Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
Extended confirmed users
16,687 edits
→‎Addition: Reply On top priority can you remove accused names since that is not considered ideal in Wikipedia editing culture as far as I know.
Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions
20,617 edits
Line 239: Line 239:
:::@[[User:USaamo|USaamo]] I have already gone through the whole media available online while continuously updating the article over the year. I am quite ready to discuss all that, you will notice ''I had not named any accused name in the whole article'' '''since as per Wikipedia WP:BLP culture we editors are supposed to be avoiding naming accused until police officially frames charges in a clear cut case. Where complications and confusions are there wait till court decides on the matter.''' I hope and request you to understand steps of FIR, Medical report, Police officially framing charges, court taking those charges on record. We will continue to discuss all other things but meanwhile , '''On top priority can you remove accused names since that is not considered ideal in Wikipedia editing culture as far as I know.'''
:::@[[User:USaamo|USaamo]] I have already gone through the whole media available online while continuously updating the article over the year. I am quite ready to discuss all that, you will notice ''I had not named any accused name in the whole article'' '''since as per Wikipedia WP:BLP culture we editors are supposed to be avoiding naming accused until police officially frames charges in a clear cut case. Where complications and confusions are there wait till court decides on the matter.''' I hope and request you to understand steps of FIR, Medical report, Police officially framing charges, court taking those charges on record. We will continue to discuss all other things but meanwhile , '''On top priority can you remove accused names since that is not considered ideal in Wikipedia editing culture as far as I know.'''
:::[[User:Bookku| Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge']] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 13:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:Bookku| Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge']] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 13:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Per [[WP:SUSPECT]], "For individuals who are [[WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE|not public figures]]; that is, individuals not covered by {{section link||Public figures}}, editors must seriously consider {{strong|not}} including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,{{efn|For example, [[O. J. Simpson]] was [[O. J. Simpson murder case|acquitted]] in 1995 of the murder of [[Nicole Brown Simpson]] and [[Ronald Goldman]], but was found liable for their [[wrongful death]]s in a civil trial two years later.}} include sufficient explanatory information."
::::Per [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]], "In the case of [[public figure]]s, [...] If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find {{em|multiple}} reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 00:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
:::*
:::*



Revision as of 00:13, 20 August 2022

Relevant discussions

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One (brutal) criminal event doesn't justify a Wikipedia article (sorry)

Sorry: how sad this crime and accident may be, Wikipedia can't and shouldn't qualify every incident, sexual or otherwise, to merit a Wikipedia lemma. (See also Wikipedia:Notability.) --Corriebertus (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Corriebertus: Thanks for your frank opinion. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with
WP:NOTNEWS). I could help clean up and improve this article, but at this point it is not clear if it would meet Wikipedia:Notability (events). Best to wait a few months, even a year, and see if RS are still talking about it.VR talk 13:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Continuation of event coverage




  • December 2021

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectory of crime in precincts of Minar-e-Pakistan and Lahore

[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1641229/case-against-400-for-harassing-making-fun-of-youtuber , https://images.dawn.com/news/1188213/twitter-users-renew-calls-of-yes-all-men-after-woman-assaulted-by-400-men-at-minar-e-pakistan , https://www.dawn.com/news/1641195 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOwAZFVlgYI&t=31s , https://pakistanfrontier.com/2021/08/19/investigation-reveals-ayesha-akram-planned-minar-e-pakistan-incident-as-a-publicity-stunt-with-her-partner-rambo/ https://www.brandsynario.com/another-female-tiktoker-blames-the-victim-for-minar-e-pakistan-incident/ https://www.dawn.com/news/1642014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRgtGl_yfww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ny4a3DZjx8 https://dailytimes.com.pk/807469/police-submits-report-in-tiktoker-assault-case/ https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/883597-the-world-of-women https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/887777-minar-e-pakistan-incident-court-releases-98-suspects https://tribune.com.pk/story/2318994/new-world-same-violence-the-questionable-freedom-digital-spaces-enable-for-women https://www.thefridaytimes.com/pakistan-needs-to-devise-a-strategy-against-widespread-sexual-terrorism/ https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-police-release-155-suspects-arrested-in-the-sexual-assault-of-a-youtuber-girl/article36333256.ece https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/09-Sep-2021/court-trashes-plea-seeking-case-against-tiktoker-ayesha-akram-friend , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w99p-mXOOk&t=4s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFAIP5nTnI , https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/11-Oct-2021/minar-e-pakistan-incident-new-audio-tape-exposes-extortion-plan-of-ayesha-akram-and-rambo , https://www.bolnews.com/trending/2021/10/iqrar-ul-hassan-apologizes-for-supporting-ayesha-ikram-after-her-audio-leak/ , https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/12-Oct-2021/3-more-arrested-as-minar-e-pakistan-harassment-case-takes-another-twist , https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/13-Oct-2021/minar-e-pakistan-incident-another-audiotape-of-ayesha-akram-rambo-surfaces , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAIsPEb4FYE , interview with Dolphin Force man : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Woi7_zc5SA , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iUwQ3gIlyE https://www.dawn.com/news/1650972/minar-i-pakistan-case-complainants-associate-seven-others-arrested https://www.dawn.com/news/1662919 https://www.etcnews.tv/tiktoker-ayesha-akram-traffic-accident-mein-zakhmi/ https://nation.com.pk/19-Dec-2021/police-registers-another-sexual-harassment-case-at-minar-e-pakistan , https://www.bolnews.com/latest/2022/01/minar-i-pakistan-assault-case-lahore-court-grants-post-arrest-bail-to-suspect/ , https://arynews.tv/rambo-gets-bail-in-tiktoker-ayesha-akram-blackmailing-case/ https://www.brecorder.com/news/40181640/court-issues-notices-to-suspects-in-lahore-assault-case News report



Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Imported from Talk:Minar-e-Pakistan Just for record: While one user admitting notability of incidence raised a query on my user talk page whether incidence happened @ Minar-e-Pakistan or adjacent Greater Iqbal Park? I replied as below:

Thanks for discussing.

Dawn news report: In the first information report (FIR) registered at the Lorry Adda police station, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the complainant stated that she, along with six companions, were filming a video near Minar-e-Pakistan on Independence Day when around 300 to 400 people "attacked us"....She said that she and her companions made a lot of effort to escape from the crowd. Observing the situation, the park's security guard opened the gate to the enclosure around Minar-e-Pakistan, the FIR quotes her as saying..."However, the crowd was huge and people were scaling the enclosure and coming towards us..
Samaa.tv report is more specific: A still from the video of the mob that attacked the woman on August 14, 2021 at Greater Iqbal Park and Minar-e-Pakistan....The incident took place on the public holiday Saturday at the Greater Iqbal Park at the Minar-e-Pakistan monument. The victim said that she was at the Minar-e-Pakistan with her friends to make a video for her YouTube channel when suddenly more than 300 to 400 men attacked them. The victim said when she and her friends tried to get away from the crowd, the guards at the Minar opened the gate of the fence and they went inside..The men jumped over the fence and surged towards us and started...
Even Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan referred incidence in his speech as Minar-e-Pakistan incidence.
It is almost a two hour thing so more details will emerge as police investigation and court cases move forward. Again Pakistan does have track record of victim blaming and also window dressing media but same time over a period of time scholarly academic books also keep coming up and visible written and street activism from women's movements and civil society. so let us see how things move forward and kind of references keep becoming available.
Pl. do suggest. Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dif 1104699210

Edit dif 1104699210 by User:USaamo needs dispute resolution.

Edit dif 1104699210 with misleading summary, seems to delete sourced and important content; same time adds content in

WP:Wikivoice giving credence to victim blaming conspiracy theory against a female victim, even though medico-legal examination report clearly supports female victim's case, hence such content changes breach WP:SUSPECT
Wikipedia conventions. I shall elaborate both the issues in separate sub sections below.

Creation and addition of conspiracy theories seemingly in an efforts to mislead and

censor against victim, seem to be result of psychological process of I just don't like it
(denial) since incidence happened in precincts of a national monument on national independence day.

  • Misleading summary of edit dif: ".. Added later developments, removed the rest from lede as it is covered below .."

Backbround

  • ".. When people look toward you (Wikipedia), should you (Wikipedia) look other way? .."
  • The Minar e Pakistan incidence has been referred to by Pakistan's President itself more than once in clear terms that whatever how so ever a woman is in public space other men do not get any right to touch her and that is even un–Islamic.

Deletion

Deleted content: ".. According to a medico-legal examination, the victim was found to have dozens of bruises and scratches on her body including her chest, waist, legs, and elbow, plus inflammation on the neck and hands.[2][3] The silence of the large group of spectators present, the inadequate response of security guards during the event, and the delayed police response were criticised.[4][5][6] .."

a) Important parts of the content body are to be included in lede and not vice versa hence edit summary is misleading one.

b) When victim is under huge pressure of victim blaming 'medico-legal examination' is core supportive factor and needs to find place in article lede itself.

c) Failure in attending untoward incidence at a national monument that too on national independence day whatever the nature of incidence might be is glaring security flaw and needs to find mention in the lede itself.


Addition

".. The case later turned out to be a pre-planned incident for getting fame and extortion money during police investigation.[7] Audiotapes emerged of victim and her associate Rambo about the planning which later on both blamed one another for blackmailing.[8][9] .."


d) Above accusations are improper and unfair defamatory against female victim. Pakistan's legal culture itself allows accused to settle criminal legal cases against monitory benefit to victim. When men benefit in huge number of cases in rampant honor crime against women then men are not blamed but women are and credence

WP:undue
weightage to such conspiracy theory is cause of concern.

e) Above accusations still not part of official charge sheet against the female victim. Case is still in the court likely to be heard some time in coming couple of months. before giving credence to conspiracy theory IMHO respected editors wait for court rulings.

f) As I have gone through other article discussions even accused names are not supposed to be mentioned until charge sheet is filed. IMHO It is against Wikipedia WP:SUSPECT and conventions.

g) Following sentence on later developments as per police investigation is already noted in the section Police investigation without defaming the accused or giving credence to conspiracy theory yet not acknowledged by any court of law.

This balanced sentence taking care of Wikipedia policies is already there: ".. On the basis of a supplementary statement made by Akram, police also arrested some of her associates to investigate allegations of blackmailing. .." [10]

I do not see need for any unfair, and WP policies wise unwarranted changes until court hears the matter and gives it's judgement.


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ USaamo Can you please, provide us with any proof, where in police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This case is not as simple as you're taking it up here and there are so many contradictions and twists that appeared in it with time. I'm clarifying again that I'm not denying the harrassment happened with the victim but the motive of victim and her associates for going there and later events which unfolded should be included as separate section for neutrality as per NPOV. Harrasment regardless of it happened and was unfortunate.
Now coming towards the twists in the case, the incident happened, its FIR was filed wherein Ayesha Akram charged hundreds of people for various offences in the incident.[10] In preliminary statement complainant/victim called her associate Rambo and team as her saviour and he's from a humble family, she supported him with salary and he's like a brother.[9] After sometime their audiotapes emerged which were made part of investigation in which both were conversing about the planning of the event on 14 August and in which dress she would be coming to the park.[11] In subsequent audiotapes the blackmailing part came in where initially both seemed planning to extort money from suspect which she identified in parade.[9] Afterwards another twist came in where in supplementary statement Ayesha Akram named her saviour and some others as the actual villains behind the incident and then both started blaming each other for blackmailing.[12] Ayesha Akram wrote to DIG that Rambo is blackmailing her and that there's a whole TikTok gang. Rambo was arrested with other suspects.[13] Rambo claimed that it was Ayesha who wanted to take extortion money from suspects and he refused after which she charged him.[8] All these things are part of police file during investigation.
Other than this there are other contradictions related to the case like she misled police about her address, delayed to come on identification parade, in parade she couldn't identified many and most of them were discharged. Then she wrote to police that she doesn't want further action from her side. It was when audiotapes emerged that police took up the case on their own.[7] USaamo (t@lk) 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@USaamo I have already gone through the whole media available online while continuously updating the article over the year. I am quite ready to discuss all that, you will notice I had not named any accused name in the whole article since as per Wikipedia WP:BLP culture we editors are supposed to be avoiding naming accused until police officially frames charges in a clear cut case. Where complications and confusions are there wait till court decides on the matter. I hope and request you to understand steps of FIR, Medical report, Police officially framing charges, court taking those charges on record. We will continue to discuss all other things but meanwhile , On top priority can you remove accused names since that is not considered ideal in Wikipedia editing culture as far as I know.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per
not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[a]
include sufficient explanatory information."
Per
WP:BLPPUBLIC, "In the case of public figures, [...] If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Thinker78 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

USaamo's re

Dear Bookku, I hope you know me as we have previously co-operated over feminism related articles in Pakistan. We do have some differences as well in the same space but I admire you for your work and have seen your keen interest in highlighting these incidents happening in Pakistan on Wikipedia every now and then.

This is all unnecessary rant and you gave my edit wrong impression, you could have simply raised your points with me about the content removal as I am ready to co-operate with you over it. Moving forward towards this chargesheet that you levelled against me here;

  • You have wrongfully blamed me for victim blaming as I haven't denied or removed her medico-legal report and neither do I denied the happening of the harrassment incident. I just pointed out to the important twist in the case and the intention and motive which was later revealed.
  • I recently came across this article found it undue news item but even if it got a place here, I was amazed to see this long article mentioning quite some details but there was no mention of this important twist in the case.
  • This article has no mention of their audio tapes, video statements and police investigation and position taken by both the parties on social media for their case which revealed the other side of story. So I just added that as per WP:NPOV and it's well sourced to have inclusion here.
  • All this clearly seems to be a case of your intellectual bias for whatever the reasons. You yourself have acknowledged your POV regarding this subject on your talkpage previously.
  • My edit summary is fully justified, you can argue my content removal is wrong but I haven't misled in my edit summary and it's very much clear from it what my edit is about.

So in the light of this the only point that needs to be discussed here is the removal of those two lines from lede for which I'm ready to co-operate as this article needs alot of improvements to be made encyclopedic. USaamo (t@lk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:SEEKHELP. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:onus and WP:SUSPECT. Usually I work in non BLP segment so I am not that well versed hence I sought early inputs from editors who work in BLP CRIME. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@USaamo At the outset I have contested your changes and there is nothing personal about it. I am open about my pro progressive and women's rights POV and my pro women writings are certainly not limited to Pakistan only. Said that, let us come to the topic, I will prefer to discuss in above relevant subsections above, that will help discuss without mixing up the issues, if you do not mind. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't want any changes in the article till the judgement then by that logic there's no need of the article itself or most of the details regarding the case in the article as we should wait for court to decide for their inclusion... USaamo (t@lk) 12:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist-talk

References

  1. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1695675/new-laws-to-be-introduced-to-curb-rape-cases
  2. ^ "Medical report of Ayesha Akram reveals severe bruises on victim's body". MM News TV. 20 August 2021. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
  3. ^ "Minar-e-Pakistan incident: Victim's medico-legal assessment completed | Dunya News". video.dunyanews.tv. 20 August 2021. Archived from the original on August 20, 2021. Retrieved 13 October 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  4. ^ Arjio, Nazeer (25 August 2021). "Pakistan Needs To Devise A Strategy Against Widespread Sexual Terrorism". The Friday Times – Naya Daur. Archived from the original on 25 August 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
  5. ^ Hyat, Kamila (27 August 2021). "The world of women". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 27 August 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  6. ^ "Outrage in Pakistan after hundreds of men crowd female TikToker, tearing her clothes". The Independent. 19 August 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  7. ^ a b "Investigation Reveals Ayesha Akram Planned Minar E Pakistan Incident As A Publicity Stunt With Her Partner Rambo". The Pakistan Frontier. 2021-08-19. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  8. ^ a b "Minar-e-Pakistan incident: Tiktoker Rambo claims Ayesha Akram wanted to extort money from suspects". Geo.tv. 2021-10-09. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  9. ^ a b c "Minar-e-Pakistan incident: New audio tape exposes 'extortion plan' of Ayesha Akram and Rambo". Daily Pakistan Global. 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  10. ^ a b https://www.dawn.com/news/1650853
  11. ^ https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/16-Oct-2021/audio-call-of-ayesha-rambo-exposes-plan-to-visit-minar-e-pakistan
  12. ^ https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/08-Feb-2022/minar-e-pakistan-assault-rambo-gets-bail-in-tiktoker-ayesha-akram-s-blackmailing-case
  13. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1650972


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).