Jump to content

Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape and murder/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 02:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will be taking a hard look at this article over the next few days, including my usual investigation of possible sources on the internet to see if major themes are sufficiently covered to meet GA criteria. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I'll work on anything that I'm good with, refs as well as language. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is out of date. A handful of anniversary pieces were published in December 2013, offering further analysis from the objectivity of time:
  • The article is far too short on analysis of gang rape in India. This shortage is not because of an absence of commentary in the media. Many other cases have been discussed and compared to the 2012 Delhi bus gang rape case. This case should be described as notable for having brought the previously hidden topic of gang rape into public discourse.
  • Post script: It's probably time to revisit the question of whether to put the dead woman's name in the article, especially with the mother finally speaking out in November 2013, adding to the earlier announcements by the father. The victim's name was frequently in the news in September 2013 when four perpetrators were sentenced to death. The RfC was before September 2013, so its conclusion appears stale to me. The male victim is also named in many sources, including this interview of him in which the woman is also named. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me again when the article has been updated and expanded. I would like to see it go to GA. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Rsrikanth05, do you have any thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as outdated is concerned, most of the news reports slowed down and ultimately stopped sometime after the couts pronounced their verdicts. The links that have been posted above, make a good start and need to be included to describe the aftermath of the incident. WRT the Mumbai rape case, I think it belongs to article that it has and not on this, but as Binksternet said, it is necessary for the analysis on gang rape. I guess, we need to include these other incidents, especially the one of the Danish tourist, because it happened ~a year after this, in the same city, after such an outrage. I'm feeling quite positive on this one, and I feel that all those interested, should also speak up with their thoughts, so we can find the best way forward. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun to add a few things. Please feel free to copy edit my additions. I remember that I always did want to add copy re her loving father who sacrificed for her schooling, etc., but never could find a place for it. Huff Po and the NYT now have good coverage that we can use to mention family and include the Nirbhaya Trust that her dad set up. Her mom was interviewed as well.
What do you think we should do about her name? It seems that the large Indian sources and the NYT are still not using it, but many others are. Strangely, the Times reported on the Nirbhaya Trust but still did not use her name in the rest of their article. (opps, too much late night/not paying attention editing. Gandydancer (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not connect the name issue to success or failure at GAN—the page editors can settle the matter any way that seems fitting. I was simply noticing that many sources published after the name RfC in August 2013 used her name, and even the name of the living male assault victim. To me, it looks like the RfC is based on older practices and is thus out of sync with newer articles published in September 2013 and afterward. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is now little interest in this article. I'm still looking at sources. Some sources called the institute the "Nirbhaya-Jyoti Trust" [1] Rsrikanth05 what do you think? I think we should begin to use the name but I'm open to discussion if you feel differently. Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused here. I think consensus is required among a larger group. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pre-discussion, if you will. An official RfC must be held to overturn the last one. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to open a new section "Proposal to use victims name" or something like that? At one point I remember that her father denied that he had given approval (that was in relation to that article that appeared in a British tabloid) and said that he would change his mind only if a new law was passed that used her name. India has passed some pretty major legislation related to the rape (though not with her named). Do you think that we must find a specific quote from the family before we believe that they have given approval? From what I read from the info published related to the memorials, I would tend to believe that we could use her name. On the other hand, although I did not conduct a survey, it was my impression that the major sources were still not using her name. UK sources seemed to be an exception...I think--but I have not had time to look at the matter closely. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should keep this article at an arm's distance so that I can pick up the GA3 review as reviewer. You guys should start an official RfC about the name, unless you don't care to make any change. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry--my conversation was meant to be to Rs. I'll wait to see what s/he says. (Speaking to Rs:) As for me, I can hardly stand to think of a RfC. In my experience some people do not realize that it can take a fair amount of reading to make a sound decision. If I had my way we'd just start a new topic and if no one shows up to discuss, Rs and I can decide--which will be easy because I am willing to go with whatever s/he says. I'm guessing that one day the parents will state their choice and then it would be easy to change the article. BTW, what about the man's name, Avnindra Pandey. I see no reason to not use it, do you? Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I must sound like a real dope--I missed Bink's note above that says me must open a new RfC to change the decision rather than just doing it on the talk page. Sorry to be such a scatterbrain. I am not sure that the case is strong enough yet. Bink mentioned the article from a mag called Friday Magazine which had her mother using her name but I don't think that it is RS. Gandydancer (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion remains that the article currently refrain from stating the victim's name and we re-open this discussion at a later time when the usage of the name is much more clear-cut. I would suggest a wording like "trust in her name" rather than naming the trust if it reveals her name.
As of now, let us defer to what the prior consensus and a good number of new sources (and nearly all Indian sources) continue to practise, and not use the name.
As for the male victim's name, we can use it if he has publicly self-identified.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there--good to hear from you! I think you have a good plan and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm about done with my edits. I would still like to add the info from the dad re the importance of education (that's in the NYT source) but remain unsure of how to tuck it in somewhere. Ideas?

Regarding some of Bink's suggestions:

  • Also, two of the convicted four recently said they were innocent: "Delhi gang-rape: Two claim innocence, deny presence inside bus, DNA India

I'm not going to bother with that info or this one either:

  • As well, there are recent developments in the court case: "Nirbhaya gang-rape case: Delhi HC reserves order", The Times of India

AFAICT, the court case is merely a normal procedural move and the denial did not get much coverage either.

I also did not go into more depth and discuss the other rape cases mentioned in Bink's list. I did consider including a section that discussed the effect that her murder and the well-publicized subsequent rapes (which likely rec'd so much coverage because of her case) has had by making visiting women fearful and thus hurting the tourist trade. I also thought of adding something about the fact that her case was only so well-publicized because she is part of the new India middle class, but most of that was from an opinion piece and the journalist is not an expert. But these topics should go into the Rape in India article. Of course, if another editor wants to include these things,I would support inclusion.Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to add for now. It has been several days and no other editors have made any comments so I will let Binksternet know that its ready for a second try at a review. Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all of these changes since the GA2 review, the article certainly looks ready for GA3 review. Please renominate the article for GAN. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder/GA2&oldid=956200869"