Talk:Murder of Ghazala Khan

message: Due to the nature of this article it's likely there'll be certain visitors who will spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to deface it. So, to battle this, we need to cite as many sources as possible and be on the look-out for defacers. Now, I've edited the "her story" section to correct some grammar problems. This section needs some citations for sources, too, preferably in english.
Archonix 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of controversy 

message: 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. Plot spoiler also did this at four other articles. Elsewhere User:Plot Spoiler's excuse has been "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.
This discussion has been going on at Talk:Honor_killing_of_Sadia_Sheikh#Requested_move but since all six articles are different, it is not clear that all would have the same resultant name change.  CarolMooreDC 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he didn't. As I've already explained to you at the dispute resolution noticeboard and Talk:Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, Plot Spoiler changed from one title to another; Kevin McE changed to a third. Ghazala Khan was changed to Honor killing of Ghazala Khan. Kevin McE did not revert him; he moved the article to Killing of Ghazala Khan: an entirely new title. All of this is in the history. It's important not to accuse people of violating policies when they have not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, User:Plot Spoiler still should have reverted to the original name since User:Kevin McE had a problem with his change to "honor killing." This is a good example of why when people start changing titles, it should revert to the original while discussions are going on. Especially when they do five or six at a time. The onus remains on User:Plot Spoiler to do the right thing. CarolMooreDC 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether he should have or not, it is a misrepresentation of events to say that he reverted a revert. He didn't. He reverted a change, which is a normal part of the cycle of WP:BRD. He did not violate WP:Consensus. If you think the articles should be moved back to the name of the individual pending settlement of an appropriate title, that's a different matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of article name vs. consensus policy

message: After reading the article which seems to suggest that some were convicted of manslaughter not murder, I am not clear what they were convicted of - all of  manslaughter or all of murder or some of manslaughter and some of murder? Hugo999 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What were they convicted of?

message: :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) 07:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Honour killing of Ghazala Khan →  – The use of the term "honour 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.
Those involved in Khan's death have been convicted of murder or accessory to 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, or as "so-called honour killing". 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 19:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 February 2023