Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 16 April 2012

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

5,000 Annual Murders Citation

I was unable to verify with the United Nations the source of the estimated 5,000 honour killings per year.

Maritina Paniagua (at un.org) writes:

I have not been able to identify the source of the 5,000 number. Your best bet is to contact someone from the editorial team. I looked at the names of the editor and staff that compiled the 2000 report (see 1st screen shot) and cross checked with the UNFPA directory but had no success. I have a feeling that they might not be in UNFPA anymore. I looked at the editorial team for the 2011 report and they are totally different people. See the second screen print shot (orange color) I did find an office within UNFPA that perhaps could orient you to the editorial team of the publication.

While the UNFPA site does have a 5,000 estimate, the source for that estimate cannot be verified at this time, thus calling into question the reliability of that number. The document cited on the UNFPA page for the 5,000 number provides an estimate of 325 honour killings per year.

Thangalin (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Changes/Additions

I would agree that more needs to be added regarding South America. In addition, I am working on adding in more statistics for the regions already mentioned in the article and more historical, religious, and cultural influences for the prevalence of honor killings. Feedback is welcomed. B.chachere (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Middle East Forum

I have had a look at their website and it doesn't look like a reliable source to me. PatGallacher (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone reword this -

It is thus believed that it is not Islam as a religion, but Islamic culture, and the prominent and long-standing view that women are considered property, as the sources of for honor killings

It sounds like "Islamic culture" and "women considered property" are merged here, when this generalization is not true. We know in places like India and other south asian countries, aswell as other places around the world, "women are also considered properties". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.196 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No place for Males against it?

Now maybe "Definition" is not the best place for this information which Jayjg removed as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS.

In 2010 Israeli Arab member of Parliament Ahmad Tibi proposed banning public media and law enforcement from using terms like "honor killing" or "crime of passion" to describe murders of women because it conveyed "positive characteristics to murder, send encouraging and sympathetic messages about violence." REF:Jonathan Lis Tags, Israel Arab MK: No murders should ever be called 'honor killing', , October 11, 2010.

But obviously if it's notable in the "Culture" section that female academics are against it, it's equally notable that a male Arab member of the Israeli parliament is against it. What's needed is more information about more males of whatever culture who have spoken out against it. Anyone disagree? CarolMooreDC 21:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of years ago one member of Parliament of one small country proposed banning use of the term. Politicians say things all the time, and given that the country has a free press, it had no chance of going anywhere anyway. This is obviously the exact opposite of notable. Please review WP:NOTNEWSPAPER too. If some country ever passes legislation like this, then we'll have something to discuss here. Jayjg 23:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not responsive to my new insight and comment based on your deletion, only repeating your edit summary. The issue is various males speaking out against the practice, in whatever way they do. I can see one just hanging loose without a larger context is problematic. However, four or five males of various statures opposing obviously would be appropriate for such an article. CarolMooreDC 01:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an "issue" of "various males speaking out against the practice"? How do you know this? Do you have some reliable source indicating that this is some sort of "issue"? Jayjg 03:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, it never occurred to me that males would not ! Anyway, found some interesting WP:RS leads earlier that led to my posts; will pursue soon. CarolMooreDC 03:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"males would not?" Sorry, I can make neither head nor tail of what you're saying. Jayjg 04:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, after your "later clarify" additions above, I'm still mystified. What are you going on about? Jayjg 14:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not discuss generalities. It will be clear when new material entered. CarolMooreDC 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on Evolutionary Psychology

There are various problems with this section. It relies on one source, possibly a primary source, even if that source discusses two other articles. Secondly the source cited uses the words "biological" and "evolutionary" but never makes any reference to evolutionary psychology. Thirdly it is not an accurate summary of the source or even part of it. Fourthly, while the source is written in pose that is easy to read, the passage inserted here is ungrammatical, with numerous errors and tortured sentence constructions: often it is hard to fathom what might possibly have been meant by the editor. That is compounded by the fact that it is almost impossible to work out how the text relates to the original source and to check whether some version of a particular sentence actually appears in the source. The source makes a distinction between sociological and biological explanations (that seems to be the point of the original essay), but that is lost in what cannot really be described as a paraphrase. The heading "Evolutionary psychology" at present seems unjustified, particularly if it is based on just one relatively short essay that nowhere mentions that topoc. The material added might be WP:UNDUE, unless it has become more established and appeared in book form. Fifthly and finally, the author Matthew A. Goldstein, JD, MA, appears to be a lawyer and not an established expert in psychology. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The source is not primary and cites many sources. The evolutionary psychology theories are by well-known evolutionary psychologists like Buss. What exactly is wrong with the summary? Sociological theories are mentioned in another section. The article is called "The biological roots of heat-of-passion crimes and honor killings" and concentrates on that and not on sociological theories. Feel free to point out grammatical errors and I will make corrections. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I have read the article, which I downloaded from JSTOR. It's by a lawyer, not a psychologist and apparently not an academic. Your text is completely unreadable: it is some of the worst writing I've seen on wikipedia. This is a primary source and, as I say, the words evolutionary psychology do not appear in the text. You could have written "biological explanations". Your heading is pure WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, it presents theories by well-known evolutionary psychologists. The source conducts no research but reviews the literature and is thus not primary. The journal is peer-reviewed. Ad hominem against the author is not interesting. Peer-review establishes the reliability of the article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia with WP:SYNTH of this kind is not permissible. If Matthew Goldstein is just a lawyer discussing the legal implications of sociological vs biological explanations of honor killings/heat-of-passion crimes, how can you write any wikipedia content based on that? Unless a review is written by a biologist or a psychologist, I cannot see that it merits being used on wikipedia as the sole source. You could write whatever you pleased that way. As I say, this is WP:UNDUE unless it is written by an expert in the subject. The author of the source seems to have been trained as a lawyer. Do you know who he is? Is he this person for example? (BTW no wikipedian editor is an authority on evolutionary psychology.) Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly not only discussing the "legal implications" but reviews the state of research regarding evolutionary views. Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Peer-review establishes reliability. There is no exception for certain kinds of authors. Academica Orientalis (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does and he does so explicitly in the conclusion. Using sources inappropriately and refusing to try to work out who the author is just tendentious editing. Why is discussing the author a problem for you? It is standard practice on wikipedia, particularly in cases like this. He is a lawyer, since he has JD after his name; and my identification does seem to be correct. Mathsci (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, ad hominem against the author is not a valid argument. The paper is peer-reviewed which establishes reliability as a source in Misplaced Pages. Academica Orientalis (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed is not enough and you don't seem even vaguely to understand the meaning of ad hominem. I understand that English is not your native language, which might explain your confusion. If we use any source on wikipedia, we need to know precisely who the author is. It does not seem to be at all irrelevant to raise the fact that the author is a practising lawyer who wrote a one-off article (a spin-off from a minor thesis prepared for his JD from the University of Arizona?). If you don't want to discuss the author of the source here, this discussion can be continued at another noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To quote from WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". Nothing about excluding certain peer-reviewed papers due to the authors. That people may write important works outside the field they are educated in is nothing new and does not exclude such views. For example, many of non-evolutionary psychologists have written critical things about evolutionary psychology. Academica Orientalis (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Miradre is trying to have his cake and eat it too. On this page he defends the use of primary sources when they suit his POV, but on other pages has argued that secondary sources should be preferred. This is a clear example of editing in bad faith. aprock (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC) How interesting that Mathsci arrives at this article the day after Miradre. When other editors correct Mathsci's mistakes, he calls it trolling, stalking and long-term abuse. But Mathsci has been doing this to his R&I opponents without let or hindrance. Presumably this is because ArbComm tolerate Mathsci's own stalking as a way of driving editors off the project who are seen to be espousing an unpopular point of view. 94.196.13.223 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

An international lawyer writing about biology and evolution. Whatever next? Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A "professional pure mathematician" writing about music, art and history? 94.196.166.230 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requested images of law and crime topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English