Talk:Khalid Adem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Muslim

Khalid Adem is a Muslim , thus this is mentioned in the intro as it is in many wikipedia articles, furthermore the incident is related to his faith as he said so himself , that it was Allah's will--CltFn 03:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did he say that? His crime is a cultural practice - not religious. BhaiSaab talk 03:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Ethiopian is more appropriate. I get 405 results for "Khalid Adem Ethiopian", and get 7 results for "Khalid Adem Muslim" on Google news. Hence, he is identified as an Ethiopian more than 98% of the time. BhaiSaab talk 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He is a Muslim from Ethiopia , its that simple. HIs crime is not religious? Then why did he say it was Allah's will? His mother said he said that and so did his ex wife. I do not see why we should only mention that he is Muslim if it reflects good on his faith and not mention it if it reflects bad--CltFn 03:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
How can it be a religious crime when Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others of the same geographic area conduct the same practice? BhaiSaab talk 03:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
And no it is NOT practiced by Christians and Jews anywhere.--CltFn 13:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It is written in the Sunnah:
'Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband'."
This inteview provides and overview of how female circumcision is viewed in the Islamic community in Ethiopia .--CltFn 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That hadith is not authentic. If this was a strictly religious practice, you would expect more of the news sources to discuss this. BhaiSaab talk 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Read the United Nations interview with Sheikh Mohammed of Ethiopia’s Islamic Affairs Supreme Council .In ethiopia it is a Muslim practice.--CltFn 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
CltFn your objections are, quite frankly, incorrect. Female circumcision is more authentically an African cultural practice than a Muslim religious one. The vast majority of Muslim nations do not practice any kind of female circumcision at all. It is a geographical phenomenon, not a racial or religious one. "Ethiopian" is the salient modifier here, not "Muslim". Ford MF 13:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, imperialistic religions taking the "if you can't beat em join em" approach and co-opting local cultural practices, holy figures, holidays, &c., instead of trying to stamp them out, is a different issue. (Christians do it all the time.) Why are you surprised that Africans--Muslims and Animists--modify their religion's to approve of time-honored (albeit highly unpleasant) practices? Find me a similar interview with a major muslim cleric outside the FGM belt in Africa and maybe I'll give your argument some credence. Until then, no. It is an African practice. Ford MF 14:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the quote and article reference you inserted because it's from last year and doesn't even mention Adem's case. And again, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not practice female circumcision. If you want to try to put it in the female genital cutting article, fine, there's an argument to be made for that. It does not belong here.
Likewise the newspaper screenshot. From the references, it's clear it was a major news event. You might also want to check the copyright tag on the Adem mugshot photo. I don't think that that's the right one for mugshots.Ford MF 14:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunaly , that is not accurate, Female circumcision in Ethiopia is only practiced by Muslims , and not by animists , christians or Jews. Clearly, unlike in Ethiopia , in the US, the religious connection is regarded as politically incorrect, but it is quite the reverse in Ethiopia.The quote is a statement to the United Nations that establishes the view of the practice in the religious community in Ethiopia , thus it is relevant to the article to provide a counter-point to the claim that it has nothing to with the religion. The timeline is helpful in sorting out the sequence of events which can be unclear by the fog of omission that tends to creep in many articles. --CltFn 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please source that statement that only Muslims practice it in Ethiopia. I have read several articles that state this is practiced by Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Animists. BhaiSaab talk 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

CltFn states above "...it is NOT practiced by Christians and Jews anywhere." This source states "However, FGM is not a Muslim tradition. FGM is not practiced by the majority of Muslims, and some Christian, Jewish, and Animist societies do practice FGM." BhaiSaab talk 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason 'female circumcision' is sometimes also referred to as 'pharonic circumcision' is because of its origins in dynastic Egypt, pre-Christian, pre-Muslin, pre-Judaism. It is an African and (to a lesser extent) Arab cultural practice. Just because some muslim dudes say 'we dig infibulation!' does not mean infibulation is an inherently Muslim practice. Slavery was supported by a great deal of Christian clergy; that does not make Christianity a slaver's religion. Please do not bring up 'political correctness' in an attempt to shame people into agreeing with you.Ford MF 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, right in the article I mention a large demographic of people in Ethiopia, e.g. the Maasai, who are quite devoted to the practice of female genital cutting but who, now that I look at their article, I see aren't actually animists, but they sure as hell aren't Muslims either. Ford MF 17:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another source that states "People that practice it are Muslim, Orthodox Christians, Jews and Animists." BhaiSaab talk 17:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

It is a very short article, with date references in the text. It does not require an additional timeline. And no article needs a summarization that is 1/3 the length of the article itself.Ford MF 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a very short article because it has just been created 1 day ago. By blanking material you are preventing it from growing. It will become a HUGE article as it makes an important legal precedent on the topic of female circumcision in the United States , although I guess you may not have realized this yet. So stop blanking stuff thank you.--CltFn 14:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Personally, I don't think it's going to get any bigger, but who knows.
But the quote from the Supreme Islamic council guy ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT BELONG HERE. Again, if you want to put that entirely unrelated thing in the female genital cutting article, go ahead and start arguing for its inclusion there. It is from 16 months BEFORE Adem's verdict and does not mention the subject of this article even once. Ford MF 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, by "not contributing one iota to this article", I assume you mean "aside from actually creating and writing it in the first place". Ford MF 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Had not realized you had created the article so I take the "not contributing one iota to this article" comment back. The reason I added the United Nations interview with the Supreme Islamic council of Ethiopia was to provide a credible reference as to the religious nature of the practice in Ethiopia. We do not need to sweep such facts under the rug as to do so would be writing misleading articles that omit important facts about topics that are being treated. Timelines are very helpful in seeing the progress of events and removing the fog of which event came first.Incidently I was about to create the article myself ,but you beat me to it--CltFn 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not pooh-pooh'ing the idea of the inclusion of such information in the dedicated article on genital cutting. I just think it's an argument that belongs on another page.
And I admit I was hasty deleting the timeline. It is a useful thing. This is actually the first time someone has edited (or, so far as I can tell, noticed) an article I created so I very probably overreacted with the blanking. Sorry about that. Ford MF 16:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline copyvio

Okay, CltFn, I revoke all apologies now that I see 1) you didn't actually write the timeline you added but cut and pasted it from this article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and 2) your user page indicates you to be a contributor with a history of edit-wars and bad-faith posting. The timeline is a good idea. Please actually create one if you want to put one in the article. Ford MF 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying and pasting the timeline would be a copyright violation. Nice job catching that. BhaiSaab talk 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed the timeline, which indeed was based on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution]. As far as your second point ,would wikipedia not be better served if we steered clear of veiled personal attacks and accusations and rather focus on the substance of articles?.--CltFn 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from playing the victim when I call you out on copyvio. Calling your edit "bad faith" is not a personal attack, it is an assessment of one of the contributions you have made to this article: You are not new to Wikipedia, and could not possibly have been ignorant of the fact that cutting and pasting from a newspaper article is a blatant copyright violation. Your user talk page's archives document a long, long history of warnings and blockings for your disregard for copyright on Wikipedia. That's not an honest mistake, that's a bad faith edit. Ford MF 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fordmadoxfraud - I am perplexed as to why all of a sudden you are focusing on me as an editor rather than on the substance of the article. As regard to the history of Wikipedia editors, I would point your attention to a section of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit.
So once again, may I will insist that you keep the discussion civil and on topic. --CltFn 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The substance of the article was plagiarized. Ford MF 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, I think the revised version of the timeline isn't a copyvio. Whether it's needed or not is still unclear, but it doesn't need to be removed for that reason. Mangojuicetalk 04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The copyright tags on the image uploads from CltFn are clearly fraudulent. They are not GNU. Ford MF 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope they are legitimate and I retagged them with the appropriate copyright tags.--CltFn 20:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim

I've removed references to Adem being a Muslim since none of the news sources actually say he's a muslim. The 'unofficial' news sources I've found by google seem to be divided about whether he's a muslim or a converted christian. Until a reputable news outlet can be found to source the statement "Khalid Adem is a Muslim" I am deleting references to him as such in the article. Ford MF 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061120-045832-5178r -- The Middle East Times quotes his family as saying "He had married a non-Ethiopian and a non-Muslim, someone who doesn't share his culture and religion" -- Fairly clear cut in my view.PStrait 09:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/a/Talk%7EKhalid_Adem_25c4.html"