This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
The article sounds like 'cuisines' in Northern Ireland, Climate in southwest LA. lol.
A user from pakistan with loud history of making anti india articles creates an article about far east india with a few rape incidents and link it to a similar Rape in <indian place name>. Clearly not in good faith. How unfortunate. It should be deleted. Anu Raj (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content in the article is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, but I'm not convinced that it needs its own article. Some of the framing is not correct either. The Guardian article is about rapes in Delhi of migrants from the Northeast, which is a separate issue. I found the articles Human rights abuses in Assam and Human rights abuses in Manipur to be underdeveloped as well. These issues make me think that a broader article on Human rights in Northeast India might be the best way to go. It would allow for presentation of the rape issue in the context of other human rights concerns, of which there seem to be a sufficient amount to warrant an article. —Zujine|talk14:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is kind of synthesis is probably the best way forward, but given that the article was just kept after an AfD with a landslide vote, it will be an uphill battle to convince involved editors to merge the content into one article, no matter the benefits to organization, perspective, and ease of location for the readers. I'll throw my weight behind it for sure though, if someone comes up with a good draft. Snow (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I skipped past the note at the top on the AfD. Indeed, that decision makes a large shift more difficult. Perhaps the way to move forward is to start creating the broader human rights article and then later suggest a merge if it still seems appropriate. —Zujine|talk13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus to include the information in this article in a number of different places, List of rape cases in India and Human rights issues in Northeastern India being the two main ones. The opposition notes that there is the potential for this article to be expanded and certainly this close shouldn't be read as preventing the recreation of this article at a later date if there is enough material to justify a stand-alone article at that time. The merging is left to the interested parties, as is the exact redirect target (though Human rights issues in Northeastern India seems a good choice IMO) Non-admin closure Hobit (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was suggestd that an RFC be held to discuss if this article should be merged to Rape in India
I strongly support a merger of content between this and several other articles which concern rape in the context of human rights abuses in Northeastern India (specifically Human rights abuses in Assam and Human rights abuses in Manipur). However, because Rape in India will surely grow to content for rapes well outside the context we see treated in the other three articles (specifically, they are all primarily concerned with rape during civil unrest and in the context of political/ethnic conflicts while Rape in India is likely to continue to focus on domestic rape), I suggest that the best home for merged content from all three of these articles (and potentially others) would be Human rights issues in Northeastern India. So, just to clarify, I believe Rape in Northeast India, Human rights abuses in Assam, and Human rights abuses in Manipur, all of which are relatively small articles at present and have not seen significant growth since their initial creation, could reasonably be combined into Human rights issues in Northeastern India. Alternatively we could even make the main article Human rights issues in India, since this would also allow us to include information from Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and still other articles (though the Jammu/Kashmir article should stay its own article as well, given its size). In the event that any one section ever did grow too large to be contained in this combined article, they could always be spun out again and linked to the master article, but in the meantime this approach would, I think, make the content easier to find and better organized/contextualized for readers. Snow (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, after reviewing a suggestion made a while back by an editor above (Zujine), it occurs to me that the approach he suggests seems like the path of least resistance. Create the main article Human rights issues in India (or Human rights issues in Northeast India), include the relevant information and then, once the article is in a state where it is already a decent overview of the subject matter, begin merger all relevant and well-sourced material. Then, once this information has been properly synthesized into the new master article, new AfD's can be proposed for the shorter articles and the concerns which prohibited the deletion of this article previously can be assuaged by pointing to the fact that the content is now well-preserved and organized in the new combined article. Meanwhile, articles which contribute content to Human rights issues in India (or whatever it ends up being) but which are themselves developed enough to justify their own independent existence (such as Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir can still be kept, their content synthesized in brief in the new main article which will also link to them as a fuller documentation for those individual regions. Snow (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a rape section therein might do the trick, though looking at the length of the current page I think a draft of the material to be added might be in order before we decide if it can be reasonably fit into that location. Snow (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that expanding the Human Rights in India article should be done regardless, but there are some unique aspects to Northeast India, even separate from those of Kashmir and Jammu. I've had some family matters to take care of this summer, and I just haven't spent the time on wiki that I wanted to. Personally, I'd like to see Rape in Northeast India, Human rights abuses in Assam, and Human rights abuses in Manipur, all merged together. The issues in all of the states in Northeast India overlap to an extent that I think justifies there being a single article discussing it. If someone felt strongly that there should just be a single article at Human Rights in India with expansive sections for different regions, I would support that too, but I think I think there is justification for a separate article on this issue. Most of the content in the rape article is needs the context of the broader cultural conflict and relationship between the Indian military and the locals, which of course has led to a broader range of abuses than rape, all of which deserve exposition. If some of us could start building Human Rights in Northeast India, we could then open a merger proposal once we have the page in good shape. To be honest, my time is tight for another week, but I should be back into the swing of things after that. I'll check back here on decisions, and wherever the group decides to go, I'll help out. —Zujine|talk05:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm point for point in complete agreement here. I'm busy over the next couple of days myself, but thereafter I will create a sandbox for a draft of the combined article and post the link here once I begin to synthesize the info. Snow (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: the article had over whelming support to be kept as it is in the AFD and is independently notable. The Rape in India article can contain a summary for it and all the other mentioned articles but merger is not appropriate. In anycase after adding summaries for all these sub articles and general details relating to laws etc, that article will become long enough to be split for navigation reasons as well. This is also being discussed at Rape in Jammu and Kashmir. --lTopGunl (talk)09:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking the discussion on that page. For the record, no one is considering doing an end-run around the AfD (I voted in support of that keep, you'll note, because I believe the content is well-sourced and should not be removed). What we're talking about here is creating a page which synthesizes information currently scattered across multiple articles to try to give it all better context and ease of access for readers. When and if that article gets to a state where all relevant information has been included without the article has becoming so long that it seems likely to be spun out again, we can consider whether the original contributing articles are redundant or not and whether they should be kept alongside the new one. Those discussions, which will certainly not take place for a long while, given how much work will need to go into the new article, can then proceed along normal channels but they are entirely separate matters from whether a central article detailing human rights issues across the region (which are all linked to common causes and issues, afterall) is in order, which I think clearly it is. Snow (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The regional notability of the issues is justified by the sources in the article.. as such merging in the main country article will not make sense. If the idea is to have attribution for the country itself, that is already given in this article. Other wise, I think the contents of this article are long enough to make that one long when moved there (esp when you will be planning to move everything there). --lTopGunl (talk)16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Darkness, I just spent a bit of time pulling in some information from other pages and editing it down. Plenty more work to do. I vote we continue most of this discussion on the talk page of the new article, and then when that article is in good shape, we reopen a merger discussion. The issue of rape is unique and worthy of attention, so we'll just need to decide once we have both articles developed whether it is given enough treatment in the broader article. —Zujine|talk04:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the human rights in northeast India do get to have a separate article but this doesn't? Both issues are detailed with the region in detail. --lTopGunl (talk)16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not rape is a human rights issue. This article is no more than a stub for gods sake. A brief background and a list, that is not an article on what is an extensive issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go on and list it as a sub article of that too then. I would not challenge that. And stop trying to delete / merge the article... don't tell me you want to do it because of navigation reasons, because you just nominated it for deletion. --lTopGunl (talk)18:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is discussing deleting this article at present. The new article, merging content from here and elsewhere, is a worthwhile effort in it's own right. Once it's finished (and it's going to be a good long while before it's up to snuff, almost certainly) then, if anyone feels it's appropriate, a delete can be discussed, through normal community process. There's nothing the least bit improper in that; multiple AfD's are allowed precisely because the community acknowledges that circumstances (in terms of content, sources, and format) change, and things may need to be appraised. To me, the most important thing is that the information itself, if well sourced and useful, is preserved. That's why I voted against the last AfD. I may feel differently when this new article is finished, I don't know. And you may feel differently altogether and you'll be able to express those opinions when/if any new AfD's or other discussions are held, but I think you're leaping to judgement here; how can we possibly know whether this article will be redundant with (or inferior or superior to) the new one until after it's done? It's entirely possible the new article will not be able to accommodate all the content here, in which case this one should definitely stay, but in any event, it's not going anywhere anytime soon, so let's just see how things shape up. Snow (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This topic is independently notable and has been the subject of third-party coverage in various reliable sources. I do not see any purpose served by merging. Rather, the article should be expanded even more. Mar4d (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are hundred human right issues like Freedom of speech, right to education, Sexual orientation and gender identity, food, water.. It doesn't make sense making articles against each one while it's not that notable an incident like the Holocaust. It should be a section in Human rights issues in Northeastern India. Anu Raj (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
