Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/2012 Delhi gang rape case

2012 Delhi gang rape case


16 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The issue is about whether the name of the gang rape victim should be included in the article or not. While the name has been verified and victim's father had granted permission to reveal her name, the name is not being allowed to included by The Banner and User:Lukeno94. They say that since the consensus is against it's inclusion it cannot be included in the article. However since the information about the name is verifiable and significant it's inclusion is not subject to a consensus. Also The Banner and Lukeno94 are the only ones in favor of not including it. I and Gandydancer are in favor of including it while Khazar2 is undecided which can be seen here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rape_victim_identification_at_2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case ). Also The Banner has started harassing me in order to scare me away. Lukeno94 displayed the same behavior earlier. It seems that these users are refusing to let the victim's name be included in the article because they think that it will be a disrespect to her. In that case they are promoting their own personal interests. This cannot be allowed. I request assistance in resolving this dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have proved to them that the name of the victim is verifiable and her family had granted media outlets the permission to reveal her name. I've also tried explaining to them that including her name in the article is not an insult to her but it will increase her respect.

How do you think we can help?

Please make sure that no one can impose their own views and advise about what decision should be taken about the inclusion of the name of the victim in the article.

Opening comments by The Banner
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The filer has done nothing to reach a compromise. He just get hammering that we did not understand the policies. Now it is clear that the discussion is not going his way, he turns to DR. The Banner talk 19:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

With the user taking user warnings as threats and removing them, I have no hope filer will be willing to compromise or negotiate. The Banner talk 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gandydancer
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This editor is not correct when s/he states that I want to put the name of the dead woman into the article and that should be clear since I was the first one to remove her name when he used it on the talk page. I thought that I could help him/her by explaining that in a previous discussion I brought up the possibility but through group discussion I agreed that we should not use her name. That turned out to be a mistake because now s/he continues to repeat that I want her name in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lukeno94
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I don't think I've got much more to say than what Soni said - their viewpoint is pretty much mine. What I will say is that TransVannian has used both edit summaries and the talkpage as a soapbox for their views, and any time they are informed of this policy, they either ignore it, or claim "harassment" - as they've done here. No one has claimed that adding the victim's name is an "insult" - we're following BLP and keeping it out of the article, as per the family's wishes. Frankly, this DRN shows yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by TransVannian, and should be closed. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the user has taken to attempting to troll my talk page, it's clear they're not here to be constructive at all. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Khazar2
Sorry to be late to the party; as noted below, I'm on a bit of Wikibreak. I actually don't have strong feelings here, since a reasonable case can be made for both sides. So far as I can see, most news stories are declining to use her name, while a few are. The name actually appears in the article's references twice just in headlines, as in this Australian article:. TransVannian got off on the wrong foot with their approach here, but the idea of including the name isn't wholly unreasonable. My personal take is that there's little harm in revealing a name already so widely available and little encyclopedic good in including a name most sources still aren't using. So I think the stakes are low here, and I probably won't be participating much beyond this initial statement. Thanks, though, to everyone working on this, and thanks to Scott for mediating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TheOriginalSoni
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. This is a relatively simple case. The editor in question, TransVannian, started by making a change to the article with an Edit Sumary which was considered bad enough by several editors that I had to contact an admin who revdelled it. After which, they have been posting long tirades on the talk page accusing everyone of POV pushing and not knowing Wikipedia guidelines and related matters.

The primary issue being contended is whether or not a rape victim's name be published in the article. Long standing consensus, based on discussion, previous examples of similar cases and policies as well as the national and most of international media judged against having the name on the article. The editor here failed to note that consensus in this case was more important than verifiablity.

In light of the long and pointless discussion, I had closed the discussion on the Talk page, after which the discussion and accusations shifted to User talk:The Banner, before being closed again and brought to DRN. The case seems pretty straightforward to me.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Discussion should be there but what if the the whole consensus has been motivated by a user thinking that including victim's name is a insult. It a promotion of their own views. Also how are you saying that consensus is more important than verification. Is this statement even mentioned anywhere? No it isn't. Without a proof why should your statement be regarded true User:TheOriginalSoni? In actual it is the opossite. Correct information that is significant is not subject to a consensus no.matter how controversial the info might be. TransVannian (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only that you've also failed that only 2 users are in favor of not including the name in the article while 2 are in favor of including it and 1 is undecided. How are you saying that consensus favors not including the name? TransVannian (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lukeno94 you can't say that this post should be closed. It will be closed when the dispute is resolved. Do you expect me to just blindly believe that consensus is more important than verifiability? These bullying tactis won't work on.me. TransVannian (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you stop with the utter bullshit that your claims of "bullying" are? Your "verifiability" comment makes no sense either - just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included; thus, yes, consensus is more important than verifiability. Again, more battleground behaviour from you. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there everyone. I volunteer here at DRN and am willing to take on this request. Once Khazar2 has made a statement we can begin. I am aware that Khazar2 has stated he is on a wikibreak and can't really be involved so if we haven't heard from him in 24 hours we will proceed without his statement. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Cabe,
 * I dont think a full DRN will be required because the editor in question is very unclear on policies and refuses to listen to us when we try to explain them. If possible and appropriate, I request you to look through the matter and explain the issues to him so we all can go forward with what we were doing. In case you find that not the best thing to do, I'll be willing to co-operate with whatever steps you deem appropriate to deal with it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. The editor has now tried to take the discussion to Luke's and my talk pages. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read over most of the interactions between the editors regarding this subject however DRN is not for discussing user conduct, rather, we should focus on the content. I left this case open because it's an interesting one. To play devils advocate here: can someone explain why not including the victims name is not brushing up against WP:NOTCENSORED? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC
 * Standard procedure is to leave the victim's names of these cases out, especially when the family express that wish, as I believe is the case here. Whilst NOTCENSORED may be a valid argument, local consensus always takes heed over such things; and the consensus, which TransVannian has ignored/refuses to accept, is to leave the name out. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where the policy says that's standard procedure? Or is this a case of 'it's always been that way'. Also, local consensus "cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". To be clear here, I'm not taking sides, TransVannian reasonably valid point although he hasn't delivered it very well hence my current 'devils advocate' style comments. Additionally, I don't have access to the sources right now but I've been lead to believe that the father publised the name of the victim himself, is this correct? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello thereUser:Cabe6403. First of all I'll like to point out that the victim's family has actually granted permission to reveal her name. User:Lukeno94's statement is incorrect. The victim's father himself directly requested media outlets to reveal her name. It can be easily be seen the requirement of permission has already been met. TransVannian (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi TransVannian, I'm another DRN editor here, if you want to make the claim that permission has been given, its much easier to give your claim more weight if you link it to proof. -- Nbound (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Nbound. Here's the proof which states that the victim's father not only granted permission but himself revealed her identity. This is the proof ( http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289 ). Her name is given there. Users can check it. TransVannian (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not even close to a WP:Reliable source... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh so you're calling a reputed media outlet as unreliable. The source is perfectly reliable and besides you'll find multiple reliable sources on Google that will state the same thing. The website Mirror is a perfectly reliable source. You do not even know what a reliable source is. TransVannian (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mirror a reliable source? Excuse me whilst I burst into hysterical laughter... Did you seriously just make that statement? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the obvious unreliable nature of a TABLOID newspaper, the actual discussion about the inclusion of the name was here. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright laugh after you read this. The Daily Mirror has said that they have received permission from her father to reveal her name. Also all news websites are regarded as reliable on Wikipedia if you did not know. Stop spreading lies and misinformation Lukeno94. You're making an embarrassment out of yourself. Last of all Wikipedia is not a place to laugh at others. TransVannian (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact the father denied he had requested the victim to be named. Surely, the BBC is a reliable source for that denial. The Banner talk 11:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you now going to claim that the Daily Mail and The Sun are reliable sources as well? The Mirror is about the same level as they are... NOT all news websites are regarded as reliable on Wikipedia; that's a ludicrous statement. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the policy which you yourself mentioned  "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The Mirror or The Daily Mirror is a globally reputed news outlet. And as such it can be regarded as a reliable source. Also since the father has directly revealed her name to them there is no chance there might be a factual error. I leave it to the volunteers to judge the comments forwarded by me. TransVannian (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I should mention this. All the Wikipedia articles about currently happening events or events that happened some time ago always contain mostly news websites as sources. Even the article we are discussing about uses news websites as sources. TransVannian (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm jumping in here as someone entirely uninvolved, and I do not know DRN protocol, so if my comments here are inappropriate, I have no problem whatsoever with a DRN volunteer either hatting them or removing them. However, TransVannian needs to be reminded that our policy against personal attacks applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and that insults like the one lobbed at Lukeno94 above (which echo some on left on Lukeno94's talk page) need to stop or there will be no alternative but to block your (TransVannian's) account. Please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL; disagreement is fine (to a point), but attacks, insults, and other acts of incivility are not. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all I should say this is not the place to talk about someone's behavior. Additionaly, why are you ignoring User:Lukeno94's aggressive and insultive behaviour. Please tell me what type of editor call so other comments as bullshit and says wait before I laugh hysterically to them ? That's why said Laugh after you read this. It was a passive remark yes but is due to Lukeno94's insulting behavior. But just a passive remark doesn't mean I can be blocked. I will not repeat this mistake again and will now completely focus on the discussion rather than remarks of other users. But please I request you to do something about Lukeno94's behavior and tell him to stay civil. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Qwryxian's comment has little to do with "laugh after you read this", and is more to do with your downright false accusations of "bullying" and stating that I am "spreading lies and misinformation" - both are bullshit (and that's not incivil or a personal attack; that's a statement of fact.) The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper, as you yourself have remarked upon previously. Tabloid newspapers are not, never have been, and never will be reliable sources, period. If you can't understand why that is, well... I'm concerned for you. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, lets drop all 'he said, she said' fingerpointing and focus on the content. As an aside, tabloid simply refers to the size of the paper the media is published on although, these days, it can be informally used to label things like the mirror and the sun due to their more sensationalist and gossipy reporting styles. Regardless, the BBC is much more of a reliable source than either and that source states, quite clearly, that the father did not wish the name published.
 * Regarding the inclusion of the name, the name of the victim is sourced, in multiple places. I see people referring to the law in India but Wikipedia is not affected by these laws. This is also the English Wikipedia not one of the Indian ones. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why this is being continued, to be honest. It's not just local consensus, but quite a general one that rape victims' names are left out, particularly when the family wish it to be private; there's a highly reliable source stating that the family wish it to be private, so the name should be left out, law or no law. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had earlier mentioned that even highly reputable sources can be incorrect. Not only that there's only one source even.though highly reputable claiming he did not grant permission. Also see this news source which states ( http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=161252 ) that Lalu Prasad Yadav, a high class politician revealed her name and that too on January 18 while the BBC article's date is January 7 although the source hasn't revealed what her name is. Now both sources cannot be correct. Multiple sources say that the father granted permission and only BBC is saying he did not. The case that his father did not give permission very weak. If you can bring more reliable sources which state the sane as BBC perhaps you can make it stronger. But still it has to be determined which source is correct. Reliability cannot be determined on the basis of reputation alone. Also in January I read the same thing thing in an English newspaper The Tribune that her father had asked media outlets to name the victim. Perhaps BBC or The Mirror might have committed  factual errors although it's difficult to tell. TransVannian (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much has happened in the hours while I was away, but I'll just jump in to say Lalu Prasad Yadav is not a high class politician. There are plenty of politicians who would resort to such gimmicks and he is one of them. He will be a very BAD reason for any sort of inclusion on here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look closely in this article ( http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20925164 ) BBC itself states that it was the Indian media saying that he had not granted permission. While The Sunday People newspaper says that he has granted permission and even carries his picture, The Hindustan Times on the other hand says he had not. It seems that BBC did not conduct any original research into the matter that whether the father granted permission or not. I request the volunteers to help and advise what to do since the matter has become very confusing. As I've earlier said even reputed news websites can commit mistakes. TransVannian (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the inconsistency in the sourcing is why we are erring on the side of caution and leaving out the information. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in saying there is no inconsistency in the victims name but only in whether her father stated he wished it to be known? This is a complex issue in which there is no 'right' way of doing it. As such, we must defer to consensus. I would suggest to the original filer that he raises an RfC on the issue to gain wider community consensus on the matter. For now, I would leave the name off and use the suggested RfC to establish a consensus to include it. For what it's worth I'd be in favour of including the name as I believe it's encyclopeadic and suitably sourced as the correct name. I'll leave this open for another day or so before closing it in case there's any further comments. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia Rape shield law: As a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes such a law also exists inside the US and even UK and even Australia and even the Arab countries. However this law does not prohipit the name of victim. I'll give you a very famous example of why Wikipedia's editing is not under any nation's laws. You might know about Scorpions album Virgin Killer. The album art of that album supposedly showing a nude minor girl and also a crack at the place where the private parts are supposedly implying about taking her virginity or raping her. That Wikipedia article was blocked by UK. However Wikipedia did not remove the album art simply because Wikipedia is not responsible for it and it supports uncensored information nor does it support child pornography at all. So your saying that just because there is no permissions from family the name cannot be included is completely incorrect. Laws of any government of any country do not apply here. And yes that means even murdrers, thiefs, rapists (I'm not insulting anyone but just trying to prove a point) and terrorists can edit Wikipedia as long their edits are constructive. Also I've already said there is no complete proof and by thus including the name which some sources say is JS (you know the name) it can't mean we are including her real name. My edit is not going to be that her name is JS. It is instead going to be while some sources say that the father of victim revealed her name as JS, it was later reported by many media outlets that father did what not grant permission to reveal her name putting the reliability of the name reported earlier under serious question mark. It is still not clear what is the victim's actual name. This still protects her identity and I see no problem with this. However I would like the volunteers to advise. TransVannian (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is completely unnecessary. And is STILL against a general consensus. Dude, I haven't yet seen anyone who actually agrees with you, so just drop it and move on. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you need to stop your pathetic lies. The volunteer is actually with me. You of course do not kniw how Wikipedia works. So I ask you to learn that first. Volunteers might not have more power than you and I but admins do. And I'm willing to take this matter to them that is after volunteers say there is no problem with my edit but you stop from making that edit in the article by undoing my edits or deleting it. No matter how much lies you can craft they won't work in front of them. TransVannian (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe clearly stated this: "For now, I would leave the name off and use the suggested RfC" - cut the bullshit. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cable only stated about not including it as her name. Also one more thing all edits do not require consensus. This comment was made before I asked if it is OK to make this edit. While some media outlets stated her name as JSP, it was later reported by some outlets that he had denied giving any permission putting the credibility of that name into question. I ask Cabe6403 if it is OK to make this edit without consensus? TransVannian (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think Cabe's solution--holding an RfC on the name issue, and leaving the name out in the meantime--is a sensible one. I'd very much oppose introducing the name in the meantime until that consensus is clear. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

TransVannian, when I said I'd leave the name off, I was referring to all instances of including the victims name within the article. Would you be willing to take it to an RfC? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It really saddens me that this seems headed for an RfC. Really? Is this really necessary? We should not be printing the name of a rape victim. Full stop. I know we're NOTCENSORED and printing the name in this case may well be BLP-compliant. So the fuck what? It's basic human decency. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I stated that ages ago, and I still don't think TransVannian knows how Wikipedia operates, given that the majority of their comments don't fit up with Wikipedia policies. They're even flat-out misrepresenting what people say, and then having the gall to tell others they're being "disruptive" and "lying" - ironic. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) An RfC will get the opinion of the community at large, of which you are a part of. At the moment its fairly limited to a small number of editors. I suggest those with strong feelings take a read over WP:TIGER, its an interesting read. I believe that, as an encyclopedia, we should strive to have all encyclopedic information included and not be swayed by emotions. We also shouldn't decide for our readers what information they should have access to, we should provide them will all the reliable, verifiable and sourced information we have access to written in a neutral tone without giving undue weight to any one aspect. I'm aware that not all editors will feel this way, I respect this, which is why I have suggested an RfC.
 * If this discussion continues to not focus on content then I will assume that aspect has finished and close this DRN. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am saddened by the ongoing disrespect that TransVannian shows for the existing community consensus and for the disrespect he shows for the victim and her family. Although behaviour should not play a role in this mediation request, I think it is necessary to look at his trolling, PAs and POV-pushing. He wants the name in it and he does everything to reach that goal. The whole time he claims that WP:V is enough to mention her name. Every other policies and consensus that backs up the claim not to do it is bluntly ignored and every Wikipedian coming up with them does not understand the policy. I see no willingness from his side to compromise, just a troll eating up time and resources. The outcome of an RFC is quite predictable and will only confirm the present consensus not to name a victim. The Banner talk 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask TransVannian: If an RfC is undertaken, would you be willing to respect the outcome regardless of which way it goes? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all I'll request Cabe6403 to explain what is an Rfc since I'm still somewhat new and can't understamd some Wiki terms. Second of all, if thr volunteers think it will be better to have a consensus in all instances then alright it's no probkem.eith me since you have a better judgment thsn me. Even the discussion didn't go in my favor it's good to see that it was because there were real proofs against me and not because some disruptive editors were trying to strong arm me but still I forgive them. The volunteers can close the discussion anytime they want but before that I request them to please explain what an Rfc is. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC should answer your question. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I'll like to say to The Banner that I don't need anyone to tell me whether I respect her or not. I myself have an elder sister and somewhat understand the problems women go through everyday. You might think that revealing her name is a disrespect but I on the other hand hiding her name is actually disrespect to her and revealing her name is a respect to her. There are millions who might think the same as me but then again there are also millions who think naming the victim is a disrespect. That's because everyone's opinion is different. We live I in a world with large number of people with different personalities. So not everyone has the same thinking as you. I respect your views but you should respect mine too. TransVannian (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm willing to take a wider community consensus or RFC regardless of the outcome. I don't care that much about the outcome as much I care about having a fair discussion. Wikipedia advises avoiding victimization of victims which might include not revealing the name if there is no permission. However it only refers to those victims only who are alive not those who are dead. Also it's just an advise and not a policy since it itself says it is advised. However only for victims who are alive. I ask the volunteers whether I should file an RfC right here or someplace else? TransVannian (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You care about a fair discussion????? The Banner talk 19:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)