Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles

MOS:INDICSCRIPT

Can someone provide an update for the MOS:INDICSCRIPT? Is the guideline still applicable or are there any exceptions to the guideline, especially in Wikiproject Hinduism? I'm seeing multiple articles with notes suggesting so. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What multiple articles with what notes suggesting "so" what?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ashwatthama is one such article with a nowiki note. Is there such a guideline proposed and accepted? Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What is a "nonwiki note"? Note about what, where on the page, saying what? Please try to be clearer about what issue you are raising and what you expect to be done about it. No one here is a mind-reader.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hidden note on the lead about the MOS:INDICSCRIPT is what I'm talking about. Sorry for the confusion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I see an HTML comment there that reads <!--Do not remove, WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply to WikiProject Hinduism--> That's a nonsensical statement, since there is no such thing as a wikiproject that is magically immune to guidelines and policies applying to it. This may be a mangled attempt at referring to some consensus discussion that came to a conclusion that certain Indic script renditions might be particularly relevant at certain topical articles, but we'll need to see what that discussion might be, if there has actually been one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the same. I've been searching all the pages on MOS for something of the sort, but couldn't find any such guideline. Thanks.

Removal of Indic scripts does not apply to articles on Hinduism (or Buddhism). RegentsPark (comment) 21:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INDICSCRIPT alternative option

Would it be at all possible to have an alternative system for Indic scripts in infoboxes rather than (in most cases) removing them all? Ex. something that looks/actsworks parallel to Template:Infobox Indic letter or Template:Infobox Chinese? OfTheUsername (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You'll probably need to get consensus for this since the text of the MOS says "infoboxes". Personally, I think a collapsible box attached to a "Names" section may not be a bad idea RegentsPark (comment) 21:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The Kolkata "case", wider implications?

Apparently there is an Indian law against naming names in some crime contexts, a recent rfc on a specific such issue can be seen at Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim.

It strikes me that this is unlikely to be the only WP-article that bumps up against this law, there is Category:Rape in India and probably other areas as well.

So my question is, is this something that MOS:INDIA should address somehow? "Context matters and the usual WP:DR processes apply as necessary." or something like that. Or very different. Ping @Tamzin and @JSutherland (WMF) if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There have been other articles in the past where this came up. Fowler&fowler gave the example 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, which was actually the first article I ever edited extensively, when I was a wee 16-year-old burba, and I remember both the initial decision to name the victim and the subsequent removal. I don't think it's the law that's relevant, but rather the cultural norms it represents—much like how many images that some countries would consider obscene are proscribed under MOS:OMIMG, but because of their shocking nature, not because of those countries' laws. I don't have a strong opinion on whether MOS:INDIA should discuss this, but if it does, I think it should be a broad statement about respecting BLP/BDP; understanding that the Indian understanding of privacy here is not necessarily the same as the Western one, particularly regarding the deceased; and looking to high-quality reliable sources for guidance. We can see at MOS:DEADNAME the horrors unleashed by trying to tailor a guideline too closely to a specific set of cultural circumstances, and MOS:INDIA would do well not to repeat that mistake. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 09:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin. This is very well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I also feel the arguments that 'what value does the name add for the reader that "a 31 year old female postgraduate trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India" does not?' are very compelling. I think perhaps our MOS should include specifically that we can weigh that value against any cultural norms for the victim's family. Valereee (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I definitely think we should be discussing in terms of cultural norms, not local law or court orders. Local law and court orders are only relevant in that they may be indicators of cultural norms and may be telling us, "Hey, maybe want to discuss this, it may be important in the context of the cultural norms, as we could be causing actual damage to these living people who are members of the victim's family." Valereee (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It’s clear that naming victims in sensitive contexts raises significant concerns that go beyond local laws and touch on deeper cultural norms. I agree that any MOS guidance should emphasize the need to respect BLP/BDP principles while recognizing the different understandings of privacy in India compared to Western norms. To move forward, I propose that we create a clear guideline addressing the addition and removal of victims' names in relevant articles. This guideline should balance the value of including a name against the potential impact on the victim's family and cultural sensitivities. Establishing such a guideline will not only provide clarity for future articles but also help us avoid repetitive discussions if similar cases arise. Let’s work together to draft this guideline.

What do you all think? I.Mahesh (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is to be a guideline, I would suggest something simple like "Indian privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of sexual offenses, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Naming Victims of Sexual Offenses in India

In line with Indian privacy norms and legal restrictions, the names of victims of sexual offenses—both living and deceased—should generally not be included in Wikipedia articles. This guideline applies to all pages, including biographical articles, lists, infoboxes, and templates. The following outlines the considerations and handling of names in these cases:

• Living or Recently Deceased Victims:

1. General rule: The names of living victims or those recently deceased (within the past 20 years) should not be included unless they have chosen to publicly self-identify. This applies even if reliable sources report their name. When writing about a victim in such cases, use a descriptive phrase like "a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai" or "an 18-year-old student from Delhi," without disclosing their identity.
2. Reliable sources: Even if a name appears in reliable sources, the inclusion of the name should be weighed against privacy concerns. Wikipedia’s policies on WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BDP should guide editorial decisions, erring on the side of exclusion unless the subject’s name is already widely publicized, and no harm is likely to result from its inclusion.
3. Respecting family privacy: Especially in Indian contexts, the cultural norm around privacy for families of victims is particularly strong. Editors should avoid any actions that could harm or distress the victim's family or community.

• Deceased Victims of Past Crimes:

1. When to include names: For individuals who have been deceased for more than 20 years, editors may consider including the name, provided the practice in high-quality, reliable sources supports it. In cases where the victim’s name remains excluded in current sources, Wikipedia should follow that example.
2. High-quality sources: Reliable sources must be of the highest quality when naming victims of past crimes. Newspapers, academic studies, or recognized publications that handle these cases with sensitivity should be considered the primary guide. Avoid using tabloid or sensationalist sources to justify the inclusion of a name.
3. Cultural and legal context: Given that Indian law and cultural norms prioritize the privacy of victims of sexual violence, these factors should guide editorial decisions. Editors should remember that Western practices of disclosure may differ and are not always applicable in the Indian context.

• General Approach and Practical Application:

1. Omission unless strong reasons exist: Even in historical cases, the default should be to omit the name unless strong reasons exist to include it (e.g., the victim became a public figure after the incident, or their identity is well-known and widely discussed in reputable publications).
2. No automatic inclusion: The inclusion of names should never be automatic, even if they are part of a widely reported case. Each decision to include or exclude should be made carefully, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the practices in reliable sources.

• In Quotations or Citations

1. Paraphrasing and eliding names: When quoting or paraphrasing a source that includes the name of a victim, particularly in the case of living or recently deceased individuals, editors should replace the name with descriptive terms, using square brackets if necessary. For example: "The victim, [a 25-year-old student], was attacked..."
2. Citations of works: When citing books or articles that use the victim's name in their title or author references, retain the original title or author name but refrain from including it in the prose of the article unless deemed absolutely necessary.

• Discussion and Consensus

1. Consensus-based editing: Editorial decisions on victim names should be guided by community consensus, particularly when the circumstances are ambiguous or controversial. Discussion on the talk page before adding or removing a name is encouraged. Editors should provide clear, reasoned explanations for their choices, referring to this guideline, WP:AVOIDVICTIM.

This guideline aims to strike a balance between providing factual information and respecting the privacy and dignity of victims and their families, in alignment with both legal and cultural norms in India. We invite the community to discuss and refine this proposed guideline further to ensure it effectively addresses these concerns while maintaining Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability and neutrality. I.Mahesh (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

At 597 words, it's long. The current Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles is 1020 words. Also "applies to all pages" will hamper talk page discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

20 years for "recently deceased" is also a significant departure from WP:BDP (part of the BLP policy) which says that the length of time that BLP protections apply to the recently deceased is context dependent but might be "two years at the outside". In the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case which was cited as precedent, we have named the victim in the lead since 2020, eight years after the murder. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public In the case of the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, the victim's parents specifically requested that her real name be used instead of a pseudonym, which allowed reliable sources to include it. However, this may not be the case for all incidents. I suggest that we establish a guideline allowing for discussions on including the victim's name after a certain period, contingent upon the context and the weight it adds to the article. This approach would ensure sensitivity while providing flexibility based on the circumstances surrounding each case. I.Mahesh (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I agree that the size of the norm can be significantly reduced, as my intention was to elaborate on key points rather than create a lengthy document. Regarding the phrase "applies to all pages," I want to clarify that it is intended only for articles within the same context, specifically related to sensitive cases like those involving victims of sexual violence. The time frame I mentioned, such as the 20-year period, was merely for discussion, and we can certainly adjust it to a shorter duration, similar to what was established in the Delhi case. I appreciate your input and look forward to refining the guideline further! I.Mahesh (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's way too long and too specific to India and sex crimes. I'm sure there are other cultures where naming victims of certain crimes is taboo. I don't think we need to even mention laws in the policy, it's irrelevant except as a clue about cultural norms. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about MOS:INDIA here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess I feel like if we're crafting policy for an issue that might be similar to other issues in other cultures, why not address both? Valereee (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but if we are talking about modifying WP:BLP, this isn't a good place to discuss that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We probably should be discussing even the more limited language there, really. It's a pretty big change, even worded only to affect Indian BLPs, and we've only got six people in the discussion. I was thinking of this as workshopping, I guess? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd edit Tamzin's suggestion to broaden it from sex crimes and India:

"Some cultural privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of certain crimes, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission."

Valereee (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Where would you put it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM maybe, with links from MOS:wherever appropriate? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your statement is clear and I think an example might help: "Some cultural privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of certain crimes, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For example, instead of writing Jane Doe, a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai, a more privacy-conscious version might be a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." -- I.Mahesh (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, I think if this were to be incorporated into WP:BLP, it would be in BLPPRIVACY, where a second sentence could be added to the second paragraph, something like "Privacy expectations vary across cultural contexts, and editors should look to how reliable sources that are familiar with a culture's privacy norms handle the situation." But that's almost tangential to whether something is added here. If something is added here, I think it should be India- and sex-crime-specific, because this is MOS:INDIA and the norm in question is principally about sex crimes. As to I.Mahesh' proposed wording above, I agree with others' critiques. Again, we don't want a second MOS:DEADNAME here—a guideline with its heart in the wrong place but which people chose to frame as an extraordinary exception, rather than an application of editorial best practices, leading to a drama-prone passage that doesn't actually give much good style advice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to whatever ends up here being worded more India-specific. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, @Tamzin, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång So, what is the procedure now? Should we be waiting few more days for other reviews? A week ago, I have already posted about creation of a new guideline for this on India related articles Noticeboard, but I didn't receive any response from members. I.Mahesh (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. Regarding MOS:INDIA, I don't see much of a consensus for anything so far. On the BLP-aspects, those can't be decided here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So what's the driving factor for when to apply this? Where the incident happened, the nationality of the victim, both?

Also wondering if something that says to reference the practices of the local / national media for including a name would work here. Noting that these practices can change over time, and generally how more current sources reference the people involved should have more weight than those in the past. Ravensfire (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire Good point. Referring to local or national media practices is useful, especially since those practices often reflect cultural norms. However, in India, even though some media outlets might name victims, the legal framework (like Section 228A of the IPC) and cultural expectations heavily prioritize protecting victim identities in cases of sexual offenses. These norms have remained quite consistent over time, even if specific media practices shift. In Wikipedia’s context, this means that we often err on the side of caution, following Indian privacy laws rather than solely relying on changing media practices. I.Mahesh (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In the case of the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder, the victim’s name is mentioned only once in the title of a news citation provided as a reference for the article. However, on Wikipedia, we created a 'Victim' section and an infobox using the victim’s name. This highlights how, in some cases, we may be going beyond the media's treatment of such sensitive information, underscoring the need to reassess our approach in line with cultural norms and legal requirements in India. I.Mahesh (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Tamzin @Valereee @Ravensfire @Nil Einne I don’t think we’ll get much input from the Indian community, even though I’ve sent a message to the India-related mailing lists, and it seems they have chosen not to engage. I believe it's time for us to move forward and draft a guideline for Indian-related sexual crime articles. This will help provide clarity and consistency moving forward. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would interpret the lack of reply here as meaning that there is not significant interest in creating a guideline. See also WP:WEAKSILENCE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

+1. Lacking interest for a guideline, this maybe should simply be dealt with case-by-case. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll try one last time to bring this up in the mailing list to gather more input. I believe that having a clear guideline is crucial, especially considering how previous cases might influence future discussions and judgments. It’s important for us to have a consistent approach to avoid any potential inconsistencies in our coverage. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in our coverage is kinda what we do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't actually need consistency across articles unless there's some good reason to require it. People are reluctant to create policy for overly-specific issues.

If you do bring this up in a mailing list, you'll need to disclose what exactly you said and which mailing lists, as it could be seen as off-wiki canvassing. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee You can find my mail at [email protected]; it’s an open mailing list. I appreciate your input, but I must respectfully disagree. The lack of consistency in how we address sensitive topics, such as naming victims of sexual assault, can lead to significant legal and ethical repercussions for our community. Given the existing court orders and Indian laws that mandate the protection of victims' identities, it is crucial for Wikipedia to align with these cultural norms to avoid potential media backlash and legal scrutiny.

A consistent policy would not only safeguard the privacy of victims but also enhance the credibility of our content in the eyes of Indian users and media. This is not merely an overly-specific issue; it's about respecting the cultural and legal framework within which we operate. I urge you to reconsider the importance of establishing a clear guideline on this matter to ensure that we are not seen as continuous offenders of legal norms in India. I.Mahesh (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It may be an open mailing list, but unless there's an archive somewhere, I assume I won't be able to see the emails you sent? Valereee (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You can find the message in the archive here. I’d appreciate some clarity on how notifying Indian Wikimedians via the Wikimedia India mailing list about an ongoing Manual of Style discussion on India-related articles could be considered off-wiki canvassing. Given the relevance of this discussion to Indian legal and cultural norms, it seems reasonable to reach out to a community that may have valuable perspectives on the issue. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The notification isn't neutral, though. Notifications need to be neutral in order to be not considered canvassing. You're allowed to say something like: "A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles#The Kolkata "case", wider implications? may interest members of this mailing list." That's really about it before people start thinking it's canvassing. Valereee (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out the link. Just to clarify, my goal in notifying the Indian Wikimedian community through the Wikimedia India mailing list was to provide relevant information on a discussion that may impact content related to India, especially considering cultural and legal sensitivities around naming victims. Since the consensus had already been reached to avoid naming in this case, the message aimed to invite users from the Indian community to participate in formalizing this guideline in the Manual of Style. The notification highlighted the importance of input rather than advocating a specific stance, especially as we are aiming for consistency with Indian norms. I’ve aimed to keep the language balanced to encourage participation, but I appreciate your feedback on ensuring neutrality in these discussions. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote in your email was not neutral. It was asking people to come in and express the opinion you wanted them to express. That's considered canvassing, even if your intentions were pure. Valereee (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about why this discussion is dragging on. Every time a new case arises in India, we face the same issues with naming victims and sharing personal data. Courts issue orders, and media outlets highlight our inconsistencies repeatedly. We are frequently questioned about Wikipedia's lack of transparency regarding Indian cultural norms during our outreach activities.

Why are we still debating this when a guideline could help us avoid these recurring issues? Instead of prolonging the conversation, I'd like to know what potential problems this guideline might cause by creating a culturally sensitive policy. I.Mahesh (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking only from my own point of view (as someone who supports the idea that we should be including cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP), this would need to be discussed at MOS:BLP before it could be implemented here. IMO it's a policy decision that would need to be discussed by more than a handful of people at a fairly-obscure talk page. Valereee (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, @Valereee. I appreciate your perspective on the need for cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP. I will be participating in the Commons Education Project:Adilabad shortly and will initiate the discussion at MOS:BLP when I return, provided there are no further developments on this page in the meantime. I.Mahesh (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am not an active editor on the En Wikipedia project but associated with Indic language projects and initiatives. I urge the admins and interested Wikimedians to not read the lack of numbers on this talk page as a sign of disinterested behaviour among Indian Wikimedians regarding the issue that I.Mahesh has been advocating for.

At a structural level the policy to have a consistent approach is to going to benefit a lot of Indic Wikimedians at their individual contribution level and for Indic Wikipedia projects at a policy level as well. It will also help us avoid negative attention from media trials and insinuations made from people who do not understand the Wikipedia ecosystem and can only observe that the information is in violation of the legal practice in India.

Having a consistent approach across the manual of style will also help when news outlets and media houses pick up content from our platforms and recognise that it adheres to the legal and social practices followed here.

In support of a consistent practice and adding of the earlier achieved consensus of not naming the victim into the Manual of Style Lahariyaniyati (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lahariyaniyati, did you end up here because of a post to an email list? Valereee (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Valereee,

I ended up here because I have been following the discussion on this page. I am also subscribed to the mailing list where this was being discussed. Lahariyaniyati (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can someone point me to something WP:RS-y I can read about this particular Indian cultural norm we are discussing in this thread? Preferably easily accessible. It may be unrelated, but I vaguely remember reading something about that mentioning suicide regarding Sushant Singh Rajput on WP was objected to for similar reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, maybe this? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Interesting, thanks. "Does the practice of protecting the anonymity of sexual assault victims save them from shame or perpetuate it?" is a good question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

While interesting, IMO one thing the article doesn't really touch that much on but is a key distinction here namely this also applying to deceased victims, even if their primary example is such a case. I touched on this in my (typical long) comment in the RfC but protecting the anonymity of living victims definitely isn't unique to India, actually it's IMO fairly common. Even in places like the US where there is no legal requirement to do so, some media do this. (From the Wikipedia PoV living vs deceased also makes a difference because long term it's not a BLP issue with deceased victims but it is for living victims.) And there are plenty of countries where there are legal requirements (always or sometimes). This came up recently in a high profile French case [1]. That said, the French case does perhaps highlight another difference. I think in most "Western" countries where this is an issue, the media will generally name a victim who asks to be named if they legally can with the possible exception of cases where it might affect other victims or where the victim is underage. But the linked article suggests in India this isn't always the case there due to concerns that the victims might not have had the proper support to make this decision. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: avoiding mention of suicide is also something that comes up with New Zealand articles. This isn't just a cultural thing as there are restrictions on reporting although these have been significantly relaxed in recent years [2]. Still while it's slowly changing, I think the media is often still reluctant to report it even in ways they can.

In NZ case we are able to generally just get by with following the sources. If we have at least one source which mentions suicide (in some way) we generally mention it in our article if not we don't. (Over time these aren't BLP issues anyway.) I don't know much about the situation in India but I'd imagine one difference is the size of the media ecosystem there means it's likely that in most cases some sources might report it whereas this isn't necessarily the case in NZ. Also I suspect it's more likely other non Indian sources might report such deaths.

Two high profile cases might be Greg Boyed and Pua Magasiva. Both of these did eventually receive mention that they took their own life [3] and [4]. In both cases the sources used to support this only came a while after death [5] [6]+[7]. In most cases it's fairly transparent even in early articles what's being suggested but it's never stated.

In fact you can see see this source which does mention suicide [8] does so with a link to this source [9]. I also came across this Guardian source, so not even from a Kiwi publication [10] which AFAICT despite talking a lot about the issue of suicide and depression, never actually mentions it was the cause or suspected cause of death.

Greg King and Olivia Podmore are other cases although in those cases it was add fairly early on [11] [12] based on sources [13] [14].

However all of those cases were catalysts for significant discussion on mental health and/or suicide; and perhaps with the exception of Boyed, there were significant other issues which IMO increase discussion and meant the cause was generally mentioned. (With Magasiva, the domestic violence allegations, and with King and Podmore the various pressures on defence lawyers and high performance cyclists respectively.) While the death of highish profile (and so people we're likely to have an article on) does often result in these discussions, I suspect there might still articles we have where we don't mention the cause of death due to a lack of sources.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne You’re correct that in some Western countries, victims who explicitly choose to be named are often reported as such. However, in India, there’s concern that victims or their families may not have had adequate psychological or legal support to make such a decision, which is why anonymity is often preserved, even when permission might be granted. The Sushant Singh Rajput case also reflects the complexity of balancing media reporting with respect for privacy, especially in sensitive circumstances like suicide.

It might be interesting to explore how Indian media practices differ from those in other countries, particularly when covering cases involving both living and deceased victims. The media ecosystem in India is vast, and sometimes, international outlets may report details that Indian outlets omit, creating further discrepancies in coverage. I.Mahesh (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not use regional names in regional scripts?

As i have read that we cant use regional names in regional scripts, But why the hell!? For example we should write "Ludhiana (Hindi:लुधियाना Punjabi: Gurmukhi-ਲੁਧਿਆਣਾ Shahmukhi - لدھیاݨہ Iast: ......" So what's the problem! Maheep Singh24 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOINDICSCRIPT evolved because of massive edit warring over which scripts should be included/excluded, and what order they should appear in. Language-warring was a serious problem in Indian articles, and, although it has not disappeared, it is far less of a problem than it used to be. - Arjayay (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Specify Urdu alphabet in MOS:INDICSCRIPT?

Obviously, the Urdu alphabet is not an Indic script, and it is not typically used in India. However, MOS:INDICSCRIPT would clearly seem to apply to situations where editors would want to add Urdu alphabet, so maybe this should explicitly be stated? Remsense ‥ 论 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of the Official Script

It's kinda discriminatory that other countries write their script in English articles, while India just can't.

Instead, I propose a new way. We can write it in all official scripts, instead of none. On National level in Hindi (and English), and on state level all the official languages.

Let's say the article is about Gangtok. We could write it as - Tripuri:Agartala Bengali:আগরতলা Shubhsamant09 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This would simply return us to the massive language-warring problems that led to the introduction of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT in 2012, and its gradual refinement over the following 5 years. Although we still have some language-warring, this is nowhere near the levels prior to its introduction. - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers has an RfC

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)