Jump to content

Talk:2014 Badaun gang rape allegations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2014 Badaun gang rape)

Merger

[edit]

It's fairly obvious that the 2 articles on this incident ought to be merged. I propose to do so in a day or so if nobody objects. What the title should be is more complex. PatGallacher (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PatGallacher: Where it should be merged? If it is not going to state any conviction or special reaction in/or about 2 days, I think it should be merged to Rape in India and reconstruct anytime whenever we will see any strong proof behind the allegation, in short words, conviction. Just like DS had decided to merge Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, because it shown no accuracy or convictions. For now I've removed the caste related information that had been explicitly stated, consider adding back if there are information about the alleged criminals as well. OccultZone (Talk) 03:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted few changes

[edit]

I have reverted the caste detail, as they are Undue weight. Feel free to add back if you have same details about the alleged criminals. No source seems to be stating "because they had no toilet in their home", so removed it. OccultZone (Talk) 09:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide or murder

[edit]

Some sources say two girls were murdered. The Hindu Hindustan Times The Guardian. --Gfosankar (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Till an official verdict comes out, let us say that they were found hanging. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't change it to 'murdered', it has been noted for now that it was a suicide. OccultZone (Talk) 17:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some genuine dispute about this issue the article should not take sides. PatGallacher (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

[edit]

I moved 2014 Uttar Pradesh gang rape to this. Because this article about only one incident which happened in Badaun district of UP. In UP, more gang rape/ rape cases were reported. see 1 2. --Gfosankar (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section

[edit]

Most articles contain a "See also" section. I have added one to this article and it has twice been deleted. Discussion please. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? When the link of "Rape in India" is visible on the template that has been added to the footer of the article. OccultZone (Talk) 14:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the 2012 Delhi gang rape article. This is a FA and if there was a good reason to not include a "See also" section in that similar article it would have been deleted in the review, but as you can see, it was not. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do nothing with the 2012 Delhi case. So not going to add it. OccultZone (Talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we've found new way. OccultZone (Talk) 06:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template has been created and inserted. Surely it requires improvement, but at least there is some start. OccultZone (Talk) 07:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with templates. Feel free to contact me if needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency about ages of victims

[edit]

The opening paragraph mentions that they were 14 and 15. The same in a lower detail paragraph. But in reporting by parents in a further lower paragraph, our article says "Sohan Lal, father of the 12-year-old and uncle of the 14-year-old said that..." There is clearly something wrong about our article. Please verify. werldwayd (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem rests with inconsistent reporting by the media. Various sources report the girls' ages as 12 and 14, 14 and 15 or 14 or 16. All of them are reputable sources. WWGB (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In such discrepancies I have removed the age. Age of victims might play a role in judicial matters and its best we omit it till that is finalized for sure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB is correct about age, I don't see any reason that we should overlook the age. OccultZone (Talk) 04:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

[edit]

Gandydancer was correct about the quote, although I still felt that it should be summarized. So I have done that because these pages are not really for quotations and Ban Ki Moon doesn't need an introduction. OccultZone (Talk) 12:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however I think that you would find that the use of quotes is quite common in "Reactions" sections. That said, it has not gone unnoticed by me that you are an excellent copy editor and your edit may well be an improvement. Mine was quite wordy. As for the need for an introduction for Ban Ki Moon, he is hardly a familiar name to most and I feel an introduction is appropriate. I will not return the other addition you deleted unless another editor suggests that it is notable. Perhaps other editors will offer their thoughts... Gandydancer (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had not actually read your rewrite--as written it seems to need some work but I'll give you time to edit it before I make any changes. Gandydancer (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the statement mentioning Rahul Gandhi really need to be there? IMHO, only statements by the Central/State govts, Investigation agencies and yes Ban Ki Moon should be there. We can't keep including statements made by every two-bit politician. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes he was appropriate. I am not an Indian and I'm not familiar with Indian politics, but I assume that politicians the world over are pretty similar, and calling their comments a political agenda would apply to most of them. Using a similar article, the 2012 Delhi rape case (which is a GA) as a guideline, I'm in favor of including such comments. If or when comments begin to add up they can be shortened and combined into a single paragraph. However, it seems that consensus is going against me so I will not revert the (3) edits. Gandydancer (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mayawati can stay, as she was the former CM of Uttar Pradesh. Comments by a former PM/ Home Minister of the GoI are also welcome. Rahul Gandhi, who has nothing to support his credibility in this case, does not need to have his comment here. One might view his comment as trying to gain some 'fame' after the recent drubbing in the recent elections. While I don't want to politicise this, let us restrict such commenting bodies to other CMs of India, Ministers of the GoI and the UP administration and Police. Of course, Ban Ki Moon is always welcome. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will trust your judgement re Gandhi, though here in the US he certainly is a well-known person due to his family ties. On the other hand, that may be exactly where my problem lies--he's the only one that I know. :=) I am glad that we are in agreement on the others. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. RaGa's comment is pointless. He has made pointless statements like 'Poverty is a state of mind' earlier. He is of no importance in administration now, just an MP. His statements are no longer notable. No need to glorify an idiot. Mayawati on the other hand, can be included, as she was CM before Akhilesh Yadav, and comparisons have been made between their governance in terms of law and order. As for RaGa being known in the US, it is exactly the same here. :) Similarly, foreign comments can be avoided unless they are done by heads of state or official representatives. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avaaz

[edit]

I wonder, it may be useful to talk about the Avaaz petition ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.67.53 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avaaz and Change come up with a petition whenever there is a major case. We can't keep adding it. Not noteworthy. Unless the Government says the petition has reached them. -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible GA

[edit]

Guys, I think this article can hit GA status with some work. What are your thoughts? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's far too early to speak of a GA. It wouldn't surprise me to see the article double in length before it's over. Also, given the nature of the incident, I can easily imagine that some sections will see disagreements in the future. Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit or not?

[edit]

Several report explicitly mention the specific caste of the victims: "Shakya" (see article Kachhi (caste)), sometimes termed "Maurya". This is a community of vegetable ("shak") growers. They are not Dalit ("Scheduled caste"). They are OBC like the Yadavas, but not as politically influential. See:


Malaiya (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we NOT mention the caste I DO NOT see any point being proven by doing so. Instead of arguing, let us totally remove the caste. If nobody has issues, I will go ahead and remove it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this need discussion before we make any changes to the article. I'm going to copy a paragraph from the indiatimes:
Secondly, the case has again revealed the ugly underbelly of India’s age old caste system, which is sadly existing and thriving in full flow, particularly in rural areas. The family belongs to the Dalit community and the perpetrators of the heinous crime belonged to the higher Yadav caste. For centuries, dalits have been at the receiving end of discrimination in India, wherein a upper caste born would feel free to harass, rape and even murder lower castes with impunity and such cases show that things haven’t changed much, particularly for the dalit women, who are harassed, taunted and raped at will-many times just for their crime of belonging to the low caste. Uttar Pradesh is still strongly divided by caste and religion, a fact expertly exploited by politicians for their political gains. (emphasis added) [1]
Since I'm not from India I know only the little I've read about the caste system, but we do have an unwritten caste system here as well so I am no stranger to the problem. See for instance Missing white woman syndrome or think of the recent scandals regarding rapes committed by sports figures, and the unequal arrest and prosecution of people of color, or the clergy as far as that goes. Furthermore, while I'm not familiar with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST), I am familiar with our similar Hate crimes law here in the US...and am aware of the lengthy arguments back and forth when it comes to classifying a particular crime as a hate crime.
Incidentally, I have been aware for some time that our article is not accurate. The very first reports that made international news said that the girls were raped and then hung themselves in shame. Then, (perhaps once the local media realized that the incident could not be hushed up) the media wrote numerous articles that portrayed the events pretty much as our article relates. But even in the early days one report I read told the story differently. According to that report, a relative of the girls heard them screaming in the field and responded, finding the girls in the process of being abducted. He recognized one of the men, but being from a lower caste was afraid for his life and ran away. But he did tell the father of one of the girls about what he saw. When the father went to the local police he shared that information with the them and they, according to that report, even spoke with one of the abductors, but still took no action. Since this news report differed so greatly from the numerous news sources, I saw no need to include it in our article. But several weeks later I came across a similar report and guessed that it was probably accurate. At the time I assumed that the investigation would move along and that information would soon be widely reported. That has not yet happened. (One has to wonder as well why so much time has passed without more arrests. I see in the June 2 article that they only now have made sketches of the suspects.)
So, all things considered, I suggest that we not as yet remove the caste information from the article. They were widely reported as being from the Dalit caste and I feel that until it is widely reported that they are not, that we stick with that. Which is not to say that the July 2 article that disputes that should not be included. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had a potential edit war over that even though there were few reports about the caste. Just remove it, it is not even needed since it remains unconfirmed too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The caste and its implications were widely reported. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crimes against women are not caste based much. They're just anti-women. Mentioning th caste here is only going to cause edit wars. So I agree with OccultZone. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The story had drawn interest specifically because it involves caste, politics and rape. It is quite clear, as mentioned in detail in multiple reports, that the victims were **NOT** dalit. It is likely that calling them dalit was deliberate (by the initial reporter) , that made it sure that the story is repeated widely. Both castes are officially "backward", both have significant political clout, but one of them is more powerful (numerically) and is represented by the party currently in power.Malaiya (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the official list of OBC castes in UP: LIST OF OBC (UP) at the UP government web-site. Note that both Yadav and Shakya are there. Malaiya (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Malaiya, I've done my homework and I see that you are correct. Do you want to make the changes or should I? I'd suggest wording such as "Although widely reported as being of the Dalit caste..." or something like that... Gandydancer (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gandydancer. I have made modifications following your suggestion. Since there has been a controversy regarding the subject, including an exchange between the central and the state government, I have added a section on the caste Controversy. I have attempted to trace the source of the belief that the victims were dalit. It may have been a May 29 Reuter's report. I note that a Hindi report published on the same date did not identify the victims as Dalit. I hope this will help.Malaiya (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Malaiya. I did do a little bit of ce as it is hard for one outside of India to not get confused. As time permits, hopefully today, I plan to add some of the information from the day of the abduction that was only later disclosed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations

[edit]

I note that the case is under investigation. I have seen some reports that suggest that the actual events may not have been as initially reported. Hope someone will update the article as needed. Malaiya (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this more widely reported till we add it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Developments: ready links to news. For those who are not familiar with investigations in India - there is some probability that local police may be biased, but the CBI, being unaffiliated with the state government, should be neutral.

-Malaiya (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malaiya. I added some info--please feel free to add more or edit me if you see fit. It's a difficult case/article. Politicians have strong arms and deep pockets--I can only hope that the truth will eventually be told... BTW, I didn't get into the charges of honor killing, which I suppose should be done as well...Gandydancer (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read in today's ToI/IE about the CBI deciding to exhume the bodies for further investigations. That too needs to be added. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is already added....On 8 July, a second autopsy of the girls bodies was ordered by the CBI. ("Yahoo News"...India police order 2nd autopsy of girls gang-raped)(":FirstPost.com...CBI to exhume Badaun gangrape victims bodies for second autopsy) ```Buster Seven Talk 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what I mentoned earlier. Thanks Buster7 for your addition. Please feel free to edit and integrate my edit into the rest of the paragraph. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trusting initial press reports

[edit]

For those who tend to trust initial press reports, it would be instructive to look at McMartin preschool trial and Day-care sex-abuse hysteria.Malaiya (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! It really helps. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outrage

[edit]

...after Indian girl, 6, is raped at her school from todays AP news story "Official statistics say about 25,000 rapes are committed every year in India, a nation of 1.2 billion people. Activists, though, say that number is just a tiny percentage of the actual number, since victims are often pressed by family or police to stay quiet about sexual assaults." Should something like this be included in the article as a supportive comment about the social ambiguity of rape in India? The AP article mentions "Official statistics" which would of course be the best source and reference. Where would I find them? ```Buster Seven Talk 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official stats, I guess can be found thru the N/S Human Rights Commissions, or NCW, or Natnl Crime Bureau. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will this help? [2] Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it should, but is the 2012 report. Also, I plan to add this => '21 crore people in UP, yet lowest number of rapes': Mulayam Singh Yadav's shocker. What say? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it sure doesn't shock me at all. Until a few years ago I'd have been afraid to report a rape even in the US and I'd still be afraid to report a rape if I were in the US military. And if I were in India, then I'd REALLY be afraid, especially, from what I've been reading lately, if I were from a lower caste. Gandydancer (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but my point was more about the statement itself and not the 'shocker' part of it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • For comparison, let me share this data.
Violent crimes: comparison Data:rape.murder
CountryRapes/100,000Murders/100,000
India1.83.5
USA27.34.8
UK28.81.2
Also see: Per capita: Countries Compared, Murders > Per capita: Countries Compared Malaiya (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gandydancer's comment on rape and caste in India: It should be noted that in Uttar Pradesh, the state being discussed, the ruling government since 2002 has either been of the Bahujan Samaj Party, affiliated with the Dalits, or Samajwadi party, affiliated with Yadavas, a backward caste:

Malaiya (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also for those not from India, let me mention that the population of state Uttar Pradesh mentioned as "21 crore" is 210 million. For comparison, the population of USA is about 318 million, about only 50% higher. Please consider this before judging Mulayam Singh. Malaiya (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is this report from [3] and it is hard to understand the high % of convictions in UP. It's like I'd read a US report that the Bible Belt states were doing a better job of taking care of their poor than, say, Minnesota... Gandydancer (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is quite a lot of data. I will have a look, go thry it and post my comments. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hypothesis

[edit]

In case someone hasn't noticed yet, the CBI is examining an alternative hypothesis, complete different from what has been initially reported in the press. See

Malaiya (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to 2014 Badaun gang rape allegations, per the discussion and BLP concerns expressed below. Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Badaun gang rape → 2014 Badaun suicide case – See Girls from Badaun committed suicide, not murdered, says CBI.

In CBI investigation, the main witness Nazru has admitted that he lied to frame the innocent Yadavs. The girls committed suicide because their family didn't approve of their relationship, and Nazru had a confrontation before they ended their lives. A local politician allegedly asked the family to frame the Yadavs because of caste-based politics. 99.229.119.114 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. First we need to wait for an official statement, which is not yet released. Secondly, this case is still about a "rape" not a suicide. I would be in agreement that we change the name to reflect that it's a rape case rather than a rape when the statement comes out. In truth, IMO, we will perhaps never know the truth. In a current case in the US, for instance, a decision to not indict the police officer who had shot an unarmed black teenager dead came out yesterday. Most of the witnesses actually did see what could be construed as an unjustifiable homicide and this case presents similar problems: How could the girls have climbed the tree without a ladder, etc.? Why did (if I remember correctly) two of the brothers first admit to the murder? So called lie detector tests apparently are part of the evidence while it is well-known that they may not be accurate - are they considered accurate in India? And such. At any rate, large groups of Indians and people around the world will consider this a political cover-up, which our article should and will report, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a gang rape it has been obvious for quite some some time (soon after the start of investigations) that this was not a gang rape case and the girls involved were not dalit. I have followed the reports in both Hindi and English press. The final CBI report is now out, and what they say matches the reports I had seen earlier. However this case is an excellent example of wide misreporting by reporters and columnists claiming gang-rape of dalits in India. Malaiya (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a discussion forum for whether the issue is a gang rape or not. It is a discussion on whether the article should be renamed or not. As stated earlier by Gandydancer and me, a claim by the CBI is not enough. The official verdict isn't out either. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Official verdict from whom? Is there a case pending in a court, where a judge will pronounce a verdict? CBI is an official organization, a part of the central (federal in US terminology) government. Malaiya (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Title should be Alleged 2014 Badaun gang rape. This has been widely reported and discussed as a gang rape case. Thosw looking for details will use "rape" as a search term. Thus the title "2014 Badaun suicide case" is not suitable. Malaiya (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Official verdict from the CBI. Let the case be closed completely and then. Investigation is still on and the CBI has only 'claimed' that xyz has happened. That too, as reported by the media. Given that there are people here who are accusing the media of blowing this out of proportion, what are the chances that media has cooked up this 'claim' of the CBI? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So according to you this case should not be called suicide, because there is no official verdict. But it should be called gang rape even when there is no official verdict? Talk about double standards. You twist logic as long as fits your "India=Gang rape" narrative. There was no official report when media reported innocent Yadav men as guilty. But you still added their names to the article. There was no official verdict when the local doctor mistook menstruation for blood from rape injuries, but you created an article titled "gang rape" anyway. 99.229.119.114 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
India = gangrape narrative? What the hell are you even talking about. Yes, I care about my country's image [far more than an IP sitting in Canada]. I created this article based on the media reports. If you look at the media reports now, there are stories of this 'claim' [not verdict] being made as a cover up. Might I remind you, this is neither a platform to debate the case nor to go around causing caste wars. The article was created with the title gang rape because that is what the media first reported it as. Go thru the refs if you are interested in the case. The case is still ongoing and at this time, no official verdict has been made. I'm not going to comment on neutrality and POV because it is you who used the phrase 'innocent' earlier. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Rsrikanth05 is correct. As editors we use RS to report everything we use for our articles. As editors we are neither judge nor jury - we abide by Wikipedia guidelines and avoid slanting our articles to a particular point of view by basing everything we write on RS-sourced material. I would suggest that the IP review WP guidelines. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pappu Yadav et al have not been accused in a court of law. They are not suspect any more (regardless of the personal feelings of some wikipedia editors). Early in the investigations, it was suspected that the girl's parents were covering up some facts and that Pappu Yadav and others were falsely accused, and the CBI has concluded that they had nothing to with the hangings. He was indeed having an affair with the older girl, but that is not a crime. CBI is the highest authority that has considered the case, and they have reached a conclusion. Malaiya (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I propose that should be moved to "2014 Alleged Badaun gang rape". The interest in the case was mainly because it was a widely reported rape. CBI has concluded that there was no rape. Note that the alleged rapists were "booked" (i.e. arrested) but never charged, and CBI had refused to press charges. The case is not under consideration in any court. Malaiya (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support adding "alleged" (or "allegation") to the title (as in 2014 Badaun gang rape allegation); I believe that the title has WP:BLP implications because it either suggests that the suspects committed a rape, or (if changed to "suicide") that the families of the girls are lying about what happened. I have notified the BLP noticeboard of my concerns. bd2412 T 18:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How does Trial by media work? Role of Righteous indignation

[edit]

Anyone looking for an example of Trial by media and Righteous indignation only needs to look at this article as it is currently.

I remember the McMartin preschool trial of 1983 well. Everyone was convinced that McMartin and her son were guilty as accused. Those involved in lynchings (such as Lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith )were convinced of the guilt to those lynched.

Pappu Yadav and others have not been suspects for quite a while, as has been widely reported (see http://cbi.nic.in/newsarticles/pressclips/aug_2014/pc_20140826_1.pdf http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/Elder-Badaun-sister-in-affair-with-main-accused-say-sources/articleshow/38981788.cms http://www.ibtimes.co.in/badaun-case-twist-gangrape-forced-suicide-611516). There have been many reports in the Hindi and English press, (which have gone unnoticed as far as this article is concerned). However some of the wikipedia editors still regard them as suspects, even though CBI has now shared its conclusions formally in a press conference.

Look at the article which still focusses on the expressions of Righteous indignation. The fact that there was no rape, does not seem to have mattered.Malaiya (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only righteous indignation that I'm seeing here is coming from you. Please tone down your accusations. I've added the August 26 "not rape" announcement and am waiting for the official report to come out (which was said to be coming out last Friday) before adding anything more. Other editors may have other ideas about when to add the new information but I don't see the rush when we are supposedly speaking of hours rather than a long period of time. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One should look at the developments of the UVA Gang-rape allegations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html) to see how facts discovered later may not match the initial reports. I think Wikipedia articles should be driven by facts rather than by emotions or perceptions. Malaiya (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is anyone going to update the article?

[edit]

People are quick to exploit an opportunity of self-righteous denunciation. Is anyone going to update the article, now that we know that Pappu Yadav (only slighlty older than the girl) and the older girl were having an affair, and that she had sneaked out to meet him (and not because of lack of toilets) and to get 200 rupees for a fair?Fresh twist in Badaun rape case: Is the CBI heading in the right direction? Written by: Avinash Sharma Updated: Friday, July 25, 2014 That has been so much information available in the press? And that there was no rape, and that both her and Pappu Yadav both belonged to OBC castes? And that girl's family had given a large amount of money to a witness, and had sought assistance of politicians of their caste? Malaiya (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some people are only interested in caste wars here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sure does... Gandydancer (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it earlier, but are you referring to me? Malaiya (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't I take your name if I was referring to you? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The courts has apparently decided to "reopen" the case with the CBI protesting why its finding is being appealed though. [4] Zhanzhao (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that CBI is protesting the plea of the girl's parents protesting CBI findings. Courts are not involved. Malaiya (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Book The Good Girls: An Ordinary Killing

[edit]

For all those wikipedia editors who jumped to conclusions early on, there is now a 2021 book that examines the event in detail. The Good Girls: An Ordinary Killing by Sonia Faleiro, a journalist based in London. Malaiya (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deepak sattelite khuch

[edit]

when am say people listen voice our phon they find own emotions deepak kumar rai (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Badaun_gang_rape_allegations&oldid=1256560207"