This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Start‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Holidays Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pakistan Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. TikTok This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok articles Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Women's History Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Talk:Minar-e-Pakistan#En masse public molestation and sexual violence against women
• Talk:Minar-e-Pakistan#Removed text
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2021#A section copy edit request

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

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]

• 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
  • 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.

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

[1]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[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 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. .."^[1] ).
• 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.^[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]

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)[reply]

@ 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 ^[7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

USaamo's re

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

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

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

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

@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

• 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)[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]

@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)[reply]

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.^[17] 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.^[18]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

Reflist-talk 1

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)[reply]

*** 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• YES they all are notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• @ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Reflist-talk 2

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).