Talk:Kathua rape case

Related to removal of page curation templates
I think you put the page curation templates on this page going by the history. The page curation templates are for links and for it being an orphan. The article is no longer an orphan and has links. I think this particular page curation template should be removed now. What do you say? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Can the page curation templates be removed now? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, these templates can be removed now. Article is no more orphan and underlinked. samee  converse  19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Need a little help
When I type 'Kathua rape case wikipedia' in Google search, the original page appears "Kathua Rape Case" (with a capital R and C) and the text in this does not depict recent changes made to the page. There is even a small typo in the Google search result. Why aren't the new changes being shown in the Google search results? Any idea how this can be sorted out? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is little we can do in this regard. It'll be updated sooner or later, nothing to worry about. samee  converse  15:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to logically understand why this was happening. So checked in the new pages feed with the filter set for the original page creator of 'Kathua Rape Case' User:Sachi bbsr. So "Kathua Rape Case" (with capital R and C) has been reviewed but the page move to "Kathua rape case" (with small r and c) has not been reviewed as yet. So it just needs to be reviewed. So yes, just wait until someone reviews the page move.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On typing "Kathua rape case wiki" in google search the original page name appears "Kathua Rape Case" (with capital R and C). And the text below has errors from the original wikipedia page. I just want to understand whats happening and I am asking this doubt again because the error still exists and I just wanted to understand if the Google search result will update itself or something needs to be done. I thought that because the page wasn't reviewed that why the error was there but I see that hasn't helped since someone has reviewed it. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The most probable explanation is that the content google takes from Wikipedia is not updated instantly, but is cached somewhere; there is nothing we can do about this. Vanamonde (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you added some tweets, could you add more tweets by poeple like Sania Mirza and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed - please clarify
Hi ... Why did you delete my edits just now. ( 11:53, 13 April 2018‎ Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,609 bytes) (-2,013)‎ . . (ce, clarify) ) You yourself had written that citations were needed so I tried looking for relevant citations - for Mehbooba Mufti, for the Bar Association protest and I changed students protesting to protests in JK with citations. I initially added the primary source for tweets which you removed, so i added secondary sources. What was wrong with the secondary sources? You did do a wonderful job reorganising this article but I didn't get why these few particular edit were deleted by you. Just so that in the future when I edit on Wiki i can make sure i don't make so many mistakes if i am making some here....please do clarify. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That removal happened because of an edit conflict; it was not intentional. I have reinstated some of the additions you made. However, which celebrities tweeted about the event is not really encyclopedic information; see WP:CRUFT, which might help you understand why. We should try to focus on more substantive reactions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for the clarification. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no more a free pagw Chak nandpur (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has recently (or rather for its entire history) been the subject of attempts at vandalism and original research. Note that you can edit the article directly if you pass Wikipedia's barrier to entry. You can also request more established editors to add information, if they so chose.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Related to placing photographs/media into the article
I just wanted to share some images related to this article. All these pictures have been taken at a protest in New Delhi on Parliament Street on Sunday 15 April 2018 - 5PM to 9PM IST approx. I will put one multiple image set of two photographs related to the crowd at the protest, and the second of the lawyer fighting this case Deepika Singh Rajawat. This event became more notable because of the presence of the lawyer, a day before she will go to court.

Please do let me know if you are removing the images why you are removing them... does three images seem to much... is the lawyers image not relevant enough etc. Now i understand that we can have everyone placing images, but at this stage there are no images from india for this article. If better images come later on then that is another thing all together which images to keep or remove. These are two sources related to the event, more can be found online - NDTV - India Unites In Protests Against Kathua, Unnao Rapes, Not In My Name protests launched after Kathua, Unnao cases; hundreds march over atrocities against minorities DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi DiplomatTesterMan, I have removed the picture of the lawyer. A tragedy should not be a tool for lawyers to get themselves being noticed. The article is not about the lawyer but about the tragedy. There might be more lawyers involved. Are we going to put up the pictures of every lawyer that gets involved in this page? Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi you are an admin. Please can you advice on the policy about this? Please revert my changes if you disagree with my reasoning. My point is that this lawyer is a non-notable and should not use a tragedy as self promotion(although I am not saying that she is doing it). I think instead of putting up the lawyer's picture, there should be pictures pf protests etc (which are already there). The focus should be on the tragedy not on the lawyer and what she looks like.Acharya63 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you need to be a little more careful with your language. I see no evidence that the editor who added the picture to the article is in any way connected to the lawyer. It is therefore definitely not self-promotion. Of course, it may still be promotional if it's being added by an independent individual, but that is a question for us to decide here on the talk page. My personal opinion is that given the absence of many photographs of relevant material, this one does not hurt. Vanamonde (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for letting me know here on the talk page about your reasons for removing the picture. As I have understood you have given three reasons broadly - 1. Related to promoting the individual concerned. 2. 'The article is not about the lawyer but about the tragedy.' 3. 'Are we going to put up the pictures of every lawyer that gets involved in this page?' So let me address these -


 * 1. Let me try giving an example of another type of promotion in this article first (at least what I think is promotion). One user is constantly trying to ensure the words 'Panthers Party' stays on the page, and aptly in the lead. Just the fact that the user has repeatedly put many citations gives it little weightage to the name being mentioned in the lead and it being a justification the name should stay in the lead WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Currently 'Panthers Party' is not only mentioned in the lead, but also in the aftermath as well as the trial section.


 * But in this case, your attention was directed to a photograph of the lawyer, which you removed, which i would say is more a part of the case than Panthers Party. This just shows the effect an image can have. Now do I think that the image of the lawyer in the article promotes the lawyer in question, yes, of course; but what sort of promotion are we talking about? If the lawyer in question is one of the two lead lawyers in the case (the other being of the defense lawyer of whom there is no usable pic), irrespective of who the lawyer is, then they are relevant to the tragedy, and they form a part of this case.


 * Your reasoning also that this shouldn't be a tool for lawyers to get themselves noticed - by that logic say even the protest march held by INC leaders mentioned in the protest section should be removed too - this shouldn't be a tool for politicians to get themselves noticed. And by noticed, we do mean publicity here. And negative publicity, as in the case of say mention of the two BJP leaders who resigned, or the names of the accused in the infobox, that is also publicity, just negative publicity. All I am trying to say is that merely stating this is "promotional" in this case I feel isn't a good enough reason for removal of the image, though yes, one which can be debated as we are doing here. (My point draws from the Wikipedia page - "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" - in this case - Promotional content as an excuse to delete.)


 * 2. Yes, this article is not about the lawyer but the tragedy. But, the lawyer is a part of this tragedy. I think that lawyers from both sides are important. If we had pictures of the lead lawyers from both sides I would have put them in a multiple image template.


 * Note how even the rape victim isn't notable enough for her own Wikipedia page or the accused. Currently it is being discussed whether Deepika Singh Rajawat's wiki page should stay or not (it has already become a redirect page). So none of these people are notable in themselves when it comes to having a Wikipedia page, but them coming together because of this case makes them notable enough for this once incident, and notable enough for mention on this page.


 * 3. As I already mentioned, "Now i understand that we can(t) have everyone placing images, but at this stage there are no images from india for this article. If better images come later on then that is another thing all together which images to keep or remove." So in this case I had meant for protests. If people from Mumbai and Hyderabad and Kashmir etc had all uploaded pics of protests into this article, then either we would have had to create a seperate gallery section (which would have been great in a way), or had to remove some pics, but I am sure editors would have found space for many more pictures. This is the same case as the lawyers, but the main difference is that we do not have many lawyers in this case, there are two main lawyers, one fighting the case and one defending it. So your question reduces itself to just two lawyers. And further, I think there is space for two. The problem i guess arises with the fact that we don't have a picture of the other lawyer defending the accused. So that seemingly adds bias. WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:ACHIEVE NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION.


 * In short: I do not agree with your reasons for removing the picture. (If it should stay removed, then the main reason is that we do not have a picture of the other lawyer as yet, coupled with other reasons such as a picture gives the person in mention undue weightage in the article, as compared to text. The lawyers should at least be mentioned in text form if not in picture format. This can easily be fitted into the trail section.)


 * What do you say to my reasons for putting it back? Convinced it can be put back ? Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi DiplomatTesterMan, I agree with your reasoning and I personally have no objection anymore, if you want to add it back. Vanamonde also thinks it is harmless. Someone has removed the lawyer's page so we should probably add some information about her on this page - how she was threatened, etc. Thanks - Acharya63 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merging of Deepika Singh Rajawat page with this page
This person is notable for Wikipedia:ONEEVENT Saqib (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree, and oppose the proposed merger. The Kathua rape will go down in history for its horrifying nature and the inhuman incidents that followed. It is three horrific crimes: 1) Child Rape 2) Murder 3) Defending of the accused by men of power -ruling ministers and lawyers- and by mob-demonstrations of the other community. By merging the page we'll undermine the crux of the case. A case should be known as it was and not by the victim's lawyer's name. We very much have a Wikipedia page called "Kunan Poshpora incident" which also was a case in the same Indian state, albeit on a larger scale- one of premeditated and organized gang-rapes case. Kathua rape case will soon be a book.Aunahmed (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Aun
 * Support. The subject has coverage pertaining to this lone case, making her a subject of BLP1E. Unless the attorney is covered in sources for other reasons, a merge at this point seems better. MT Train Talk 12:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support at this time, as all the coverage of this individual appears related to the trial, and the information can thus be contained in the article about the case, at least until it gets too unwieldy. Vanamonde (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. After reading Aunhmed's reasoning, I am changing my vote from support to weak support. The lawyer is not a notable as most seem to agree so she should not have her own page. Tragedy cannot be used for promotion of a lawyer. A mention of the lawyer and how she was allegedly harassed should be enough on this page. The focus should be on the victim and the rape, not the lawyer. The lawyer by herself has zero notability outside this case. No need to even create a separate section on the lawyer. If the lawyer changes, is there going to be a different section for each lawyer? We just need a passing mention to the lawyer. The main focus on the article should be the victim and the other points that Aunahmed mentions.Acharya63 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Against Merging. Kathua case is prominent enough to make its own page but not because of the lawyer. This incident is similar to cases like 2012 Delhi gang rape and and . The case is not one of the cases of Lawyer. The lawyer is known for the case but not vice versa. Rasulnrasul (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Page Merged without complete discussion. It is bad that without complete discussion the page is merged. Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Forensic data vs police version.
//The forensic examination stated that Bano had been raped multiple times by different men.......// The forensic examination does not confirm multiple rapes by multiple men. The chargesheet says so. Please change "the forensic examination...." to "The police chargesheet...." Zap guy (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Asifa Bano
Doesn't anyone think that the photo of the victim, Asifa Bano on the infobox, will provide a more satisfying reading experience. People obviously won;t have the time to go to Google Images search for her photo to see one. Hope anyone would add one. Thanks. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Severe downplaying of religious angle in the article
It was widely acknowledged in the Western press that this crime was of a communal nature and was the result of Hindu plans to displace Muslims from the area by causing fear among the Bakarwal. Prior to my edits, however, there was no mention of the words "Hindu" and "Muslim" in the introduction to the article, even though both these religious identities are key to understanding this crime. Indian and Hindu topics on Wikipedia are often the monopoly of Hindutva users, who have an axe to grind against Muslims, and this omission no doubt reflects their influence on Wikipedia. Rafe87 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree - Not sure about other issues but this case was definately based on intention which is communaly motivated. Requesting to take this issue into the consideration.  Edward Zigma (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 is not trying to determine the content of the page (admins never do), but he has denied the manner in which new content was inserted. When a piece of content has been written, citing multiple sources, you cannot just insert new phrases in the middle based on your WP:Original research. You need to check what the sources say, and add wording or descriptions that occur in the cited sources. You can also add wording with new sources. But modifying the sourced text without reference to the sources destroys its WP:INTEGRITY. It is never permitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * not only has no interest in dealing with this issue, he actually came to my talk page to threaten me with being banned from Wikipedia under the accusation of vandalism. He also reverted the change I made in the title of the entry, to Kathua rape and murder case, even though this is clearly a murder case as well. I don't know which edits of mine are supposed to be vandalism here, the one where I highlighted the religious identities of the victim and that of the perpetrators, or the change I made in the title, but both are entirely factual. But there is, I repeat, a coalition of far-right elements on Wikipedia, including Hindu nationalists and pro-Israel fanatics, many of whom are administrators, whose edits are, in part, dedicated to talking down terroristic crimes against Muslim minorities.Rafe87 (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 is an admin. He has warned you (not threatened you) and you need to take it seriously. You need to mend your ways, stop adding unsourced content in sensitive areas, write proper edit summaries so that other editors and admins can understand what you are doing. I think he has also warned you because you moved the page without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, take that boot off your mouth. Rafe87 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Rafe87, as far as the page move is concerned being WP:BOLD with this article isn't such a good idea. You should calmy and patiently now go ahead and follow through with the page move disucssion in the proper way if you're serious about it. DTM (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DTM: It's bold of you to say that it's bold of me to describe a murder as a murder. Rafe87 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rafe87 :D, I am talking of the page move for a page like this. Lol. Irrespective of what you want to change it to. DTM (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And the "page move" was made precisely to highlight the fact that this murder case was, well, a murder case. I don't see what's so bold about that. Rafe87 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rafe87, Now why aren't you going ahead with the page move request? This explains it all - Requested moves - and to keep it simple this is the template:
 * NewName DTM (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DIY if you're so invested in this. I myself am not in the mood to keep being reverted and threatened repeatedly by Islamophobic Wikipedians for merely asserting facts here.Rafe87 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

‘Rape and Murder Case’
This was not simply a rape case. That aspect is horrific and important, but surely even that must be secondary to the *murder*? Harsimaja (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)