Talk:Bilal Skaf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Choice of words

Second sentence said: "The leader of the group of men who carried out three of the Sydney gang rapes rape attacks that terrorised Sydney in 2000." Apart from not being a sentence and repeating the word rapes/rape, I question the use of the word "terrorised". That is inaccurate, because the crimes were not as widely known before the men were charged. Also, the group of men was not the same each time, so the expression was wrong.

I think it may also have been a calculated means of implying "terrorism" about a Sydney Lebanese Muslim criminal, as the sentence was inserted to link to the problematic Sydney gang rapes article. Racial tensions about Lebanese people led to riots in Sydney in 2005 and there have been racist attempts to paint Islamist terrorism, Skaf's rapes and Middle Eastern gangs as a single problem.

I have changed this to: "He led groups of men who committed three of several gang rape attacks in Sydney in 2000." Tale 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hate Crime like it or lump it

Although it surely seems un-PC to you...this is not a clear cut case of a man gang raping women because he is a run of the mill criminal. The facts of the case are that this was a racially motivated hate crime by a muslim lebanese against white australians...and as such this will be forever included in this article. Every single media mention of this crime, and there were dozens upon dozens, notes the racist nature of this crime. So however un-PC it is for a minority to racist against a majority thats simply the facts. So don't even dispute it.--203.208.102.224 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As on Sydney gang rapes, I think you are confusing NPOV with political correctness. I don't think you're fighting PC here - people are just trying to stick the fact of a conviction for rape, not hate crimes. Tale 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear that Skaf targetted only non-muslim, anglo women. He revelled in this, taunting his victims, making racist remarks during the course of his attacks. His crimes were not simple sexual gratification - so we can't only focus on the rape - there is more to the story. The simple fact that he now has a rape conviction does not mean that other aspects of the story should be stricken from the article. --Commking 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but this was about inserting "hate criminal" and "hate crime" into the start and the captions, which is a step beyond letting the facts tell the story. Tale 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think hate crime is appropriate. What else do you need for it to qualify, if you feel this was not a hate crime? --Commking 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The apparent position of the gang rapists was that Australian women had loose morals and were more acceptable targets for rape. They picked their targets on an assumption that these women were somehow of less moral worth, combined with a criminal desire to have non-consensual sex. I see a strong difference between that and an outright hate crime, such as targeting them for having white skin. But some people are clearly arguing the definition of hate crime includes these rapes, so I support the phrasing in the Sydney gang rapes article: "The crimes, described as racially motivated hate crimes by commentators such as ...".

My other objection was to the insertion of "hate criminal" and "hate crime" to make a statement, instead of to develop the article. The words "hate criminal" were unnecessarily inserted into every caption on this and the Sydney gang rapes article. Tale 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You have just said women were targetted on the basis of their nationality - not on the basis of having white skin. You see a strong difference between that and outright hate crime? So it's a lesser form of hate crime then, not as much hate? I'm not sure hate crime has to be based on skin colour. I'd would not like to see what Skaf and his mates would do to someone in a real hate crime situation - the mind boggles. An interesting point of view, but I doubt many here would agree. I sure don't. --Commking 04:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of this speaks volumes. Bilal Skaf is Australian. He is of the nationality you are talking about. What I wrote about was culture, not race or nationality. The rapists used the term "Australian" girls not as a nationality but as an assumed cultural background, which is what I meant above: the girls were supposedly guilty of low moral standards, not of being white or being Australian citizens. These are crimes linked to a messed-up cultural and religious view, not racial hate.

Look, here's what's wrong with your argument: the only citation you can offer for calling it a "hate crime" is Miranda Devine, a right-wing opinion columnist. Inserting this term is therefore totally against NPOV because the meaning is an opinionated step beyond describing the rapist's motivations - you are adding your own interpretation instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. If you can cite something like a mainstream news story or legal paper that calls these "hate crimes", then go right ahead and insert it and cite it. But until then, the term has no place in the article apart from saying something like "some commentators such as Miranda Devine have called the rapes hate crimes". Tale 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I have cited your beloved Miranda Devine article and used "described by some as hate crimes" in the intro. I hope you are happy with that, because Miranda herself uses "hate crimes" in the context of saying she believes that's what the media would have called them if the media was of her view, i.e. her own point is that nobody called them "hate crimes" except her. Tale 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"My" Miranda Divine article? You're confused - I never cited it - I've never even heard of her. So it's not a hate crime, because he only cited their "culture" as a reason to attack them? I think you've confused "hate-crime" with racism. I'm sure those girls will feel relieved knowing that it was nothing personal against them, just their degenerate culture he attacked. --Commking 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

203.208.102.224 inserted the words "hate crime" into opening paragraphs and captions on this and related articles, taking his cue from the Miranda Devine article. That's what started this as an NPOV discussion, here and on Sydney gang rapes, so I presumed you knew.

Another example of what I am trying to explain is the title of the recently-released book by Paul Sheehan about a similar case. It's called "Girls like you" (from "Girls like you, I know how to fix them up"), taken from what a rapist said to a victim. The warped belief of the criminals was roughly "these women are sluts and this is how they should be treated", not "this is how we can damage Australians". Tale 09:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The girls that were attacked were selected and targetted because of their skin colour - that makes it a hate crime, surely. Wikipedi'a own definition of hate crime supports this. Many people disagree (I am not sure why race based attacks are not hate crimes, but I look forward to hearing why exactly) we will should at the very least be happy with the article saying that some people consider these attacks to be hate crimes. --Commking 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

It is proposed that this article be restored to its original title Bilal Skaf. That title is appropriate as there is no ambiguity. It is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines for titles. WWGB (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Several articles are named like this and why should this article be any different. This is what he is known for and this is what he is. If he was a serial killer, it would be title name then (serial killer), if he was a signer it would be BS (signer), if it was the name of an album it would be Bilal Skaf (Album) and so on. So why should this article be any different. :-Adam (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Qualifiers such as Bill Smith (serial killer) are only used in case of disambiguation, where there is more than one Bill Smith. In this case, there is no other notable Bilal Skaf. It is appropriate to use just the common name, as stated at WP:COMMONNAME. You are applying personal judgement over Wikipedia policy. WWGB (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By my understanding of WP:NC the title should simply be Bilal Skaf. Very interested to know of any specific article names that use the disambiguators (serial killer), (singer) or (Album) where there is nothing to disambiguate... We should remove those redundant disambiguators too. And I notice there have been a number more moves to this article, back and forward, since it was listed at WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor moving the page has reverted to original title. This matter is resolved for now. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, and it's been unlisted from WP:RM. Is there any reason to leave the {{move|Bilal Skaf}} template at the top of this talk page?

Now removed. Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also see that on your talk page, the proposer has referred to the use of the disambiguator at William MacDonald (serial killer) as a justification for needing one here. The difference is of course that William MacDonald needs disambiguation, and Bilal Skaf does not. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the various comments and edit histories state that this is resolved for now or similar phrasing? Is there really any question still to be resolved in the future?

In a sense, anything in Wikipedia is implicitly open to revision. But this is as dead an issue as any. It's a bit strange to explicitly say that it's still open, and I feel I must say I disagree.

This move proposal was fine. The preemptive move was fine. The preemptive close of the request was fine. The housekeeping was done eventually. We're encouraged to be bold. But part of that is that we learn. We are all learners here.

Nobody is expected to keep up with every guideline and policy. But when the relevant naming convention is so clear as this, the discussion should be over. Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I said that I was moving the page back for now I was simply had in mind that another article about another BS may arise in future and this may need to be renamed again and that was all. After my mistake was made clear I moved the page back. end of story :-Adam (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Wikipedia page for Bilal Skaf, I would like the category of Australian Muslims removed from the Bilal Skaf wikipedia entry.

There is no reason for his religion of birth to be revealed as his crime is not affilated with Islam. Anti-Muslim sentiment isn't being remedied with such criminals being labelled as representatives of Islam. Infact such intentionly placed labels are being used by anti-Muslims to whip up more hatred. Being born a muslim doesn't make somebody a Muslim, if they are commiting their lives commiting crimes then he is not a muslim.

Rapists of well documented rape cases are not labelled with their "religion" so I don't understand the theory being targeting Muslims.

Some examples of a "born" Christians - [1] [2] -"born" Jew - [3], -and "born Hindu [4]"

-involved in seperate sexual asaults and/or murder crimes. Neither are labelled by their religion, and neither should they be.

Please remove the Category:Australian Muslims from Bilal Skaf's page as it is not needed.

Thank you

Adam, I would add references to my above statement (have them), but since this is not an actual article, and nothing I said is racist, but an expression of my personal deep sadness as to how a religion can be hijacked by fundamentalists, making people once known to be the first in science, math, poetry and innovation to become knows for things i listed above. I know Adam, some people prefer to sweep all these uncomfortable facts under the proverbial carpet, yet thankfully this is what a discussion page is for, which is operated from a country with freedom of speech. I answered the rest of your complaints on my personal page. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The complaint that I left on your talk page was automated. It was given not because it was an insult to Australians but because it was an insult to Islam. Anyone in their right mind would agree ***Adam*** 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my comments above. I have received a large number of emails containing death threats which made me realize the difference between theory and reality and made me understand that what I wrote above is completely wrong. I have a wife and 3 children with another on the way and their safety comes first. Please accept my contrite and honest apology. I would appreciate if someone could remove my comments as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Meishern (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) *** I removed the comments myself due to fear for my family's safety Meishern (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)