Talk:Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad

message: Support merge. Wikipedia is not a memorial -- Cat chi? 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. I believe that the other article should be merged with this one. Not the other way around.Wikidudeman (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Du’a Khalil Aswad was the origin of the whole story and must be kept.Sina Kardar 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. More than sufficient worldwide media coverage to justify notability requirements and the event is having a more widespread impact than simply its alleged connections to the bus shootings. 23skidoo 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment. Let's be clear here. The suggestion is a merge with, not merge to. It seems Wikidudeman supports a merge to this title. I think that barring new sourcing on 2007 Mosul massacre to justify a separate article, I support a merge in either direction.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The subject warrants two articles. Instead we should add a short section about reprisals to this article, than provide a link to the 2007 Mosul massacre page. S.dedalus 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The current version is an attempt to compromise. The head shot image is in the intro, while the stoning image is in the section on Aswad's death. Cshay has expressed on my talk page that he will not dispute this further, though he has reservations, namely that it "doesn't give people the choice" whether or not to look at the image. This is not a discussion for here, but rather for internal pages such as Wikipedia is not censored no content disclaimers, Template:Linkimage, etc. It seems everyone else still engaging in this discussion want the stoning image included in some fashion, I hope they will accept this compromise as well.--Cúchullain t/c 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. My understanding is that this stoning photo will stay "below the fold" whether there is a top photo or not. At some point someone could delete the current top photo and we should still not move the stoning photo to the top. It would stay "below the fold". The idea being this at least prevents some fraction of people who would never want to see this image the chance to avoid it. This is less than ideal because someone could still scroll down and be blindsided by the image, but it seems like the best I can do at this point. Unless you can agree to this, there is no compromise at this point. Cshay 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care, personally, it makes sense that the stoning image would be by the stoning section, but I don't know why the head shot would be deleted. I reiterate that your desire to protect potential readers would be better placed at the policy and other pages I listed above.--Cúchullain t/c 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The decision to eliminate disturbing images is done at the page level. Daniel Pearl, need I say it again. Go ahead, post Danny Boy's severed head there, if you disagree with me. You'll see the power of reversion first hand.  We have no compromise until the agreement is to keep this image "below the fold". That is a comprimise because I don't want the image inlined at all, and other editors will want it at the top if the other image goes away. If you can't agree to that we have no compromise. Cshay 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said I'm fine with it, for my part. There's no reason to discus this further unless someone comes in and objects.--Cúchullain t/c 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Sounds good to me.--Cúchullain t/c 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In the article is written: "and was apparently stripped of her clothing down to her undergarments.[2T"
in the pictures on the side she is clearly dressed with a red jaket and a skirt.
A bit of a contradiction.--Dia^ (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She has had some garment draped over her lower half, but it is not a skirt.--80.227.217.90 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: they werent muslims that did this, they are the satanic version. You saw the vid? Did she die slowly in pain or was it quick? (Dioxholster (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction 

message: Why is this awful-looking headshot of the girl considered "irreplaceable" by Wikipedia when it's clearly been altered? A simple Google search found the girl's actual face, which was quite pretty. Observe: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6141/6033742838_e34ac7bafa.jpg. With that being clear, why is this rather frightening and obviously fake photo of her still being used? I'm not even sure where it came from, but it doesn't look like the photo I linked or any other of her that I've seen online. I think it's time this was changed. I can't even believe this hasn't been mentioned before. Just thought I'd bring that up. Hamza Dawud (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I always wondered why was that pic altered. I took the liberty of uploading a normal one.--Rafy talk 00:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Altered Headshot

message: The See also list includes three entries that are misleading to the extent that they refer to subjects concerning Islam specifically, whereas the subject of the article, the murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad, was an incident in the Yazidi (not Muslim) community. The entries are: Female genital mutilation (in Islam); Islamic sexual jurisprudence; and Women in Islam. I propose removing them from the See also list. Frans Fowler (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No response here or on the User Talk pages for 31.19.49.69 and 185.54.167.59. I am removing the three entries from the list.--Frans Fowler (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The See Also list 

message: It may be important to notice, that Yazidis dont marry outsiders (men and women alike, other then fe. under special circumstances in Judaism or Islam). It`s also not possible to convert to become a Yazidi-Follower. Either one is of Yazidi-faith by birth or he is not.
So the question if she had converted to Islam is not really that important, it was enough that she was accused of having a relationship with someone who was not a Yazidi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.167.63 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged conversion to Islam 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520212337/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2519070.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2519070.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521041505/http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.php?shape_ID=29209 to http://www.bruneitimes.com.bn/details.php?shape_ID=29209
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110013622/http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1589 to http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1589
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512183840/http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2468/Yazidis_Ask_Iraqi_Government_for_Protection to http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2468/Yazidis_Ask_Iraqi_Government_for_Protection
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)