Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault/Archive 1

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)

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

I agree with Corriebertus. The sexual assaults were disgusting and the victim deserves justice. But this article currently reads like a news entry (see 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)

Continuation of event coverage

• 2021 August 25 مردوں کی رہنمائی کے لیے ایک بنیادی گائیڈ

• Going all wrong – The News International By Salman Akram Raja– Sr. Advocate in Supreme Court of Pakistan, (Part - I September 03, 2021), (Part II September 04, 2021)

• Post 1 month
  • 2021-09-25 Post 1 month Malik, Sana (2021-09-25). "The death of society". The Express Tribune Form news media column

• • Unsafe At Home Dr Saira Asad, bolnews

• • Media and rule of law

• 1 October 2021 onward
  • 'Women have to keep themselves safe because no one else will': When will Pakistan address its femicide problem? Anmol Irfan
  • Minar-e-Pakistan incident: Eight more suspects detained after victim issues statement
  • incident: Tiktoker Rambo claims Ayesha Akram wanted to extort money from suspects

• • The past few months have been harrowing for Pakistani women Dr Nida Kirmani 8 Oct 2021 aljazeera

• • Sawal Yeh Hai, Maria Memon , ARYNews , 9 October 2021

• • Why Pakistani Women Feel Unsafe in Public Spaces By Zofeen Ebrahim October 12 2021
  • Okay it's already in one academic study: Citation: [ https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/777 Shakil, Kainat, and Ihsan Yilmaz. 2021] . Religion and Populism in the Global South: Islamist Civilisationism of Pakistan’s Imran Khan. Religions 12: 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090777
  • October 15, 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan case: Rambo, 10 others sent to prison Abid Khan
  • October 18, 2021: Extreme misogyny or mere hatred, Zorain Nizamani, The Express Tribune

• • November 1, 2021 : Minar-e-Pakistan sexual assault case ~ ByMehmil Khalid Kunwar

• • November 9, 2021: Media and My Right to Dignity ~ Shagufta Gul

• • November 17, 2021: Victim blaming hampers the judiciary process:Pakistan activists ~ R TV Bangladesh

• • Nov 24, 2021 Police complete probe in Lahore rickshaw harassment case ~ samaa.tv

• • Nov 28, 2021 Beheaded, groped, beaten: violence against women in Asia is reaching alarming levels ~ Raquel Carvalho, South China Morning Post

• December 2021

• • 09- Dec-2021 Faisalabad Assault
  • December 10, 2021 Sialkot Incident: Ramifications & Recommendations

• • 13 December 2021 What is not Honor: Redefining Honor in South Asia ~ Dr Aisha Jalil, globalvillagespace

• • Reconsidering Justice 26-Dec-2021
  • What Pakistani social media talked about in 2021 ~ Pernia Mubashir, Dawn Images 27 Dec, 2021

• • Will 2021 Prove to be a Turning Point for Women’s Rights in Pakistan? Mehmil Khalid Kunwar December 28, 2021
  • Editorial: The year that was, The News International , December 31, 2021 "..In more violence, women continued to face gender-based violence, with the Noor Muqaddam and the Minar-e-Pakistan cases becoming apt symbols of the status of women in the country..."

• • The most shocking stories of 2021 ~ Shahid Farooq, geo.tv

• January 2022
  • From Noor Mukadam's murder to Gwadar protests, news stories that dominated 2021 aaj.tv Jan 01, 2022
  • ARTSPEAK: COURAGE AND COWARDICE ~ Durriya Kazi Published January 9, 2022 - Dawn
  • 5 Times PM Imran Khan Engaged In Victim-Blaming ~ The Friday Times January 10, 2022
  • Victim Blaming: The Practice Of (Almost) Every Pakistani ~ Mehak Zehra brandsynario.com, Jan 22, 2022

• February 2022
  • TikToker accused of filming in police van released, The Express Tribune Pakistan February 14, 2022
  • Noor's killer has been found guilty but society continues to get off scot-free for the way it treats women, The Dawn Images Editoria February 25, 2022
  • Vagaries of violence ~ Dr Saira Asad, thenews.com.pk March 01, 2022 originally published in December 2021 issue of SouthAsia Magazine

• March 2022
  • Domestic Violence: An Intolerable & Unacceptable Abusive Act ~ Dr. Saira Asad, Daily Pakistan 8 Mar, 2022
  • ‘Initiatives for women’s empowerment to bring economic development’, The News International March 11, 2022
  • Pro-women initiatives to open up avenues for massive economic development: President, Daily Times March 10, 2022
    • https://www.app.com.pk/national/pro-women-initiatives-to-open-up-avenues-for-massive-economic-development-president/

• • Muhammad Nadeem. (2022). IMPACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN PAKISTAN. JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND TESOL, 5(1), 24-34. Retrieved from https://jalt.com.pk/index.php/JALT/article/view/617

• June 2022
  • Salam-Salmaoui, Rauha, Constructing Gender Identities Multimodally: Young, Middle-Class Pakistanis on Facebook , JYU dissertations, (PDF) ISBN:978-951-39-9325-2 Page Preface

• July 2022
  • ‘Nuisance’ TikTok Creators Barred From Sacred Sites In Nepal, Eric Mack, forbes.com Jul 19, 2022

• • Thomas,Benjamin. Ten Horror Stories from the Depths of Social Media July 25, 2022

• • Dogar appointed CCPO for second time; Shahzad, Muhammad. The Express Tribune. July 30, 2022

• August 2022
  • Shehrbano Zia, Afiya (2022) "Pakistan’s Heuristic Her-story Via Lahore," Journal of International Women's Studies: Vol. 24: Iss. 5, Article 27. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol24/iss5/27
  • Punjab Bans Filming TikTok Videos on 14 August Due to Minar-e-Pakistan Incident, Salman Ahmed, propakistani.pk Aug 12, 2022

• • Still waiting for justice in harassment case, says TikToker Ayesha Akram; Saba Yousaf, dailytimes.com.pk August 14, 2022

• • Women once again harassed at Minar-e-Pakistan on Independence Day, The Express Tribune August 14, 2022
    • August 14, 2022 مینارِپاکستان پارک؛ خواتین سے چھیڑخانی کے الزام میں 65 اوباش لڑکے گرفتار Minar-e-Pakistan 65 arrested for molesting women, express.pk ( On YouTube Urdu)
  • Flirting With Women On 14 August Independence Day Celebration At Minar E Pakistan; Daily Jang You Tube Channel (Urdu) Aug 15, 2022
  • Dozens of Men Arrested for Harassing Females at Minar-e-Pakistan on 14 August; Salman Ahmed Aug 15, 2022
  • Moments of national embarrassment; Shakeel Anjum in The News International, August 19, 2022.

• • Malik Tariq Ali, 'Another shameful incident', in The Nation (Pakistan) Sep 7, 2022

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

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

References

• https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/716698-multiple-men-gang-rape-woman-in-sheikhupura-after-holding-husband-hostage

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

• https://www.samaa.tv/news/2022/01/two-veiled-men-arrested-for-harassing-women-at-minar-e-pakistan/

• https://tribune.com.pk/story/2344326/two-men-attempt-to-gang-rape-girl-in-lahores-sports-complex

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

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)

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? .."

• Pakistan's Punjab's state government ministers officially stated that state of sexual harassment in their state is an emergency situation. (This is official the state govt position there we are not overstating, See: Dawn (newspaper) Dt. June 20, 2022: ".. LAHORE: Punjab will introduce stricter laws and declare an ‘emergency’ to curb the rising trend of rape cases. .." ).
• Similar sexual harassment crimes in public gatherings have happened previously and news reports say this year 2022 August 14, in spite of large police presence police had to baton charge miscreants and arrested around 65 of them. (Various references like 1, 2 are already noted on this talk page.)
  • This article is about 2021 incidence, this years repetition of similar incidence in same area has not been noted by international media as much of last year, besides this year news not covered beyond Punjab Pakistan hence we have not included 2022 information. Still, this is first time since this article creation views for this article were more than general article of Minar-e-Pakistan, (IMHO) most probably to find information on this year's incidence.

• 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. 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. .."

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. Audiotapes emerged of victim and her associate Rambo about the planning which later on both blamed one another for blackmailing. .."

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. .."

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)

@ 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)

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. 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. 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. In subsequent audiotapes the blackmailing part came in where initially both seemed planning to extort money from suspect which she identified in parade. 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. Ayesha Akram wrote to DIG that Rambo is blackmailing her and that there's a whole TikTok gang. Rambo was arrested with other suspects. Rambo claimed that it was Ayesha who wanted to take extortion money from suspects and he refused after which she charged him. 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. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Per WP:SUSPECT, "For individuals who are 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, 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)

@Thinker78 Thanks for your inputs. I wish to have some more guidance from you about how to decide the duo constitute as public figure or not?

After following all the related news reports up til now, my perception has been the victim and her close male associate were mediocre TikTokers, certainly not known beyond Pakistani TikTok audience before 14 August 2021 incidence. Even after 14 August 2021 widely circulated news duo's identity as social media entertainer does not seem to have increased beyond marginal and they do not seem to have been accepted as entertainers beyond their previous TikTok fan base, if any.

The way I see it, if the duo are notable for only single incidence not eligible to have Wikipedia article in their own name then they would not constitute public figure.

But some may say they are public figures since they came in the news. So how to decide the duo constitute as public figure or not?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku Per WP:NPF, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Thinker78 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't mean a person name can't be included anywhere. As Thinker78 also said that per WP:BLPPUBLIC 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. So his name is justified since the name and allegations are published in reliable sources cited along with the statement.

Secondly I haven't added Rambo's name as suspect but as the associate of TikToker Ayesha during whole episode. There are three stages here, the event, the incidence and the court case. Rambo remained Ayesha's associate in all the three, he was not even named in FIR and preliminary statements rather was a saviour. It was only after a twist in the case that she named him in supplementary statement. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@USaamo

• You get benefit of WP:BLPPUBLIC to insinuate person names as planners of conspiracy is yet to be decided by WP:RfC
• As WP:NPF suggests ".. In such cases, exercise restraint .." which you do not seem to be following in spirit. You say ".. Secondly I haven't added **'s name as suspect but as the associate of TikToker .." But practically sentences added by you seem function exactly opposite. In first sentence you write ".. pre-planned incident for getting fame and extortion money .." and in second sentence you write ".. about the planning which later on both blamed one another for blackmailing. .." First words pre-planned followed by word planning. Is this not inserting accusations in WP:WikiVoice ? Is this really spirit of restraint regarding WP:BLP ?
• Further your argument seem to present False dilemma conflating with notability of the article itself ! Article is notability is well founded through Medico legal evidence FIR, an incidence at top national monument witnessed by hundreds and widely covered by reliable sources. The videos made @ Minar-e-Pakistan and went viral were at public place open to comparative scrutiny and corroboration. You seem to create a false equivalence with privately recorded videos and audios not still confirmed by digital forensic lab to justify questionable credence ?
• I have already explained how cited reference of 'The Pakistan Frontier' is dubious and misleading. But that news report is largely dependent on a video interview of security guard circulated on some Twitter handle. In that interview the security guard is said to be engaging in victim blaming. The news reports which depend on victim blaming and slut shaming you wish to term them as reliable, in what sense ?
• I am still not clear why ".. On the basis of a supplementary statement made by Akram, police also arrested some of her associates to investigate allegations of blackmailing. .." this already existent statement is not sufficient?
• Why you can not suggest change in above sentence without naming any one as accused as part of responsible restraint.
• If you want opposite views to balance article then why don't you add reactions of some conservatives in Pakistan in reaction section?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC) Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Bookku I stand by my addition to the article and I seek further explanation to it in the article as per the material I presented from reliable sources here that may involve renaming of a section or a merger. It's necessary to add all this information for and as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED.

That line you are saying as sufficient is just the reporting of arrest while all this being discussed here is very important twist in the case which you willfully avoided for whatever reasons but now I want its inclusion for balancing of the article. You are questioning one of the source which is not even the base of my argument, I have only presented it along with other details of the case which I haven't taken into account further in this discussion while I have presented multiple other sources to support my stance.

Secondly the matter is sub-judice and as I have said below that audiotapes were made part of case and it's upon court to accept the tapes which by law is permitted to accept it as admissible evidence. Now it's for judge or opposite counsel to question the credence of video during proceedings, not some Wikipedia editor from neighborhood. Also none of the parties has denied the audiotapes but Rambo rather gave explainations and Ayesha charged him for blackmailing was upon these tapes. So here we'll only add about it as reported by reliable sources and for rest we'll have to wait for court. Rambo even got bail arguing over all these points and twists delaying the case.

• The same Pakistan Frontier report which is not the basis of my argument but other details I mentioned along. Since you've questioned it so here's it being quoted in a report by a reputable Indian news outlet as well.

Above unsigned comment seems to have been added by User:USaamo. Update on missing sign information by Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@ USaamo

a) Let me be very clear there is no question of POV or any censorship here. You can very well add a section on criticism of Ayesha Akram as long as that does not bypass other Wikipedia policies. The question is very specific over chronologically following WP:SUSPECT policy of Wikipedia which you seem to continuously ignore.

b) In first sentence you write ".. Pakistan Frontier report which is not the basis of my argument .." and in next sentence you bank upon another foreign news paper which again cites 'Pakistan Frontier report' only.

c) This specific sentence added by your goodselves ".. The case later turned out to be a pre-planned incident for getting fame and extortion money during police investigation. .." is using this Pakistan Frontier news report. If you want to dump Pakistan Frontier news report at this point, no issues provide another specific news report the Indian news paper you are quoting is also banking on The Pakistan Frontier which in turn you seem to agree is not full proof. Let us go sentence by sentence reference by reference. Please provide and discuss another specific reference if you wish to dump or down play The Pakistan Frontier ref. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Bookku I just said that Pakistan Frontier report is not the sole basis of my argument for which I used multiple other sources. I used Pakistan Frontier report for other details relevant to the case which I was to mention in a section below for expansion. You were not accepting it so I mentioned The Print's report based on it for your satisfaction. I thought a report from left leaning Indian outlet may be more convincing for you as once you said to me that there's no one really credible, reliable and independent in Pakistan on a deletion discussion. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Bookku: Try sorting your differences with USaamo first and then you may ask for third parties input, per WP:SEEKHELP. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78 I will continue to engage in discussion with them. I feel there is violation of WP:BLP guidelines in the contentious content addition mentioned above, which is usually supposed to be reverted earliest, if I am not wrong per 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)

@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)

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)

The Wikipedia policy is about not naming accused persons. Above is a misleading argument, article is well supported based upon medico-legal examination (Which you deleted from article lede) plus FIR and incidence took place amidst hundreds which you yourself said would not contest happening of incidence.

The way your statements are misleading, your addition says ".. The case later turned out to be a pre-planned incident for getting fame and extortion money during police investigation. .."

Your ref for added sentence is entirely based on video and audios circulating on social media, your attached reference no where says victim blaming social media viral clips have been accepted in police investigation (since when I last read those were sent to some lab for investigation and nothing more has been heard on lab reports since then). The reference added by you says ".. A special Investigation team has been setup by the Punjab police to find out if the police didn’t respond to 15 calls, as is being alleged by Ayesha and Rambo now. An FIR against 400 men has been registered and police is actively identifying and arresting those involved in this criminal assault. ..". So Idk how do you propose prove what is not there in ref attached by you only.

In above section when asked to provide a proof, where in police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law? Your answer to this ".. All these things are part of police file during investigation. .." does not constitute / does not equal to '.. police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law ..'. IDK how this is not misleading Wikipedia audience that too in WP:Wikivoice?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings @USaamo

• Template:BLP others

• WP:ONUS says ".. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. .."
• @ Edit dif 1104699210 discussion you were requested to provide a proof, where in police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law? Your answer to this ".. All these things are part of police file during investigation. .." does not constitute / does not equal to '.. police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law ..'
• In sub judice cases, video and audio tapes do not constitute full proof evidence in themselves and usually need corroboration etc, which only courts can decide and we Wikipedians can not sit on judgement on veracity of evidence constituting video and audio tapes in sub judice cases.
• Per WP:SUSPECT, ".. For individuals who are 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. .."
• Request made for removal of contentious content un til we reach consensus @ Edit dif 1104699210 discussion and raised concerns have not been addressed in almost last 6 days.
• Template:BLP others suggests to take up such cases @ Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard So I am likely to take up the issue there for resolution and guidance.

Requesting your attention and cooperation.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Baku, I think I have provided more than enough justification for my edits which were sourced to have inclusion but now you're making argument for the sake of argument. I'm responsible to give justification for my edits not how you are assuming things on your own but I have still given a pass to your victim blaming allegations on me and repeatedly clarified that I don't deny the happening of incidence but the background of it. This article should be telling all the related information published in reliable sources for NPOV. The audiotapes being part of police investigations is mentioned in the sources which are published reliable sources and none of the parties have denied them. They are obviously accepted by police that's why they are part of police file. Rest is to be decided by court of law but they are admissible evidence in courts under Pakistani law. Police is focused on the prosecution regarding the harrassment incident which obviously happened but still couldn't file chargesheet because of all the twists unfolding with the case. So as I said above if you think that matter is sub-judice and we can't include this in article then it applies on whole article not just my edits.

And being a law graduate myself I'm abreast with country's law and courts proceedings and have been closely following the case. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@USaamo So, as you say, if at all you are a law graduate, should not others expect better understanding on your part. Idk, Can you not differentiate between social media speculations, media investigation and police investigation. Even after being a law graduate are you mixing up the things?

Can you not differentiate that I am questioning victim blaming in the sources used by you as reference an not you personally. There are huge number of examples (remember metoo) where women can not gather courage to report against perpetrators. Victim blaming adds to them not reporting the violence against them. If in this case if victim did not file FIR immediately and pretended on social media like everything okay with her while it was not is being hold against her; does not constitute victim blaming? Does it not speak of lack of sensitization on Pakistani male fraternity?

Can you help understand, How does material received by police = equals to accepted by police as an evidence? If it it is accepted as evidence then where is news report to show that same is submitted as evidence before court of law? Why Ayesha Akram has not been charged yet for conspiracy?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Bookku you need to be clear on this point that what is this article about and what information should be retained, if it's only about the court case then as I said whole article will be revisited and if it's about the whole incident than everything related has to be there. You think what I'm adding from published reliable sources is speculation and what you're adding from similar sources is very much relevant...

Secondly why it is so difficult for you to understand this that acceptance of evidence(audio/videotapes) is not upon Police but Court. Police has already made audiotapes part of investigation and even if prosecution wouldn't have made it part of the case, the defence was going to do this. Moreover the audiotapes are not denied by any of the party but rather they were giving explainations over it.

And lastly don't start blaming a whole gender and community to make it a rights issue because it was this case which gave conservatives a point to trivialize other genuine cases and I have seen many activists talking about it on Twitter that this case has damaged the cases of genuine victims of violence. USaamo ^(t@lk) 07:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@USaamo At the outset of this reply, let me keep the record strait I have no issues to include any criticism section about Ayesha Akram as long as that follows Wikipedia policies, besides by now my view might be clear to you I have not added portions consisting of slut shaming, victim blaming, accusations banking on video audio tapes which have not been confirmed as reliable by Pakistan's legal digital forensic laboratories.

In the sense you consider Ayesha Akram to be a public figure, I have not and I shall wait for a RfC consensus. Existent English Wikipedia policies expect restraint before naming any one as accused in the article; and chronologically a discussion is supposed to precede before an addition of accusations of doubtful nature and I expected you to co operate my request at least un til a RfC takes place whether Ayesha Akram and her associate stand as public figure or not; but unfortunately in this respect your co operation has not come up. So be it we shall go for an RfC in that respect soon. Besides let me note, many of your answers in the discussion up til now seem to leave most pointed questions unanswered but also beating around the bush.

In brief important points you continue to skip

• 1) Even if one considers social media talk of the victim and her associates conspired to intrude into precincts of Pakistan's national monument Minar e Pakistan with the help of their social media fans; there are no questions and answers over role of security guards what all they did over two hours when precincts perimeter was breached. Where are reports showing them to have called police? Un til police did not come at least how many people they removed from there one by one? even if they were silent spectators how many suspect they identify later being live witness? Why these questions because there seems to have been some likely partial dereliction on part of security guard, there is some likely partial dereliction on part of security and investigative agencies. If there was no dereliction then if incidence would not have been averted completely could have been controlled early hence role of security to the monument and the victim in question is core point in the whole incidence which you have deleted from the article lede.
• 2) You have deleted mention of medico legal forensic injuries on the victim. But you continue to insist and include reports based on audio video tapes which have not been confirmed by any digital forensic lab.
• 3) You seem to give weight what all is in police file but skipping what is and what is not in the a) FIR b) forensic lab reports c) Police charge sheet
• 4) I contest specific sentence added with specific reference by you, you skip answering that and resort to discussing other content which you wish to add. In such a complex issue why do you want to skip sentence to sentence reference to reference one by one point to point discussion
• 5) WP:SUSPECT is very specific policy IDK why you wish to skip it's spirit.

Any ways thanks for being engaged in a complex discussion. We will escalate this step by step to next level for more inputs to resolve the issues.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@USaamo One important point Probably inadvertently you are repeatedly claiming that victim and her associates have not denied audio tapes but that is not likely to be factual. To best of my information both of them in separate interviews to TV and Youtube channels denied respective audio tapes and related conspiracy charges. Idk if and why, denials did not find space in written news reports.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Bookku I have said you above that I'm answerable for my edits and not your assumptions which you're making on your own to make a case against me and unnecessarily indulging in argument for the sake of argument and lingering it as I said earlier I was ready to discuss over how to include them in article but anyway it's now reached to here so let it be. I have otherwise answered most of your points raised but again doing it for clarification of readers.

In Evidence Law it's rule that admitted facts need not to be proved. I have established it above that audiotapes recovered from Rambo's WhatsApp were not denied by parties and they even gave clarifications and charged people for blackmailing on its basis. You're asserting again and again on forensic lab report for audiotapes but since it was never denied by any of party, forensic report will just be a routine proceeding in this respect.

It was not dereliction but somewhat negligence on part of guards as per them actually the scene was not clear what was actually happening but if that's to be considered than the question is on victim as well that why she chose to stay inspite of when she could have left the scene earlier. She in subsequent events named her associate and team as the actual persons who staged the whole episode.

About what you're saying as I'm skipping other things in police file, I have answered about others and as to FIR let me tell FIR can not be basis for even arresting someone as per superior court decisions in Pakistan unless Investigating Officer is convinced about the prima facie happening. FIR in this case is so full of contradictions from late reporting to change in events from saviour's becoming villains so it's hardly reliable and has rather weakened the prosecution case. It's all these twists in the case for which I'm seeking inclusion in the article as these are very important developments in the whole episode. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• USaamo, I think you have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Not everything has to be in the article. We do not accept wildly speculative information and we certainly don't include it in the lead of an article. It can go into a later section on controversies if it can be properly sourced. If it is a minority opinion or something highly controversial that can't be easily confirmed then I would suggest using attribution when making the statement rather than making a definitive statement in Wikivoice. --ARoseWolf 14:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  The sources given do not support description in Wikipedia's words that the event was staged and a victim of gross sexual violence committed a crime. As this is an urgent BLP violation, I have removed it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I concur, that is my assessment as well. The statements violated WP:BLP. --ARoseWolf 16:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Pakistan Frontier report was picked up by The Print across the border. Akram's response to this allegation is also covered. So I think mentioning the allegations is warranted, but only with attribution, and likewise we should give Akram's response to the allegations as covered by WP:RS.VR _talk 05:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  With due respect; IMHO WP:BLP expects much better level due diligence.

  • For example older day allegations can be balanced with related response, but we can not balance later allegations with older date response.
  • I have already pointed out if the event with very large crowd was pre planned by either of the person to arrange a crowd of thousand plus people then there should have been some concrete proof, now one year is over still no proofs and we give credence to such allegation? (refer interview of first police constable response Dolphin Force speaks of 1000 plus spectators at time they rescued the victim in miserable condition)
  • For audio tapes in later allegations against each other needs digital forensic lab confirmations or some other strong corroboration which still not available. As User Aquillion points out in RfC survey other sources are care full by using word 'alleged'. So corroborative evidence is still not with the media.
  • What independent access Indian and Pakistani media persons do have in each other countries to crosscheck any shred of information, practically none other than repeating what is made available.
  • Since ThePrint picks up The Pakistan Frontier news is right, Pakistan Frontier depends on https://twitter.com/asjad_khokhar1/status/1428083570548092929?s=19 in which is nothing but slut shaming allegations seems to be made against the victim. Idk if this is how credibility of a news report to be confirmed.
  • One of the victim blaming oped sentence in The Pakistan Frontier seem to state ".. Needless to say that vulgarity does have a positive correlation with increasing rape cases .." this is to concur Imran Khan's controversial statement ".. “If a woman is wearing very few clothes it will have an impact; it will have an impact on the men, unless they are robots. I mean it is common sense. ..” Ref https://pakistanfrontier.com/2021/07/06/op3 This shows editorial policy of the news paper. Other than one rare news report in favor of girl education this news paper does not seem to have reported any other news concerning Pakistani women's plight or rights. If any one finds do share it to prove my doubts wrong.
  • The Pakistan Frontier news though at the end mentions police are still investigating presents own information sourcing on par with police investigation through it's headline amounts to very shoddy journalism. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Reflist-talk 1

References

RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for anything in this RFC, other than that the RFC itself is poorly formed and confusing. If an RFC is needed to gain consensus on this topic there needs to be specific prose to discuss and not four questions rolled into one RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

---

To take decisions about mention of accused names and about other implications of WP:BLP related policy for this article we request for comment, about which of following categories of persons constitute to be Public figure for given purpose.

• 1) TikToker Ayesha Akram
• 2) Her prime associate Rambo (along with aliases)
• 3) The Rambo's friends/ team who were present at the time of incidence.
• 4) Other accused probably not part of team of Ayesha Akram or her associate.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

*** RfC question ends above ***

• Nom's comment:
  • Issue in brief: This article 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault details the incidence of 14 August 2021 (Pakistan Independence Day), where in the TikToker Ayesha Akram was assaulted by a crowd as she and her team visited at the very very prominent public monument , Minar-e-Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan.
  • Prima facie, contested edits of User:USaamo to the article wide contested dif 1104699210 dated 16 August 2022 which undermine cautions given in WP:BLP protocols in multiple way, specially naming of the accused is a serious concern. But the User:USaamo contrarily believes per WP:BLPPUBLIC is applicable and mentions of allegations along with names of accused is allowed and necessary.
  • This RfC is limited to above mentioned particular question. For remaining aspects we shall go through WP:Dispute resolution process cycles as required separately.
  • Link to Pre–RfC discussion above; User:Thinker78 has mentioned likely applicable policies above (without giving opinion on the topic).
  • Links to likely applicable policies (as discussed above): WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (WP:NPF),WP:Wikivoice, WP: POV/NPOV, Due/ Undue, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:onus.
  • List of news coverage links mentioned on this talk page 1, 2 and some links are mentioned by User:USaamo automated list of links appear at Reflist-talk 1

Let the RfC discussion proceed @ slow space no issues, but well studied, carefully thought inputs will be more helpful.Thanks for inputs Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• RfC has been informed @ possible related project talk pages and article editors. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• yes' As this is all they appear to be notable for, and as the exclusion of that makes it all a bit vague, so yes. Otherwise, this is just another attack. No more notable than any other.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Confusing RFC I am very confused about what the nature of this RFC is? RFCs about article content should be narrowly focused on exact article text, such as a question between two competing versions of an article, or the exact phrasing of some bit of text, or some such, but this RFC is vague, oddly worded, and doesn't establish how this effects the article text. Nuances such as whether or not a person is a public figure could be rationales for voting in an RFC for a particular version of the article, but is largely irrelevant otherwise. Even if the person or persons in question are public figures, it doesn't mandate any specific changes to the article. We still need to work on what information to include or not include, how to phrase it, etc. etc. Please just shut this down and start a proper RFC with a concrete proposal laying out options for what the article should actually say. --Jayron32 13:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• YES they all are notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• No they are not. Only Ayesha Akram is. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Both A and B are pretty public individuals (esp since the sexual assault). As for C and D, if we don't even know the names of these individuals, chances are they are not WP:PUBLICFIGUREs.VR _talk 05:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• They are probably public figures, but that's not the real problem here. The two TikTokers are broadly going to be public figures because they seek fame (the core definition of a public figure.) It is harder to say with absolute certainty about the other two categories of people because we don't actually know who they are. If it turns out one of them is also someone who is using TikTok in a way that makes it clear they're seeking fame or publicity then they could theoretically also be public figures; but simply being present obviously isn't enough. However, the contested diff still fails BLP on other grounds - it presents the accusations that it was a set-up as fact, when two of the three sources are far more cautious in their language (Daily Pakistan says an alleged audio clip and Geo.tv carefully describes this as just Rambo's claims.) BLP requires that we be more cautious with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Also, I specifically object to the framing of "I'm limiting this to just this question" - if you're going to run an RFC, you should ask to include / exclude the entire text, otherwise either the RFC will be mostly useless or it could lead to a Motte-and-bailey fallacy situation where the answer to an easy question (are people whose careers are based around broadcasting on TikTok public figures) gets used as an answer to the harder / more important question (is this sourcing actually sufficient for what we're saying.)

I do also want to clarify that they are public figures due to their careers before this incident - some people above are saying that they're public figures because of the sexual assault, which is completely wrong and is the sort of thing the low-profile individual / public-figure divide exists to prevent. Being covered in relation to a crime on its own will not make someone a public figure, no matter how prominent it is (though actively seeking fame in relation to it, doing tons of interviews, writing a tell-all book, etc. could do it.) What matters is the extent to which the subjects intentionally seek fame as opposed to becoming famous simply for unwilling involvement in some incident. In that respect it's their careers that matter, not the high profile of the crime. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to me they do as they appear to be clearly cited. Unless I am missing something here.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe?'I'm assuming this RFC is trying to establish which of the four categories would meet the threshold for WP:Notability. Please clarifyWritethisway (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot) I share Jayron32's confusion and echo his comments. This RfC should be discontinued, restarted and written with greater clarity. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for inputs. I shall endeavour to take useful steps. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not the real problem here per Aquillion and my messages here. The real issue is the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims being made without proper sourcing. The claim that is being made in the article with regard to alleged audiotapes shouldn't be mentioned unless they are the among the major points of this incident and have really changed the face of the investigation. I am not seeing strong sourcing either. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

On the question that who is notable in these 4 options, I find only option 1 to be notable. Others are barely mentioned by reliable sources. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Only 1. This RFC has been poorly framed and does not adequately describes the characters which it proposes to deem Public figures, this information deficit has led to users not inclined to doing their research to turn to making sweeping characterizations about the characters based on a few mention in RS. What has followed as an unfortunate corollary is involved participants making increasing references to this RfC to claim consensus to malign the characters and impute bad motives to them that they effectively staged the sexual assault, bypassing WP:BLPCRIME and other such applicable BLP policies. While Ayesha Akram, the unfortunate victim of the tragedy, has been shown to be a Tik Tok influencer, such evidence has been thoroughly lacking for the others. Character #2 Rambo has been described in media as the victim's friend but in now way an influencer on his own, while other accused remain even more obscure. Kerberous (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion, Opinions and comments

• @ User:Jayron32 thanks for your valuable inputs. Actually I work very less in WP:BLP areas, other than broad principles Idk nuances in the approaches.
  But primarily I am looking for deletion of these added sentences as per WP:BLP and WP:SUSPECT but since WP:BLPPUBLIC has provision of exception. The content adding user believes this exception is applicable and I doubt such exception.
  • My contention & perception has been the victim and her close male associate were mediocre TikTokers, certainly not known beyond Pakistani TikTok audience before 14 August 2021 incidence. Even after 14 August 2021 widely circulated news duo's identity as social media entertainer does not seem to have increased beyond marginal and they do not seem to have been accepted as entertainers beyond their previous TikTok fan base, if any.
  • The way I see it, if the duo are notable for only single incidence not eligible to have Wikipedia article in their own name then they would not constitute public figure.
    Hence I intended to confirm from this RfC which position is correct for the given purpose (i.e. removal of contested addition).
    IMHO There are more aspects to above main dispute discussion which will need little more pre RfC dispute resolution cycle. But since WP:BLP suggests removal of defamatory content at the earliest I preferred to raise this RfC.
    I do not have any issues if any experienced user improves this RfC or gives alternate inputs after studying given dispute.
    Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• From my perspective, I am less concerned with nuances of what makes someone a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I mean we have the guidance at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and also the guidance at WP:BLPCRIME, and probably lots of guidance. Ultimately, we're all going to interpret that guidance differently, and how we interpret it depends on exactly what text we're including in Wikipedia. You've made that a lot clearer. If your contention is that the individuals are not significantly notable enough to be mentioned in this article in any context, that was not clear in your original RFC. --Jayron32 17:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 Many thanks for introducing me to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. My contention and concern is users who may want to add social media based tabloid wild speculations, slut shaming and victim blaming shall cling to WP:BLPPUBLIC argument just as matter of their convenience.

  Here I would like to compare media coverage Ayesha Akram for just as being witness in a legal case due to crime happened against her but even tabloid media has not covered her as a social media talent or social media celebrity compare her vis-à-vis another Pakistani social media celebrity Dananeer Mobeen who also got popular due to few seconds meme and media covered her as social media talent and celebrity. So even after considering backlash she received in form of slut shaming and victim blaming, whether social media recognition Ayesha Akram seeks or not, media has not acknowledged her any thing beyond as victim. So as per Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual I will prefer to consider Ayesha Akram and her associate as low profile individuals by Wikipedia standard.

  Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Thanks for your inputs in the survey. In above comment I have compared media coverage of Ayesha Akram to Dananeer Mobeen. You work along with me on Dananeer Mobeen related article, so I would prefer to have your view on this comparison. Thanks and warm regards. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes we did, and we need to finish that article! I would say that Dananeer is also a public figure.VR _talk 15:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• @ User:امین اکبر If you do not mind, may I know specially the last category of accused totally unknown to the media previous to incidence, by which principle / Wikipedia policy you consider them as public figures. I would like to understand, Kind of principle or Wikipedia policy you are applying while considering all the categories of persons as Public figures for the given purpose. Your detail opinions may help the opinion making process of other users too. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As @Jayron32: said that this RfC is confusing and not focused on a particular point. It should have been more specific for a comprehensive vote but for now, my vote now is generally over the dispute above that the accused and allegations are widely mentioned and notable enough to be included in the article. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• User:Bookku you should have asked me before formulating the RfC question as the current question now is perplexing and quite vague for editors to give opinion and some have expressed it above as well. Categorizing people in 4 categories is unnecessary as the discussion above mainly involved Ayesha Akram and her associate Rambo. It should have been focused on the content dispute.

I would like you to rephrase the question or atleast strike out the last two categories or merge them with first two. The best would be that they all should simply be mentioned in one sentence. USaamo ^(t@lk) 15:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: thanks for your insightful comment. The RfC as per above discussion was on point that whether these people involved are public figure to include the allegations against them in the article... As to my edit diff it was the initial version of my inclusion and for which I said in above discussion that I was ready to discuss about how to add it whether it involves rephrasing the lede or a new section. Now that editors including you are also opining that duo constitutes a public figures and if you see above discussion, I have explained my edits with more sources in reflist above from 10-18 to support my inclusions which is necessary for the neutrality and balancing of article. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Writethisway: No, the RfC is not about whether the above category people meet WP:Notability which is guideline for people to have their article. It is about whether they are WP:PUBLICFIGURE to include allegations against them in this article as per above discussion... USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Writethisway: In a role of encylopedists I am looking for Wikipedians to have a more nuanced view on following questions.

a) Whether an aspirational TikToker automatically becomes a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for Wikipedia's consideration just because they being a TikToker?

Here you compare with aspirational people having a Facebook / Insta / LinkedIn or a Twitter profile. Are they automatically public figures (for Wikipea's purposes)? So here question of notability and Due/ Undue is indirectly related.

b) If a TikToker is not automatically WP:PUBLICFIGURE but gets covered in mainstream media mainly to the extent of being a victim or involved in a single incident (without mainstream media acceptance of their artistic skills, if any). Does any one becomes WP:PUBLICFIGURE (for Wikipedia purposes) just by virtue of being victim in major but single incident?

Now in this debate one side wants to cling to WP:PUBLICFIGURE argument for the sake of inclusion very shaky slut shaming and victim blaming conspiracy theory news report based on conservative nationalistic back clash on social media of questionable worth. (This I shall explain more below @ later point)

c) Further these group of WP users feel once they accepted as Public figure in this discussion then that is enough to include their names in WP article as accused. But they are not getting the point that, 'even if they are accepted as public figure still fails WP:BLP on other multiple grounds.' as indicated by User:Aquillion. (I planned multiple RfC one after other due to nuances involved and also I am new to this kind of BLP RfC, but some Users incl User:Aquillion suggest open RfC to include rest of content context. I have respected User:Aquillion objection rather suggestion)

d) Sexual abuse issues specially in context of women, in public gathering scenario and Pakistan needs some additional understanding and sensitization. We all have seen child sexual abuse in religious spaces and sexual abuse of women (#MeToo) even in high profile professions have been reported decades later, if at all. Psychologists and gender studies have found multiple reasons for late or non reporting that includes lack of vocabulary about own body parts and words for kind of harassment one has experienced. Then known people to victim grooming and blackmailing or using portion of influence last but not least is worry of victim blaming itself specially in the world which is not sensitized against victim blaming and slut shaming. In this case too delayed action from victim and falsely projecting herself as normal on social media is being held against her.

e) In case of victim Ayesha Akram too all above things seem to take place. Ayesha Akram might have had or has unclear (either consensual or groomed or blackmailed) personal relationships with people of other gender; if it's consensual, not necessarily in negative sense from any liberal enough perception, And not much illegal even under Pakistani laws; but depending on level of conservatism for some a women even with Burkha and close male relative too, to go in public space amounts to inviting unsolicited attention of men, then some consider women can go alone but have to have Hijab hiding their hair, and many consider women returning a smile to a stranger or a flying kiss all as mute invitation to opposite sex to harass them.

In last whole one year, any of Akram's victim blamers have not produced even a fake mass social media invitation to her TikTok followers/ fans to come @ Minar e Pakistan. And though at least un til that day i.e. 2021 August 14 in Pakistan it was not ill legal to invite fans at a public place on their independence day. Still, in conservative nationalistic social media backlash, the victim lady is being blamed for inviting aka planning a crowd for which there seems no credible proof any way against her. Some how that 'so called' invitation was license to grope and abuse her publicly un till she gets severely injured, and that is what all the injuries she had planned on herself or at least indirectly responsible for all the injuries and molestation on her self! If claim of invitation is not enough then her alleged returning smile or flying kisses was an invitation to uncontrollable male crowd. If this charge also would not stick then later released alleged video clips of her previous (unclear) relationships were good enough to prove her bad character for being responsible of mass molestation incident against her. Another claim, only group invited by her acquaint was responsible, is being presented as some great discovery when people in gender studies very well know that in more than 70 out of 100 cases acquaintances are routinely found involved. In this case, preferably we wait till court decides charges against even acquaintance before we name them in Wikipedia article. Another important point is, prima facie, crowd involved in the incident there was much bigger and at least responsible for Bystander effect and there are more unanswered questions.

But the WP users on the other side do not consider such shaky social media based news invalid (defying all logic some how some Indian news paper's reprinting same shaky news makes the news credible?) to compromise well set WP:BLP Wikipedia policies in this regards.

To my own religious understanding any monument may not supposed to get more value then human dignity. Idk, if, for some conservative nationalists active on social media and running their news, berating the victim is some how a consolation prize for unexpectedly what happened at the monument. And inclusion of some shoddy news items that too @ cost of WP:BLP policies spirit creates more balanced image. Idk, Idk, how.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• (TL;DR)  @Bookku: you have been for many times told by other users (Vice regent, Thinker78 for this talkpage) to be concise in discussions as your comments are bludgeoning the process by creating walls of text and are a cause of exhaustion for editors to contribute to the discussion and RfC which already is confusing and as now multiple users are saying the same. As Figureofnine asks to restart the RfC, I think enough of the comments have been recieved over the question of people involved as to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and I think we should go for a close to this RfC on that specific question. USaamo ^(t@lk) 00:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Tomorrow some one might say, 'I did not read whole gamut of WP:BLP policies because too long to read. I sincerely doubt such personalizing and diverting aspersions are helpful to any propitious discussion. 'My beating around the bush long replies are holier than thy detailing with logic' position may help at times as a tool of rhetoric to discredit the arguments you don't like but won't give justice to the disputed topic at our hand. So requesting to avoid such excuses.

  Discussed categories of persons are WP:PUBLICFIGURE or not is more important to you than me still I created the RfC in very neutral language. It will take some time for other users to understand multiple complex points in this discussion. I suggest meanwhile we focus on the discussion up til now and this RfC has no doubt given us some insights to both sides of arguments. I will take a call on closing this RfC at right time, any ways this RfC does not stop us from taking stalk of the discussion uptil now and discuss other aspects in another new section. I am soon starting such discussion and later we will go for more RfCs as needed. I hope this helps. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  There's a difference between Wikipedia policies and guidelines and an editor making his case by bludgeoning and creating walls of texts making it difficult to reach on a point and confusing other editors. I alone haven't said this but other editors have told you to be concise in discussions as well. USaamo ^(t@lk) 15:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Mid–discussion synopsis of Public figure or not RfC

After noting this Mid–discussion synopsis, I shall move on to next stage of other related aspects of discussion in next sections. During those discussions if some one wishes to come back to this RfC discussion would be free to do so.

• Mid–discussion synopsis:

In the survey as of now two users declared confusion, most probably they prefer contextual RfC for inclusion or exclusion of specific content, we can re–invite them to the discussion as we would reach to that stage. One more user said 'may be' but they too seem a little confused still. 2 Users seem clear 'Yes' to all 4 categories one of them too would wait for content RfCs. One user says category A B are public figures due to sexual assault news coverage to their names – This user prefers inclusion of their names as accused in the article. Where as one user seem to agree A and B being public figures but not due to Sexual assault news but just they being on social media TikTalk– but strongly contests inclusion of their names as accused since such inclusion would fail BLP policies on other accounts. Meanwhile two other users did not join RfC discussion but joined previous discussion agreeing contested added content was BLP policy breach deserving urgent deletion so deleted immediately.

But core points raised, relating matter of principles, by me in discussion are still unaddressed a) Whether an aspirational TikToker automatically becomes a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for Wikipedia's consideration just because they being a TikToker? Here you compare with aspirational people having a Facebook / Insta / LinkedIn or a Twitter profile. Are they automatically public figures (for Wikipea's purposes)? So here question of notability and Due/ Undue is indirectly related. b) b) If a TikToker is not automatically WP:PUBLICFIGURE but gets covered in mainstream media mainly to the extent of being a victim or involved in a single incident (without mainstream media acceptance of their artistic skills, if any). Does any one becomes WP:PUBLICFIGURE (for Wikipedia purposes) just by virtue of being victim in major but single incident? c) If the duo are notable for only single incidence not eligible to have Wikipedia article in their own name then how they would constitute public figure?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're clearly confusing WP:NBIO which is guideline for people to have their own article on Wikipedia with WP:PUBLICFIGURE which is to include allegations against public figures if published in reliable sources. Your concern remained addressed on day first when User:Thinker78 clarified this to you but you choose to linger on the matter for whatever reasons you better know. It's not necessary for a person name to be included somewhere on Wikipedia to have their own article first! USaamo ^(t@lk) 15:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam who removed the RfC template saying, Waste of time, as so many have argued. Absolutely impossible to understand what's going on, in his edit summary.[1]

USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Reflist-talk 2

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion on content re-insertion in edit dif 1109434561

IMHO, following content reinsertion of Edit dif 1109434561 by User:USaamo remains highly contentious breach of WP:BLP policies as explained earlier and re–explained below, IMHO deserves removal at the earliest.

".. The incident later took a turn with coming of alleged audiotapes of victim and her associate wherein both discussing to use the case as a ploy to get extortion money during police investigations after which both blamed each other for blackmailing. .."

• • Links to likely applicable policies (as discussed earlier and below):WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (WP:NPF),WP:Wikivoice, WP: POV/NPOV, Due/ Undue, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:onus.

• In Brief: I will appreciate some systematic mediation help from some experienced mediator from WP:DRN; for some tweak to include counter allegation (but not as equivalent worth of allegation made by victim for the reasons mentioned below) as an addition to already existent statement in the article section Police investigation so I am planning to intimate @ Talk WP:DRN for mediation help if possible.

Meanwhile I expect experienced users from WP:BLPN to evaluate and remove if possible contentiousness content til some consensus is achieved through mediation or later RFC process.

Thanks,

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Detail objections against above content dif

• a) My objection over usage of The Pakistan Frontier as reference continues. That was a news report dated August 19, 2021 where as on 9 Sep, 2021 ".. A session court in Lahore trashed the petition, seeking registration of a case against TikToker Ayesha Akram .. “Ayesha is herself to blame for the incident since she had invited hundreds at the park to ‘molest’ her,” the petitioner prayed before the court to order law enforcers to book her along with the accomplice. .."

• • After a delay of whole one year a news report about court proceedings appear on Sep 9, 2022 This news report mentions names of some 17 suspects as before; but even after so many months Ayesha Akram herself has not been named as suspect in this or any related case for those alleged audio tapes.
  • I have already stated there is no digital forensic report in public domain for alleged and sensationalized audio tapes yet. Moreover but the user here and also sensationalizing news reports fail to mention about Diya/ Diyat under Islamic and Pakistani law there is official provision to receive financial compensation from perpetrators against forgiveness.

• Article of Warda Imran in Deutsche Welle dw.com dated 14.09.2021 Author Warda Imran says ".. However, there is an option: "Diyat" is compensation or blood money that can be paid to the victim's family for the damage and suffering caused. .. The pardon received in exchange for compensation can be as effective as the law if the courts accept it, and is part of Pakistan's legal justice system. The amount for the compensation can be determined by law or by the parties themselves. .."
• Pros and cons of Diyat laws in Pakistan is another aspect we need not be concerned here. Here relevant is that is part of official Pakistan legal aspect and legal culture. If not in 1000s then Diyat cases would be at least in 100s in Pakistan that too without much stigmatization or word extortion. Assuming even if victim really was ready to forgiveness against financial compensation using word 'extortion' amounts to undue tabloid sensationalism. And Wikipedia need not copy tabloid journalism in own articles.

• b) The incident had only additional development by Ayesha Akram's blackmailing charges against her own associate and his friends. As I discussed above as latest as 2022 Sept 9 Ayesha Akram has not been named as suspect for any asking for compensation or so called extortion and hence to say ".. later took a turn with coming of alleged audiotapes of victim and her associate .." sounds miss leading because on legal front case has not taken any turn due to alleged audiotapes of the Victim asking for compensation. Other than increased slut shaming and victim blaming.
• c) Usage of word 'ploy' ( along with word turn and extortion) reader feel the entire incident of molestation was staged or a like stunt. Where as team leader Zaman Qureshi of first response police team of the Dolphin Force, they had to rescue the victim woman Ayesha Akram, to whom they found in very vulnerable condition of semi cautiousness being pulled by mob around, amidst crowd of thousand plus people. Their team had to provide her with drinking water and a shirt to cover herself since her clothes were torned apart by molesters. And Pakistan's session court is hearing the case against suspects and not against the victim.
• d) When a woman makes molestation claims counter slut shaming and victim blaming claims is usual phenomena so how Wikipedia article can give equal value to counter allegation specially when the victim herself is not named as suspect for any crime, at least up til now.
• e) So above contested addition of the text is of highly dubious nature, specially in the article lede itself, it continues to be very contentious breach of WP:BLP processes.
• f) Even if we assume if the victim and her associate to be public figure it is unlikely to cut the ice.
• g) Wikipedia community still cautiously retains Template:BLP others which very well cautions ".. or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see WP:BLPN .."

• h) What I am open to is to considering some tweak to include counter allegation (but not as equivalent worth of allegation made by victim for the reasons mentioned above) as an addition to already existent statement in the article section Police investigation ".. On the basis of a supplementary statement made by Akram, police also arrested some of her associates to investigate allegations of blackmailing. ..". For the same purpose I will appreciate some systematic mediation help from some experienced mediator from WP:DRN, so I am planning to intimate @ Talk WP:DRN for mediation help if possible.

Meanwhile I expect experienced users from WP:BLPN to evaluate and remove if possible contentiousness content til some consensus is achieved through mediation or later RFC process.

Thanks,

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

USaamo's re

All the concerns and objections related to the earlier addition were sufficiently answered in above discussions started by User:Bookku and as per that I rephrased my addition in the lede to make it more neutral as per the language used in sources. I further provided a dozen more sources to support my addition and intended to expand it in sections below as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. The main contention about WP:BLP raised by Bookku in above discussion was adding victim's associate name as suspect owing to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE about which an RfC was started by him as well where most of the editors opined that they are public figures as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Him saying to be considered public figure for the purpose needs to have a Wikipedia article of their own is contrary to the said policy. Now I don't know whether he's is wilfully confusing WP:NBIO which is guideline for people to have their own article on Wikipedia with WP:BLPPUBLIC which is to include allegations against public figures if published in reliable sources. His concern remained addressed on day first when User:Thinker78 clarified this to him but he still chooses to linger on the matter for whatever reasons he better know. Now here again the editor is bent on complicating the discussion and bringing so much irrelevant things into the discussion which amounts to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, WP:SYNTH and is yet another attempt of bludgeoning the process by creating walls of texts making it difficult for editors to have a say on it as expressed by a couple of editors in previous discussion as well.

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) Bookku Per WP:NPF, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Thinker78 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In the light of above discussion my detailed response in support of my addition and points raised by Bookku is given below:

Main points

• I clarified this multiple times as I was directly attacked for victim blaming by Bookku in above for victim blaming that I don't deny the happening of incidence but the background of it cannot be disregarded. The motive of victim and her associates for going there and later events which unfolded should be included for neutrality. Harrasment regardless of it happened and was unfortunate but this article should be telling all the related information published in reliable sources for NPOV. This case is not as simple as being presented in this article and there are so many contradictions and twists that appeared in it with time. Rambo's name was not added initially by me as suspect but as the associate of TikToker Ayesha during whole episode. There are three stages here, the event, the incidence and the court case. Rambo remained Ayesha's associate in all the three, he was not even named in FIR and preliminary statements rather was a saviour. It was only after a twist in the case that she named him in supplementary statement. That line being told as added in Police Investigation section as sufficient for the purpose is just the reporting of arrest while all this being discussed here is very important twist in the case which is being willfully avoided.

• 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. 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. 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. In subsequent audiotapes the blackmailing part came in where initially both seemed planning to extort money from suspect which she identified in parade. 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. Ayesha Akram wrote to DIG that Rambo is blackmailing her and that there's a whole TikTok gang. Rambo was arrested with other suspects. Rambo claimed that it was Ayesha who wanted to take extortion money from suspects and he refused after which she charged him. 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. Now in legal proceedings FIR can not be sole basis for even arresting someone as per superior court decisions in Pakistan unless Investigating Officer is convinced about the prima facie happening. FIR in this case is so full of contradictions from late reporting to change in events from saviour's becoming villains so it has actually weakened the prosecution case to say atleast contending all these points and twists delaying the case Rambo even got bail.

• The audiotapes being part of police investigations is mentioned in the sources which are published reliable sources and none of the parties have denied them. They are obviously accepted by police that's why they are part of police file. Even if prosecution wouldn't have made it part of the case, the defence was going to do this. Rest is to be decided by court of law but they are admissible evidence in courts under Pakistani law. Police is focused on the prosecution regarding the harrassment incident which obviously happened but still couldn't file chargesheet because of all the twists unfolding with the case. The matter is sub-judice and as I have said that audiotapes were made part of case and it's upon court to accept the tapes which by law is permitted to accept it as admissible evidence. It's not for some Wikipedia editor from neighborhood to question the credence of tapes but it's for judge or opposite counsel to question the credence of it during proceedings and doing so amounts to original research by the editor. Also none of the parties has denied the audiotapes but Rambo rather gave explainations and Ayesha charged him for blackmailing was upon these tapes. So here we'll only add about it as reported by reliable sources and for rest we'll have to wait for court. In Evidence Law it's rule that admitted facts need not to be proved. I have established it above that audiotapes recovered from Rambo's WhatsApp were not denied by parties and they even gave clarifications and charged people for blackmailing on its basis. You're asserting again and again on forensic lab report for audiotapes but since it was never denied by any of party, forensic report will just be a routine proceeding in this respect.

Other points

• Bookku has repeatedly questioning Pakistan Frontier source which is not even the base of my argument, I have only presented it along with other details of the case which I haven't taken into account further in this discussion while I have presented multiple other sources to support my stance. For his satisfaction I even presented the same report quoted by a left leaning Indian news outlet The Print as well.

• It was not dereliction but somewhat negligence on part of guards as per them actually the scene was not clear what was actually happening but if that's to be considered than the question is on victim as well that why she chose to stay inspite of when she could have left the scene earlier. She in subsequent events named her associate and team as the actual persons who staged the whole episode.

• Usage of word ploy and turn are for subsequent events not the incidence itself. Ayesha Akram has not been named suspect and I haven't said this anywhere in the discussion, it's his associate with whom she was discussing the extortion money plan in the alleged audiotapes. His associate and team members were charged and arrested as a result of the audiotapes for blackmailing after victim's supplementary statement and subsequently both blamed each other for blackmailing. So it's not only about her as you're implying but the whole episode. Why shouldn't it be mentioned since it's duly covered by multiple reliable sources and is as per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't mean a person name can't be included anywhere on Wikipedia.

• Bringing in Diyat as response to extortion money allegations from some opinionated article which has no relevance in anyway with this case is ridiculous and amounts to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since he's asking why courts have not taken this up whereas the said article only talks about Diyat law in context of a different case. The point of extortion money and diyat are totally distinct since extortion money is off the court settlement without being court informed while in diyat court is duly involved. In this case there's no point of Diyat anywhere and the said article only telling about the possibility in a different case.

This point alone tells alot about the Bookku's sheer inability to understand the situation and law of the country.

• As it's said by editor himself in one of his responses above that the matter is sub-judice and we can't include this in article then it applies on whole article not just my edits. It's needed to be clarified that what is this article about and what information should be retained, if it's only about the court case then as I said whole article will be revisited and if it's about the whole incident than everything related has to be there.

USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

With due respect to @USaamo they seem to be repeating Red herring fallacies, discussing notability itself in a false equivalence, by saying other user do not understand country and law and complaining on length of reply ignoring length of own replies seeking to distract from violation of WP:BLP policies and emphasizing undue weight for such contested content. I request again to focus to the discussion on main points and not to conflate between content points and Wikipedia users.

• Questioning reliability of the sourced information is important for irrelevance and WP:undue are valid points of discussion and not WP:OR or WP:Synth
• In Diyat law how parties can convey of reaching any agreement to court without communicating and reaching an agreement among themselves? Show me legal provisions which stop parties to communicate between themselves under Pakistani Diyat law.
• You seem to be conflating and obfuscating statement above: ".. His associate and team members were charged and arrested as a result of the audiotapes for blackmailing after victim's supplementary statement .." like victim and suspect are using same materials for charges against each other and those carry same weightage. Whatever material victim has submitted for which law enforcement charged the other side as suspect is not same as suspect is using for his counter allegations, for which victim is not named as suspect by law enforcement. The material is not same nor the weightage can not be same. (read again)
• If you are agreeing you can't show us (me and Wikipedians) anywhere victim is named as suspect before sessions court then how you are seeking to provide equal weightage to counter claims of police and court acknowledged suspect.
• Problem of slut shaming and victim blaming is global, is as much among journalists as much in rest of the society and South Asian journalism is not exception to this whether Indian or Pakistani. I can almost write an article with google scholar. IMHO where slut shaming and victim blaming taking place such news articles need to be weighed carefully.
• If you are readily agreeing .. subsequent events (additional allegations and counter allegations) are separate later events not the main incidence of molestation itself. .. then a) why you are unrelentingly seeking to push unverifiable information in the article lede itself b) why you are not making clear mention that later allegations are separate event and why you can not write statement without using word 'turn'; you seem to be using word 'ploy' not for suspect of blackmailing but against victim for a suspect made counter allegations c) Why you are insisting for equal weight for a suspects counter allegations d) Why do you seek to legitimize sensational word of 'extortion' that too in WP:Wikivoice (just let me point out you seem continuously ignoring point of WP:Wikivoice)
• ".. why she chose to stay inspite of when she could have left the scene earlier. .." The victim in her multiple interviews has denied to have had clear chance of escape. (She has also denied alleged audio tapes, read again) Idk why victim blamers continue to ignore her own statement and the statement of first (Dolphin) constable who reached there. The constable themselves was stoned and chairs were thrown upon him, miscreants were even set out to burning the police bikes outside. If the victim was given special access to precincts of Minar e Pakistan for safety otherwise closed for general population, and Minar seems to be almost at center of a huge enough and garden. Idk how a woman already hit by miscreant crowd in at least a thousand ( figure of 1000 plus crowd as per police constable who rescued her) is expected to run and escape successfully as if she had some special commando trainings to escape even from a crowd of miscreants. Police rightly charged miscreant crowd with PPC 149 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting) for being in precincts of Minar e Pakistan. The police did not charged crowd only for molestation but also rioting, and victim blamers are expecting victim to have moved out of riotous mob. All this is not victim blaming then what idk.
• Fellow learned Wikipedian and also other victim blamers are missing on the point is victims' black mailer associates taking a chance for molestation and other miscreants who might have been taking a chance of molestation can be different sets of people. The later exposed blackmailing associates, seems, are being supper imposed on rest of huge crowd which was either a perpetrator or at least a witness to the event of molestation, in an effort to play down actions and inaction of rest of the crowd.
• Fellow learned Wikipedian themselves blaming law enforcement for some of the flaws, system is failing to provide justice even after one year, there is no interim statement either. If security flaws are true, their spy agency and security assessment agency did not anticipate miscreants, cctv cams not working, spectator syndrome being important core flaws in the incidence took place and being discussed then why did they delete that part of information, and also mention of medical report from the lede and weighs dubious claims of more importance and weight instead, I do not got this.
• Last but not least, fellow learned Wikipedian said I do not understand Pakistan, then the ordinary Lahore citizen writing to the news paper in Malik Tariq Ali, 'Another shameful incident', in The Nation (Pakistan) Sep 7, 2022; or the oped writer Moments of national embarrassment; Shakeel Anjum in The News International, August 19, 2022. might have different understanding than victim blamers. Relatively recent 5 August, research paper by renowned Pakistani gender studies expert Shehrbano Zia, Afiya (2022) "Pakistan’s Heuristic Her-story Via Lahore," Journal of International Women's Studies: Vol. 24: Iss. 5, Article 27. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol24/iss5/27 keeps all charges of victim blaming against Ayesha Akram aside in clear terms.

• We have done enough back and forth by now and I request not to repeat other than any thing very essential point which has not been discussed uptil now. As stated earlier I will prefer to have a round with some mediator who can help guide us to dot down both our sides in concise manner and reduce points of differentiation before we go for next round of RfC. Let us wait for couple of days to see if some one turns of such mediation role. Mean while we can discuss reliability of The Pakistan Frontier in separate section with an invitation @ WP:RSN to the discussion here.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Thinker78's points

User:Thinker78's comment has been cited multiple times by USaamo as supporting their side, as of now I doubt that. Personally I do not have issues if User:Thinker78 would have had specific views or express themselves now or later. Since in initial stage itself I said I do not have much experience in BLP articles and disagreements and policy violations, to my perception User:Thinker78 only brought attention to specific policies in neutral way like a neutral discussion facilitator. I read importance of word 'restraint' as important one, User:USaamo may have read that differently Idk.

Rather than any other user putting inferring on behalf of User:Thinker78, let User:Thinker78 have their own position as and when they wish.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku, there is enough information in this controversy to make a semester course of Editorial addition of accusations in Wikipedia articles. Around 15 thousand words of relevant content to be precise (a 40 to 80 pages book). It can take me a couple of months, if not more, to conduct a detailed analysis of the consensus (which actually interests me). But I have to mention that my first impression is that editors are heavily leaning in the opinion that Ayesha Akram and Rambo are public figures. Regarding the other people, to be public figures at least their names should be known. Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Reflist-talk 3

References

Usaamo's additions in the lead

This talk page is a mess and it's hard to make out what has been or is being discussed and where, but Usaamo's latest addition[2] remains tagged as dubious, with multiple editors voicing concerns on grounds of misrepresentation of sources and policy violations. CapnJackSp's edit moving the content from the lead[3] is a welcome change as the text lacks the prominence required for its inclusion in the lead. I invite comments from the involved editors so we can kick-start this consensus process. Kerberous (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I read the talk page before I made my edit, especially that We do not accept wildly speculative information and we certainly don't include it in the lead of an article. like ARoseWolf said above.

It's a single source from en.dailypakista.com.pk which attributes the claim of audiotape to a rudimentary police investigation. It should be removed if possible unless there are multiple reliable sources emphasizing the importance. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Pasting User:Thinker78's response from above discussion for your information as well. An RfC too was conducted to determine whether they are Public Figures for the purpose or not where most editors agreed them to be. You can't just overturn the established consensus superficially.

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) Bookku Per WP:NPF, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". Thinker78 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Rest Audiotapes are mentioned in many other sources as well listed in above discussions from 10-18. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Only DW.com seems to be credible enough there but where does it mention about audiotape here? Can you describe it? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea at all of what you are talking about... The Deutsche Welle article you're referring has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It has been discussed in above discussions if you have bothered giving it a read. Moreover if you think only DW is credible source then almost whole of article is undue since 80-90% of references in the article are from local news outlets. USaamo ^(t@lk) 06:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You cited DW.com on the section which you cited above as "Rest Audiotapes are mentioned in many other sources as well listed in above discussions".

Now you are saying that DW.com "has nothing to do with the subject of this article" then why you cited it? Read WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You can't promote controversial claims by using just any source you want. I also note that the so-called "RfC" you are citing was never closed. You shouldn't be the one to unilaterally decide the consensus given you were the user who re-added the content without letting RfC conclude. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't cited it but Bookku did it which was totally undue just like now you're doing it without even understanding the issue. I clearly stated that sources from 10-18 in the said list. As to RfC I will go for a formal close but still it's obvious from comments there that editors viewed them to be public figure for the purpose. Secondly User:Thinker78 who mediated above discussion has concluded the RfC upon Bookku's inquiry believed the same. USaamo ^(t@lk) 11:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

USaamo, it warrants saying that your edit warring over your problematic content that remains disputed and tagged as dubious is unlikely to reconcile editors to it. You cite BLPPUBLIC as a defence against editors making references to UNDUE and source misrepresentation, which is untenable. Likewise, your references to an ongoing RfC that concerns a clearly irrelevant issue is a red-herring and your repeated invocation of it seems to spring from a misapprehension of exactly what is been discussed.

You cite dubious sources like pakistanfrontier to write off the horrific incident as a "ploy" and "incident taking a turn"[4] in Wikipedia's voice (an egregious breach of NPOV). More concerning, your policy violations go farther than this: you cobbled together a partisan text by lifting the most POV loaded junks from the three dubious sources that actually have all said three different things (a breach of WP:SYNTH). So you ripped off, the incident later took a turn from the pakistanfrontier that wrote on the alleged planned meet up between the victim and her team at the site where the tragedy unfolded. You then combined it with the junk, with coming of alleged audiotapes of victim and her associate Rambo wherein both discussing to use the case as a ploy to get extortion money during police investigations after which both blamed each other for blackmailing that can only be, to an extent, be corroborated from the Daily Pakistan source, which cited the police leak to talk about the alleged tapes, which you did not mention using in-text attribution as required by NPOV, thereby depriving the reader to see where this was coming from. Arguably, the most decent source of the lot, Geo TV, simply reported the extortion allegations as "a suspect's allegations", before describing the sexual assault by the Pakistani mob. These conflicting and diverging assertions should have been covered as opinions rather than facts, and not be presented as direct statements per NPOV (breach #4). We cannot have this problematic content in the article, forget lead. If you wish to propose a new version for consideration, you may do so here. Falsely claiming a "formal consensus" to further your edit warring, in the absence of any, is disruptive. Kerberous (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There has been no source misrepresentation from my side but the editor who said DW is only reliable source haven't even bothered to check it since it was about a totally different incident and previous disputing editor was synthesizing it without even understanding the issue in discussion just like you two now. Secondly that RfC was not irrelevant and started by previous disputing editor and the result turned totally against his contention as editors viewed that victim and her associate are public figures for the purpose and thus as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE these allegations and audiotapes which are admitted fact needed to be in the article for NPOV. So how exactly you can say that RfC is totally irrelevant. Lastly I haven't said anywhere that this incident was a ploy but the later developments after the occurrence. With coming of audioleaks where victim and her associate were discussing to use this as a ploy to extort money was indeed a turn in the case. This was the initial version of my addition and as I've said in previous discussion too that it can be rephrased if disputing editors wish to but it is well sourced and as per policies and deserve to stay in lead for the neutrality of article. USaamo ^(t@lk) 15:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

My version is further backed by these sources and the wording I used is almost as per these sources. [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] This reference of Dawn (newspaper) [13] which is Pakistan's newspaper of record used the wording Minar e Pakistan case took a surprising turn... Edit-warring needs to be stopped for good! USaamo ^(t@lk) 15:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

USaamo, there is no consensus that they are considered public figures so there is no consensus to overturn. The RfC has not been closed with a decision. You keep trying to add this information to the article despite this fact and despite multiple editors telling you that it is a violation of WP:BLP to place defamatory information in a Wikipedia article against a living person without some extremely solid verifiable evidence, and that's even with an attribution. You have added it in Wikivoice which is a definite violation. The onus is on you to convince us that it belongs and you haven't done that nor have you gained consensus that it should be added. --ARoseWolf 15:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: although User:Thinker78 in his conclusion as uninvolved editor in above RfC viewed them to be public figure but fine, I'll go for it's closure request at WP:RFCL. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

USaamo, the bigger issue is that you have persistently edit warred with others claiming consensus that doesn't exist to this point. The stable version of the article is the article without your additions. You are attempting to add information therefore you must have consensus to add. Even if they are deemed public figures by consensus, that does not mean consensus is that the information should be allowed in the article using Wikivoice to make the claims. As such, you would need to provide independent reliable sources and you must attribute the information to those sources. The allegations can not be presented in Wikivoice without community consensus to allow it. There is also the debate that even if it is decided that the information is allowable, is it considered due weight to be added to the lead of the article which is supposed to be a brief overview of what is in the article itself. First the information must be in the article. Then it can be determined whether it belongs in the lead. --ARoseWolf 18:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I understand there was edit warring. The RFC indeed was not closed, but it did end, per item 6 of Ending RFCs. Yet, it was restarted more than a month after its last comment. Said RFC resulted in editors heavily leaning into the opinion that at least the two protagonists were public figures.

But I don't consider that RFC particularly illuminating, as the opinions regarding public figure were mostly just stating preference and there were calls to remake it.

The discussion of this issue is now the size of a small book with possibilities that the dispute may continue. My advice is to seek a close to said RFC, stop the discussion of this thread, and take this issue to the Dispute resolution noticeboard (it doesn't accept disputes ongoing elsewhere).

In that venue the discussion is moderated and concise and it doesn't have as much chance to get out of hand like with an RFC or a regular talk page thread. Or maybe another small book will be written here regarding this dispute. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a BLP issue, but rather a WP:DUE issue. The information looks WP:V to mainstream newspapers in Pakistan. The persons in question are public figures so negative information on them doesn't violate policy as long as it is properly attributed. The question is whether enough reliable sources mention this to regard this as lead worthy, or merely be mentioned in the body of the article.VR _talk 04:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of the sources are questionable as well. If the information is to be added to the article it needs high quality reliable independent sources to verify. The sources need to have a reputable editing process. We are dealing with a victim of sexual assault. The assault occurred. It's the only thing that we know with certainty, as the sources definitively show. No source has said that what was recorded didn't happen, only those alleging that the ones involved directly influenced or instigated the attack in order to gain publicity and a pay out. Those are allegations as it hasn't been proven and it should be written as such. Both parties accuse the other of various things. I would say it most definitely is not due for the lead and if it is to be added to the article it must be added with care and proper attribution in accordance with BLP guidelines. --ARoseWolf 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree that attribution is needed for the allegations. It is also important the allegations be balanced with Akram's denial of them.[14] If it is in the lead I would favor a wording "It was alleged by X that the Y did Z, but Y denied the allegations."VR _talk 01:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Undue for lead. Even if you want it to be added on a section then we will still need much better sources than what has been presented because the claim is exceptional. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what you are talking about. If your point is that the claim that Akram conspired this, then that is indeed an exceptional claim. But if your point is that Akram was accused of conspiring by X, then this is not an exceptional claim at all, rather this is a plain fact. Its especially noteworthy given Akram herself has taken time to comment on these allegations.VR _talk 17:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You are free to propose, with brevity, your text you want considered for inclusion in the article with good sourcing. Kerberous (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Rahman and Khan

Currently the lead says

The assault was cited by Sherry Rehman as exemplifying the larger problem of violence against women in the country and its patriarchal culture that sweeps such cases under the carpet and its Prime Minister Imran Khan for justifying the behaviour of its men by engaging in victim blaming of sexual assault victims.

This looks like both a WP:UNDUE issue and a WP:BLP violation. It is a run on sentence that takes the opinion of one politician (Sherry Rahman, at the time of the incident her party was in the opposition) about an opposing politician (Imran Khan) and presents it in wikipedia's voice. In order to remove the BLP violation we'd need to replace "its Prime Minister Imran Khan for justifying the behaviour of its men" with something like "its Prime Minister Imran Khan for, what Rahman believes is, justifying the behaviour of its men". The second issue is whether the opinion of a single politician, Rahman, that is a meant as a shot against her political opponents, is due for the lead? VR _talk 21:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I see this was added by CapnJackSp[15], who also seemed to have added graphic details about the event, turning the text into bashing of Pakistani society. Please mind WP:COATRACK. VR _talk 23:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove "The incident caused widespread outrage in Pakistan, with the Amnesty International and many of Pakistan's prominent figures expressing their outrage and disgust over the assault"[16]? Just because you believe it to be "bashing of Pakistani society"? This is WP:DE.

Do you have a proper WP:RS which refutes this statement that Imran Khan has engaged in victim blaming? Reliable sources[17][18] and this opinion piece,[19] say he engaged in victim blaming or justified behavior of men and have cited this incident. You shouldn't be citing "WP:BLP" as an exemption. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I restored the Amnesty part. All the sources you cited above are actually editorial pieces and thus can't be reliable for sources of fact as WP:RSEDITORIAL says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Further, there are other sources in which Khan says he was "ashamed and pained" by the sexual assault.[20] Like I said above, you are allowed to say "X said Y about person Z", but you can't say "person Z did Y" in wikivoice simply based on opinion pieces.VR _talk 10:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

What @VR says is absolutely correct and I agree with the restoration pending reliable sources being found and even if reliable sources are found I believe it should be attributed directly to the source and not in Wikivoice. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It was never written in Wikivoice at all. It was attributed to Sherry Rahman who has been a well-known Pakistani journalist and not just a politician. I also find it ironic of VR to wikilawyer over sources by claiming that "above are actually editorial pieces and thus can't be reliable", when he actually removed The Guardian. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was, check what I wrote in my very first comment.

You are misquoting The Guardian. It says Khan made those comments in June. Yet the event in this article happened in August 2021. The two are not related. The newspaper also mentions certain legislative actions by Khan's party that took place in July - again before the event actually took place.VR _talk 22:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Another thing. I tried to find some reaction from Sherry Rehman specifically to this event but could not find anything. The Guardian article gives two quotes by Rehman. The first Rehman quote I tried searching other news sources for (so I could ascertain when it was said) yet I couldn't find anything. The second quote seems to come from her twitter[21] and is date June 21, which is before the event. Does anyone know if Rehman reacted to this event and what she said? VR _talk 02:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• OP seems to have an erroneous understanding of UNDUE and BLP and don't understand that Wikipedia is not censored either, so what they may brush off as "graphic details" (that, in an article dealing with sexual assualt) is worthy of occupying a prominent place in the article because of the prominence accorded to those details in the published, reliable sources (inc the cited Guardian article), making them WP:DUE. Their reasoning could thus not be more fallacious and farther from the policies they invoke. Likewise, there is no basis or merit in the OP's invocation of UNDUE or BLP with regard to their deletion of the content about the airing of outrage by Amnesty International and Pakistani figures or the views of Sherry Rehman considering the prominence accorded to those views by the cited Guardian source. Rehman's reference to Imran Khan's victim blaming of sexual assault survivor is, in fact, attributed, as the clause is still adverting to Rehman's views. However, for greater clarity, I wouldn't mind modifying the beginning sentences to state that ..problem of violence against women in the country, which she attributed to its patriarchal culture...and its Prime Minister Imran Khan for... Kerberous (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Note this comment was moved from a different section
  • You are the OP of this section. Did you mean to post your comment in a different section? VR _talk 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Note this comment was moved from a different section

It is pretty clear he is talking about you, since you are the one who began this section (hence the OP). And he is right. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: these comments were moved from a different section.VR _talk 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, "I am not" missing attribution/misquoting on anything as you insinuate; the views remain attributed to Rehman, who believes that Khan's engagement in victim blaming of sexual assault survivors have emboldened the misogynists in Pakistan. That is essentially what the text says, that is what the Guardian says. So where are you getting this "you are misquoting The Guardian". Are you trying to eliminate a reliable source? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what Imran Khan's statement has to do with this article? Are you suggesting that Khan's statement caused this sexual assault? Or that Khan's comments (made in June) are a reaction to the sexual assault (which happened in August)?VR _talk 16:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sherry Rehman's statement is first of all totally undue for lead in any case even if it's supported by policies to be in the article. But it's actually not supported by any policy and WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply since neither Rehman nor PM's purported statement about victim blaming was on the said incident. Given Rehman being from opposition, her statement is to be taken as a personal opinion of a political rival. This is worst of POV pushing! USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Stuff does not become undue because you regurgitate that it is. If Guardian lends prominence to it, it makes sense for Wikipedia to follow suit because it is invariably based on reliable secondary sources. If Guardian finds something contextual, it is our job to give due weightage to it. That victim was groped is a real occurrence explicitly stated by RS. WP:IDONTLIKEIT never quite works in arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You're clearly missing out the point that how a political opponent's view on ex-PM's statement about something else and that too prior to the said incident is due for incident's article let alone its lead... Citing irrelevant policies won't help. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: you have yet to tell us when Rehman even made those statements. As I pointed out, one of those statements was made months before the assault. If so, how could that statement be related to this event?VR _talk 16:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• User:Vice regent, I do believe your objections to be increasingly frivolous and bordering on stonewalling. From making erroneous and untenable claims about content being "undue or blp", lack of an attribution, to imputing bad motives to others of engaging in Pakistan bashing to now groaning over "irrelevance" when the source itself substantiates relevance by giving prominence to the views of Rehman on the case. I plan to restore the text in the next 24 hours unless you are able to come up with policy backed objections. Kerberous (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Instead of edit-warring, please seek WP:DR. Please also note that edit-warring to insert negative content about a living person that is not entirely supported by sources is grounds for being blocked.VR _talk 22:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• User:Vice regent you may please make a case of edit warring at WP:AN3 if you believe I have edit warred, however falsely imputing edit warring to other editors, when the history of article encompassing edits from last couple weeks showsyou the one with having made reverts, risks being construed as bad faith and bid to stonewall constructive changes when your other arguments have failed. Kerberous (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

VR, you should be the one to explain why does the when matter if The Guardian cites Rehman's views both on the case and the larger state endorsement of patriarchal culture of Pakistan in context of the sexual assault? Whether or not event A led to event B is for a source to make that conclusion or connection; you are doing WP:SYNTH but that is not content is written on Wikipedia. Read WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and explain why should Wikipedia not give space to a viewpoint that RS do? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No, CapnJackSp, the WP:ONUS is on you as to why this material should be included, and please note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:VNOT).VR _talk 22:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

He has adequately taken on the onus to obtain consensus by engaging in constructive dialogue, citing RS, conforming to content policies, but his doing that doesn't give you a carte blanche to stonewall the change with groundless arguments that lack basis in policy. Your purge of hard facts about the assualt that overwhelmingly occur in RS on grounds that you found it "bashing" and "graphic", like I said before, is outrageous and unacceptable. Kerberous (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I want to once again clearly state my objections to the following material CapnJackSp inserted: The assault was cited by Sherry Rehman as exemplifying the larger problem of violence against women in the country and its patriarchal culture that sweeps such cases under the carpet and its Prime Minister Imran Khan for justifying the behaviour of its men by engaging in victim blaming of sexual assault victims.

• The text "The assault was cited by Sherry Rehman" appears to be false. How can Rehman's comments, made in June, be "citing" an event that would not take place until August? The Guardian article certainly doesn't say that Rehman "cited" the assault.
• CapnJackSp cited some of the content to Rehman (good), but wrote other content in a voice that is, at best, ambiguous (bad) and, at worst, in wikivoice (very bad). As mentioned in my very first comment this problem could be avoided by prefacing the part about Khan in the sentence with "what Rehman believes" or something similar.
• Khan's comments were made months before the assault. CapnJackSp inserted text that leads the reader to believe that they were made in response to the assault, which is also a BLP violation.
• Khan responded to this specific assault by saying he was "ashamed and pained" by the assault[22]. Mentioning his comments unrelated to the assault in the lead, but omitting his comments that are actually related to the assault from the lead, is a violation of NPOV.
• Thus far, CapnJackSp has provided only one source to include this content into the lead. I asked for more sources, but they haven't provided any more. I googled it and couldn't find anything else. If certain content can only be cited to a single source, it is WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead. There are tonnes of other things in the article that are actually mentioned in multiple RS. Per WP:DUE those should be given more prominence in the article.VR _talk 22:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is an unnecessary rehashment of User:Vice regent's coloured understanding of the content and his issues that other users have, of course, addressed in the discussion above (see for instance diff for their #2); and certainly unhelpful muddying of waters. The Guardian cites Rehman twice in the beginning of article and adequately contextualises the remarks. First, in the same contiguous flow of paragraphs dealing with the outrage amongst Pakistani politicians, celebrities over the assault, with unambiguous commentary that The Pakistani senator Sherry Rehman said a recent implosion of violence against women suggested the problem was worsening in Pakistan. Second, by adverting to "Khan [remarks] in an interview in June." With such explicit context, attempts to muddy waters and mix the clearly discrete remarks as having been made prior to the incident are unhelpful. Their setting up of a strawman about supposed Imran Khan's commentary on the assault to now inflate their concerns is equally unhelpful, for it is independent of the Guardian coverage. They remain free to propose text in a new section and it will be considered anew on the touchstone of WP:DUE. Kerberous (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Kerberous, I have a hard time understanding most of what you've written. Perhaps WP:MEDIATION might work in such a case. Regarding your statement "The Guardian cites Rehman twice in the beginning of article": actually the article doesn't mention Rehman until the 8th paragraph.VR _talk 11:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The statement that started this discussion is just as undue for the lead as USaamo's statement. I opposed its inclusion in the lead and I oppose this in the lead. Being in the body of the article is another discussion entirely. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf Are you opposed to inclusion of statement dealing with Imran Khan in the lead or are you also opposed to the lines dealing with Sherry Rehman's reaction in the lead? For context, The Guardian [23] , prominently mentions Sherry Rehman reaction in the beginning reactions while discusses Imran Khan less prominently down in its article. Please note also that Vice Regent made a blanket revert and is stonewalling over other changes by refusing to explain objections at all over some of the content related to the assault itself such as the assault including groping incidents, which the Guardian mentions too. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp said "...to the lines dealing with Sherry Rehman's reaction in the lead". Where are the sources that say Rehman "reacted" to the Aug 14 event? The Guardian doesn't actually say that.VR _talk 20:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Read my comment again to know where and in what context do they discuss Rehman, but if you still do not get it, then that would be on you. Kerberous (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I am opposed to making any such statements in the lead at this point. This article is about the assault on Akram at this location in Pakistan. The lead should reflect on the minimum content as possible and only summarize what is already detailed in the article. The more due it is then it is expected to be even more detailed and properly cited to verifiable reliable independent secondary sources. The lead should not even need sources because it should only summarize the high quality details of the article. That is the purpose of the lead. If I understand this correctly, VR's issue with this statement is that it says Rehman specifically referenced this attack but yet her comments were months before the attack occurred. The other issue is that one of the sources is Rehman's own personal blog. Personally, I have a lot going on with Winter approaching so I haven't had a chance to dig into that further. My opposition is based upon my understanding of what the lead is for and what content goes into the lead. --ARoseWolf 20:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

User:ARoseWolf I would be fine with adding the content at issue in the article as opposed to the lead to provide a starting point for whether some of it, if not all, should go in the lead per DUE. However, this discussion has not just been confined to "Rehman & Khan" but at issue is the wholesale deletion of Captain Jack Sparrow's additions and even with "Rehman & Khan" sorted, VR still has nothing to say about his deletion of reliably sourced "Ayesha Akram...was sexually assaulted and groped by a crowd of hundreds of people"[24] other than that he considers it "bashing" and "graphic" which is blatantly out of sync with WP: NOTCENSORED. To illustrate, the Guardian began their article with Police in Pakistan have opened cases against hundreds of unidentified men after a young woman was sexually assaulted and groped by a crowd of more than 400 men in a park in Lahore as she made a TikTok video. They have said that they are not getting what people are writing but actually also seem to have a "hard time understanding" policies. Kerberous (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• This article was written by Bookku who in Arbitration Enforcement was found to be in violation of WP:DUE, WP:NPOV in women related articles and even a WP:CIR issue was noted in his editing. There's no point of stonewalling his tendentious edits on Wikipedia if someone is trying to fix it. USaamo ^(t@lk) 03:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • FYI, USaamo, Bookku's pre-TBAN edits and comments are valid. And if you get TBANned, your pre-TBAN edits, comments, RfC votes will also remain valid.VR _talk 15:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't mean that his edits prior to ban are invalid, I just said that his editing was noted to have the above mentioned policy issues, so if someone trying to fix that, it shouldn't be stonewalled! USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have reinstated the mention of sexual assault in the lead per consensus reached here as accentuated by lack of any stated policy based objection at all. I shall add the reactions in the body too as I intimated in my previous comment here. Kerberous (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • What consensus? I don't yet see consensus. I have partially reverted your changes because what you added is redundant. As for the "hundreds" claim, this is what I propose adding: "The police initially arrested 104 suspects in connection with the incident, but, as the victims could identify only six of them in an identification parade, the police had released 98 of the suspects by Sep 4."[25]. If you are agreeabl to that wording, then we have consensus and can add that to the lead.VR _talk 00:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on a consensus model and it is described at WP: CONSENSUS in case you do not understand how it works. You did not raise any objection to the content for over a month in the course of this discussion even when multiple editors asked you about it. CapnJackSp endorsed the additions, while ARoseWolf did not object to it either. Your initial grumble that mention of sexual assault on a page about sexual assault was graphic and bashing was a non-starter to begin with. That's equalling a consensus in favour of the addition. The stuff being talked about in the lead, besides being supported by plethora sources including Dawn links you have used, is different from the arrests that Pakistani police has made and you cannot mix the two. If you wish to remove mention, you would need to gain consensus for it. Kerberous (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus, please don't edit-war, instead start an RfC if you want to make this addition.VR _talk 17:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any substance to your assertion of "no consensus". Other editors would be right in reading a consensus when you don't make objections for a long time, moreso when they have support for it. There has been consensus for the edit since the beginning for reasons Kerberous put. If anything, they have been magnanimous in waiting for months and discussing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The very fact that I have been objecting to this material (see my comments above) indicates there is no consensus. You are welcome to pursue other WP:DR methods to establish consensus. But you can't claim that everyone agrees with you, when I am repeatedly saying that I don't agree with you. The text you're adding is redundant (it is already in the lead) and the WP:ONUS is on you to establish why we need the same information twice in the lead.VR _talk 21:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does it occur the second time in lead that she was sexually assaulted and groped by a crowd of hundreds of people? A crowd can be any number of people, from 5 to 10, to hundreds and thousands, and where the reliable sources emphasize, Wikipedia should especially not gloss over it. Kerberous (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Go to the version you reverted to[26], then crtl+f "grop" and you will two occurrences of that in the lead. Why do you need to add it the second time? As for the exact number that took part, I did propose above how to include it in the lead. The police estimates are probably the most reliable given that media speculation on the number is either vague or there is no way of knowing how the media came up with that number. For example, the newspaper The Independent[27] does the responsible thing and simply quotes the police when it comes to the numbers. The Guardian does the same thing[28]. The newspaper Dawn (newspaper) - which is Pakistan's newspaper if record - also does the same thing[29].VR _talk 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)