Talk:Murder of Sadia Sheikh

2695:– The use of the term "honor killing" can be seen as editorializing and non-neutral because it somewhat implies that the act of killing is motivated by a sense of righteousness or morality, rather than simply being an act of violence. The term might suggest that the killing is somehow acceptable or justified by the perpetrator's cultural or religious beliefs, which is a value judgement. It would be more appropriate to use terms such as "murder" or "killing" rather than "honour killing". Using the former terms helps to accurately convey the severity of the crime, and can also help to avoid perpetuating stereotypes and biases in several ways, mainly that certain cultural or religious beliefs can somehow justify or excuse murder or that a perpetrator's culture or religion is inherently violent. 1655:. In this case, the determination that it was an honor killing is what makes this event notable, rather than it simply being a murder or killing. Honor killing has become the accepted term for the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. It need not be viewed as a euphemism/jingoistic/value judgment/etc. It is the recognized term used in reliable media sources and what makes this issue notable in the first place. 798: 780: 1848:

editors mis-identifying the actual motive. After all, while "honor" might be some small part of the motivation, pure male/patriarchal dominance for any excuse they can think of is probably the real motivation. Maybe feminists need to start a campaign to rename all "honor killings" to "patriarchal dominance" killings! It's better to let the article explore the subtle differences in each case and the differing degrees to which "honor" was the controlling motivator in EACH article.

1632:"death of", or "killing of" to a much lesser extent. Now I can give a definitive support because Ohconfucius has clarified the actual naming issue. I myself wasn't necessarily opposed to "honor" but could not accurately describe my discomfiture. I had a feeling others I tried to contact might be able to. You have done an excellent job. That's why we need wider community input, including by User:Plat Spoiler properly reverting each article and bringing the articles to 1114:"Lynch killing of...". I'm sure Palestinians would like to see stories about Palestinian children killed by Israeli bullets and bombs "Israeli killing of..." Obviously in all cases a POV is being pushed as well as something accurate being said. So as a feminist I like to see the reason males killed women spelled out, as a person sensitive to Knowledge (XXG) being used to bash Muslims, I think we have to look at how various killings are labeled in general. 45: 712: 691: 522: 501: 1906:. Labelling something an "honour killing" is an opinion, and while in many cases it may be a very widely held opinion among the media, the police, academics, etc., it is still an opinion, and we should report it as such. I would say the best way to do this would be to use language such as "killing of" or "death of" in article titles, and to use language like "her death was widely reported by the media to be an 417: 396: 155: 1379:, which is in inverted commas to show the irony of the adjective. It is not simply a matter of identifying the circumstances of the murder, as with lynchings or rape murders; it is about a situation where the adjective normally applied is applied in a qualified manner. Plot Spoiler suggests "It need not be viewed as a euphemism", but in fact it habitually is presented as such in mainstream news sources. 532: 221: 203: 312: 427: 291: 172: 322: 104: 911:– This is clearly a killing, so there can be no doubt that the proposed title is accurate. Whether it is in any way a matter of honour (note spelling in keeping with Pakistani English) is a matter of opinion. While events of this nature are often referred to as honour killings, that is often prefixed with "so called" or similar qualifications, or the word 627: 606: 1353:. In this case, the determination that it was an honor killing is what makes this event notable, rather than it simply being a murder or killing. Honor killing has become the accepted term for the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members. It need not be viewed as a euphemism -- in fact, the term is not even mentioned once in the 1055:. I was, as I indicated with a later addition to my comment above, only aware 15 hours later that you had moved them, and I do not appreciate your effectively accusing me of lying. How recently an article had been edited is irrelevant: gaining attention for an article by putting it up for the main page is to invite attention to it. 1776: 231: 1506:

This article isn't in Wikiproject:Islam, and doesn't even mention Islam, and your constant mentioning of irrelevant topics as if they were somehow meaningful or relevant here (e.g. "I'm sure Palestinians would like to see stories about Palestinian children killed by Israeli bullets and bombs "Israeli

1251:

Insert: I gave a very specific reason why it is relevant. You merely stated, no it's not. Not an argument, even by an administrator. And I stated my ambivalence about the title - and this WAS before I realized there had been a similar change to a number of articles. I'll be getting a third opinion in

1196:

Wow, that was really blatant. I've removed it. Carol, you claim in your earlier comment that you are "a feminist", yet oddly did not actually mention this discussion at Wikiproject Feminism, instead mentioning it in only one place, a project of which this article is not even a part, on a subject that

1778:

I got 9 news articles, all of which use the phrase honor killing in the headline. Seven used honor killing without scare quotes and two used honor killing with scare quotes. I don't really buy the argument that calling an honor killing an honor killing supports it being 'honorable'. If that were the

1487:

Feminist Wikiproject and in other women-related wikipedia forums, we often discuss articles with a not very hidden agenda of dissing women. So are you saying that we should not?? A precedent Feminist Wikiproject probably would not be too happy about. And we know that sort of thing would not stand in

1220:

they are more widespread than one might thing among different cultures. But there is a larger outside Knowledge (XXG) propaganda effort to make them exclusively/overwhelmingly Muslim, so I thought this was relevant to that project. So should I revert it or will you? Also, I originally found mention

1486:

I'm not the only one who feels we have to be careful about the Islamophobia promoted by some on Knowledge (XXG), including in feminist-related articles. (80 odd death threats in one day from someone wanting to use a feminist article for that purpose certainly made me aware of it.) Note that on the

2698:

Sheikh's killers have been convicted of murder, and the crime is referred to as such in multiple sources. When the term honour killing is used, it is almost always between quotation marks. I would say that the quotation marks are used to indicate that the term is controversial and disputed, and is

1676:

once again, the same claim has been made, ignoring repeated requests that you address the issue that RS consistently present it as euphemistic/ironic by placing it in inverted commas. This assertion cannot be taken seriously umless you address this point. Nobody has tried to start a AfD process:

997:

Nothing underhanded about it: I justified it from the sources in each article, and explained that in the edit notes. Any killing that has an article is only notable by virtue of the circumstances of the killing, but the circumstances are not explained in the title every time. Did you consider it

2301:

First, let me note that one reason I didn't understand your complaint from your view was you use the phrase "inverted commas" and I wasn't sure what you meant. I guess most of us say "quotation marks" and using that phrase would make your problem clearer. How about listing those examples of WP:RS

2190:

Evidently there's been some confusion about the title progression here. I've clarified at the dispute noticeboard as well. In no case did Kevin McE restore the original title. In five articles, Plot Spoiler moved them from existing titles to new ones, and Kevin McE moved them from the new ones to

1545:

User:Plot Spoiler reverted User:Kevin McE's reverts of his original move with a note that this issue would be decided on this page. Obviously this should be done on a case by case basis since WP:RS labeling them "honor killings" may vary. Notability of the death itself may vary. User:Plot spoiler

1154:

Insert: I'm glad there are "Lynching of..." articles. Now we need "Rape killing..." articles. I'm just calling for consistency and may recommend on Wikiproject feminism changing the names of several such articles. I'm just noting that if one person is objecting, and not even on grounds I mention,

1609:

too. By prefacing the article title with "Honor", we are acceding to a bias to the "orthodoxy" of the killings in the eyes of the code of certain cultures and against the general moralistic code, such as "Murder of". Wording in favour of one or other would be wrong, notwithstanding the number of

2116:

I know we keep hearing User:Plot Spoiler's excuse "no one had edited the articles in a while." We all can find semi-abandoned articles and make controversial changes to their names. But once someone objects and reverts, we have to discuss. That's what WP:Consensus is all about. I think it is a

1847:

Comment: It actually has two POV problems. Some people think it's a good thing to kill for honor; others think it is a great way to make "backward" groups look bad - which is doubtless the motive of some of the "WP:RS" who call them honor killings. And then there is the possibility of WP:RS and

1863:

article, it has become the accepted term for the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. And Carol, the issue of patriarchal dominance is not mentioned once in the

1016:

using a qualified version of the term -- I was simply quoting for emphasis and definitely not placing it in inverted commas. And on the other pages nobody had edited those articles for quite some time when you obviously realized that I had recently edited those articles and decided to make the

2108:

User: Kevin McE reverted User:Plot Spoiler changes of the name this article to "honor killing." Rather than try to find a WP:consensus through WP:Bold Revert Discuss, User:Plat Spoiler just reverted them back. At that point User: Kevin McE went to Move Request. Kevin McE then noticed that

1452:, the initiator of the requested move here. Is this the only article under contention now, either party having accepted the rest? If it's more than one - and perhaps even if it's just this one - I feel these changes are quite POV and would like to know because this may be a case for the 1177:

I request you remove it. This article really has little to nothing to do with Islam -- the religion is not mentioned once in the article and honor killings have also been attributed to non-Muslim groups such as Sikhs and Hindus. And more importantly it does not fall under

1239:

related to the topic under discussion, and rather obviously for the specific purpose of getting the word "Honor" removed from the lede. Now in the future, please make more accurate and truthful Talk: page comments, and please don't do this kind of blatant nonsense again.

1267:

You didn't give a "very specific reason", you gave a rather lame excuse that had nothing to do with Knowledge (XXG) or this article, and it didn't wash. This article isn't in Wikiproject:Islam, and doesn't even mention Islam. You were caught, and now you're blustering.

1109:

As a feminist I am ambivalent about "honor" killing, even if many WP:RS use the phrase. I'd like to see all the articles about women raped and murdered retitled "Rape killing of ____". I'm sure many African Americans would like to see articles about lynching re-titled

2133:. That doesn't seem to be the case. Kevin McE actually seems to have moved each of them to entirely different titles. If I'm following you correctly that you are arguing that the articles should be at the original titles until consensus to change them is reached, then 998:

underhand when you moved the articles thus in the first instance (as I have only just found). I note that you are now using the device of placing the phrase in inverted commas, and yet you insist on presenting the term in unqualified manner in article titles.

1734:

lends editorial credence to the killing, acknowledging that it is okay to carry out such murders in some cultures. Knowledge (XXG) must not give even the slightest hint of support in the article title. The more neutral title is "killing of" or "death of".

915:

is placed in inverted commas to suggest the inadequacy, bordering on irony, of the adjective. We do not have the ability to use that device, so we should simply name the article as what it unquestionably was, a killing: any more is editorial comment.

1650:

This article is only notable as a recognized honor killing. In some articles "Murder of..." is used and in others "FKilling of..." At the same time though, sometimes more specific terminology is used if that's what makes the event notable, such the

1538:

FYI I did a search and see that of the six articles including this one that User:Plot Spoiler changed to add "honor", four of the articles mention these are Muslims. Therefore it is hardly "canvassing" to post a mention of these multiple changes at

1472:

When you say "alleged deleted canvassing", are you referring to when you canvassed an unrelated project specifically for the purpose of getting the term "honor killing" removed from the title of this article? In that case knock yourself out at the

1393:

Note: Now that I have been clued in that it's best to start putting notices on wikiprojects actually listed on the article talk page (hey, sometimes it takes five years to figure out yet one more nit and tittle of editing), I've put a posting at

1614:. Instead of "Honor killing of" or "Killing of", we could adopt a more standard and neutral wording used in numerous WP articles. I would propose that we simply and objectively use "Death of" – no value judgement is thereby stated or implied. -- 1597:"death of", or "killing of" to a much lesser extent. It strikes me that the dispute is over a cultural issue and subjective judgement over whether these killings were 'proper' or not. Naming articles in such a fashion are, IMHO, in breach of 1511:", etc.) is as transparent as it is tiresome. This has nothing to do with WP:JUDAISM, the I-P conflict, "media bigotry" or WP:ISLAM. You were caught, and now you're blustering. Next time, stick to the topic, and stop playing political games. 1702:

So what??? The quotes may be simply used to describe a term the audience isn't familiar with or some other reason. It doesn't necessarily imply a euphemism/irony as you assume. And many of the sources provided do not present it in quotes.

2283:

decision perverse. All opposition to the move centred around the phraseology used in RSs and yet done addressed the fact that the key adjective is used in inverted commas in every single English language source quoted in the article.

882:

in WP article titles as a POV issue, that should be addressed an RFC or at a minimum any future RMs should be handled as multiple moves encompassing all such articles to ensure the issue is addressed comprehensively. Since

1234:

In theory, you can notify related projects. In practice, though, you didn't notify "WikiProjects (or other Knowledge (XXG) collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion". Instead, you notified WikiProjects

1494:

The honor killing article obviously emphasizes Muslim examples, in part because "WP:RS" tend to emphasize them among Muslims and ignore them among others. So the article needs work so it doesn't reflect media bigotry.

1923:

Doesn't seem to be simply an opinion when that assertion has been factually ascertained by evidence. If it were simply an opinion, the media could speculate that it was an honor killing rather than stating it as fact.

2323:

Since we are continuing discussion, comment on Moonriddengirl's last comment, it is true that I failed to note that this was a brand new article with name "Honor killing" and thus Kevin McE's proper request for move.

2349:(in French). An Islamic specialist was brought to the trial to discuss the crime. He said that the father "clings desperately" to his traditional religion and culture in near contempt for the host country, Belgium. 1520:

Obviously we have a difference of opinion and my examples have not been effective in explaining what it is. But I think it's important enough to get a neutral opinion. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong.

1580:

Hard to believe these retroactive and absurdly weak excuses still continue. Carol, you got off easy; please accept your good fortune and move on. I don't plan to respond to further comments of this nature.

673: 957:

in inverted commas. We do not have the facility of using that device in an article title, so removing the disputed/ironic modifier seems appropriate. Let's imagine the article started as merely

638:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 2078:. If the RSes describe these incidents are honor killings, that's all that Knowledge (XXG) editors should be factoring into their decision-making process with respect to how to name articles.— 2888: 2306: 1395: 639: 2610: 1349:

In some articles "Murder of..." is used and in others "Killing of..." At the same time though, sometimes more specific terminology is used if that's what makes the event notable, such the

2245:

it was a violation of WP:Consensus policy for User:Plot Spoiler to revert Kevin McE's reverts of his name change to six articles without discussion on the talk pages of all six articles.

2104:

it was a violation of WP:Consensus policy for User:Plot Spoiler to revert Kevin McE's reverts of his name change to six articles without discussion on the talk pages of all six articles.

2813: 2174: 2074:

is the foremost policy that must dictate names in these cases. All other emotional, politically correct or otherwise liberal sensitivities, while good-faithed, mustn't override

1801:

Comment: Definitely the other side of the coin. I see valid points on both sides and my ambivalence starts to creep back. At least it's getting a good community discussion! :-)

634: 611: 2309:

to show there is more than one person concerned. Given relative inattention to that issue here, perhaps it would be possible for other concerned partiees to resubmit change as

2345:

The article currently has no mention of Islam. However, the family is Islamic, and the brother has acknowledged that his action "will harm the image of Muslims and Islam".

2191:

still newer ones. Plot Spoiler restored them to his own titles. In the sixth article (this one), Kevin McE moved it from the original title, and Plot Spoiler reverted it

2663: 2482: 2478: 2464: 2853: 473: 2550: 2903: 2883: 663: 2848: 1111: 2908: 588: 378: 2878: 2818: 1474: 1457: 1453: 1253: 483: 147: 2611:

https://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/detail_10-ans-apres-la-mort-de-sadia-sheikh-les-mariages-forces-continuent-mais-la-societe-est-plus-vigilante?id=9743345

249: 1859:

Support Kaldari's point. The argument that calling it an honor killing supports the idea that the killing was honorable is ridiculous. As noted in the

2868: 2838: 578: 368: 1051:

How dare you state that we should calm down, and then make a bad faith accusation against me. If you must know, I was those articles at the article

762: 2828: 2823: 2613: 2560: 253: 1677:

the notability of the killing is not in doubt, and many other killings are considered notable by virtue of the WP:GNG, not by virtue of labels.

2898: 2873: 2863: 2858: 2843: 2833: 752: 2209: 2158: 1430: 983:

instead of this back and forth that will go nowhere, and underhanded unilateral changes -- as you performed on the other honor killing pages.

554: 344: 1126: 2576: 2350: 449: 2647:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2437: 248:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2913: 2893: 2769: 2565: 814: 728: 1820:

to deny its existence. What I would object to is that label being applied in the title of the articles concerned because it imparts a

257: 1775:. I think the article should reflect whatever wording is used by reliable sources. I did a quick Google News search for Sadia Sheikh. 244: 208: 2551:

http://www.knack.be/belga/algemeen/medestudenten-herdenken-sadia-tijdens-stille-mars-in-charleroi/site78-section5-article25591.html

2346: 1214:

The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Knowledge (XXG) collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion.

545: 506: 335: 296: 1910:" etc. in article ledes. "Honour killing of" makes titles longer and less neutral, so why not just leave the word "honour" out? — 1753:

Good point I was thinking about just an hour ago. Going to Wikiproject Islam might attract people who'd like the title because it

2570: 2213: 2150: 2054: 1434: 1508: 1488: 440: 401: 979:

I still disagree. This subject is only notable as an "honor killing" -- not simply a killing. I suggest we perhaps make use of

183: 2751: 2688: 2421: 2217: 2142: 1438: 2129:

I may be mistaking you, but you seem to be arguing here that Kevin McE reverted Plot Spoiler's changes of article names per

1540: 1338:

If "Murder of..." is used in articles, and it's legally justifiable as a charge/conviction, I'd agree that's a good change.

805: 785: 719: 696: 2205: 2166: 1426: 2800:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2236: 2221: 2134: 2011: 1997: 1442: 902: 135: 1376: 2247:" There doesn't seem to be anything in the history of any of these articles to support this interpretation of events. -- 1652: 1350: 1130: 2638: 2273:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1633: 865:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

86: 2747: 2098:

There is now an even split among various users brought in from the community about moving names BACK to the original.

1757:

give the practice credibility. So no one should expect a certain outcome from going to any noticboard or wikiproject!

935:) honor killing, not simply a killing. It is not editorializing, but how reliable sources are referring to the event. 82: 2170: 2204:

You are correct on this one article. I got confused because User:Plot Spoiler wanted to apply the decision here to

2019: 1456:, if not some more appropriate forum. If the alleged deleted canvassing is not reverted I also will bring that to 2015: 1816:

as well. That is a notable concept accepted by a significant percentage of the world population, and it would be

2481:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2746:

per nomination, Rreagan007 and 162 etc. Main title headers of this nature have been most recently discussed at

2614:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111130171200/https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/dossier/le-proces-du-crime-d-honneur

2561:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111130171200/https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/dossier/le-proces-du-crime-d-honneur

1993: 1989: 2648: 189: 171: 2047:"Honor killing" is how it is described in the RS's and thus there is no good reason to move away from that.-- 1864:

article so don't make such a ridiculous argument in addition to your continued speculative personal attacks.

2765: 2429: 1425:

made a series of such changes to relevant articles in the last couple days. (added later: this article plus

1138: 2755: 2692: 2376: 2117:

violation of WP:Consensus for Plot Spoiler not to revert these until consensus to change them is reached.

2031: 2023: 1929: 1869: 1708: 1660: 1571: 1422: 1362: 1321: 1187: 1134: 1022: 988: 940: 797: 779: 2577:

https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/festival-cameleon-en-hommage-a-sadia-sheikh/tabs/description

2307:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Killing_vs._.22Honor_killing.22_in_six_bio_titles

2100:

But that debate should be about changing it to a NEW title - and there's clearly no consensus to do that.

1602: 90: 2620: 2601: 2584: 2520: 2500:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2488: 2390: 2361: 1945: 1912: 1835: 1740: 1621: 813: