Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:04, 29 March 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Women & gender High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian women and gender issues workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Law on Marital Rape in India

The law on Marital Rape in India is governed by Sections 375 (Rape), Section 375 read with Section 376 (Punishment for Rape), and Section 375 read with Section 376 and Section 376A (Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation) of the Indian Penal Code. This law was enacted in 1860, and amended several times thereafter from time to time by the Parliament of India and by state legislatures, which have the power to make certain types of state-specific laws and amendments to national laws, which become laws which are applicable only in particular states.

The "Exception" clause in section 375 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code deals with spousal sexual intercourse with or without the consent of the wife, in case the wife is more than 15 years old. It reads as follows, "Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

A fragment of Sub-section (1) of Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) deals with rape by a man of his wife who is between 12 and 15 years of age. This sub-section declares, "Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both".

Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code deals with "Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation". It declares, "Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately from him under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage without her consent shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine."

There is a discrepancy between the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, laws relating to marriage between any religious combination of husband and wife (except marriage between a muslim man and a muslim woman, which is governed by the Muslim Marriage Act, and by judgments of the Supreme Court relating to this subject), and the Sections of the IPC dealing with marital rape. According to all these laws, the minimum age at which a woman can legally be married is 18 years. While the IPC sections dealing with rape, discuss wives as young as 12 years of age. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act also prohibits marriage of girls younger than 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.14.160 (talk • contribs) 10:20, January 6 2013 (UTC)‎

1. Courts, Delhi. "Indian Penal Code Bare Act". District Courts Delhi Website. District Courts Delhi. Retrieved 6 January 2013.

Discussing Consensus about Travel Advisory Writeup and section re-org.

Since this is requested, can someone (actually seems like just any of 2) please explain why the section about travel advisories was removed? Its definitely a related notable reaction by government bodies around the world regarding the issue and incidents. The sources are all clearly RS and the co-relation is all reported, non clearer than the actual government issued travel advisory issued by the UK government,, and even Mahesh Sharma has been doing active damage control, poor guy. Plus there is definitely more than enough content so far to break this up as a separate section (the amount of writeup is beefier than the other sub-sections). If I didn't know better, I would almost think this was an attempt to whitewash the issue. But I'm assuming good faith here and waiting for a reasonable explanations for now before bring this up. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1. https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/india/safety-and-security

Note that at least with the writeup about the drop in tourism, at least it can then be balanced off by the writeup about what The Indian government is doing to protect and warn tourists. Else there is no need for action if no problem is being acknowledged. Also the absense the travel advisories implies that the various governments of the victims are not doing anything to warn or protect their nationals even after past cases, which is not the case here at all.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is trivial and it is not even related to rape in India. First sentence is about the issues, that they take place, second sentence concerns the plans that are yet to happen. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ, it IS about rape in india, the only qualifier here is that its against internationals rather than citizens, which is why it should be separated to its own section, thanks for pointing that out. For something thats "trivial", it lead to governments updating their travel advisories to reflect it (how many countries do you see doing that), and its covered by multiple news agencies around the world. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gov.uk is a primary source. Read WP:WPNOTRS. VictoriaGrayson 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you understand WPNOTRS, you'd know that this is one instance where a primary source is allowed. Its no different from how the Penal code is being sourced in the main article since it is the authority on the matter. You should be removingnthat as well, based on your application of WPNOTRS Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Penal code should also be removed.VictoriaGrayson 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Travel advisories, and most newsworthy developments do not qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. See WP:WWIN, particularly WP:NOTNEWS. There are zillion travel advisories, in different countries, about China, North Korea, Russia, Iraq, Israel, etc - and they are of no encyclopedic value. Penal code is, however, relevant as it is not news, is reliably sourced and legally relevant. See Rape in the United States.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, M Tracy Hunter. I am trying to understand how it meets NOTNEWS. Particularly as it is not a news writeup about travel advisories per se, but about how travel advisories have been updated to specifically reflect the concern of rape and possible rape against the various country's citizens. The Indian tourism authority has also been taking active steps against this backlash, so its definitely notable even on the government level. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Travel advisories are issued by most governments, as news bulletin. Advisories change. Often. On wiki policies, read the whole WP:WWIN. Articles are not travel guides, not advice, not trivia, not many other things. You wouldn't find travel advisory notes in an encyclopedia in any good university library.

Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries. Sweden has one of the most complicated definition of rape, for example. Brazil defines rape differently for different victims. Many Islamic countries do not consider most types of sex as rape; and marital rape is not rape in all Muslim-majority countries because of Sharia. Such legal definitions of rape is notable and of encyclopedic value in respective wiki articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the writeup is about the advisories being changed to reflect the rape of the various country's citizens. If the advisory has been changed to no longer reflect the cautious note, that would itself be a point that can be noted in the article. You mentioned that advisories change. So do laws, yet we have a very detailed history about the changes to rape law in the article. And as to the semantics about the word "rape", it is not up to us to argue and define the meaning of the word, we merely report what and how the sources define as such. And if the sources from the various countries define the acts as rape, it is not up to us to opine that it is not. (That being the case, I'm pretty sure the cases against internationals all involve nonconsensual penetrative act against the victims, though that's beyond the scope of this writeup debate.)Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The changing travel advisories are newsworthy, but not encyclopedia worthy. Legal definition of rape in each country is encyclopedia worthy. See Rape in Sweden, Rape in the United States, Rape in China and other related articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If its just some random change, I'd agree. But if its a concerted change across many countries that led to significant repercussions, to the extent that the Indian government is taking note, the sum total of which has been reported widely, I'd say that goes beyond the regular newsbite or one-off travel advisory update. And though I do agree that definitions/differences of rape are encyclopedia worthy, that goes beyond the scope of this article and is a can of worms you might not want to open. Cos in the lede para, there's this line The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world..... by your logic and for consistency's sake, it would be necessary to add a disclaimer there too to justify its ranking among the lowest, since, in your words: "Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries". Zhanzhao (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You write, "...significant repercussions" and "... Indian government is taking note". Both of these should be, and are already covered by the article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to allege causal connection you imply in the first sentence "to the extent that the". Misplaced Pages is not the place to speculate and insert your pet theory, out of many possible theories, on why Indian or other government has or is "taking note", or on "why the rates per 100,000 women are high or low". This article must just summarize "encyclopedia worthy" reliably sourced verifiable information, in NPOV manner, without original research or copyvio. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor a battleground, nor a propaganda vehicle, nor a place to advocate speculations and POV theory. See WP:SOAP.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"significant repercussions" . "Significant" is frequently used. Feel free to change "repercussions" to drop/negative effect/damage/plunge(fill in random thesaurus substitute - note some of the words preceeding were actually used in some of the news articles). As for the "taking note", The Indian tourism minister initiated quite a number of programs to attempt to tackle the situation . You're not saying he's doing this "just for fun", not after "taking note" of the drop in tourism?. And here's a different minister talking about this . PS: You're the one wanting to open the can of worms that is "the difference in definition of rape around the world", I'm just pointing out another part of the article which would be affected by your rationale/take on that matter.... which happens to the the "rates per 100,000" part. Do think of the implications of your arguements and not just make them for the sake of it Zhanzhao (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

So I took a closer look at some of the recent history for this article. It seems someone moved the paragraphs in the lead. I've moved the evaluation of the number of reported rapes back to the second paragraph, as it is not as important as the first paragraph. I also think this will satisfy some of the concerns about the lead's appropriateness. I also rearranged the second paragraph to move the "parliamentarians dispute this ....underreporting of rapes" (not verbatim) sentence closer to the top, as it is in response to the first sentence.

However, I also feel that the paragraph in question already mentions enough that it is referring specifically to 'reported' rapes. We also cannot comment on how severe the under-reporting is, that is mostly speculation, and also, estimates of the underreportedness in the US are irrelevant to India's situation. --Padenton (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, now that you mentioned it, it makes more sense. The previous leading sentence sounds like it was written by an apologetic and better suited for an article on Reported Rape in India rather than Rape in India per se. And to pre-empt since a comparison was made to the Rape in the United States article, that also starts with a line on "reported rape", but then again that article's lede did not have a "bigger picture" line on rape in general, in its lead either. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on underreporting is entirely appropriate - it is highly misleading to simply quote rape statistics without taking into account differences in reporting due to different expectations of legal action and differences in remedies available. There is no controversy that living in country with large portions of the population in rural areas with a tradition of legal arbitrarion by local panchayats, societal expectations of blame and excommunication of the rape victim and lack of criminalization of marital rape will have substantial underreporting of rape and cannot be compared directly to a country where none of those conditions hold. 49.244.254.146 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I keep getting reverted for the edits I make regarding this. The IP above was me as well, but I didn't realise I needed to sign in with my name until now. Please can we discuss this. If you look at survey figures, which are much more reliable for example the National Family Health Survey conducted by the government of India, the incidence of sexual violence is 6.5% among women aged 15-49 years old, way higher than the 1.2 rapes per 100,000 women you get from crime reports. It is very likely the low incidence of reported crimes reflect widespread societal fear on the part of women and lack of legal literacy rather than any kind of real safety. Having three sentences in the main paragraph stating exactly the same figures that India has the lowest reported rape rate in the world is misleading, because it makes readers think that rape is not a societal problem in India, because it is so low. Instead of fixating on numbers, this article should be discussing rape proper rather than numbers of reported rapes, since it is just as misleading to state arbitrary numbers gathered from a highly imperfect legal system and compare with highly imperfect monitoring systems from other countries using vastly different definitions and operating in vastly different ways. Whenever organizations conduct international, standardized, rigorous surveys such as the WHO multi-country report, India comes out in the middle rather than at the lowest end of the scale. Bargolus (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jabalpur

Jabalpur has the what? Peter Jedicke (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Says here that it has the highest rate, so I put that ― Padenton |☎  22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Unproven/non-notable allegations

Such as these allegations have to be rectified from the article. Also considering the WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot list a unproven allegation as rape. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the crime is being reported as a rape, not alleged rape, by most news agencies. The allegation/ambiguity relates to dentifying the perpetrators since its still under investigations (even though arrests have been made) and the motives. So ias long as the writeup reflects this it should be okay. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Every news agency has its own policies, how they report and how they analyze the issue. Misplaced Pages's policies differs a bit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, it definitely meets WP:CRIME. You're saying that there's a danger of WP:BLPCRIME, which I do not disagree with. These 2 are not mutually exclusive though. That a crime took place doesn't seem to be a question here. And that's where the writing part must be handled carefully to not identify the alleged perpetrator while investigations are still ongoing.Zhanzhao (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with OccultZone. In addition to WP:BLPCRIME, I feel we need to cleanup the individual instances of rape in this article. This is the Rape in India article, and while tragic, individual incidents that do not have an impact or relevance in India as a whole don't really belong here. News organizations will cover individual incidents. But what makes the few stories of rape (whether alleged or having already resulted in a conviction) that are already listed in the article important compared to the tens of thousands that occur every year in India? If we allow them, on what basis do we deny the addition of other incidents? ― Padenton |☎  21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The information being removed is being removed for what can only be NPOV reasons. This article is about Rape in India but you want to remove well referenced pieces about Rape in India??? TCKTKtool (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute they are well-enough referenced. But they are non-notable to Rape in India as a whole. Are you suggesting we include in the article a section on each rape committed in India? What importance do these individual stories have that is not shared with every instance of rape? The section says "Notable Incidents". ― Padenton |☎  22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If those other cases you speak of make major news around the world, then yes they should be included. You do know what notable means right? These are well referenced because they were such big stores of major notability. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from the previous debate between WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME, but other than significant news coverage from not just international and local press for this one individual case, it led to a protest march, a condemnnation by the local catholic diocese, a visit by the Vatican city itself (all of which received quite a bit if coverage as well), and also quite a bit of news coverage about the aftermath and investigation itself. Its not up to us to determine or weigh its significance over the other tragic rapes that are also occuring but unreported, but the facts are facts that this particular case is standing out. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, don't restore it again. WP:WIKILAWYERING is meaningless at this point. These are unproven allegations and not notable anymore. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, I do not see any concensus for your removal, and may I point out, you're the one who started wikilawyering with WP:BLPCRIME. I see you have removed more stuff than what I added (note I only mainly reorganized content that was previously written and buffed it with more references, yet you're even removing pre-existing content not written by me wholesale. If you feel my edit is not in order, I would welcome this to be moved to a more authoratative Wikitalk space where other non-involved editors can weigh-in. This has bounced around between us longer than it should. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is "unproven allegations"? And who are you to tell others to not revert/edit? TCKTKtool (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For what reasons you are keeping the "rape of foreigners", there is no official alert on visitors, to "use caution" is not extreme the way you are representing it.

For what reasons you are keeping these non-notable and unproven allegations? Even alleging a politician of rape when he has not been convicted yet?

WP:WIKILAWYERING means, misrepresenting the policies/guidelines of en.wiki. If you cannot understand the meaning of the word, refrain from using it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is up for discussion at the dispute resolution notice board. To avoid whats beginning to feel like WP:OWN on all our parts, I suggest leaving this to editors/admins who have not been previously involved with this article, and accept an unbiased judgement call from them. What say you? Zhanzhao (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton, OccultZone, and Zhanzhao: As I entered this fray by unblocking several individuals, I thought I'd make some comments.

1. Thank you Zhanzhao for taking this to DRN. That was one very smart move.
2. OccultZone, Zhanzhao did not do Wikilawyering. It did not approach that level.
3. Personally, I would keep the first paragraph in. ("Rape cases against internationals have lead to a number of countries to issue travel advisories...") It is referenced and very much points out the problems of rape other country may see in India. I would also list some of the countries.
4. There could be listed hundreds of rapes of international people in India. I have to agree with Padention's statement, This is the Rape in India article, and while tragic, individual incidents that do not have an impact or relevance in India as a whole don't really belong here. However....

1. The Russion national case did cause the Russian consulate to issue a warning about not staying out late. This could be used as an example for the first paragraph.
2. The "Swiss couple" sentence was about tourists. This also could tie into the first paragraph.
3. If the above two cases (or similar ones) are two be used, I don't think separate paragraphs are needed. Use them in the first paragraph.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good alternative. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite @Zhanzhao I just think that those rape cases which are in court or sub judice should not be mentioned here, only those cases in which honorable court has convicted or sentenced accused should be mentioned but those should be a very very notable cases because we can't add each and every case here just because its article of rape. Nearly all rape cases mentioned in this article are sub judice except few like in Nirbhaya case accused is convicted and sentenced. Even greatest lawyers and public personalities don't comment anything on matter which is sub judice, how we can write it publicly on wikipedia? Everyone has access to wikipedia easily, does things written here about that case should taken as proof in court? --Human3015 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I just looked and the cases I looked up all have final court actions, but it has not been updated in the Misplaced Pages page. So if the only reason some want for removal is the conclusion then instead of deleting just find a updated reference and update it properly. But aside from that Misplaced Pages is not a court. If things were only posted when the person was found guilty then OJ Simpsons page would be very much smaller. I don't see any major issue with the current Rape of foreigners section other than it needs to be updated. A simple Google search showed the conclusions of these cases with verifiable and good reference quite easy. Resaltador (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you compared the amount of notability with each other? These cases(one of many) are not as notable compared to what happened with OJ Simpsons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I did, that is why I was surprised such a small part had so many trying to remove it. The rapes as a total had such a weight in India that tourism dropped by a considerable and measurable amount. The OJ case was mostly isolated to the US and had little to no measurable effect on tourism or business. So comparing the 2; the rapes in India, esp against tourist, is much larger and has more world wide notability. Resaltador (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resaltador @OccultZone, see despite few incidences of rapes on foreigners, tourism is not declined in India but its increased according to figures of 2014. http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/foreign-tourist-arrivals-to-india-rises-7-1-to-74-62-lakh-in-2014-115010701024_1.html . These are figures of entire year. So rapes are not affecting tourism in India. can we add a subsection in "rapes of foreigner" named Effect on Tourism? we can add these figures from different sources and government publications in 2-3 lines. --Human3015 18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the rebuttal. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually tourism has only slightly increased recently and that was after India had to take sharp measures after the international stories of rape. India went from only allowing 12 nations access to the visa on arrival program to 43. Even with such measures tourism has only increased in the single digits. http://qz.com/329397/no-tourists-arent-exactly-thronging-to-india-since-modi-launched-visa-on-arrival/ So tourism is still weak in India even after their current measures and increasing spending on advertising outside of India to lure tourist. It shows that these measures and extra spending are still being hampered by the stories of Rape, esp against tourist. Resaltador (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resaltador : your given website also accepts that tourism in India is increased. anyways, you said tourism increased by 'single' digit in India, anyway its increased single digit in all the over world, http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2014-09-15/international-tourism-5-first-half-year tourism in USA, UK, Canada, Australia also increased in single digits. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-logs-10-rise-in-foreign-tourist-arrivals/articleshow/45529904.cms This Times of India news talks about issue of women safety in India and yet inform us that tourism in India increased by 10% between may-oct2014. It is obvious that tourism is not dropped in India. Whatever maybe the effect of rapes on tourism we must write it in article by creating sub section Effect on Tourism. --Human3015 18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First draft

@Padenton, OccultZone, Zhanzhao, Human3015, and Resaltador: I've written up a first draft and it is in the article. I've put the material in a stand-alone section called, "Tourist advisories". I've tried to limit it to "tourist only" information. I've tried to account for many of the concerns that have been expressed. Please suggest any changes. Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:: nicely written draft, Can we add further info that foreign tourist arrival is increased in India? According to "Ministry of Tourism" of India, India logs 10% rise in foreign tourist arrival between May to Oct 2014 . As per NPOV policy, we neither can be pro-India nor anti-India. we are neither discouraging nor encouraging tourism in India, but i think we should write both sides. There are few other reports which talks about increase in foreign tourists in India. --Human3015 21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I previously removed that tourism visits were dropping as that wasn't supported by the refs. I think the refs are saying that tourism in India isn't at the levels of its neighbors to the east and rapes are one of the many reasons why. Tourism is increasing, but that is probably more of an economic reason. I've changed the article to say that rapes are only one of the many reasons that have tourism officials worried. As the article currently stands, I don't see it having a pro or con sentiment. It doesn't say tourism is decreasing or increasing.

Article you gave states tourism was down 35% in 2013, but now it is up 10% over 2013 levels. That is still less tourists than before, thus tourism is still being affected by rapes and other reasons.

If added, it would be along the lines, "Tourism suffered a 35% drop in 2013, with the rape crisis being the main reason given for the drop. Tourism has since rebounded in 2014 with a 10% increase over 2013 levels, but still has recovered to the pre-rape crisis levels." Bgwhite (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerns are mostly over the case of 2009, it involves a living person. We can probably find any other case and think of a broader section regarding the tourist advisories. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Once we hear from Padenton regarding these new edits and listing the allegations. We have also got another option, we can go for a RfC regarding the listing of incidents. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the examples I gave are after 2011. They are public court cases found in public newspapers. Article doesn't state names or guilt/innocence of people involved. Cases given also tie into tourist advisories. Danish case, people were found guilty. Russian case concerns more what an MP said. This has nothing to do with BLPCRIME. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:: I'm agree with your last sentence, if other readers and you are agree with it then you can add it to article. I want to suggest one change in that sentence.

instead of using word "rape crisis" we can use word "Nirbhaya case" or "2012 delhi gang rape case", my given article don't blame "rape crisis" for 2013 drop in tourism but it blames only "2012 delhi gang rape case". Even Indian Finance Minister says that, Nirbhaya case hits tourism.

It maybe perception that India has "rape crisis" but this article itself tells that there are only 24,000 reported cases of rape in India yearly, while USA(1/4th population of India) reports nearly 85,000. USA also has 80% unreported cases according to estimates of National research council of USA. We should not use word rape crisis because its not the reason behind drop of tourism in 2013-14 but its the Delhi case which made that drop.

I suppose to not mention about USA here but still i mentioned just to clearify about rape crisis, I can give links about that but that is not issue here, we are talking about India. --Human3015 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 How about, "after a few high profile rape cases" instead of "rape crisis".?? Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: : yes, I agree on using word "after few high profile rape cases". Now we have to see concern of other people. Thank you. --Human3015 23:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you guys waiting. These revisions look great to me, thanks for helping us with this Bgwhite ― Padenton |☎  02:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded, its great to have new eyes and keyboards on this. Though for Russian examples, if we want to get around the "alleged rape" issue, there was another notable case that resulted in a successful and fast conviction, and was reportedly part of the escalation of Russia's reactionary stance and advisory changes (its covered in the 1st link). Just thought this might help if "not yet convicted so its just an allegation" is still an issue. Would also like to point out that for quite a number of the cases, they have been dragging on in the courts for years I.e. The Scarlett Keeling case was committed way back in 2008 and they are still holding trial over it. That's why one of aftermaths of the 2012 Delhi Rape was a promise to create fast track courts to deal with cases of sexual offences against women. Just some FYI for context sake. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, a couple of issues. The Russian example is more about the politician's reaction and not the rape case. The link about the 9-year old Russian girl still mentions the Russian rape case in the article and another rape case. The second link contains info on alot of rape cases. Links won't help get around "alleged rape" issue.

Occult's issue with "living" people and "alleged rape" is unfounded. The 2009 case involved a politician and was well publicized. BLPLIVING says, "For relatively unknown people" and this is not a case of relatively unknown. We are also not mentioning any names. I think Occult is the only one with this issue and it appears consensus has gone against him.

Your second link listing various rapes of foreigners would make a good addition to the article. However, that would be another fight I'm not willing to take up. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No probs, Bgwhite, just trying to help cos it seems that everything's on your shoulders now. The 2 links I found was just from a rough search on the net. Not gonna be very active at the present (real life beckons) but I'm just glad to see more people being involved and actually debates instead of just "wham-bam-revert-you-mam cowboyism" (Something that admittedly/unfortunately even I am guilty of in a moment of hotheadedness :P) Zhanzhao (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite there was issue with the previous version that you have totally changed now and removed the names of the individuals. BLPCRIME is no more a issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection of page from unregistered users

here i want to raise a issue that some notorious unregistered users making a issue out of non-issue,(specially 72.196.235.154). Issue of rape is very much sensitive and here anyone is adding anything without discussing it here on talk(maybe because of some vested interests). They are making changes and then asking to discuss here. Unregistered users are probably new so they don't know much about policies of Misplaced Pages. So I demand that only registered users should be allowed to edit this page(that too after discussing on talk). No one owns the page. Page should have NPOV. This is my perspective and it can be wrong. @Bgwhite:. --Human3015 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There's WP:RPP if you want to make a request, but I don't see how it'll be useful. The IP will just use their newly created account to do it. (or their main account) Also, it seems to me that whatever their faults, 72.196.235.154 is aware of the policies of Misplaced Pages, even if they go against them. I'm skeptical of a new IP knowing how to place warning templates. I really do hope we don't have to start discussing every single change in here first though... ― Padenton|✉   03:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually made a request directly on BGwhite'w page, the admin who previously protected the page. Although its for selfish reasons since I don't want people thinking that its me socking again. I'm talking a wikibreak from editing but still frequent here for informational purpose so I saw this. But if Bgwhite does not, (since the situation is currently not that crazy yet), monitor it for a few more edits and ask him again. Didn't realise this page was such a hotbed for edit wars. Just don't get too embroiled into it to avoid what happened last time. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We might be sure that who is 72.196.235.154, and I know that 49.244.254.146 comes from a heavily abused extension. Check User talk:Ponyo#49.244.239.31. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Restored Human's version, it is pretty undue to discuss about the ethics of underreporting on a specific country related rape article when you have got a stand alone Under-reporting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks. This is sure not fun. Today was the local Holi Festival and they were expecting 75,000. Didn't go this year, but last year was fun. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of High-importance
• Start-Class Indian women and gender issues articles
• Top-importance Indian women and gender issues articles
• Start-Class Indian women and gender issues articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian women and gender issues articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles