Relevant discussions

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

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

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

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

I agree with 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)[reply]

Continuation of event coverage





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

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

[1]

References

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



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


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

Location

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

Thanks for discussing.

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

Edit dif 1104699210

Edit dif 1104699210 by User:USaamo needs dispute resolution.

Edit dif 1104699210 with misleading summary, seems to delete sourced and important content; same time adds content in WP:Wikivoice giving credence to victim blaming conspiracy theory against a female victim, even though medico-legal examination report clearly supports female victim's case, hence such content changes breach WP:SUSPECT Wikipedia conventions. I shall elaborate both the issues in separate sub sections below.

Creation and addition of conspiracy theories seemingly in an efforts to mislead and censor against victim, seem to be result of psychological process of I just don't like it (denial) since incidence happened in precincts of a national monument on national independence day.

Backbround

  • ".. When people look toward you (Wikipedia), should you (Wikipedia) look other way? .."

Deletion

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

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

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

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


Addition

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

@ USaamo Can you please, provide us with any proof, where in police have charged the victim Ayesha Akram for any conspiracy before court of law?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This case is not as simple as you're taking it up here and there are so many contradictions and twists that appeared in it with time. I'm clarifying again that I'm not denying the harrassment happened with the victim but the motive of victim and her associates for going there and later events which unfolded should be included as separate section for neutrality as per NPOV. Harrasment regardless of it happened and was unfortunate.
Now coming towards the twists in the case, the incident happened, its FIR was filed wherein Ayesha Akram charged hundreds of people for various offences in the incident.[10] In preliminary statement complainant/victim called her associate Rambo and team as her saviour and he's from a humble family, she supported him with salary and he's like a brother.[9] After sometime their audiotapes emerged which were made part of investigation in which both were conversing about the planning of the event on 14 August and in which dress she would be coming to the park.[11] In subsequent audiotapes the blackmailing part came in where initially both seemed planning to extort money from suspect which she identified in parade.[9] Afterwards another twist came in where in supplementary statement Ayesha Akram named her saviour and some others as the actual villains behind the incident and then both started blaming each other for blackmailing.[12] Ayesha Akram wrote to DIG that Rambo is blackmailing her and that there's a whole TikTok gang. Rambo was arrested with other suspects.[13] Rambo claimed that it was Ayesha who wanted to take extortion money from suspects and he refused after which she charged him.[8] All these things are part of police file during investigation.
Other than this there are other contradictions related to the case like she misled police about her address, delayed to come on identification parade, in parade she couldn't identified many and most of them were discharged. Then she wrote to police that she doesn't want further action from her side. It was when audiotapes emerged that police took up the case on their own.[7] USaamo (t@lk) 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@USaamo I have already gone through the whole media available online while continuously updating the article over the year. I am quite ready to discuss all that, you will notice I had not named any accused name in the whole article since as per Wikipedia WP:BLP culture we editors are supposed to be avoiding naming accused until police officially frames charges in a clear cut case. Where complications and confusions are there wait till court decides on the matter. I hope and request you to understand steps of FIR, Medical report, Police officially framing charges, court taking those charges on record. We will continue to discuss all other things but meanwhile , On top priority can you remove accused names since that is not considered ideal in Wikipedia editing culture as far as I know.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per 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,[a] include sufficient explanatory information."
Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "In the case of public figures, [...] If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Thinker78 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 [7] 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)[reply]
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.[14] 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.[12][15]
  • 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. [16]

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;

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

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@USaamo At the outset I have contested your changes and there is nothing personal about it. I am open about my pro progressive and women's rights POV and my pro women writings are certainly not limited to Pakistan only. Said that, let us come to the topic, I will prefer to discuss in above relevant subsections above, that will help discuss without mixing up the issues, if you do not mind. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't want any changes in the article till the judgement then by that logic there's no need of the article itself or most of the details regarding the case in the article as we should wait for court to decide for their inclusion... USaamo (t@lk) 12:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 [7] 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)[reply]
Greetings @USaamo


  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.[14]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Reflist-talk

References

  1. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1695675/new-laws-to-be-introduced-to-curb-rape-cases
  2. ^ "Medical report of Ayesha Akram reveals severe bruises on victim's body". MM News TV. 20 August 2021. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
  3. ^ "Minar-e-Pakistan incident: Victim's medico-legal assessment completed | Dunya News". video.dunyanews.tv. 20 August 2021. Archived from the original on August 20, 2021. Retrieved 13 October 2021.((cite web)): CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  4. ^ Arjio, Nazeer (25 August 2021). "Pakistan Needs To Devise A Strategy Against Widespread Sexual Terrorism". The Friday Times – Naya Daur. Archived from the original on 25 August 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2021.
  5. ^ Hyat, Kamila (27 August 2021). "The world of women". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 27 August 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  6. ^ "Outrage in Pakistan after hundreds of men crowd female TikToker, tearing her clothes". The Independent. 19 August 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  7. ^ a b c d "Investigation Reveals Ayesha Akram Planned Minar E Pakistan Incident As A Publicity Stunt With Her Partner Rambo". The Pakistan Frontier. 2021-08-19. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  8. ^ a b "Minar-e-Pakistan incident: Tiktoker Rambo claims Ayesha Akram wanted to extort money from suspects". Geo.tv. 2021-10-09. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  9. ^ a b c "Minar-e-Pakistan incident: New audio tape exposes 'extortion plan' of Ayesha Akram and Rambo". Daily Pakistan Global. 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
  10. ^ a b https://www.dawn.com/news/1650853
  11. ^ https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/16-Oct-2021/audio-call-of-ayesha-rambo-exposes-plan-to-visit-minar-e-pakistan
  12. ^ a b https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/08-Feb-2022/minar-e-pakistan-assault-rambo-gets-bail-in-tiktoker-ayesha-akram-s-blackmailing-case
  13. ^ https://www.dawn.com/news/1650972
  14. ^ a b https://www.geo.tv/latest/375196-another-twist-in-minar-e-pakistan-case-audiotape-of-ayesha-akram-rambo-telephone-call-surfaces
  15. ^ https://tribune.com.pk/story/2342486/iqbal-park-case-accused-granted-bail
  16. ^ https://theprint.in/go-to-pakistan/publicity-stunt-pakistan-assault-victim-didnt-try-to-flee-mob-new-claims-emerge/719356/


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

Categories