Talk:Murder of Sadia Sheikh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to new title, it is evident from the discussion below that there's been contentious naming activity related to Honor killing type article. If there is serious concern over using the term Honor killing 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 Honor killing is supported by RS, the current title of this article does no harm to WP. Mike Cline (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh → Killing of Sadia Sheikh – 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 honour 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. Kevin McE (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This event is notable as an identified (not so-called) honor killing, not simply a killing. It is not editorializing, but how reliable sources are referring to the event. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 6 English language sources cited, every single one of which places the word honour 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 Killing of ....: please explain why you would wish to add unqualified "honour" adjective. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. This subject is only notable as an "honor killing" -- not simply a killing. I suggest we perhaps make use of WP:RFC instead of this back and forth that will go nowhere, and underhanded unilateral changes -- as you performed on the other honor killing pages. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Kevin McE (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's take a step back and calm down. I was not 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 disputed changes anyway. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Honour killing. 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. Kevin McE (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still no apology/withdrawal/justification? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Category:Lynching_deaths_in_the_United_States "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 Wikipedia being used to bash Muslims, I think we have to look at how various killings are labeled in general. CarolMooreDC 16:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Lynching of Laura and Lawrence Nelson, Lynching of Jesse Washington, Lynching of Ed Johnson, Lynching of Ell Persons? Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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, that there might be room for discussion. CarolMooreDC 20:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, what the heck is with this canvassing on WP:Islam? [1] 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 WP:Islam -- so why are you canvassing there? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 this article never even mentions. Please don't do this kind of thing again. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
insert: Note: WP:Canvass explicitly says appropriate notification can be made on: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. Now looking at the article Honor killings they are more widespread than one might thing among different cultures. But there is a larger outside Wikipedia 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 of this Move proposal under wikiproject feminism alerts. CarolMooreDC 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, you can notify related projects. In practice, though, you didn't notify "WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion". Instead, you notified WikiProjects unrelated 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. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 next day or two, at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard if not elsewhere. CarolMooreDC 23:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't give a "very specific reason", you gave a rather lame excuse that had nothing to do with Wikipedia 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling others arguments as "lame excuses" and "blustering" is not very civil. CarolMooreDC 01:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "Honor killing" a euphemism? Why not call a spade a spade and move it to Murder of Sadia Sheikh? – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "Murder of..." is used in articles, and it's legally justifiable as a charge/conviction, I'd agree that's a good change. CarolMooreDC 20:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Lynching of Jesse Washington. 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 honor killing article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the content of the article honour killing, it is the way that the phrase is used in reliable sources, 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. Kevin McE (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. CarolMooreDC 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Series of "Honor" killing moves[edit]

I searched "honor killing of" to see what the pattern might be and low and behold User talk:Plot Spoiler made a series of such changes to relevant articles in the last couple days. (added later: this article plus Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü, Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal, Honor killing of Samaira Nazir, Honor killing of Ghazala Khan.)

Some/all? were moved back by Kevin McE, 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 WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, if not some more appropriate forum. If the alleged deleted canvassing is not reverted I also will bring that to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. CarolMooreDC 22:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, because I don't imagine anyone else will be repeating your canvassing. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one who feels we have to be careful about the Islamophobia promoted by some on Wikipedia, 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 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism.
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. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 killing of...", "would not stand in Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism", 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. CarolMooreDC 01:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam.

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 should revert back and go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves and do a multiple listing of all six articles so the wider community can comment on each article's talk page. Thoughts on this proposal? CarolMooreDC 12:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attempt to retroactively justify your canvassing. This article does not mention Islam at all. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "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 WP:NPOV and WP:EDITORIAL, and perhaps WP:AT 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 sources that choose to adopt this wording because it is but an assertion of the defence coupled with jingoistic headlining. 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. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "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 Wikipedia:Requested_moves for input. Unless he just wants to permanent do so on basis of your argument and/or this discussion. CarolMooreDC 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 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 Lynching of Jesse Washington. 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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It need not be viewed as a euphemism/jingoistic/value judgment/etc." 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: 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. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I confess I didn't quite get your point about irony/italics, but now I do. CarolMooreDC 19:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "death of" or "killing of" in article titles. The presence in the article title of the word honor or honour lends editorial credence to the killing, acknowledging that it is okay to carry out such murders in some cultures. Wikipedia must not give even the slightest hint of support in the article title. The more neutral title is "killing of" or "death of". Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point I was thinking about just an hour ago. Going to Wikiproject Islam might attract people who'd like the title because it does give the practice credibility. So no one should expect a certain outcome from going to any noticboard or wikiproject! CarolMooreDC 19:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the article should reflect whatever wording is used by reliable sources. I did a quick Google News search for Sadia Sheikh.[2] 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 case, we would have to rename the article Honor killing as well (which would not be tenable). Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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! :-) CarolMooreDC 02:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is suggesting renaming the article Honor killing as well. That is a notable concept accepted by a significant percentage of the world population, and it would be unacceptable 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 value judgement onto a series of events in such a way that it violates WP:NPOV with flashing red lights. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. CarolMooreDC 16:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 honor killing 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 article so don't make such a ridiculous argument in addition to your continued speculative personal attacks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Leave Honor out of title. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 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 honor killing" etc. in article ledes. "Honour killing of" makes titles longer and less neutral, so why not just leave the word "honour" out? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But then, if it was a simple fact, the BBC probably wouldn't use scare quotes.[3][4] — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most of the sources use the BrEng spelling "honour", so maybe the article should reflect that? – ukexpat (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go with "Death of ...", we also use this for similar articles, e.g. Death of John Lennon instead of "Murder of John Lennon", Death of Kurt Cobain instead of "Suicide of Kurt Cobain" and to cite a recent example see Death of Osama bin Laden. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we do go that route, I definitely recommend "Killing of..." e.g. Killing of British tourists in Yemen, Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai etc. (or "Murder of..." e.g. Murder of Stephen Lawrence, Murder of James Bulger). The circumstances of this death are clearly known and therefore death is unnecessarily vague. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Honor killing" is how it is described in the RS's and thus there is no good reason to move away from that.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:RS 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 WP:RS. If the RSes describe these incidents are honor killings, that's all that Wikipedia editors should be factoring into their decision-making process with respect to how to name articles.—Biosketch (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus policy and BRD demand reverts to originals[edit]

There is now an even split among various users brought in from the community about moving names BACK to the original. But that debate should be about changing it to a NEW title - and there's clearly no consensus to do that. To remind people of something I've said several times before but people have ignored: 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.

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 fully six articles had the same changes and reverted the other five. User:Plot Spoiler reverted them without discussion.

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 violation of WP:Consensus for Plot Spoiler not to revert these until consensus to change them is reached. CarolMooreDC 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaking you, but you seem to be arguing here that Kevin McE reverted Plot Spoiler's changes of article names per WP:BRD. 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 Honor killing of Ghazala Khan should be at Ghazala Khan; Honor killing of Samaira Nazir at Samaira Nazir; Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal at Fadime Sahindal; Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü at Hatun Sürücü; and Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin at Murder of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin (following consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arash Ghorbani-Zarin). The original title of this article is, of course, Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 to the original. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct on this one article. I got confused because User:Plot Spoiler wanted to apply the decision here to Honor killing of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, Honor killing of Hatun Sürücü, Honor killing of Fadime Sahindal, Honor killing of Samaira Nazir, Honor killing of Ghazala Khan. I guess I should just raise the issue at each of those talk pages. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct on the one article? Where am I wrong on the others? Taking Honor killing of Ghazala Khan, can you tell me when in its history it was ever at the title Kevin McE gave it? You write, " 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." There doesn't seem to be anything in the history of any of these articles to support this interpretation of events. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I find the close with no consensus to move 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. Kevin McE (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 using them here.
You might also bring to the discussion section here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Killing_vs._.22Honor_killing.22_in_six_bio_titles 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 "Honor killing" of etc. CarolMooreDC 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. CarolMooreDC 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic influence[edit]

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". "Le crime dit d’honneur reconnu en droit belge" (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. "Le meurtre de Sadia, un complot familial?" (in French).

The Islamic connection should be made clearer. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. You're welcome to add it. Please go ahead and do so. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may, but others may as well. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that myself, as I've alluded to before, if done in NPOV way. CarolMooreDC 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Honour killing of Sadia Sheikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sites[edit]

Apparently her university had a memorial at http://www.hepcut.be/sadia.php but the Wayback Machine never archived it :-(

There was also a Dutch news article at http://www.knack.be/belga/algemeen/medestudenten-herdenken-sadia-tijdens-stille-mars-in-charleroi/site78-section5-article25591.html but also no archive

Other sites:

https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/festival-cameleon-en-hommage-a-sadia-sheikh/tabs/description includes a newspaper article about a memorial service for Sadia Sheikh WhisperToMe (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Dutch article at https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20111213_003 WhisperToMe (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 http://web.archive.org/web/20111130171200/https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/dossier/le-proces-du-crime-d-honneur WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 07:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honour killing of Sadia Sheikh → Murder of Sadia Sheikh – 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.

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 not accepted by the society where it is used. Perhaps they are also being used to indicate irony. Mooonswimmer 19:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Sadia_Sheikh&oldid=1207629907"