Talk:India: Head of Delhi Commission on Women calls for prompt capital punishment for child rape

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Pi zero in topic Review of revision 4380382 [Passed]

Notes edit

Just to let you know, Delhi is not the capital of India. New Delhi is. Talking in mathematical set theory — New Delhi is a proper subset of Delhi. (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up; the sources disagree or some are not clear, but Al Jazeera and NDTV both mention or specify New Delhi, so I have made the change. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
At least four websites say it happened “allegedly”. That is one of the reasons I don’t feel comfortable writing anything about India since every other story happened allegedly, and most of the things shown on TV, if are not allegedly, they are not newsworthy.
•–• 00:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Allegedly" is a very important word in reportage, as it highlights that the report is that a claim has been made; however, I remember it used to drive me up the wall when I'd see the word "allegedly" put into the wrong place in a sentence, thus causing more of the report to be alleged than ought to be (why would one report that the police allegedly said somebody did something?). At its heart, though, the word "allegedly" is a close ally of the principle of attribution. --Pi zero (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I shortened the account of the discovery of the rape to fit the new focus and took out the sentence saying physical examination had confirmed that rape occurred. One source has the cousin confessing, but in view of the focus I decided it was enough now to just say the cousin had been arrested. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4380018 [Not ready] edit

Yes, I feared as much when I got down to writing this. The BBC even specifically points out that word didn't get out till Monday. The sources emphasise the reaction but don't give much except the one lady. I'll make a quick search for follow-up stories in case there were broader protests reported later. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4380052 [Not ready] edit

Hmm, good point about the need for a second source: I found only multiple versions of the same AFP article. I did add a point and a half from that source to the "legal" paragraph at the end: increasing seriousness of legal treatment of rape after the wave of protests following the student's rape and death (that had been in at least one of the sources I had already used), and the harshest available punishment being life imprisonment (in only the latest source, I think, and that does relate to the new focus. But I take your point; I had tried to tighten up the account of what happened in this case, but found there was little I could reasonably cut. In fact I considered adding the colostomy bag detail, but became a bit suspicious when searching for that (I was trying to find the AFP article on their site) turned up previous young children with the same detail mentioned, and it hadn't been in the earlier news stories I saw. So thanks, sorry for taking your time, and I still hope it won't be wasted, but a renewed search for new sources will now have to wait for tomorrow UTC. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Further source now apparently offline edit

The additional source I had originally intended to add today was "30-day satyagraha after baby rape" at The Telegraph of India, dated February 1. However, it seems to have been taken down. I don't know whether anyone else can see it at this Google cache URL. I had intended to use it to add a statistic about violence against women, and the background that satyagraha was introduced as a technique by Gandhi, and that article also includes further statements by Maliwal, presumably exclusive to their reporter, that would offset the reliance on Twitter. However, it appears to be unsalvageable, and this is getting stale again, so I'm using the January 31 source instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4380382 [Passed] edit

  • I somehow left out of the above review comments the single most important point about this review: the headline and article both clearly said, when submitted, that she was calling for the introduction of the death penalty for child rape, but two of the sources (admittedly, not independent of each other on this point) said there already was a death penalty for rape, since the reforms following the 2012 case. I weakened the claims of the article to what I could verify, which was that she was calling for the death penalty to be imposed promptly in cases of child rape (specifically, that it be imposed within six months). --Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
That was a technically small, but conceptually on the large side, adjustment. --Pi zero (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I'm puzzled by the discrepancy over the death penalty. I see it's the two British sources—the BBC and The Independent—that have "including the death penalty" for the changes introduced after the 2012 rape (and thank you by the way for finding earlier coverage here of the aftermath of that event); but Asia One explicitly states, "Under Indian law the maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment." So I'm scratching my head a bit at the discrepancy. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Yngvadottir: For this article, we don't have to say whether there is a death penalty, as we only have to pin down what is being called for rather than what about it differs from the status quo. Although the 2013 article wasn't used here as a source, now that we raise the point, I see in it that the accused were facing the death penalty. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Return to "India: Head of Delhi Commission on Women calls for prompt capital punishment for child rape" page.