Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevant discussions[edit]

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

Why isn't Amir Sohail mentioned?[edit]

This may already have been covered above, but why does this article not mention Akram's associate Rambo, especially as he was arrested by the police and accused by Akram as masterminding the mass sexual assault?[1] Any such allegation shouldn't be in wikivoice and clearly attributed, but removing such critical details from the article is quite inappropriate. And some mention of the arrest of Rambo and others needs to be in the lead itself.VR talk 23:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:BLPCRIME as he is not notable enough to be included here and he is not alone to have been arrested. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME says "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." Yet in the above RfC there seems to be consensus that Rambo is indeed a public figure.VR talk 10:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems" is not a confirmed consensus. If an editor/admin that is uninvolved in this RfC or the following discussions about the RfC wishes to close said RfC and finds that, in fact, they are considered public figures just for having a tiktok account and posting videos then what you said above applies. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC cannot be used as an argument until it has been concluded. There is no reason to ignore WP:BLPCRIME until then. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we'll wait for that RfC to be closed. But normally we include information on alleged criminals so long as this information is verifiable from multiple reliable sources - which it is in this case.VR talk 21:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please clarify if you opposed to merely mentioning Rambo's name, or anything about him at all? Would you be opposed to the article and the lead describing his arrest, his relation to the victim, the fact that the victim herself accused him without mentioning his name? VR talk 22:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ARoseWolf: Also consider the article Attack on Paul Pelosi which goes into great detail to mention that the accused attacker was David DePape. DePape doesn't look like a public figure before the crime, yet it would be ridiculous to not include him (and any attempt to do that would quickly get reverted).VR talk 03:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's clearly defined policy then consensus is local to each article so I don't consider other articles about crime when I look at this one. This is a stand alone article. Find high quality reliable sources and then I might be willing to alter my views. --ARoseWolf 12:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf: see this discussion with Masem and Jclemens at WT:BLP. The source I provided is from Dawn (newspaper) which is probably Pakistan's newspaper of record. It is also mentioned by The Friday Times[2], Daily Pakistan[3] and The Nation (Pakistan)[4]. There really is no doubt that Amir Sohail (aka "Rambo") has been accused by the victim, arrested by the police and charged with sexual assault.VR talk 13:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would want to see how it would be written up and proper discussion given to what would be included in any such statement. Local consensus would have to be met prior to any inclusion. --ARoseWolf 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "In October, 2021, police arrested the victim's associate Amir Sohail (who also called himself "Rambo") among others and charged him with molestation. The arrest came after the victim accused her associate of masterminding the mass sexual assault and blackmailing her over "objectionable" videos. Sohail denied all allegations against him. In February 2022, Sohail was granted bail by the Lahore High Court."VR talk 14:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that being in the article body rather than the lead. Almost all of the sources do place a total number arrested to this point. A total of 13 with Sohail being the one most connected to the victim. --ARoseWolf 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was proposing that for the lead. For the body, I'd include more details including details of the legal aspects of the charges against Sohail, previous statements made by Akram regarding Sohail. Why would you not want to include that in the lead? The police arrested the alleged perpetrator of a crime is pretty important to an article about said crime. VR talk 20:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, consider that David DePape is mentioned in the first paragraph of Attack on Paul Pelosi.VR talk 20:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered and I disagree to it in this case. There are 13 total arrested. Unless you find where all 13 are named then I suspect naming Sohail is undue. We don't know that he perpetrated this crime and he certainly didn't solely commit the crime as a FIR was filed on over 400 for this crime, among others associated with it. Only 13 have been arrested at this point. The only reason Sohail is named is due to his close affiliation with the victim. By naming him only you are placing more weight on him as an alleged perpetrator than the others supposedly involved. I disagree with this position being presented in Wikivoice and certainly not in the lead. --ARoseWolf 13:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf: what position am I presenting in wikivoice? In the above statement I did not say that he committed the crime, only that he was arrested. And there is now no doubt that he was arrested. I have provided several reliable sources. There is further no policy that bars us from mentioning the arrest of someone in relation to the crime in an article that is about the said crime. We do this in probably every other such article on wikipedia. The reason we name Sohail is because multiple RS have named him. We are simply following the sources, no more, no less.VR talk 14:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summary of the article high points. It should not present anything not found in the article. Propose to add content to the article first and then propose what you wish to add to the lead. I gave my position based on my interpretation of General Wikipedia guidelines and BLP guidelines. You may not agree and you are perfectly within your own rights to do so. Either way, you must gain consensus. I am just one voice. Contrary to what you believe, we do not simply follow the sources here at Wikipedia. There is a lot of information found in sources that never makes it in Wikipedia. It becomes what is due and in this particular case, what is due in this article's lead. What happens on another article is irrelevant with general consensus being policy and guidelines and anything not specific in those guidelines being left to local consensus on individual articles. --ARoseWolf 15:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And my position is that you're interpreting BLP guidelines quite incorrectly. Let me add some material both to the article and the lead, so you may know exactly what it is I'm proposing to add. I'm not proposing to add anything in wikivoice (as you'll see shortly). Of course, you may revert it, as per WP:BRD but I hope that instead of reverting, you'll modify it as you see fit, and then I'll modify it etc. Otherwise next step would be WP:DR.VR talk 19:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content on the arrests, claims and counter-claims, and hearings. This is what it would look like if Sohail was mentioned by name. I have self-reverted the name of the suspect out of courtesy, but ATM I believe we ought to name the suspect as he's been named in dozens of RS.VR talk 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amir aka Rambo's arrest is important and different from other 8 or 13 others arrested along with him because; Ayesha Akram in her first statement called him her saviour who rescued him from the incident. Later on he was directly charged by her in supplementary statement as the main culprit behind the incident. It was a surprising turn in the case which baffled the investigators as per Dawn. [5] USaamo (t@lk) 20:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend proposing it in a new section and allow everyone to give their thoughts. Of course, you are allowed to boldly edit and we can go from there but I strongly disagree with this "shoot first and ask questions after the fact approach" to editing. There is no rush to get this done. Wikipedia has no time limit. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: You were supposed to propose and gain consensus first. Now that the RfC closed as no consensus, you neeed to be more careful with introducing controversial changes related to this particular subject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you can notice, I only made the edit to show what it would look like in the article and self-reverted[6]. But as I pointed out above, there is no policy grounds to not mention his name on an article that is all about a crime he is alleged to have committed. We can start a more focused RfC on that if you don't agree.VR talk 12:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly did not clean up after your test edits as you now claim, necessitating the purge. If you wish to make test edits, do so in the space provided in sandbox, not in article namespace. And do not also repeatedly re-add disputed content even in the face of clear disagreement. Kerberous (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whose reaction to include?[edit]

It makes sense to include the reactions of people where it has been covered by secondary sources. But we give a lot of space to the reaction of Maria Amir's editorial. Her piece is WP:PRIMARY for her own views. It would be better if we found WP:SECONDARY sources that cite her reaction, as that would indicate WP:DUE-ness. Same thing for Soha Nisar. In addition, the reaction section looks like a quote farm, where we simply copy and paste long quotes from individuals.VR talk 22:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the reaction, not seeing it as WP:DUE due to the author's non-notability and failing to find any WP:SECONDARY RS that mentioned the author's views.VR talk 09:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed this quote[7] that seemed to have been prominently mentioned in the article yet even its author wasn't known. If we are going to prominently mention a quote, we should know its author and either they should be some prominent person, or this quote should have been repeated in RS to warrant this kind of prominent placement in the article.VR talk 15:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of investigation and arrests[edit]

CapnJackSp mass removed the information about the investigation and October arrests in this case. Why? Simply saying there is "no consensus" without giving any reason to oppose the content is WP:STONEWALLING. For example, I'd like to know why CapnJackSp finds the following content objectionable:

  • That the matter was initially handled by Punjab Police (Pakistan)
  • That photos and videos were sent to NADRA for identification.
  • That the geofencing was done based on call times.
  • That new arrests were mad on October 8.
  • That one of the arrested was the victim's associate and the victim herself accused him.
  • That the associate's family and lawyer denied all allegations against him.
  • That the arrested associated was granted bail, though the prosecution opposed it.

Most of this content seems to have never even been discussed on this talk page.VR talk 12:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder to CapnJackSp (who is active on other articles) to please respond to the questions above. Mass removal of content from an article needs to be justified.VR talk 22:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know that the material regarding it was contentious based on the discussion above, and were told to avoid this "shoot first and ask questions after the fact approach" to editing. You went ahead anyway. Propose contentious material first before trying to force it into an article.
Further, as an aside, I would like to suggest that you keep the passive aggressive comments out, as they dont aid you in building the Wikipedia. One set of reverts in three days being stretched as "active on other articles" to allege stonewalling is ridiculous.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: At no point in time I see anyone objecting to adding content on the investigation and arrests. The discussion was only on whether to include Amir Sohail's name, which is not what I'm objecting to here. Once again, I'm objecting to your mass removal here, as you can see it has nothing to do with the name. Since you mentioned their comment, I'll also ping @ARoseWolf:.
I am asking you for the third time, what exactly is your objection to this content? VR talk 09:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I have been away for a week traveling. I am very tired but will respond here before logging off for the rest of the day since my comment was used as something to support one side of this discussion. My comment does not exactly support the premise for which it is being represented here. While I do believe that @VR could and should discuss the changes they seek prior to making them, there is no policy against them adding the desired information or against removing their desired changes. Likewise there is policy for both including the desired changes and reverting the changes so I think that's moot. Now that the changes have been reverted the discussion should continue on the talk page. The same could be said for the edits reverted by @VR. Personally, I think information detailing the investigation and arrests stemming from it are valid for the article body, not the lead. I disagree with name usage in this case but, as pointed out by @VR, that isn't really the issue here. --ARoseWolf 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ARoseWolf. @CapnJackSp:, for the 4th time, what exactly is your objection to this content? If you do not respond, I will go ahead and re-instate the content.VR talk 00:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems such as 1) your "investigation" section only covers those point of views that have been covered by Pakistani sources but not international sources, 2) What "associate's lawyer denied" should not be covered because they were paid for it. Let me know what you have to say about this.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I didn't find many international sources on the investigation. Can you provide some quotes on what international sources have to say about the investigation?
2) Almost every lawyer, spokesperson, professor, journalist etc are a paid employee of someone. In this case, the associate's lawyer is presenting the associate's side of the story, which we should include as per WP:NPOV.VR talk 17:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find your move of content about global concerns over the incident from a section of prominence to out of place in "other reactions" lacking such prominence to be objectionable. That does not conform to WP:WEIGHT, because said issue is discussed prominently by international publications as well as Pakistan sources like Dawn. That deserves a more fitting place. I propose that if this is to move it should go under "Reactions" at the beginning. Punjab police taking over the case seems appropriate, but trivial details about rudimentary police investigation such as examining of call records between 6:30 and 7:47 pm should be condensed and mentioned with brevity, as those read like a newspaper. The "October arrests" are blown out of proportion and be condensed too to a paragraph and subsumed in the same section on investigation. No point in writing "charged them with assaulting a female TikToker, Ayesha Akram on August 14", which again reads like news and because victim has been introduced, especially when a "in connection with the case" serves the purpose better. The RfC did not conclude accused as public figures, so if October arrests are to be included they should simply mention the no. of arrests made in connection with the case on the basis of victim's statement, accompanied by a one line denial by accused, as court proceedings over grant of bail to accused are UNDUE, the article is not indiscriminate collection of information. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The possible rearranging of the "Reactions" section doesn't explain why you removed details on the investigation and arrests, please discuss that separately.
Details of the police investigation are certainly relevant and we don't need to worry about size, as this article is not too long (as per WP:SIZE guidelines).
"The "October arrests" are blown out of proportion". In my edit, I had only two paragraphs on the October arrests totalling 990 characters in an article of 22000 characters (meaning just 4-5% of the article text). How can that be "blown out of proportion" when it was covered by so many newspapers[8][9][10][11][12][13]?
"if October arrests are to be included" Why on earth would we not include this detail? It is extremely relevant to the article.
"they should simply mention the no. of arrests made" yet the sources, RS, give significant coverage to the relationship between the victim and the accused. We can't omit that info.
"as court proceedings over grant of bail to accused are UNDUE" can you explain why court rulings relevant to the sexual assault would be UNDUE in an article about the sexual assault?VR talk 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one that parsed the edit in their most trifling components, kindly do not then accuse me of following your own template you insisted on to ask for explanations. I did not raise a SIZE objection, but my argument revolved around UNDUE and BLPCRIME, do not set up a strawman and stick to addressing the extant concerns. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can the October arrests be WP:UNDUE when they are mentioned by at least 6 RS that I mentioned above? I can provide more RS if necessary - how many RS do you require to realize that this is highly WP:DUE material?VR talk 21:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 14 days (2 weeks) since my last comment, yet Captain Jack Sparrow hasn't responded, so I'm going to go ahead and restore the material.VR talk 15:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as we do not name anyone it seems fine to say how many were arrested, and what many of the charged were. We are after all discussing a crime. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material that was removed did not contain any names of the accused.VR talk 15:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler, please stop edit warring. Sheriff you were technically right to remove what was written as it is a misrepresentation but if you had done a little more research, that section was highly rewritten by Theki on March 20th. That rewrite changed the original meaning of the paragraph from what I am reading. It was never intended to say what it does now. Perhaps Theki can explain why they called it copy editing or rewording when it clearly refactored the paragraph and changed its meaning with the removal of important details. Regardless, this is no reason to edit war and Sheriff you are at 3RR as of your last revert. --ARoseWolf 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf Thank you for taking notice. I didn't revert them again due to that rule and was waiting to find some volunteer time to go through this. Thank you for spending time to actually read the coverage and share what actually happened. I hope we can revert Theki's wrong edits. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It takes seconds to revert something in an article but if you really desire to improve the encyclopedia it is important to dig through the history of that article. I'm sure Theki had every intention of improving and from what I see they did make some improvements but this was an error and didn't properly explain in edit summary either. When I am able I will go back and put the original wording in the article that was agreed on by consensus. The we can decide if that wording should remain or we should make some modifications. It's unfair to judge wat was written by these refactoring edits. --ARoseWolf 13:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll take care and do the needful next time. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf They were having conflict with me on other pages and they wikihounded me here and started to revert me mindlessly without thinking what they were actually restoring. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sherriff, your conflicts with others don't involve me and don't excuse edit warring. If you think you are being hounded or you believe there are other behavior issues that need admin attention please go to WP:ANI. This talk page is for improving this article. The back on forth reversions are disruptive. Neither one of you are willfully vandalizing but you are violating editing practices called out in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm just imploring you to stop before potential sanctions are handed out. I didn't take issue with your reverting misrepresentation. I would, however, ask that you do a little more research next time. It took all of a few minutes to determine that the paragraph you reverted was changed from its original wording which was more in line with the facts surrounding Salman's statements. --ARoseWolf 15:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I changed the meaning of the paragraph that was not my intent. I intended to improve upon the grammar which was lacking; no deliberate attempts were made to change any of the information. I'm still new to this, I apologize for the mess. I can try to roll back my changes but I'm not sure how to do so without overwriting any edits that came after. — theki (hit me up) 15:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I'm sorry if what I said seemed to imply your intent was anything but good faith. On the contrary, I don't think you were trying to mislead so I don't view it as a mess or that you should need to apologize. We can work together to make sure the article says what it should. --ARoseWolf 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help out to the best of my ability. I might be busy with academic stuff for most of the day but when I have time I'll attempt to expedite things.
I will admit that I didn't completely look into the sources that correlated with the information being presented as I was switching things around (not sure if my edits could have been considered CE or rewording— my memory is fuzzy, I don't fully remember what I was trying to do). When I get home in a couple hours I'll look through my edits and the sources and try to identify the misconstrued changes. — theki (hit me up) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Minar-e-Pakistan_mass_sexual_assault&oldid=1215039828"