFA0:A041:83B7:E98F:1EAC (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Concur - we rely on "media reports" for large amounts of information in articles. Hmmm, so Indian film articles that report budgets or box office information should now be "media reports that..." and that can easily be taken to lots of other places. Clearly that's rubbish. So it's more about WP:WIKIVOICE - should we state something in Wikipedia's voice that's been covered by multiple reliable sources or still attribute it? The autopsy report DOES NOT need to be in the public domain - reporters regularly get information that's not publicly available either officially or unofficially and publish it after editorial staff review. That's normal, and that appears to be what's happening here. With multiple sources covering this, I don't see any need for attribution. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Protests section getting bloated

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we really don't need to report on every single day's activities regarding the protest responses to this incident. I think this should be trimmed considerably, as it current has more details than most of the rest of the article and seems unduly focused on this one consequence. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Name of the victim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Name of the victim should be removed from the article 117.204.135.200 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Why? GrabUp - Talk 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I would assume it is for the twin reasons that naming rape victims appears to be against Indian law, and that it is seen as disrespectful/risks harassing the victims family. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Indian law can prohibit naming rape victims, but Wikipedia is not under Indian jurisdiction. Moreover, sources like ABP News and News18 are under Indian jurisdiction, yet they are publicly using the name. So, why can’t Wikipedia? GrabUp - Talk 03:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

ABP News and News 18 have obtained a stay order from Bombay High Court and also Chennai High Court against complying with the intermediary provisions of the Indian IT Act and its Digital Media Rules 2021. Wikimedia Foundation have no such injunction in their favour. In any case this article (and the disobedient Indian editor) has been (Redacted) and the hearing is scheduled for 12th September 2024 before the Task Force. 49.36.178.228 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

do you have a link or any information to that stay order. Thanks Legaleagle86 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Came across this in some news, I'm not opposed to including quality facts here such as victim names; but perhaps having the victim name in the lead (which is often scraped by Google, etc) isn't the best way to present this? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  (mooted of course if the RM above decides to move to the X of NAME title). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Xaos, removing the name from the lead seems reasonable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is primarily because most of the content is about the significant follow-on events. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this was discussed extensively in this archived thread: Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident/Archive_1#Discussion_on_Removing_Victim's_Name. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I'm not advocating for removing this content from the page at all - just looking at where the prominence is placed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest removing the name of the victim and mention clearly the reason (compliance with Indian laws). Wikipedia does follow certain local legal conventions like not naming someone charged with a crime unless they are convicted (in Germany) although the US and UK laws allow naming suspects once they are arrested or charged. So, I would suggest that it might be better to use the commonly used name for the victim. Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Being charged with a crime but then being found not guilty is a different story because it can be detrimental to a person's life. But how is being the victim of a murder possibly detrimental to the victim's life?

And how certain are you about Wikipedia following some German conventions? Germany doesn't seem to have such laws in place, and I can think of at least one very famous case which went through the press like on a daily basis, with the charged person being named long before any court ruling happened, and the charged person being found not guilty at the end of the legal process: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachelmann-Prozess. So what local German convention would Wikipedia be following here...? The German Wiki article has a section dedicated to the media reporting about the case: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachelmann-Prozess#Berichterstattung_der_Medien_und_Litigation-PR Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have always been against censoring information but you will find that inidividual wiki articles on rape cases in India do not mention the name of the victim for example here 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder. Many jurisdictions around the world carry out in camera hearing to protect the anonymity of the parties. Indian Supreme Court in 2018 in the case of Nipun Saxena v UoI [7] clarified that name of the victim cannot be published. We may not agree with the rationale of the judgement (personally I feel that the choice of waiving anonymity should be upto the vicitm or their legal heirs) but it is the law in India. Similarly in the UK anonymity for rape victims dates from 1976 and is enshrined under the Sexual Offences Act. In deciding to name the victim we will not only be going against the Indian law but the preivous wiki conventions relating to these matters as well. Therefore, I would again urge the editors to consider deleting the name of the victim from this article. Legaleagle86 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments are about living victims, not dead victims. See qutes in section below. Nakonana (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any need to publicize the name of a rape victim without consent, especially so soon after the rape, even if she's dead (in which case, the consent should come from her family). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should start an RFC? GrabUp - Talk 17:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@117.204.135.200 The discussions thus are null and void as the Supreme Court of India specifically ordered Wikipedia to take down the photos and name of the victim. The photo was blurred already, hence I have removed the name of the victim in the article. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article
The following discussion has been closed by DaxServer. Please do not modify it.
Dellhi High Court advises WIKIPEDIA to leave India if it won't comply with India's laws - issues contempt notice - refusal to provide details of editors not acceptable.49.36.178.108 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC) You forgot to mention that the link you provided is about a completely different case. It's about editors making defamatory edits about a news agency, where the news agency had filed a suit. It's completely unrelated to this rape and murder case. Furthermore, the court said that they will ask the government to block Wikipedia. Whether the government will actually respond with a block, is another question. But this case also illustrates that Wikipedia does not provide information on its editor's identity. (I also don't know how Wikipedia could provide such info; it's not like Wikipedia has our names and addresses or anything other than our IP, which can be rather useless information depending on the country you live in.) Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Actually the counsel for Wikimedia Foundation (Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar) had consented before the court to hand over details of the 3 editors (so damages could also be claimed from them) to ANI on instructions of WMF and the judge directed it to be done in 2 weeks. When these directions were not complied with, ANI filed a contempt petition on which the Court passed those remarks asking WMF either to comply with Indian law or to leave the country. Unless WEMF appeals the single bench direction, it will have to be complied with before the next date in early October 2024. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC) What's the point of consenting to provide the data, if you end up not providing it after all? Wikipedia can't provide details on editors. Does Wikipedia know your name? Your address? No? Then there's not much information to provide to the court. And ANI can't claim damages from Wiki editors for citing what BBC wrote about ANI. If ANI wants to claim damages, they'll have to go after BBC etc. And this whole ANI lawsuit still has nothing to do with the rape murder case that we're discussing here. Nakonana (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kindly remove name of victim immediately.

WMF has agreed to comply with India's law and WMF's grievance officer appointed under Indian law shall appear before the Delhi High Court early next month. In the meantime the Supreme Court's constituted National Task Force for Doctors Safety is hearing Indian NGOs objecting to Wikipedia's publishing of Rape/Murder victims name, on 12th September 2024. It is sincerely hoped that the name of the victim is completely removed by then, including from the archived historical versions (revdelled) so that editors (including editors on this talk page objecting to the name's removal citing WP:NOTCENSORED etc.) are not summoned and prosecuted. The URL of one of the complainants in the matters is (Redacted). Cheers. 49.36.178.188 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only cite what qualified sources have stated. See WP:VERIFY. You should also read WP:CENSOR and instead ask the cited sources to erase the victim's name. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"The other non Indian reliable sources mentioning the name of the victim are Business Standard,Pakistan Today and SIN. They can be used as the references for that. The IP claiming to prosecute the editors for pointing out Wikipedia guidelines must figure out a way to stop these too. " Doug Weller talk 15:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I will be removing the victim's name in the Wikipedia page of the article. This is due to allegations and complains raised for alleged non-compliance of Indian laws specifically under my name and also my own consicence. I am a proud Indian national who will not and cannot act against my law. The Supreme court today (9 september) officially asked all private and public social media handles to delete the pictures and names of the victim. While they had been used by many prestigious news and media outlets who have thus deleted it. I have repeatedly said and maintained that the edit pertaining to the name has been edited multiple times after me and each time I have edited the article, I have not touched the name section. As an Indian National and a youth, I don't intend to take such legal and moral risks. If anyone disagrees, please do not revert my edit, but instead opt to other means. I hope the Wiki community will understand. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The WMF can and does take WP:OFFICE actions clearly labelled as such. If they wish to do so here, I think the community will accept that, perhaps grudgingly for some people, but I doubt any experienced editor is going to revert an office action to remove the name unless the WMF agrees to it. However until and unless the WMF does so, there's no point talking about what the WMF has or has not agreed to. It's irrelevant to us as editors, and definitely not something to talk about on this page. (Perhaps WP:VPWMF.) The inclusion or exclusion of the name needs to be based on our policies and guidelines not based on what the WMF may do. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

And if any editor is concerned about personal consequences for themselves, I'd recommend they cease editing this article and talk page. IMO it would also be fine asking for revdeletion of their edits to the article or talk page if they think it will help protect them although I'm not an admin so they'd need to convince an admin of that. Note that this is a separate issue from continued inclusion of this name. For better or worse, it's unlikely the community will agree to remove the name just to protect editors. Anyone who is considering editing this article and talk page should operate under the assumption the name is going to appear in it rather than assume it will be removed, let alone revdeleted from all existence; and then consider my first point i.e. cease editing if they feel it's risky for themselves or otherwise aren't comfortable doing so when the name appears. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Also I removed the link to that email as a BLP violation and outing. Please do not publish such utter nonsense anywhere on wikipedia or expect to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Missing context. Is this related to any action I performed? VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You've done nothing wrong. People are just concerned that the Indian government request has revealed your personal details, but they seem to be no more detailed than what's already on your userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They took the details straight from my talk page. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about the one by "Hindu Raksha Dal" VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for the confusion, it seems there's no concern about the details about you, I should have checked before commenting on outing. Still there are other reasons for the removal, in fact I initially removed it for BLP before noticing the possible outing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne No problem. Cheers😁 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No I redacted the email link in the IP's (49.) original post because I don't consider it something acceptable to link to on Wikipedia for BLP reasons. The email is crazy and repeats some crazy conspiracy theory about several named people. I'm not actually sure if it's supporting said conspiracy theory, but it doesn't matter there's no reason to go around linking to discussion of it unless it's in context of adding such content to an article. I had outing concerns for you as well, but looking more carefully, it looks like it's only repeating details you posted on your userpage so it's probably not an issue although you might want to consider if you want to keep these details public. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Where did the WMF publish said agreement? Nakonana (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: IP range blocked. IP 49.36.178.228, on the same tiny range as 49.36.178.188 above (49.36.178.128/25), has attacked Doug Weller very nastily on his page, and been blocked for their trouble. The range 49.36.178.128/25 is obviously used by one individual only. I've blocked it for two weeks (same block length as Zzuuzz gave 49.36.178.228). If it turns out the individual or their mates have access to a larger range, I'll block that too, within reason. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The victim's identity should not be revealed in this page. This is a violation of the Indian Law and is a criminal offense. 103.21.127.60 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)  Not done: See #Name of the victim --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Yes I agree 2405:201:C40A:5073:887B:359:9221:3279 (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Discuss in the above RfC LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please remove name of victim in sexual offence. Name mentioned is "Moumita Debnath". A pseudonym, preferred by the general public, is "Abhaya". It may be of legal necessity to remove the referring footnotes to third party sites also referring to the victim by name. Tatai (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)  Not done Wikipedia does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian court. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Noting that there are some media-mentions on this atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Ok fine ignore the jurisdictions stop behaving like a jerk & try to be a human being pay your respects to a deceased lady & get this done this. Sambid0123 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Kindly don't add the photos of her.

Kindly don't add the photos of her. 2409:40F4:1A:1F90:587:16FA:E7BD:22BF (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024 (2)

Discuss in above RfC LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Supreme Court of India has directed Wikipedia to remove the name of the victim of rape incident for maintaining the privacy and dignity of the deceased woman. Vide the report in the Indian Express newspaper article: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-rejects-bengal-plea-halt-live-streaming-rg-kar-hospital-rape-and-murder-case-9572173/ Anindya202414 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Anindya202414 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) This has been extensively discussed already on this page and addressed by a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation. Scroll up. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024 (3)

Discuss in the above RfC LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Supreme Court of India has specifically suggested to remove name of the victim of this brutal rape and killing case from Wikipedia. So, please replace all occurrence/reference of "Moumita Debnath", "Moumita", and "Debnath" with "Abhaya". Thanks NodePunu (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)  Not done: and will not be done, at least not until discussion produces a consensus among editors to remove the name. Further, the change will need to be based on internal Wikipedia policy, not external pressure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC) https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-asks-wikipedia-to-remove-name-of-victim-in-rg-kar-hospital-rape-murder-case-269774 The Honorable Supreme Court Of India has ordered her name & photo to be removed so kindly stop showing your arrogance as will not be done please hold your discussions with editors & do it @C.Fred Sambid0123 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Kindly remove the name of the deceased lady doctor & her photo as per today's order by the Honorable Supreme Court Of India

Post in the RfC above. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kindly remove the name of the deceased lady doctor & her photo as per today's order by the Honorable Supreme Court Of India. (17/09/2024). Kindly change her name to Doctor Tilottama Sambid0123 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC) I recommend that you see and participate in the many discussions above in regards to this matter. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024 (4)

Discuss in above RfC Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
the person's name is still beneath the photo indicated as "Deaths". Shoubhik (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Please present reasoning based on Wikipedia policies in the RfC above. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)