Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder

Naming the juvenile convict
I noticed that content about the erstwhile juvenile's possible names and accompanying citations had been removed. While the rationale for removal isn't mentioned in the edit summaries, the probable reason is that it is illegal in India to publish the name of a juvenile accused or convict. I have reverted those edits in keeping with the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. The convict is no longer a juvenile and wasn't one when the trial happened. However, I would like to invite discussion on this topic if anyone disagrees with this rationale. pinging -- Rohini (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that protracted discussion on this topic has already taken place. I had opposed the inclusion of the juvenile's name and/ or aliases at that point in time because the trial (of the adult convicts, not the juvenile) was still underway. Also, there weren't enough WP:RS references about his name on board, which doesn't seem to be the case now. -- Rohini (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The juveniles identity has been changed and including his changed name doesn’t help with the facts. Thebetaman (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just remove his name from the article Thebetaman (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed the name. I dont see any benefit in mentioning the unconfirmed name, Reliable sources just name him the juvenile accused and that is what wiki should be using. Besides naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME and Indian laws that prohibit the naming. Any young man with that unconfirmed name can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. So there are strong reasons for not adding this name. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The name of the juvenile convict is very well confirmed by media sources. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, so that's what we look at for guidance. In any case, the person is no longer juvenile, and has taken a new name, hiding from his past in a distant location, so revealing his birth name doesn't pose any further problem to him.
 * I am emphatically against whitewashing this article to make it friendly to rapists and murderers. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would like to actually see what "well confirmed media sources" you are referring to. Please provide the links. (2) The BLP issues still hold valid. FYI, a juvenile rape accused's name is not publicized even after he becomes a major. There is no whitewashing here, there are issues that need to be addressed and I would appreciate if you keep your comments focussed on the topic of the thread, instead of getting into WP:RGW  D Big X ray ᗙ  22:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The first naming of Afroz, the juvenile convict, came on 21 December 2012, in a video news item published by India Today.
 * Afroz was named again in Lenta, a Russian-language online newspaper, the article published six years ago in January 2013. A machine translation of the article says "The sixth man on the bus and arrested in the rape case is Mohammad Afroz. According to his certificate of education, he is now 17 years old and 8 months old. Accordingly, his case will be examined separately in a special court for minors. According to police, Afroz was one of the most violent accomplices in the crime: he is suspected of having personally raped the girl twice, tore her intestines and offered to throw her out of the bus. However, he is the only one to whom the death penalty cannot be applied - because of his age. Moreover, according to the International Business Times, under current Indian law, the maximum sentence for a minor is three years in prison."
 * Raveena Tandon also talked about Afroz while she was working on the film Maatr in March 2017. She said, "...But how can rapists be dissuaded when the most brutal of the Nirbhaya rapists Mohammad Afroz was declared a juvenile, treated with kid’s gloves in jail..."
 * Afroz was also named in May 2017 in a piece in the India Times, talking about how he was now working as a cook under a different name. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are expected to provide WP:Reliable sources (And very solid ones since this is a BLP). India today is one. Raina Tandon is not and neither is India.com. you have to understand that when the topic is current, several media houses publish unconfirmed reports and later correct it when they are found wrong. FYI India today updated all their articles to remove this unconfirmed news and none of their recent articles on the case name the suspect. Please produce links if you disagree.  D Big X ray ᗙ  23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying that it is not clear/confirmed if his name is Afroz. No official confirmation, no legal docs, no reliable sources. You are failing to realize this obvious lack of a BLP requirement on solid sourcing. There are political parties and their cyber cells in India that work to malign muslims, taking advantage of these incidents for political gains. see 2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape  D Big X ray ᗙ  23:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * here is the recent article from India today. Where is the name? And notice the outrageous claims on most violent. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You yourself said that India Today is a reputable source, which means I have answered your request. It doesn't matter that India Today no longer names the juvenile: they did so in December 2012. Their reasons are unstated for not using the name in later issues; my best guess would be they wanted to comply with Indian law about juvenile crime suspects, not because the name shown in December 2012 was false information. You complained about the reliability of India.com but without reason or argumentative leverage. It's clear that Penske Media Corporation owns India.com and runs the news site. It's not self-published or otherwise unreliable – it's mainstream. And the article's author, Shubhang Chauhan, is a professional journalist working for India.com. So that's two good Indian sources for the name of the juvenile, plus the Russian language news item.
 * Your admission above that "There are political parties and their cyber cells in India that work to malign muslims, taking advantage of these incidents for political gains" shows that you have a non-neutral position on the topic. I have no political position in India, so I'm neutral on the topic. I haven't seen anything in this 2012 gang rape article that mentions Muslims, so your concern appears to come from thin air. If you know something about the rapists being Muslim, that would be news to me. In any case, you have shown yourself to be involved politically. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , It only shows that you have a questionable understanding of a controversial topic. I would suggest you stop making baseless bad faith accusations against me and keep your comments focussed strictly on the topic of this thread. If you continue making off topic comments and observations on me then I will be forced to seek admin intervention. You have already been sufficiently warned on your talk page against continuing this despicable behaviour along with the relevant DS alerts.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am from Oakland, California, a city with a converted Black Muslim population where the name Mohammed does not necessarily equate with the Muslim religion or even religious views at all. I know a guy who was named Mohammed by his converted parents but grew up atheist. So I'm assuming nothing about the juvenile rapist, Mohammed Afroz.
 * Speaking of assuming, Wikipedia's assume good faith behavioral guideline applies to the first encounter with another editor. After the first encounter, the assumption of good faith is gradually replaced by evidence supplied by the person's words and actions. You and I both started with assumptions of good faith, but now we are looking at each other with more experience. So when I call out your non-neutral involvement, a concern about retaliation to Muslims that appears nowhere in the article, I am not violating the AGF guideline. And I based my accusation on your own words, so my accusation cannot be "baseless." Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , This article is not about you but on Indian subjects where the name Mohammad FOO  "always" refers to Muslim male. I dont really give a shit what you think of me. As long as you keep your thoughts out of the article talk pages. If you think you have solid evidence you should move and post at ANI. You cannot accuse me of nonsense or attack on my personality on this talk page or any talk page. You can only discuss me on an ANI or similar noticeboard. "Comment on the content not the contributor". I hope I have made this clear by now.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape/Archive_3 Dated December 2015 has the consensus among several editors for not naming the juvenile accused. In the thread, Lakhbir stated
 * This thread from 2016, is between 3 editors who end up agreeing on a middle ground with attributed name.
 * WP:BLPNAME Policy is very clear on this.
 * This is the single event where this individual is being discussed.
 * This is the single event where this individual is being discussed.
 * This is the single event where this individual is being discussed.
 * This is the single event where this individual is being discussed.


 * The individual has not been named in any public documents official case records, court documents, news articles. We have only 1 India today article based on initial reports and India today since then has not named the subject in any of its article. An Article from same publication IndiaToday from 2017 about this juvenile does not mention the subject's name.
 * The name has been intentionally concealed this being a court case involving juvenile.
 * Using "juvenile suspect" like the reliable sources instead of the claimed name does not result in any loss of context.
 * Using "juvenile suspect" like the reliable sources instead of the claimed name does not result in any loss of context.


 * There are no secondary sources or scholarly journals or work of recognized experts that name the subject.
 * There are no secondary sources or scholarly journals or work of recognized experts that name the subject.


 * based on above, clearly it is inappropriate to use an unconfirmed name in the Wikipedia article. We dont know if this is the real name or a name some one made up to victimize the person with this name.
 * Reliable sources just name him the juvenile accused and that is what wiki should be using. Besides naming him will be violation of Wikipedia's policies WP:BLPNAME that prohibit the naming.
 * There other real life based security concerns as well in using this unconfirmed name. As seen in the Altnews article above, there have been open public calls to harm the subject. Any young man with that unconfirmed name is a target who can be lynched by mobs in India and that is a very big and possible risk. Especially since there are [https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/preventing-mob-lynching/article30577621.ece frequent cases of mob lynching happening in India.
 * So considering all these reasons, IMHO there are strong reasons for not adding this name. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's all in the past, discussions based on old information. Today, the once-juvenile rapist is now an adult living elsewhere under an assumed name. His birth name was widely publicized on social media by angry people, and he chose to abandon it for his safety. He's not using the name, so if we tell it to the reader, he's not endangered any additional amount. WP:BLPNAME has an exception for names that have been widely disseiminated, which I have shown is the case here. WP:BLPCRIME protects only the accused, not the convicted. Afroz was convicted. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Past discussion and consensus does not get lost into oblivion. I am pointing that you are editing against past consensus here. Just because blogs and social media users are posting something does not mean Wikipedia should follow the same, this is an extremely poor excuse. Yes, there is always a risk of someone connecting him with his old identity via someone he knew in past. Moreover I am saying that any young man in that age group with this name will be a target of mob lynching. And Wikipedia is adding to this risk, by explicitly naming the subject on the basis of one link with questionable reliability since it was published when the news was breaking.
 * Again you are falsely claiming it "widely dessiminated" when you yourself could not manage more than 1 link about the name. So your last part is baseless. Right now it is disputed what his real name is. So you cant claim as such. You have still ignored several points I made above.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Widely disseminated" because of the India Today piece in December 2012, the Lenta piece in 2013, the India.com piece in May 2017, and the well-known case of social media trying to out Afroz with an apparently incorrect photo, reported by the fact-checking website altnews.in last month. So the name is well known. Nobody disputes what his real name is. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , India.com is not a reliable source. Again you are misrepresenting Altnews. Altnews nowehere claimed that this is the name of the juvenile. I am disputing your claim that this is his real name.  D Big X ray ᗙ  16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see where India.com is judged not reliable, so I don't accept your conclusion. And Altnews.in linked to the India Today piece inside the sentence "While the juvenile’s name was not released, it was reported by the media." So Altnews.in acknowledges that the name has been published. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming here from BLPN, I agree with the exclusion of the name per WP:BLPNAME if it's only been published in 2 or 3 sources. Sources which mention it has been published elsewhere obviously don't count for much. I have not see any reason articulated why we should include the name when it's clear it's not widely published. Disgust for rapists while understandable, is obviously not a reason. P.S. Let's remember that this case had an extreme amount of media attention, both from Indian media and world media. The fact that people are only able to dig out 2 sources, and one of them is Russian speaks volumes for how poorly published this is. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming here from BLPN, I agree with the exclusion of the name per WP:BLPNAME if it's only been published in 2 or 3 sources. Sources which mention it has been published elsewhere obviously don't count for much. I have not see any reason articulated why we should include the name when it's clear it's not widely published. Disgust for rapists while understandable, is obviously not a reason. P.S. Let's remember that this case had an extreme amount of media attention, both from Indian media and world media. The fact that people are only able to dig out 2 sources, and one of them is Russian speaks volumes for how poorly published this is. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

{{od} I assume the name removal is per this discussion consensus. Legally a juvenile convict is given privacy and Wikipedia follows the same. Vikram Vincent 06:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry folks I didn't go through this discussion before reverting the IP. Anyway name of other convicts and victim are indeed mentioned in the article, What about them ???Holy Contributor 92 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Link to the discussion on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
There was an overwhelming consensus to remove the "alleged" name of the juvenile defendant from the article. Editors must not add it back. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive296

Requested move 27 April 2020

 * 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: moved (non-admin closure) --Killarnee ( T•1•2 ) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape → 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder – It was a case of gang rape and murder, not just a gang rape. Hemant DabralTalk  13:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be the common name as far as I can tell from Web searching. buidhe 12:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * move to 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case as other similar articles. ~SS49~   {talk}  13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — death was a direct consequence of the crime. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


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

Undiscussed moves
Justanother2 please stop moving this article without discussion. You need to establish consensus first when making a move, especially when someone else contests your claim. There's already been multiple discussions about moving this article on this talk page here (see above). Soni (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)