Talk:Bhanwari Devi

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography India Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012. Law Enforcement This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Because of another page Bhanwari Devi (Jodhpur),there should be a disambiguation page with the same name Bhanwari Devi,and existing page should be moved to Bhanwari Devi (1992 case). Please tell your inputs.--Sandy (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain consistency, probably a better title will be Bhanwari Devi (Bhateri). utcursch | talk 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The both pages(needs to be associated with disambiguation page) are notable due to criminal cases.So provide a location based name might not be good.--Sandy (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the Bhanwari Devi (Jodhpur) article should be moved to something like Bhanwari Devi (2011 case) to maintain consistency. utcursch | talk 05:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly,that's why I tagged move notice there also to rename page to Bhanwari Devi (2011 case).--Sandy (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4398990

Source from October 1992 contains a great deal of information from the initial stages of the case. It contains a "great deal" of detail.

It warrants close study in relation to the whole piece. It is minutely details and gives the time frame of being written within a month of events is a quality source - and also illuminates the caste differences and antagonism involved. It details contemporary investigation by the WDP - how the training by the DWP of Devi preserved evidence - and how the police behaved from the outset.

The source also provides detailed background - analysis - and explains the change in Devi's status and over all treatment immediately afterwards. - as it says "On September 30 (1992) the Bhateri meeting was reviewed and there was unanimous recognition of the fact that now Bhanwari has lost her roots in the village completely and that there was no scope for dialogue with the villagers at this point of time The aggressive stance of some of the caste leaders displayed the wrath that had been incurred by Bhanwari through her role in the anti-child marriage campaign."

It also shows just how quickly the matter was being progressed on a regional/national level with referrals to chief minister taking the memorandum prepared earlier; the case should be taken to the National Commission of Women.

Additional references to NCW indicate that they conclusively found that Devi had been gang raped - and this report was part of the legal submission to the Indian Supreme Court as part of "Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997" - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/ - it is of note that "In" the Supreme Court Record it is stated - and not alleged - that the gang rape had taken place and was subject to separate legal process.

I am still endeavouring to locate a copy of the NCW report in full - should it be public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All wrong information provided here... Koteshsandhya (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of original research going on here, as well as unsourced (or badly sourced) claims, references to material behind paywalls and whatnot. A lot of effort seems to have been expended on questioning the reliability of the subject as a victim, and that's fine if it's the case, but the material does not strike me as particularly neutral. If anyone has any issues with my subsequent edits to the article, please discuss here before reverting. This is a BLP so it needs to absolutely conform to policy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't look at this first, but I hope my cuts coincide with what you were going to do. The previous version of the article made me sick, literally sick to my stomach. Yes, we cannot alter the facts of the case--the accused were acquitted; while multiple reliable sources do state that a gang-rape occurred, WP:BLP (with respect to the accused) says we can't use the wording in those sources to override the court judgment. But the article was filled with POV claims, claims that were not in the sources, and clear, unquestioned attempts to attack the subject of the article. Anyone who wants to add anything negative about a living person better have impeccable sources to support it. It may be possible to remove the POV tag, but I'd like others to review it first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog: could use your view on the recent edits by an IP sock who is repeatedly putting in excessively POV/WP:OR material into the article, some of which clearly fails WP:BLP. That's not to say the previous versions of the article were necessarily fully in compliance with WP policy, but the recent edits seem to be pouring on fuel because a small fire is happening. Will try to tear apart the recent changes in some more detail to better explain the concerns. Dl2000 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, did some cleanup, but there are probably some remaining POV issues lurking and the contentious edits themselves indicate a persistent dispute over the content neutrality. Also, there was some commentary on this article from last year, although admittedly blog-based and has its own viewpoint, there may be valid concerns to consider from that. Dl2000 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dl2000: That is some good work, thank you. If the IPs become unruly we can of course protect the article - this has been very contentious in the past and I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]