Talk:Sydney gang rapes

older

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)

This led to the contentious prospect of the defendants being able to cross examine the witnesses themselves, a situation that was averted by further legislation being put through the New South Wales parliament. (2nd to last paragraph) -- Someone should expand this. It sounds like interesting/important legislation and is pretty key to understanding how the case commensed. -- EugeneM 06:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do recall the prison sentences for one or more of these have since been dramatically reduced, but at the moment I lack the time to chase up on it. Also, there seems to be a (purposeful) absence of offender names - they were convicted, so why let time wash away the names? -- Roland Deschain 12:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I call in to question the neutrality of the final paragraph of this article. It impolies that Austrailians are discriminating against Muslims due to these crimes being comitted by youths of islamic origin. Isn't this a horrible generalization of Austraila? If I were to write something similar about Muslims discriminating against me due to my Australian background would it not get picked apart and be called racist?

-- Ronald - I have edited the page as of October 2005 to include the reductions in sentences of the rapists in September, including Bilal Skaf, and added the names of other rapists. I've also placed a reference to a Sydney Morning Herald article at the bottom of the page about the reduction in their sentences.

What is this page about?

Hi,

I have to say, I dislike the title of this page. While the events described were gang rapes that happened in Sydney in 2000&2002, I'm sure that they weren't the only gang rapes in those two years.

We say in the intro that these are 'five separate crimes' and that the only 'common thread in these cases was that the perpetrators were gangs of young males of Middle Eastern background'.

I don't know what the solution is. Do we rename to 'gang rapes by young males of Middle Eastern background between 2000&2002'? I don't think so. Do we add in all other gang rapes in the same 3 years? I don't think so. Nor do I think we should delete the page or split it into 5 different pages.

Or maybe I'm the only one who thinks there is a problem?

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, it seems the page is about racially motivated crimes. Maybe something like "Hate crimes in Australia" would be appropriate? Ben Aveling 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hate crimes in Australia, at the moment at least, would be even worse. I think the incidents mentioned in the page are noteworthy enough to have their own page. Andjam 11:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree they deserve their own page, but what should the page be called? The page is titled Sydney gang rapes 2000,2002 but that doesn't give a clear guide as to what should be included/excluded - were these the only gang rapes in those 2 years? And why those two years but not, say, 2001? The 2000 rapes seem to be connected to each other, but what is the connection to the 2002 rape? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the 2002 rape was a copycat crime, and if that's true, then it'd explain why it's linked together. To answer your other point, I think the 2000 rapes may well have been the only serial gang rapes occurring that year in Sydney with this kind of modus operandi (I think there may have been group sexual abuse at a boarding school around that time, but it'd be a different modus operandi). Andjam 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see that there is a sort of a connection, but it isn't just gang rape. It's more like racially motivated, serial gang rapes by non-whites, perhaps with a particular modus operandi. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You could say "Lebanese gang" instead of "gang". Now 2002 wasn't Lebanese, but its vaguely considered to be a copycat, so Lebanese is maybe the best identifying feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.75.90 (talk)

Why is Lebanese an identifying feature for people who aren't Lebanese? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were to identify them by background, "Muslim" would cover both cases. However, that might be seen as supporting a POV that the religion of the offenders had something to do with the crime. (Notable columnists supporting or opposing this hypothesis would potentially be worth mentioning in the article, but the title is not the place to do so) Andjam 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is what I dislike about the page. Muslim gang rapes in Sydney is the perfect title for the page, as it currently stands. And I don't want a page on wikipedia like that. So, what do we do? Do we broaden the page to talk about gang rape in Sydney? That would be hard work, especially as gang rape is not so different in Sydney to gang rape anywhere else. Perhaps we should narrow the page to talk about just the Skaf rapes? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't delete stuff on the 2002 cases, so if we go along that path, it'd be a case of splitting the page in two, right? One alternative to "gang rape in Sydney" would be a mere list page, ie "List of gang rapes in Sydney". Andjam 01:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to split in two, though we'd probably need more information for the 2002 page to be more than a stub. I don't think we need the list page, though I guess it wouldn't do any harm. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

well,lebanese or pakistani,it was done by muslim men.and the community does nothing to condemn them,infact they secretly support them.any other community would have disowned or excommunicated them.by the way,where is the shariat law now?--Jayanthv86 19:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that someone supports rape is a pretty strong claim. Can you point to any evidence? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how much coverage did the Sydney gang rapes get in India? Andjam 08:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Going back a few years now, but Ben Aveling's original query contained the following: "While the events described were gang rapes that happened in Sydney in 2000&2002, I'm sure that they weren't the only gang rapes in those two years."

I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you Ben. Gang rape in western/European countries is an exceedingly rare (historically, almost non-existent) crime. It's only really become common as certain groups have immigrated in recent decades. In London, gang rape is pretty much exclusively a Jamaican phenomenon, and in Sydney it's a Lebanese thing. White Europeans essentially don't commit gang rape. It's a tactic used against their women by immigrant "communities".Shiresman (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1- this is not a place to discuss the topic, it is a place to discuss the development of the wikipedia page.

2- as a youthworker, I can assure you- through my own clients' experiences- that gang rape during that period (as well as before and after) was committed by non migrant people on a regular basis. There seem to be numerous motivators, victims and perpetrators, those I know of are from a variety of ages and ethnicity. I find your oversimplification excessive and a bit sad.

we can discuss, if you must, on a user talk page somewhere, but this is not the place for it. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes

This page desperately needs to be modified, and most other commenters in the talk page have acknowledged this. The problem which I intend to address immediately is the grouping together of the 2002 rape with the 2000 rapes. The 2000 rapes were a phenomenon involving a particular group of men, in a particular window of time, and can be grouped together but the only similarities between the 2000 rapes and 2002 rapes are the supposed religious background of the rapists and the ethnic background of the victims. The 2002 rapists were recently arrived in the country, unlike the 2000 rapists, were all related, unlike the 2000 rapists, followed a different MO, etc. I plan to hive off the 2002 stuff t o a separate article and move this one to 'Sydney Lebanese-Australian gang rapes' mgekelly 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the move, because the 2000 and 2002 gang-rapes are arguably related and part of a single larger phenomenon, particularly in the minds of the Australian public, and in the effect they have had on race relations. In any event, where is the article about the 2002 gang-rape now? Do you even disagree with linking to it from this article? LeoO3 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the separation as well. During their sentencing hearing the offenders attempted to gain a lesser sentence by making the claim that they had come from a "society with very traditional views on women". While the offenders were not Lebanese (this article needs to be renamed), the offenders wanted to excuse this offence because of their religion. tdw77 09 April 2006

It's true that this culture-clash argument was made in these cases. However, it has been made in other cases not related to rape and is generally used in society around a whole load of issues. This aspect of the cases should be noted within the respective articles (and that would then provide a point at which to link the Ashfield rapes), and it should also be noted in a general article about cultural conflicts in multicultural societies (or the allegation of them at least), but I don't think that feature would justify a unified article. Mgekelly - Talk 04:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think This article should be deleted, or at least the name change. Please give this serious consideration. Labelling a rape incident a Lebanese Australian rape is not correct. If an Italian American youth born in America rapes someone, would the event be remembered as an Italian American gang rape, how can an entire ethnic race be labelled onto a crime done by one of its members? Not only is this incorrect, but this title could lead to further social issues and labelling of Lebanese Australians. The title clearly labels Lebanese Australians as rapists. 12 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedar 88 (talk • contribs) .

Title of this page

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)

Neutrality (NPOV) and naming

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ethnicity of the victims

One of the victims is part-aboriginal. Please stop saying that all the victims are all white. Andjam 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, part aboriginal and part what... white? Enough said. 59.167.144.5 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

The 60 Minutes video

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)

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)

Introduction

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)

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)

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)

So when we say 'gang rapes' do we need to cite who called it a gang rape in the intro? this is foolish this is not a judgement call this is a matter of fact...I am not calling a hate crime any more than i am calling it a gang rape...its a simple matter of fact...the crimes were hate crimes...it doesnt matter who 'described it' as a hate crime in the media because no one ever described as "not a hate crime" it is widely, universally accepted even, that these were hate crimes. And its not an opinion! I am letting the facts speak for themselves! i'm hardly saying "they were a hate crime (and adding) this is typical of muslim lebanese" that...would be an opinion...you are seriously out of step with what is a fact and what is an opinion. You need to see that adjective statement of fact before the word crime is not saying 'terrible crime' or 'inexcusable crime' which you could rightly delete from here...but hate crime is a legitimate statement of fact, a falsifiable fact, an objective scientific fact, seeopinion...there is no interpretation of the understanding of what a hate crime is that couldnt be applied to this case. It is simply not a judgement or an opinion any more than it is a judgement or an opinion to say that these were gang rapes. What is criteria for it be a fact that this was a gang rape? ie: that a person was raped by gang not an individual, what is the criteria for it to be a fact that this was a hate crime? it was instigated by an identifiable group of people within a society against another identifiable group of people within a society, motivated by feelings of hostility. Hate Crime. So, the debate will no doubt continue but I am never going to give up. Never. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.102.224 (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

>>Acknowledging something as a hate crime is NOT a moral distinction. It simply is not you are wrong. Is it subjective to call something a war crime. Go to every war criminals article and start banning that term see how you go. Hate crimes are a fact, they are a type of crime, and they occured here. Would you not expect to find a few famous hate crimes in wikipedia. Just as would find war crimes or corporate crimes?It is not a matter of being dispassionate otherwise one could say "horrendous hate crimes" which no one is saying (in the encyclopedia at least)...but what remains is that these were in fact hate crimes...and the fact remains that no one has held an opposing view that they are not hate crimes, all that has been posited here is that hate crime is a moral subjective term for a crime it is simply not. It was not a matter of a judge or journalist calling it a hate crime...it is a matter of it fitting the description for a hate crime which it more than does. Someone tell me that this doesnt fit all the parameters even wikipedia has for a hate crime? go on you can't. Thebainer, it is not a term with a moral defination @#$$ it is a term with a definition of factual parameters. One group targets another out of hostiliy for the group. That is what happened here, that is not a moral definition.

THe intro must state the WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE AND WHY...This is the WHY...why did it occur? because the men hated white women...its as simple as that...there is always needed to be WHY and this is it. You remove it and there is no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.102.224 (talk)

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)

Ah..so your not lurking the shadows editing my edits and signing them and being silent for once Tale...youve finally decided to weigh in to the debate. Well, FYI its not a point of view. Its simply not its a fact. You said it yourself, you find these crimes full of hate, you just said that. You are being glib. You find the crimes full of hate, to quote you, so do i, and guess what bada bing bada boom so does EVERYONE...so if everyone hold the same view...how the x can there be a point of view issue...uh when everyone holds the view...everyone...in the world...you know?--203.208.102.224 16:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

NPOV tag

An anonymous user removed the NPOV tag yesterday without any comment. I don't think the article is quite ready for that yet, because its problems are not really resolved. It retains a poison pen hangover from what seemed to be edits from anonymous users with an agenda, and we ended up with some odd compromises like a Miranda Devine mention in the first paragraph (she's really not important enough IMHO), dodgy sources like Cnsnews.com, continued overemphasis of race, etc. Others may not agree, but let's see. Tale 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I did plan to finish my rewrite last weekend, but I should be able to do it this weekend. Without wishing to blow my own horn, it will include many more perspectives, on more issues (such as the academic debate among criminologists and sociologists about the attacks), and will hopefully be more comprehensive than a version that's been the subject of edit warring, albeit small. --bainer (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read through the article. I don't see anything that warrants the NPOV tag. The perpetual use of NPOV regarding any issue is becoming banal in Wikipedia. People don't have time to wade through the posts relating to the edit wars to see where the article came from. What is important is where the article is now, and right now the article conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That being said I'm removing it. 24.162.157.31 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it always anonymous cowards who fight for this? Grow a pair and sign in. Every single one of these arguments in favour of the current article has been posted with IP address only (or was unsigned and had to be identified as such by another user). I believe there is racism and political motivations in what these anonymous edits are doing to this article, and I believe that is why those users are afraid of identifying themselves. I suggest the NPOV tag be placed back on the article because it indicates a dispute, which is what we still have here. I'm not going to do it myself, because these IP addresses want an edit war. The whole "hate crimes" and Miranda Devine thing was inserted into this article for spiteful reasons and remains as a result of a compromise with completely unreasonable people. Still looking forward to the upcoming rewrite - it sounds good. Tale 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At least an "anonymous coward" leaves us a clue: [1] They appear to be a client of Road Runner in Texas. The rest of us have chosen what to reveal, truth or fiction. I've removed 2 more items of uncited POV. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An article about an Australian crime, getting anonymous edits from the USA in a dispute about overemphasis of Middle Eastern race and Islamic religion and describing events as "hate crimes", in the current international climate. It's not a good look. Tale 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My word! A simple edit and we are already sinking into name calling! What are you going to say next? I have smelly feet? If you feel moving the Miranda Devine comment is appropriate then please do so (to a different section of the article). However, I find it quite amusing that you accuse others of being spiteful and then speed off on this diatribe. I compared this article to the Cronulla beach riots. If anything ethnicity is mentioned far fewer times in this particular article than the Cronulla article. I’m sorry if you disagree, but one of the first tenants of Wikipedia is that you should not be offended if others edit your work.

If I was motivated by bigotry I did a very poor job by simply removing an NPOV tag. If you must know I indeed have a wikipedia account, I neglected to sign in for this particular edit.

I added the “Talk Header” to the beginning of this page so that other would remember the purpose of a discussion page.68.203.127.188 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You have smelly feet. Tale 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro?

Why would you put a conservative columnists opinion in the intro? Perhaps later on, but not in the intro. {Truth 06 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)}

ahhhh... and y would you post a leftist comment on th discussion page at all...

Every Australian is a "CONSERVATIVE" when it come to a young girl who is raped for 5 hours and told, "You deserve it because you're an Australian" and "I'm going to f*** you Leb style"... Now, how can one be 'LIBERALIST' about that... ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.158.225 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

links and quote from 2007

The highest Islamic authority in Australia in Friday prayers who likened Australian women without veils to “uncovered meat” stated that such women attracted sexual assault and were responsible for it.

I've removed this from the page because it is drifting away from the nominal topic of the page - the rapes, and into a discussion of how evil all muslims are because one of their clerics is an idiot who says things that no white person would ever say. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed these too:

• Lebanese Australian
• Islam in Australia
• Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly

This is an encyclopedia, and this page is about the gang rapes. There is a distant connection to all of these things, but not a direct connection. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, the highest Islamic authority in Australia, likened Australian women to "uncoveverd meat" who attract and deserve rape. It is an Islamic teaching also stated by Sheik Feiz Mohammed.

That is, TWO ISLAMIC sheiks, who represent Islam in Australia, teach that "uncovered meat" attracts "street cats" and that it is not up to the "street cat" to stop itself. In that context, young Australian gilrs, some as young as 14, were raped by Islamic men who stated "you deserve it because you are an Australian"...

AND "you deserve [to be raped for 5 hours] because you are an Australian" is EXTREMELY RACIST!!

RACIST MIDDLE EASTERN ISLAMISTS, stated that to a young Australian Anglo girl. The Italians, the Vietnamese, the Indonesians etc have not raped an Australian girl because of a racial hatred for Australia. IT is NOT racist to discuss that Islamic Middle Eastern men in Australia and Europe (Norway, France, Holland etc) attack and rape local girls because of a racial hatred.

ALSO - the highest authority in the Islamic Egyptian ministry states that a Muslim may kill and take the money of a Christian and non-Muslim... If people had held Hitler to be a prophet of a religion would it be racist to hate that racist religion, merely because it is a religion...

Wrong Girl film

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: "Gang rapist movie plans draw outrage". Yahoo7 News. Australian Associated Press. 2007-01-28. Retrieved 2007-01-29. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Worth adding to the article? -- saberwyn 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph [2]

I don't see the overwhelming significance of the second paragraph so that it warrants a place in the lead. They are simply two comments made by the rapists during an attack (very specific information) and so holds little importance to the overall topic. They should be moved down to the relevant place. Christopher Connor 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't, then let me explain it to you - the second paragraph explicates the extremely racist characteristic of the rapes. It presents much more than merely two racist statements uttered in the attack - it states that the rapes were about race and about a hatred for Australians.

A reasonable person would hold the second paragraph to be of the essence to the topic... Thepolitik 14:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, weren't the attackers also Australians? Several of them appear to be described as the children of migrants, but none of their own articles describe them as having migrated themselves. Most are described as Lebanese Australians, not Lebanese. I didn't do well at high school English, but I'm not sure I like a sentence with "stated" twice in the first half, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the second paragraph should be moved: The Introduction is a summary, and already includes this issue decried as racially motivated hate crimes .... The second paragraph is evidence, not summary. I'll create a racial controversy section and put it there. Guanxi 16:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, done, and I put it in a prominent spot, just beneath the facts of the actual case. The new section needs more comprehensive coverage of the controversy. Does anyone here know anything about it? :) Guanxi 16:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my goal here was to satisfy all parties: Some wanted this information to have prominence, and it now does with its own section. Others believed that the specific facts did not belong in an introduction, and they are now moved (though the issue is still mentioned). Sound good? Guanxi 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The rapists expressed a clear racial hatred for Australians - "You deserve [to be raped for 5 hours] because you're an Australian" - It doesn't sound like the rapists were Australian... In effect you're telling us that the rapists were 'self-hating' Australians who hate and then rape other Australians - I don't think so... ... ...

It is also interesting to note that the Middle Eastern rapists identify themselves as "LEBS"... It doesn't sound like the rapists were racist towards themselves in idetifying themselves as "LEBS"...

Middle Eastern rapists hold Australian citizenships, but they identify themselves as non-Australian 'LEBS' and are racist towards and hate other Australians - that is the paradox that LIBERALIST thinking cannot hope to overcome - to be 'Australian' must come down to more than a mere citizenship, otherwise the Middle Easterns are self-hating Australians, which is not likely - you cannot have your cake and eat it too Thepolitik

SMS section

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)

Darebel. Manipulation of cites

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)

Olympics cover-up

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)

Where did you get this information from?Bless sins (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Further attempted attacks

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Skafbilal.jpg

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)

Where´s the analysis?

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)

Identity of gang member "T"

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)

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)

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)

The main source being used for the name [3] 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 [4] 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)

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)

That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity or religion

I reverted a change in the introduction which replaced the description of the rapists as "Lebanese Australian men" with "Muslim Australian" and replaced "European Australian women" with "primarily Anglo-Celtic Australian women". I'm sure the Anglo-Celtic women was wrong - as that would imply all victims were of ethnic British ancestry. I'm sure the rapists considered themselves Lebanese and that Lebanese Australian is an accurate, verifiable, fair and sourced description. What I'm not sure about is deleting Muslim. Many Lebanese Australians are Christian (and some will be Druze etc.), I think actually the majority will be Christian. So, can of worms and all, should we bring in the religious aspect and call the rapists Muslim Lebanese Australian men, or go along with the ethnic label and simply call them Lebanese Australian men? Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Re victims: According to this article http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054759536.html , the victims all self identify as 'Australian' ("although two have Italian parents, one has Greek parents and one is part Aboriginal") It's not a perfect source, but it confirms that 'Anglo Celtic' is out of place (even though that term is used later in the same article). I'm hesitant to label all the women as European Australian- although that is technically correct, few Aboriginal women would describe themselves this way (as noted up thread). Racist jibes directed at them are only quoted as saying 'because you're Australian' not 'because you're White Australian' or 'because you're European Australian'- the relevant factor is 'Australian.'

Re perpetrators: The same article has the perpetrators self identify as 'Lebanese Muslims (or just 'Lebs')', and suggests that the author has spoken to family members. You're right, the majority of Lebanese Australians are Maronite Catholic. The public discourse sees the Muslim aspect as important, but i can't find any quotes to support this. (If anything, 'Intellectually disabled Lebanese Australians' seems the most relevant identifier).

So, I've changed the language to say that the victims were Australian, but left the 'Muslim' bit out of the perpetrators names,

I'm open to be persuaded otherwise if anyone has relevant arguments.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Racial controversy: "Muslims feel the hands of racism tighten around them"?

Regarding the source used for the racial controversy section -- last time I checked "Muslim" is not a racial or ethnic category, but a religious identification. Unless there is something weird and unique about how Australia categorizes its Muslim population, IMHO it's totally inappropriate, inaccurate, and actually itself racist to categorize "Muslim" as some kind of racial or ethnic label. This is Wikipedia, not Australia. Laval (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. The rapists asserted they would "fuck you Leb style" not they would "fuck you Muslim style". Just because Skaf texted "When you are feeling down ... bash a Christian or Catholic" we should not assume any religious overtones. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is- are you questioning whether we should use this quote? There is nothing in that section of the article that says Muslim is a racial or ethnic category. I think we have reported accurately: the attackers clearly made racist overtones part of their attacks (as quoted by WWGB above, and Muslim and Arab people felt vilified afterwards as a result.

The articles we link to discuss Muslim as a cultural, more than a racial or ethnic label.

Our Racism article states that "Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial." Consistent with this, the Australian Human Rights Commission defines racial discrimination as "when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status." Similarly, Canadian organisations, for example, use similar wording to describe "racism – particularly towards Aboriginal persons, but to other groups as well including... Jewish and Muslim Canadians." If you think it is "totally inappropriate, inaccurate and racist" to use "Muslim" in this way, you should take it up with them, and the wiki page in question. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sydney gang rapes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Prison psychologist 'affair'

Is it relevant enough to mention about the female psychologist who had affairs with two of the rapists, then married one "... after his release on parole from Sydney’s Parklea prison" and has also had "... several children with him"?

References