| Revision as of 22:33, 22 March 2015 editPadenton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,225 edits →Unproven/non-notable allegations← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:07, 17 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,818 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High) (Rater) |
| (388 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ipa|style=long}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|class=start|importance=high|gender=yes|gender-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject India |importance=high |gender=yes |gender-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=start|importance=mid|gender=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's Health |importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ipa|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 17: |
Line 27: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Lowest per capita rates" == |
|
== The Law on Marital Rape in India == |
|
|
|
|
|
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.<ref name="Indian Penal Code Marital Rape Laws" group="Indian Penal Code">{{cite web|last=Courts|first=Delhi|title=Indian Penal Code Bare Act|url=http://indiacode.nic.in/fullact1.asp?tfnm=186045|work=District Courts Delhi Website|publisher=District Courts Delhi|accessdate=6 January 2013}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:20, January 6 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
{{reflist|group="Indian Penal Code"}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== False rape cases in India == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit protected|Rape in India|answered=y}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
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</nowiki>]. 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 </nowiki>]</nowiki>] </nowiki>]. This has even led to two suicides by male victims of false rape cases. </nowiki>] </nowiki>] 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 </nowiki>]. 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. </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. 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.</nowiki>]</nowiki>] </nowiki>]. 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. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
Help me out, I do not have much experience at editing Misplaced Pages |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for this sort of information, after the article is back to semi-protection I will add this. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' The page's protection level and/or your ] have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to ]. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:EP --> --] (]) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Protected edit request on 10 March 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit protected|Rape in India|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
There should be links between people mentioned in the article and their page on wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
E.g. Mamata Banerjee |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Mamata_Banerjee |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thank you, I will link it. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussing Consensus about Travel Advisory Writeup and section re-org. == |
|
|
|
|
|
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,<ref>https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/india/safety-and-security</ref>, 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. ] (]) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
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.] (]) 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. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Gov.uk is a primary source. Read ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ] (]) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes the Penal code should also be removed.]<sup>]</sup> 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Travel advisories, and most newsworthy developments do not qualify for inclusion in wikipedia. See ], particularly ]. 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 ]. |
|
|
:::::] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
. Travel advisories are issued by most governments, as news bulletin. Advisories change. Often. On wiki policies, read the whole ]. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 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.)] (]) 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 ], ], ] and other related articles. |
|
|
::] (]) 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". ] (]) 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 ] and ] to allege causal connection you imply in the first sentence "to the extent that the". Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor a battleground, nor a propaganda vehicle, nor a place to advocate speculations and POV theory. See ]. |
|
|
::::] (]) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: "significant repercussions" . "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 . 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 . 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 ] (]) 02:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead section == |
|
|
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. --] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jabalpur == |
|
|
|
|
|
Jabalpur has the what? ] (]) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A qualification should be added. This is for officially reported rapes. Do we also know what definition of rape they use? This can skew the figures. |
|
:Says here that it has the highest rate, so I put that ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print"> ] |] </span> 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We could(should in my opinion) add a brief mention for the outstanding number of very notable rape cases. ] (]) 03:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Unproven/non-notable allegations == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rape rates global plot == |
|
Such as these have to be rectified from the article. Also considering the ], we cannot list a unproven allegation as rape. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 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. ] (]) 02:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Every news agency has its own policies, how they report and how they analyze the issue. Misplaced Pages's policies differs a bit. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: As I explained, it definitely meets ]. You're saying that there's a danger of ], 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.] (]) 05:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* I agree with OccultZone. In addition to ], I feel we need to cleanup the individual instances of rape in this article. This is the ] 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? ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print"> ] |] </span> 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plot referred to: Reported rape rates per 100,000 population, 2010–2012. It is located in the Rape statistics section. |
|
:: 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??? ] (]) 22:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sourcing of the plot is inadequate. The source is mentioned as UNODC with no further explanation. There is no further explanation, no link provided to the source. Saying the source is UNODC is extremely vague as it is a large organization that publishes multiple datasets. Futher, it is mentioned as "own work". Could someone add in a request to provide better sourcing? ] (]) 22:36, 20 August 2024 (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". ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print"> ] |] </span> 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
A qualification should be added. This is for officially reported rapes. Do we also know what definition of rape they use? This can skew the figures.
Plot referred to: Reported rape rates per 100,000 population, 2010–2012. It is located in the Rape statistics section.
The sourcing of the plot is inadequate. The source is mentioned as UNODC with no further explanation. There is no further explanation, no link provided to the source. Saying the source is UNODC is extremely vague as it is a large organization that publishes multiple datasets. Futher, it is mentioned as "own work". Could someone add in a request to provide better sourcing? CuriousCognoscente (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
