Talk:Sydney gang rapes

message: Do we really need to wikify the names of parks? There must be millions of parks in the world.... surely we are not going to have articles on all of them??? (None of the parks wikified here are really important -- there are some Sydney parks though I think are important enough to have an article on, such as the Botanic Gardens and Centennial Park...) --- Anonymoues 11:30 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
:Actually, we might consider this. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: older

message: The case on changing the title of this page should be reopened. If an "Anglo Saxon Australian" commits rape it would not be labelled the same way. This case was very popular with the media specifically because it was committed by Lebanese Australian and possessed a cultural aspect as well as a crime. However, remember that these Lebanese Australians were also Rapists, criminals who do not represent the wide community. It is these individuals who commited these acts, for their reasons, attaching the title Lebanese Australian is therefore labelling the entire community, which is not only inaccurate but unfair. 
To have this article on wikipedia alone is questionable. It is obvious the only reason why this case was so popular was because of racism, racism from the individuals who comitted the crime, and racism from the Australian community and media because the individuals were Lebanese Australians, which caused more outrage and made it appear the crime was more serious, however there have been countless examples of more horrific crimes, which have not received nearly as much attention as this one.
12 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedar 88 (talk • contribs) .
:I do not see any objection posted here, and I agree with your rational, so I have moved it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this page 

message: As raised several times above, this article uses what appears to be deliberately emotive language ("brutal", "horrific") and emphasises racial and cultural points about the crimes instead of merely being an encyclopedic entry about a series of crimes. It reads like it was written by a very angry person who wants to emphasise the racially divisive attitudes of the criminals.
This bias also seems reflected in the naming of the article. Someone was so angry and focused on these particular rapes that they blotted out all other gang rapes that may have taken place in Sydney, and called this "Sydney gang rapes". It should be something like 2000_Sydney_gang_rapes, if not more specific, as there may have been others in 2000.
I think an ideal rewrite of the article would take the crimes as the central subject, then have a subsection about the racial and cultural aspects of the crimes. The perpetrators were convicted of rape, not racism. Tale 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Bilal_Skaf for how this article was linked from the Bilal Skaf page to seemingly imply "terrorism". Tale 01:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been recently edited by anon IPs and people without user pages, mainly to the article's detriment. But the article name has been this for a while. Andjam 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was originally titled Sydney gang rapes in 2000, and moved to its' current title on December 23, 2004. I agree the current title is overly generic. -- Longhair 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality (NPOV) and naming 

message: One of the victims is part-aboriginal. Please stop saying that all the victims are all white. Andjam 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you see someone half-Aboriginal and half-white, do you consider them white?  Enough said.  I guess someone is only white when it suits you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.148.80 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity of the victims 

message: I have noticed that a number of links to various websites and sources, including the 60 Minutes interview do not work. Does anybody have a link or a copy of the video of the Channel Nine 60 Minutes report?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.140.179 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The links to Lebanese Australian and Islam in Australia seem unnecessary. That's especially true for the Lebanese Australian link. What would someone learn about these attacks from the Lebanese Australian article? Nothing. From the Islam in Australia article? Very little. These seem like dubious connections to me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 60 Minutes video 

message: Changes to the intro are advised against and will be heavily disputed.
The intro covers the basic intro parameters...as follows
WHO: 14 Lebanese muslim men, young white women
WHAT: Series of gang rape attacks
WHY: Hate Crime, Racist motivation of attackers,
WHERE: Sydney, and Sydney is world city, you dont always need to put comma australia
WHEN: 2000
If you have anything to add about how the "muslim community" etc...viewed these attacks please dont put it in the intro put it under 'community response'. The intro is fine. And I repeat for the millionth time, the reason for this crime was it was a hate crime, a religiously and racially profiled hate crime...this is part of the nature of the gang rapes and it will and shall be included right from the get go that these were hate crimes by one race against another and by one religion against non-members of that religion. Thats right folks minorities can commit hate crimes against majorities, its not always the skinheads so sorry, how unpalletable it is, but these muslim lebanese rapists would just be rapists without the other two words before them if they hadn't targeted another race out of hate, if racist comments didnt dominate all the comments the attackers made during and after the rapes, and if they weren't a gang consisting of all the same race, and if the dozens upon dozens of media articles cited didn't mention race and religion, sorry thats just the way it is, even though it so un-PC to have the two words muslim and lebanese before rapist, you should have asked them to gather in a mixed race gang, rape only their own race, and chant multicultural slogans the whole time if you wanted the whole deal to end in an article here that simply says "a group of men gang raped some women and it was a bad crime and 240 years jail time was handed out" sorry....once again these crimes are notable as much for the racial and religios nature as well as the heinous nature. Like it or lump it. The facts, are here, to stay. DOn't change the intro/.--203.208.102.224 14:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person who will "heavily dispute" such changes is you, 203.208.102.224. It's not a matter of "un-PC". You are writing opinion into what is supposed to be an opinion-free encylopedia article. Every time you try to do this, someone will revert your edits because you are not conforming to the neutral style of an encyclopedia. Tale 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the lead to attribute the description "hate crime" to "commentators such as Miranda Devine". Remember that we are not in the business of making any judgements such as this, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly the section "Let the facts speak for themselves". I'm still working on my rewrite, so this will do for now, a more comprehensive analysis will be included in the new version. --bainer (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The short answer is yes. The long answer is undoubtedly yes. Gang rape is a factual term with a factual definition. Hate crime is a moral term with a moral definition. Do you see the distinction. I agree that these were horrendous crimes: who couldn't? But the point remains that we describe every subject of a Wikipedia article dispassionately, providing facts and quoting the opinions of others where relevant. --bainer (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "hate crime" thing and more POV had been inserted in several other places (e.g. 203.208.102.224's image captions), and an attempt to link the Miranda Devine article had damaged some of the citations, so I have reverted to the last good version. Tale 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, I find the crimes brutal, horrific and full of hate, and I couldn't understand how anyone could see them any other way. But that is my point of view. It is similar to yours, and it  has no place in a Wikipedia article. I started the discussion above under the NPOV header if you're looking for more of my comments. The perpetrators were not convicted of hate crimes, they were convicted of rape. Tale 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is in fact the 6th time I have commented on the debate this page. I'm not sure why you are unable to find my other comments, which are all properly signed. It is a fact that the men were convicted of rape, not hate crimes, therefore "hate crimes" and "hate criminal" are not accurate descriptions. It is a fact that some people (such as yourself and Miranda Devine) describe the rapes as hate crimes, but that's not what the men were convicted of. You have confused NPOV with political correctness - you're not fighting PC here. Tale 11:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: There's currently a bit of political and community jousting about the production of a film titled "Wrong Girl", which claims to be based on the third rape incident listed here. The brouhaha is over the fact that the NSW and Australian Governments have provided over $70,000 in funding, along with the fears that the film may be unsympathetic to the victim and may trigger feelings of trauma in other rape victims.
Source:  
Worth adding to the article? -- saberwyn 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Girl film 

message: i have reverted the sms section which was delted by Guanxi. it is a sourced section. it contributes to the facts in the article . it tells of how the rapes were orchestrated. It tells of the racist sentiment of the attackers to other religions. whatever it tells, it is sourced, and it does add to the article in a factual non-pov manner. 08:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMS section 

message: Darebel you may have a point about your changes and you may not. But you absolutely cannot make changes inside cites. The Sydney Herald article is titled "Muslims feel the hands of racism tighten around them", not "Lebanese feel the hands of racism tighten around them" as you have edited it to twice. Making changes inside cites is a wiki cardinal sins of the highest order. Rune X2 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darebel. Manipulation of cites 

message: Does anyone have any information regarding these crimes being covered up due to the Sydney Olympics and the NSW Govt not wanting any bad international publicity? 121.217.158.78 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get this information from?Bless sins (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympics cover-up 

message: This "attempted attack" was in reality an attack, as evidenced by the source describing it. The woman was sexually assaulted, although not to the same degree as in the other attacks. The text in this section should be moved to the previous section. DigitalC (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further attempted attacks 

message: The image :Image:Skafbilal.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Skafbilal.jpg

message: I think this article would benifit from analysis made by scientists and others experts, for example within the field of criminology or journalism. Mange01 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where´s the analysis? 

message: There has been a recent edit war involving the naming of a gang member. We need facts to support the claim that his name is suppressed by court order, given that it was previously in the media. We also need to be mindful of WP:BLPNAME. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your note on the Australian notice board. I don't know the answer either, however, until there is a clear consensus based on wikipedia policy, then we must err on the side of caution and the name should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is still available on its source, which strongly suggests that there isn't any legal suppression in place (it seems safe to assume that major newspapers would have a process of removing names from old stories still available online to avoid this kind of issue). The source also gives the person's age at the time of the offenses as being 18, which means that they weren't a juvenile as claimed. That said, if someone can demonstrate that this person's name has since been suppressed (which the news story offered as evidence doesn't really do), I'd be all in favour of removing it. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The main source being used for the name  was published in 2002 and describes his age as being 18 - my assumption, therefore, is that he was 16 or 17 at the time of the offense. (It's a bit tricky, because for the others they say "now 17" and "now 18", but I assume that they just didn't worry with the "now" for all, and a later source suggests he was 17). The curious one is the second source  which describes when he was released, and in that one it is stated that "The Department of Corrective Services said the man, who cannot be named, had been released last Tuesday." So it seems that somewhere between 2002 and 2007 it was decided not to release his name again, although exactly when is unclear - the last record of his name in the media is in June 2004, at the start of the second trial. (There is one mention in 2010, but that is a lone exception). While I can't find anything yet that says why his name was suppressed, I would assume that it was because of being a minor at the time of the offense. - Bilby (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the name per Merbabu's point, and as we know the person was a minor at the time of the offense, and that his name was suppressed, presumably at the time of the 2004 retrial, but it was suppressed at the time of his release. Thus it makes sense to err on the side of caution, per BLP. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of gang member "T" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sydney gang rapes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101208054347/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200208/s644897.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200208/s644897.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified