Talk:Laxmi Agarwal

Laxmi was attacked in Delhi’s Khan Market in 2005 by her acquaintances, Guddu (Athar hussain from BVP. Laxmi was 15 at that time and the act was seen as a revenge for Laxmi’s refusal to marry Guddu, her friend’s brother.   Instead, Laxmi chose to confid in her parents, who encouraged her to seek counselling. Simultaneously, she also decided to take her case to the court, and the trial went on for four years. The result: Guddu was sentenced to 10 years in jail, and Rakhi was imprisoned for seven years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomarthings (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laxmi Agarwal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309190754/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/stopacidattacks/acid-attack-survivor-laxmi-s-spirit-wins-her-a-partner-for-life/article1-1170630.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/stopacidattacks/acid-attack-survivor-laxmi-s-spirit-wins-her-a-partner-for-life/article1-1170630.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309190754/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/stopacidattacks/acid-attack-survivor-laxmi-s-spirit-wins-her-a-partner-for-life/article1-1170630.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/stopacidattacks/acid-attack-survivor-laxmi-s-spirit-wins-her-a-partner-for-life/article1-1170630.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020
Tomarthings (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Laxmi was attacked in Delhi’s Khan Market in 2005 by her acquaintances, Guddu and Rakhi. Laxmi was 15 at that time and the act was seen as a revenge for Laxmi’s refusal to marry Guddu, her friend’s brother.

Instead, Laxmi chose to confide in her parents, who encouraged her to seek counselling. Simultaneously, she also decided to take her case to the court, and the trial went on for four years. The result: Guddu was sentenced to 10 years in jail, and Rakhi was imprisoned for seven years.

Somebody try to change guddu name to naeem khan.. guddu is not a muslim.. guddu is a hindu and rekhi also a hindu Tomarthings (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , ❌ Please provide reliable source for your claims. Judgement of SC is different than your claim.  Harshil want to talk? 11:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Add:

Wikipedia is comfortable obtaining information from dubious sources and then when some one points out the errors and refers to a high court judgment regarding the case of acid attack on Laxmi Agarwal you claim that you "don't use court judgments in biographies of living people". This is not just a biography but there is information about the acid attack on Laxmi and the relevant facts of the case/matter in the High Court judgment is therefore relevant to this page, more than the information sourced from the dubious tabloids/newspapers which appear to have found favour with Wiki administrators. At this rate Wiki will lose credibility - your sources of information have to be reliable (and some newspaper reports are highly dubious and very often factually incorrect). I therefore agree with @Tomarthings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndieG (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020
Change: "Agarwal was attacked in 2005 at an age of 15, by a 32-year-old man, whose romantic advances she had rejected." To: "Agarwal was attacked in 2005 at an age of 15, by Naeem Khan (alias Guddu), whose romantic advances she had rejected. Source: The name of the perpetrator (Naeem Khan alais Guddu) has been sourced from here https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32750721/ This is the copy of actual High Court verdict on the case, that clearly mentions the name of the perpetrator. Rahstiest (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌, we never use court documents in biographies of living people. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8th January 2020
In "However, it failed to do so, which angered the court. However, when the Centre failed to produce a plan, the Supreme Court warned that it will intervene and pass orders if the government failed to frame a policy to curb the sale of acid in order to prevent chemical attacks.", under PIL heading, remove the second 'However', and change the sentence to" When the Centre failed to... " Reason: Double howevers is not good sentence construction. Algalbloom (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ please provide reliable sources for claim. — Harshil want to talk? 14:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It is only a grammatical change. No information is added or removed. Why are sources required? Algalbloom (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Name of culprit

 * I support inclusion of the name of culprit in lead as he is convicted and WP:BLPCRIME doesn’t apply. Just his side to be included in later parts. — Harshil want to talk? 14:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As expected, influx by RW editors after the news of a film obfuscating the Muslim identity of the victim made it to their ecosystem, which was subsequently debunked. There's absolutely no need to mention the name of the perpetrator over the lead; the proper place is the body.  &#x222F; WBG converse 15:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , What do you mean by RW editors? Are you going to decide who is right winger or not? Can you cite which Wikipedia policy is violated? Assume good faith towards other editors. I can also attack in same way that LW editors are intentionally removing names because culprit is Muslim and it is used for their ecosystem. Are we going to debate in this way on Wikipedia?  Harshil want to talk? 15:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You really don't want an ArbCom case about your activities over en-wiki coupled with your (archived) Twitter feed, that was linked from you now-deleted en-wiki user-page. Whilst I don't wish to go to such extents, I might be easily persuaded. I hate to see disputes over Twitter overflowing to here and political point-scoring using WP as tool. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , rather than threatening, stay on the point here and cite which policy is being violated. If you can show which policy is violated then we can discuss the things. Just attack and threats of arbcase won't help anyone to achieve consensus and Wikipedia doesn't work in this way.  Harshil want to talk? 15:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you are the best-placed editor to let me know abut how Wikipedia works. I am not at all threatening; hinting about rational possibilities. As to my initial note about RW, I see that a media-outlet named OpIndia has published a news-piece about this article and I do note that our article about OpIndia mentions it to be a right-wing site of highly dubious merit. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have enough knowledge about rational possibilities and the one who is pointing them.  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 16:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WBG, Casting Aspersions and threatening users who disagree with you is not doing you any favor here. Please stay relevant to the topic in the hand and use a proper forum for furthering your disputes with other users per WP:TPNO  Razer ( talk ) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for drawing my attention to decision for which I was not aware. I had already collected links of all misconducts which include calling me fuckwit in edit summary, Serious allegations on my talk page, stalking of me and other serious threats of ban. These links are diverse, from 02 July 2019 and directly harm my reputation of on-wiki and off-wiki. 17 links are in google document file. Waiting for 8 more among which 2 completed today. People should check background of person whom they are dealing with. There are too much rational possibilities. :)  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 18:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - In the context of this article, The name of the perpetrator  is of vital importance.  Razer ( talk ) 15:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The focus of the article is about the person and about her activism. Whilst the crime (un-doubtedly) has contributed to her notability, to mention the intricate details including the name of the perpetrator is fairly over-the-top, for the lead. The part. name does not aid in the understanding of a reader about the subject, either. See our good articles like Maria Radner, Regina Martínez Pérez, Antonio Luna, Hasil Adkins et al and contrast with our good articles about crimes which explicitly mentions the perpetrator-names. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 16:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTAVOTE. Razer ( talk ) 16:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Winged Blades of Godric. I believe there is no need to mention the name of the perpetrator in the lead section. It is not that important. Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 19:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It should be also pointed out that according to this article, the acid was actually thrown by a woman named Rakhi. In the newspaper article, it is quoted : " "According to Lakshmi's and Guddu's statements, she (Rakhi) is the one who actually threw the acid," an investigating officer said."
 * Thanks, this is a vital piece of information and now, the most important reason, as to why such intricate details does not deserve to be covered at the lead. Harshil169 and Razer may be please to observe their WP:BLP violations. And this is the reason, as to why the article needs to be developed in entirety, prior to writing a lead. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 20:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * LOL... I didn’t add a single name or paragraph in this article. I just removed vandalism. Like, I first restrained 22nd December’s stable person and then rollbacking towards it. I don’t have any problem with any information and this should be posted. I have just added a single line to this article till now. Anyone can check!— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, you can take name of Rakhi if she’s convicted per WP:BLPCRIME. Naeem is convicted, IDK about Rakhi. This article seems of primary investigation.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This was you right? Can't parse much of what you say, otherwise. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 01:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I read judgment. Rakhi is convicted but she didn’t throw acid and claim of police officer was wrong. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 01:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pray quote the relevant parts of the judgement for me. The one that's Lexis Nexis is throwing up don't seem to contain any such stuff. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The judgement seem to be available over https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32750721/.
 * Quoting the observations of the Delhi HC judge:- &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 02:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though this sentence from judgement should be included to show relation between Rakhi and Naeem. ...co-accused Rakhi, who was the wife of appellant‟s brother Imran.... Let’s provide complete details. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 03:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still interested to know what led you to conclude Rakhi is convicted but she didn’t throw acid and claim of police-officer was wrong., given that you have come across the same legal document much prior to me. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion when the other side takes such extreme liberties with facts.
 * The relations will obviously be covered at the body (as I was going to do, before you and another user chose to edit-war as a means of restoring bright-line false content over the lead) where the intricacies of the crime ought be discussed in much detail. Or do you seek that we mention all these (about Rakhi throwing the acid and hers being sister-in-law of Naeem) in the lead? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I read some quote in middle (14) of document and didn’t care to complete whole. It goes like..She denied that the appellant and Rakhi were not standing and talking at the place of the incident. She was unconscious when she reached the hospital. apologies for not reading completely. I think lead should mention that Naeem and his sister-in-law Rakhi attacked on her with acid. In details, we can mention Rakhi was sister-in-law of Naeem and wife of Imran; Naeem was given name as Guddu. All those lines of rejecting advances should be removed from lead. Subject is only known for acid attack on her, she became famous after attack, she did activism after attack and her convicted people should be mentioned in LEAD. In fact, it was already in lead for long ago.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 03:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would again like to point out, that according to the above-referred article, Rakhi is a "friend" of Imran. Also, "she is a divorcee with three school-going children and is living with Imran." Nowhere is it mentioned that Rakhi was Naeem's sister-in-law, i.e. Rakhi was married to Imran. There is a lack of clarity; and I think these details do not deserve to be covered at the lead. Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 13:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would again like to point out, that according to the above-referred article, Rakhi is a "friend" of Imran. Also, "she is a divorcee with three school-going children and is living with Imran." Nowhere is it mentioned that Rakhi was Naeem's sister-in-law, i.e. Rakhi was married to Imran. There is a lack of clarity; and I think these details do not deserve to be covered at the lead. Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 13:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you jocking me that there’s no clarity? Just read judgement.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 13:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read the judgement. I am saying your statements "I think lead should mention that Naeem and his sister-in-law Rakhi attacked on her with acid. In details, we can mention Rakhi was sister-in-law of Naeem and wife of Imran; Naeem was given name as Guddu." and such others show lack of clarity. Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 14:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , On close-reading of the judgment, things are somewhat hazy:- ...There is substantial evidence to indicate that Rakhi was the wife of the brother of the appellant and was connected with him...
 * I am no lawyer and have no clue what this means;if there exist legal records of registration of marriage, they are married and otherwise, they are surely not?! Or did the court assume the long span of cohabitation to qualify as marriage, for practical purposes and thus tie her motivations with that of a familial relative (Imran)? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this discussion is going in the field of WP:OR. The mainstream sources and court judgement states that naeem khan was the main culprit and we should go along with that. Naeem khan's name should stay in the lead and we can workout some way of mentioning Rakhi's name in the body.  Razer ( talk ) 14:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah; it does not work that way. The lead as it stands is factually incorrect. That newspapers misreport doesn't mean we do. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is not our job to conduct original research or correct WP:GREATWRONGS. Please understand that if the mainstream media and court has named Neem Khan as the main perpetrator, We have to go by what these sources say. Razer ( talk ) 14:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You might better try convincing new participants in this discussion. Not seeing how RGW is any applicable; OR does hardly mean that we don't screen sources in order to ascertain the best version of events about any subject. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is a difference between screening sources and pushing a propaganda. From your original oppose comment above, It is quite clear that you want to censor the information on Wikipedia because the attacker belongs to a specific community. Anyways , I don't want to get into this silly debate. The last stable version protected by Lectonar featured the name of the attacker in the lead. I advice you to get concrete consensus before making any changes to the stable version. Razer ( talk ) 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in here, as I have been pinged: there is no "stable" version, and me protecting the page does not mean that I looked at (according to the side one decides to be on) the great rights or wrongs on this page, and decided to protect the sole "correct" version. The page was solely protected because there was disruptive editing bordering on edit-warring going on; I would have protected the version of the page that was "live" in the moment of me protecting. The participating parties are invited to form consensus, that's all. Lectonar (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool story, bro. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool story, bro. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Agree that there's absolutely no need to mention the name of the perpetrator over the lead; the proper place is the body. The person is not a public figure. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this violates MOS:LEAD. There has been recent political propagandas including some fake newses in India trying to highlight the attacker's name but they should know Wikipedia is not the place for this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In light of WP:BLP and a 66.66% consensus in favor after sufficient passage of time, I have installed the majority-view &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 January 2020
The statement: "A minor then, Laxmi was attacked with acid by three men near Tughlaq road in New Delhi as she had refused to marry Nadeem Khan aka Guddu, of the trio." is factually incorrect and should be changed to: "A minor then, Laxmi was attacked with acid by two men (Nadeem Khan, his brother Imran Khan) and one woman (Rakhi) near Tughlaq road in New Delhi as she had refused to marry Nadeem Khan." 96.230.58.241 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2020
Put it back to Nadeem Khan that is the original name 92.98.42.92 (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Naeem khan is wrong name real name is ekanshu goyal Bewkoof mat bana (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Updates
The film Chhapak has been already released. Please update the article (Popular Culture section and in lede) accordingly. Regards Nizil (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for the release date? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is the source. Also, Chhapaak wikipedia article exists.  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 01:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see Jan 10 mentioned on that article anyway. I'm going to leave this and you can make the edit yourself (with appropriate source) when protection expires in a few hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)