Talk:Rape in India: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Women & gender Start‑class High‑importance This article 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian women and gender issues workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Start‑class Mid‑importance This article 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@M Tracy Hunter: and @VictoriaGrayson:, what you have to say for Rape in India#Tourist advisories? 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm agree with OccultZone. --Human3015 09:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I also agree.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been discussed before and the outcome is what is in the Wikipedia piece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_India/Archive_1#Discussing_Consensus_about_Travel_Advisory_Writeup_and_section_re-org Why the re-hash now? PediaAcc (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, who screwed it up again? We spent so much time on that section. ― Padenton|✉   14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

@Bgwhite: Slight clarification: As you stated at the time when you removed it, said block was unjustified. Thanks. :-) ― Padenton|✉   04:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. ― Padenton|✉   04:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section is violating WP:NOTNEWS because such cautions are irrelevant, the first source[1] 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,[2] 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: 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)[reply]

@Bgwhite:, @Padenton:, @OccultZone:, 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)[reply]

@M Tracy Hunter: 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. ― Padenton|✉   01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@M Tracy Hunter: 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

M Tracy Hunter 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. @Sitush: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]