Talk:Bhanwari Devi

Disambiguation page needs to be created with same name

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

New source

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, then a disambiguation page is not always necessary providing there are hatnotes pointing to the other article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Bhanwari Devi → Bhanwari Devi (1992 case) – Request made by user:Abhishekitmbm on 1 March 2012 using template:movenotice on the article page. No reason for the move given in the edit history -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move of Bhanwari Devi to Bhanwari Devi (1992 case) Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation is that there are two women named Bhanwari Devi who both were involved in high-profile crimes related to sex. There are two decades of social, journalistic, and scholarly discussion about the 1992 Bhanwari Devi case, but the 2011 case is trending in the media right now. The Times of India and other sources call the 2011 Devi "(ANM) Bhanwari Devi" to differentiate her, with the letters meaning "axillary nurse and midwife". I propose that this article keep the name "Bhanwari Devi" and for the other article to be named "Bhanwari Devi (2011 case)". Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment see the alternative requested move at Talk:Bhanwari Devi (Jodhpur)#Requested move -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support move of Bhanwari Devi to Bhanwari Devi (1992 case)

You are right Blue,but many using words like ANM and auxiliary nurse may not suffice.It may create confusion to a user who is interested in Bhanwari Devi of recently and accidentally lands to page of 1992 case.Categorizing them on their year will omit the confusion and make adequate and clear information available to user.--Sandy (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

POV tagging

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)