[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder

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


Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: Narrow consensus in favour of the proposal / Moved back. There is a numerical majority (around 24 to 14, give or take) in favour of the shorter name without incident, with rationales including WP:CONCISE and that the word incident doesn't really add anythign. Note that since the original name was 2024 Kolkata rape and murder and the present title arose from an undiscussed bold move, a no-consensus outcome would also functionally lead to the same result.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident → 2024 Kolkata rape and murder – Incident was pointlessly added to the title in an undiscussed move. 2A00:23EE:1928:8C3:951B:C401:3A56:519A (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there may be WP:ENGVAR issues in play since "Rape and murder" is a perfectly acceptable noun, but I think it's percieved by some commenters as an adjective. If this fails, I prefer moving to 2024 Kolkata rape and murder case instead, it's the other keyword similar articles share. Soni (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bad precedent to put Murder of Moumita Debnath or Killing of Moumita Debnath as the title. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so I agree on not removing the name from the article. But nearly no Indian sources will identify her by name, so it cannot be the primary landing page simply because people will not use it. Legal concerns aside, the utility of the article is strictly worsened by having her name be part of the title and I would strongly oppose any title with her name in it.
The coverage of this incident is probably differing significantly based on Indian and Western sources, and I'd suggest deferring to former when it comes to title at keast. I suspect most editors supporting this move are viewing it from a latter lens Soni (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Noticeboard for India-related topics has been notified of this discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject India/Women and gender issues, WikiProject Law Enforcement, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2A00:23EE:1928:8C3:951B:C401:3A56:519A
To clarify, I believe Killing of Moumita Debnath to be a better alternative to either title, being both concise and specific. rariteh (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minor comment a more formative title then that would be Murder of Moumita Debnath
Thanks,
Daisytheduck quack quack 12:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is too soon to call this a "Murder of ..." article, for WP:BLPCRIME reasons, because a conviction for murder is required. But WP:KILLINGS indicates Killing of Moumita Debnath is an acceptable title at this stage in the court proceedings. I would support a title that starts "Killing of ...", for now, with an understanding that a second move to "Murder of ..." would happen if any perpetrator is found guilty and convicted for murder at a later date. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe Then why does the current title have the word murder in it then?
Thanks,
Daisytheduck quack quack 00:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daisytheduck: Good question. The original title applied the event naming convention which includes a succinct description of "when", "where" and "what" in the title. The news media have reported the "what" aspect of this event as a "rape and murder", which makes that a commonly recognizable name. While the police are investigating this crime as a murder, and have laid murder charges, they have yet to prove that a particular person was murdered, by securing a conviction. This is about different standards of proof needed for laying charges, which only need a suspicion or allegation, verses a conviction in a fair court trial which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a much higher standard. Like many British Commonwealth related jurisdictions, Indian law allows the court to convict for manslaughter, rather than murder, if intent to cause death cannot be proved, but a "culpable homicide" can be. Until the trial is finished, Wikipedia cannot say if the named victim was murdered or not, although she is dead in violent circumstances. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe I get your point, but most of the of the reliable sources (which wikipedia relies on for articles such as this) all call it as a murder and thus should reflect that consensus.
Daisytheduck quack quack 04:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daisytheduck: Then Wikipedia should use the commonly recognizable "when", "where" and "what" title formulation, not the "Murder of <victim>" naming convention. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe the "when", "where" and "what" title formulation is only really necessary when more than a year has passed since the event in question. But i see your point maybe a comprimise is to happen perhaps a redirect is for the best ;)
Daisytheduck quack quack 06:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and Disagree
I agree that the name should be changed. It's not an incident as someone was killed. An incident usually implies that something happened with no deaths.
I do not support a move though as what would the pretense the move be?
I believe the name should be changed to the Killing of Moumita Debnath but if we are going to make this page stay then it should list every single murder or rape that's occurred.
Not that those pages don't exist as there are pages such as the list of murders by amount, etc.
There are two sides to this, we could change the purpose of this page to be a list or we should move it to be specific. Reader of Information (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and other similar articles. Macrobreed2 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed, but prefer move to Killing of Moumita Debnath. We often name the victim in the titles of such articles. Enough sources mention the name that there is no concern with us doing so. I recognize that Wikipedia may not match the consensus of Indian media, but also, there is no consensus in Indian media to match. It is fine for Wikipedia to use its own naming precedents. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving to Murder of Moumita Debnath This is a recent death BLP, and I think we are applying our naming conventions and Western ideas of respect somewhat blindly. Western convention is to name victims, out of a sense of respect. But in India, as evinced by Indian RS, there is a convention against naming victims so as to not bring harassment on their families (unfortunately rape victims are extremely stigmatized). The requests asking us to remove the name is evidence of this too. The name of a murder victim is not inherently the best way to cover a murder. I suggest as an alternative: 2024 Kolkata doctor rape and murder so as to be more specific, but would be fine with a variety of approaches that aren't based on her name. I agree that appending "incident" is not helpful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that suggestion. I also oppose publicizing the victim's name. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and decent people do not publicize personally identifying information about rape victims. It's one thing if a rape victim (or their family) says they're willing to go public. It's a completely different thing when media outlets try to make money and whip up sectarian outrage by revealing personal information.
    I assume that we have a policy somewhere that says rape victims aren't to be (further) outed on Wikipedia. If we don't, then perhaps we should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: No policy specific to rape victims as far as I am aware. the nearest is WP:VICTIM and WP:LPI. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember disputes around the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. The archives are full of people talking about whether to name the alleged victim and repeatedly, over the course of years, deciding that it was against the BLP policy. I'm pretty sure this has been our standard practice for years. If you decide to look through the archives, I suggest looking for some of the longer explanations from @Nightscream. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed title, "2024 Kolkata rape and murder" reads like a general overview, so I disagree with those who say that incident is superfluous. "2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident" reads like it was the only such incident. I'm inclined to agree with Woodensuperman (talk · contribs) above, i.e., Killing of Moumita Debnath being both precise and concise. I respect the point made by CaptainEek (talk · contribs) about not stigmatizing the victim, however, we wouldn't be discussing it if it hadn't been widely publicized already. Buffalkill (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The shorter proposed name logically means "rape and murder incidents in Kolkata in 2024 in general", which is not the scope of the article (about a specific incident). The present name may actually be too vague, but the proposed rename is even worse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per concision and Schwinnspeed's consistency points about 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder, the 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. Not anything containing "Moumita Debnath", because most interested readers are Indian and per WP:COMMONNAME they won't search for a name the media rarely mentions.
Who could think a sentence like "The incident is relatively more rape and murder?" is grammatical? wikt:rape and wikt:murder are either verbs or nouns but never adjectives. The current title is merely a noun cluster. 174.89.12.36 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is WP:CONCISE and still pretty clear considering it refers to a date that implies that this is not a general article. 17:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorahm (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose, title should make clear that it is a single incident. If name is to be changed and remove "incident", it should add the specific date (day) instead. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC: Name of victim

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Before we begin, I would like to provide context for people reading this who may not be familiar with Wikipedia processes. This was a Request for Comment, a process in which Wikipedia community members gather to decide important matters of policy or article content. Community members are volunteers and do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization which provides hosting but is not responsible for the encyclopedia's content. On extremely rare occasions, the Foundation may intervene in matters of content for legal reasons. In this case, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the removal of this person's name, but the Foundation has so far awaited the conclusion of this community process. (Although it is worth noting that community members did provisionally remove the name from this article while the discussion was ongoing.) Given the sensitivity of this situation and the fact that a clear consensus has been reached, I am closing this discussion a bit sooner than the normal 30-day mark. I am also a volunteer, and this closure statement reflects my assessment of the community's consensus, not (necessarily) my own opinions.
It is important to express here the near-unanimity among community members that, whatever decision is made, it is not made at the behest of the Supreme Court of India. Wikipedia is an editorially independent project, and Wikipedians make decisions based on our own policies, guidelines, and common sense. Participants identified several relevant principles. First, Wikipedia is not censored, although at the same time this is not a guarantee that potentially offensive content will be included. Secondly, our policy on biographical content about living people, which also applies to the recently deceased, urges us to be particularly conservative about our handling of such content, and in particular calls on us to respect the privacy of non-public figures. Thirdly, in all things we aim to follow the approaches taken in reliable sources.
There was roughly equal support to include or exclude until the Wikimedia Foundation's comment on 16 September, which did not take a side but asked participants to explain clearly why you feel the balance of interests lies one way or the other, in order to reach consensus accordingly. Around this point, more editors began citing arguments from Fowler&fowler and CaptainEek regarding the importance of respecting Indian cultural norms about privacy, rather than imposing Western ones, while rejecting "Wikipedia is not censored" as on its own a reason to include, bringing the discussion past a 2:1 supermajority in favor of exclusion.
Which makes this an unusually long closure statement for a case where consensus is so clear, but the Foundation also asked for compelling and clearly articulated reasons for whatever the end decision is. So: Overall, there is a consensus to exclude, based on 1) exclusion in most reliable sources, 2) the fact that the subject is recently deceased, and 3) respect for Indian cultural norms around naming the victims of sexual violence. The second will cease to apply with the passage of time, and it is possible that the first or third might change as well, so this consensus will not necessarily apply indefinitely. But for now, the name should not be used. If this is to be revisited in the future, editors should be guided, as in all things, by the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the name of the victim be included included in the article, and if so, should it be included in the opening (lead) section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to disclose that I have asked a senior editor [1] and posted on the noticeboard for India rleated topic [2] to weigh in on this. Legaleagle86 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]
Not relevant to this article
The following discussion has been closed by DaxServer. Please do not modify it.
  • Govt of India does not comment or partcipate on foreign websites, especially those websites which blatantly refuse to comply with India's laws.As the WMF coming under Indianlaw matter is sub-judice and WMF has appeared before the court in India, WMF will either have to comply with India's laws or stop their activities in India or obtain an appellate stay order not to disclose the partculars of their 3 editors for further prosecuition. Under the UNCITRAL on which India's IT laws are based, India's laws have extra-terriorial jurisdiction and all signatory nations will extend reciprocal assiatance, as was similarly done for the Delhi High Court orders in Baba Ramdev defamnation matter. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the ANI (Asian News International) lawsuit has nothing to do with the rape murder case that is being discussed here. You are on the wrong talk page for discussions about the ANI lawsuit. Nakonana (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the same IP that was blocked. They have now created an account to comment, I guess. GrabUp - Talk 02:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify. I am discussing whether or not WMF is to comply with India's laws for all content, including this article. The court has indicated that they will pass a judgment externing WMF and blocking all WMNF websites within India if WMF fails to comply wityh India's IT and media laws - which includes disclosing particulars of their users for further prosecution. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you are socking your block? @Bishonen This is the same IP which attacked Doug Weller, and you blocked it. Again here, now by creating an account. GrabUp - Talk 03:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm sure it is, GrabUp. The account is already blocked, admittedly only for legal threats, but if it gets unblocked, please let me know and I'll most likely block for block evasion. IP/Blaxstocatamazon, there's little point in trying to pressure the WMF to 'disclose particulars of their users'; the foundation doesn't even know those particulars. (Not that I have any notion they'd throw us under the bus in any case.) Nearly all of us are anonymous. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Name should be mentioned. No opinion on whether it needs to be in the lead or not. CurryCity (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I enquire why you think the name should be mentioned? what purpose does it serve? Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: why should a pseudonym not serve that purpose? Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name since widely reported in RS, and there is no privacy/protection interest identified with regard to the victim or family thereof.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does WP:BDP not apply here when it did two years after death in the most infamous of recent Indian gangrape-murders? See this revert by admin Abecedare Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that reasoning is that it rather inverts the normal process/burden of proof required under policy: once WP:verification is established, the WP:ONUS for establishing the value of inclusion falls upon the proponent(s) of inclusion. What informative value does the article derive in detailing the article's topic, by including the name? And potential safety and well-being actually can be fairly well presumed when it comes to these kinds of stories in the context of contemporary India, so the reason for inclusion ought to be compelling. And yet, for all the volume of digital characters spilled on this matter, so far I haven't seen a single argument of substance (that is to say, one which rises beyond "it can be verified") for how the name significantly improves the article.
    And now the primary motivation seems to be thumbing our nose at the Indian Supreme Court for their presumptiousness in telling us what we can and cannot include in our articles. And while I'm more than willing to urge the WMF to fight such censorship if it is determined the information should be included, that external factor has no bearing on the a priori question of whether the info is appropriate for inclusion in the first place. And nowhere that I have seen has ONUS been addressed such as to argue for inclusion. SnowRise let's rap 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name - If WMF need to take an office action, they will, and that has nothing to do with an RFC. Outside of that, wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and we don't remove well sourced information from articles. Fieari (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I quote what an admin had stated in relation to this debate [4] "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)"
    So just claiming that WP:notcensored allows a blanket permission to add the name of the victim is misplaced, you would need to show why you think the name of the victim is relevant. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude name - I don't see the benefit of naming the victim, it doesn't help the reader have a better understanding of the topic of the article. And the fact we had to resort to obscure sources to include it shows how desperate we are. I can't even find her name in the ref being used in the infobox, so that appears to fail verification, and in the body of the article where her surname is being used, the two refs at the end of that sentence don't use her surname, so that appears to fail verification. Even though this is not technically a BLP, we should be using high-quality sources. An encyclopedia should not be the leader in situations like this. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed sources, cited Indian mainstream media. GrabUp - Talk 14:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name Yes, we need to fix the sources, but the sources are available and we are not censored. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am strong proponent of non censoring information, but may I enquire how is the name relevant to the article? especially in the lead? Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name - good number of sources that include the name (thank you GrabUp for updating the sources!). I'm somewhat against not mentioning it in the lead, if we're going to include it, include it throughout the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to cite all Indian News sites which mentions the victim's name, ABP Live, News18, The Indian Express, The Times of India, NDTV 2, OneIndia (multiple times), OpIndia (Rightwing pro BJP-Gov site)[www.opindia.com/2024/08/calcutta-hc-lambasts-west-bengal-govt-over-vandalism-of-rg-kar-hospital-asks-cbi-to-probe-the-attack/], BollywoodLife. The last three cited sources are unreliable (per Wikipedia consensus), but they are still Indian. There are many non-Indian sources that mention the name, but I have filtered out only Indian mainstream sources. Although these sites are under Indian jurisdiction and can publish the name, Wikipedia, which is not based in India, cannot include it. GrabUp - Talk 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Indian news sites which have mentioned the name of the victim have done so in error (usually the articles are checked by two dy editors before publication but under time pressure sometimes they do commit errors, if you check their overall reportage you will find that 99% of their articles will not mention the name of the victim). Legaleagle86 (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref no. 1 for the article [5] no longer mentions the name. Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref no. 2 for the article [6] also no longer mentions the name Legaleagle86 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the NDTV links do not mention the name of the victim any longer. Legaleagle86 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GrabUp none of the mainstream Indian media links (that you have highlighted) mention the name of the victim any longer. ToI and Indian Express have amended the news items. May I request you to update the source in the article and if you cannot find verifiable and reliable source to take down the name. Legaleagle86 (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legaleagle86: Obviously, there are verifiable WP:RS sources available, and we can even use archived versions of these articles for verification. However, my point was not to verify; I was simply commenting that mainstream Indian media does not follow Indian laws. GrabUp - Talk 11:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GrabUp When the sources themselves do not mention the name anymore (but are still live links), can they be used to verify an information? The fourth citation (the Illinois newspaper) in the article is copied from the original in ABC news, the original has dropped the name. You can find the original at [7] Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legaleagle86: We all know, and it’s a fact that you also agree, that all these sources confirmed the name. Yes, archived versions can be used for verification even if they remove the content. Additionally, there are reliable sources such as Pakistan Today and The Business Standard. GrabUp - Talk 12:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GrabUp May I request you to please update the source for the name in the infobox. Just also want to add (before someone says NOCENSOR) that not naming someone (while fully reporting each aspect of the case) to uphold their/their family's right to privacy is not supression of fact or self-sensoring. Respectable news outlets from around the world want to honour the privacy of the family (by not naming the victim) but we the chosen few on an wiki talk page should keep on debating!! Legaleagle86 (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legaleagle86: Wikipedia is based on reliable, independent sources. We follow rules and consensus. Wikipedia is a community of editors from around the globe, and they will decide whether something should be kept or removed. I simply highlighted the Indian sources that violate the law, even though they operate within the country. GrabUp - Talk 12:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GrabUp I completely agree with your last comment. I am also merely highlighting that all the Indian sources that you had mentioned have amended their previous articles to remove the name of the victim according the right of privacy to the family of the victim. Legaleagle86 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not the most reliable Indian sites. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#Times_of_India_RFC) Where do the newspapers of record such as The Hindu, the The Statesman (India), the Deccan Chronicle disclose the victim's name? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler: I did not list them because of their reliability; the list also includes blacklisted sources. I just wanted to point out that these sources are based in India and don’t follow their own laws, so why should Wikipedia follow them? GrabUp - Talk 12:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Well, all I can say is that we as Wikipedians are also bound by an ethic of not causing harm, however remotely, by our edits. The Indian media, attempting to beat a deadline and increase its sales or digital viewership is not. They certainly don't debate the matter as extensively or tortuously as we do. There is a reason we have WP:BDP which extends the cautions of WP:BLP to well after death in instances of gruesome violence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I had indicated above, sometimes newspapers do make an error due to time pressure, you will now find that all of the sources that you had mentioned have removed the name from their reports. Legaleagle86 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legaleagle86: Obviously not, but pro-BJP government outlet OPIndia and OneIndia still mention the name. They might be considered unreliable according to RSN, as OPIndia has published fake news in the past, but they are still newspapers, consumed by Indians and operating under Indian laws. GrabUp - Talk 13:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bollywoodlife has removed the name in the last hour. Hopefully OneIndia will also do in the next few hours. Dont know about OpIndia. I leave it to you to decide if you want to use OpIndia as a source. Legaleagle86 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude name: I would like to strongly oppose adding the name of the victim in the article. I have a few reasons a) the Indian law and the Indian Supreme Court have clearly stated that no personal information that can identify the survivor/victim of a sexual crime can be published [8], b) the name of the victim does not add anything of value to the article, indetifying the victim by a pseudonym used by the press like Tilottoma etc. should be adequate, c) you would find other Indian rape case related articles like 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder etc. do not mention the name of the victim, we would be going against the convention to name the victim in this article, d) anonymity to rape and sexual assault survivor/victims is a common feature of several jurisdictions and not just India - UK has it as a law since 1976 [9], several US states also have similar laws [10] check out pp 33-35 of the PDF. Therefore, I would strongly urge the editors to remove the name of the victim from this article. Legaleagle86 (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please double-check your claims - 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder has the victims name in the lead and the infobox and has for quite a while. 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder has mentioned the name off and on with sources, but often not. A quick check of the cases mentioned in the See also for the 2012 page is about 50/50-on naming the victims with most of the not-named having victims below the age of 18. Ravensfire (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Since 1976, people who allege they are the victims of certain sexual offences, including rape,
    are automatically entitled to lifelong anonymity once their complaint has been made."
    "an Ontario court applied a three-part test to determine whether a plaintiff could proceed under a pseudonym [...] (ii) whether there is a likelihood of irreparable harm if the court denies permission for the plaintiff to proceed under anonymously"
    This is comparing apples with pears. These laws are about victims who are alive, and they are about the question, whether having their identity revealed might harm the victims. In the given case, however, the victim is dead. So my previous question in one of the above sections remains unanswered: "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?" Nakonana (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question that you raise is one of the fundamental questions of privacy and dignity. So, you agree that a survivor of sexual assualt can be accorded anonymity but as soon as the sewxual assalut survivor becomes a sexual assualt victim (they are dead) they immediately lose the anonymity cover? This point has also been debated by a lot of academics like Jennifer Tenkin who in her book 'Rape and Legal Process' writes about the UK law "The 1988 Act confined reporting restrictions to the complainant’s lifetime. There was no such limitation in the 1976 Act. This means that reporting restrictions will not ordinarily apply where a person is raped and murdered and will cease to apply once the complainant is dead. This demonstrates scant respect for deceased victims or their families, for whom the disinterment of unpalatable details, perhaps years after the events in question, could be particularly traumatic. Since courts have the discretion to lift the ban on publication during the complainant’s lifetime, it is not clear why the ban on publication should not continue after death, leaving the courts with a discretion to lift it." So, even if for the moment we forget about the Indian law, my first question remains unanswered why do we need to publish the name of the victim? what is its relevance to the overall article and why cannot a pseudonym do? Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for a "pseudonym" when we have the real name. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My question stands - why do we need to name the victim? what does it add to the article? why isnt a description sufficient like age, gender, occupation? Legaleagle86 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I also draw you to a hypothetical - would you support publishing the name of the victim if they were a child (below 18)? if not why? Legaleagle86 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, on this page, just focus on the issues for this article and not extraneous. There are other places where a broader discussion might work better - WP:BLPN perhaps, but keep this talk page focused on this article. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just trying to figure out the core/indivisble reasons for the insistence to retain the name of the victim in the lead using the Five whys. Using hypotheticals often tend to help in reassessing our positions. Legaleagle86 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Norther Ireland has a similar anonymity law for victims of sexual assault - "Under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, publication of anything that would help identify the victim or complainant (child or adult) of a sexual offence is prohibited during their lifetime. Section 8 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (coming into force on 28 September 2023) amends the 1992 Act to extend anonymity for 25 years after their death." Legaleagle86 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's national laws that are there for targetting media within that country. The recourse that a country has on media that is outside of it's jurisdiction is very limited, with geo-fencing probably the most viable option. There is a very dangerous precedent that's trying to be set here, about allowing one countries laws to affect a website that is hosted in the US. If there was a law in California that forbade mention of victims of a crime, that's more likely we would have to follow it as that's the jurisdiction claimed in our Terms of Use. (That would fail 1st Amendment challenges in record time)
    The name was published in Indian media before they were forced to remove it. It's been published in sources from other countries. From a source perspective, nothing there to prevent it from being included in the article. WP:BLPNAME suggests not including the name when it's been supressed, but it's still present in non-Indian sources.
    Likewise, WP:BLPCRIME suggests that the accused probably shouldn't be named at this point, unless editors conclude that it's been widely disseminated. Probably enough, but interesting there's no discussions around that.
    I'm still lean towards inclusion of the name. Not a fan of the image in the lead with a photo, would prefer less zoom, or a different memorial entirely. Ravensfire (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ontario law makes it a condition that "there is a likelihood of irreparable harm if the court denies permission for the plaintiff to proceed under anonymously". This is one of three conditions that needs to be met to be granted anonymity. As for underaged victims, yes, where I live it's custom to name the victim if the victim is dead.
    As to why we should include the name, I find the rationale behind the Indian law very problematic. It implies that there's something shameful in being a rape victim. This kind of shaming culture leads to victims not reporting rape because they will be shamed. That's horrible. The perpetrators get away with it and the victims end up being the one feeling guilty, because they are in a culture where victim blaming is written into the law. The only person who should be ashamed about an incident of rape is the rapist, and nobody other than the rapist. There is nothing shameful about being a victim. The Indian law institutionalizes victim blaming, and I don't think that Wikipedia should take part in this institutionalized victim blaming. A victim does not lose their dignity by being a victim of rape. India does not have a law that prohibits naming murder victims, right? Do those types of victims not lose their dignity if they are named? No, seemingly it's only rape victims that lose their dignity. The only explanation for this is that the Indian law is of the opinion that rape victims should be ashamed of something. That's implicit victim blaming. Nakonana (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NakonanaDo you feel the same way about the Northern Ireland law as well? [see my comment above made at 12:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)] Legaleagle86 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what their rationale for the law is, but it looks like they were also perfectly fine with naming the victim until very recently (2022 / 2023). I wouldn't be surprised if religion or a conservative government has led to the amendment of the law. But yes, even when it comes to Northern Ireland, I don't see what could be possibly shameful about being a victim of rape. Nakonana (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another way of looking at the rationale of sexual assault survivor anonymity laws (which are now common across most jusridictions) is that they are there to protect those coming forward to report the crimes committed against them (they know that media will not be able to make a circus of their personal life), this is extended to the family of victims (in some jurisdictions) on the same basis. I agree with you on the point that extending the anonymity cover after death may have a perverse effect of gagging family members, however, most jursidctions and indeed even Indian laws allow the family members to victims to waive anonymity. Legaleagle86 (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not question the rationale of laws regarding survivors of criminal actions. Such laws are in place to prevent harm to the victims. Those laws are not limited to victims of sexual assault. They apply to victims of all sorts of crimes. The Indian law, however, for some reason treats victims of sexual assault different from other types of victims. Nakonana (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Under Indian laws victims of sexual assault continue to have the right of privacy that is widely accorded to survivors of sexual assault. Other types of victims do not usually have such rights of privacy at a survivor stage. To extend your own analogy, a murder victim usually would not have a right to privacy but neither does a person who has survived a murder attempt in general. One of the reasons for the Indian laws is to minimise the distress of the families of the victims. Legaleagle86 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure that a survivor of a murder attempt would end up in some sort of eye witness security program. Nakonana (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the scarcity of funding for law enforcement agencies around the world, witness programmes are only available for select few cases, in most cases there will be a patrol car coming around the neighbourhood for a few days only.
    Anyway, if we revert to my argument for non-disclosure of name of rape victims, may I quote Prof. Helen Bendict "to name a rape victim is to guarantee that whenever somebody hears her name, that somebody will picture her in the act of being sexually tortured." She made this comment in 1992, adding to it in today's world with everyone having social media it becomes very easy to make a caricature of a rape victim with their photos and name and circulate it for public consumption. If you want to check out how the photo and name of the victim of this incident has been used to make degrading memes and jokes visit [11] (beware it is a right wing site). And this is one of the reasons why I support the strict anonymity for the victims and survivors of sexual crimes and right of privacy for their families (unless they choose to waive it). Legaleagle86 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the Indian courts should go after the people who misuse the name and images as those actually would constitute crimes such as defamation. Not using the name will not stop such misuse, because those people would just use the nickname for the same mockery. Only taking actions against those people will stop them. Nakonana (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name - reliable sources inside and outside India published the name, our content decisions here aren't impacted by Indian law, and if there's some action taken against WMF then those folks will deal with it. Not our rodeo. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think the name is relevant to the article? Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on that. Thanks. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should strive for completeness when providing an encyclpedia article on a topic. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would providing a non-identifying description like "On 9 August 2024, a 31 year old female postgraduate trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India, was raped and murdered in a college building." be ok for completeness especially when there is no loss of context? Legaleagle86 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purposefully excluding the name is contrary to completeness. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPN states "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." The policy also applies for the recently dead WP:BDP. So, under certain circumstances purposely excluding the name without losing the context is fine as per the wiki rules. Legaleagle86 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:BLP, and yes that policy notes caution should be applied in such cases, and that it may often be preferrable to omit a name. I don't think that's the case here. I'm done trying to explain myself, and perhaps it might be time to drop the WP:STICK and resist the urge to reply to every single person's post that might not align with your thinking? Appreciate the enthusiasm, but there are limits, eh? --ZimZalaBim talk 22:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment and then I shall stop responding to you, I promise. The Wikimedia terms of use [12] states "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and reuse of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include laws where you or the subject of your contributions are located)." Per my understanding, the content decisions here are impacted by Indian law as per Wikimedia's own terms of use, and by now I am sure all of us know what the Indian law states on the issue. Legaleagle86 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This boilerplate TOS language means that individual users of this site might be subject to a variety of legal jurisdictions. That does not mean that "content decisions" per se are beholden to such laws. Very different things. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The laws where you live bind you and your actions. Assuming I do not live there, they do not bind me and my actions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire would you please indulge in a hypothetical, if I live in France and edit an article on English wikipedia about a person based in Kenya. Which laws would apply? US? French? Kenyan? all three? or any combination of two? Legaleagle86 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily US, as that's where Wikimedia is located and the servers are located. Outside chance of French law, but that would be a challenge depending on how much personal information you made public. (Usual personal view only disclaimers, this really would need to be asked to WMF Legal) Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this only is about what laws a particular user (and their actions) might be subject to. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and whether or not they align with non-US law. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire thank you for your response, may I request you indulge in another hypothetical (this is the last one, I promise). Please assume for a moment that US has laws which prohibit inter-racial marriages and also strictly forbid reporting the same, while France has marriage equality laws and Kenya has no laws in this respect. Can I add an entry to wikipedia about a Kenyan person who married someone from another race? please assume that all wiki rules are the same. Am I breaking the US law? and should wiki follow US law? Legaleagle86 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short: every user is responsible for their own relationship with the laws to which they are subject (and for anyone that is not an Indian national, that does not include Indian laws), and Wikipedia and the WMF are responsible, as organizations, for their relationships with the laws of the jurisdictions where they operate. Neither an individual's, nor Wikipedia's, nor the WMF's relationships with legal jurisdictions should be considered when making content decisions on Wikipedia. Many world governments have censorious laws, and if we followed them, we would have a pretty empty encyclopedia for no good reason. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude, but failing that, Not in the lead. As I noted above, this is a recent death BLP, and I think we are applying Western ideas of respect somewhat blindly. Western convention is to name victims, out of a sense of respect. But in India, as evinced by the hullaballoo around this, there is a convention against naming victims so as to not bring harassment on their families (unfortunately rape victims and by extension their families are extremely stigmatized). But if we do keep it, I think we can be pragmatic here. The reason the content of many Wikipedia articles hits the news is because there's something controversial in the lead, which is what gets spit out by Google, and thus its what people see when they search it. Instead of loudly proclaiming "this is the victim! here's the person this terrible thing happened to! here's her name!" in the first sentence, we can move that to the body, which is more DUE coverage anyway. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By omitting the name we'd participate in the stigmatization. We'd say that there's something that the family needs to hide, i.e. that their daughter is a victim of rape, that this is somehow something that ought not to be talked about, something that needs to be kept secret. Wikipedia shouldn't provide a platform for India's victim blaming culture. I'm ok with the name being moved to the article body, but omitting it would just leave a very bad aftertaste. Nakonana (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you might be exaggerating Wikipedia's influence or power to effect even the merest of social change in custom-bound societies such as India's. We are impotent, the brave words of WP:NOTCENSORED notwithstanding. The only thing naming the victim will do, especially in the immediate aftermath of the violence, i.e. until the law has taken its course, will be to make the victims more vulnerable to social stigmatization, ostracization, and in the worse-case scenarios, to extra-judicial reprisals. There is a reason that WP:BDP exists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikipedia is so irrelevant and powerless to Indian culture, then why are we even bothing with (multiple) discussions on including or excluding the name? Wikipedia mentioning the name won't have an influence on the relatives of the victim, because Wikipedia doesn't have the "influence or power to effect even the merest of social change", as you say. The stigmatization will happen either way — whether Wikipedia mentions the name or not. The name has gone through national and international press; everyone in and outside of India already knows the name. Just because (Indian) newspapers or Wikipedia would remove the name, people in India would not suddenly forget what the name was. They'll still remember the name and they will still stigmatize the family. Removing the name from Wikipedia won't change anything about that fact. Nakonana (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By stating that Wikipedia is impotent, I did not mean that what write in Wikipedia has no real-world consequences, but that if relatives of a victim of horrendous deathly violence feel shame in addition to grief, in part because of their ambient culture's social norms, we as Wikipedians can't be lulled into the grandiosity of thinking that by divulging a name, and thereby outing the survivors, we will change the social norms more often than we will hurt the survivors.
    WP:NOTCENSORED is not a context-invariant imperative. There are cautions such as WP:BLP and its extension WP:BDP into a near future after death for incidents of particularly gruesome violence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS As to your point about the name being already out there and Wikipedia's removing it a month later from its page not making the victim suddenly anonymous, the concern for me is that our better articles provide not only reliable information but also that of due weight. In my view, these twin principles apply not just to the information, but also to the ethics of furnishing the information. In other words, by providing the name, we make the case that the information's aptness in being publicly available carries due weight in the literature. That by no means is certain, as certain reliable and respected outlets such as the BBC have now withdrawn the name from their coverage as reported by user:JSutherland (WMF) in their statement on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly exclude That means do not reveal the name anywhere in the article, i.e. not even in a footnote in a later section, let alone in the lead. The precedent here is unambiguous. In the famous Nirbhaya case of 2013, the name of the woman both during her hospital treatment in India and Singapore or after her subsequent death was never mentioned on Wikipedia. I am traveling and flat out of time for further discussion. I am incredulous that this would even be an issue in India-related matters. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've quickly boned up on this matter. It is more complicated than might appear at first sight. There seems to be strong suspicion that India's far right Hindu nationalist federal government is attempting indirectly to promote public anger at this incident, and the naming would only stoke the flames. The regional government of Bengal (whose capital Kolkata is) is a major thorn in the federal government's side. So, whether or not the Indian federal government (whose own political past in these matter is not uncheckered) feels this way or that about the naming, or the family does, is irrelevant to this matter. There is strong precedent in Indian rape cases, not just after November 1949, when India's constitution came into force, but long before, going back to the young Thomas Babbington Macaulay's codification of English Common law in the form of the Indian Penal Code in 1838. In other words, this issue is not a matter of mere MOS-mavenry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per WP:BDP, BLP concerns can apply to the recently dead (for up to two years) especially in instances of deaths in gruesome events that might have implications to the safety of the next of kin. See this edit by admin Abecedare more than two years after the most gruesome of recent Indian gang rape murders, the Nirbhaya case of December 2012. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the major English-language international newspapers and news outlets, not a single one carries the victim's name: Here they are from 1 August 2024 onward by continent:
    • North America (NY Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Philadelphia Inquirer, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Constitution, Toronto Star, and Globe and Mail (Canada) (see 20 newspaper stories here
    • Europe (including the UK and Ireland): The Guardian, The Times (London), Economist, Financial Times, Independent, The Irish Times, BBC, Le Monde, DW. (See 46 news stories here)
    • Others outside India: Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, South China Morning Post, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Japan Times, and Dawn. (see 95 news stories here)
    Of the Indian news outlets, there are too many in the echo chamber, but India has some newspapers of record that have maintained their independence. These are: The Statesman (Kolkata), The Telegraph (Kolkata), Deccan Herald, the Free Press Journal and the Hindu. Of the 334 news stories from these outlets listed here none as far as I can discern have mentioned the victim's name.
    Small wonder, then, that the victim's name in Wikipedia's article is cited to Southern Illinois Now and Channel News Asia, neither of which I have come across in my nearly 18 years on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, you can search the victim's name in the 33 international news organizations listed above and the five Indian. Here are the results:
    • In the 13 North American there is nothing u
    • In the nine European, there is also nothing
    • In the 10 remaining international, there is nothing again.
    • Of the five Indian news organizations of record and independence, there is one, about a protest in Bangladesh, which you will pardon me for not noticing from a list of 334 which have reported on this rape and murder.
    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I shouldn't really be up at this unearthly hour (and you may chalk it up to jet lag), but the Indian Supreme Court has just a few minutes ago ordered Wikipedia to remove both the name and picture of the victim from this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My final conclusion I'm glad that the name and image of the unfortunate female victim has been removed from the article. Here are my reasons:
    • By a staggering unanimity the major reliable and respected news sources in India and abroad have not mentioned the name from the very outset. In other words, they haven't retracted in the face of the Indian Supreme Court's ruling. Their cautions have long predated the ruling. See my list above.
    • Wikipedia's dictum, WP:NOTCENSORED, while admirable, has inbuilt cautions, speed bumps or rumble strips if you will, which give pause. WP:BLP is one. Moreover, it does not become inapplicable at the very instant of the subject flatlining. In many cases, especially those of violent or gruesome deaths and murders, the protections of BLP can extend for a further two years after death. This is described in WP:BDP
    • The reasons for the extension in BDP is partly legal, but partly also based in psychological sensitivity to the plight of a victim's survivors. Grieving takes a long time and they should be given emotional space. See five stages of grief. Divulging a name is unwanted publicity.
    • Finally, beyond Wikipedia's dicta and India's rules and regulations, there is a larger question of humaneness and cultural sensitivity. India is a very old and complex culture. Like many cultures, including Western ones, it has a long history of both violence and discrimination against women. The culture has its own inbuilt speed bumps and rumble strips. See for example the lead of Raksha Bandhan. This is a popular festival in which sisters tie a band or amulet around the wrists of their brothers and the brothers valiantly promise to protect them, This at least is the stuff of TV commercials and Bollywood. But the festival was really made for married rural women, the band-tying ceremony an excuse for them to return annually for a few days to their natal homes so their blood relatives could make sure they were doing well emotionally and physically. The festival had been in place for so long that Indian society itself had forgotten its origins, and it took an American anthropologist, McKim Marriott, to rediscover them. My point is that we can't ride roughshod over traditions in the name of progress. In other words, it is not just psychologically meaningful but also socially meaningful to give survivors of horrific violence some anonymity in the immediate aftermath of the violence. One time-honored way of doing this by giving their lost loved one that anonymity. It is not permanent, only recuperative. No great damage is done if we remove her name and picture for now and revisit the issue in a few months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion per WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not supervised by the Indian law. The name could have been excluded if there was doubt over the name like it existed over the 2012 Delhi rape but that is not the case here. The sources across the world are firm regarding the name of the victim. Dympies (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does WP:BDP not apply, when it did in this edit by an admin? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the article today has the names of Jyoti Singh and Awindra Pratap Pandey, so that didn't carry much weight. Ravensfire (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it does today. It is nearly 12 years. Please read WP:BDP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's there today. The edit you cherry-picked was from an editor who was NOT an admin at the time. We can go back and forth on this - her name was mentioned in media until courts in that country said to remove it. It's still mentioned outside of that country. I would invite you to bring this up at a larger venue for all such articles - but having a policy for ONE country, based on laws of that country that don't apply to Wikpedia is to me not acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravensfire:, ( Remarks here removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)) Administrator Abecedare's Request for Adminship, which first went through in September/October 2009, view here, was one of the most successful on record in Wikipedia with a vote of 111/0/0 (111 voting in favor, 0 opposing and 0 remaining neutral). The RfA was nominated by admins user:RegentsPark and user:SpacemanSpiff, and I myself, as voter number 32, offered "enthusiastic support." Unfortunately, Abecedare had to be away from Wikipedia as a result of real life exigencies and missed returning in time to retain their adminship by 10 days. Their adminship was revoked automatically on 4 December 2012 (see here). A little over two years later, admins user:RegentsPark and user:Drmies nominated Abecedare again. My words of support from the previous nomination were cited in the second nomination by RegentsPark. That RfA was even more successful with a score of (119/0/0). Abecadare was reinstated as an admin in May 2015 and they have remained one since.[reply]
    ( Remarks here removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)) Although Abecedare was technically not an admin between 4 December 2012 and mid-May 2015, they were very much as knowledgeable as an administrator at the time of that edit in March 2015. In fact, Drmies said in the co-nomination, "Abecedare is, as far as I'm concerned, among the best of admins even when they aren't an admin, and their expertise in a sometimes particularly difficult area is noted already by Regentspark." ( Intemperate remarks here removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS ( Remarks here removed by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)) The actual name of Nirbhaya (i.e. Jyoti Singh) was conspicuous by its absence for more than two years after that incident in December 2012. In other words, I checked the history and I mentioned Abecedare's edit to highlight the fact that well beyond the "two years" of WP:BDP's mention, the name was still being disallowed and by admins no less. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll end my participation here by asking you to also not mislead when you make comments. I'll await comments from others. Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't get to have a supervote, necessarily, but we can expect them to have a good grasp of the BLP. Abecedare's words carry weight, for me, and I saw at least one other admin speak out against inclusion. I myself lean that way because I don't see the need for it; I don't believe it's "encyclopedic", which was waved around here as a magic word. But the edit that was pointed at, that's from 9 years ago, and certainly that matters for BDP. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I was not making the case that WP:BDP should continue to apply to the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, only that it did apply to it for at least two years after the incident. The victim, Jyoti Singh, has been identified by name in that article for nearly ten years now.
    I was making the case that BDP applies for new incidents of particularly gruesome violence such as this incident in Kolkata. BDP itself, i.e. the principle, has not become obsolete on WP in ten years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Leaning include Exclude: Mainly because we have an image in the article that appears to have her name written in Bengali (please correct me if that's not correct - I can't actually read Bengali). From this, I assume that her name has been used in protests (that's why leaning), in which case we should include her name. FWIW, the entire legal discussion is besides the point. RegentsPark (comment) 15:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    The discussion here (and fowler's comment below) makes it fairly clear that the victim's name is not used in the protests. The name adds no value to the article so there is no compelling reason to include it.RegentsPark (comment) 15:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find her name in Bengali in any image in the article (I know Bengali), but the image in the infobox File:Protest against Kolkata rape-murder.jpg does mention her name in English alongside her image. You can also specify the image to me, if you want. GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This image File:Moumita Debnath's in graffiti at Dhaka University.jpg is from Dhaka University, Bengladesh. GrabUp - Talk 15:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attended two protests, there were hundreds of banners, tens of slogans, none mentioned the victim's name. Legaleagle86 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related query the RfC on whether to include the name of the victim was initiated on 9 Sep, the additional graffiti image and name of victim was added later, would it not be proper to remove this particular image and wait for the RfC to conclude to decide on whether to include it or not? Legaleagle86 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark: After assuming that the major sources were carrying the victim's name because the early proponents for inclusion seemed to be radiating that confidence, I actually checked. As far as I can tell, no international newspaper of repute, or for that matter, Indian of record seem to carry the name. Please view my list in the last addition to my post above. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include As per my comments above, and Wikipedia is WP:UNCENSORED. GrabUp - Talk 08:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am feeling a bit better now with excluding it based on DaxServer’s and other detailed comments. While I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, naming the victim is a minor issue compared to the potential of being completely blocked in India, where millions of knowledge seekers rely on Wikipedia. I don’t want this small name to be the reason Wikipedia gets blocked in India. GrabUp - Talk 17:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per not censored. And per the fact that the person dying is the central aspect of a murder. If you're not going to bother naming them then just don't bother having an article on a murder, just do the protests. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning include Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I do not think this needs to be put directly in the lead but I do not really see a reason why we would not mention it somewhere in the article if rleiable sources can establish this as fact... Jorahm (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion - Enough mainstream reliable sources have mentioned the name and nobody has proven so far if the name is inaccurate. Why the Indian government (or its representatives) are after this Wikipedia over this article all of now? It clearly seems to be a part of a broader witch-hunt which has been organized to improve the article of fake news peddler ANI (see Asian News International#Lawsuit against Wikipedia) together with more unwarranted demands because of the massive insecurity complex this Modi government has displayed to the whole world. The WMF should take a note of these facts and avoid conceding to any meaningless demands by the censorship supporters. Lorstaking (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lorstaking: I'm not privy to the thinking of the Indian government, but media that has a record of supporting the Indian government, has on average included the victim's name, i.e. more often than it has not. Of India's three newspapers of record The Statesman (Kolkata) (founded 1817), The Times of India (founded 1838), and The Hindu (founded 1878), only the Times of India, which is no longer as independed in socio-political contexts (see here), has chosen to divulge the name. We don't have hard proof, but certainly there are conjectures that the Indian Hindu nationalist federal government would have no objection to disclosing the victim's name, which by personalizing the victim might enrage people more and embarrass the leader of Bengal in whose jurisdiction the rape and murder took place. The Bengal leader is a part of a coalition of opposition for regional, and federal, power. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude and failing that exclude from lead - Maybe it's pointless given the level of support for including but I feel this is important enough to say. I've held off from commenting waiting more clarity on various details but I don't think that's coming. I don't see that naming the victim adds anything significant, anymore than all those other times people insist a source named should be in an article when we've decided to exclude it e.g. for family members or people who's name isn't well known; or any of ther other details some editors like to insist is basic biographical or other such info we must include if sourced yet we regularly decide to exclude. In other words, it's perfectly valid to ask under WP:BDP should be include or exclude the name, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't significantly help in that decision and excluding the name is not some major shortcoming of our article.

    I first became aware of the name issue when one of those requests to exclude came to ANI quite a while back. At the time I was surprised and unhappy that we were naming the victim but when visiting this talk I saw people saying the family and her colleagues and friends were supportive of naming her, or even doing so themselves so decided it was a fair enough call. Shortly before this RfC it blew up again. When investigating further, I found there was doubt on the family's stance and her colleagues. So far, I haven't seen any clear statement from her family one way or the other. Likewise, it's not clear to me her colleagues (by which I mean people who worked with her in that hospital not e.g. doctors in Bangladesh) and friends actually have been insisting on naming her although this could be because of the court order. OTOH, this case is so chaotic, I can also easily imagine her parents may wish she isn't named but feel uncomfortable coming out and saying so. So my initial thoughts on why it's fine to include the name is fine, although there isn't a clear should exclude angle either.

    When the victim of a sex crime is alive, even when there is no legal reason to do so (e.g. most cases in th US) many media but very far from all refrain from publishing their name except in special circumstances or when the victim wishes to go public. While this is especially so with child victims, it's often also the case for adult victims. I think the situation is generally different when the victim dies as a result of the crime or is otherwise deceased, but I haven't see good sourcec discussion on this. I looked myself but most sources I could find e.g. [13] didn't particularly comment although since many of them clearly approach the issue as if the victim is alive, this might indicate they don't do such things when the victim is deceased. I did also find [14] which might also support the difference since they only mention how the living female victim continued to be named, but don't mention anything about the deceased male victim who I'm sure was also still named. (Although one victim was female and the other male, it seems unlikely the reason continued naming of the deceased male victim wasn't mention is because of sexism as the source also discusses cases specific to living male victims.) So it does seem this angle also may not provide by itself a compelling motive to exclude. </p

    However it does seem some media even outside India have decided to exclude the name. The BBC was mentioned below, but as far as I can tell, this also applies to AP, the CBC, NPR, the New York Times and the Guardian. To be clear all these media seemed to have decent coverage of the case just nothing on the name, I excluded mention of the AFP, the Daily Telegraph, and the the Times, as I couldn't find much mention of the case in them. Unfortunately unlike sometimes happens, I didn't see any 'we do not mention the victims name becasue.....' type notes in their stories. And so I have no idea how much of this is just because of the India government etc but I'm fairly sure it's not the only factor for most of them. While I appreciate there are still many outlets which have decided to name her, when quite a number of high profile and very respected outlets have decide to exclude it, and as said at the beginning, there's no great loss when doing so, I think we should too. ("Intentionally concealed".)

    Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd urge editors to ensure they're not being influenced either way by the push by certain editors from India to exclude the name because of what the Indian government says we must do. I mean as Fowler&Fowler has mentioned I don't think there's even been a consistent stance from the goverment. Yes there's been some push that we must do X because of the Indian government or courts. But the federal nature of Indian means there can be conflict between what the central/federal government wants and the state as seems to be the case here. And the courts themselves to still have a fair degree of independence.

    And so it's very unclear that the central government, despite often being in alignment with the Hindutva alignment of some of those pushing the Wikipedia must cooperate angle, actually cares that much about her name being published. Noting that OpIndia often aligned with both the BJP government and Hindutva activists still seems happy to publish the name despite some on this page even allegedly reporting sites in India for claimed violations by publishing her name. In other words, the whole "India government wants/demands" is just silly so even more reason why I implore editors to do their utmost to put it aside.

    Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I agree, the Indian government does not seem to have any defensive angle in promoting suppression of the name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I don't see any policy-based objection against the inclusion. BDP could apply only when we are adding dubious information about the recently dead person but that is not happening here. If some sources have happened to complied with the government due to financial reasons, then it doesn't mean Wikipedia is also supposed to do the same thing. Some sources are now in fact naming the whole case after the victim's name.[15] REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning exclude, atleast from lead As F&F notes, not a single mainstream media is carrying her name. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude name per WP:BDP, as there is a reasonable privacy and protection interest for the victim's family. The overwhelming majority of mainstream media do not name the victim. Per WP:BLPNAME, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Also noting that WP:NOTCENSORED, which has been cited as an argument for inclusion, states that Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view), meaning it explicitly doesn't override WP:BLP.
    Noting that, while the Indian government has asked for us to hide the name, this shouldn't be considered as a reason for exclusion. Our decisions should be based on policies and consensus, not influenced by what governments ask us to do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from everywhere. The content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information, as stated in WP:V, a policy. We should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. [...] articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. [...] the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all [...], as read from WP:NPOV's WP:DUE, a policy. We should exercise [c]aution [...] when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context, as read from WP:BLP's WP:BLPNAME, a policy.
    The WP:BLP applies in full to this article, for the time being, as this is a contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime, as read from WP:BLP's WP:BDP. And, yes, it has implications for their living relatives and friends, and one needs to understand the sociological aspects of the society of the subject-person to determine that. Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view), as read from WP:NOT's WP:NOTCENSORED, a policy.
    I believe it is made evident that the majority of the reliable sources do not publish or have unpublished/retracted the name, thus we need to reflect that per WP:V and WP:DUE supported by WP:BLP. In fact, the name should and must have be removed even before the RfC and the other discussions have started as [c]ontentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis not mine), as read from WP:BLP, a policy. Thus, my understanding is (as the name exists now) and will be (if included) that the article falls in violation of all these said policies. All bolded emphasis are mine, except one. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No longer republishing something, and issuing a retraction (that is publishing a statement that their prior reporting was factually in error) are significantly different. Have all RS issued factual retractions? — xaosflux Talk 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase my original comment about that. Most, defo not all as identified below as one CNA, UPI, et al, of the RS do not or no longer publish the name. The ones that still have the name are in a clear minority — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from everywhere I am convinced by DaxServer's strong policy-based argument, and Fowler&fowler's source analysis, where most news outlets have chosen to omit the victim's name. Many of the news outlets linked by GrabUp above has edited their articles to remove the victim's name. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not a indiscriminate collection of information. And this is a time where we should discriminate, whether by ethics or by policies. I find vague allusions to WP:NOTCENSORED very weak, and "include" !voters should elaborate on how the guidance still applies despite the growing number of reliable sources who are excluding the name. Please note differing cultures have differing conceptions of respect toward the dead. Value judgements should not be made unless you understand the social circumstances in India. The India's Supreme Court order had no bearing in my decision, but the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is not under India's jurisdiction is irrelevant. They can still impose blocks, like what happened to Twitter recently in Brazil. Ca talk to me! 13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I really don't think that the name of the victim adds much to the article, and I don't think its removaI would actually seriously compromise the article in any way. I think this case is in some ways comparable to the "Soldier F" case where an Irish magazine named "Soldier F" a British soldier who is accused of atrocities during The Troubles in Northern Ireland, whose real name is under suppression in the UK. In that case the decision was made by admins to suppress his name in Wikipedia, to the point of indefinitely blocking a user who kept posting it. Obviously there are clear and significant differences, like the fact that Soldier F is alive which makes the BLP issue more pronounced, but given that most mainstream news media sources are declining to use the name I think the case for exclusion is clear (my views have not been influenced by the recent court order). Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude based on other media retractions We have new information today that media sources are retracting their publication of the name. Wikipedia is a summary of what other sources publish. Previously Indian national news sources, Indian local sources, and international news media published the victim's name. I am still able to see the name in major Indian news websites. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is taking the very unusual step of writing below to emphasize a news update that major media sources around the world are starting to retract their publication of the name. Because Wikipedia copies what the experts do in reliable sources, I think this Wikipedia article should copy that retraction. Retractions are very unusual. This is the largest mass media retraction that I have ever observed. I believe that the cause of the retraction is 1) media organizations, including those in India, are learning about the law about victim name publishing and trying to comply and 2) because there are safety issues at play. At WP:Retraction, we have Wikimedia community guidance to consider whether retraction is politically motivated. In other countries, publishing the victim's name in a case like this could support women's rights and victim safety, but in India right now, that is not the situation. Remove the name for now, and in general, follow the precedent of the major media sources in India in similar cases. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - The removal of the name from some of the outlets happened solely due to the court's order. However, Wikipedia is not supposed to follow any court's order. The number of reliable sources that are currently mentioning the name is still significant. Evidently, it seems that there is a recent increase in supporting the exclusion solely because of the court order and that is visible from some of the comments above that reads "don’t want this small name to be the reason Wikipedia gets blocked in India", "Wikimedia Foundation is not under India's jurisdiction is irrelevant. They can still impose blocks" and more. These views carry no weight because Wikipedia has been frequently blocked in various parts of the world as Censorship of Wikipedia describes and it is absolutely not supposed to change their line today. Orientls (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The major news outlets—by a staggering unanimity—have excluded the name from the get go. See User:Fowler&fowler/Sources that do not mention the victim's name in the Kolkata rape and murder August 2024. That might explain why supporters of inclusion have had to resort to citing Southern Illinois Now in the lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the two major Singaporean state media outlets, CNA (TV network), also mentioned the name on 5 September 2024. Worth noting that CNA is not exactly seldom used on Wikipedia. See:
    - Amigao (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that United Press International (UPI) also mentioned the name on 17 August 2024. UPI is heavily cited on Wikipedia:
    - Amigao (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude CaptainEek has brought forward sensible considerations why it is better for us not to mention the name, and Fowler&fowler has presented a strong case that we perfectly align with high-quality sources when we apply these considerations. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude In addition to points above, Wikipedia has long had WP:AVOIDVICTIM: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Accepting our simple human responsibility is part of being a Wikipedia editor. It's not merely more important than resisting court orders, it's an essential basis for any resistance, now or in the future. NebY (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Per CaptainEek, Fowler&fowler etc, regarding cultural sensitivities, which it appears a significant proportion of the sources also seem worthy of respecting, and out of more general concerns regarding whether naming the victim adds anything of significance to the article - I cannot see how it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per WP:UNDUE, now that nearly all major news outlets worldwide have excluded it as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Those reliable sources that previously included the victim's name have been removing it. The WP:BDP argument therefore trumps arguments based on preponderance of sources or on politics/social preferences. It is much to be hoped that victims and their families stop being stigmatised for acts perpetrated by others, but it is not our place to be in the vanguard of pressing for such change, and in this instance it potentially causes harm. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I am shocked at wikipidea community's handeling of this matter, a victim's life has been lost, the counsel, the court and the law has decided to removal of name as per already existing law, but wikipidea community kept pushing for some reasons to keep the name of victim on the article stating absurd reasons. I do not edit wiki much but I do read talk pages, articles and dramas on wiki. For this incident I thought it is worth to put out a comment on how this was taken care of by the community. I hope this incident serves as pause for wiki community to frame policy on handling articles on victims of heinous crimes more mercifully and with compassion. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft exclude Strongly believe per WP:NOTCENSORED that threats from Indian courts should not be a reason to exclude information from an article. However, per Fowler and others above, there are humanitarian and safety reasons to let this one go. After some time passes (a year or two), when there is not an imminent threat to the victim's family or active, dangerous use by political entities, this issue should be revisited. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I think on balance, there's no need to have the name here. However, if the closer to this RFC even partially relies on the opinion of India's Supreme Court, I would ask that the closer strike my opinion, as I do not wish to take part in any endorsement of any action that undermines Wikipedia's fundamental nature. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who !voted "exclude" above, I second this. If India's Supreme Court order is considered as an argument in the close, please strike my opinion too. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sufficient Wikipedia policy-based arguments to exclude (such as WP:UNDUE now that most sources have excluded the name) that there is no need to consider the India Supreme Court in our decision. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this, very well put. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude exactly per CoffeeCrumbs and Chaotic Enby above. I have believed since the start that this should be excluded (see my comments below) on humanitarian grounds, although I did revert to restore it once when it was removed against the consensus as it was at that time. However, I am so incredibly strongly opposed to the SCI's attempt to force Wikipedia to remove this content. Please consider this an 'include on principle' if the SCI is referenced in the close. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude as most sources don't mention the name anymore. Additioanlly, due to the dicey legal situation in India, I'm not too sure what will happen if this keeps going on for a while.... OhHaiMark (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude as this could put Wikipedians in India at risk. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not read this statement of yours before posting my question that you replied to; I'm only reading this statement now. I was just confused that I couldn't find any obvious closing statement here on the talk page when skimming through to find an explanation for the removal that was consequently reverted until yesterday but suddenly not anymore. Nakonana (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this could put Wikipedians in India at risk. I'm not sure it's a good idea to let outside forces influence our content disputes. Couldn't the same argument be used to censor something like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station? I'd much rather that, if we decide to self-censor something, that it be for other reasons than outside pressure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude but not because of the court order. Just because we can include it doesn't mean we should. Many reliable sources based outside of India which initially published the name have chosen to remove it. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "...when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Exclude. Bluntly, it's almost as if many of the include !voters above have never heard of WP:ONUS. WP:Verification is the very beginning of our analysis of whether or not to include a particular fact, not the end. And certainly not a be-all, end-all, exclusively dispositive factor, especially in nuanced cases that imput a number of additional policies, BLP/BDP considerations, and other pragmatic principles--including potential safety and sensitivity issues regarding the victim's family. And yet, a great many of the !votes urging inclusion seem to begin and end with the analysis that the detail of the victim's name can be verified via WP:RS. Granted, but that's not a particularly complete or compelling argument about the factors being considered here.
    The other predominant factor being presented in support of inclusion (and I suspect actually the main driver for such positions) is a concern that Wikipedia should not capitulate to the demands of a government (or in this case, a combination of government, legal instituions, media organizations, and ethnically fueled cultural and political movements) when it comes to removal of content that has previously been deemed appropriate. I think these cocnerns may be further heightened in this case because of the particular government and entities involved, some elements of which are viewed by some here to be particularly prone to throwing around their weight and wielding selective suppression of information like a cudgel in a self-serving, inequitable, and pseudo-propaganst fashion. I can understand the concern that bending to the will of such forces in such a case as this might set a bad precedent.
    But while I am in agreement with such WP:NOTCENSORED positions generally, and to the auxillary slippery slope argument as well, the simple truth of the matter is that these factors are irrelevant to the underlying question of whether or not inclusion is appropriate under our own internal policies, before we even reach the question of whether or not to bend to an outside finger on the scales--and the resulting question of just how absolutely, and in what manner, we should fight such external influence.
    You can certainly count me among those who would hope (and generally trust) that the WMF would form ranks and protect our autonomy from such interference, should we arrive at a concrete and reasonably well-reasoned decision to defy the powers that be in India, if it became necesary to protect our content, autonomy, and mission. But in this case, I see no strong evidence that we need the WMF to go to bat for us on this one. Indeed, by picking a fight where one is probably unnecessary (because our own internal policies should have aligned our position towards exclusion in the first instance), we run the risk of creating the perfect storm of circumstances where the reach and freedom en.Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects are put at risk unnecesarily. Bad legal precedents are often formed, codified, and entrenched unwittingly by parties who have a principled cause, but chose the wrong time and circumstances for a legal showdown. So such battle should not be joined arbitrarily, reflexively, or unnecesarily.
    Lastly, I want to note that this is the type of circumstance where context is queen; I can very easily see myself going another way in circumstances where the victim's identity was more closely tied to a specific social movement, or otherwise brought in important editorial factors. But I have seen no evidence in this discussion of such ameliorating factors, so I can only operate on the information I do have, and said information, fed through our policies, suggests to me that there is really very little that the victim's name adds to the reader's understanding of this story (or their ability to further research it) that justifies inclusion, when weighed against the factors arguing for exclusion. SnowRise let's rap 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from everywhere. Applying Western values to non-Western societies harms living people. Svampesky (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - I'm not so much concerned about the Indian court order as I am the reality that naming the victim on one of the top 10 websites in India has a very real potential to have an effect on the safety of the victim's family for reasons that User:CaptainEek has touched on. Wikipedia articles reflect reliable sources and give WP:DUE weight accordingly, and reliable sources overwhelmingly do not name the victim. Those few that do don't outweigh WP:BLP or the real life implications of naming the victim. Recently deceased individuals are covered in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and WP:NOTCENSORED is unambiguous that Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) (emphasis in original). - Aoidh (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. We follow the best available sources, and here, a substantial majority of them have chosen to exclude the victim's name. If that is the decision they are making, we should follow their lead. However, as with other arguments above, that should specifically not be considered endorsement of the Indian Supreme Court's ruling, nor a capitulation to it. It so happens that the thing we should do anyway coincides with what they want us to do, but if that weren't the case, we shouldn't do it for that reason alone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Note: the Indian government has asked for the name to be suppressed, but the name has been uwidely reported by international publications. I am not clear on what the family's position is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found [16] and [17]. I could not find objections from the family. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:: I'm confused Doug, where do the parents say in either of those two articles that they don't object to their recently deceased daughter's name being reported? Neither source has the victim's name.
Also, what do you think of this edit by Abecedare, presumably meaning WP:BDP more than two years after death in a similar case of December 2012? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said I could not find objections. Not a positive statement from the families they they don't object. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler [18] Kolkata rape case live updates: Counsel for the victim's parents told the court that Wikipedia refused to remove the deceased doctor's name and picture. The site allegedly claimed that it cannot be "censored.”
Not sure that's useful though Doug Weller talk 15:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP exists to prevent harm to living individuals, and to a limited extent, those close to them. We extend that protection (in the more extreme cases) up to 2 years post-death. But the key thing here is to prevent harm, and I have yet to see any credible argument that a deceased victim of a horrific crime could be at risk of further harm by their identity being exposed. I can hypothesize a situation where her close family would come into receipt of abuse or governmental pressure because India is an absolute cesspool when it comes to both the general public's social media actitivies and government interference, harrassment & censorship. There is potentially a risk to them and the question is do we want to mitigate that on our own, or wait for her family's wishes to become clear? Personally I would rather fall on the side of taking responsibility to do what we can without adopting a wait and see approach. (The question of the Indian governments wishes is completely irrelevant.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Only in death: Besides, a family in shock might not be aware of the many ways in which its safety could be threatened. Its views in this matter so soon after death are not reliable.
In India, it is not just the cesspool you allude to, but also the many concerns of a deeply conservative society in which, for example, a surviving sibling might find it difficult to have his or her marriage being arranged in the aftermath of such publicity. At an elemental level India remains a culture of shame. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why should Wikipedia provide a platform for India to continue shaming victims? Nakonana (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "Why should WP provide a platform for the culture of India to compel relatives of victims of violence to continue to feel shame in addition to grief?" the answer is: Wikipedians exaggerate the importance of their edits and indeed of WP's simplistic principles in effecting even the merest of social change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the court is (or the Wikipedians who are demanding the removal or WMF [supposedly] are) quite selective in having the name removed:
The current French Wikipedia article, for example, mentions the name[19], and there were / are zero concerns raised about that on the talk page, literally, there isn't a single thread on anything on that talk page[20]. Kashmiri Wikipedia mentions the name with zero attempts to remove it on the talk page[21]. Chinese Wikipedia has the name in the lede and there are also zero discussions about it on the talk page[22]. Same story on the Korea Wiki[23]. Indonesian Wikipedia is no exception to that either[24]. Neither is the Hausa Wiki[25]. Same for Romanian Wikipedia[26]. The Hindi (!!!) Wiki mentions the name in the infobox (मृत्यु मौमिता देबनाथ[1]) and no discussion on the talk page about removing it[27]. Asamese Wiki has the name in the infobox[28]. It's also in the infobox on Punjabi Wiki[29]. And it's in the infobox and lede of the Tamil Wiki[30]. The Tamil Wiki has a talk page thread regarding the removal of images, but not the name. The Sat (Sanskrit?) Wiki has the name at least in one of the reference URLs[31] (I can't tell whether it's mentioned in the article body/infobox or not because Google Translate refuses to translate that language). Thai Wikipedia mentions the name[32]. And Simple English Wikipedia also mentions the name and there are zero discussions on the talk page[33].
The Urdu, Bengal, Telugu Wikis are the only ones that don't have the name.
If WMF has indeed agreed to comply with the Indian law, as has been alleged above[34], then there sure are a lot of Wikis that didn't get the notice. It's also odd that the removal is pursued so selectively. You'd think that people would at least care to have the name removed from Indian local language Wikis, but it looks like it's only the English Wikipedia where this issue is being raised. Nakonana (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of million of Indians speak English, which is an official language of the country. The English language Wikipedia also gets by far the most views of and Wikipedia version (see [35] and [36] which shows that the English language wiki gets by far the most views of any version). It is therefore not suprising that the Indian government/users care more about what goes on in English Wikipedia than other smaller and much less viewed wikis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I'd still think that it would be more crucial for Wikis like the Hindi Wiki to have the name removed because those articles were likely written by Indians who'd risk actual legal consequences, unlike people from Europe who could edit the English article. And if there was a WMF decision (as claimed above) it would certainly need to be followed by all language versions of Wikipedia, not just the English Wiki.
You also asked about a consensus: if we take the other Wikis into account, plus, the inaction of admins on Commons and the administration noticeboard, then it rather looks like the majority of people, who have participated in discussing or writing about this case, are in favor of including the name. Nakonana (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my allusions above to similar edits a full two years after the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ten years since then. Policies change over time. That's one admin who did something in 2014, and a number of admins who don't to think it necessary to do something in 2024. I personally wouldn't mind if you'd invite that admin from 2014 to give input to this discussion. Nakonana (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've posed the same question about WP:BDP—and its allowance of up to two years after death in instances of gruesome violence—of Doug Weller and some others above. I have soft pinged Abecedare, RegentsPark, and Drmies, all admins. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I found something interesting. The pro-BJP government, right-wing media outlet OpIndia, also mentioned the name.
opindia.com/2024/08/calcutta-hc-lambasts-west-bengal-govt-over-vandalism-of-rg-kar-hospital-asks-cbi-to-probe-the-attack GrabUp - Talk 14:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NEWS18 link you had cited above has been taken down after a govert direction. The other one for ABP has also been issued a show cause notice as per a statement on the Ministry website. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaxstocatamazon: I have cited many mainstream media sources that mention her name, as you can see in the responses section above. I would like your comment on this: do they not fall under Indian law? They are based in India, yet they are not following the law. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not based in India, but we still have to comply with it? GrabUp - Talk 02:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The account was created today and has no other contributions on Wikipedia than to this very talk page. Nakonana (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a problem, or a violation of some local community regulation ? What about WP:AGF or Dont bite the newbie followed on most social media networks ?Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely fall within India's laws. Thanks for collating them. I have already forwarded these URLs to the concerned Ministry for issuing the section 69A or 79(3) notices as applcable under the IT Act 2008. Blaxstocatamazon (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of the Indian government coming down punitively on WPians. Rather, it is the emotional violence, and sometimes real violence, caused to victims of horrific violence, or to survivors of those who died from violence, in a deeply toxic culture such as India's. The name by being known during the period before penalties have taken full effect, makes the victims or their survivors vulnerable to extra-judicial reprisals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler:I struckthrough your remark about India's toxic culture. India is at the apogee of world civilisation along with Chinese and Mexican civilisations. For instance, the Tamil language is the oldest singularly consistent extant language. In UK they were tossing out slop pots from windows onto the streets below millenia after the Indus Valley civilisation had urban planning, water supply and drainage/sewage. 49.36.176.242 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't make the UK an inferior country compared to India.213.230.86.90 (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that India is superior to any other country. The world is a family, all cultures are to be respected. 49.36.178.108 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP user, please do not edit other's comments, see WP:TPG — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil language does not back your claim. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Languages evolve continuously, there isn't one point where people in Florence switched from speaking Latin to speaking Italian. The fact that we call ancient Tamil or Greek the same as their modern varieties, but not Sanskrit or Latin, doesn't mean Tamil changed less or is "older" in any meaningful way, and doesn't say anything about Tamil or Indian culture in general. Also, West Bengal, where the event happened, is quite far from Tamil Nadu.
I agree that calling Indian culture "deeply toxic" as a blanket term is far from accurate, but neither is calling it "the apogee of world civilisation". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: I agree with your point. I wrote what I did in a hurry and my edit lacked forethought. The term, "toxic," has been applied to Indian social media culture, and I made the error of extending it to Indian society, which is inexcusable for someone such as I who has read McKim Marriott and other cultural anthropologists of India. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS In addition to your good point about the transition from Old Tamil to modern Tamil being seen as seamless, it is not clear that Old Tamil was quite as fabricated as Sanskrit (literally, "refined," "polished," "cultivated.") was. It is easier for latter types of languages to become tradition-bound and stop developing. Latin, I suspect, for it too was a liturgical language, also perhaps became tradition-bound, before becoming extinct. Otherwise, clearly Vedic Sanskrit has older provenance than Old Tamil. And ancient Egyptian and Akkadian, i.e. old Babylonian, are even older. There are spectacular Pythagorean triples etched on cuneiform tablets (ca 1800 BCE); the triples are primitive, ie they have no common factors. See Plimpton 322 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sat.wikipedia.org is in Santali, a language spoken in West Bengal and its surroundings, not in Sanskrit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I couldn't find it in the List of ISO 639 language codes and didn't know where else to look. Google Translate also had no clue what language it is. Nakonana (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it on m:List of Wikipedias! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why has the name been removed from the article before the RfC has been closed and before WMF issued a final statement? Nakonana (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana That was appropriate in the spirit of caution. As I've said, including it could put Wikipedians in India at risk. Again. DId you read the WMF statement?. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for explaining.
Do you mean the WMF statement from 16 September? Or was there another one? I've read the former, but might have forgotten some of the details — as far as I recall, they said that they'd work on an official statement based on (some points in) this discussion, so I assumed that there will be another statement from them. If there already was a second statement, then, no, I've not read it yet. Nakonana (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana There has not been another public statement. There has been a confidential one that I have read. But I think the implications of the public one are clear. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation statement

[edit]

Hi all, I'm Joe from the Trust & Safety team, part of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department. This conversation was brought to the Legal Department's attention due to the comments related to Indian law and the content of this article.

The Wikimedia Foundation has received enquiries related to the Indian Supreme Court's ruling against the inclusion of the name and image of the victim of this crime in online media. Organisations supporting victims of sexual violence have advocated for this general practice. In some cases, naming the victim of sexual violence may involve considering the safety of the victim's family and friends. In this case, many reliable sources, including international news outlets such as the BBC, have removed the victim's name from their coverage of the incident.The Foundation's lawyers are reviewing this outreach as a legal matter. We are also paying attention to community discussions, including this RFC. We felt that it could be useful to those discussions if we shared a bit about our thinking. We hope that you find this helpful.

Our main point is this: Community discussions like these are hugely important to the Foundation's response whenever we face takedown requests. We want to thank those of you contributing to this discussion and thinking deeply about the genuine value of keeping sensitive or controversial information in Wikipedia articles, including where Wikipedia's BLP policy may apply, and explicitly balancing that against other important interests that may be at stake. We urge you to explain the reasoning behind the conclusion reached in this discussion as clearly as possible, keeping in mind the dignity of the victim, the privacy and safety of her family, and the Wikipedia policies at play.

Wikipedia's strength is not only in its collection and collation of information from a range of reliable sources, but primarily in the important curation work done by contributors. Using guidelines like the Biographies of living persons policy, the content of each project is carefully compiled to strike the right balance between providing accurate information and considering important interests such as privacy, dignity, safety, and the implications for a deceased subject's living relatives and friends. Sometimes, the Legal team is able to weigh in where additional information and context may help contributors do good work on the projects; for example, the recently posted Wikilegal article about handling sensitive personal data.

It is important to understand that while the Wikimedia Foundation is a US-headquartered organisation, we're not insensitive to laws and cultural nuances in other locations. Other nations' laws affect the Wikimedia projects, the people who make the projects happen, and people who access them. And of course, Wikimedia projects represent knowledge gathered by and for people all over the world. Given our role in the projects, the Foundation considers any takedown order in the context of human rights and the projects' free knowledge mission. Where appropriate, the Legal Team can challenge those orders and strive to support community decision-making.

When the community comes to a consensus on a content issue, it's very important and extremely useful for there to be compelling and clearly articulated reasons for that decision. This helps the Foundation explain the outcome to courts (or other authorities), local media, and even potentially other organizations that support free knowledge. It will never be sufficient to just say, "Wikipedia is not censored". Even judges and officials who are broadly supportive of Wikipedia's mission will look for evidence and arguments to factor into a decision. In a privacy case, for instance, a judge will typically weigh up the harms that individuals may feel, against the value (or "public interest") of having the information in question generally available. This balance neatly reflects how the projects themselves operate; accurate, sourced information is regularly and legitimately removed by you from the projects on a daily basis, because it does not belong on that project for a huge range of potential policy reasons: perhaps the subject isn't notable, or it has been given undue weight in an article or one of many other rationales you use to shape the projects according to policy. That balancing is also how the law functions.

We therefore encourage you to explain clearly why you feel the balance of interests lies one way or the other, in order to reach consensus accordingly. Not only does this enrich and support the functioning and content of the projects, but it allows the Foundation to support and explain those decisions to the extent possible, and to ensure that authorities and Wikipedia readers at large take into consideration the function and purpose of the encyclopedia when they have concerns about content. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am firmly in the pro-BLP camp generally on issues, and my personal view would be to exclude here based on humanitarian reasons (nothing to do with the Indian government requests). However, it is clear that as of right now, the community consensus in the discussion — which has been open for seven days, link to current state for reference — is overwhelmingly to include the name. Speaking pragmatically, it will likely take all our international Reliable Sources removing it from their relevant coverage to see this sentiment change, as we at Wikipedia just tend to report what is published in our reliable secondary sources. While I won't close the RfC as a few more days may be beneficial, it will be a minor miracle if consensus changes here. Daniel (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that overwhelming. Besides, it was not well advertised. I came to know about it because someone posted on my user talk page. Most people who have perfunctorily brandished NOTCENSORED have little history of editing India-related pages. The RfC began on 9 September and WT:INDIA became aware of it on the 12th. I don't see why you would not let it last at least two weeks.
What is clear is that some early birds have been very energetic in questioning anyone who argues for caution. They either have a strong investment in this particular issue or interpret WP's dicta literally, i.e. independently of context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Also, some of the editors had been sparring in five or six other discussions before having arrived at this RfC. Very different from those of us who came to this topic cold.
There are all sorts of superficially plausible, but actually incorrect, arguments, such as the family does not object to the name being advertised. Beyond the vicissitudes of what a family in a country such as India can be pressured into believing, it is not clear that a family in a state of shock, or at best in the very early stages of the five stages of grief knows what is good for it.
I don't see why the WP community cannot simply say: "Let's from an abundance of caution remove the name and come back to this discussion in a month's time. How will that hurt anyone?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Most people who have perfunctorily brandished NOTCENSORED have little history of editing India-related pages" — just because editors don't commonly-edit Indian topics, doesn't prima facie make their arguments any less strong. WT:INDIA does not gatekeep content and community consensus (emphasis on 'community', not Wikiproject or nationality) is what matters.
As mentioned above, on the substance of the issue I actually agree with you that it should be removed, but there is no way an objective person can read the debate above and say that sentiment isn't relatively clear already. Of course this can be left open another week to see if the winds blow in a different direction, but it feels unlikely to happen. (Again, I actually hope it does.) Daniel (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, (now back in my saner moments,) I agree with you. WT:INDIA does not indeed gatekeep content.
BTW, I did check the major international sources, as well as the Indian of record. None seem to carry the name, i.e. none of the international stories and all except one of the 334 Indian. So, whatever is the worth of the burgeoning unanimity, it is very likely not based in RS or DUE. See the list at the end of my vote above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Daniel: Please note that with RegentsPark changing their vote to no value in inclusion, the score now stands at 12 votes for inclusion and 11 for not. That is not exactly consensus for either. This, I predict, will very likely change further in the direction of not including. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that (albeit 'not a vote' etc.). With the greatest of respect, I would suggest that there is a fair bit of bludgeoning going on, in addition to the off-site discussions about it that are referenced below. I think it would be good to hear from other voices rather than the same one or two, especially in reply to every single person who has offered an 'include name' opinion. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary header 1

[edit]
Which policy says Wikipedia should comply with a court order? None do. Dympies (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says that we use two of the most abysmally third-rate sources to prop up a victim's name in the lead when the overwhelming majority of the reliable sources do not do so? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "none does." "None do" would have gone with "policies." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot deem reliable sources to be unreliable only because you want. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Southern Illinois Now trumps:
NY Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Philadelphia Inquirer, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Constitution, Toronto Star, and Globe and Mail (Canada), The Guardian, The Times (London), Economist, Financial Times, Independent, The Irish Times, BBC, Le Monde, DW, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, South China Morning Post, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Japan Times, and Dawn? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources ever doubted the authenticity of the victim's name. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the 33 major news outlets I have listed have carried the victim's name. All refer to her as a medical student or trainee doctor etc.
In order to carry the name, you must show that the majority of reliable sources that have reported on the incident, have also carried her name. But all you have found seems Southern Illinois Now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No policy says that Wikipedia article must resemble articles of the outlets that you have named. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No policy"? So tell us then, how do we establish WP:due weight other than by looking at the practice of reliable sources, and by giving more weight to high-quality and high-impact sources among the latter? When you have a piece of information that you might find in endless numbers of poor, non-reliable sources and also in a few isolated reliable sources, but which other reliable sources en masse clearly deliberately chose not to include, then this is a good indicator that we're in good company when we do not publicize the name of the victim, especially when we have compelling reasons as outlined by User:Fowler&fowler not to include it (which NB have nothing to do with Indian court decisions). –Austronesier (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Illinois Now seems to be somewhat of straw man argument given that, as of this time stamp, United Press International and Singaporean state media outlet CNA (TV network) have not removed their published mentions of the name in question. - Amigao (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, Wikipedia's own newsletter

[edit]

I am an editor at The Signpost, and I am writing to invite anyone here to contribute to the volunteer coverage of the issues discussed on this talk page. Wikipedia has its own newsletter, The Signpost, in which Wikipedia editors volunteer as journalists to write Wikipedia-related news. Features of The Signpost are listed in the newsroom and include various options for volunteers to share their perspectives including "Opinion", "Community view", "Discussion report", "In focus", and "Special report". If anyone is interested in writing, then please post to the newsroom talk page or the submissions desk.

Personally, I am impressed that the Wikipedia community began this discussion shortly after the article's establishment, because I think that demonstrates the care that Wikipedia editors put into deliberating social and ethical issues. Recent media coverage and the Supreme Court decision draw attention to this already-established discussion, and I think there are interesting stories to tell about Wikipedia's process for reporting current events and making editorial decisions. If you are an experienced Wikipedia editor here, then you will be able to more easily read and interpret Wikipedia's unique community discussion format than someone who is not an experienced Wikipedia editor. If there is anyone here who would like to interpret the discussion here into journalism for The Signpost, then consider the available formats for reporting, ask questions about participating in the newsroom, or writing a description of what you would like to do.

The publishing deadline for the next issue is in a few days, but there will be another issue in 2 weeks, and actually The Signpost has no hard deadlines if someone needs more time to tell a story. However, the news cycle does favor current events and today's news over yesterday's news, so if someone strongly wants to express a perspective, then writing and submitting sooner is helpful.

I myself have already attempted to report the story in the "In the media" section. Anyone can read the draft and post any critique or comment in the newsroom. I have discussed these journalism plans with another Signpost editor; for whatever useful things I have done to encourage others to contribute, thank user:Svampesky for their suggestions in the past few hours, because it is confusing to make journalistic decisions quickly and they helped me a lot. If I made any mistake, then blame me by myself. Beyond that, if anyone wishes to post any kind of community perspective, either as an individual or with a group of other commentators, then start by messaging the newsroom or submissions desk. Thanks for considering. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Bluerasberry. In a nutshell: because the WMF stated they want some sort of statement from us, for the next edition of The Signpost, we open the 'Community view' column for everyone to contribute a statement reflecting the Wikipedia community's response. We shouldn't leave this statement to one closer, we should get input from the whole community as it is a community decision. Svampesky (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the comments in the discussion, many people are against taking action on a request from a government. If this is how the discussion is closed, it's important for us to clarify that the decision wasn't influenced by the government before it gets mistakenly reported in the media as a response to the court order. Svampesky (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think the decision at the RfC had much to do with the Indian Supreme Court's ruling (or the government's request, if there was such a request). For me and for quite a few others the decision was based partly on the near unanimity in the high-quality media sources in excluding the name from the very outset and partly on giving the surviving family some privacy in order to heal emotionally (hinted at in WP:BDP) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Headlines like Supreme Court slams Wikipedia for displaying name of victim, directs takedown [37] and India Supreme Court orders Wikipedia to remove name and photo of victim in Kolkata rape-murder case [38] do suggest that the court ruling might have had something to do with the decision. Svampesky (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, what it suggests is that Indian upper classes, the ones that constitute the media, even the liberal media such as The Hindu, have come to be steeped in a new-found cultural grandiosity that allows them to believe in the magical reach of their Supreme Court or of their government in faraway advanced democracies. What else would explain these headlines, especially The Hindus? While its story is mostly neutral, it's headline is not. In other words, the idea that the Indian Supreme Court might have sent shivers down the spine of WP or WMF, might be an Indian perception or vanity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS In case you meant that the Indian Supreme Court's ruling might have come in the wake of, and as a response to, WP's earlier decision to include the name and picture, then, of course, I do agree with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided shows headlines where "Court orders Wikipedia to remove name" and "Wikipedia removes name" are synthesized together to suggest there's a connection. At no point should Wikipedia start responding to media reports, as that would lead to a slippery slope, the point is to clarify before it starts to happen. The headline in The Hindu: Wikipedia parent, users move to avert confrontation with Supreme Court [39] falsely claims that Indian Supreme Court's ruling is connected to Wikipedia removing the name. Svampesky (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you. In keeping with your last point, perhaps at the time of the closing of the RfC, in addition to the closer's statement, WMF should also state that the removal of the name and the picture was the result of WP's internal dynamics and ethic, not a response to the Indian Supreme court decision. Alternatively, the name and picture could be reinstated until admin user:Daniel has actually closed the RfC with a decision of exclusion. I think premonitions or prognostications of consensus should not be a basis for hurried changes in the article. After all the consensus of a few days ago, seems to have changed, and it could change again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided an opinion in the RfC (link) so will no longer be offering to close the RfC per WP:INVOLVED. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would publish this after the RfC has closed, per me saying because the WMF stated they want some sort of statement from us... We shouldn't leave this statement to one closer, we should get input from the whole community as it is a community decision. If it is closed, we can push the deadline of the Signpost back a few days (this usually happens anyway), but if not it would be for the next issue. On WMF should also state that the removal of the name and the picture was the result of WP's internal dynamics and ethic, not a response to the Indian Supreme court decision: The WMF has said they want a statement from us, the community, that's what the Signpost report will be. Svampesky (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the participants in the above RfC, I support making it clear that, if the closing decision is to oppose inclusion, it will have very much been due to consensus supported by multiple policies and guidelines (WP:BLPNAME, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS have all been mentioned), and that pressure from the Indian government didn't play a role.
I'll even add that this RfC result is explicitly not an invitation for India's Supreme Court to use legal pressure to influence Wikipedia's contents. Although, of course, individual members are welcome to participate in our consensus-building discussions like anyone else. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has said they want a statement from us, the community, that's what the Signpost report will be. Does it mean the WMF should-consider/prefer Signpost report as our statement rather than the closure of the RfC/or a subsequent [formal] statement? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hold the view that the closing statement made by the closer should not be the statement that the WMF has requested, it should be another collaborative statement. If the closing statement is the WMF statement, this adds extra pressure to the closer. Svampesky (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could probably get rid of the top "Warning: clicking for additional information leads to troubling crime details" since it is already stated in the green collapse box. You may also want to reword the green box text to use the more standard language "trigger warning". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, Svampesky, I appreciate your willingness to facilitate discussion on this issue, but in my opinion The Signpost is the very precise opposite of the ideal space to be placing a formal community response to WMF legal's request. It's not a community forum with a specific, appropriate remit for what should be a somewhat pro forma process. I hope your coverage ends up being substantial and helps to elucidate and inform the debate in a helpful way--as indeed I have used many of its past issues to edify myself on various goings on in and about the project. But also, bluntly, it has a very peculiar role that is such an odd fit for the rest of project space and involves such a lot of advocacy in ways that other projects don't and sometimes leave me feeling uncomfortable, that I've often in recent years felt like it was time for it to be spun off the project to become it's own, generally independent thing. But I don't think people are going to need to agree with me that far to also agree that an organized community response should be taking place either here or on the WP:VILLAGEPUMP.
Yes, special care and procedures may be necessary in this instance to capture and voice our collective consensus response to WMF Legal's request, but I think both the reaching of the consensus decision and the drafting of the conclusions for any additional formalized statements is should take place in our spaces already reserved for those purposes. Any role for the Signpost should be peripheral to that process. It doesn't have the central positioning, exposure, formal role, or ideal setup for using our normal consensus processes in full view of the community where its members would expect to find such discussions. And if you already intended a purely auxiliary role and I misread your above comments, I do apologize. But I didn't want to wait to voice these thoughts if you really did intend to organize the community's response itself through The Signpost. SnowRise let's rap 04:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tend to agree with user:Snow Rise. This talk page is what has attracted the attention of everyone, including the Indian media. This is where the statement should be made, and after reading user:Daniel's post above, i.e. the post of someone knowledgeable, articulate, and experienced who was following the community's decision-making in near-real time, that decision should not now be left to the whims and comprehension of a single uninvolved, and perhaps unknown and unpredictable, individual. Better yet, the decision should be made here in a paragraph not much longer than this and then conveyed here in a closing statement by user:JSutherland (WMF), who made the first statement above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS On the other hand, the community may not be able to arrive at a consensus paragraph, or it might be said that the consensus was swayed by one or two or three ... individuals, in other words that perhaps the closer really should be someone uninvolved and experienced, and certainly an admin. I can propose one: user:Ealdgyth. I don't know if they'd be interested. . Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PPS Either way, the community's statement or the closer's can then be relayed in a final statement by user:JSutherland (WMF). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, @Snow Rise. Myself and Bluerasberry are only suggesting how we can collaborate to respond. This is a complicated issue and the closure will be handled by one person, but this might not reflect all views for the statement that the WMF have requested, per the community may not be able to arrive at a consensus paragraph. This is with the intention to present an option to help organize this collaboration. I don't think the closing statement made by the closer should be the statement that the WMF has requested, it should be another statement. If the closing statement is the WMF statement, this adds extra pressure to the closer.
More importantly, if the media is going to be attracted to this statement, I also don't feel it appropriate to have the statement on a page where that includes the name, including the page history (whatever the close). For example, if it closes as 'Include', it's ill-mannered to have the statement on a page where the name is visible. Per page views, The Signpost has varying rates of visibility (see: Module:Signpost/index/2024) depending on what's published. The Signpost page that contains only the statement can be the URL that the WMF sends to whoever wants the community statement and not have it hard to find on a talk page. Svampesky (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The media after all did read WMF's statement which was published on this page, and not Signpost. I think therefore this should be the place where WMF should convey the community's or the closer's decision. I'm not sanguine that we as the community can necessarily do the job of summarizing the consensus better than someone like Ealdgyth, an experienced and articulate admin, can. Also, I am not sure how central Signpost is the the WP endeavor. No offence is meant to anyone, but although I've been on WP nearly 18 years, I doubt I have even opened Signpost 18 times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very sensitive issue and the statement is likely to attract media attention. The media after all did read WMF's statement which was published on this page before the name was removed, and if the discussion is closed as 'Include' or 'No consensus', it's ill-mannered to have the statement on a page that has the name all over it. If the discussion is closed as 'Exclude', it is contradictory to have the statement on a page that has the name all over it. Publishing the statement someplace else, away from references to the name, is just a suggestion. Svampesky (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the media nor an average reader, will be reading the reams of discussion above. The media very likely already knows the name.
The issue, as I see it, is the comparative weights given to (a) the privacy given to the survivors by not carrying the name in a place, especially the lead, which can be widely accessed (because of the Google-Wikipedia link), b) principles such as NOTCENSORED, and (c) the consensus in the reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia community: "We'll remove the name, here's our statement" (on a page that has the name all over it). Svampesky (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Of course, Signpost would then be free to report on that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about The Signpost. The point of our suggestion is to offer a solution to post this statement on a page that doesn't have the name scattered all over it, per the sensitive nature of the discussion. Svampesky (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable information resource for the world are not Wikipedia's talk page discussions, but the articles, especially the leads. Google doesn't summarize talk page discussions, but they do summarize the lead sentence, even carry it verbatim. The objection of the Indian Supreme Court, or the Government, or of those such as I who have voted to exclude, is again not to the mention of the name in talk page discussions, only in a place which is widely and easily accessed (and transmitted further in myriad ways).
So we must be clear about what is the information-transmitting venue and what is the decision-making venue. This talk page, the decision-making venue, is where WMF made the announcement; therefore, it is entirely consistent for them to make a closing announcement here which relays the decision as summarized by en experienced closer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it doesn't have to be user:Ealdgyth if you have an objection, there is a large number of experienced and uninvolved admins who can do the job admirably. Off the top of my head, I can think of user:Abecedare, user:MelanieN, user:DrKay, user:Bishonen, user:Anachronist, user:Valereee, user:Black Kite, user:Bbb23, and many more user:Drmies and user:RegentsPark would have been excellent choices, but they have already expressed an opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that MelanieN is not an admin anymore since April 2024. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the mess that is the current talk page, especially with the name being repeatedly present on it, I agree that it is certainly not the best place to make a formal statement for the WMF. We could do it either on the Signpost page, or, even better, on a dedicated page for the statement in projectspace, that could then be reported on by the Signpost. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support either, with preference for The Signpost (as it seems to kill two birds with one stone, as it would be a dedicated page for the statement in the projectspace). I strongly oppose having it on this page. Reporting on it in the Signpost will essentially be repeating what the statement says, with the risk of misrepresenting it. The full statement is likely going to be copied-and-pasted into a report anyway, so it seems fitting to just have it in one place. Svampesky (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you withdrawing your earlier proposal ("In a nutshell: because the WMF stated they want some sort of statement from us, for the next edition of The Signpost, we open the 'Community view' column for everyone to contribute a statement reflecting the Wikipedia community's response. We shouldn't leave this statement to one closer, we should get input from the whole community as it is a community decision."[40]) to open the column to everyone and get input there from the whole community? NebY (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the proposal to open the 'Community view' column up for everyone to get input still stands. Bluerasberry has already been working on reporting on it in The Signpost in a different column, see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#India high court demands name removal. I assume the statement will also be reported on, if we push the deadline back for a few days (this is what usually happens). Svampesky (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. That's inappropriate. This is the place where the matter is being discussed and consensus reached. The Signpost should not try to set itself up as a parallel forum. NebY (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is the page where the rubber has met the road. The claim that the victim's name, which was not mentioned in this RfC, will hurt the feelings of those who might be tempted to ferret it out elsewhere on the talk page or its archives is not credible. The closer's summary of the community's decision, and not some alternatively interpreted community statement, must be accompanied by the decision-making process—in its entirely, warts and all—as it evolved in this meeting house. We can't at this late stage change the process and present it cleaned up and paraphrased somewhere else disconnected from the real-time evidence. I'm reasonably sure, it is against all democratic principles of Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think we necessarily need the RfC's closing statement to be the same as our statement to the WMF. In my opinion, the first, as a part of our internal decision-making process, should naturally be drafted on this very page, but a formulated response that will by its very nature be much more public should be on a separate, dedicated page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The names were present when WMF made its statement. I very much doubt it was mentioned in this RfC. We can easily archive the earlier threads. No one will be searching the archives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, we are not expecting the community to issue a collective statement, separate from the usual closing statement in the RfC, about this article or the inclusion of the name. In fact, the discussion so far has been a great example of the kind of collaborative work that goes into Wikipedia content and, while those involved obviously have strong feelings about the article, it has been quite productive so far. What we're looking for is for this vital community process to continue and come to a natural conclusion taking into account the consensus opinion of those involved. I hope that helps to clarify. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposed merge of National Task Force for Safety of Medical Professionals into 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

[edit]

This is a body created in the aftermath of 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident and has only existed for a very short amount of time and only in relation to that event. This could just be a sentence or two mention in 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident and doesn't need its own article which is essentially a directory listing of the members and little else. ZimZalaBim talk 16:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I {{prod}}ed it under WP:NTEMP and WP:INHERITORG. I removed the WP:NAMECHECK directory. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles should not be merged because of the following reasons:
1. The National Task Force (NTF) for safety of medical professionals at workplace deals with all forms of violence against healthcare professionals at work. It is not only for sexual violence. The Supreme Court of India, which has instituted this taskforce, has made this very clear in its order of 20 August 2024. Check here:[1]
2. The NTF is not investigating the Kolkata rape and muder case. Although that incident triggered the creation of the NTF, the NTF is looking at a broader issue of all forms of workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare professionals all over India. Thus the two articles cannot be merged as they are different issues. Again do refer to the Supreme Court order of point (1).
3. There have been many other serious violence against medical personnel in India. Refer Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug and Vandana Das cases as two examples. All these have led to the need for the creation of this NTF.
4. There have been several attempts to bring in legislation in India to deal with all types of workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare professionals but none have succeeded. This NTF report could lead to a comprehensive law against WPV for medical personnel in India. Again do refer to the Supreme Court order of point (1). HorizonNew (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reasons I mentioned were Notability is not temporary and No inherited notability.
A quick Google search "National Task Force for Safety of Medical Professionals" only gives 27 results (see page 3). All are related to the case. You counter with It is not only for sexual violence. However, the supreme court is a primary source and we need a secondary source such as a newspaper.
Points 2 and 4 are unsourced. Point 3's crucial led to the need part is unsourced.
NTEMP says you need to prove that this task force will still be remembered and covered by newspapers after some time passes. There need to be sources saying it will continue to exist and achieve something, and be different from the millions of non-notable short-lived task forces that sat around and did nothing. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Newspaper source (apart from the primary Supreme Court order) for my Points 1 and 2 that this NTF is dealing with all kinds of workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare professionals:
"According to the terms of reference, the national task force will prepare an action plan categorised under two heads: a) prevention of violence against medical professionals and providing safe working conditions; b) providing an enforceable national protocol for dignified and safe working conditions for interns, residents, senior residents, doctors, nurses, and all medical professionals."[2]
Source for Point 3:
"Women are at particular risk of sexual and non-sexual violence in these settings. Due to ingrained patriarchal attitudes and biases, relatives of patients are more likely to challenge women medical professionals. In addition to this, female medical professionals also face different forms of sexual violence at the workplace by colleagues, seniors and persons in authority. Sexual violence has had its origins even within the institution, the case of Aruna Shanbag being a case in point." From Supreme Court of India order dated 20 August 2024 (refer my earlier PDF link).
Source for Point 4:
"Several States, such as Maharashtra4 , Kerala5 , Karnataka6 , Telangana7 , West Bengal8 , Andhra Pradesh9 and Tamil Nadu10 have enacted legislation to protect healthcare service professionals from violence and damage to property. All these enactments prohibit any act of violence against medical professionals. The offence is non-bailable and punishable with three years of imprisonment. However, these enactments do not address the institutional and systemic causes that underlie the problem. An enhanced punishment without improving institutional safety standards falls short of addressing the problem effectively." From Supreme Court of India order dated 20 August 2024 (refer my earlier PDF link).
Note: The Supreme Court is the most important source since the NTF was created based on its order dated 20 August 2024.
Does the last sentence of the previous comment "There is no indication that it will exist or achieve anything, or be different from the millions of non-notable short-lived task forces that sat around and did nothing" mean that every taskforce in this world will be "non-notable" and "short-lived" and "do nothing"? I am sure there is no reliable source/proof for this conclusion. HorizonNew (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The primary source for point 3 and 4 is still weak, but you have addressed my INHERITORG concern by using Hindustan Times.
I should have phrased my last sentence better. Basically, I think we should wait until the task force actually achieves a few results before we write an article about them. After that, we want to make sure newspapers still care about this task force in like 6 months. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. It is a task force created not for making suggestions and reforms at one specific hospital. It is an overall task force created for making nationwide suggestions. Its activities are not just related to the one incident. Albeit the Kolkata incident triggered the making of the task force, but the task force itself is a prominent body. Similar examples are September 11 attacks, 9/11 Commission. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The taskforce is not a parliamentary or statutory or permanent or legal entity, but an ad-hoc task force to submit its report/suggestions. It will automatically be dissolved once its submits its report/suggestions. As it has stemmed from the cognisance of 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, it should be merged there until substantial content is there for a standalone article. WP:CFORK. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should wait and give it a few months to see where it'll go. If it turns out to be a temporary institution, it can be merged later. If it stays significant, it can stay. Nakonana (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now - I think's a decent chance this will end up with enough attention across multiple topics to be a stand-alone article. Right now it's WP:ONEEVENT (and yes, I know that's more about people, but this task force is only notable within the context of this event). A short paragraph, probably under reactions, on how the group was formed and the purpose is for now sufficient. If there is continued coverage and more in depth coverage on what it produces, changing that redirect back to a standalone article, adding a main article template and everything is good. If nothing much ever comes from the task force (WP:CRYSTAL, y'all) then we're got the relevent information in the relevant article. Ravensfire (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without prejudice to later splitting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • temporary merge : Currently task force is in its nascent stage. Given the circumstances and unfolding situations on the ground I think it will end being foundation for some national reforms in IN. When that happens it may be considered as separate topic and can have separate article. For now it is only appropriate that we merge it with this article. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Alleged rape and murder incident of a trainee doctor in R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and related issues" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 2024-08-20. Retrieved 2024-08-28.
  2. ^ "Healthcare professionals' safety: NTF holds first meeting; launches portal". Hindustan Times. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-08-29.

Wikipedia name removal is part of the story

[edit]

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry See if my recent edits were of any help. Cheers, Bremps... 06:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your additions were excessive given the proportion of coverage. A brief summary has been instead placed in the court proceedings section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is better, thanks to whoever did that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condensed instead of removing altogether? Nice, I like it. Bremps... 15:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the pseudo name to the article

[edit]

Hi, I agree with the conclusion of the RfC. However, we should at least add her pseudo name to the article and the "other names" field of the infobox. Thanks.

ParallelLife (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder&oldid=1252009684"