Talk:Honor killing/Archive 3

message: At the risk of sounding petty in light of the seriousness of this topic, I'm wondering if this page should be renamed to "Honor Killing" since all references within the article are spelled with this US spelling.  It seems rather odd to have the title with the British spelling, then the first word in the article is that of the US spelling (which then continues throughout). Icemuon 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Icemuon.  I noticed it as soon as I saw the article, and came to this talk page to see if anyone else had said anything about it.  I think it would make sense for the spelling (either British or American) to be consistent throughout the article.--Tabun1015 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  It looks and is ridiculous.  Who is out there, so tribal-minded as to need to ensure an article title is in the spelling preference of their nation?  One way or the other, but could someone create some consistency in the article?  Why isn't there one of those guideline pages on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.180.9 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree. There is no reason to use honour instead of honor when the article clearly uses the american spelling of the word throughout.  Mace 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honour vs. Honor

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support, for the reasons I have given above.  The rest of the article uses American spelling, and the fact that "Honor killing" already exists, and redirects here, suggest that the article was created using American spelling conventions, and then later moved.--Tabun1015 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support, for the reasons I have given above.  The rest of the article uses American spelling, and the fact that "Honor killing" already exists, and redirects here, suggest that the article was created using American spelling conventions, and then later moved.--Tabun1015 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: Honor killing happens all over the world.  It also happens in various countries in Europe and the list can go on and on.  However, it is wrong to list all these countries in which honor killings are done only by immigrant populations.  This is true for the United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Israel (in the sense that only Arabs and Druze commit honor murder)etc. etc.  If people want to list the entire countries of the world where Muslims live, that's a possibility, but I don't think that's the point of this article. Misheu 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honor killings are utterly insignificant outside Muslim communities and some kafir communities that have been ruled by Muslims for a long time.  Sikhs for instance.  I think the countries ought to go though. Lao Wai 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain why you undid my revision?  There is a major difference between honor killings in Arab countries, where it is endemic, and honor killings in Western countries, where it is perpetrated within the immigrant communities and is seen as something foreign and abhorrent that should be repelled. Misheu 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure which revision you mean but as I have been consistent in pointing out this is a problem of Muslim communities and a few other former Dhimmi ones, I don't think it is fair to criticise me for saying otherwise.  You don't think that the article is emphatic enough that this is a problem of Middle Eastern immigrants?  Even I think that.  If you would like to be even more emphatic, I would be happy, but isn't the article clear enough? Lao Wai 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize - I did not mean to criticize you.  I had separated the western countries (where honor killing takes place among the immigrant Muslim/Arab communities) and the Arab lands (where honor killing is a more common occurrence).  you had changed that revision back.  I agree with what you wrote above, that the list of countries might as well be removed.  However, if it is not removed, it is very confusing to put everybody together in "one bag". Misheu 13:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locations

message: kinda interesting that it doesn't have a Turkish version of this article around... Towsonu2003 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Turkish version 

message: This article needs an explanation as to why it is only women who are punished and not the men who they "commit the crime" with. If for example a woman commits adultery with a man, then that man is either also commiting adultery (is married to someone else) or is fornicating (is single). Why isn't he also punished then?--Thedaydreamer 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows for sure? That would be the domain of OR.  There is an undoubted double standard, but of course there is also the pecularities of Islamic law - rape needs four adult male eyewitnesses which means the rapist can never be punished.  Murder is a civil offense, a tort in fact.  It is up to the family of the victim to seek damages.  If you kill a male from another family, his family will seek revenge.  If you kill your own daughter, you will not.  It is safer (and cheaper given the value of a son) to kill the girl.  So they do.  If you can find anyone who points that obvious fact out it would be worth including. Lao Wai 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a political-economic sociological explanation, but BananaFiend deleted it. He seems to prefer psychological explanation, and says that explanations are NPOV. That is why this article does not have any explanation.Blanche Poubelle 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation needed

message: I went ahead and added a bunch of information to the Muslim Countries section. I re-arranged alot of the text there, and added a bunch of refrences to Muslim texts where applicable. I also accidently deleted the Cleanup tag, but since Im a complete wikipedia noob I don't know how to restore it. This is also my first major edit. Phfor 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Countries Re-Write

message: Honour killing is feature of tribal societies - it has little or nothing to do with religon. Arab Christians are as likely to commit honour killings as Arab Muslims as are Hindu and Sikh South Asians - in the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia 'honour killings' are rare in the extreme.
I will continue to delete any reference to Honour Killing as an exclusively Muslim problem - that is a complete distortion of available evidence.
:That's fine. But your words don't match your deeds.  You deleted the entire article in a series of edits, ending with this revision. In fact, you even deleted the parts of the article that read "Honour killings have been continually mistaken to be a practice encouraged by Islam" and "Honor killing is forbidden in Islam."  If you believe the whole article needs to be deleted, please follow the appropriate Wikipedia procedures.  Simply blanking the page is nothing more than vandalism. Tlesher 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at earlier versions of the article you can see that USer:BroyGoy added "Muslim" to the first sentence here and I've warned him about it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed entire article as racist in content

message: :Women enabled to assert their own preferences and goals are felt as an unbearable disruption of men's planned economic and political networks, where women are normatively presumed to be manipulable tools of that networking.
and
:It is not that such women do not generate value or are not valuable members of the family; but rather the key to honor killing is that from the authoritarian, patriarchal vantage point, "deviant" women appear as intolerable costs; their inherent worth and contributions are discounted.
As there are varying reasons/methods and cultures involved, while these two statements are applied to honor killings as a whole, they seem POV to me. Many men (by definition, most) are not at the top of some form of hierarchy, and will kill a woman from a sense of shame without wondering about their socio-economic "value". While these feelings are a by-product of a patriarchal society that views women as objects, it is unlikely that ALL honour killings are considered according to some sort of female utility measurement. It seems that some killings are indeed based on cold calculations of worth (esp. where dowry arrangements are involved), but these two statements seem a little broad.
:oops, forgot to sign BananaFiend 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd Comments

message: You might want to check into the laws in U.S. states as well.  I believe quite a few held that killing spouses and lovers caught in flagrante delicto was justifiable homicide.  Some still might. I believe the state I live in only changed that law within the last couple of decades.Amity150 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State laws?

message: The article states: 
"The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al is an example of a judicial honor killing, in which the execution did not follow any Islamic religious court proceeding, but was ordered directly by her grandfather, who was never brought to book for this murder."
I did some background checking last night and could not find any credible souce for this statement.  Apparently there was a trial and Misha'al was executed for self-confessed adultery, not as an honor killing.  The tone of this article should be neutral, and in part that means not dismissing the judicial processes of other countries and cultures simply because they do not follow the Western model. So I have changed the article on Misha'al and will change this article pending sources being provided. Amity150 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess Misha'al

message: this topic seems to have a mix of both, the title is in US Eng, while the UK Eng spelling is used later on, before editing it, to make it consistant, I would like cofirm if it should be UK or US Eng.Sennen goroshi 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article is at "honor" and not "honour" so I would suspect that it started in US English, but I really don't care either way. Other than that just remember to leave the quotes in the original spelling. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Honour killings are not a phenomenon known in the United States
 you may want to reconsider that thought.  try here: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/14959724/detail.html.] there have been more too... you just have too look.67.10.159.63 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: see the opening paragraphs of WP:MOS. both styles are acceptable, and as this topic is of international significance (i.e. it isn't restricted to Britain), i'm thinking we should probably stick to the present format. it's not much of a big deal though, you can push for the changes if you deem them appropriate. ITAQALLAH 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic has already been adressed here and here, and it was decided to move it to the American spelling.  Although honor killings may be more common in the UK, I don't think it is an important feature of British society.  WP:MOS refers to events that have a close tie to either British or American society.  For example, the article on the American Civil War should be in AmE, while the article referring to the British monarchy should be in BrE.  In any case, since the topic has already been discussed and decided, I think it should be left as it is unless more convincing reasons are given for the need for a move.--Tabun1015 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British/American English

message: This was removed from the before mentioned section for "patently false OR material." Aside from strictly quoting Islamic texts, and providing relevant examples from said text, what else is there? Every sentence is sourced with a specific example. How is this original research? Is citing an Islamic text, as done here, OR? I really hope it isn't.
I reverted the section.
If Muslim texts are to be literally translated, the act of honor killing can be seen as almost encouraged under Islamic law. USC-MSA: Sura 24, The Light, Compendium of Muslim Texts  Islam Online: , "How Islam Views Adultery"   Most Merciful:  "Most Merciful"   Guidedones  "Should the Islamic punishment of Adultery be reconsidered?" 
Adultery is one of three justifications for killing a person, according to the Qur'an,  and there is specific mention of honor killings being encouraged and carried out by Muhammad in Muslim texts. For example, A married man confesses that he has adultery.  Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones, he tries to escape but is dragged back. . A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery.  Muhammad allows her to have the child, and she is stoned after giving birth. . A woman confesses adultery and is stoned to death on Muhammad's order. 
Phfor 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see Wikipedia:Original research, which prohibits the insertion of our own interpretations of primary sources (or any other sources for that matter). to cite a Qur'anic verse (a primary text) for the tendentious evaluation that "the act of honor killing can be seen as almost encouraged under Islamic law" is a prime example of original research. similarly, the subsequent passages cite only primary sources; it is only the editor's own interpretation that such passages are relevant to the topic of extra-legal 'honor killings'. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: you require reliable sources making precisely the factual (not opinionated, see WP:NPOV) assertions you believe have not been mentioned. the above sources don't meet the high standards expected in terms of reliability (the last may be an exception in cases of Islamic legal rulings), but they cannot be (mis)used to forward points they don't make (see WP:V), or to forward unsupported fringe theories like "the act of honor killing can be seen as almost encouraged under Islamic law". it would be better if you didn't reinsert this material again until it meets our content standards. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In Muslim Countries

message: 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)
thread_title:  Honour Killing in Canada 

message: 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)
thread_title: Far East?

message: 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)
thread_title: Should honour killing, by definition, exclusively confined to female killing

message: 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)
thread_title: Incomprehensible

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nikkul's edit 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Forced, not arranged 

message: 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)
replies: text: answering-christianity.com is a completely unreliable source.Bless sins (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misquotes Christian Bible. 

message: 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.
There have been many Christian honourkillings. Especially among Christian Palestinians. Just google it.
In Italy, it was not illegal until 1970s for a husband to kill his wife and her lover if he found them in bed together. Is this not a sort of honour killing, too? Exoneration in such cases was embedded in the laws of many European countries during not so long ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.27.182 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Honor Killings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Sati 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incompatibility with definition of honor killing 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed the section referring to Torah. Andjam (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity or Judaism?

message: 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)
replies: text: If you have sources and links to the law that can certainly be mentioned. Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Honour killing in Italy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph 2 - does it add anything? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Honor killing as a cultural or religious practice - wrong section name? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Modesty patrol

message: 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)
thread_title:  further reading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Photo needed - would this Flickr one meet the Wikipedia rules on photos?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: westernization/pov

message: 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)
thread_title:  hoonour killing vs. women rights 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of "Pakistan Government aligning with Islamists"??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  tag on individual items. E_dog95'   Hi ' 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources - lets discuss and decide on the labels

message: 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)
thread_title:  Judaism and women category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: Why isn't there one? Faro0485 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Given the lack of any feedback, I've changed this now. A quick reminder to editors that if you are quoting a source, you should stick with the spelling used by the source. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: 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.  Other possible cases of honor killing would be the unlawful murdering of abortion providers such as George Tiller for motives of honor.  There is also a strange opposite phenomenon of providing free abortions in honor of slain abortionists.  ADM (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion

message: As pointed out several times above, sati does not satisfy the definition of honor killing given in the leading paragraph.  In particular, it fails the test "where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community." It also fails to match the descriptions in the "Definitions" section. Therefore I propose to delete sati unless someone comes up with a pretty good argument for keeping it. Zerotalk 07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not called an honour killing but an honour suicide in the article. But the key point is what does the source/s say? Unfortunately it's an offline one and I can't be bothered looking for it. If it calls Sati a form of 'honour suicide' as the article claims, then I'm not convinced we can remove it. Perhaps if it's only one source we could argue it's undue weight but if there are multiple sources, definitely not. To some extent you're right, since the purpose is not to restore honour that has been lost but perhaps to protect honour before it is lost. However, the suggestion that satis were not always voluntary is perhaps of relevance since in that case, it seems likely that the perpetrators felt that by not burning herself, the widow was bringing dishonour Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, I've added a request for references for the claim they weren't always voluntary and also linked to the honour suicide article both there and in the previous section on honour suicides Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sati (again) 

message: Just wanted to point out that the following:
Recent cases include 19 year old Vandana Bhadodiya who was shot by her father Jayvirsingh Bhadodiya - and later struck on the head with an axe, the CNN-IBN reported, describing it as the second case of an 'honour killing' in India since last week.[53] 
and
Another case in May 2008 The victim, Vandana Bhadodiya was shot by her father - Jayvirsingh Bhadodiya - and later struck on the head with an axe, the CNN-IBN reported, describing it as the second case of an 'honour killing' in India since last week.[55]
are substantially identical sentences that appear in the same paragraph.  The bold text is the difference between the two sentences.  75.69.0.58 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated Sentence in Locations South Asia 

message: The lead for the article includes a UN cite that asserts ~5,000 are killed a year. However, the section on South Asia says 10,000 are killed a year in Pakistan alone. 
So what is the total? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over statistics  

message: I believe it would be more informative for the reader to have the victim's name and elements of the killing that would characterize it as an honor killing. For example, in the North American section, it states:
"Said remains at large and has been featured on America's Most Wanted. In July 2008, John P. Avlon (of the New York Post) claimed that the death of 25-year-old Sandeela Kanwal (allegedly by Chaudhry Rashid) as an "American Honour Killing."[36] The Muzzammil Hassan case has been characterized by some as an honor killing.[37]"
Rather than merely state the alleged perpetrator's name, e.g., Muzzammil Hassan, describe elements of the killing that would characterize it as such.  Thus the third sentence would be rewritten as follows:
"The Aasiya Zubair Hassan case, where her estranged husband Muzzammil Hassan allegedly decapitated her..."
and the second.
"In July 2008, John P. Avlon (of the New York Post) claimed that the death of 25-year-old Sandeela Kanwal (allegedly strangled by her father Chaudhry Rashid for wanting to end an arranged marriage) as an "American Honour Killing."[36]
I think the thrust of this article is not only about the information, but also about the extreme natures of the murders, and therefore should include the above information for the reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschudy (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honor killings in North America section 

message: In this section ...
North America
'''
"A 2007 study by Dr. Amin Muhammad and Dr. Sujay Patel of Memorial University, Canada, showed how Islamic honor killings have been brought to Canada. He wrote: ..."
In fact there is nothing called "Islamic honor killings",It is clear that there is NO single source from the Quran or the  islamic prophet teachings says that any family member can kill other member for the reasons mentioned in the definition of Honor Killing.
Either you show the source or anything relate islam to honor killing showed be REMOVED.
Cutedoctor (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show me Source or delete it ! 

message: This site: [Islam] talks about a honor crime in the United States.Agre22 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Honor crime in Islam

message: Reading through this article, it's apparent that when a man kills his daughter with whom he is displeased in a Muslim country they report it as murder, not HK. Similarly when a man kills his daughter with whom he is displeased in New York, they report it as murder, not HK. It's also clear that when a Muslim man kills his daughter with whom he is displeased in New York, they report it as an Honour Killing.
The term seems to be morphed into an almost-neologism, "genuine" cases of Honour Killing among Muslims would be almost entirely limited to Afghanistan/Pakistan, where the code of Pashtunwali dictates the taking of life to restore "honour". But Sunni, Shiite and Sufi Islam not only don't have this doctrine, there are no real recorded cases of it ever happening except within tribal communities in AFG/PAK. 
I'm not proposing the article needs to be re-started from scratch, but work definitely needs to be put into making it clear that "American media outlets dubbed it an honour killing", not "In an honour killing in New Jersey...". Focus on the phenomena of Palestinian murderers being branded as having committed a Pashtun offence would not be misplaced.
Many parents kill their children because they are upset at their dating choices, they brought home a black boyfriend, they admitted they had been sneaking around sleeping with their girlfriend for the last six months, whatever. While it occurs more in recent immigrant communities in North America, that has more to do with sexual mores than any interpretation of religion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mores perhaps, but isn't the point wether the perp intends to "restore honour" by killing? Which may or may not apply to supposedly morally legitimized murders. Far as I'm aware, there have been killings that were supposed to be about honour, as said by the perpetrators, but happened more for cultural reasons like family honour, not sexual behaviour or religious issues. Just an impression. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern about "official" OR

message: Smells like pro-Turkish POV. I am removing until someone gives references (should be credible).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.250.24 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated claims of Kurdish honour killings 

message: Unknown IP added this couple. I don't think this site should, nor could list all victims, so perhaps the entry should be deleted. I'll leave that to somebody more professional, instead added a link and left it at that, to sort of having that entry standing in for those victims are never heard from anywhere. Yeah, I know it's not very "encyclopedic". Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manoj and Babli