Misplaced Pages

Hi there, I was adding a note and we had an edit conflict. I thought that I have seen it in the Indian press...? Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I searched the name in The Statesman, The Telegraph, The Hindu, The Deccan Chronicle, and The Hindustan Times: not a single mention is made of the victim's name except in the comments in one DC article. The Times of India did have this article, but this appears to be the only example I can find. Those were as many English-language Indian papers as I could think of, I can't speak to ones written in India's other official languages (which I don't know). I do know that prosecutors moved against one Indian paper for publishing the name (this was before it was released by the family). Paris1127 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I self-reverted and did some checking. It seems that Paris is correct in that the Indian press (at least as far as I could find) is not using her name. Thanks Paris! Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. The Indian press are operating under laws that do not respect free speech the same way as it is understood in America, where Misplaced Pages is based - nor, for that matter, the way it is understood by the Misplaced Pages charter. This section here cites many, many users of her name. One of the citations on the page even mentions it. There is *no* reason to delay this. It is useful information and its absence is really making the article much, much worse. It needs to be added.0x0077BE (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "useful"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe that was an imprecise choice of phrase. It's something people want to know, and to the extent that they can identify other stories published using her name as referring to the same case, it is useful for people to know it, but I would say that the utility isn't the main issue. The main issues are the fact that the missing name is hurting the flow of the article, it smacks of censorship and it's information we have extremely well sourced and we are withholding it from people who will be curious about it. That's very anti-wikipedian, and given that there's no compelling reasoning for keeping the name out of this article whatsoever, it should be put back in. I still would have argued to add it months ago, as soon as we had sources for it, but at this stage it's just absurd that it's being kept out. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that satisfying the morbid curiosity of ghoulish or immature readers is an encyclopedic task. We use judgment and discretion, not censorship, to determine what's important; as a general rule, the names of innocent rape victims is considered unimportant. I don't agree that it hurts the article's flow, either.

Complying with WP:BDP, which extends BLP-level protection "in the case of...a particularly gruesome crime" for six or more months after the person's death, sounds like a "compelling reason for keeping the name out of this article" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• More to the point - Just because Misplaced Pages can give the name out doesn't mean it should. AFAIK, no Indian press has been banned from publishing her name and I would like to see some proof before I accept otherwise. Not only, I remember the victim's family stating they have no objections to the name being used.

Coming back to my original point, it is more of a common sense thing that we ought not publish the name of the victim unless there is a strong reason to do so. If there was any law named after her or if she was known using her own name, its a different case. But to use the name in defiance of the practice set by the media as well as common sense just sounds too much like The Mousetrap to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should get rid of the entire article then, since it's just gruesome details used to satisfy people's ghoulish curiosity about what happened. The point is - it doesn't matter why people want to know it, it's an encyclopedia, it is impartial about the information to be conveyed. The whole point is to document events neutrally. The fact that her name wasn't used was the first thing I noticed because every other article uses the names of the people involved. Saying, "the woman" in every place just makes it seem like we don't know who it was. It's bizarre. The name is being heavily used in the media, and just because it's policy that you don't have to give out the names doesn't mean that's a compelling reason. The whole point of that policy is so that we don't break the story ourselves and cause some kind of issue for the families. Her name is used in the references. Keeping it out of the text is just making the article weird.

I do not understand the mousetrap reference, but it doesn't matter what media convention has been. We're not a media organization (thank god), we're an encyclopedia, and like I said before, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to neutrally document things that have happened. The names of the victims have been released. They are well cited. It's information people will want to know. No one is being protected by keeping it out of the article. It's terrible what happened, but as far as we're concerned we're just neutral documentation robots. Part of that is ignoring our instinct to judge people who want information that we don't think they should want - like the name of a rape victim. The fact of the matter is it's part of the story, the hurdle of being in widespread use in the media has been cleared, we don't have to wait any longer. Plus - do you really think it matters if we add it to the article now or in 2 months? What is the point of the delay?

Oh, and to be clear, while I technically agree that there are times that one would withhold information - the default should be no restraint. That's the whole point of Misplaced Pages - open access to information. The burden is to show that it's actively harmful to release the information, and that should be a pretty high bar - and frankly, I think the bar is almost identical to WP:OR. Obviously we don't want people calling around that town and trying to find out the name of some victim so we can publish it, but once it's out there, the cat's out of the bag and it's pointless for us to ignore that information. The whole reason that open access to information is so amazing is that when you have such a large audience they do wonderful things with that information that you couldn't predict a priori. Just because we can't think of a good reason why someone would want to know some possibly distasteful thing doesn't mean that we should hold it back - it's hubris to think we've thought of all the scenarios, and as a rule (and this is the rule upon which open access is built) people will do better things with better information, not worse. 0x0077BE (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Everywhere? Could you provide some proof that it is indeed everywhere? The media of the country of the incident has refrained from naming her, and that is sufficient reason (for me) to not do the same; unless there is a very strong reason for the otherwise, which I still await. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it's actively harmful to provide this information (information which can be found on the wikipedia page if you do a Ctrl+F for "name"). That said, if you really need a "compelling reason" (which I think is a ridiculous burden):

"We want the world to know her real name," Badri Pandey, 53, told the newspaper. "My daughter didn't do anything wrong - she died while protecting herself.

How about the fact that her family (the only people that this could presumably hurt in some nebulous way) wants her name out there? It has significant news coverage (for example, the half dozen links at the top of this section). It's part of the story and it should be included. 0x0077BE (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem odd to me that the Indian press are not using her name since her father has not only given permission but has said that he would like to see a hospital built in her name. As her father said, she did nothing wrong and the rape was, after all, not her fault (as is commonly suggested in not only India but here in the US as well). As far as I can see the UK is using her name but the NY Times (for instance) has not yet used her name. In my opinion to not use the name when permission has been granted is sexism and is adding insult to injury. Gandydancer (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that every other article uses the names of the people involved, but Bitti Mohanty, Ajmer rape case, Jhabua nuns rape case, Jalgaon rape case, and Vachathi case don't name the rape victims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue has come up again and rereading this section I can see where it appears that I was not in agreement with the consensus. I was and I am now in agreement, based on the fact that almost no major news outlets are using her name. I think that Misplaced Pages should follow their decision, unfair as it may be to the family. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The father denied he had requested the victim to be named. If the father does not want his daughter to be named, why should we disrespect him and the victim by mentioning her name? The Banner talk 11:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Hello,

Per a discussion I had with Luke, I will be nominating this article for GA. Anyone is welcome to review it/ to join in the nomination. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In the "Victims" section, the two quotes supposedly from the father and brother are actually quotes from news reports. These should be properly attributed or, better yet, the expressed sentiments should be summarized. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

While looking for trial updates this morning I happened to come across the father's quote. I will get back to it later and fix that. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the direct quote from the father. I think that someone will need to improve my ref to meet WP standards. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The following sentence is in terrible shape:

• A seventeen year old Mohd. Afroz a juvenile from Badayun, Uttar Pradesh, was arrested at the Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi and Akshay Thakur, who had come to Delhi seeking employment, was arrested in Aurangabad.

Its severe grammar problems need to be addressed.

As well, the fact that the juvenile eventually gets identified raises the question of whether the article should continue to refer to him as the juvenile after he has been named. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence under question is hopefully  Fixed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Repetition of the word juvenile is  Fixed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Plural of cannon is also cannon.
• The article should be thoroughly checked for American spellings and date styles, these to be changed to UK style. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannon  Fixed TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

All date styles are now British.  Fixed TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape case/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this review. I'm extremely sorry to see you're leaving, Soni. With luck, this will only need minimal tweaks that I can do myself to pass. Thanks for your work on it--I've had my eye on it as one of the top 50 articles for WP Human rights.

Anyway, comments to follow later today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• A note: based on , if any big changes are required, I'll do my best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Luke, I really appreciate it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. This is the sort of article that really should be done to a good standard, and it would be a shame to waste the work people have put in because Soni retired. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am more than willing to help as well. I agree that it is an important article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks. I'll try to do a complete readthrough with comments this afternoon, and we'll see where we're at. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "The rest of the accused remain on trial in a fast-track court." -- this seems like something that could change in a few months' time. I'd suggest writing "As of xxxx 2013" or some similar phrase here per WP:REALTIME.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• So if the father did give permission, as stated here, was her name ever officially revealed?

• Okay, I see the lengthy talk page discussion here. This perhaps can be revisited later, but I'm fine with not doing so for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "has been criticised for being purely political" -- It seems worth clarifying who did the criticizing here

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The "fortification" of Delhi was criticised by many, including the main opposition party of the country" -- the source doesn't seem to mention any criticism besides the opposition party. I'm also uncomfortable with "fortification" appearing before the context, and without a citation (it doesn't seem to appear in the given source). I'd suggest rewriting this as something like "The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the country's main opposition party, criticized the high security levels".

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The fast track court will conduct the trial of the accused" -- the lead stated that the trial was already underway; this should be reconciled.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The juvenile, Mohd. Afroz, will be tried separately in a juvenile court." -- is this up-to-date that this trial hasn't yet started?

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Police claimed that peaceful protests..." -- rewrite "claimed" per WP:WTW

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The protests have been explained " -- better to say who's doing that explaining here ("A columnist for the South Asia Analysis Group explained the protests as...")

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• ""Wake up call"" -- this is implied to be an exact quotation, but isn't quite.
• "The Delhi police force was accused of using excessive force against the protestors," -- better to say who made this accusation (in this case, the Hindustan Times)

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning "Since her death, the unprecedented protests..." seems like much too close a paraphrase of its source per WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, "Sexual assaults made headline news almost daily" may no longer be an ongoing thing. Are there up-to-date statements about this?

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "After her death her father spoke to the press saying, “We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn’t do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter.” Her father also said that "People should move ahead in the struggle to prevent a similar crime happening again as a tribute to her."" -- this statement by the father has already appeared once in the article.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "Reactions" section should be rewritten to avoid having many small subsections, per WP:LAYOUT. It's also a bit disjointed to have some events from the days of the protests (shut down train stations, etc.) moved down here.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Repeated links like Delhi and Uttar Pradesh should be delinked in their later uses (only linked once in lead and once in body) per WP:REPEATLINK, though this isn't an issue for GA

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Going to have to take a break for now, but hope to finish this one later tonight... -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The following day, in the Indian parliament, severe punishment was demanded for the perpetrators." -- the day following the attack? Or following the announcement"?

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The protests there have taken inspiration from the Indian protests, but are also focusing on local issues about rape and domestic violence." -- are these protests still ongoing? This probably should be in past tense now instead of present.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "also pointed out " -- could be rewritten more neutrally (stated, argued) per WP:WTW

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Similar criticisms were aired in The Massachusetts Daily Collegian" -- as a college newspaper, this seems like an incredibly trivial source to include here

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've shortened the US State Department citation for the victim, cutting out a sentence that simply recapitulates what happened. Is this all right with you two? I'm hoping this will make it flow better.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "which will be operated by the state police" -- is the tense still correct here--this not open yet?

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "It will also suggest measures to make Delhi and the wider National Capital Region safer for women. The report was to be submitted within three months and will be tabled in Parliament along with action taken by the government" -- this seems like it needs updating; it's now been almost seven months since this began

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The task force may co-opt any such member/task force that it may deem fit" -- I don't understand what this part means

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I notice that no sources in the article seem to date past February--has there been no news at all since then on the trials, or any of these committee reports, etc.? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One Indian RS is giving frequent updates. I check them but it has not seemed possible to me to give a "blow-by-blow" account, so I have given no updates. I decided it was best to wait... Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's best. After the verdicts, international and national news sources should have recaps on the trials as a whole that we can use to update. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Current event

So after poking around on Google News, it seems that the trial of the adult defendants is happening this very week. One of the quickfail criteria used to be "a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint", which this is, but we no longer have that criterion listed. I've asked at WT:GAN for input on how to proceed, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts there.

My own initial thinking is that we probably can't get this article stable enough to pass it until the end of the trial--there's no sense in passing it as a GA if it will require a major update in a few weeks' time. Probably the best thing to do for now is for the three of us to collaborate on having the article as ready to go as possible; when the trial verdict and sentences, and accompanying reactions, are in, we can renominate. I'll wait to hear from you and some opinions at WT:GAN, though, before taking any action. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I personally don't mind waiting a few weeks extra, if that's required - who knows, Soni might even have returned by then. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good point, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing review

This article is in overall good shape and is close to meeting the criteria in most respects. The biggest concern here is that a thorough copyvio check is needed; at least one paragraph seemed to be close paraphrasing of the source. (This is common in current events articles like this assembled by a large number of editors, but is a serious issue that we'll need to address.)

Since the trial is ongoing, however, this can't be considered stable enough to meet the GA criteria; the verdicts and sentences, and reactions to them, will require a major expansion and rewrite. For that reason I'm closing the review for now, but without prejudice to future renomination once the trial is complete. (I might renominate it myself, in fact, if Soni's not back to do it.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you do take it on when it is the right time--you are doing a terrific job! Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Mostly just polish so far, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fast track courts

I changed all the versions of fast-track/fast track courts to fast track courts (though I think I missed one due to terrible experience with visual editor) using this site: Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, heck. I just changed them all back without seeing your comment. Sorry about that. Most news sources do appear to use fast-track , , . But I don't mind either and didn't mean to revert you. Feel free to change this to either, and again, I'm sorry for my sloppiness. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think that it is just fine either way. I found that web page when I was wondering which way to go, but I agree that in the news reports there was a slightly more frequent use of fast-track. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While on this subject, I've wondered if there is a way to explain 1) what a fast track court is and 2) how monumental it is that this woman's death has changed the way that rape and such crimes will be affected by the implantation of trying them in fast track courts. According to this news report "One of the biggest obstacles to winning justice for rape victims is the length of the trials, legal experts say. In an average case, it can take a court five to 10 years to reach judgment." I think an entire section would be good for the article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it could fit into one of the current sections, but I agree it could be expanded. Maybe we can see how widespread the coverage of this aspect is as we expand and work from there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Expanding "Results of protest" section

What would the other editors think of expanding the "Results of protest" section a little? There is plenty of information at the articles already included and the Punjab information that was deleted from another section for copy vio could be used as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote from woman's father removed...

Speaking from a long-time feminist's POV, I think that the quote from the woman's father is important to the article. He said:

We want the world to know her real name. My daughter didn't do anything wrong, she died while protecting herself. I am proud of her. Revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks. They will find strength from my daughter.

This quote has been criticized because it was disclosed to the Daily Mirror, however it has been repeated here and in several other sources that I believe are RS.

I believe that her father's statement is very important. Even today it is the woman who suffers from shame after a rape and that is true not only in India, but in every country in the world. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the GA review, this quotation appeared in the article twice in full; I only removed its second appearance. I'm fine with it being in either place, but I don't see any reason to include it twice. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Opps, yes now I see it. My mistake. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages not a place for personal opinion

RfC: Should the victim's unproven name be included in the article?

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

Earlier it was reported the name of the rape victim was revealed on the request of her father but later it was reported that the father never gave permission to reveal the name. Should this unproven name be included in the article? TransVannian (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• No. I can see both sides on this, but for now I think we should follow the lead of such sources as the BBC, The New York Times, and many others not using the victim's name. As a side note, I've redacted the victim's name, again; it's clear the only reason to include it in this thread's header was to continue TransVannian's bitter, disruptive war to promote it by any means necessary. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:*Also, close this RfC as bad-faith disruption This user has devoted hundreds of edits at this point to agitation and disruption on this topic, and is only an hour or two off an administrative block for this. Their first edit to this page was to slander the victim in an edit summary, which had to be removed by an administrator. It's not unreasonable to have an RfC on this topic, but it seems clear that this RfC is simply a vehicle to continue putting the victim's name on this page as prominently and repeatedly as possible. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• No. WP:BLPNAME gives a clear mandate for erring on the side of privacy, especially in a sensitive case such as this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Still no. Even without the BLP mandate (I haven't been watching the news and didn't know the person died), erring on the side of privacy is still better in sensitive cases like this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:BLPNAME only applies to living persons and not dead. Also the name is not actually her real name as proved by BBC. TransVannian (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• No It is not necessary to the story. It is right to show respect to the victim and to her family. Her family are still alive, so the fact that the victim herself has died is not important here. The sensitivity of the entire topic of rape, and the refusal of some people to think that consent matters, are at the centre of why this case became notable. --AJHingston (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong no - BLP applies to all articles involving living people or the recently dead, and both apply here, also, the comment Also the name is not actually her real name as proved by BBC shows that it is INSANELY inappropriate to include a name that may not be correct in the article. I've redacted the names for the nine millionth time, and reworded the RfC heading so it is more of a valid question - and, in fact, you're more likely to gain support with this heading than with the old one... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• No, if it helps. The reasons are the same as the one detailed very very explicitly multiple times by myself and others. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Filer changed the wording of the question/statement in a significant way. To my opinion, this renders the RfC invalid. The Banner talk

• No We should not publish it. However, perhaps an RfC is a good idea to get this settled once and for all. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Moral support - Per my reasons given in the DRN I personally believe that the name should be included in the article in a tactful manner. Moral support because I don't see this going that way for reasons I perfectly understand and respect Cabe6403 16:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• No For the reasons mentioned above. The Banner talk 18:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Does mentioning the name break any Misplaced Pages policies?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• No Wait until more reliable sources publish the name first.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• No per Luke, and the myriad other comments. No need for me to repeat them. Begoon  02:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• No, per BLP and V. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• No; let's err on the side of privacy here. Sumana Harihareswara 08:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME policy for recently deceased victims of gruesome crime - There has been a lot confusion regarding how this policy applies to recently deceased victims of gruesome crime. No user has cared to mention it in detail so I'll mention it here. The minimum time limit for not including the name anywhere on Misplaced Pages is six months. After six months a consensus can decide whether victim's name should be included on Misplaced Pages. The maximum time limit is two years however if a consensus agrees on including the name it can be included. If it does not then the name cannot be included till two years have passed from the date when the crime happened, in this case December 29, 2014. After that the name can be included however there must be reliable sources that back up that name. Also as we already know many news and media outlets say that JSP (these are the initials for the name) is her name. News websites are much more reliable than other sources so saying that we should wait for more reliable sources is incorrect. Many news websites mention the given name as the victim's name. Also later it was said that the father did not grant permission to reveal the name which also might mean that the name JSP might not actually be the victim's name. I still doubt whether WP:BLPNAME applies in case of an unproven name. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If a name is unproven, it shouldn't be within a million miles of the article. How do you not see that? *headdesk* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If a name is unproven then it might mean that it is not the name of the victim. And since it might not be the name I think including it in the article does not violate any Misplaced Pages policies simply because frankly there is no policy for including or not including the unproven name of a victim of a gruesome crime. Still in these cases where there is no policy in actual a wide community consensus is preferred. That's the reason of filing this RfC. TransVannian (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Luke is correct, if the name is 'unproved' as you now claim (I originally thought this RfC was about including a sourced name which wasn't disputed) then it shouldn't be included. It's speculation. Claiming that it is unproven and, therefore, not included in the victim policy is close to wikilawyering to get round a policy. Consider accepting that it's unlikely to be included and concede gracefully and in good faith Cabe6403 09:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what this RfC is for. To decide whether the unproven name should be or not since there is actually no policy for it. If a consensus votes no then fine. Also an RfC is automatically closed after 30 days. Until then I think we should let everyone vote. TransVannian (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is a policy: WP:V. If something cannot be verified to be true, it CANNOT be included. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong policy, Wrong place: I might be an uninvolved user here but I have to say that WP:V only applies to the sourcing of a particular edit. The edit if reliably sourced can be included whether correct or unproven or incorrect. However it should be mentioned in the edit that the information is actually unproven. For example, if it is decided to include the name of the victim in the article you have to say that the name is unproven. You are simply applying the wrong policy in wrong place. Even unproven or wrong info can be included on Misplaced Pages but only if it is mentioned alongside that the info is unproven or incorrect. An easy example of this is the death toll in case of a natural disaster. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

I request all users not to delete the word unproven name and insert victim's name instead to the heading of the RfC section. By doing this you are changing the topic of an RfC filed by another user which is strictly not allowed. TransVannian (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

After your days of edit-warring and disruption, including an administrative block for your behavior, I can no longer take your comments in good faith. Just a day or two ago you were absolutely certain that we had the right name, and insistent that it appear in the article to avoid censorship. Now you suddenly claim the name is "unproven" or "false"--which the BBC source you quote absolutely does not say--so that you can plaster it over the talk page without (you claim) normal Misplaced Pages policies applying.

This RfC is a joke and I suggest it simply be closed and deleted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dang, I didn't even read the rest of the stuff above. After reviewing everything, I agree with Khazar wholeheartedly. Literally just a few hours off of a block for poor conduct related to the issue and even jumping around with how the issue is being phrased. Something fishy is going on here...this RFC does appear to be an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In TV's (sort of) defense, the thread at WP:DR/N did close with an agreement to have an RfC. I just don't think that RfC was meant to be an excuse to add the victim's name one last time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The RfC is completely valid, and TransVannian was told to open it; so you cannot complain about that, and I suggest you retract your comment about it needing to be closed, Khazar. That said, the fact we keep having to redact the victim's name is very concerning, and TransVannian should not have included it, and certainly shouldn't edit war to include the name. It is perfectly possible to have a neutral RfC without including the name - the old headings were biased and actually less likely to gain support than the one I changed it to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Lukeno94. I guess I was wrong about you being disruptive. But please enough is enough. It was me who filed that RfC. You can't change the heading of an RfC just as you can't change the heading of a discussion at DRN whether you think it's biased or not. Any more change to the heading and I'm complaining about all of those who change the heading at ANI.TransVannian (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As I said above, I wouldn't mind having a neutral RfC on this, and if TransVannian had formulated a valid RfC, I wouldn't have objected. But using it as a new platform to give the victim's name without consensus, and then edit-warring over that, makes the disruptive intent obvious. Even the summary of the issue atop the RfC is factually wrong. The BBC did not report that the father never revealed the name, as Trans states, only that the father didn't want it published. The name has been independently reported elsewhere, such as Der Speigel , which spoke directly to the father and gave his name as well. There's no reason to believe this name is "unproven or false"; it's been verified by multiple reliable sources and contradicted by none that I'm aware of.

It seems farcical to me to play this RfC out after so bad a start, and I stand by my earlier comment. But of course I don't mind that we disagree on it, Lukeno, and I appreciate your efforts to reshape this into something more reasonable. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't entirely disagree with you, but the DRN process basically stated that TransVannian would be the one to open this, so, for better or for worse, here we are. Let it play out, because it'll almost certainly result in a "keep the name out vote", rather than canning this, filing another, and lengthening the process further, with further attacks flying around all over the place from various parties. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's a fair point. Striking my request. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading through Khaxar's comments and realizing that BBC never meant the name was false I've red acted some of the words myself. Also I'm taking an RfC for the first time so it is expected that I will make mistakes but why am I being given a hard time because of that? TransVannian (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also The Banner should realize that comments should not be posted in Survey section please post them in this section only. Also the RfC was always about the unproven name and there is nothing in WP:RFC that says when an RfC is invalid. TransVannian (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Filer changed the wording of the question/statement in a significant way. To my opinion, this renders the RfC invalid. The Banner talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransVannian (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Filer should keep his hands off other peoples edits. When I put it in the vote-section, I do that because it is relevant for the vote. Stop your annoying disruptive behaviour! The Banner talk 12:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Filer has been blocked for a week now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Other occurrences on Misplaced Pages

• I hate to muddy the waters more in this RfC, but I wanted to raise the related issue of other places the victim's name occurs--other threads on this talk page, and in the headlines of two news articles quoted in our article. If we come to the consensus here that we are not including the name, do we scrub those occurrences as well? I don't have a good answer to this; not posting the full title of a news article seems inaccurate and censor-like, but posting the Mirror's headline adds the name to our article despite our decision here.

Perhaps a workaround would be to source the same information to news stories that don't give the name in the headline? The references in question are currently #25 and #27. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely not. While I strongly believe that we should follow the direction of, for instance, the New York Times and not publish her name, to then go even farther and decide to not publish the name of any news outlet that did publish it is going way too far. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Well, if it's okay with you, I'd like to err on the side of privacy for now and leave the non-name-in-headline source in the article. If the final consensus is that the name-in-headline source is strongly preferable for any reason, it can always be restored. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that seems like a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this again, the quotation was easily sourced elsewhere, so I've gone ahead and done so for now. If it's decided that the victim's name should be included in the article, we can restore one of the original sources or just leave this one. (I don't think all three of the sources that originally appeared were needed anyway).

That still leaves the talk page mentions above, but those can easily be redacted at the close of this RfC if other editors feel that's appropriate. Another solution might simply be to archive it. Since the information is available via Google search, I don't think we need to scrub it from the edit history; I think we simply shouldn't actively present it, if that distinction makes sense. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Khazar2, there's no need to scrub the name off the talk pages. They're not in article space so not really accessible to the average reader and, besides, the information can be found quickly with google Cabe6403 16:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Heading restored

Hello I am an uninvolved user here. I came through here from talk page of Transvannian. Although I have never used an RfC, I have carefully read through WP:RFC after noticing that he was blocked for disruptive editing here. While he is right on the account that other users cannot change the heading of the RfC whether they view it's incorrect or biased, he is completely wrong on that he has a right to change the heading of the RfC if he wishes to. He cannot. That's why I've restored the original heading. I've noticed that he has not only displayed disruptive behavior here but on his talk page too by calling admin Bbb23 a power abuser. Although I've changed the heading I will not participate in the survey (or vote should I say) since it will make me an involved user. I seriously think this RfC requires an uninvoled user. If you think I am doing something wrong then please do notify me and how can I correct it. Thank you and happy editing or should I say polling :). Cheers! KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• The only reason the heading and RfC question were changed was due to the BLP violation, and the fact TV had specifically been told to not use the name anywhere unless consensus went in his favour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually never talked about the name of the victim. Yes her name can be removed there is no problem with that. But you cannot remove the word unproven. As The Banner has already said by removing the word unproven you are significantly changing the whole reason behind this RfC because by removing it you are saying it is the actual name of the victim. However as you know many sources say that the family did not grant permission which maybe means that it might not be the name of the victim. You can remove the name. But neither you or other users or even the filer or even an administrator cannot remove the word unproven even if it's biased. Removing it is same as disrupting the RfC irrespective of the reason behind it. So please take care of that in future. Besides I'm sure this RfC will go in your favor. Cheers! KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC closed

If the consensus thinks the name should not be included for the time being then I can understand. Therefore, the name should not be included until the time limit of 2 years has expired. My agreeing with the consensus proves that I was never trying to enforce my views as incorrectly said by some editors. I ask them to please apolgise. TransVannian (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake TransVannian. YOU were the problem editor throughout this... you've misrepresented sources, you've made inappropriate comments and accusations, and now you're making up an arbitrary figure of when you intend to reopen this debacle. Stop wasting people's time, and drop the stick. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Calm down TransVannian. I can understand you were only trying to do the "right thing" by having a wide community consensus and it is good you have accepted the outcome regardless. Frankly if you think you have been treated unfairly then you can tell the other editors to apologize. However, I don't think they need to apologize to you because you have been uncivil multiple times with other users. You can insert the name after 2 years if that is the maximum time limit for not including the name of the victim. However there is no proof that the name is real. I can see that you might not have understood the policy clearly. According to the policy it is better not to include questionable material related to a victim of a gruesome crime. Instead it is better to discuss whether the questionable material should be included or not. After two years there is no problem with you or anyone adding the name as "unproven" in the article. However that is a long time away. So I honestly advice you to let this matter go for now and focus on other articles that need editing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• No one is apologizing to you, TV, and it's quite silly of you to demand that. It's also a misuse of this talk page to post about something that has no relevance to improving the article--at this point, you seem to be simply trying to feed your desperate need for drama. There's still lots of articles on Misplaced Pages that need work; let's all get back to work and get on with our lives. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get that time limit of two years from? No = No, without any limitations. The Banner talk 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not the victim who asked that her name be withheld, but her family. So I agree that arbitrary time limits are unhelpful and inappropriate. --AJHingston (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

For those of you don't know maximum time limit for "questonable material" including name according to WP:AVOIDVICTIM is two years. After that it can be added. I'm going to add the name when the limit expires even if you kill me after that. I am not going to let you violate Misplaced Pages policies just because you think it is a so-called "disrespect" to the victim. Seriously who are you fooling? I know you don't give two hoots about her or her respect. You're only doing this because not revealing a victim's name is more acceptable in the society and if you will support including her name you will chastised for it and will be threatned by everyone just like I have. I'll tell you this once I'm not a coward and I don't blindly follow what the majority says is right. I follow only that is actually right. Unlike most people I'm not a dumb drone and I care less what the society thinks about me. If I help someone I just go away from there because I don't want to waste my time listening to their thanks and I don't care what they think about me. I'm going to add the unproven name after time limit expires because there is actually a policy for it. And your consensus doesn't have a say in it irrespective of what you might think. So I advice you to just deal with it. TransVannian (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Either you redact this now, or I'm taking you to ANI under WP:NOTHERE grounds. That post is so unbelievable that I can't understand how you can be so out of touch with reality or human decency. Yuck. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry the policy is actually WP:BDP. According to this policy-

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

There does exist a policy related to questionable material related to a recently dead victim. And two years is the maximum extension for not adding questionable material beyond the date of death. Hope this clears up everything. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)