Talk:Thanjavur student suicide case

India: Tamil Nadu / Politics Low‑importance

	India portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright violation[edit]

There were multiple instances of close paraphrasing violations that I came across while copy editing the article. I have now fixed almost all of them. I have added a copy vio rev del tag for the earlier versions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions with copyright violations have been removed. Violator Mukt has been warned. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Allegations in lead[edit]

Unconfirmed and unverified allegations should not be added into the lead section. Committed word should not be used per WP:NPOV.--Venkat TL (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial details are not included in the lead. They are covered in the article. Quotes from the court and counter accusations need not be added as the case is still ongoing. No source was added for "recognized minority educational institution administered by Franciscan_Missionaries_of_Mary". So it is removed. Venkat TL (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that there is a dispute about cause of suicide is a repetition of uncertainty already conveyed through the word "allegation". Such repetition clutters the lead section, adding no new information. Also, the Court's documented reason for transferring the case to CBI has consequents pertinent to development of the investigation, though I agree that it can be avoided in the lead. Again, as local police is no longer the investigative agency; statements treating police investigation in present tense need to be suitably changed to reflect the present. Finally, I am adding sources for Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, and of minority status of the school. - Mukt (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is regarding the cause of her suicide. Different parties are saying different things. Hence dispute is mentioned in the lead. Both sides view is mentioned in the article body. Please see WP:LAYOUT. Court arguements/ counter arguements are not added. There is no sufficient reason to make an exception here. Can you provide a source to claim "local police is no longer the investigative agency". Last time I checked they were still looking for the VHP guy who recorded the video. Unless there is a source that they have closed their case, we cannot say it. CBI may be looking at the main case. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section is expected to have a short description of the subject, not repetitions of one point. Either remove the word disputed, or remove the word allegations. - Mukt (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I remove the word disputed? The dispute does not vanish because you want it to vanish. I must warn you against WP:CENSOR. What is your proposed version after removing it? Venkat TL (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, don't see the irony in referring me to WP:CENSOR while you yourself have been the one hastily deleting particulars of one side of the story where ever you could find the slightest excuse? - Mukt (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SCMP[edit]

Much referred source South China Morning Post here is a source behind advertisement, and not openly accessible to public. We must replace it with better, more accessible sources instead. - Mukt (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable source. There is no such rule that paywalled sources need to be removed. Almost all WP:HISTRS sources are behind paywall. Venkat TL (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That which is inaccessible, even to a single person, is automatically unverifiable for her, and thus unreliable. Absence of rules against a bad practice cannot be used to justify it especially where multiple alternatives are available. The situation here is nothing like WP:HISTRS where often no open sources are available and encyclopedia editors are forced to use whatever they have available. - Mukt (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not make the rules here. You are welcome to read the rules of WP:RS and follow them. Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under which license has SCMP allowed Wikipedia to make paywalled content available to public? - Mukt (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a change in its ownership in 2016, as per WP:RS, [scrutiny is needed in certain topics]. Such scrutiny stands visibly denied due to paywall. - Mukt (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does this fall in that "certain topic" is beyond me. Nothing wrong with the reliable source SCMP. Stop removing relevant information due to WP:POV reasons. Venkat TL (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of suspect[edit]

See WP:SUSPECT she is not a public person. Dispute is not repeated. Please explain why you think so on the talk . Venkat TL (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is available as accused in multiple news outlets at this point, including some international ones. Her arrest, and the spectacle by DMK politicians on her bail are separate news stories. She deserves an article of her own. Thanks for pointing out that a wikipedia article on her is missing. - Mukt (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link I posted? Stop making up your own rules. Venkat TL (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

The video is part of the incident and has to be discussed in the beginning Venkat TL (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]