Talk:Rape in India/Archive 2

Protected edit request on 29 March 2015
Dear Sir/Madam,

I have repeatedly tried to edit the introduction to the Rape in India article due to its repetitiveness, its misleading nature and its bad grammar. The initial text read as follows:

The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8]

As the text stands, we are making the same point three times "incidence of reported rapes in India are amongst the lowest in the world...compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India... India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape"", it contains grammatical errors, it says "concern that majority of rape" when it should be "concern that THE majority of rape cases" and it is highly misleading because you are comparing a country where the majority of the population lives in rural areas with no tradition of crime solution via the courts (instead they have informal village chiefs who do not register their cases with any official body), high rates of female illiteracy and lack of awareness of legal rights and a culture of shaming women who are raped by blaming them for the rape and in cases of inter-caste rape often excommunicating them. Finally, marital rape is not a crime in India and so marital rapes are not even registered in the crime statistics of India. To compare such statistics with e.g. reported rates of rape in Sweden, where the law is much stricter on rape, enforcement and court action is the standard expected route, legal literacy is high and marital rape is criminalised is highly misleading and the public deserves to be notified of the misleading nature of such a comparison. As a result, I edited the lead-in paragraph to read:

"Compared to other developed and developing countries, the number of reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India,[5] and India has been characterized by some as one of the countries with the lowest per capita rates for rape.[6][7] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.[8] Criminologists have warned that comparing reported rape rates across countries can be highly misleading due to the significance of underreporting, and the fact that the rate of underreporting can be vastly different between countries.[9]"

Providing a link to a WSJ article that explains some of the problems with comparing rape statistics across countries using reported rapes. Indeed, domestic violence surveys like the WHO ten country study show India to be in the middle and the National Family Health Survey conducted by the government shows a life time prevalence sexual violence of 8.5% among 19-49 year-olds which is way higher than the rate of reported rapes. However, instead of responding to the points I made on the talk page under the ==Lead-in== section, the page has now been put on full protection and blocked for "vandalism". If we cannot even have a conversation about this widespread societal problem without immediate blocking, I don't know if I am comfortable with the direction in which Wikipedia is now heading...

Best wishes

Bargolus (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * : Thanks for discussing on talk, you suppose to discuss on talk before keep on "undoing". See, you said "lower incidence of rape' and 'low per capita rape' are same and repetition of things, thats not true. Its like saying that" 'low GDP' and 'Lower per capita income' are same and shows nation is poor." Norway's GDP is far lower India but per capita income is far higher than India.
 * Same way if country "A" has 50,000 rapes, country "B" has 100,000 rapes, then 'incidence' is more for B but when we divide it with population then it will give 'per capita rapes, if B has huge population then its per capita rapes will be lesser than A. So don't argue that its same wording, these are entirely different things.


 * secondly, its big argument that India's % of unreported cases is higher than developed nations, but Study Finds, Rape Is Grossly Underreported In The U.S.,, Unreported rapes: the silent shame for UK, these article shows rape is grossly unreported in developed countries.


 * So point is 'incidences of reported rapes' are low in India than West, 'Per capita rapes are low in India than west", "% of unreported cases are maybe same like west if we consider rape is grossly unreported in India too like in west', in all such cases there is no point in specifically pointing on India for rape when its actually a global problem. see sexual violence against women remains endemic in the United States.
 * But here we are not doing any 'world war', we just have to be neutral. We all are Humans.


 * All above articles belongs to Huffington post, The Independent of UK and The New York Times. While both US articles mentions survey of US government.


 * So there is no point in your arguments, I have not done PhD in English literature but still I can say that current version don't has any grammatical mistakes as you claim. Those are different terminologies. Have a good time. Thanks. -- Human 3015  13:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah this is great! Someone responded! Thanks for your points Human, I can see you have thought this through before. Sorry, I did not know that we had to have a consensus on here first - when people kept mentioning a consensus I couldn't find any on the talk page and I was wondering where it was. Anyways, it is a protected article now and we can't make any edits. In the mean time, I will think a bit more about your points before responding in more depth.

For now, as you say, rape is an endemic problem in many countries, both developed and developing. However, because rape is a problem in many countries and underreporting is potentially a big problem in many countries does not mean that rape statistics are automatically comparable. You know how in statistics, we have to drill into stats students again and again that absence of evidence for a difference does not mean evidence for the absence of a difference. In the same way, just because we have huge systematic errors potentially in both the US and India and we don't have a strong evidence for a difference in magnitude of systematic errors does not mean that we can automatically assume that the systematic errors have exactly the same magnitude. This makes it extremely problematic to compare reported rape statistics between countries. On the other hand, we CAN reduce the amount of variation in systematic error between countries by using standardized surveys such as the WHO multi-country domestic violence report or the Demographic Health Survey indicators that are routinely conducted across multiple countries on Earth in a standardized manner.

In terms of incidence/per capita rape, this may be a difference in our use of terminology. I was thinking in terms of "incidence risk" which is the risk of a single woman experiencing rape within a pre-specified time span, whereas "incidence rate" is what you are talking about, the total number of rapes aggregated over all women over a single time span. However, in that case, I think we should add the life-time prevalence of sexual violence reported in surveys like the DHS in India which puts lifetime prevalene of sexual violence at 8.5%. I am concerned that less well-educated people reading this article will conclude from quite misleading statistics that there is no need to fight for women's rights in India, which is opposite to the reality on ground. It also hurts India's economy as women's risk of rape prevents women from engaging in many public activities such as taxi-driving, waiting in restaurants and working in shops out of fear (yes there are plenty of women doing these jobs, but the potential is greatly reduced compared to what it could be). Bargolus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Another big point I wanted to make with the change is that we think we can let "numbers speak for themselves" and it's more objective to put out numbers than to put out words. This is also a big misconception - as they say "Garbage In Garbage Out", if you put in non-sensical numbers they can be just as misleading as words. Rape statistics, particularly reported rape statistics, are widely known to be extremely crude approximations to reality and it would probably be a more accurate statement to simply leave it at "Rape is endemic in India as in elsewhere in the world" without muddling up the reader with misleadingly reassuring statistics. But if we insist on keeping the numbers there, the reader should be pointed to the Wall Street Journal article at least in order to understand the implications of using the statistics. After all, the article is about Rape in India, it's not about Rape Statistics in India and at the moment, the introduction is entirely focused on the statistics rather than any other aspect of the problem such as societal sanction, meanings of rape, women's mobilization, the sexual politics of rape etc. etc. Bargolus (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , now you are exposing yourself, means when survey shows that US has endemic problem of rape and rape is grossely unreported in US, then according to you it has "systematic error" even if its done by US government. But when any survey shows bad figures for India then according to you it doesn't has any "systematic error". See brother, I don't wanna argue with anymore. Its your personal opinion that US government surveys has "systematic error" but sorry wikipedia doesn't work "personal opinions" specially when article is sensitive. Act like human being, think beyond your small world.
 * Anyway, our personal survey showed that you have multiple sock puppets, and this article is highly hit by sock puppetry. -- Human 3015  14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those who understands this article would know better. Zhanzhao had expressed his desire, "I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though." These edits exactly fulfills that criteria. He had pointed thiscontribution to be legible. Obvious that he is just pushing that point but with other accounts.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Padenton you mentioned that surveys are not more accurate than reported cases of rape. But clearly if you ask the same question of women in two different countries using a standardized methodology you'll get more accurate estimates than if you rely on cases reported to the police if e.g. marital rape counts as rape in one country, but no in the other? It is a general principle of epidemiological surveillance that standardized, special-purpose surveys are more reliable than routine data which is full of noise and subject to all kinds of incentive-distortions since those same data are usually used as performance indicators simultaneously for the department responsible for that sector. I would be very interested in hearing what arguments you have that a well-conducted standardized survey would yield worse data than routine crime reports from differentially functioning police departments.Bargolus (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) − 	Regarding grammar, the sentence should definitely read "THE majority of rape cases". I know it is difficult, because in Hindi there are no articles and "THE majority" and "majority" are the same word in Hindi, Adhikansh, but in English you need an article in that sentence, otherwise it is Hinglish ;) Bargolus (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Human, I would never in a million years argue that rape is not a huge problem in the US or the UK or any other developed country, don't misunderstand me. And I absolutely loved the times when I live in India, I have no ulterior motive against India. I know there has been a lot of worry about foreign intervention and the effect of this whole rape debate on the image of India and its tourist industry. But we must work on improving conditions for women in India (as well as in the US and the UK) regardless of the political climate, because women's rights are one of those topics that will ALWAYS be framed as foreign intervention and "our women" should be hidden from public scrutiny. Rape and women's development will improve in India with time, but we are still at a very basic level of awareness regarding women's issues and these male instinctive reactions to any critical inquiry are very damaging. Regarding your accusations of sockpuppetry, I will choose to just ignore them for now, because it seems I have very little ability of convincing people otherwise on an anonymous Internet when no-one is man enough to talk to me eye-to-eye. I could play the same game on you, if I wanted to and accuse you of sockpuppetry, but that would be utterly pointless - we're here on Wikipedia for the sake of quality arguments over substantive issues not for the sake of any personal glorification. Bargolus (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, looking through the references in the second paragraph, they are all referring to rape reports per 100,000 women, i.e. they are quoting exactly the same number! None of them is yielding an incidence rate, all of them are risks. Do we really need three sentences to report the one and same number three times? 49.244.254.201 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Again forgetting to login Bargolus (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is consensus for the change at this time. Disabled request &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem with two sources in the lead
I put in a request at the Reliable sources notice board and they agreed that refs #5 and #7 are not acceptable:
 * Neither NitiCentral, nor Messy matters are appropriate sources for the article. As mentioned above, the latter is a personal blog; and the former is an opinion column in a even otherwise borderline (and highly POV) source. Note the disclaimer at the bottom:
 * Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

I would like to change the para to read: India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape",[8] however parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Are there any objections? Gandydancer (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to that change, that was going to be my second request. An additional reason for this change is that all three sentences are talking about rape reports per number of people living in India and would be repeating virtually the same information three times. Bargolus (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Due to complaints filed by, I can no longer respond to any requests on this talk page or even leave a message here.  will now be the admin who is moderating the page.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , Thank you Bgwhite for all your cooperation, you are nice admin. Hope you will help us on other pages. Have a good time. Thank you. -- Human 3015  22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help! &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , Really sorry you got involved in all this, and thanks for trying to help here. You did your best, and brought sanity back to the article by making sure everyone discussed before editing. I promised myself to stay away from this page but it would be unbecoming(at a lost for lack of a stronger word) if I did not acknowledge and thank you again here. To the rest of the editors here, existing and future, please cooperate with the Worm That Turned. I'm out. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , Wow it's tough being an admin. Thanks for bearing over with my initial mistakes and good luck for the future49.244.254.70 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Argh forgot to login again! Bargolus (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - I am fine as well with your suggestion. The absolute rate (per 100,0000) should be included in the lead with a note on relative UN stats, both for NPOV and because it is relevant summary of the main article. Given China's and India's large population, on their respective wiki pages, the incidence rate per 100,000 (or 1,000) data gives a more balanced demographic view for any issue/topic. Rate data is also very common in UN, US and EU reports on crime.
 * M Tracy Hunter (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made an edit to clarify the UN numbers. Those rates are based on official statistics and reported crimes, but don't necessarily reflect the actual rate of the crime.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported cases
- I have removed much of what you added, because most failed verification, or were primary/stale misinformation. There is a 1997 study summary note still in the section, which I couldn't verify, and ask you to provide a page number for it. Your contribution is welcome, but read WP:Primary, WP:RS, WP:WWIN, WP:Citing sources and other wikipedia policies and guidelines.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * M Tracy Hunter thanks for the links I'll look into them and read them. Can we add though that since marital rape will still not be registered as a rape crime? If it is not a rape crime by law, you can't register it no? Bargolus (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Under India's law (and Vietnam's), marital rape is included under its statutes of domestic violence but is not called rape (unless the couple have legally separated but not yet divorced). Thus, the statement you are suggesting is not an obvious legal statement, and needs WP:RS if added. As you read the links above on wiki content, please note no original research, no synthesis, no POV pushing and no opinion mongering.
 * I have removed the "sexual violence" sentence you added to the lead, because "rape is sexual violence, but not all forms of sexual violence is rape". Your addition was offtopic and misleading. Read lede guidelines.
 * M Tracy Hunter (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, but the definition of sexual violence employed by the NFHS was "being forced to have sexual intercourse or perform any other sexual acts against one’s own will." The specific questions asked were whether husbands or boyfriends or any other people had:


 * "Physically force you to have sexual intercourse with him even when you did not want to?"
 * "Force you to perform any sexual acts you did not want to?"


 * The NFHS didn't use the UNOC definition of sexual violence. However the above questions and definition come as close to rape as you could possibly get no? Bargolus (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that we need good sources and a statement that is as legally comprehensible as possible. But just to point out that obviously we cannot rely on legal definitions to define what constitutes rape alone, because that would mean countries could just reduce the number of rapes by defining the problem out of their lawbooks, no? Bargolus (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting page 494 of the NFHS source.

If you don't understand what original research and synthesis means, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. This talk page is not a forum. Read talk page guidelines.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me exactly what I am misrepresenting? For example, the Hindu also uses sexual violence data including the NFHS surveys in an article titled "Marital rape: the numbers" here Bargolus (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you are saying, sorry I was reading too quickly. The question they actually asked was
 * "At any time in your life, as a child or as an adult, has any one ever forced you in any way to have sexual intercourse or perform any other sexual acts?" on page 495
 * If I'm not mistaken. That still seems not very far from rape to me. Bargolus (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You write, "That still seems not very far from rape to me". That suggests your desire to do original research. In this or other wikipedia articles, do not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by a WP:RS.
 * Read page 494 and section 15.2.2 of that NFHS source where "sexual acts on a married woman during her married life by her current husband, when she did not want to" are included as sexual violence. Some sexual acts between husband and wife, while they are married, can be marital rape in some countries, but that is not so in India, China, all Muslim-majority countries, and many non-Muslim countries.
 * M Tracy Hunter (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So you are saying because the law of India doesn't define sexual violence between husband and wife as rape, the extent of sexual violence between husband and wife is irrelevant to the article for rape in India? And somehow it becomes relevant for countries where the law is different? That seems a very arbitrary decision to me? Bargolus (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been referring to UN definitions yourself, so as you are aware, UNWOMEN and associated UN bodies recognize marital rape as rape. E.g. here. And as I showed you in the link to the earlier article, even Indian news outlets themselves recognize marital rape as rape. It seems very arbitrary to me to fix the definition of rape for the entire wikipedia article based on Indian law as it currently stands? Bargolus (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is made even more arbitrary by the fact that it is prosecutable as domestic violence, which means that it would by your definition be relevant to articles related to domestic violence for countries like India, but not rape. And for countries that do not have laws permitting persecution of marital rape as domestic violence like in India, sexual violence statistics wouldn't even make it to their domestic violence page? Bargolus (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WIkipedia policy is to not pick sides in summarizing content, nor misrepresent sources, nor do synthesis by combining two or more sources, as you are doing above.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We could instead add a sentence that reads "A survey conducted by the National Family Health Survey in 2006 estimated the lifetime prevalence of sexual violence among women aged 15-49 at 8.5%. However, this it should be noted that this figure includes sexual violence between husband and wife which is not currently recognized as rape by Indian law."? That makes the point you make above that the figure includes sexual violence that is not recognized as rape by Indian law, while simultaneously being respectful to both sides by not unnecessarily silencing one of them? 49.244.255.119 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Ah, forgot to login again! Bargolus (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a commentary in the world-wide prestigious medical journal Lancet that puts the NFHS sexual violence and rape statistics side by side and calls for criminalization of marital rape. I'm not the only one who thinks those statistics are relevant to the subject of rape. Bargolus (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For UN statements on marital rape, see e.g. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women adoped by the UN General Assembly that unambiguously includes marital rape in its statutes. If we are not going to pick sides, it seems statutes agreed upon by the UN General Assembly are a good place to start, no? Bargolus (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio
Rape_in_India took a lot of its content from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Rape in India took from. Please review our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead
There are still problem with the lead. Prior 6 March. It read probably better than how it is doing now.
 * Some of the main problems with the current lead includes:
 * "The National Crime Records Bureau of India suggests", there is clearly no need to attribute the obvious facts. We don't write "According to Mr. X, 2+2 is 4".
 * "Indian parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported", isn't it worldwide concern? How it is differing from rest of the countries? It is those stats, that have shared some uncommon aspects with other countries that's why they deserve a separate mention.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The NCRB needs to be mentioned because it is the official, most referred to source for reported rape rates. The older version too mentioned NCRB. The next sentence can be written in many different ways. The mention of "Indian parliamentarians" implies that the issue of unreported cases has attracted the attention of highest law making body in their country – so I am okay with it. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @VictoriaGrayson - a sentence about unreported cases is significant and relevant in the lead, WP:LEAD. If the consensus is to not have "Indian parliamentarians" phrase, I am okay with it as well. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Another section
and, what you have to say for Rape in India? It violates WP:NOTNEWS, and since it is having the opinions of politicians who are not expert in this field, it is also violating WP:SOAPBOX.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm agree with OccultZone. -- Human 3015  09:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, I also agree.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * [Removed sock comments]


 * Sigh, who screwed it up again? We spent so much time on that section. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was done when none of these policies were pointed now. Now we know that why this sort of content fails to be encyclopedic.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Egads OccultZone, why do you want to bring this up yet again. You, Human and everybody else agreed on the changes.  NOTNEWS was brought up before.  It also doesn't violate NOTNEWS and SOAPBOX.  A Country (not politicians) is issuing a travel advisory and as they issue travel advisories all the time, they are experts.  How does it fail NOTNEWS?
 * Before this goes any further, I highly recommend you bring an outside person in to mediate this, so it doesn't go downhill like the past ones. Bgwhite (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Worm, do you have any recommendations? This is the section that led to Occult, Human, Padenton and others being blocked the first go around.  I believe Occult wanted this section gone the first go around too. Bgwhite (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)3
 * Slight clarification: As you stated at the time when you removed it, said block was unjustified. Thanks. :-) &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  04:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, a followup to my hasty comment this morning, I took a look at my 'revert' a little closer, turns out the only real change was in wording and a rearranging of sections, so I have no issue with it as is, or so it seems. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  04:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That section is violating WP:NOTNEWS because such cautions are irrelevant, the first source also caution against the stray dogs. 2nd paragraph has opinion from a Goan politician who is not an expert in this field. Neither any of the sources including the previous one that I have added. Such is not required because this is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and not WP:NOTNEWS. So far it was only Swiss government who has actually issued a warning, Considering how many rapes are carried out, I wonder if that warning is still dated or not, or it had been updated. Such difficulties and irrelevances shall continue to annoy and mislead the readers, that's why it is better not to have them.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, I am now not around for a few days and moderation of content is not my strong point. Worm TT( talk ) 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, , and others: I am baffled. Are you insisting that an "old consensus based on wrong/incomplete data" can disrespect and overrule core policies of wikipedia on WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc? Are you declaring that new data or summaries from currently available or future published reliable secondary sources should never ever be added to the tourist section or this article? I am struggling to understand your implied position above and with @Padenton's latest edit.
 * Shouldn't you and we all be respecting WP:CONS, which reads,
 * Policy: Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Policy: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
 * The revert, and the appeal to talk page archive, by @Padenton, needs an explanation given the above WP:CONS policies. FWIW, I was not an involved editor in the past consensus/dispute. Also, FWIW, I am the editor who recently added additional summary from reliable sources that were not considered in the past, but possibly inadvertently reverted by @Padenton here. If @Padenton or @Bgwhite or @OccultZone or anyone else has concerns about a new sources I added, I welcome a discussion of those concerns on this talk page.
 * M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read above. I already admitted my revert yesterday morning was hasty.  I would've done a self-rv when I noticed, but the main remaining change was just a rearranging of the paragraphs (out of chronological order) and a rewording of the first paragraph.  I was planning to review the first paragraph and see if there was anything that should be salvaged, but I didn't have time yesterday, I've been out doing a lot of real world shit today and yesterday, and when I've been on Wikipedia, I've been dealing with other stuff on wikipedia. If you want to do it, go for it. I have no issue with consensus changing.  But I also don't see how it's based on wrong/incomplete data.  And new consensus requires discussion on the talk page.  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Padenton: Thanks. Given your permission - "If you want to do it, go for it", I will give it a try. I will also recheck the sources, just to be sure. Note that the hasty revert deleted several new secondary sources I added. No, it wasn't "just a rearranging of the paragraphs". The tourist per year data was not NPOV/wrong in the old consensus. Also, the Russian case in Goa was not tourist-related, and that is why I reworded it and re-arranged it so that it accurately reflected the source and made sense. I hope Bgwhite, you and others will double check and question my edits, when you find time, and where appropriate. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, anything in the tourist section should only be changed upon consensus. You shouldn't have changed anything in there even though you did out of good faith.  The reason is four (I think) people were blocked in a past disagreement on that section, including Padenton and OccultZone being blocked.  Anything else can be changed... if somebody disagrees, then it should be talked about.
 * Also at the moment, OccultZone is currently wanting me and several other admins permanently removed from Wikipedia. Padenton has spoken in the cases on the side of the admins.  Long story short, the section is toxic and shouldn't be changed for several weeks... until things calm down.   Unless everybody agrees to the changes, an independent third-party should be brought in.  Bgwhite (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: While you were posting a message, I was busy following up per @Padenton message. Is there anyone who does not agree with the latest change? M Tracy Hunter (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have a problem with the changes. Oi, what to do.  I'm really torn between reverting or letting them stay on conditions. Time to call in the Cavalry.    Could you come in and act as a moderator?  With OccultZone's requested Arbcom case ongoing, I need stay away.  Long story short, people have been banned and blocked because of this section until a compromise was reached in which I was moderator.  Tracy was not part of the earlier mess and seems to have made some very good edits the past couple of weeks on this article.  Tracy, Sitush is an expert on India (at least in his own head :) ).  Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even in my head, I'm no expert on modern India. I'm not even sure that a moderator is needed at the moment: all that is needed is for people to slow down.


 * I've just read the section and it seems ok to me. Sure, we are not a travel guide but the section refers to a range of governmental advisories, a reaction from the government of India and from the tourist industry. It spans several years and thus has an enduring element, which clearly falls outside the rather vague proscriptions of NOTNEWS. The international exposure of various rape incidents has been considerable and it seems to be within our remit to document the fall-out from that exposure.


 * That said, I would agree that no-one should make changes to the section without first obtaining consensus. Consensus is also not implied by a lack of reaction, or at least not in the short term; it would be insufficient to propose a change here and enact it, say, 24 hours later because no-one has commented on it. I suggest that any proposals require either an obvious SNOW consensus or a minimum of week before being seen through - that will allow intermittent contributors to get a say and will prevent any kneejerk reactions in the event that, say, another advisory is issued by another body. I also suggest that any proposals are made explicit, ie: draft exactly what you wish to say and comment only on that: too many discussions go off at tangents when things get heated. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References don't support statement.
Neither reference supports the statement "Rape is the fourth most common crime in India." In fact this sentence used to be something else, with the same references.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , .  Please don't revert each other without talking.  As I will get complaints regardless to what version I did or did not roll back too, I'll leave the original version stand, the one before VictoriaGrayson edited.  This way changes the original will be the one changes can be discussed about.  I haven't read the changes so I don't know who is "right" or not.  Please list your statements and facts here so we can discuss. I want to excise myself from this article, but nobody will help.  Bgwhite (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source clearly don't support that statement and previously it was "one of the most common".  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

, Should this article be semi-protected or fully protected for a while? It weakens this article if IPs or new editors can copy paste copyright violations, insert soap derived from blogs and other unreliable sources, and freely commit other content guideline violations, while requiring experienced editors to discuss the copyright violations etc on this talk page then wait for days to reach a new consensus. This feels asymmetric. If revert of newly added questionable content by any editor needs to be discussed on the talk page, shouldn't the addition of new content by all editors be first proposed on this talk page for equivalent consensus? M Tracy Hunter (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations and material from unreliable sources are easily removed. You did right by reverting the first time, especially with your edit summary.  VictoriaGrayson also did right by starting a discussion after the 2nd revert.   This could have been handled relatively easily.   There hasn't been much disruption for awhile, so I don't feel page protection is really necessary at this time.   Another problem, you are a relatively new editor.  The majority of new editors are here just for vandalism purposes, but people like you somehow make it thru.  I'd rather have brand new people or IPs like you to continue and put up with some distraction.   is an admin and just reverted the edit on the article.  I don't know them and don't recall having any interactions with them, but with both of us been around this long enough to where we must have interacted.  Black Kite, could you review the page protection request?  Could you also add this to your watchlist and keep and eye on the page.  I want an admin not named Bgwhite looking after the page.  Bgwhite (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your good intentions, but this article is unusual as evidenced by the recent history of its edits and this talk page. The asymmetry is neither fair to editors nor helpful to the article. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: got the facts right. This addition by and re-addition by  is an obvious copyvio of 1, that also happens to be NOTRS. is also right. The first sentence was indeed vandalized by with this unexplained edit in January 2015. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender and definition of rape
, The cite that was already in the article, supports the original text. See page 5 of that publication. A gazette publication in India, by its Ministry of Law and Justice, is the final step when a bill becomes their law. Please discuss your WP:BRD concerns on this talk page (not your personal talk pages), and develop a consensus before changing it. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "page 5" in that new source you just gave... please explain which source is "better". By your original message, the Gazette one seems better as it's the final step. The 91979 is just a press release. Also the 132013/Gazette source is newer.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be from page 5 of the gazette, but it is the press release as you note. I am tracing the edit history. The 375 section of their law does not mention children, as it was recently revised to. The text in this part of the article needs some fixing. Give me 30 minutes. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This was what I was struggling with with Casey577 on my talk page... trying to figure out the right one. I'll let you do your stuff and check back soon. Cheers.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

--Casey577 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)@M Tracy Hunter:

http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/132013.pdf

This is the most recent law....In the wiki article though it talks about criminal Ammendment act 2013, you guys had quoted the ordinace. First of all, I have deleted "any person" from line 148(as seen in the View History page of the wiki article)......in the present rape law only a woman can be raped; not "any person". I have also clarified the earlier rape laws and have mentioned that only a man can rape and that only a woman can be raped and that only a peno-vaginal intercourse would fall under this definition (as can be seen from Line 30 on the History page of the article). These things are mentioned in the previous law, ie the older section 375 and can be found in the original reference quoted on wiki page, ie ref no:17. The link is this: http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/IPC.pdf (note; its an existing wiki link)

Here is another link that clarifies the inadequacies of section 375 IPC as it existed earlier

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103956/

The clarification I mentioned are implicit within the wiki page itself, I really don't think u need to even refer these documents.

Now finally I have edited Line 58 on the wiki history -regarding same sex offences and the punishment. I edited and clarified this part to convey the message that same sex ofeences fall under section 377 and entrails punishment even if the act is consensual. Hence,forced sex between same sex members would also be punishable(obviously in a such a scenario, the offender alone would be punished). The previous wiki page (before my editing) seemed to convey that "forced sex" alone is punishable if the partners are of the same sex. That is incorrect-hence the edit. Also I pointed out a weird scenario in which, if a man forces a woman to have sex with another woman-that too could fall under the defintion of rape with the man being considered as the offender. This interpretation is just an interpretation, but its implicit in the 2013 Act. This being an interpretation may be deleted.....but my suggestion is to let it be, because it lends clarity to the existing laws.

Finally the issue of rape upon children is covered by "THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012"

https://sites.google.com/site/keralamedicolegalsociety/home-1/important-laws-and-rules/pcasa-act-2012-1/html

You can add this apsect yourself in the article...I didn't do it, because I can't decide the appropriate place to do this.

One another thing....its regarding this link:

http://ncw.nic.in/PDFFiles/Amendments%20to%20laws%20relating%20to%20women.pdf

It is a reference from the wiki page itself.....In that reference its mentioned as a 204 article.....but the actualpdf file has no date....its taken presumably from the NCW's website.....but there also there is no date. I think its an amalgm of all current existing laws. ie 375 PLUS child sexual offences law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey577 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You must have read the page where these files were linked.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Read guidelines and policies at WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WWIN and WP:V, and respect these. What you added violates these. RLoutfy (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfly @OccultZone

Plz explain to me why u guys deleted my edits. Let me summarize my edits for which u guys showed objection: 1)About older law being purely related to peno-vaginal sex alone 2)Again another issue related to the older law--ie Rape being an act that can be committed only by a man against a woman

These two points are explained by these links: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/rape_laws.htm http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103956/ The wiki article says " Before 3 February 2013...A person is said to commit "rape"" This aspect of the article implies that a "person" (gender neutral) can commit rape.....thats incorrect....only a man can commit rape and that too only against a woman.....this is clarified in the above link (more easily found with the legalserviceindia website link). I must also add the wiki article is confusing to say the least. You quote references which actually says otherwise. For eg u quote section 375 and uses the term "a person" instead of "a man".....which changes the meaning altogether

Also plz understand the actual laws do not talk of "a person" its always "a man". i thereby accuse that the wiki wirters have quoted the correct references and then used words conveying wrong meanings ("a paerson" instead of "a man" for eg). The original articles aren't there anymore on the net because they have been ammended. However the articles are quoted in the links i have provide; including the supreme court judgement.

3)Section 377 being not restricted to forced sex between same sex couples. I wish to clarify that section 377 does not refer to forced sex alone. even consensual sex is a crime under section 377. The current wiki article says that " Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex remains a crime under Section 377 of Indian penal code". This is not correct at all. Here is section 377

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836974/ or this

Gaur, KD (2009). Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. Universal Law Pub. p. 684. ISBN 9788175347038. The relevant pages of the book is available in google books preview and it is this book that is quoted in the wiki page. I don't understand...I am standing so much scrutiny (that too being correct), then how did someone saying "Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex......' was left uncorrected. The "forced" part is the conjecture. The actual act refers to only carnal act....meaning consensual sex is also a crime. Now read the references and edit the wiki page adequately without conveying wrong notions

I will wait for sometime for people to correct these errors otheriwse I will do it myself. If anybody has any objection....plz do a research or atleast ask me !

I might also add.....these references (atleasst most of the them) was quoted by me before attempting edit the last time......You people are not reading at all -


 * Yes, it should be man, not person, even with their older law, like all Asian countries. Let me check the edit history and the sources. Give me 30 minutes. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article 377 of their law applies to all same sex acts, forced or consensual. For consensus, what are your thoughts for the following substitution: "Forced sexual acts between members of the same sex remains a crime under Section 377 of ..." is replaced with "All sexual acts between members of the same sex, consensual or forced, remains a crime under Section 377 of ..."?
 * M Tracy Hunter (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@ M Tracy Hunter Saw your edits....all are perfect....thanks....I am only a "sort of expert' in the legal definitions of rape and related acts (being in touch with forensic medicine). I can't comment about the other aspects of the article, but as of now legal aspects and gender issues seem OK. I wish to add that the original rape law was limited to peno-vaginal sex alone. A rape done by a man for example by using anal sex would fall under section 377 (and not within rape laws). But of course the man would have been additionally charged with "outraging the modesty" "unlawful confinement" etc....but not "rape". so if u would add "peno-vaginal" to the original rape law (ie the one prior to 2013), then the article becomes perfect. -
 * ✅. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rape in India or anywhere in the world this is a big crime.
Rape is a crime, but what you think, why it is commenced and by whom. Rape is a unwanted activity in which girl not want to be sexualy with the any kind of a man or men. In the India why so much repe commenced by the men's, because the citizen of india know that there is so many way to escape from the case of rape. Because in india there is not a stick panel code about the rape on the behalf of this the rapist can face their crime.The rapist know that if he commenced a rape with a minor or a girl than he can be escape without punishment and that's why the crime of rape is rising and rising in india. In India there must be just only one punishment for the rapist which is that, the government of India must be hanged till be death in any situation whether the rapist is good in health or mentally ill because he just do the crime. So there must be just one punishment for rapist and that must be capital punishment(death).mail me if you are against the rape.

Ankit taak(Mukharji nagar Delhi) anktaak.sam@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.147.139 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Rape in India and the solution of this.Shama ankit (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Rape is a crime, but what you think, why it is commenced and by whom. Rape is a unwanted activity in which girl not want to be sexualy with the any kind of a man or men. In the India why so much repe commenced by the men's, because the citizen of india know that there is so many way to escape from the case of rape. Because in india there is not a stick panel code about the rape on the behalf of this the rapist can face their crime.The rapist know that if he commenced a rape with a minor or a girl than he can be escape without punishment and that's why the crime of rape is rising and rising in india. In India there must be just only one punishment for the rapist which is that, the government of India must be hanged till be death in any situation whether the rapist is good in health or mentally ill because he just do the crime. So there must be just one punishment for rapist and that must be capital punishment(death).Mail me if you are against the rape.

Ankit taak sahab (anktaak.sam@gmail.com) Mukharji nagar Delhi.

Manipulation of Human rights sources by Pro Indian editors
Indian editors have completely morphed the content of the huma rights article whichc mention Indian troops as the biggest cause of rape but have twisted it to divuldge all blaim from Indian troops to militant separatists using non notable single event in 1947 is UNDUE and breaks the flow of the whole paragraph. Rotunga (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"3rd highest"
Certainly, what IP says is actually disputed by our better article Rape statistics which shows that there are enough reliable sources that estimate other countries having huge amount of rapes and they are not appeared in the list that IP user is talking about, India has 24,000 reported rapes yet the article shows a number of nations, more than just 2, having more amount of rape incidents. While there would be almost no argument against "no.1" candidate, dispute starts with "no.2", "no.3" and anything after that. Capitals00 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The list only shows two countries with more rapes than India. USA and South Africa. India is still 3rd highest in number of rapes on that list. 45.118.68.12 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It shows UK, Egypt, China to be having more than "24,000" of India, and they all point to reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC) The rape statistics for those countries included total number of reported AND unreported rapes (BBC article for UK rape statistics). India's 24,000 rapes are only reported rapes. Actual numbers are much worse. So even then India has 3rd highest number of reported rapes. And this was a report in India's GOVERNMENT about how high up India is on the rape list (it is on 3rd position according to Indian government).45.118.68.12 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: Please include the WP:Diff in the discussion, and especially when requesting comments. Regarding this diff, for most readers I think the useful ranking would be based on the best estimate of the rate of total rapes - not the absolute number of reported rapes. The IP is correct that Capital is incorrectly comparing estimates of total rapes with reported rapes to conclude that other countries rank higher than India. But this does raise the point that China and UK and other countries are apparently not in the U.N. data set being referenced for both the Times of India source and for the Rape statistics table. Especially having China omitted from the UN report makes the 3rd ranking suspect. Both because I don't think this ranking is especially noteworthy, and because the ranking is suspect, I agree that it should be struck from the article. Grenschlep (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. After all, we should be arguing over sourcing. Not if information is true or not. That would be Original Research, which is banned on this site. I want to point out the source is a reputable Indian newspaper. If there is disagreement, we can include this with Attribution. 103.89.244.65 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rates are always better than frequencies for crimes. But we cannot know the "total" as we only have reports to go off of. The issue to me is whether the factoid presented by the source is notable enough for inclusion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I have given is a Times of India article, a reputable Indian newspaper, reporting a report IN the Indian upper Parliament about how high up India is on the frequency of rape list. So of course its notable.
 * According to also reputable newspaper 'Independent' India is among the top four nations in rapes in the world..
 * But Indian government whitewashes it and Indians on Wikipedia also whitewash it. Thats why they write on the introduction of Wikipedia that India has 'lowest per capita' rates of rape in the world. They are trying to hide India's civilizational crisis.
 * According to Aparna Pande who is Research Fellow & Director of Hudson Institute's Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia 'The scale of India's rape problem indicates a deeper crisis of our civilization, one of the oldest in the world.'
 * Rape in India is such a big problem that Indian government is trying to cover it up and minimise the extent of their problem and Indian men are doing the same on Wikipedia. Reputable Indian newspaper Hindustan Times even criticized Indian minister Maneka Gandhi's attempt to whitewash the fact that rape in India is a serious endemic problem. Their minister tried to say that rape in India is not a big problem using statistics of rates. If an Indian government minister is trying to hide India's high frequencies of rape problem and reputable Indian newspapers are refuting her then its clearly notable enough for inclusion that India is among the world’s highest in rapes. 103.89.244.65 (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are an admin so you should check this activity. Editor Capitals00 blocks any changes on this page and today again undid my edit with a false reason without even engaging on the talkpage where I clarified  why I am adding the relevant information from the reputable ‘’Times of India’’ newspaper with WP:ATTRIBUTION that India has 3rd highest number of rapes in the world per an Indian government report. Capitals00 consistently blocks my changes   even in spite of WP:NOTSOURCE. Please stop this behaviour. 103.89.244.65 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to drop WP:STICK now. Consensus is against your misrepresentation of sources, there are several nations that have more rapes than India and the numbers presented by several reliable sources having more amount rapes in other countries than those in India cannot be ignored. Even one of your source claiming "top four nations" doesn't support "3rd highest". We are not going to accept your WP:SYNTH that would contradict our every other article. In any case we are not going to say which country has 2nd highest or 3rd highest. You also need to stop IP hopping since you edited first with 45.118.68.12 and now you are using other IP, it is violation of WP:SOCK. It would be better if you register a account. Capitals00 (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And I searched "countries by rapes" and I found these sources seems like India is not even in top 10. Capitals00 (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * India is in the top 10.  I have the strongest arguments and I am going to add it. I will add the sentence with these reputable newspapers as sources. Times of India and Hindustan Times Different sources give us different statistics. As long as we can [[WP:VERIFY] data from WP:RS we can include it with WP:ATTRIBUTION. 103.89.244.65 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Annual rape"
The graph used purports to show "Annual rape and all forms of sexual assaults per 100,000 people, for India compared to select nations" -- but it doesn't actually even try to show that. It doesn't attempt to show the prevalence of these crimes, but instead how often someone reports these crimes to the police.

This makes RATHER a lot of difference. There are many good reasons to think reporting-rates differ over a wide spectrum between countries, and while a low amount of rape would (of course!) be a good thing, a low reporting-rate ain't even remotely the same thing.

I think at a minimum the graph should be relabeled to say "Annual *reported* ..." because that's what it actually shows.

--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert
Are you going to explain this revert instead of edit warring? You've removed at least four references which are backed by the majority of independent secondary WP:RS, including the journal source itself. There better be a reason behind this removal, and an explanation for "unreliable" before I'm forced to escalate this.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you really need explanation despite accurate edit summary provided and also the previous revert by ? If anyone is edit warring, that is you, against the longstanding version. None of your sources or information are WP:DUE and when you start with POV pushing by writing your own opinion "However, in reality" and use news sources for repeating the information covered elsewhere in better words and sources. We are not talking about underreporting because the same issue exists everywhere else, its not unique here. Capitals00 (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have provided zero valid arguments. The current lead is extremely cherry picked and needs a major rewrite to meet WP:NPOV. It is not even accurate. Here is the full quote from the the journal reference: "Whereas an 8·5% prevalence of sexual violence in the country is among the lowest in the world, it is estimated to affect 27·5 million women in India (table). Only 1% of victims of sexual violence report the crime to the police." And here is how the article deliberately falsifies it: "A 2014 piece in The Lancet states that the "8.5% prevalence of sexual violence in the country is among the lowest in the world." This is unacceptable and misleading for a Wikipedia article. Rape statistics are a major issue and grossly underestimated for countries like India, and one percent is an appallingly low figure, especially when you're using official statistics to determine the rape rate. An overwhelming majority of reliable sources have already stated that the official statistics don't count, since most cases in India aren't even registered, due to cultural stigma and taboos. Yet, here we have a lead which fails to explain the ramifications of this issue. In any case, the current lead is unsuitable and fails to appropriately summarise the subject as covered by multiple RS.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to you that whatever you are proposing is not NPOV but a violation of it and WP:ADVOCACY. Also read Rape in India, the estimates themselves varies and that's why your edits won't be accepted also because there is rebuttal which is also heavily reported regarding the situation that it continues to improve in India. Furthermore, there is no systematic discouragement in India for reporting the rape crime, that's why there is no need to include this WP:UNDUE here. There are sections for these arguments where it is already covered. Lead is just fine as it should be. Anmolbhat (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have read that section, then you should know it reinforces my point. There is massive under-reporting of the actual crime, which is why the official stats can't be relied upon. All reliable sources have stated that. We go by what the reliable sources say, not your or my opinion. And in the current state, the lead doesn't reflect what the reliable sources say.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 08:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a massive underreporting of rape in every country. See the Rape in the United States article for example.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting my point. Even that article's lead accurately summarizes the same. This article doesn't, and here we have gross underestimates being reported. It is clearly a major social issue, given how much coverage this topic has received in all reliable sources. So that brings us to the question finally: how can we have a summary which is accurate as per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, and not cherry-picked or falsifying sources.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not supporting your point. You think India is a special case, when its not.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually if we go by the coverage in reliable, independent sources, it clearly is. So please don't attempt to whitewash a serious topic, Wikipedia does not permit such POV-pushing and there is no way the current version is acceptable by any standards. I'm going to look for third-party intervention as we're just going in circles now.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think Al Jazeera supercedes academic journals etc, I don't know what to tell you.<b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 16:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All of you really need to step back and reevaluate what you are doing here. Mar4D, you should know better than to use the "Daily Beast" as a source about an important public health and sociological issue. The rest of you should know a lot better than to defend a quote which is both cherry-picked (the article in the Lancet makes it quite clear that it is referring to a likely inaccurate "official" figure) and not about rape. Sexual violence is an umbrella term which includes rape, but also includes attempted rape and other types of inappropriate behavior. The quote is thus completely inappropriate, and restoring it is a direct contravention of the policy on original research. It would be appropriate in an article about sexual violence in India (along with the associated context of a very low rate of reporting), which for some reason does not yet exist. Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are deleting 2 academic sources? Amazing.  Are you familiar with WP:VNT?  Are you also familiar with the fact rape is underreported in every country?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We or at least I was objecting the new edits above for being non-neutral and not actually defending the Lancet source. I have restored the prevalence of reported incidents and also added that large number of cases go unreported, but also mentioned the increased willingness to report which many reliable sources say the same, as mentioned in my comments above. Anmolbhat (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson: yes, absolutely, I removed two academic sources. VNT is not a license to dump any and all sourceable information in the article; in the lead, in particular, you need to demonstrate that any statement is representative of the source material, and relevant to the topic. The reported rate of sexual assault is verifiable; so is the number of Giraffes in South Africa, but it doesn't belong in the lead here. Sexual assault and rape are distinct, and if you cannot understand that, you shouldn't be editing this page.
 * Any source covering rape in India substantively mention the under-reporting of rape. Therefore, it needs to be mentioned along with the low statistics. If you believe the same is true of other countries, go take it up at those pages; that statement is utterly irrelevant here.
 * Anmolbhat; your edits are an improvement, but still need work. The lead should be representative of the most reliable and most substantive sources. The Deviant Behavior book does not qualify. It is a very brief overview, and there are far better sources available. The reported rate of rape does belong in the lead, but we need a more detailed source that cannot be taken out of context. Additionally, "the willingness [...] has increased" is a meaningless statement by itself. When has it increased? Or why? Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These sources, , , , , are worth exploring further. Vanamonde (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The other major problem with this addition is that it completely overlooks the lack of police action and slow legal procedures as contributory factors to the crisis, which my rewrite appropriately summarised. Here, for instance, is what Anmolbhat's own source expands upon: As an indicator of the scope of the problem of rape prosecution, the Nirbhaya case was the only conviction obtained among the 706 rape cases filed in New Delhi in 2012. Between 16 December 2012 and 4 January 2013, Delhi police recorded 501 allegations of harassment and 64 of rape, but only four inquiries were launched... A report released in 2013 by the National Crime Records Bureau shows that 95 per cent of the cases brought to the police were classified as a crime. However, there is a large backlog of cases: fewer than 15 per cent of those charged in 2012 were tried within 12 months. "Willingness" to report and actual prosecution are two separate things, not mutually exclusive. The writeup has to be balanced to meet WP:NPOV.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are confusing with conviction rate here, which is not really something that we are talking here about. Legal procedures are slow elsewhere. If you have something to propose then do it but don't remove something that is already considered as an improvement but doesn't match with your non-neutral edits. I am sorry but with your continued edit warring lack of careful insight you are not in position to decide what is WP:NPOV. Anmolbhat (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And Vanamonde93, I have worked on the suggestion that you provided. I have added another source for low rape rates. It seemed the sources acknowledged events since 2012 as the reason behind increasing willingness to report rape, that's why I have merged the paragraph with some of the third one, where some parts of it were already mentioned. Although some sources like suggest that willingness may have increased even before 2012, but most sources consider 2012 or "recent years". I have added an additional source there too. Anmolbhat (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Data about low conviction rates have received coverage in reliable sources, which means they need to be summarized in the lead. This does not mean that we remove statements about rising rates of reporting. Additionally, the official rate of rape needs to be mentioned in the lead, obviously; but I am yet to see convincing evidence that the comparison across countries belongs there, because as has been mentioned previously, unreported rape is high in many countries, making comparisons of official rates quite silly. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I also add - while the lead is better now, I still see no mention of the top reasons behind the high prevalence of unreported rape cases: cultural stigma, police inaction, slow legal process etc. These are backed by several reliable sources which are available. IMO, it should be mentioned alongside the sentence on unreported cases to achieve NPOV.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This, I would agree with. There is solid support among RS for the major causes of under-reporting, ie social stigma and police inaction. These should certainly be mentioned. Vanamonde (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reasons are too many for reporting as well as not reporting, and same reasons does not apply on everyone. There is no mention of false rapes, on lede and the reasons behind them. For NPOV, either mention both or none. I would support the latter. 2402:3A80:8C5:785F:F4BB:A87D:E98F:82BA (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Statistics
It seems that CNN report on this recent edit linked to a rice institute report which linked to original report but it describes these stats as "women who experienced sexual violence by husbands was forty times the number of women who experienced sexual violence", this contradicts our last discussion with multiple editors that sexual violence is a different subject. Capitals00 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sexual assault is a different but closely related subject. In a situation such as this, wherein statistics for marital rape are unavailable because it isn't defined as a crime, secondary sources quite naturally cite sexual assault within marriage, as the best proxy. As such, we should do the same. Furthermore, MBlaze should definitely not have reverted this atrocious grammar back into the article: "India don't have marital rape law. so marital rapes don't get reported at all, so it can't be estimated" is not acceptable English. Vanamonde (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was some WP:OR in both sentences. I have now fixed the wording per sources. Capitals00 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, I​ must have overlooked it.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 06:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
I added back the relevant information with more references on the statistics and polling information. I did make edits so it was not a direct copy and also more fitted to the references. The material is well sourced and fits the topic of this article. ContentEditman (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * By adding an irrelevant poll that never concerned rape topic? Your opinion from attimes.com is also very trivial. Only thing is worth keeping is the stats about minors but since you are violating copyrights I would urge you to stop edit warnings and read WP:BRD. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant and well fitting to this article, let alone well sourced. I also do not see any copyright violations, edits have been made to clear any of that up. ContentEditman (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Poll makes no mention of "rape" and this subject is about "rape" only. Now you are also violating WP:NOTNEWS by adding non-notable incidents. Copyvio still exists in the version.] Shashank5988 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sexual violence and sexual slavery are part of rape and its well fitted to this article let alone the other areas it brings up and ties in with here. I added world wide reported incidents with supporting references and tie in to another. And there are no copy right violations. You have had multiple editors review that agreed it does not violate. ContentEditman (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't create your own definition. I was correct with my analysis. Remember that it would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR if you added anything off topic. Just because you are using a "world wide" report, it doesn't means that content is now exempted from WP:NOTNEWS. I further repeat that only thing that had anything significance was statistic which you brought but you directly pasted it from source which is violation of WP:COPYVIO. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing off topic was added, everything is supported by multiply references and is well fitted. It was not directly copied from the source, edits have been made on that. If its the writing style that bothers you then put up a better example on how to make it better. But removing well sourced material for no other reason show your opinion is biased and you are removing for other reason than given. ContentEditman (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not supported by source if it makes no mention of "rape" at all. We are not going to collect those incidents that are very non notable. Now I am no longer going to entertain this WP:IDHT discussion.  Would just say that you should now refrain from adding further problematic content and stop edit warring and copyright violations. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You know how I know you did not read the references? They did make mention of rape multiply times. You are showing your Bias with your edits and comments. ContentEditman (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the broad survey reported by the CNN and others is irrelevant. All sexual violence is not rape (especially not in the legal sense of the word) but that does not mean that sexual violence is not relevant in connection with rape, since rape is one of the most typical and serious forms of sexual violence. Since the CNN article directly and specifically discusses rape in India, I fail to understand how it was not considered relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop wikihounding, it is considered as harassment. If there is no mention of "rape" in the poll which is being discussed in that added that's why it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We are not going to talk about which country is more dangerous for women because of acid attacks, human trafficking and some more more off-topic subjects. If you really want to discuss the part of the article (which is not really concerned) where it mentions about rape then you should also know that we have already said it all here already. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not wikihounding and the references show clear support. Again you are trying to hide your bias behind copyright, wikihounding, etc... Please make a good faith effort to edit the well supported material instead of censoring it. ContentEditman (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Bonadea was obviously wikihounding my contributions after he saw a misleading "vandal" warning left by you when you were restoring your copyright violation. So far you have been only promoting the "poll" which is not concerned with "rape" but off-topic subjects like acid attacks, human trafficking, sexual violence, and more. You have shown overtime with your WP:IDHT that you are only pushing a POV, but you need to stop it. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaning why you thought I was "wikihounding" you. This article has been on my watchlist for more than a year, and I did not come there from your talk page (which I don't have watchlisted; in fact I can't remember interacting with you before, but I edit a lot of different pages so it's quite possible we've crossed paths before.) My opinions are to do with the article content and what is relevant or not, and completely unrelated to you, as can be seen from my post above. It would be excellent if you could also comment on the content and not on other editors - that's the only way a consensus can be arrived at, one way or the other. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You had never edited this article ever before this day. Your only edit was the edit which is now suppressed for being copyright violation. This is what I was referring in my above comment. As for the content I can only point out that I have significantly commented about it. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You have made comments but have not supported with any good reasons for removal. You listed as Copyright but even an admin said only one part needed to be edited, and I am doing that now. So what reasons other than your opinion do you not believe any of the added material should remain? There is more than just one section you have removed as well. ContentEditman (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)