Talk:Honor killing

As a Canadian, I remember several high-profile murders that made the news in the last few years. These should be considered for the content on Canada. These cases are readily available on reputable news site like the Citizen, CBC, and the Globe&Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parents-charged-with-murder/article1229624/

3 teenage girls and a 50-year old woman found drowned in a Nissan Sentra in the Kingston Docks. The father, mother, and 18-year old brother of the 3 girls are now charged with murder. It has been reported that this was an alleged honour killing because the girls (especially the 19-year old daughter) were too Westernized. The dead 50-year old woman was the father's first wife. The entire family came from Afghanistan, and lived in Dubai for 15 years before moving to Montreal. The father was apparently married to both women at once, but the first couldn't have kids. So he married a second, and much younger woman and the three lived together as husband, wife and "cousin".

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Brother+gets+life+honour+killing/1648080/story.html

23 year old Aghan man shot his sister at the Elmvale shopping centre in Ottawa for moving in with her fiancé before their wedding. He was attempting to restore honour to his family. The father apparently had something to do with it. The sister was already isolated from her family.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/06/27/aqsa-parvez.html

A 16-year old girl was allegedly killed by her brother and father (both arrested and charged)in Mississauga (near Toronto) because she wouldn't wear a hijab.

For all these cases, I'm sure I could produce more sources to back up the fact that they were in fact honour killings, and the alleged reasons behind the deaths. --Wjserson (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there honor killing in the Far East, like in Korea or China or Japan?

NO fsfsfsdfsdfsdf

• Actually, Japan has a long, long history of honor killings. In fact, I'm surprised that it's not even mentioned in the article. 31dusk (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)31duskReply

It appear that honour killing include killing of male who dishnour their family/tribal female member. Moreover, this seems to be the definition of the term in the countries which practice it. I have made separate POV attribution for this particular reason.

Another reason I did this attribution is that common definition of honour killing in West seems to be sexist/double-standard given that out of 382 victim of honour killing in Pakistan, 245 victim are women and 137 are men. I wouldn't think 137 out of 382 to be statistically rare occurrence. Vapour (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article was largely written on (poor) media & NGO sources rather than academic ones, and it shows... The idea that men would be spared honour killings is completely ludicrous and only belongs to the blind orientalist ideology of the "oppressed oriental woman". Which, sadly, is by far the majority POV in the West, so it's unlikely that an accurate portrayal of honour killings could be accepted here. The whole point of "our" interest in honour killings is precisely the "saving" of oriental women we fantasise on. So let us not spoil the party. --81.57.24.226 (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like to say that, as a random passerby, the first paragraph is a very poor one. I'm not saying to rewrite it, I'm just saying that I can barely read it. Just so you know.75.67.206.173 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've had a go to improve it - at least managed to reduce repetition of 'family' to 2 from 4 CanterburyUK (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- An editor deleted the "Hindu communities" section, stating that "sati is not practiced in modern times". I replaced it (diff) for a few reasons. (1) It's perfectly appropriate to discuss historic practices in the article. (2) The section states clearly defines it as a historic practice, but then talks about modern aspects of it. ... So, I'd encourage discussion here about the section, hopefully with some end other than deleting it. (It's actually referenced.) --Lquilter (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Sati is not practiced in modern India. It is definitely nothing common. Yes killings still occur in India but murder is present everywhere. In the US, rapes and murders of women happen just as much as anywhere else in the world and in india. Murder is nothing unique to one specific country. In fact, India's murder rate per capita is less than many other countries^[1]

• Killing means that it was forced. Sati is VOLUNTARY, it is suicide, not murder. Honor killings are murder. Saying sati is honor killing is misleading. Nikkul (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nikkul, I understand your point that the definition of sati is voluntary; however, multiple sources use the term sati to describe involuntary immolations, both historical and present-day. If you would like to propose some text to explain that this use of the term "sati" is controversial, and have some references to support it, that would also be appropriate for the article. --Lquilter (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nikkul, you just took out another section (diff) stating in the edit summary that "removed speculative paragraph. there is no source that says it was forced. every source says it was anact of suicide not killing)". This is not true. I'm summarizing the texts & sources below.

• The very first source listed discusses the Roop Kanwar case and says "Varying accounts exist of the incident suggesting that Roop Kanwar may have been forced into self-immolation and she was possibly drugged." This source should be moved to the Roop Kanwar section, though.

The Vidyawati case, described in the text as "was allegedly forced", is supported by a cite that says "Even as local cops were debating whether it was a case of sati or 'forced suicide...". That appears roughly accurate to me.

The Janakrani case is supported by two cites. The first simply describes the incident and says that government sources believe it to be voluntary. The second (BBC) says that there is an ongoing investigation. I think this sentence can be rewritten to remove "forcibly", and the actual status -- presumed to be voluntary but investigated -- should be put in.

--Lquilter (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I edited those sections to describe the incidents as the references did. I also edited the leading text to describe your concerns here. While sati is defined as suicide (i.e., a voluntary action), the reason that it belongs here is that some deaths described as "sati" may have been compelled. The cites support that, although more should probably be introduced. If you also wish to flesh out the "honour suicide" article with discussions of sati that would be fine. --Lquilter (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sati is suicide, and two cases that are only allegedly forced do not make this a killing. Wikipedia is not an arena for speculation.Bakaman 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nobody is "speculating". The text in there now points out that force has sometimes been used in conjunction with the practice of sati, which is defined as suicide. That is supported by references -- two modern cases that have cites, plus historic cases cited in the sati article that could be added to this one. So this isn't a matter of trying to define sati one way or the other, and preferring a viewpoint to that; it's a matter of pointing out that well-documented fact that sometimes killings have been presented as "sati". I'm not sure why you want to remove that, but the proper thing is to figure out how to phrase it so that it is most accurate and not misleading.

More importantly, however, since you know that this is already being discussed on the talk page, I am not sure why you have two times now reverted to Nikkul's deleted version (diff1, diff2), and I see that a third editor, Ghanadar galpa, has also tried to delete the "Hindu" section (diff3). (User:Ghanadar galpa I see is a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar, who is banned indefinitely.) I'm putting the text back in for now, because it is in the middle of a discussion. I invite you to propose wording that clarifies the distinction you are making, and to support them. For instance, if you can show cites of people that distinguish "sati" from "faux sati that is forced" and don't like the use of the term sati to describe that practice, then that would be an useful cite to support the point you are making. --Lquilter (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Nikkul, once again you removed a chunk of text about India. (diff) This section is sourced, and correctly attributes the statements to the source in the text. (UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, and the text says that "UNICEF has reported..." "Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, says that..."). This is perfectly proper sourcing and explanation, but our edit summary says "Removed section. One person saying somting does not make it a fact. The source also lists Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Tu)". Wikipedia relies on inclusion of material that is sourced. Excluding material based on your implication that the source is not "a fact" effectively applies your original research to facts. If you have specific concerns about these facts, please state them here on the talk page so that they can be evaluated. If you have concerns that the source needs to be better explained, please propose alternative language that is clearer or more accurate. But please do not simply delete entire sections of sourced material; that sort of exclusion creates a non-neutral POV. --Lquilter (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have read all the sources and ALL of them say that there is debate that it was acutally forced. No one PUSHED the woman into the fire. If someone did it by themselves, then it is considered suicide. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation REFERENCES USED

• "Dismissing it to be an act 'sati', he said a magisterial probe has been ordered into the incident and added that her family members were not aware of the act and no evidence of pressure exerted on her to take the dire step was found."
• "35-year-old Vidyawati gave up her life on Thursday evening by jumping into the blazing funeral pyre " If the police are DEBATING, than it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it is not proven, it doesnt belong on wiki.
• "some allege forcibly, dressed in her red wedding dress, in Rajasthan's Deorala"

If something has not been proven, you are violating policy by having it on wiki. Also, this section doesnt belongs in Honor Suicide,not Honor Killing! Nikkul (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

These comments relate to the earlier discussion about sati, not your most recent set of deletions. I already reviewed the cites for the sati section, as I discussed above, and edited the text to correctly reflect the descriptions in the cites about the individual incidents. Some of the cites and incidents indicated that there was an ongoing investigation, and that is perfectly appropriate to include in Wikipedia. We don't make assertions about the truth or falseness of things; we reference all notable sides to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight to one opinion or another. ... As for your comment about honor suicide and honor killing, this is the point of the investigations: to determine whether they were suicides or murders. --Lquilter (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I hope this is the last time I have to tell you this: If something is undergoing investigation, that means that it hasnt been proven that it was murder. Hence, it is speculative and if something is not proven, that means it can NOT be on wikipedia. There is no proof that any of them were forced into it. So please do not add the incidents again.

Sati is voluntary. I think this section should be moved to honor suicide where it is more appropriate. The definition of Sati is suicide not murder.

Also, I have deleted the section on India. If you insist on keeping it, I will find and write about ALL the countries in which honor killings have taken place since the birth of time. If this is what you want I dont mind. I already have evidence of honor killings in the US, Pakistan, and many many other countries. If you want it, you got it. Nikkul (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and include all the countries (provided you can find reliable content). You'd be improving that way.Bless sins (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can someone also provide the quote as to what the Israeli government website says regarding honor killings? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've added scholarly sources and neutralized the text. We don't need the names of the cases under investigation, that's undue weight. Relata refero (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I'm happy to have other folks weighing in here; it should be very helpful in reaching consensus. --Lquilter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since sati is defined as a voluntary practice, it is a suicide not a killing. There is no proven evidence that sati has ever occurred forcibly. User:Lquilter has said some do allege that some cases were done forcibly, but what does that prove? There are those who allege that the American government bombed the world trade center.

REFERENCES USED

• "Dismissing it to be an act 'sati', he said a magisterial probe has been ordered into the incident and added that her family members were not aware of the act and no evidence of pressure exerted on her to take the dire step was found."
• "35-year-old Vidyawati gave up her life on Thursday evening by jumping into the blazing funeral pyre " If the police are DEBATING, than it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it is not proven, it doesnt belong on wiki.
• "some allege forcibly, dressed in her red wedding dress, in Rajasthan's Deorala"
• Book references...unless you have the book, you can't prove what's said

Nikkul (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read the re-written section. Whether it is suicide or murder, to what extent it is one or the other is deeply contested, and has in fact been mentioned as such in that section. There's no need to move it, and that would in fact be inappropriate. (There is already a mention at the forced suicide page.) If you have questions about the text, ask them here. Relata refero (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The references do not corroborate to the assumption that this was a "killing" by any means. This fails WP:V and the section should be removed. The fact of the matter is that Sati = Suicide, and even if there was pressure, the fact that the woman chose to burn herself makes this a moot point.Bakaman 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have not read the references, presumably. There is debate within academic circles and within Parliament as to what degree of the women's actions could be justified as voluntary. It is extremely contentious, has been reported as such, and cannot be moved from either here or the other article. It is minimal in size, well referenced, and relevant.

You clearly haven't read either the references I provided or the passage, because you say "..assumption that this was a killing". We're not talking about one incident, we're not talking about assumptions... Relata refero (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's as easy as WP:CITE. We report on various opinions held, we do not favour one opinion as "correct". If you have a quotable source, fine, if you don't, too bad. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are billions of people who have billions of opinions about different topics. Are they all supposed to end up on Wiki??? The truth is that ALL the references say that a "killing" was not proven. All of them say that the wife jumped in on her own. NONE OF THEM WERE PUSHED INTO THE FIRE. If I decide to jump in to the fire, then I commit suicide, not murder upon myself! Nikkul (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, as we have previously discussed, wikipedia does not accept only things which are "proven", an epistemologically impossible task. Rather, Wikipedia reports in an encyclopedic fashion on referenced, citable material, and where there is a controversy, Wikipedia reports on the controversy. --Lquilter (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the first time I have heard of "Sati" being associated with "Honor Killings." and I am not able to see the association reading page 320 of the book "immolating women a global history from ancient times to the present" (to which this association is cited). Could you please explain in simpler terms what is the connection between "Sati" and "Honor Killings." Thank you Desione (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is documentation (see sati) of women being coerced into acts of purported suicide/sati. Coerced suicide is equivalent to murder; coerced "sati" is therefore relevant to "honor killing". --Lquilter (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Both 'Sati' and 'Honor Killings' are well debated subjects in academics, history, and press. So if there is a linkage between the two then it should not be too difficult to find 3 or 4 different sources that talk about this linkage. However, none of the cited references are talking about this linkage. From what I can see, you seem to be concluding on your own (original research) that Sati and Honor Killings are linked by broadening the definition of both Sati and Honor Killing. Am I missing anything? Desione (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, I'm taking the article as it is, with cited material in it about sati, and looking at the arguments made by Nikkul which were unpersuasive and seemed clearly intended to inject a particular POV. I made some edits to respond to Nikkul's points that seemed valid, and other editors have made further edits. Nikkul's point, made repeatedly, is that sati = suicide, and therefore acts described as sati can never be a an "honor killing" (because sati is defined as suicide, which is not killing). That point is simply not supportable, since acts described as sati have in fact also been described as killing. Thus, Nikkul's arguments have not been persuasive on this point. I'm open to hearing any arguments made to the contrary. You seem to be suggesting that the idea of discussing sati as honor killing is some sort of SYNTH. Please feel free to make that case in more detail. --Lquilter (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The point that Nikkul is supporting (Sati = Sucide) is more accurate and in tune with well debated notions of Sati than the point that you seem to be supporting (Sati = Killing) which is not in tune with well debated notions of Sati. It won't be too difficult to come up with many reliable citations supporting the point that (Sati = Sucide), but so far I haven't seen one reference stating that "Sati = Honor Killing." Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Given that there are no reliable references to support (Sati = Honor Killing), is there a particular reason behind retaining Sati under "Honor Killing"? Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you are only considering acts where Sati was forced, then again proper references are still needed to indicate that these were Honor Killings as opposed to say a result of dispute regarding the wealth of deceased person or family discord etc. Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unless someone can come up with valid references I suggest that the Sati be removed from "Honor Killings" page and any specializations or distortions of Sati (such as forced Sati) be discussed under the Sati section. Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have provided additional references of unimpeachable academic quality. Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I read through all the new references that you provided. Your references show that "Sati = Honor Sucide" as opposed to showing that "Sati = Honor Killing." What is being debated here is whether "Sati = Killing" and hence "Honor Killing". Keep in mind that you are equating Sati to Honor Killing which goes against well debated notions of Sati where Sati is significantly considered to be sucide. Desione (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion in the second sentence?

In your reference Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India, please read pages 27, 28, 43, 44, 80, 81, 97, 112, 113. These largely point out that Sati is largely an act of Sucide (although one that is definitely influenced by the belief and support in the concept of Sati) Desione (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In your reference Encyclopedia Of Cremation, please read page 216, 371, 372 where Sati is described again as an act of self-sacrifice (sucide). Also, page 371 of this reference does not discuss the difference between 'forced sati' and 'voluntary sati' as mentioned by the text that cites this reference. Desione (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

p 216: "In sati, if the widow has voluntarily..." p 371: In Bengal... sati was more common in that region, because the women were forced to commit sati." Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

To keep things simple, lets talk about p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation.

The first paragraph under the section sati says: Sati is the traditional Hindu practice of a WOMEN IMMOLATING HERSELF on her husband's pyre. This clearly points out that the cause of immolation is womens own desires (as influenced by the practice and belief in Sati). Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A few lines down the second paragraph says Many of these stones claim that Wife has committed Sati OUT OF TREMENDOUS LOVE FOR HER HUSBAND. This again clearly points out that the cause of sati is womens own desires. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The middle lines of the second paragraph says "...when the WOMEN MAY HAVE DIED TO PROTECT HONOR FROM THE INVADING EVEMIES after their men had perished in the battlefield." This again points out that cause of sati is womens own desires. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

End of the second paragraph says womens SELF-immolation enabled their families to become highly respected This again describes sati as an act of SELF immolation. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The middle part of the third paragraph says "life of widow was so bad ... that women MAY HAVE PREFERRED death to humiliation" This again points out to Sati being a voluntary act (offcourse one that was influenced by social environment at the time like many suicides today). Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now about Sati in Bengal, the end of third paragraph says In Bengal a system called Dayabhaga prevailed, entitling a women equal property along with male relatives of departed husbands. This may be the reason for Sati system being more common in the reason becuase the widow was forced to commit Sati. This is an act of murder in guise of Sati in order to deprive the women of her property right. This is murder based on greed. Quite common even today. The only difference being that the act of murder is being hidden as an act of Sati. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In summary, page 371 (like other texts) largely point out that Sati is a voluntary act (influenced by practice and belief in the sati) rather than an act that is forced. The only instance of sati being forced is in the context of property disputes - which is plain and simple murder as opposed to being Sati. The practice of Sati is not Killing; hence, the need for special laws, policies, and improvement of social system for widowed women in order to prevent Sati in the past and even today up to a minor extent in certain remote communities. Murder is easily handled by legal system. Sati/Sucide is mainly a social problem which is not easily handled by legal system. Unlike murder it is generally not possible to identify a single person or a small group of four or five people as murders in case of Sati. It is the social system that was the problem. Do you see the difference? Do you see why special laws, policies, education, and social reforms were needed to counter Sati? Hence, Sati does not fit into the category of Honor Killings.

What part of "...were forced to commit sati" are you having trouble understanding? Relata refero (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The part that most texts including your own reference (p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation) talks of Sati being a largely voluntary act rather than a "Killing". You are simply harping your views at this point while ignoring the points that I am raising. You need to start address the points that I am raising. Please address the quotes that I mentioned above from p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation that point to the fact that Sati is largely a voluntary act. That page contains numerous quotes to show that Sati was largely a voluntary pratice. Desione (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where? I have demonstrated that in each case the words are qualified, or in the passive tense, or expressed with reference to one particular subset ("stories say" "in lower castes" etc.) Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also as I said earlier (perhaps this did not register with you earlier) that p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation mentions forced Sati in the context of property rights, i.e murder being disguised by the act of Sati. Desione (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So forced sati existed...? Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Who are you arguing against? I have already said earlier that in cases of forced sati, one needs to show whether these were result of Honor Killings or murders due to property dispute, family discord, etc disguised as sati. p371 points out that murders as a result for property issues may have been carried out in Bengal disguised as Sati. See the current description added by Nikul which clearly and concisely addresses "forced satis" as opposed to the confusing mumbo, jumbo that was there earlier. Desione (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was perfectly clear. If it confused you, that is a separate matter. I was open to alternative phrasing, not the complete evisceration and elision that Nikkul has carried out. (Actually, I see he's merely reverted to an earlier version. So much for that.)

So, as far as I can see, your only claim is that when sati was involuntary, it was carried out only for property? That honor had no component?

Right. See Countering Gender Violence by Kanchan Mathur, p7. Sati was... in theory a highly meritorious act that would bring honour to the family..." followed by "...the tradition was couched in coercive practices...". (That point is clearly made straight off, and then the root causes are explained in terms of fertility and inheritance.) The beliefs, however centered around honor. Is that clear enough for you, or still mumbo-jumbo? I have two or three other similarly direct links. Relata refero (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

And as I have pointed out before, the fact that there was considerable pressure on these individuals, and we do not know the degree to which their actions were determined by that pressure, means that there is academic debate about the degree to which they had volition in the process. That academic debate is cited. The fact that sati was viewed as necessary to preserve group honour is cited. The fact that sati was in some cases probably voluntary and in other cases involuntary, and that this depended on places and times, is stated. So what's your point?

The point as I have mentioned several times (and which has not registered with you) is that Sati is a largely voluntary practice (as pointed out directly by majority of publications) and hence it does not fit into the category of Honor Killings. Your own notions of what is murder or not is invalid. That is why we rely on citations. And majority of citations point out the fact that Sati was largely a voluntary practice. Desione (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say "largely voluntary"? It is not my notions of murder that are relevant, nor have I expressed them even once. It is the citations I have provided on an academic debate of whether sati should be viewed as largely voluntary or not. The debate on that is mainstream scholarship. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of your quotes, one quotes Kumar (1942) on the pressure on lower-class women; one says "may have died to protect their honor", which is a formulation that carefully avoids stating who was doing the protecting (not "their own honor", see?) and so on. In each case the option is left open, precisely because there is a debate. Which is cited in several other places, including p216 of the same encyclopaedia: "in those cases where sati was voluntary..." Relata refero (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

While looking for qualified phrases you deliberately missed the unqualified phrase Sati is the traditional Hindu practice of a WOMEN IMMOLATING HERSELF on her husband's pyre. and also the fact that both qualified and unqualified phrases point out that sati was largely a voluntary practice when they could have easily been written to point the other way. Now are you able to provide an unqualified sentence saying "Sati is the traditional Hindu practice of a WOMEN being forcefully immolated on her husband's pyre.? Desione (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. And I don't need to. Because I have demonstrated that there is a massive, mainstream debate on how voluntary sati is, and therefore whether it is murder or suicide. I have brought about six scholarly references to the table stating that this debate is central to the discourse on sati, both academic and political. Here's a ref that makes that explicit: Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture, and Postcolonialism, by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, pp 18-19. Once that is demonstrated, all that is needed to be done is to note that this debate exist - which is precisely what my text does. Relata refero (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If all that you want to point out is that there was cooercion, I don't have a problem against that. A simple straightforward line indicating this can be added as a second sentence in the current description. "The extent to which Sati was a purely voluntary act or one that was influenced by coersion is actively debated." along with "Many murders based on property or family disputes have been disguised as Sati." Desione (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did you read the references? Even when it was unrelated to property, there may have been coercion. Even when it appeared voluntary, there may have been coercion. Like the scholarly references, the first sentence should be as passive as possible. Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please suggest a rewrite of the first sentence here without introducing original research and synthesis; otherwise, it looks quite accurate to me. Desione (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is your objection to "The historic practice of sati, or widow-burning can be considered a form of honor suicide in those instances when (at least theoretically) the act is voluntary, with a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The following is more accurate: The ancient practice of sati, in which a recently-widowed woman would immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre,[20][21][22] generally is not considered honor killing except in cases in which Sati was forced. Desione (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

And where's the passive voice in that? Relata refero (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am more concerned about accuracy than passive mumbo jumbo :-) Desione (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As demonstrated and documented above, " Even when it was unrelated to property, there may have been coercion. Even when it appeared voluntary, there may have been coercion. Like the scholarly references, the first sentence should be as passive as possible. " Thus, passive voice and disclaimers are required for accuracy. Relata refero (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The debate over coercion or free will has been mentioned in the second sentence. Combined with the first sentence the text is quite accurate that is sufficient. Desione (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

(deindent) Nope, because the debate is central to the discussion, so the first sentence is inaccurate if it takes sides on it. Particularly when the passive voice avoids the problem neatly, as in so many RSes. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The first sentence is saying is that "sati is generally not considered honor killing unless there was force used." That is pretty obvious. How is that taking sides? Desione (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

(a) should mention the link to Honor suicide; (b) "would immolate herself" ignores the debate (not passive voice). Relata refero (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"would immolate herself" is the way Sati is defined in most texts as opposed to being defined as "forced to immolate herself". So the debate is based on the context of "would immolate herself." as opposed to being focused in the context of "coerced to immolate herself" or "forced to immolate herself." If sati was defined as "cocered for forced to immolate herself" there would be no debate as to the extent sati was coerced for forced. Desione (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

False comparison. I'm not suggesting either possibility. Please read the first sentence I suggest above. Relata refero (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here is your first sentence not suggesting either possibility: The historic practice of Sati, can be considered Honor Suicide in those instances when the act is voluntary and honor killing in those instances when the act is forced where Sati is: a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor. Desione (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. he link to sati provides the desired information, which you undercut by once again using "immolating herself". 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that even your first sentence used the words "immolating herself" which is accurate since that is the conventional way in which Sati is described in texts. Also the section now seems to have undue weight with respect to descriptions given under Christian and Islamic practices. Sati has already been described in detail and non-sati description can be shortened. Thank you. Desione (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

My version says "in those instances" and "theoretically", thus qualifying it. Relata refero (talk)

I think the real issue here is due to your emphasis on Sati being murder. If you keep in mind that almost all sucides (even today in both western and eastern countries) are in some shape or form influenced/coerced by conditions that exist in the society around the person. Sucides hardly take place in isolation. This does not constitute murder in conventional sense. A clear distinction is maintained between what is murder and what is suicide even though ALL sucides can be considered to be coerced by society at large. Hence, in my opinion the following is a more accurate description: "The historic practice of Sati, can be considered Honor Suicide in those instances when the act is voluntary and honor killing in those instances when the act is forced where Sati is: a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor. The degree to which sati was a purely voluntary or a coerced action has been actively debated." Hope you see my point. Thanks. Desione (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's certainly better, though I still have problems with it. For one, I don't see the point of defining sati like that, it sounds awkward. Relata refero (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "awkward"? Desione (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you're shoehorning in the extra clause with the 'definition'. Relata refero (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That was mainly for your benefit. A compromise. Since I see sati mainly as a social problem rather than murder, I am ok with the following: "The historic practice of Sati, can be considered Honor Suicide in those instances when the act is voluntary where Sati is: a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor. The degree to which sati was a purely voluntary or a coerced action has been actively debated." Desione (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

(deindent) May I remind you that you have to demonstrate that everyone sees sati as a social problem rather than a problem of coercion, or your opinion doesn't count. (And you have assumed that my opinion is the same as what I have been arguing is the consensus belief, which is not the case.) Relata refero (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You cannot pass and enforce "laws" to ban say "suicide" or "racism". No law would ever work because these are social problems like Sati ([1]), education however goes a long way in these cases. My problem is with your phrase "(at least theoretically)" since it is taking sides. Desione (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since this will probably take time, I am reverting to the version where the disagreement started. Desione (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

In terms of undue weight, the rest of the article is about Muslim communities and predominantly Muslim countries. I am open to shrinking the second paragraph if necessary. Relata refero (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am reading agreement on shrinking the second paragraph. Is that right?

It is certainly possible, but let's get consensus on what should go first. Relata refero (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The current version ([2]) does appear neutral in the sense it refers to sati as "deeply contentious" indicating the controversy over it.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is WP:OR or WP:SYN and definitely not WP:NPOV. You seem to be concluding on your own that there is a debate based on your own interpretation of certain sections of the text while ignoring all the texts that point to the fact that Sati is a largely voluntary practice. Please present an reliable article, a paragraph or a book that explicitly discusses whether the fact that Sati was largely a "Killing" as opposed to "Sucide" is debatable and PLEASE ADDRESS why majority of the quotes from p371 paint Sati as a largely voluntary act. Desione (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say "largely voluntary practice"? And I have addressed it. I have pointed out that each of those quotes on p371 qualifies it, presents it in the passive tense, etc. (See above.) See also the other citations I have provided on women's discourse on sati, all of which talk about the debate. You have not provided a single citation that says: "It is the mainstream academic view that sati was largely voluntary, and that talking of it in the context of murder is inaccurate." I have provided several that say the opposite; that it is not known to what degree it was voluntary, and that in some cases it was not, and that this is contentious. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please settle this issue before removing the text. You haven't provided a single reference to back up your claims that there isn't a debate on the subject in the academic mainstream. Relata refero (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

At this point you are just nitpicking. You wouldn't have been nitpicking if there was a clear case to be made that Sati was largely a forced act. the sentence clearly says "...died to protect THEIR honor..." Also, If you haven't realized yet the majority of the opinion on this discussion now is that Sati was largely voluntary. Hence, the article is reflecting that. You need to make convincing arguments to point it the other way instead of nitpicking over grammar. Desione (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do try and focus on the grammar. Words are chosen for a reason. If "died to protect their honor" was preferred because it includes the possibility that they were forced to die to protect their honor. Do you understand why most things are in the passive tense now? Relata refero (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

About your last sentence, as I have said several times, the extent to which sati now and ever is suicide or murder is contentious in both academia and in the law. I have provided citations to that effect in the article as well, and it is written to reflect that debate. Relata refero (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure which references debate "the extent to which sati now and ever is suicide or murder is contentious in both academia and in the law." Please point them out here. Desione (talk)

Second line of the first paragraph, and second line of the second paragraph. (Basically, the lines that actually use the word "contentious" or its synonyms.) Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will come back to this at a later time if needed. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. A person has complete control of them. Unless it was forced as in someone pushed her in, it is considered suicide. There is a huge difference between the other honor killings and sati. The other honor killings happen when men actually use weapons to kill the woman and when the woman has no control over the situation. Sati occurs when a woman voluntarily commits suicide. Nikkul (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I've provided citations that there is an academic debate over the nature of the pressure applied. If you are dissatisfied with the state of the academic debate, well, that happens. Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your opinion about murder does not correlate with most penal codes which include lesser degrees of compulsion than "pushing her in". Again, I suggest you propose some language that clarifies the distinction you are drawing between (a) fully voluntary suicide described as "sati"; (b) acts which involve some degree of coercion or compulsion which are sometimes described as "sati" and sometimes described as "murder"; and (c) acts which involve "pushing in" which are sometimes described as "sati" and sometimes described as "murder". The distinction that you draw for this proposed language needs to be properly referenced in published sources. --Lquilter (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sati in its pure form symbolizes a woman's dedication to her husband and marriage. It had nothing to do with family honor. The custom was banned in 1829. It is generally agreed that in some instances, the female must have complied out of social and family pressure. The incidents reported are real exceptions. There has been less than 50 incidents of 'sati' reported so far since 1947. Considering this time period and the population of India, one cannot generalize isolated incidents into a rule about honor killing. As in the case of honor killing in radical Islam, coercion is not a rule in Sati. It can be defined as a barbaric custom but not honor killing. It does not fit into the current definition of honor killing.
'Sati was voluntary suicide. Some of these suicide cases were coerced. Coerced suicide is equivalent to killing. Coersion was done mostly by family members. Thus Sati is honor killing'. There is fallacy in this argument. --Rajesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What part of the above material is your proposed rewrite? --Lquilter (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

And can you cite any of it to reliable sources? Relata refero (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Breaking the thread for readability). The wiki article on Sati is quite extensive. Sati belongs to a topic "atrocities against women". It does qualify as an "honor suicide". But this term "honor suicide" is not a widely used one. However it deserves a spin off on its own. Especially given the current state of terror with suicide bombings. Wiki seems to have a short article with this title "honor suicide". You may move this section to that article.
Honor killing in the muslim community is a very valid issue and there are a lot of recent news articles that can provide you with the content. Here are some links on a few shockers. But these incidents are not rare in areas ruled under Shariah law:

• [[3]foxnews]

• [[4] cnn]

• [[5] foxnews]

• [[6] montreal gazette]

• [[7] the age]

If you scour the web you can find a plethora of information on this. I do not think that a division of topics by christian, hindu and muslim communities is effective here. Only the references to bible is valid in this article. The rest is based on a single new article. Another paragraph explains what is NOT honor killing (crimes of passion).
Currently, honor killings are endorsed very much by the radical muslim community. The case of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was an example. Religious leaders declare 'fatwas' aka death sentences against people who dishonor thier beliefs. Remember the uproar during the Danish Cartoon controversy?. Currently, a thin line seperates honor killing incidents and terrorists acts.

Another section you may consider are the documented incidents of murder when a member of the family marries some from another religion/tribe/group/country/family. They precisely fall under honor killings. Thanks for your contributions.

--Rajesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course, this addresses the issue of Muslim honor killings, but does not shed light on the more semantic question of whether acts described as sati, if forced, can be considered a form of honor killing, and therefore whether it is appropriate to discuss sati in the honor killing article. I agree with your point about honor suicide, of course, but at this point that's simply a disambiguation page that points to forced suicide, honor killing, and suicide. --Lquilter (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your latest edit on sati looks fine. I think that is the way to put it. However, there is a flaw in this sentence In the West, however, the numerous 'crimes of passion' which include murder due to infidelity are not encompassed within the umbrella of honor killing, but are well known to be more than prevalent, especially in the United States and Southern America. This statement has no purpose.
A section on Films that addresses this will be good. A new film Crossing Over starring Harrison Ford addresses this. There are a lot of Iranian and Turkish films on the topic.
The recent incidents where fathers killed their daughters must be mentioned. I am signing off from this talk. Thanks for the great work and good luck.--Rajesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Honor suicide exists. It has a similar discussion to this one, indicating that it is contentious as to whether Sati can genuinely be considered suicide.

I've broadened the section a bit, and restored some mysteriously deleted references. Relata refero (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Quoting the book "Death by Fire" I forget the author, Sati is a more greatly extended term than the "widow burning" that is refered to here. The author of this book quotes a lady who has lived more than ten years after her husband's death, very austerely, and is revered as a Sati Goddess. Perhaps it would be worth marking this in need of attention from an expert on Indian Society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.51 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wrote that on the wrong page. 150.237.47.51 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Nikkul,

Please don't re-add original research to the article as you did here. That the verses support honor killing is simply your opinion. In a democratic society you have the right to hold opinions, but you have no right to publish your personal opinions on wikipedia, unless and until, you find a secondary reliable source for them.

Thank you.Bless sins (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is that my original research? These quotes have been identified by the author to support honor killings. This is taken directly from the book. There is no original research involved. I have not included any of my opinions in it. If taking quotes from books qualifies are original research, then half of wiki is OR. Please stop your favoritism. Nikkul (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which author? Which book? Th quotes are taken directly from the Qur'an and appear to be nothing more than your OR. No reliable source here is accusing the quotes of supporting honor killings (sorry but you, like all wikipedians, are not a reliable source).Bless sins (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Nikkul (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and you are not providing us with "reliable sources". We need reliable sources. And no, the Qur'an is not a reliable source, on a secular encyclopedia.Bless sins (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I dare to disagree, the Quran is a reliable source when talking about Islam-related issues. However, not in all cases since it is a Primary Source not a Secondary Source and this particular source, like the Bible or any other religious book can be interpreted in different ways. I do agree that Nikkul's information was Original Research for precisely these reasons. --Maha Odeh (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nikkul, your insertion here is not appropriate: polemical websites like islam-watch.org are not considered reliable sources. In your latest insertion, it appears you provided no source at all (let alone a reliable one), so such changes are totally your own original research. ITAQALLAH 10:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"In the East, honor killing is almost exclusively associated with the killing of females by close family members with the aim of undoing the "loss" caused by actions deemed to be offensive to their culture, particularly in terms of "sexual immodesty", including adultery, refusal to accept arranged (sometimes forced) marriage,"

This seems like a dubious and unnecessary distinction to me given the subject matter. Any arranged marriage that comes with the potential to be murdered by a family member if you do not go along with it is a forced marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.223.57 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, using a quote from "answering-christianity.com" to explain how Christianity defends honor killings is invalid. Here's the opening line from the article, retrieved on 4 Mar 2008:

Many Christians are often fond of accusing Muslims of committing several honor killings in the name of Islam; they then use this line of argument as a reason to discredit Islam in their eyes. In this article we shall once again turn the table on the Christian showing that honor killings can be found in the Bible, and that the Bible is for honor killings! Hence by their own criteria, Christians will have to abandon their own book.

It's more fair to say that the lines from the bible are *interpreted* by some christians as being "for" honor killings.

Further, if you're going to use this reference, it shouldn't be targeted as explaining Christian support for honor killings, as it would be Judeo-Christian in nature. (Exodus is more part of the Torah than the Christian Bible; most Christians are more likely to pull verses out of context from the Torah than they are to subscribe to the Law in toto.)

Jottinger (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

answering-christianity.com is a completely unreliable source.Bless sins (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yup, that should be taken out. Note that keeping the original verses in without a reliable secondary sources explaining that they are used as justifications in certain communities for murder is also inapproproate, as OR. Relata refero (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering why the Hindu section has so much attention paid to the [highly debatable] act of sati, where as the Islamic section contains a single paragraph denying religious basis of honor killings.

Am I the only one that believes this to be entirely partisan against Hindus?

Furthermore, the Islamic section is clearly misleading as honor killings are often state sponsored within Islamic countries. The very justification for these types of punishments as quoted by judicial leaders is in fact Islamic law. It is generally carried out in the form of stoning.

And of course sati has a whole section devoted to it (it is by volume over twice the size of the Islamic section).

Again why the overwhelming focus on it within the context of honor killings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.96.250 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because Islam does not promote honour killing in any way? Do a bit of research from reliable sources, and you will find that these things happen over regions with strong cultural influence, not religious.--Hamster X (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting that Hinduism condones honor killings? This may boil down to an issue of semantics (in regards to the archaic practice of Sati), though the fact still remains that honor killings, in the simplest sense (i.e. in terms of homicide) occur in predominantly Muslim dominated areas. In either case, I believe this article places a far to great focus upon the historical "honor suicide", rather than contemporary honor killing.

The problem is considered a cultural rather than a religious one. Which is why I would prefer that the article was rearranged on geographical rather than religious lines. The content, however, is written to ensure that whatever little religious influence exists is presented with context. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Relata, that'd be a good idea of arranging the article. Has this been attempted before?Bless sins (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where are your sources regarding Christians participating in honor killings? After reading this in your article I cannot find any information anywhere supporting your claim. Please back your claims with actual research or don't post on it at all. You are misleading readers.

Is there evidence that Sati was a practice that derived from the practice of honor killing, or did they originate independently of each other? Andjam (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to the definition of honor killing in Wikipedia,

An honor killing or honour killing is generally a punitive murder, committed by members of a family against a female member of their family whom the family and/or wider community believes to have brought dishonor upon the family.

However in Sati (forced or voluntary) the death of husband was not considered to be a dishonor brought upon the family by the female member of the family. The original sati was considered to be "a funeral practice among some Hindu communities in which a recently-widowed woman would immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre" (Wikipedia: Sati). Historically the term and the practice originated when widows would perform self-immolation "as an expression of extreme grief at the loss of a beloved one" (Wikipedia: Sati). Howevere, later on in history, more often it was imposed on the widow with force and took form of a homicidal ritual.

Thus, in any case there is no notion of "dishonor brought upon the family by a female member" in the original or changed concept of Sati. Thus, technically Sati cannot be considered an 'honor killing'. Hence I suggest that the section of Sati be removed from the 'honor killing' page for the reason of consistency in the topic. Subh83 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The, *ahem*, scant, clinging, insistent section about Christian honor killings (based, with any concreteness, on one single article from the UK Guardian online) also attempts to fluff itself with a mention of the Torah. It then CITES an ONLINE version of the Torah (calling it the Torah, not the OLD TESTAMENT, as it is is referred to in Christianity), after which it states that "no mention of honor killings" occur in the New Testament. If an editor is going to reference the TORAH, then perhaps they can spin this singular reference off into Judaic beliefs on honor killings, and not specifically Christian beliefs on the matter. If editors want to spin this as evidence of Christian "consensus belief" in honor killings, then at least have the smarts to call the Torah instead the Old Testament. Or perhaps have the decency to cite recent, or even historical EXAMPLES (i.e., behavior) of Christians participating in honor killings. Oh, no, wait, the editors already did that. There's ONE reference to that behavior. And then it's "backed up" with scriptural evidence from a separate religion. 38.118.23.100 (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the section referring to Torah. Andjam (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• • • • • IN BRAZIL THERE ARE NO HONOUR KILLINGS ******

I apollogize for this comment. I am not british or american. I do not believe in brazil there are the honour killings. In Brazil there are passion killings. Husbands betrayed kill their wives. But these murders cannot be called honour killings. Honour killings happen in places where the building blocks of society is the family. A woman that does misbehaves , is perceived to dishonour her family . In order to clean the family name brothers, mothers , kill their own daughters or sisters . The women are killed in order to wash the perceived stain. This phenomenon does not happen in Brazil. Mothers or Sisters do not kill female members of their own families in order to clean family reputation. Men kill out of a desire for vengeance wich is a diferent thing. There are no systematic killings of Brazilian girls ,in case they dare to have sex before marriage , as it does happen in muslim countries. It is therefore completely wrong to claim honour killings do happen in Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.57.92 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would let you know that in italy honour killing was abolished in 1981 and so this kind of crime are not axpect in Italian laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.38 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have sources and links to the law that can certainly be mentioned. Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

have a look in the Italian wiki. The whole page treat only the situation in Italy with the text of the law now abrogated. --77.188.10.15 (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

the paragarph starting 'The killing of a (possibly adulterous) wife by an enraged husband...' cites no sources, but makes a number of broad claims, some if which are in conflict with the body of the page lower down, such as 'Honor killing of female family members is not tied to religion'.

It also lacks a clear structure and is hard to follow at first read.

Is there anything in it that would be missed, if the whole paragraph where dropped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was reading the above section. I noticed it immediately starts with three quotes about Middle-Eastern honor killings, and then it has two sentences how there is no basis for honor killings in Christianity...? I'm not sure what the point of that was, the paragraphs immediately following the section header don't seem to about the distinction between cultural or religious practice, but about honor killings in the Middle-East in general. The section is then followed by a subsection specifically devoted to honor killings in the Middle-East. Perhaps a rewrite or some text moving is in order? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I also find that section confusing. I think we should either create a new section (ie "Reaction against honor killing"), or rename "Honor killing as a cultural or religious practice" to "Religious or cultural views on honor killing", and then include Christianity as a sub header. In either case, we should make it clear that with the "if any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" Jesus quote, Christianity is rejecting honor killing, not supporting it. It's very confusing as it is. Any suggestions on how to reorganize this? I'm willing to rewrite it. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I posted (18:03, 24 August 2008 - (as anonymous by mistake)) a paragraph in the "Honor killing as a cultural or religious practice" section that quoted from the New Testament, and give a cite for the interpretation of that paragraph: you deleted it saying only 'rm original research'.

Before that, I posted some verses from the Hadith, and the same New Testament paragraph. You deleted that too. Both quotes dealt exactly with cases where Jesus and Mohammed were confronted with punishment of women caught in sexual misconduct of the time: so were relevant.

Is it your view that on Wikipedia one can never quote from holy books - even in a section titled 'religious practise', and even when a cite is included?

Or if you are focussing on removing OR, why do you leave untouched such sentences as "Honour killings of female family members is not tied to religion", which has no cite or backing at all.

Or 'Honor killings are more common among poor rural communities than urban ones' which is contradicted by the later evidence on the page, of a Turkish study which found that 'metropolitan cities are the location of much them'.

CanterburyUK (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good point there. The relevant quotes mentions empowerment and based on this there is an assumption that its more prevalent in the rural areas. Its hardly cited.

And then "violence and discrimination against women is widespread across the globe, it is well established that social inequality is a participatory factor." If it is well established then there ought to be a citation for this too. I would like to very much see the passage this quote comes from. Im adding a citation needed tag here. Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any material that is uncited or employs original research - and there's a lot in this article - should ideally be challenged and then removed. ITAQALLAH 13:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

but you did not do what you say there - you removed before any challenge or talk. And what you removed did have citations. So I guess that means you thought they were OR - can you explain why, or how I can rephrae so you would be happy for them to go back?CanterburyUK (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Passages must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Not primary sources which you feel relate to honour killing, and not forums. ITAQALLAH 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, You've added a paragraph (According to Amnesty International, in Iraq...) that is a 100% duplicate of an existing one. Also, you've added a paragraph (Most Islamic religious authorities prohibit extralegal punishments..) which really is addressed to the issue of 'extra-legal' killing, rather than honour killings.... and as your source for it, you quote a forum... which contradicts your own statement above that sources shall not be forums! Lastly, you have for a 2nd time deleted, without any explanation, two relevant examples of cases in the Christian New Testament and in the Qu'ran/Hadith where Jesus/Muhammed are confronted with women caught in adultery, and how they respond. I have asked you already to comment on why these two are not relevant. Can I ask you not to delete them for a 3rd time, without first explaining your thinking here on the discussion page? 79.79.37.167

(talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

To say that I've removed irrelevant primary sources from this article without explanation is rather disingenuous. You can see my statements above, and in my edit summaries, stating that this material is a classic example of original research. It's merely your personal opinion that the primary sources in question relate to honour killings. Stoning, for instance, is performed as an enaction of Islamic or Abrahamic legal prescription - not necessarily for any notion of "family honour" being violated. ITAQALLAH 11:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If OR is your focus, why have you left in a chunk of uncited text, starting with the claim 'The phenomenon of the killing in the name of honor has direct relevance to the illiteracy rate, as these killings are more common in the areas where the literacy rate is lower'.

Also, the quotes from the New Testament where definitely not OR, as they quoted a secondary source. But anyway, sensible quoting of Holy Books, is surely a legitimate part of a section with religion as a title? It would have been nice to have secondary sources for the Quran amd old testament quotes too, but given time, someone may have provided them.

You are focused on excluding quotes from Holy Books, it seems from your actions: not against OR in general.

Several people added to and edited the section 'Honor killing as a religious practice' - they did not see fit to delete the whole section - a section covering the religious angle has been in the page for a year or more. If you can come up with an argument why a religious section should not be here, then please make the case: or alternatively make a case for what content you would prefer to see in it.

But please, don't just keep deleting it... can you leave it, so that others can edit/add to it: and meanwhile cover these points above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"If OR is your focus, why have you left in a chunk of uncited text..." - This is a non-sequitur. I've not stopped you from removing any unsourced or OR material, and I certainly would not were you to do so. That I've not scrutinised every aspect of the article in no way means that your original research material which you continually reinsert is in conformity with Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It isn't. Please stop utilising primary texts or other sources which say nothing about honour killings. ITAQALLAH 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask again - why do you feel that the quotations from Jesus/New Testament (secondary-sourced) and from Mohammed/Hadith are not relevant. What content would you prefer to see in a 'religious' sub-heading?

You wrote: "Please stop utilising primary texts or other sources which say nothing about honour killings" - OK, you are no longer saying the issue is OR, So you don't object to primary (or secondary) sources being used, so long as they are relevant. So you don't object I guess, to there being a sub-section titled on the lines of 'religious influence'. And you wouldn't object to it containing quotes from Holy books: just so long as you are happy that it is relevant.

Does that accurately describe your position?CanterburyUK (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"You wrote: "Please stop utilising primary texts or other sources which say nothing about honour killings" - OK, you are no longer saying the issue is OR" - Goodness... that is OR. I'm starting to question whether you are fully aware of the policies being cited. ITAQALLAH 13:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: "That I've not scrutinised every aspect of the article in no way means that your original research material which you continually reinsert is in conformity with Wikipedia policy or guidelines." Quite true. But it does mean that you are applying different criteria to different content in the page: you are happy to leave some OR in the page, even after it is pointed out to you. But to the religious sub-section: you apply stricter rules, and repeatedly delete. My approach is to be less zealous about deleting - the OR section about illiteracy I have not deleted, because by leaving it, there is a chance that someone will make good the lack and provide appropriate sources. I think I may have added a note to that section, requesting a source...not sure whether someone removed that too, or whether I only half-added the comment, and didn't finish it...CanterburyUK (talk)

I'm not sure how this ad hominem is relevant... it doesn't make the argument for the insertion of your poorly sourced material any less fragile. Instead of arguing over something as trivial as this, why don't you point out those passages you think may also be original research or poorly sourced so that they can be put to rest once and for all?

Deciding on how long to leave content in an article before removing is usually a case of editor discretion. In some cases, if the material is clearly not relevant, patent nonsense, or pertains to a living individual, the content should be removed straight away. In others, where the content is relevant, concise and neutral, but the sourcing needs improvement or is absent, then one may allow some time before removing. But this article has been in a poor state for a long while, so I think we are well beyond that stage. And the first order of business is to stop the rot and remove this newly inserted material which is largely irrelevant and of poor quality. ITAQALLAH 13:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=240530252&oldid=239932155 This article is about honour killings, not christianity and what is said and what not. defense of christian teaching and whathaveyou is not the place for it. "preventing stoning" doesn't follow within the scope of this arguement. it seems somwhat pov to remove islamic renunciation of the act, but keep in christians rejecting it. Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't quite follow your thinking Lihaas.

"This article is about honour killings, not christianity" - no one suggested that.

"it seems somwhat pov to remove islamic renunciation of the act, but keep in christians rejecting it" - what was removed? Why did you not think about putting it back?

Overall, there has been a section in the page for a long time that is titled to cover 'religious practice' (either with cultural practise, or stand alone) - why should a religion section be excluded now? section? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

If there are no adequate secondary reliable sources discussing the issue of honour killings from a religious perspective, on what basis do you believe there should be a section about it? ITAQALLAH 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, on what basis do you think there should not be? - there has been a sub-section with 'religion' in the title for years in this article - so obviously other people were happy to create that, and many editors were happy to have that section stay in, even as they edited that section. Others added to it after I recently seperated it from the cultural section. You are the only one has deleted it so far. For myself, there is a sub-theme among several of the sources, that Honour killing does occur to different extents, among communities who are led by different religious influences. That doesn't seem controversial really. So hard to explain why a religous_influences section is not appropriate here. But I'm interested to hear your viewCanterburyUK (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Well, on what basis do you think there should not be?" - Please see the first clause of my comment you're responding to... "... there are no adequate secondary reliable sources discussing the issue of honour killings from a religious perspective". "there has been a sub-section with 'religion' in the title for years in this article" - That's not a valid argument. Content decisions are made based upon the core content policies, not article history or appeals to precedence. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=236134416&oldid=235819847

In order to be a 'see also' category there has to be some links. What is the link between modesy patrol and honour killing? Modesy patrol is a proper noun referring to "Modesty Patrol or Modesty guard (Hebrew: משמרת הצניעות sometimes referred to as the "chastity squad")[1] is an unofficial Haredi organization operating in Israel whose goal is to supervise and oversee matters of Tzniut in the Haredi public." furthermore, where there is no link. Now if the other associations are not linked then they shouldnt be here either.

Maybe a Honour punishments wikisite would be better. Lihaas (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also by wikipedia convention (on other articles with spelling and terms) is the spelling suppose to conform with where it happens? honour killings don't occur in the us. Lihaas (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is not true. Honor killings do in fact happen in the United State. See here: http://stop-stoning.org/node/307

Okay, one, and its recent. the vast, vast majority are in countries with 'honour' Lihaas (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what countries with 'honour' means. Every community has 'honour', and a man killing his wife for perceived transgression of sexual mores is an 'honour' killing, even if it's in a non-Muslim country, even if it's called something else (e.g. spousal killing, domestic violence, crimes of passion.) Historically, killing a woman for the sake of honour was a European practice as much as it was a practice in Muslim contexts. See Napoleonic laws.

"honour" meaning the spelling, not what it means, my bad. In most countries it's spelt with honour, ie- those referring to an article in such regard will tend to see it "honour" Lihaas (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it should be moved to honour. Andjam (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This subject seems practically non-existent on the article. For example, I haven't noticed a mention of this story:

• Was Ahmet Yildiz the victim of Turkey's first gay honour killing?, by The Independent.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per the following diff: [8]

I'm not exactly following why the reference for the apostasy issue was removed.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article is not about islam. it happens, sure, and that's why its an important section. But the article itself is about 'honour killings' so the intro should do with that as summary. then of course the details come in the body.

But even more so, the comments in the references detail opinion within the british islam sect/group/whathaveyou, that is way beyond the article and what is intended. it is citable certainly as its got a source, but much better in the section on islamic honour killing. maybe a sub section on what muslims think of it. Lihaas (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that there's much honor killings going on these days outside the Muslim world but perhaps I got it wrong. Anyways, the apostasy honor killing is, I'm fairly certain, an Islamic tradition so perhaps this suggestion would work for you:

• Men can also be targeted for honor killing. This sometimes occurs for alleged homosexuality or apostasy to Islam.

The phrasing is a bit awkward so I'm open to other suggestions on different phrasings. I do believe the reference should be used to validate the text though.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

While the incident should be mentioned in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead if it's about a single incident (which is what the title suggests). It alone certainly cannot form the basis of a generalised statement about men and honour killing. It would be redundant in any case as the opening passage already recognises females as the majority of honour killing victims - which implicitly means that men are victims too, albeit a minority. In this scenario, the incident should be discussed later and in specific fashion. I also note that the citation seems to make no mention of apostasy. ITAQALLAH 13:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Itaqallah,

Sadly, it's not about a single incident but quite the opposite. As the removed source cited (see diff above), it is certified law to kill these people in seven out of 57 Islamic states. In other places, it's not the law to kill them, but it is a fairly common practice. I don't mind moving the apostasy issue somehow within the introduction to be applied evenly among women and men, but it's certainly a big enough issue for the lead. I'd be happy to hear suggestions on a phrasing(s) that would be accepted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

In places where it is part of the judiciary, it's not technically an honour killing. In places where it isn't part of the law but still practiced on religious grounds, it's not technically honour killing either (unless you have sources stating otherwise) as it's performed centrally as an implementation of Sharia, not because of notions of family honour being slighted. So I disagree with the fundamental assumption here. ITAQALLAH 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good point, it is a western notion to call it so. But then it devaules the whole article. Some sort of wording in this regard would be appropriate. Lihaas (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It sounds fair game except that adding 'to islam' at the end of the sentence detailing more than one issue makes it seem like its exclusively islamic. the link already link to apostasy in islam at any rate. With a reference saying apostasy is an islamic tradition then surely it's fair game, we just dont have that reference. honour killings are not exclusively an islamic domain, if you must. Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I could be wrong but, best I'm aware, honour killing as result of apostasy or allegations of apostasy are indeed exclusively Islamic. I'm not sure I'm following your argument that we don't have the reference since I was thinking a reference which discusses both honour killings and how the Muslim community views apostasy is a good enough reference. Did I understand you correctly that you believe this reference doesn't work for you? If yes, could you please clarify?

Personally, I was fairly happy with the wikilink and the reference version which saw some opposition. I find my recent suggestion of adding "to Islam" into the inline text a bit too forward or undue, at least for the lead. Anyways, I'm open to suggestions/questions/queries but I'm thinking this topic was missing from both the article body and it's lead and I figured such a common phenomenon is worth referencing.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The reference about how muslims view is not equatable to one saying it is exclusively islamic, as the implication is. As you said above "your fairly certain" but that doesn't account for certainty. it happens, yes, we have the soruces. People approve, yes, we have the sources. but is that the limit to make a generalization? we dont have these sources.

Even then, what may be appropriate in the body can still not be okay in the lead (somewhat what the other conversation is about, i believe, could be wrong) Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm honestly not seeing enough for it to go in the lead. It's something that clearly belongs in the article, but the lead should be a summary of the most important points. There isn't much in the way of press about honour killings of men (at least in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere) and so I would say it is a much smaller issue than other honour killings. Possibly if studies/statistics concerning these honour killings were located, indicating that this is more prevalent than is first obvious, it may deserve more of a mention. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I concur. If a source is discussing the issue of honour killings of gays/men then by all means include it in the body, but I don't think it's enough for the lead. ITAQALLAH 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, there seems to be some sort of consensus to avoid placing the content in the lead and I'll accept it even if I tend to believe it belongs in the lead as well as in the body. Is there possibly a volunteer to write it (the 'apostasy' issue) down in an acceptable manner into the article or should I be bold and give it a go myself? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 13:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead. Either write something here to go over first or just add it and we an copy edit where necessary. Lihaas (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

like the external links, the further reading is also getting to POV. running websites to campaigns in "further reading" are opening up POV. unless of course one wants to add reading on the perspective of those supporting this institution.

Furthermore, WP says "Websites and online publications should be listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section" Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Editors should be rigid (but not too rigid) when working with Wikipedia. One area where a person can be too rigid is with sources. The word "blog" here grabbed your attention. It grabs my attention too. But look more closely. The piece I've cited comes from producers at MSNBC. Carol Gristanti is the recognized authority here. WP:LINKSTOAVOID states "Links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority...".

In addition, the statement that I've covered was unsourced. I've provided a source for that verifies statement by a recognized authority. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I restored this intro detailing the extent of honour killings and the passion crime that was lacking. Obviously the lead needs to summarize the content, and passion killings were missing. Perhaps the location stuff can go though.

I also went over this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=239785683&oldid=239680881) showing that the edits were unreliably sources. the first and last passage was no poorly written and perhaps not the best. But the middle was accurate, it's an academic source.

Also the "According to Amnesty International in Iraq" part was put in twice so I removed one of them to cut down on needless verbatim redundancy.

Also the block quotes for just 1 line appeared to take oup too much space and was a little untidy. There are quotes of longer length that aren't in "block." Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, none of the sources used are secondary reliable sources. The first and last certainly do not conform to WP:RS, and may also violate WP:OR. The texts in the middle are primary sources, and make no mention at all of honour killings. To link them here is original research. As such, I intend to remove this section again, which should not be restored until these issues are rectified. ITAQALLAH 11:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lihaas, I've removed that section about Honour killing as a religious practice as per my above comments. The material is sourced to primary sources. Killing as an enaction of religious law is not honour killing, because it has nothing to do with the notion of "honour", or family honour being slighted. Again, I would recommend that it's discussed here first so that appropriate verification can be obtained. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

We had an edit conflict apparently. i wasnt arguing . BUT its a good point you bring up. Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The page has changed quite a bit since it was labelled back in May and July. As a Wikipedia noobie.... what is the process to see if those concerns are now addressed, and the labels can be removed? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Put issues up for discussion, and then you can get WP:Consensus to change. Also WP:Silence can be used in place of consensus.

Once this is done then the tags can go. (remember to say 'see talk' in the edit that removes the tag.Lihaas (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218/865424958_332fa77376_o.jpg

It's a picture of a Kurdish women killed 2006 in London, UK by by her family: see Reuters story: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1919223520070719?sp=true CanterburyUK (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Photos from flickr generally do. not too sure if they all do, but i believe they might. Lihaas (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure where to add this: I think this page is much too overlaid with Western values (earlier comments about the West liking to think Oriental women preyed on spring to mind). The description of a crime of this sort should surely include a certain amount on the social causes, and certainly more understanding of how some of these rules come into being. For example, the rule remaining that a husband may kill his wife if he actually finds her in flagrante is one that occurs in societies that are moving from the blood feud to law. It doesn't resemble the dowary deaths in the least. Nor does it describe what happens in a society where adultery is either covered by law or deliberately removed from it (as in England where we have decided it makes things worse). I think in particular that the men against women section, including the comments on why women may join in with honour killing, is extremely misguided: for one thing, words like "misogenist" describe the sort of prejudice and problems the West has, and are not very accurate for anything when applied to the East. May I edit the article for increased neutrality? I don't wish to suggest that murder isn't wrong, but I would like to remove most of the feminist terminology. I'd also like more distiction made between murder; killing wrongfully (?) in a society that doesn't have much in the way of law; and captital punishment, even for dubious (?) reasons. (Someone else has made the captial punishment comment, but it doesn't seem to have been acted on). 150.237.47.38 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can a globalize tag on the top of the page. Just add {{}} around the globalize word. Lihaas (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to add to this, as i was going through i saw a lot of possible pov statements with "so-called" and "honour killings" (and while i'm at it there was terrible inconsistency with the spellings) in quotes. Now it's already been established as honour killings, there's no real need to quote it. if you need to then we might as well call it something else. those who commit it say its for their honour, someone else saying "so-called" doesn't change the accomplished fact. we have a criticism section for it, and there's plenty of it. there's criticism in the west and the east. Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

a couple of edits here are starting to turn the article into a women's rights issue. Let's stay on task and be focused. there are valid edits, i agree (like the cairo declaration) but that is more suited on a women's rights article that for honour killings. Likewise the "UN Division for the Advancement of Women" doesn't pertain to honour killings. Lihaas (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "see also" section was growing into a laundry list of every custom that has been considered abhorrent. I trimmed it down to crime of passion and namus (which should ideally be worked into the article at some stage), but now acid attack and extramarital sex have been added back in. I think the latter is adequately covered in the article itself, so it doesn't need to be mentioned in "see also". I'm not sure if the former can be included without a laundry list starting to emerge again. Andjam (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree that they should be worked in. But it would be better if we get the links in the text, then we can remove them from the see also. Right now there is a connection. Certainly with the latter. Though the former is only a method. (although not always a 'killing' either) Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As has been reiterated previously almost ad infinitum, sources must positively verify that the incident in question is an "honour killing". If not, then it's original research and should be removed. I have removed the latest tendentious insertions which pertain to issues unrelated to the specific topic of this article - such as the lengthy passages about executions as an implementation of religious law. Such cases are not verified as honour killings whatever our presumptions or prejudices may be, so please keep it out until the necessary sourcing is found. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, what you removed were directly relevant to honour killing, and every one included sources. You deleted:

i)Amnesty International Report: Pakistan: Honour killings of women and girls

ii) case of "Three teenagers buried alive in Pakistan 'honour killing"

iii) case of Saamiya, who was told that she will be murdered by her brothers, after leaving a forced marriage

iv) case of Taslim Khatoon Solangi, reported in the newspapers as 'Pakistan to investigate ‘honour killing’ case

v) Academic James Emery reporting that 'Honor killings account for virtually all of the murders of Palestinian women in these areas'.

vi) Somalia case of stoning of 13 year Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow

vii) 1999 honor killing of Samia Sarwar in Pakistan

viii) case of Palestian boy recites Qur'an as he murders his sister in honour killing

ix) case of Canadian Muslim convicted of killing his wife who claims his religion should be taken into account

x) in the list of victims, you removed 2 honour killing victims, Saudi Princess Masha'il bint Fahd al Saud; and Samia Sarwar of Pakistan.

If you felt that one or other of these was off topic, you could have removed just that one case. But what is weird, is that you have replaced the specific honour killing cases, all having sources - with a long paragraph that has NO SOURCES and claims that there is a link between honour killings and illiteracy. That is clearly you OR you just added in! Claiming as you do that you are only removing content because it is OR, appears to be a bogus pretext. Further, I had asked earlier why, if OR is what you are keen to remove, had you not removed the earlier illiteracy OR. Today you have proven your bias, by adding back in that exact same illiteracy OR, still without any sources!

I have reverted your changes.

I took time in good Wiki spirit to find reputable sources for everything I have contributed to this article - I would prefer it if you took similar time and efforts to discuss your views on content, rather than do a 2 minute butchery.

So I look forward to reading here case by case, in detail, why you think they don't belong here.CanterburyUK (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

A number of the incidences are not appropriate for discussion in this article on the basis that the sources do not discuss them within the context of honour killing.

iii) The Saamiya case, sourced here, clearly states that she was not killed, let alone a victim of honour killing. As no honour killing occured (it is merely the source's speculation that it could occur), it's not relevant here.

The Somali case, sourced to a wordpress blog (not a reliable source), and a sky.com page which mentions nothing about this case in particular (merely contains links to other websites) nor in what way it's an "honour killing". So the sourcing here is sloppy, to say the very least. The French diplomat website again says nothing about honour killing.

Same with the religious influences section... which I must say reads like an advocacy piece. Please recall that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOT#NEWS), and things should be discussed in a concise, neutral and encyclopedic manner, as opposed to a tendentious exhaustive list of news reports. Even then, a lot of the sources don't say what you're attributing to them. The case of Samia Sarwar, while an honour killing, had no verified religious influences. The death threats against her lawyers did, according to the reports, but the threats have nothing to do with the topic of honour killing - and the source can certainly not be used in the support of the notion of "religious influences for honour killing". That would be a distortion of the source.

On the topic of source distortion, your usage of this "Palestinian boy reciting Qur'an" source is tendentious and irresponsible. It's not clear what purpose the recitation of Qur'an served here and what part he was reciting. But even if we presume it was as motivation, the article clearly states that Islam is mistakenly and inaccurately cited in justification for such acts. That you omit this suggests you should stop focusing on others' so-called bias in your ad hominem attacks and should keep your own in check first.

The Somali stoning incident that is repeated in this section sourced to The Independent. Again. Nothing about honour killing. I've highlighted for you the Wikpedia:No original research policy, so I shouldn't need to repeat myself here. The Canadian Muslim incident doesn't provide any verifiable link between a religious influence and the death. In fact, the court rejected it. The scholar merely says there can be a religious basis to executing adulterers. In that case, however, it no longer has anything to do with the notion of "family honour", and this isn't even a connection the scholar tries to make. Before I forget, I'll also mention that asianews.it is not a reliable source.

Of course, I do appreciate that you took the time to improve your sourcing in some areas, and I am happy to restore those areas which merit inclusion. ITAQALLAH 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah, thanks for providing more details on your thinking.

I see that this edit you have not reinstated the long section on illiteracy - does that mean you're not planning to reinstate that section a 3rd time, unless/until good sources can be found for it?

You wrote "A number of the incidences are not appropriate for discussion in this article on the basis that the sources do not discuss them within the context of honour killing."

But I see that of the 10 sections that you deleted before, you have this time been happy to leave in:

* Amnesty International Report: Pakistan: Honour killings of women and girls

* case of "Three teenagers buried alive in Pakistan 'honour killing"

* case of Taslim Khatoon Solangi

So I guess that means you are not planning to delete those again in the future?

That makes 4 of the 10 changes you made that you've now reconsidered.

Now to address your comments:

"iii) The Saamiya case, sourced here, clearly states that she was not killed, let alone a victim of honour killing. As no honour killing occured (it is merely the source's speculation that it could occur), it's not relevant here."

But she was threatened with such, so why is it not appropriate?

"The Somali case, sourced to a wordpress blog (not a reliable source), and a sky.com page which mentions nothing about this case in particular (merely contains links to other websites) nor in what way it's an "honour killing". So the sourcing here is sloppy, to say the very least. The French diplomat website again says nothing about honour killing".

but the Sky.com page showed links the Reuters, UK's Times Newspaper among others - if I get time I'll add those links explicitly to address your point.

You wrote: "things should be discussed in a concise, neutral and encyclopedic manner, as opposed to a tendentious exhaustive list of news reports"

Was it tendentious of me to add a single case of honour Killing in the USA? You have deleted it twice so far without explanation.

Can you give specifics where what you deleted was not concise, not neutral, not encyclopadic? Otherwise, your criticism is too vague to enable it to be acted upon.

"The case of Samia Sarwar, while an honour killing, had no verified religious influences. The death threats against her lawyers did, according to the reports, but the threats have nothing to do with the topic of honour killing - and the source can certainly not be used in the support of the notion of "religious influences for honour killing". That would be a distortion of the source."

She was an honour killing victim - so her case fits the page. I notice you have even removed her case from the list of 'victims' at the end of the page? What was your thinking there? (Her case is notable for a number of reasons, as the wiki page for her spells out).

When a religious body issues death threats against the lawyers of someone killed in an honour killing - how would you argue that this does not fit the bill of 'religious influences'.

Talking about the religious influences section:

When it contained sourced references from the Holy Books that several people contributed to, you deleted it. When it contained cases of recent honour killings where there were undoubtedly religious angles, you deleted again. I ask the question one more time - do you oppose there being a religious influences section altogether? If not, what kind of content would you deem appropriate?

I have added the Religious Influences section back in, edited again, in an attempt to amke it acceptable to you. The section has been in the page for years, and you are the only one to keep deleting it. I ask again, please do not delete that part of the page until you have told us what content you would find acceptable there.

"On the topic of source distortion, your usage of this "Palestinian boy reciting Qur'an" source is tendentious and irresponsible. It's not clear what purpose the recitation of Qur'an served here and what part he was reciting. But even if we presume it was as motivation, the article clearly states that Islam is mistakenly and inaccurately cited in justification for such acts. That you omit this suggests you should stop focusing on others' so-called bias in your ad hominem attacks and should keep your own in check first."

Ok, I'll add in that line from the article, you're right it is worth including. I'll pull in a couple of other lines from it too.

"The Canadian Muslim incident doesn't provide any verifiable link between a religious influence and the death. In fact, the court rejected it. "

No, they didn't rule on whether there was a religuous influence to the death - that has no bearing in canadian law. Instead, the article says: "Humaid's lawyer, Richard Bosada, argued Humaid was provoked by his wife's claim she cheated on him, an insult so severe in the Muslim faith it deprived him of self-control...The concept of family honour in the Muslim culture means a man is disgraced if his wife has an affair, said the application..."After having an affair himself, Humaid's argument that he deserves a lighter sentence because he was provoked by his wife's insult is irreconcilable with the principal of gender equality enshrined in the Charter of Rights, says the Crown's submission."

They threw out the case Humaid and the scholar Myoub made, that his Islamic background was grounds for a lighter sentence - that's what they threw out.

Itaqallah writes: "The scholar merely says there can be a religious basis to executing adulterers. In that case, however, it no longer has anything to do with the notion of "family honour", and this isn't even a connection the scholar tries to make."

As you suggest the article shows 'there can be a religious basis to executing adulterers', so it seems to firmly belong in the 'religious influences' section - I'll restore it.

"Before I forget, I'll also mention that asianews.it is not a reliable source."

It's better than your source for your section in illiteracy !!<smile>!!

Lastly, the deletions you made without giving any reasons:

i) Academic James Emery reporting that 'Honor killings account for virtually all of the murders of Palestinian women in these areas'.

Why did that not fit the Palestinian paragraph?

ii) in the list of victims, you removed 2 honour killing victims, Saudi Princess Masha'il bint Fahd al Saud; and Samia Sarwar of Pakistan.

What was your thinking?

CanterburyUK (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

"They threw out the case Humaid and the scholar Myoub made, that his Islamic background was grounds for a lighter sentence - that's what they threw out." - So why is it noteworthy, or how does it contribute to our understanding of honour killings if the argument was ultimately defunct, insignificant, and not beyond that specific case? WP:NOT#NEWS.

"Ok, I'll add in that line from the article, you're right it is worth including. I'll pull in a couple of other lines from it too." - I didn't say it was worth including, I simply stated you misused the source. The case of the Palestinian boy itself seems irrelevant, as no verified link between that incident and religious influences has been presented.

"She [Samia Sarwar] was an honour killing victim - so her case fits the page." - It doesn't, however, fit any section on religious influences. "When a religious body issues death threats against the lawyers of someone killed in an honour killing - how would you argue that this does not fit the bill of 'religious influences'" - This argument involves a lot of your own presumptions and speculation, and is ultimately original research. It might be appropriate for a debate forum, but in this article, everything has to be positively verified. That is absent from your argument.

"But she was threatened with such, so why is it not appropriate?" A source's speculation about possible honour killing is not particularly noteworthy. As mentioned, Wikipedia is not a collection of news pieces simply mentioning the word "honour killing." WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. No killing occured, there's not much else to discuss here.

"It's better than your source for your section in illiteracy" - This is a non-sequitur. Please explain how asianews.it is reliable. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for allowing a few more of the things you deleted, to stay this time (like not deleting the 2 names from the victims list. It would have saved us all alot of time if you'd raised your concerns here on the talk page first - and not just deleting. You've backed off from a bunch of your deletions now, but it was not a sensible process.

You wrote: ""They threw out the case Humaid and the scholar Myoub made, that his Islamic background was grounds for a lighter sentence - that's what they threw out." - So why is it noteworthy, or how does it contribute to our understanding of honour killings if the argument was ultimately defunct, insignificant, and not beyond that specific case? WP:NOT#NEWS"

Err, the reason is that the argument was made by : Islamic scholar Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub Professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religion at Temple University, USA: who said that "many Islamic societies permit men to punish wives suspected of adultery and sometimes even kill them. Under Islamic law, punishment for adultery is usually flogging or stoning, Ayoub said. In some Muslim cultures and rural areas, unfaithful women can be killed."

you wrote: "The case of the Palestinian boy itself seems irrelevant, as no verified link between that incident and religious influences has been presented."

Errr.. the perpetrator himself defines the influences he feels to have. If the boy says he was influenced by the Qu'ran in some way, then that's what he is saying. He may or may not have misunderstood - but no matter, the influence is there.

Re Samir Sarwar, you wrote: "This argument involves a lot of your own presumptions and speculation, and is ultimately original research."

I don't see that; what presumptions am I making? What is the OR? You need to be more specific.

You wrote: ""It's better than your source for your section in illiteracy" - This is a non-sequitur. Please explain how asianews.it is reliable." I was joking. You missed it. Because the section on illiteracy you added on 2 seperate occassion had no sources. 'No source' is worse than a source, was my joke.CanterburyUK (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

"In March 2005 the Pakistani government allied with Islamists to reject a bill which sought to strengthen the law against the practice of honour killing.[51]"

WHAT? Read through the link - it simply lost in the parliament. That is how the legislation of Pakistan works. How does that translate to 'Pakistani government allied with Islamists'? That would mean that any law that passes or does not pass in parliament is 'Islamist'?

I am going to change this to a neutral sentence - anyone disagrees? Omer (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Reading the BBC article, those words were a direct quote from the first paragraph. What they appear to mean is that the government voted in the same direction as the Islamists.CanterburyUK (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm told above that we can discuss the pages labels here, and if we reach consensus change them. Let's start with the Reliable Sources label - does anyone still feel that the article lacks reliable sources? Where? Or is everyone now content. Or nearly content? Please share your thoughts.CanterburyUK (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

An editor that doesn't frequent the article placed the tags at the end of June 2008. The editor (Bunnyliu) even removed them immediately after placing them (with no edit summary while adding or removing), only to have them replaced by a semi-frequent editor (Andjam). That editor did leave this message here on the talk page, but didn't follow through. That fits nicely into the category of "drive by tagging". So for the references tag, I would say axe it and just use the {{fact}} tag on individual items. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Religious influences mean influences by the religion, not influences by a single person of that religion. Thus, self-styled "devout Muslims", and Qur'an reciting Palestinian boys don't count as influences of Islam. Major Islamic scholars and institutions, do, however, count.

Bless sins (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see that Itaqallah has moved to solve this problem.Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the IRA in their bombing in the UK had quoted the Bible and the words of jesus, that would have reflected the religious influences on them. When terrorists like Al Quaida quote from the Qu'ran, that reflects their religious influences. So when perpetrators of honour killings quote the Qu'ran... then that is clearly indicator of their religious influences.

You yourself may not agree with that the Palestinian boy did, but it is what he did, and it is the religious framework in which he did it. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No CanterburyUK, you and I don't decide what a religion teaches. That is up to reliable sources (such as academic references), or those who represent the religion (e.g. pope, ayatollah) to decide. If a random Palestinian boy recites the Qur'an while murdering, that has no implication over Islam.Bless sins (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're using a straw man argument - nowhere was the page 'deciding what a religion teaches'. It was simply passing on the religious influences stated by those involved. You write "If a random Palestinian boy recites the Qur'an while murdering, that has no implication over Islam." Yes it does. It does not mean that the boy had correctly understood Islam (hey, which branch of Islam anyway...). Back to my point: if the IRA had quoted the words of Jesus - that would have been their religious influence. If Pol Pot in Vietnam was influenced by Marxist thinking -that was his influence, whether or not he 'understood' Marxism correctly.CanterburyUK (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Itaqallah - you have deleted the section again. I have asked you now 3 times to say what content you would find acceptable in a religious influences section. No answer. I am asking again. PLease please stop ducking this debate, but state what would be acceptable to you, so that I and others can start to contribute to this section. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll answer: you are using original research to frame that material. The sources don't seem to be saying that "Religion is the reason" behind the honor killing, yet you are. Please find a (reliable) source that clearly speaks of religious influences and then we can include it.Bless sins (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Itaqallah: I've tried numerous times to find such a source, but every time you are not satisfied and delete it. So over to you, can you please find a source that you'd be happy with, and use that to kick off a 'religious infuences' section. I'd be very gratefulCanterburyUK (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

CanterburyUK, I was not entirely correct in that your source doesn't talk about religion. This source of yours does talk explicitly about Islam, when it says "The Qur'an has been inaccurately used to sanction honor killings and a host of other practices" and similar statements (like the one about Orthodox Jews). Let's dicuss how to include these and other legitimate points in a neutral and OR-free manner.Bless sins (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that positive suggestion. Can you put something up under the heading of _religious influences_; and we can all then take a look and work on it.CanterburyUK (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, btw, murderers, such as those who kill women (as quoted by this article) are generally not reliable sources. (In fact I've yet to see a criminal bieng accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia)Bless sins (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This position does not seem logical to me. On this basis, the Wiki page about Hitler cannot quote anything he says, as guidance to the influences on him. Or the page on Pol Pot in Vietnam. Every perpretator of Honour Killing is a criminal (or would be for the same deed in many other countries where different legal rules applied). So are you saying that nowhere on this page can we quote what a perpertator says? Part of undertstanding the motives of someone - whether a 'reliable source' or not- is what they themselves say - if you really want to exclude that, then on what basis? What school of reasoning can you refer to?CanterburyUK (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure we can quote Hitler, but it has to be mentioned in a secondary source. Secondly, please don't compare Hitler's 20th century text to the Bible of Qu'ran written more than a thousand years ago, whose interpretation is often subject to fierce debate, amongst Catholics and Protestants, or Sunnis and Shi'ites.Bless sins (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is this an honor killing? The source doesn't seem to say so. Remember, wikipedians can't deicde what's an honor killing and what's not. That's up to reliable sources to decide.Bless sins (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Bless Sins- good question. But we can all read the definition of honour killings at the top of the page. If a case fits the definition on the page, then it's about honour killings, isn't it. If an article about the law in the UK, doesn't mention the phrase 'UK law' anywhere- does that mean it can;t be referred to in a Wiki page about UK law?

What do _you_ think about that case fitting the honour killing definition?CanterburyUK (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is a violation of WP:NOR. It is not up to me to "think about that case fitting the honour killing definition". I think lots of things. (I will not elaborate because wikipedia is not a forum). Ultimately you have to ask yourself: why is there not a single reliable source on earth that calls it an honor killing?Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh and most importantly. Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, only verifiability. So it doesn't matter if something is an honor killing, it matters if it is called an honor killing by reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know that honor killing isn't done just by Muslims, but the article doesn't seem to indicate that anyone's arguing that honor killing is an inherently Jewish practice. Likewise, I couldn't see anything currently justifying it being in Christianity and women category, though I'm aware that honor killings have been done by Christians. Andjam (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

From reading this article, it sates that only muslim women ever experience honor killings? Is that the reality of it? Faro0485 (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Probably not. Many of the daughters and wives of Muslim émigrés who are being punished for the loosening of their sexual moores in their adoptive countries likely also loosened their religious observance until they could be considered atheists or agnostics. The religion of the honor killer and the legal system that sanctions them are the most consistent. Fortuynist (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You almost sound like you're giving a justification for killing women. Are you? Are you also saying that the daughters of muslims are turning into non-muslims once they migrate to such countries? What do you mean by religion of the honor killer and legal system are "the most consistent"?

Anyway, does this article hide any violence by communities in other cultures by portraying it as solely an Islamic issue? Faro0485 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't there one? Faro0485 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

In citing examples on "Honor Killing", you included the following section on what is going on in Iraq:

"Over 80 Iraqi women in Diyala province committed suicide, to escape the shame of having been raped. They choose to become suicide bombers to escape the shame; startlingly, their rapes were planned in advance by 51 year old Iraqi woman Samira Jassim, who confessed to Iraqi police that she organised their rapes so she could later persuade each of them that to become a suicide bomber was the only way to escape their shame."

I think, and I am sure, it is no more than fiction. You have taken the present government's statement seriously, which is incorrect. The government or its spokespeople many times proved to be big liars. Part of their propaganda is to make use of the pesent-day fearful mood and account for any incident in Iraq as an act of terror committed by Alqaeda or any other antipathetic constituents of the Iraqi people.

Like most Iraqis, the Diyala people are tribal and Muslim, two basic features which make improbable, or even impossible, such 'sophisticated' thinking of organising rapes in which women willingly become sullied by sin, and then, to purify themselves, they become 'suicide bombers'.

I began to doubt the intentions of this invaluable source of information, i.e. WIKIPEDIA, for publishing this apparently biased propaganda together with a previous article on the demographic makeup of Iraq where an article on one of your pages on al-Sadr family tells readers that the Shiites are 60% of the Iraqi people, while the Sunnis are less than 20%, which is simply not true. I believe that a site which endeavors to be as scholarly as possible should not take dubious and apparently propagandistic things as established facts. Present-day wind might not be in favour of the Sunni Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere because of superpower politics. Historical facts, however, should remain intact.

As regards 'honor killing', in Islamic terms, "organised" or "willed rapes" are not "rapes" in principle. The correct term for such cases is "adultery", and any woman who does or accepts to do it is an adulteress, i. e. a "prostitute". Prostitutes, in Islam or in any other respectable religion, are not entitled to be "martyrs" because there is a hell of difference between "prostitution" and "martyrdom". Alqaeda is a terrorist group. That is right. But, its operatives are basically fundamentalists, i.e. they are individuals who believe in putting things back to the origins of pure religion which teaches among other things chastity and purity of the soul and flesh. That is why the present government's account for the what is going on in Iraq in this respect is farfetched.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.217.231 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply 

The article is titled honor killings but uses the commonwealth spelling honour in the title and in numerous other places. Looking at the history, it appears the article started of as honor killings so per WP:engvar should use the American English spelling. Any objections? The only complicating issue is that some countries where honour killings occur do use commonwealth English but for quite a few they may not have a clear preferred variety of English. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have any pro-life/anti-abortion activists ever expressed the view that certain kinds of abortion could be a form of honor killing ? In many kinds of ways, it brings shame to a woman or girl who is forced to carry out her pregnancy, and in late-term cases, many people would agree that terminating a fairly developed fetus does constitute a killing per se. [9] Other possible cases of honor killing would be the unlawful murdering of abortion providers such as George Tiller for motives of honor. [10] There is also a strange opposite phenomenon of providing free abortions in honor of slain abortionists. [11] ADM (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply