Talk:2020 Hathras gang rape and murder

Thakur caste suspects

The alleged accused four -Sandip, Ramu, Lavkush and Ravi- are from Thakur caste/community. Unfortunately the village and India follows caste system. The charges are filed on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Its important to mention the caste of perpetrators. Dolphinseeds (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Struck sock puppet comments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• AgreedHeba Aisha (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies to anyone in violation of the act. If any person from the SC, ST, upper caste community ,muslim commits any crime that violates the the said act, that person is liable to be prosecuted under the act irrespective of his or her caste. so mentioning here Uppar caste is in violation WP:NPOV. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• The castes of the victim and the suspects should be mentioned. WP:NPOV says that article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Reliable sources say that the caste of the victim and the alleged rapists/murderers are important to this case, and protests have been held on that basis (including protests by the BJP in favour of the suspects and blaming the victim).-- Toddy1 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Toddy1 Agreed, it is essential in this event to give justice to the facts. Its like burying under the carpet saying the Whites are unfairly represented in a hate crime on Black. What next remove woman and man gender with pseudo-neutrality? Biased opinions should be avoided here and stick to facts. One might provide different views supported by facts but removing entirely the identity itself (which has overwhelming political power over the oppressed and the supremacist groups which even threatened this victim) is pushing a specific biased political point of view by sealing the other reality. Loveall.human (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Toddy1 The Upper Caste has not been fairly represented as per WP:NPOV. Any sort of crime has nothing to do with the caste, creed or religion of the perpetrator. Mentioning the caste of the accused put whole caste in a bad light in the eye on general public. Already the identity of the accused has been revealed by mentioning there name. So it is unfair as per the basic policy of wikipedia to mention the caste. Also you mentioned "the caste of the victim and the alleged rapists/murderers are important to this case". However your this statement is pretty unfair. As, in the light of Indian laws whatsoever be the cast of accused , if found guilty , shall be treated uniformly irrespective of cast. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:PING on how to correctly mention users on talk page. Linking to a wikipedia page works differently than pinging users.ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Any sort of crime has nothing to do with the caste, creed or religion of the perpetrator.

User:JoJo Rabbit11 This comment shows you are trying to push your POV in the edits. Please remember someone else can make the following statement also, which may be completely valid in their world view :

Any sort of crime has everything to do with the caste, creed or religion of the perpetrator.

Therefore on wikipedia , we use WP:RS for citation, and an overwhelming reliable sources (including those who may be classified right leaning) have mentioned the caste of the accused and portrayed it as a caste crime.ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Any sort of crime has nothing to do with the caste, creed or religion of the perpetrator. This is a general view irrespective of any short of individual world view/personal view. and also it holds ground in a logical argument. As i stated earlier, mentioning the name of the cast put the whole cast in bad light. Just like, it is inappropriate to mention Islam for any act of crime done by Muslim. hence the mention of cast shall be removed JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, what is appropriate and what is not appropriate is quite subjective, and editing wikipedia based such premise leads to violation of NPOV. Therefore on wikipedia it is always advisable to follow WP:RS. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ChunnuBhai Discussing article subjectively improves the quality of any page. I didnt find any issue regarding violation of WP:NPOV while discussing the topic subjectively. You are encouraged to submit your point. thanks JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11 Please read WP:NOTOPINION. Wikipedia is not a place for subjective discussion. It is meant for encyclopedic content.ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ChunnuBhai WP:NOTOPINION mentions "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing". What I discuss here i.e. exclusion of name of caste from 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder is neither propaganda, nor advertising and not showcasing. What I submitted is just a valid argument. Just like, it is inappropriate to mention Islam for any act of crime done by Muslim. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, point no2 states :

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

I will say this one more time. whether the exclusion of caste identity is appropriate or inappropriate must be decided by looking at WP:RS cited. An overwhelming majority of the sources cited mention the caste of the accused, and report this as a caste crime.

I do not wish to engage on this point anymore, and you are welcome/encouraged to discuss this with other editors.

Please be advised that engaging in WP:EW may result in blocking. Changes to already agreed and stable version of the articles should always be done by WP:CONSENSUS and not unilaterally. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ChunnuBhai point no2 of WP:NOTOPINION talks about neutral point of view , however I find mentioning the name of caste is not neutral and being biased to Upper caste, any random Upper caste person may feel offended while finding mention of the name of his cast in this heinous crime. I am only making some valid arguments. You welcome to back off from further discussion. I invite other editors to talk please and arrive on some WP:CONSENSUS JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC). thanks

{{u|ChunnuBhai} WP:EW states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." I have not edited anything repetadly. I am just talking on the talk page. You welcome to back off from further discussion. I invite other editors to talk please and arrive on some WP:CONSENSUS JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree:

• 14:03, 14 October 2020 (removal of phrase "upper caste" to maintain WP:NPOV)
• 17:33, 14 October 2020 (removed phrase "upper caste" to maintain the neutrality of the page under WP:NPOV)
• 17:39, 14 October 2020 (the maention of upper caste is being biased as the SC ST act is universal irrespective of cast. thanks)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1 You disagree on what? WP:EW states "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring". The count of my edits that you mentioned is only 3 in span of less than 24 hours. So the account you just mentioned above didnt count for WP:EW . However, you are welcome to talk about removal of phrase Upper caste from 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. And i encourage to arrive on some WP:CONSENSUS. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Loveall.human Based on the exhaustive discussion on the talk page above are we in agreement to remove the mention of phrase Upper caste from the source on page 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder and arrive at WP:CONSENSUS? JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

JoJo_Rabbit11 I respectfully disagree. Its like removing the mention of White race in an evident hate crime on a Black victim, despite White supremacist organizations have threatened the affected family. (Merely mentioning White don't mean all Whites in general, like mentioning Islamist extremists don't mean all Muslims). Caste supremacist organizations had organized campaigns and have threatened the victim family on record. And, this is not an one off exception but its a well documented frequent occurrence where the supremacist outfits in the name of specific upper caste names consolidate overwhelming political power back such gangs who go scot-free due to caste privilege. To keep it factual alternating views of the incident are very much welcomed, probably a section explaining how there is no role of caste here with facts. Loveall.human (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Reduce number of external links?

I think we should remove a few external links from this page. All of them are news reports and hardly cover anything not covered by news reports we already cite. Also, it is rare to have this many external links on Wikipedia. BTW, is there any policy on external links? Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiuser13, Yep, there is a guideline at WP:EL. I guess most of the EL's should be used as inline citations wherever necessary but I don't support their complete removal either until specified completely that what do they miss? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the links also appears as a citation, so I have removed that one:

• Hathras gangrape: Dalit woman succumbs to injuries in Delhi hospital

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The first external link is: "Hathras rape case live updates". Times of India.. I think that one should be kept, because it is exactly the kind of thing that goes better as an external link than as a citation.

The remaining external links are potential citations - they are to Indian news publications. In my opinion the best thing to do with them is to use them to improve the article, and gradually remove them from the list of external links as information from them is added to the article and they join the list of citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, I'd recommend using "Hathras case, protests live updates". The Indian Express. instead due to status of The Times of India (RSP entry) as a marginally reliable source which should be avoided in a context like this, imv. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, Agreed. Besides, the TOI stopped updating that page after 2 October and moved to a new page. The Indian Express page is more complete. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 07:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

::::::Wikiuser13 Toddy1, how about removing other language citations? Dolphinseeds (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Struck sock puppet comments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing citations just because they are not in English is not a good idea. If there are points that are only backed by non-English citations, it can be beneficial to add good quality English-language citations for those points (but that does not justify removing the non-English citations).-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism

All the sentences in the last paragraph of 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#Arrests and compensation have been copied verbatim from the source cited there. The paragraph should either be rephrased or removed to comply with copyright. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The source was Azam, Tanweer (6 October 2020). "Hathras case: 4 PFI men arrested in Mathura for plotting to create unrest". Zee News. Retrieved 6 October 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph, with an edit summary that explains why, and notified the editor who put it there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

POV by ChunnuBhai

Here ChunnuBhai continue to push his POV without any explanation. Citation and news has been explained. ChunnuBhai is heading edit war and everyone need to cautious Dolphinseeds (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Struck sock puppet comments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The disputed sentences are as follows:

According to the National Human Rights Commission's guidelines the Polygraph should be carried out on the accused. However, in this case government is conducting Polygraph on accused, victim's family, Police involved in the case and concerned people to this case. Contradictory, this is not 100% scientifically assurance test.^[44]

^[44]Modak, Sataf (7 October 2020). "Hathras case: Issues of consent, reliability in narco and polygraph tests". The Indian Express. Retrieved 8 October 2020. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

What the source actually says is:

• On 2 October 2020, a spokesman for the Uttar Pradesh government said that polygraph and narcoanalysis tests would be conducted as part of the investigation of this case on "all people on the accused and victim side" but not on "police officers involved in the case and other persons related to the case".
• The article describes polygraph and narcoanalysis tests, and points out that "neither method has been proven scientifically to have a 100% success rate".
• It cites a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that lie detector tests can only be done if the subject consents, has access to a lawyer, and that both the police and the lawyer need to explain the physical, emotional, and legal implications of the test to the subject. A judicial magistrate should record the subject's consent to the test(s).
• It says that "Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test on an Accused" (pub National Human Rights Commission of India, 2000) must be followed.

It does not say that the tests are being carried out. It says that on 2 October, the government wanted to carry them out.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

,

I restored the version that was most stable because of constant edits by IPs and some WP:SPAs who were constantly removing the phrase "upper caste" from the lead. In this process your edits got removed. It was unintended.

However I do not think that your edits are WP:NPOV either. They are misleading and definitely break the flow of the article , at the place you have inserted them.

According to the National Human Rights Commission's guidelines the Polygraph should be carried out on the accused.

The above is factually incorrect/misleading. NHRC guidelines discourage polygraphy test. Your formation of the sentence the way you have , violates WP:NPOV

I agree with what User:Toddy1 has written in response. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

:::: ChunnuBhai Here you removed 3 edits by me and explained about only one about polygraph. Upper or forward caste is not my edit. Explain the logical reason for other two edits that you removed or restore Dolphinseeds (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Struck sock puppet comments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolphinseeds edit of 19:20, 11 October 2020

This edit by Dolphinseeds was wrongly marked as a WP:Minor edit, and deleted the following citation: Singh, Navya (2020-10-08). "'Women Like Hathras Victim Are Often Found Dead In Fields', BJP Leader Summoned By NCW For Comment". thelogicalindian.com. Retrieved 2020-10-08. and replaced it with a citation to The Wire. In my opinion it would be better have both citations. So I will restore Dolphinseeds' citation to The Wire, but keep the other citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolphinseeds edit of 19:24, 11 October 2020

This edit by Dolphinseeds added the following:

</ref> The British Feminist and Dalit organizations has written letter to the United Nation to dismiss UP government and conduct investigation by the international team.

I think it needs to be more accurately worded.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

::ChunnuBhai Toddy1

1. Can you restore this wording if you think its not correctly put up? - </ref> The British Feminist and Dalit organizations has written letter to the United Nation to dismiss UP government and conduct investigation by the international team.

2. I removed website=thelogicalindian.com and replaced with better source. Why you still want website=thelogicalindian.com ? Do you both think its reliable source?

Restore above edits Dolphinseeds (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Struck sock puppet comments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolphinseeds edit of 19:20, 11 October 2020 - I did as you asked two hours and 40 minutes before you asked me.[1] I agree with you that citing The Wire for this statement is a good thing to do (especially as we are already using that source). But I do not see any reason not to use The Logical Indian as a source as well. (Note that Google's Fact Check tool uses The Logical Indian as a source for fact checking, so Google must think it is a reliable source.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Dolphinseeds edit of 19:24, 11 October 2020 - I have reworded with the aid of a second source that contains the text of the letter to UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet.[2]-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I have removed all edits by disruptive long term socks such as SanjivMishra47 [3][4] and Dolphinseeds.[5][6][7] Given their edits were not without dispute, they didn't contribute any value to this article. Apparently, these socks don't understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and WP:NOTNEWS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting us know about this sock-puppet. I was wondering if is it right to revert every edit by a sock-puppet without prior discussion and if there is any policy on dealing with edits by a sock-puppet. Personally, I feel that edits by that user should have discussed because much of what you removed is well cited. Wholesale removal is not the only option we have. Regards. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 14:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel, Toddy1, and Drat8su: I propose that the article should be restored to this edit [8] and all the removal should be undone. I request that content should not be removed without discussion. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

When dealing with disruptive users (including block-evading sockpuppets) the kind of revert that Aman Kumar Goel made is entirely legitimate. ChunnuBhai made a similar revert at 20:40, 11 October 2020‎ (UTC). The appropriate course of action is to restore and correct elements that legitimate editors think worth keeping. Sometimes it is best to fix it with an edit summary. Sometimes it is best to raise the issue on the talk page.

The bit about the polygraph was raised at Talk:2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#POV by ChunnuBhai. The wording that Aman Kumar Goel deleted is not supported by the source, and nobody had corrected it. I do not know if any polygraph or narcoanalysis tests have been conducted - the source said that a government spokesman said that they would be conducted. So let us wait until we have updated information on that.

Drat8sub has restored the text I added concerning the sending of a letter signed by five British MPs and various (mostly British) organisations to UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet. I had added it in response to Dolphinseeds' protest that ChunnuBhai reverted Dolphinseeds' edit of 19:24, 11 October 2020.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

My disagreement was not about removal of content, only about the manner in which content should be removed. In this case, most of the removal by User:Aman.kumar.goel was undone and though this process entire we ended up gaining nothing. It would have been much better had this removal followed a discussion on this talk page.

That said, you have contributed to this article much more than I have and I entirely respect you judgment. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 15:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted the rubbish about the polygraph tests. The person who wrote it misunderstood the source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted the petition paragraph since it fails WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not the right place to promote a petition, though media outlets promote them often, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to remove caste information: Spreading Communal Angle

Article put emphasis on words Dalit and Upper Caste. This is giving it a communal angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishit711 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#Thakur caste suspects.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

International conspiracy to incite caste based riots updation

User ChunnuBhai has reverted this edit. Requesting RfC for this. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, looks like a one-off incident. I oppose its addition. KyloRen3 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The edit being discussed added the following:

A landing web page "https://justiceforhathrasvictim.carrd.co/" have been created anonymously for inciting caste riots, collecting funds and spreading rumours over the alleged gang rape have been pointed out by Uttar Pradesh administration. The site has been taken down after an abuse report has been submitted.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Text unacceptable as written. If you compare the text added to Wikipedia with the newspaper article it is supposedly based on, the most striking thing is how incredibly biased the Wikipedia text was. I have no objection to a neutral point of view mention of this website and the successful efforts of the authorities to suppress it. Other reliable news sources mention what happened:

• Gaur, Vatsala (6 October 2020). "ED to examine FIR against website created to hold protests for Hathras victim for money laundering". The Economic Times.
• Bhardwaj, Ananya (8 October 2020). "'Justice for Hathras victim' pamphlet, news reports — UP Police 'proof' against Kerala scribe. Journalist Siddique Kappan and 3 others were arrested on their way to Hathras Wednesday and booked under the draconian UAPA". ThePrint.
• "'Won't Immerse Ashes': Hope for Justice Renews for Hathras Rape Victim's Kin with Allahabad HC Hearing". CNN-News18. 13 October 2020.

The far-right website, OpIndia, also cover the story, and strangely enough has the same biases as the deleted Wikipedia text: "'Justice for Hathras victim' website created overnight to instigate caste-based violence in Uttar Pradesh pulled down says intelligence report, FIR filed". OpIndia. 5 October 2020. Note that links to the OpIndia website are blocked on Wikipedia to prevent this thoroughly unreliable source being cited by mistake.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1 I agree with you. The content regarding the fake website "https://justiceforhathrasvictim.carrd.co/" shall be added again with proper sentencing and the wp:rs that you mentioned above. this piece of information is very crucial and that will put the subheading in historical perspective. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, not before WP:consensus is reached and this RfC is closed.ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This material strains a number of principles. It strains notability, as there are lots of carrds for every social issue. It strains relevance, as this is a criticism of part of a movement opposing government response to the topic of the article. It strains neutrality, as there is no equivalent coverage of other aspects of this movement in the article. I don't think it would be appropriate to include this at present. Awoma (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• The "international conspiracy to incite caste based riots" is an extraordinary claim at the least and appears to be a fringe theory, which is being used by the administration. I've removed the latest re-addition of the same since it's undue detailing of legal proceedings which provides an air of legitimacy to it, not to mention it's a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This RfC was opened after I revert an edit, and have earlier reverted JoJo Rabbit11 previous edits in other pages for some other reasons, so I would recuse if other editors feel that my comments can be biased. However the entire section is WP:POVPUSH from JoJoRabbit11 as is evident from other discussions on this talk page and looking into contrib history of the user. The entire section should be rewritten with appropriate weight-age and in NPOV voice. Also WP:NOTNEWS. So, each and every news item does not deserve mention on wikipedia if it does not have encyclopaedic value. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In the circumstances, we needed to know your views.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Significant section of this wiki page is biased against the Uttar Pradesh state government. Specially 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#reactions. Also 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#reactions this appears to look like news item which is against wp:notnews. The addition of fake 'carrd' website is important because ED has initiated probe against it as mentioned by user Toddy1JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy to incite caste based riots"

Should this section instead be "Allegations of conspiracy to incite caste-based riots"? —valereee (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes per NPOV. Or we can just remove that section title since it consists of only one paragraph for now.VR _talk 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)