Should the controversial thoughts of RK be used as the first sentence in this article? How notable are her views that they warrant such prominence? Ankh.Morpork 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe so yes, "Professor Radha Kumar, former Director of the Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution at Jamia Millia Islamia University, and now trustee of the Delhi Policy Group, is a specialist on ethnic conflicts and peace processes. Formerly Senior Fellow in Peace and Conflict Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (1999-2003), Dr. Kumar has also been Executive Director of the Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly in Prague (1992-4) and an Associate Fellow at the Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University (1996-8). She is currently a member of CSCAP India, and on the India International Center’s program advisory group for security."[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should rape during the partition of India be included in this particular article. The source doesn't specify that this applied exclusively to India and in fact makes reference to the women of India and Pakistan. Ankh.Morpork 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should, given up till partitions there was no Pakistan, it is background on the violence between the different ethnic and religious groups, perhaps a different section name would be better. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a separate article called Rape during the partition of India, why is this not more relevant to that article and is this not a POV fork? Ankh.Morpork 11:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that these are different subjects, the partition was quote some time ago and rape is a major issue in India and has been for a long long time. Historical context is necessary. This article is not a fork of the other, which I will also be expanding upon as time allows. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Was this edit reverted for any reason beyond the user being banned? Because the information appears to be accurate and relevant to the article as far as I can tell. Silverseren^C 02:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was reverted because the editor is banned and stalks and harasses me incessantly. Such information will be added by myself as I am still expanding the article, nothing the sock wrote has any place on Wikipedia. He is also a serial copyright violator, which is another reason for it's removal, I really cannot be bothered to check if he has done it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad Such edits need to be summarily reverted, any discussion on edits by a banned sockpuppeteer will only encourage more socks. --DBigXray 09:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And, per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting, any editor is allowed to reinstate reverted edits of a banned user and take responsibility for the content. That's why I was asking, because I was planning on reinstating the information. But the copyvios concerns are a good reason not to. Darkness, just try to reinstate the info soon. It was really a good improvement to the article. Silverseren^C 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already rewritten and restored some of the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a part from the introduction which made comparisons with other countries because the statitstics it cites cannot be used to make the argument that was being attempted.

"It should be emphasized here that the main purpose of the UN survey is not to measure the exact amount of crime that exists in the world or to compare countries, but rather to provide an accounting of crime and governmental responses to it. This aim of the survey is enhanced with an increasing number of sweeps that allow the emergence of a clearer picture of trends in individual societies." Source 9riffin (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User's own emphases. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the emphasis was my own and I should have stated that. However, it does not change the meaning of the paragraph I have quoted. Could you explain why, in light of this, you have cited a webpage that misuses these statistics again. Could you also provide a relevant quote from the book you cited which justifies international comparison in which India is a country with a tiny incidence of rape. 78.105.160.228 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The law on Marital Rape in India is governed by Sections 375 (Rape), Section 375 read with Section 376 (Punishment for Rape), and Section 375 read with Section 376 and Section 376A (Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation) of the Indian Penal Code. This law was enacted in 1860, and amended several times thereafter from time to time by the Parliament of India and by state legislatures, which have the power to make certain types of state-specific laws and amendments to national laws, which become laws which are applicable only in particular states.^{[Indian Penal Code 1]}

The "Exception" clause in section 375 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code deals with spousal sexual intercourse with or without the consent of the wife, in case the wife is more than 15 years old. It reads as follows, "Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

A fragment of Sub-section (1) of Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) deals with rape by a man of his wife who is between 12 and 15 years of age. This sub-section declares, "Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both".

Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code deals with "Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation". It declares, "Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately from him under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage without her consent shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine."

There is a discrepancy between the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, laws relating to marriage between any religious combination of husband and wife (except marriage between a muslim man and a muslim woman, which is governed by the Muslim Marriage Act, and by judgments of the Supreme Court relating to this subject), and the Sections of the IPC dealing with marital rape. According to all these laws, the minimum age at which a woman can legally be married is 18 years. While the IPC sections dealing with rape, discuss wives as young as 12 years of age. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act also prohibits marriage of girls younger than 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.14.160 (talk • contribs) 10:20, January 6 2013 (UTC)‎

This article looks more like a list of rapes that occurred on foreign citizens on India. Basically the article should have more statistics of rapes that occurred on Indian citizens. After all they comprise of 1 billion of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanhita (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

1. This article needs an overview of the rape data, rape trends over time, conviction, evolution in Indian law relating to law. For a better format and example of a related article, see Rape in the United States. I intend to revise this article further in coming weeks after I have completed my review of reliable scholarly sources.
2. I have added two charts, which User:OccultZone removed. Please see WP:AGF and WP:OWN, and explain your objections here.

I welcome any additional comments on this talk page, that would improve this article. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@M Tracy Hunter: My edit was tend to remove the recent change, not your days old. You may have thought that why I didn't removed your changes from Suicide in India. I had found that your graphics are essential to the article, but it slipped from my mind. As long as I had provided no reason for removing the graphic, you could've restored them back. I have restored graphics. Thanks a lot for sharing each of them. OccultZone (Talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me read, 1st source don't even have a word like "culture" and @Andrewstephens1234: claim that "culture stigma" is the cause. 2nd, source from "Washingtonmonthly" is just a opinion of a writer who is expressing self opinion that how low rape cases occur in India, and "how many unreported rapes does all this extrapolate to? It’s difficult to even think about", how it accomplishes anything?

Finally the last source of "express.co.uk" claims that "Activists say that figure is misleading due to a culture of tolerance for sexual violence in India which leads many cases to go unreported." It is obviously WP:WEASEL, I mean which activists? How it establishes anything? When it is certainly the job of Activist to 'say' something. We know that rapes go underreported, it is a common thought, but doesn't means that it can be written here, without knowing the authority behind the allegation.

Read WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOXING and WP:SYNTH. OccultZone (Talk) 00:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewstephens1234:, please use edit summaries and see this section of the talk. I've removed your edits due to possible original research and I concur with the above. Tutelary (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely, and also, @Andrewstephens1234:, see WP:LIBEL. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Lixxx235, while I appreciate your input, don't just jump on the train for the figure of jumping on. I don't think there is any libelious content here that would need to be removed. Tutelary (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OccultZone I am afraid I do not think you have a right to challenge what The Express journalist wrote - also, he has referred to the culture of violence in India, so your earlier deletion is completely baseless. Second of all, the "1st source" does refer to many rapes going unreported - perhaps you need to read it again. Third, the journalist's opinion is valid and it is published in an established publication and what I said goes no further than what he said. Collectively my edits are perfectly accurate and fully sourced. Your deletions are completely gratuitous and you obviously have some sort of bias or agenda. Perhaps you are a Hindu India, I don't know, but please stop letting you prejudice and bias get in the way of disseminating information to the public. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewstephens1234 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Express journalist" can be even a employ who can be author of gossips and rumors, thus it is not a reliable source as it hasn't been published by authority or a researcher. Journalist's opinion may matter if the editor is talking about something that has 'happened' not opinions or original research or even lame that "maybe it happens"..

• "merely having a source is not sufficient rationale for inclusion"
• "interpretation, analysis and personal commentary derived from sources is not acceptable". OccultZone (Talk) 14:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The article states; Total reported number of rape crimes in 2012 were highest in Madhya Pradesh, followed by Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Later, in the same paragraph, the article states; The rape rate per 100,000 people was lowest in Gujarat (0.98), followed by Bihar, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Both statements "may" in fact be true but they certainly lead to confusion for the reader. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Buster7: Would you like to interpret the sources? OccultZone (Talk) 16:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

An IP is adding that "Ever since an uprising by Muslim insurgents, supported by most people in that region," and using HRW as source, when whole source has no such word at all. Source has no words like "arbitrary imprisonment"

All in all, only one line is correct and it is "campaign to acquit the army of charges of human rights violations and discredit those who brought the charges" which we have already noted on the start of the subsection when we wrote that "carried out by both Indian armed forces and islamist militants"..

Both sources have no exhausted WP:OR like "parks or schoolyards" or even "school" or any mention of "crackdown". OccultZone (Talk) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Blanked Rape by militants section

There is a whole section that was previously removed by now blocked pov-pushers. It is a bit long, but I will take a look what of it is relevant for the article. :

Rape by militants (section that was blanked)

The rapes by Islamic militants have been reported since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. On 22 October 1947, Pashtun militants invaded Baramulla in a Pakistan army truck, and raped women including European nuns.^[1] In March 1990, Mrs. M. N. Paul, the wife of a BSF inspector was kidnapped, tortured and gang-raped for many days. Then her body with broken limbs was abandoned on a road.^[2]

On April 14, 1990, Sarla Bhat (27), a Kashmiri Pandit nurse from the Soura Medical College Hospital in Srinagar was gang-raped and then beaten to death by Islamic terrorists. Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) took responsibility for the crime, accusing Bhat of informing the police about the presence of militants in the hospital.^[3][4]

On 6 June 1990, Girija Tickoo, a lab assistant at the Government Girls High School Trehgam, was kidnapped and gang raped for many days. Then she was sliced at a sawmill.^[5]

Prana Ganjoo was abducted with her husband in Sopore. She was gang-raped for a number of days before the both were killed in November 1990.^[6]

Since 1991, reports of rape by Islamic miltants have increased, and there have been many cases of the militants threatening to kill the family unless a woman is handed over to the militants. According to the HRW, the rape victims of militants suffer ostracism and there is a "code of silence and fear" that prevents people from reporting such abuse. According to the HRW, the investigation of case of rape by militants is difficult because many Kashmiris are reluctant to discuss it for the fear of violent reprisals.^[3]

The increase in number of rape cases has resulted in an increased number of abortions, leading to one case of murder of doctor. The doctor was accused of being an informer by the Islamic groups Hezb-ul Mujahidin and Al Jehad.^[3]

In January 1991, Zarifa, daughter of Mohammed Sultan was forcibly asked to "marry" a militant. Her brother Bashir Ahmed was killed when the family refused, and the girl was taken away.^[2]

On 30 March 1992, armed militants demanded food and shelter from the family of the retired truck driver Sohanlal (60) in Nai Sadak, Kralkhud. The family complied, but the militants raped Sohanlal's daughter Archana. When he and his wife tried to stop them, Sohanlal was shot dead. His elderly wife was also raped. Then both the women were also shot dead.^[3]

There have been many cases of militants raping the young girls by forcing them into temporary marriages (mutah in Islamic law) - these ceremonies are called "command marriages".^[7] Shamima Ansari was forced to marry a the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen commander Farooq Ansari in Kishtwar in 2000. In 2005, a 14-year old Gujjar girl Roubia Kousar was abducted from Lurkoti village by the Lashkar-e-Taiba militants, and forced to marry one of them. She was gang-raped by her "husband" and his militant friends.^[7] In December 2005, 15-year old Zaitoon Bano of Bajoni (Doda district) was forced to marry a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen militant Nazir Ahmed, after her family was threatened with death.^[7] In 2009, a cleric Mohmmad Farooq was arrested for raping a 12-year-old girl in Poonch district.^[8] Calypsomusic {talk} 14:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Above incidents are nicely written and attributed to the reliable sources. But they are undue weight here. You can find same or lower/bigger amount of incidents about any state of the world. We cannot mention all of them. Following the merge, there won't be any creation for these particular states. OccultZone (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, folks. Either it's used to source edits from both sides, or from none. Claiming a particular edit is "undue" is fine, yet it leaves you open to accusations that you are happy with similarly undue edits using the same source from the "other" side. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: There is larger part of story, massive amount of edits are made by new users and IP for some reason, and it happened before too. Emails have been sent by Darkness Shines about the sock puppetery here, and in fact he missed one sock puppet. You know that [4] is similar to these edits by banned socks[5] [6] [7] [8]? The last few edits such as [9] [10] are clear misinterpretation of sources as well. Only the middle part of these both sides was correct and reliably sourced, but it has been already mentioned on first 2 paragraphs. Check the first post of 2nd last section, these edits have been detailed. OccultZone (Talk) 23:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.tehelka.com/sc-irked-for-disclosing-rape-victims-names-orders-compensation. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some changes by Mave12 for 2nd time because there is no need to add "reported incidents", it is WP:OR. None of us know the amount of unreported rapes so we have to state the amount of 'rapes' per source without adding the extraordinary meaning that has no source.

Section "Conviction" must be removed though, because it cannot be expanded and it has to be merged into some other section. "Conviction" and "arrested" are different words, we should not mention anything about the arrests that took place in United States. We can add though but only if we have got same kind of data about the rape in India. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How is it OR? The sources themselves say reported incidents. Your second objection is equally faulty.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: "reported incidents" is WP:OR, if you are going to put this overweight on 'reported incidents' you will have to inform about unreported incidents too and it is not possible. In short we consider only those incidents to have been "incidents" that are actually reported. We don't make estimates or definitions in air. "Contrary to the myth that rural “Bharat” is safer than westernised India, of the 24,923 cases registered in 2012 by police," is not accurate, information has been noted in the article before. I am thinking to nominate this article for GA, for that we will have to avoid the WP:OR. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

although i generally feel OccultZone is a bit hasty in reverting content, he has a point in this case. we cannot know what the unreported rate is, and any value given out by NGO's and others are just random estimates. i would however like to compromise and mention somewhere in the summary that the figures listed on this article are reported numbers with the caveat that the actual numbers cannot be estimated. Pvpoodle (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you hold the same standards to every Wikipedia rape article, which I don't think is currently true.VictoriaGrayson (talk)

Zhanzao, please quote specifically all the sources for the 1 in 10 sentence here on the talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct and that something I had also included in my last summary. Also this SPI needs to be resolved. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually don't bother. Me and DanS are brothers and live in the same household. At best you might call us "meat socking" since we basically argue about the same stuff of the same router, but I'm the "regular" so to speak, he pops in once a while. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Such self-admission of WP:MEAT is somewhat enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no, "I said "At most you might call us "meat socking". other than a few common topics we edit, he edits some articles that I do not touch. Btw, there are many articels quoting the 1-in-10 figure, even up to 1-in-30. B^[9] but I am only including the most commonly reported figure. What's supposed to be wrong with that?Zhanzhao (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of characteristics, even if you don't say that "I have theft", yet you say that "I have stolen a purse", the meaning would still be the same. It is usually estimated that around 75% - 95% of rape incidents goes unreported. We need a source here that would compare the ratio with any other country, since that is what you are attempting to do. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My gosh.... can you seriously PLEASE look at the edit history of the page, I was not the one who put up the comparison originally. Someone else did. I only reverted what I saw was a removal of what was apparently sourced content. See here [[11]] for my first edit on this page. On hindsight, I realize that this is synthesis on the part of a part editor since it was basically combining facts from 2 articles. I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source that would compare the statistics with the ratio of reported cases with those of the US. I have added a source from niticentral regarding the "among lowest". Sankrant Sanu, the author of this article has written articles for multiple news websites. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a disclaimer at the bottom of Sankrant Sanu's piece that says :"Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article." Just sayin'..... DanS76 (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"1 in 10"? It is attributed to a general secretary of a women association, Sudha Sundararaman. These are neither official or hold any credibility compared to any other related stats. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Already attributed the source to say it's explicitely from an article from WSJ, which is a reputable news publisher. The US stats were from withing the article, but the figures have changed since the article, so I've updated it plus added the source (taken from WSJ). Zhanzhao (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't qualify WP:RS, unless there is some scarcity of sources. That is not the case here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In which case we would have to take away the whole chunk referencing from Sankrant SAnu's article as well, since as DanS76 pointed out, it admits itself to being an opinion piece too, and hence does not qualify as RS. So.... we could leave both in, take both out, or put both to WP:RS and let them decide. I'm just not agreed to taking out base on abuse of the "Opinion" label, since proper attribution has already been made to qualify it. :/ Zhanzhao (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

While it is certain that the reported ratio of rape is among lowest in India, there is no proof about "1 in 10", an extraordinary claim. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is already one section dedicated to the issue of unreported rape.(doh). We could just take that whole para in the lead out rather than have the lead go into grey area by sourcing from opinion pieces. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WSJ says in her "field experience". Which means "1 in 10" is a complete guess. Also, please stop deleting academic books like "Deviant Behavior."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check exactly who's been deleting rather than just randomly throw accusations in the air. Who's the one deleting the source you mentioned, VG? And there has been no concensus reached, so why are my edits being deleted? Zhanzhao (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between academic books and junk articles, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are telling us that you had consensus to add this kind of content to the article? Show me the related discussion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, 2 against 1 is consensus? Whatever you say, man. (Not counting DanS, cos seeing his edit habit, his probably gonna go missing again) Zhanzhao (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this here is apparently the edit where the ratio was originally added. Instead of just randomly chasing a target on a whim without evidence, I've instead given you the scent. Go. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There should be links between people mentioned in the article and their page on wikipedia.

E.g. Mamata Banerjee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamata_Banerjee 220.241.0.9 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will link it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a disturbing trend emerging in India, especially in metropolitan cities where women misuse the strong provisions in the rape act. For example, 53% of the rape cases reported in the national capital between April 2013 and July 2014 were determined to be false. This was found in an investigation by the Delhi Commission for Women, an official women rights body[1]. This trend of filing false rape cases has inflated the number of rape cases and put additional burden on the judiciary, according to the Delhi High Court. Also, it pointed out that the male victims of false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation [2][3] [4]. This has even led to two suicides by male victims of false rape cases. [5] [6] According to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 if the female victim states the intercourse had happened without her consent, then there is a presumption that the woman did not give consent thus placing the burden of proof on the man to refute the accusation [7]. There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place, but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false rape cases has been pointed out by the Delhi and Bombay High Courts. [8] [9] [10]. This issue has also been investigated by The Hindu, an Indian newspaper. Among its key findings is that a third of all the sexual assault cases in Delhi heard during 2013 dealt with consenting couples in which the female's parents had accused the male of rape.[11][12] [13]. These false rape cases have inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. K.Goutham Babu (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Help me out, I do not have much experience at editing Wikipedia

Thanks for this sort of information, after the article is back to semi-protection I will add this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There issues with the suggested writeup that needs to be addressed first though. Either with more sources, or tweaks to the writing.

• This trend has inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. This line is not in the source at all, so it's actually Original Research.
• The male victims of the false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation, even leading them to commit suicide. The way this line is currently written, generalizes the situation using one single reported case.

K.Goutham Babu, the "Stress and humiliation part is addressed by new link, but not the suicide bit. Alternatively, include the old link and reword to reflect that it led to one reported suicide in one case.

• There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place (with or without a promise of marriage) but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false cases has been pointed out by the Delhi High Court. According to the article, it specifically relates to cases concerning consensual sex based on the promise of marriage, the "with or without" gives it a totally different meaning. And it mentions only one case, not "cases" as per the writeup. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this is requested, can someone (actually seems like just any of 2) please explain why the section about travel advisories was removed? Its definitely a related notable reaction by government bodies around the world regarding the issue and incidents. The sources are all clearly RS and the co-relation is all reported, non clearer than the actual government issued travel advisory issued by the UK government,^[1], and even Mahesh Sharma has been doing active damage control, poor guy. Plus there is definitely more than enough content so far to break this up as a separate section (the amount of writeup is beefier than the other sub-sections). If I didn't know better, I would almost think this was an attempt to whitewash the issue. But I'm assuming good faith here and waiting for a reasonable explanations for now before bring this up. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that at least with the writeup about the drop in tourism, at least it can then be balanced off by the writeup about what The Indian government is doing to protect and warn tourists. Else there is no need for action if no problem is being acknowledged. Also the absense the travel advisories implies that the various governments of the victims are not doing anything to warn or protect their nationals even after past cases, which is not the case here at all.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is trivial and it is not even related to rape in India. First sentence is about the issues, that they take place, second sentence concerns the plans that are yet to happen. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ, it IS about rape in india, the only qualifier here is that its against internationals rather than citizens, which is why it should be separated to its own section, thanks for pointing that out. For something thats "trivial", it lead to governments updating their travel advisories to reflect it (how many countries do you see doing that), and its covered by multiple news agencies around the world. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gov.uk is a primary source. Read WP:WPNOTRS. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you understand WPNOTRS, you'd know that this is one instance where a primary source is allowed. Its no different from how the Penal code is being sourced in the main article since it is the authority on the matter. You should be removingnthat as well, based on your application of WPNOTRS Zhanzhao (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Penal code should also be removed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Travel advisories, and most newsworthy developments do not qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. See WP:WWIN, particularly WP:NOTNEWS. There are zillion travel advisories, in different countries, about China, North Korea, Russia, Iraq, Israel, etc - and they are of no encyclopedic value. Penal code is, however, relevant as it is not news, is reliably sourced and legally relevant. See Rape in the United States.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, M Tracy Hunter. I am trying to understand how it meets NOTNEWS. Particularly as it is not a news writeup about travel advisories per se, but about how travel advisories have been updated to specifically reflect the concern of rape and possible rape against the various country's citizens. The Indian tourism authority has also been taking active steps against this backlash, so its definitely notable even on the government level. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Travel advisories are issued by most governments, as news bulletin. Advisories change. Often. On wiki policies, read the whole WP:WWIN. Articles are not travel guides, not advice, not trivia, not many other things. You wouldn't find travel advisory notes in an encyclopedia in any good university library.

Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries. Sweden has one of the most complicated definition of rape, for example. Brazil defines rape differently for different victims. Many Islamic countries do not consider most types of sex as rape; and marital rape is not rape in all Muslim-majority countries because of Sharia. Such legal definitions of rape is notable and of encyclopedic value in respective wiki articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the writeup is about the advisories being changed to reflect the rape of the various country's citizens. If the advisory has been changed to no longer reflect the cautious note, that would itself be a point that can be noted in the article. You mentioned that advisories change. So do laws, yet we have a very detailed history about the changes to rape law in the article. And as to the semantics about the word "rape", it is not up to us to argue and define the meaning of the word, we merely report what and how the sources define as such. And if the sources from the various countries define the acts as rape, it is not up to us to opine that it is not. (That being the case, I'm pretty sure the cases against internationals all involve nonconsensual penetrative act against the victims, though that's beyond the scope of this writeup debate.)Zhanzhao (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The changing travel advisories are newsworthy, but not encyclopedia worthy. Legal definition of rape in each country is encyclopedia worthy. See Rape in Sweden, Rape in the United States, Rape in China and other related articles.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If its just some random change, I'd agree. But if its a concerted change across many countries that led to significant repercussions, to the extent that the Indian government is taking note, the sum total of which has been reported widely, I'd say that goes beyond the regular newsbite or one-off travel advisory update. And though I do agree that definitions/differences of rape are encyclopedia worthy, that goes beyond the scope of this article and is a can of worms you might not want to open. Cos in the lede para, there's this line The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world..... by your logic and for consistency's sake, it would be necessary to add a disclaimer there too to justify its ranking among the lowest, since, in your words: "Legal definition of rape, in contrast, is important because rape means different things in different countries". Zhanzhao (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You write, "...significant repercussions" and "... Indian government is taking note". Both of these should be, and are already covered by the article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to allege causal connection you imply in the first sentence "to the extent that the". Wikipedia is not the place to speculate and insert your pet theory, out of many possible theories, on why Indian or other government has or is "taking note", or on "why the rates per 100,000 women are high or low". This article must just summarize "encyclopedia worthy" reliably sourced verifiable information, in NPOV manner, without original research or copyvio. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground, nor a propaganda vehicle, nor a place to advocate speculations and POV theory. See WP:SOAP.

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"significant repercussions" [12]. "Significant" is frequently used. Feel free to change "repercussions" to drop/negative effect/damage/plunge(fill in random thesaurus substitute - note some of the words preceeding were actually used in some of the news articles). As for the "taking note", The Indian tourism minister initiated quite a number of programs to attempt to tackle the situation [13]. You're not saying he's doing this "just for fun", not after "taking note" of the drop in tourism?. And here's a different minister talking about this [14]. PS: You're the one wanting to open the can of worms that is "the difference in definition of rape around the world", I'm just pointing out another part of the article which would be affected by your rationale/take on that matter.... which happens to the the "rates per 100,000" part. Do think of the implications of your arguements and not just make them for the sake of it Zhanzhao (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Jabalpur has the what? Peter Jedicke (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Says here [15] that it has the highest rate, so I put that ― Padenton |☎  22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Such as these allegations have to be rectified from the article. Also considering the WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot list a unproven allegation as rape. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the crime is being reported as a rape, not alleged rape, by most news agencies. The allegation/ambiguity relates to dentifying the perpetrators since its still under investigations (even though arrests have been made) and the motives. So ias long as the writeup reflects this it should be okay. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Every news agency has its own policies, how they report and how they analyze the issue. Wikipedia's policies differs a bit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, it definitely meets WP:CRIME. You're saying that there's a danger of WP:BLPCRIME, which I do not disagree with. These 2 are not mutually exclusive though. That a crime took place doesn't seem to be a question here. And that's where the writing part must be handled carefully to not identify the alleged perpetrator while investigations are still ongoing.Zhanzhao (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with OccultZone. In addition to WP:BLPCRIME, I feel we need to cleanup the individual instances of rape in this article. This is the Rape in India article, and while tragic, individual incidents that do not have an impact or relevance in India as a whole don't really belong here. News organizations will cover individual incidents. But what makes the few stories of rape (whether alleged or having already resulted in a conviction) that are already listed in the article important compared to the tens of thousands that occur every year in India? If we allow them, on what basis do we deny the addition of other incidents? ― Padenton |☎  21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The information being removed is being removed for what can only be NPOV reasons. This article is about Rape in India but you want to remove well referenced pieces about Rape in India??? TCKTKtool (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute they are well-enough referenced. But they are non-notable to Rape in India as a whole. Are you suggesting we include in the article a section on each rape committed in India? What importance do these individual stories have that is not shared with every instance of rape? The section says "Notable Incidents". ― Padenton |☎  22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If those other cases you speak of make major news around the world, then yes they should be included. You do know what notable means right? These are well referenced because they were such big stores of major notability. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate issue from the previous debate between WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME, but other than significant news coverage from not just international and local press for this one individual case, it led to a protest march, a condemnnation by the local catholic diocese, a visit by the Vatican city itself (all of which received quite a bit if coverage as well), and also quite a bit of news coverage about the aftermath and investigation itself. Its not up to us to determine or weigh its significance over the other tragic rapes that are also occuring but unreported, but the facts are facts that this particular case is standing out. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, don't restore it again. WP:WIKILAWYERING is meaningless at this point. These are unproven allegations and not notable anymore. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, I do not see any concensus for your removal, and may I point out, you're the one who started wikilawyering with WP:BLPCRIME. I see you have removed more stuff than what I added (note I only mainly reorganized content that was previously written and buffed it with more references, yet you're even removing pre-existing content not written by me wholesale. If you feel my edit is not in order, I would welcome this to be moved to a more authoratative Wikitalk space where other non-involved editors can weigh-in. This has bounced around between us longer than it should. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is "unproven allegations"? And who are you to tell others to not revert/edit? TCKTKtool (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For what reasons you are keeping the "rape of foreigners", there is no official alert on visitors, to "use caution" is not extreme the way you are representing it.

For what reasons you are keeping these non-notable and unproven allegations? Even alleging a politician of rape when he has not been convicted yet?

WP:WIKILAWYERING means, misrepresenting the policies/guidelines of en.wiki. If you cannot understand the meaning of the word, refrain from using it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is up for discussion at the dispute resolution notice board. To avoid whats beginning to feel like WP:OWN on all our parts, I suggest leaving this to editors/admins who have not been previously involved with this article, and accept an unbiased judgement call from them. What say you? Zhanzhao (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton, OccultZone, and Zhanzhao: As I entered this fray by unblocking several individuals, I thought I'd make some comments.

1. Thank you Zhanzhao for taking this to DRN. That was one very smart move.
2. OccultZone, Zhanzhao did not do Wikilawyering. It did not approach that level.
3. Personally, I would keep the first paragraph in. ("Rape cases against internationals have lead to a number of countries to issue travel advisories...") It is referenced and very much points out the problems of rape other country may see in India. I would also list some of the countries.
4. There could be listed hundreds of rapes of international people in India. I have to agree with Padention's statement, This is the Rape in India article, and while tragic, individual incidents that do not have an impact or relevance in India as a whole don't really belong here. However....

1. The Russion national case did cause the Russian consulate to issue a warning [16] about not staying out late. This could be used as an example for the first paragraph.
2. The "Swiss couple" sentence was about tourists. This also could tie into the first paragraph.
3. If the above two cases (or similar ones) are two be used, I don't think separate paragraphs are needed. Use them in the first paragraph.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good alternative. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite @Zhanzhao I just think that those rape cases which are in court or sub judice should not be mentioned here, only those cases in which honorable court has convicted or sentenced accused should be mentioned but those should be a very very notable cases because we can't add each and every case here just because its article of rape. Nearly all rape cases mentioned in this article are sub judice except few like in Nirbhaya case accused is convicted and sentenced. Even greatest lawyers and public personalities don't comment anything on matter which is sub judice, how we can write it publicly on wikipedia? Everyone has access to wikipedia easily, does things written here about that case should taken as proof in court? --Human3015 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I just looked and the cases I looked up all have final court actions, but it has not been updated in the Wikipedia page. So if the only reason some want for removal is the conclusion then instead of deleting just find a updated reference and update it properly. But aside from that Wikipedia is not a court. If things were only posted when the person was found guilty then OJ Simpsons page would be very much smaller. I don't see any major issue with the current Rape of foreigners section other than it needs to be updated. A simple Google search showed the conclusions of these cases with verifiable and good reference quite easy. Resaltador (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you compared the amount of notability with each other? These cases(one of many) are not as notable compared to what happened with OJ Simpsons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I did, that is why I was surprised such a small part had so many trying to remove it. The rapes as a total had such a weight in India that tourism dropped by a considerable and measurable amount. The OJ case was mostly isolated to the US and had little to no measurable effect on tourism or business. So comparing the 2; the rapes in India, esp against tourist, is much larger and has more world wide notability. Resaltador (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resaltador @OccultZone, see despite few incidences of rapes on foreigners, tourism is not declined in India but its increased according to figures of 2014. http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/foreign-tourist-arrivals-to-india-rises-7-1-to-74-62-lakh-in-2014-115010701024_1.html . These are figures of entire year. So rapes are not affecting tourism in India. can we add a subsection in "rapes of foreigner" named Effect on Tourism? we can add these figures from different sources and government publications in 2-3 lines. --Human3015 18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the rebuttal. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually tourism has only slightly increased recently and that was after India had to take sharp measures after the international stories of rape. India went from only allowing 12 nations access to the visa on arrival program to 43. Even with such measures tourism has only increased in the single digits. http://qz.com/329397/no-tourists-arent-exactly-thronging-to-india-since-modi-launched-visa-on-arrival/ So tourism is still weak in India even after their current measures and increasing spending on advertising outside of India to lure tourist. It shows that these measures and extra spending are still being hampered by the stories of Rape, esp against tourist. Resaltador (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resaltador : your given website also accepts that tourism in India is increased. anyways, you said tourism increased by 'single' digit in India, anyway its increased single digit in all the over world, http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2014-09-15/international-tourism-5-first-half-year tourism in USA, UK, Canada, Australia also increased in single digits. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-logs-10-rise-in-foreign-tourist-arrivals/articleshow/45529904.cms This Times of India news talks about issue of women safety in India and yet inform us that tourism in India increased by 10% between may-oct2014. It is obvious that tourism is not dropped in India. Whatever maybe the effect of rapes on tourism we must write it in article by creating sub section Effect on Tourism. --Human3015 18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First draft

@Padenton, OccultZone, Zhanzhao, Human3015, and Resaltador: I've written up a first draft and it is in the article. I've put the material in a stand-alone section called, "Tourist advisories". I've tried to limit it to "tourist only" information. I've tried to account for many of the concerns that have been expressed. Please suggest any changes. Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:: nicely written draft, Can we add further info that foreign tourist arrival is increased in India? According to "Ministry of Tourism" of India, India logs 10% rise in foreign tourist arrival between May to Oct 2014 . As per NPOV policy, we neither can be pro-India nor anti-India. we are neither discouraging nor encouraging tourism in India, but i think we should write both sides. There are few other reports which talks about increase in foreign tourists in India. --Human3015 21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I previously removed that tourism visits were dropping as that wasn't supported by the refs. I think the refs are saying that tourism in India isn't at the levels of its neighbors to the east and rapes are one of the many reasons why. Tourism is increasing, but that is probably more of an economic reason. I've changed the article to say that rapes are only one of the many reasons that have tourism officials worried. As the article currently stands, I don't see it having a pro or con sentiment. It doesn't say tourism is decreasing or increasing.

Article you gave states tourism was down 35% in 2013, but now it is up 10% over 2013 levels. That is still less tourists than before, thus tourism is still being affected by rapes and other reasons.

If added, it would be along the lines, "Tourism suffered a 35% drop in 2013, with the rape crisis being the main reason given for the drop. Tourism has since rebounded in 2014 with a 10% increase over 2013 levels, but still has recovered to the pre-rape crisis levels." Bgwhite (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerns are mostly over the case of 2009, it involves a living person. We can probably find any other case and think of a broader section regarding the tourist advisories. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Once we hear from Padenton regarding these new edits and listing the allegations. We have also got another option, we can go for a RfC regarding the listing of incidents. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the examples I gave are after 2011. They are public court cases found in public newspapers. Article doesn't state names or guilt/innocence of people involved. Cases given also tie into tourist advisories. Danish case, people were found guilty. Russian case concerns more what an MP said. This has nothing to do with BLPCRIME. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:: I'm agree with your last sentence, if other readers and you are agree with it then you can add it to article. I want to suggest one change in that sentence.

instead of using word "rape crisis" we can use word "Nirbhaya case" or "2012 delhi gang rape case", my given article don't blame "rape crisis" for 2013 drop in tourism but it blames only "2012 delhi gang rape case". Even Indian Finance Minister says that, Nirbhaya case hits tourism.

It maybe perception that India has "rape crisis" but this article itself tells that there are only 24,000 reported cases of rape in India yearly, while USA(1/4th population of India) reports nearly 85,000. USA also has 80% unreported cases according to estimates of National research council of USA. We should not use word rape crisis because its not the reason behind drop of tourism in 2013-14 but its the Delhi case which made that drop.

I suppose to not mention about USA here but still i mentioned just to clearify about rape crisis, I can give links about that but that is not issue here, we are talking about India. --Human3015 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 How about, "after a few high profile rape cases" instead of "rape crisis".?? Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: : yes, I agree on using word "after few high profile rape cases". Now we have to see concern of other people. Thank you. --Human3015 23:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you guys waiting. These revisions look great to me, thanks for helping us with this Bgwhite ― Padenton |☎  02:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded, its great to have new eyes and keyboards on this. Though for Russian examples, if we want to get around the "alleged rape" issue, there was another notable case that resulted in a successful and fast conviction, and was reportedly part of the escalation of Russia's reactionary stance and advisory changes (its covered in the 1st link). Just thought this might help if "not yet convicted so its just an allegation" is still an issue. Would also like to point out that for quite a number of the cases, they have been dragging on in the courts for years I.e. The Scarlett Keeling case was committed way back in 2008 and they are still holding trial over it. That's why one of aftermaths of the 2012 Delhi Rape was a promise to create fast track courts to deal with cases of sexual offences against women. Just some FYI for context sake. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, a couple of issues. The Russian example is more about the politician's reaction and not the rape case. The link about the 9-year old Russian girl still mentions the Russian rape case in the article and another rape case. The second link contains info on alot of rape cases. Links won't help get around "alleged rape" issue.

Occult's issue with "living" people and "alleged rape" is unfounded. The 2009 case involved a politician and was well publicized. BLPLIVING says, "For relatively unknown people" and this is not a case of relatively unknown. We are also not mentioning any names. I think Occult is the only one with this issue and it appears consensus has gone against him.

Your second link listing various rapes of foreigners would make a good addition to the article. However, that would be another fight I'm not willing to take up. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No probs, Bgwhite, just trying to help cos it seems that everything's on your shoulders now. The 2 links I found was just from a rough search on the net. Not gonna be very active at the present (real life beckons) but I'm just glad to see more people being involved and actually debates instead of just "wham-bam-revert-you-mam cowboyism" (Something that admittedly/unfortunately even I am guilty of in a moment of hotheadedness :P) Zhanzhao (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite there was issue with the previous version that you have totally changed now and removed the names of the individuals. BLPCRIME is no more a issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

here i want to raise a issue that some notorious unregistered users making a issue out of non-issue,(specially 72.196.235.154). Issue of rape is very much sensitive and here anyone is adding anything without discussing it here on talk(maybe because of some vested interests). They are making changes and then asking to discuss here. Unregistered users are probably new so they don't know much about policies of Wikipedia. So I demand that only registered users should be allowed to edit this page(that too after discussing on talk). No one owns the page. Page should have NPOV. This is my perspective and it can be wrong. @Bgwhite:. --Human3015 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There's WP:RPP if you want to make a request, but I don't see how it'll be useful. The IP will just use their newly created account to do it. (or their main account) Also, it seems to me that whatever their faults, 72.196.235.154 is aware of the policies of Wikipedia, even if they go against them. I'm skeptical of a new IP knowing how to place warning templates. I really do hope we don't have to start discussing every single change in here first though... ― Padenton|✉   03:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually made a request directly on BGwhite'w page, the admin who previously protected the page. Although its for selfish reasons since I don't want people thinking that its me socking again. I'm talking a wikibreak from editing but still frequent here for informational purpose so I saw this. But if Bgwhite does not, (since the situation is currently not that crazy yet), monitor it for a few more edits and ask him again. Didn't realise this page was such a hotbed for edit wars. Just don't get too embroiled into it to avoid what happened last time. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We might be sure that who is 72.196.235.154, and I know that 49.244.254.146 comes from a heavily abused extension. Check User talk:Ponyo#49.244.239.31. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Restored Human's version, it is pretty undue to discuss about the ethics of underreporting on a specific country related rape article when you have got a stand alone Under-reporting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks. This is sure not fun. Today was the local Holi Festival and they were expecting 75,000. Didn't go this year, but last year was fun. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've now protected the page so only admins can edit it for two weeks. IP/Person appears to not want to talk before changing material. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Aha! So this is the section you've been talking about this issue in, I kept checking the section above under ==Lead section== and didn't see any responses. Please, can you talk me through the rationale for not warning the reader about the problems with international comparisons of rape statistics? It's in the lead section of the article after all, and the first hit on Google if you Google Rape in India, so a lot of people are going to see this section. Bargolus (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So I took a closer look at some of the recent history for this article. It seems someone moved the paragraphs in the lead. I've moved the evaluation of the number of reported rapes back to the second paragraph, as it is not as important as the first paragraph. I also think this will satisfy some of the concerns about the lead's appropriateness. I also rearranged the second paragraph to move the "parliamentarians dispute this ....underreporting of rapes" (not verbatim) sentence closer to the top, as it is in response to the first sentence.

However, I also feel that the paragraph in question already mentions enough that it is referring specifically to 'reported' rapes. We also cannot comment on how severe the under-reporting is, that is mostly speculation, and also, estimates of the underreportedness in the US are irrelevant to India's situation. --Padenton (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, now that you mentioned it, it makes more sense. The previous leading sentence sounds like it was written by an apologetic and better suited for an article on Reported Rape in India rather than Rape in India per se. And to pre-empt since a comparison was made to the Rape in the United States article, that also starts with a line on "reported rape", but then again that article's lede did not have a "bigger picture" line on rape in general, in its lead either. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on underreporting is entirely appropriate - it is highly misleading to simply quote rape statistics without taking into account differences in reporting due to different expectations of legal action and differences in remedies available. There is no controversy that living in country with large portions of the population in rural areas with a tradition of legal arbitrarion by local panchayats, societal expectations of blame and excommunication of the rape victim and lack of criminalization of marital rape will have substantial underreporting of rape and cannot be compared directly to a country where none of those conditions hold. 49.244.254.146 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I keep getting reverted for the edits I make regarding this. The IP above was me as well, but I didn't realise I needed to sign in with my name until now. Please can we discuss this. If you look at survey figures, which are much more reliable for example the National Family Health Survey conducted by the government of India, the incidence of sexual violence is 8.5% among women aged 15-49 years old, way higher than the 1.2 rapes per 100,000 women you get from crime reports. It is very likely the low incidence of reported crimes reflect widespread societal fear on the part of women and lack of legal literacy rather than any kind of real safety. Having three sentences in the main paragraph stating exactly the same figures that India has the lowest reported rape rate in the world is misleading, because it makes readers think that rape is not a societal problem in India, because it is so low. Instead of fixating on numbers, this article should be discussing rape proper rather than numbers of reported rapes, since it is just as misleading to state arbitrary numbers gathered from a highly imperfect legal system and compare with highly imperfect monitoring systems from other countries using vastly different definitions and operating in vastly different ways. Whenever organizations conduct international, standardized, rigorous surveys such as the WHO multi-country report, India comes out in the middle rather than at the lowest end of the scale. Bargolus (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no sources that call surveys more reliable, and if they did, they would be wrong. We can put the findings of the survey, but referring to surveys as having superior accuracy is incorrect and isn't sourced. ― Padenton|✉   14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've put my comments in the request protected edit section so we can keep all the discussions inside one thread. But thanks for your comment! Bargolus (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a disturbing trend emerging in India, especially in metropolitan cities where women misuse the strong provisions in the rape act. For example, 53% of the rape cases reported in the national capital between April 2013 and July 2014 were determined to be false. This was found in an investigation by the Delhi Commission for Women, an official women rights body[1]. This trend of filing false rape cases has inflated the number of rape cases and put additional burden on the judiciary, according to the Delhi High Court. Also, it pointed out that the male victims of false rape cases are under a lot of stress and humiliation [2][3] [4]. This has even led to two suicides by male victims of false rape cases. [5] [6] According to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 if the female victim states the intercourse had happened without her consent, then there is a presumption that the woman did not give consent thus placing the burden of proof on the man to refute the accusation [7]. There are numerous cases when consensual sex has taken place, but the woman filed a rape case against a man. These false rape cases has been pointed out by the Delhi and Bombay High Courts. [8] [9] [10]. This issue has also been investigated by The Hindu, an Indian newspaper. Among its key findings is that a third of all the sexual assault cases in Delhi heard during 2013 dealt with consenting couples in which the female's parents had accused the male of rape.[11][12] [13]. These false rape cases have inflated the number of rape cases at a time when the international media has turned a keen eye on cases of rape in India. K.Goutham Babu (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No specific request made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is good point @K.Goutham Babu:. --Human3015 20:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At the request of User:Bgwhite, I will try to outline my arguments more clearly, so it becomes easy for Wikipedia editors and readers to understand. I will start in small steps also because I cannot exactly spend my whole life on Wikipedia talk pages ;), but try to write as clearly as possible.

Argument for grammatical change

This is really a minor edit. But the sentence that reads

However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.

needs to be modified to

However parliamentarians have expressed concern that the majority of rape cases go unreported.

In English, you need a "the" in front of the word "majority", it is called a Definite Article. The difference between English and languages like Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Nepali, etc. is that the latter languages do not generally employ articles. "Give me the book" and "Give me a book" are both translated as "Mujhe kitab deng" in Hindi. Hindi does not require the speaker to specify whether or not you were talking about "the book" or "a book" in every sentence you make. However, in English you must. You cannot write "Give me book", that would be ungrammatical. Similarly, in the above sentence, you cannot write "that majority of rape cases go unreported", that is grammatically incorrect. To be grammatically correct you have to write "that the majority of rape cases go unreported". You can omit the definite article in special exceptional cases, for which there are special rules, but these rules do not apply to the word "majority" in the above context.

I hope this should be fairly uncontroversial so far? Let me leave it at this first and deal with the other changes after this. Bargolus (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Bargolus As nobody has expressed any objections, I've made the change. Thank you for cutting down your requests to just one. It makes things much easier to deal with. Bgwhite (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)