Talk:Honor killing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Far East?

Is there honor killing in the Far East, like in Korea or China or Japan?

[edit] Should honour killing, by definition, exclusively confined to female killing

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)

This article was largely written on (poor) media & NGO sources rather than academic ones, and it shows... The idea that men would be spared honour killings is completely ludicrous and only belongs to the blind orientalist ideology of the "oppressed oriental woman". Which, sadly, is by far the majority POV in the West, so it's unlikely that an accurate portrayal of honour killings could be accepted here. The whole point of "our" interest in honour killings is precisely the "saving" of oriental women we fantasise on. So let us not spoil the party. --81.57.24.226 (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incomprehensible

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)

[edit] sati/india section

Hi -- An editor deleted the "Hindu communities" section, stating that "sati is not practiced in modern times". I replaced it (diff) for a few reasons. (1) It's perfectly appropriate to discuss historic practices in the article. (2) The section states clearly defines it as a historic practice, but then talks about modern aspects of it. ... So, I'd encourage discussion here about the section, hopefully with some end other than deleting it. (It's actually referenced.) --Lquilter (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sati is not practiced in modern India. It is definitely nothing common. Yes killings still occur in India but murder is present everywhere. In the US, rapes and murders of women happen just as much as anywhere else in the world and in india. Murder is nothing unique to one specific country. In fact, India's murder rate per capita is less than many other countries[1]
  • Killing means that it was forced. Sati is VOLUNTARY, it is suicide, not murder. Honor killings are murder. Saying sati is honor killing is misleading. Nikkul (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nikkul, I understand your point that the definition of sati is voluntary; however, multiple sources use the term sati to describe involuntary immolations, both historical and present-day. If you would like to propose some text to explain that this use of the term "sati" is controversial, and have some references to support it, that would also be appropriate for the article. --Lquilter (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, you just took out another section (diff) stating in the edit summary that "removed speculative paragraph. there is no source that says it was forced. every source says it was anact of suicide not killing)". This is not true. I'm summarizing the texts & sources below.

  • The very first source listed discusses the Roop Kanwar case and says "Varying accounts exist of the incident suggesting that Roop Kanwar may have been forced into self-immolation and she was possibly drugged." This source should be moved to the Roop Kanwar section, though.
The Vidyawati case, described in the text as "was allegedly forced", is supported by a cite that says "Even as local cops were debating whether it was a case of sati or 'forced suicide...". That appears roughly accurate to me.
The Janakrani case is supported by two cites. The first simply describes the incident and says that government sources believe it to be voluntary. The second (BBC) says that there is an ongoing investigation. I think this sentence can be rewritten to remove "forcibly", and the actual status -- presumed to be voluntary but investigated -- should be put in.

--Lquilter (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I edited those sections to describe the incidents as the references did. I also edited the leading text to describe your concerns here. While sati is defined as suicide (i.e., a voluntary action), the reason that it belongs here is that some deaths described as "sati" may have been compelled. The cites support that, although more should probably be introduced. If you also wish to flesh out the "honour suicide" article with discussions of sati that would be fine. --Lquilter (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sati is suicide, and two cases that are only allegedly forced do not make this a killing. Wikipedia is not an arena for speculation.Bakaman 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is "speculating". The text in there now points out that force has sometimes been used in conjunction with the practice of sati, which is defined as suicide. That is supported by references -- two modern cases that have cites, plus historic cases cited in the sati article that could be added to this one. So this isn't a matter of trying to define sati one way or the other, and preferring a viewpoint to that; it's a matter of pointing out that well-documented fact that sometimes killings have been presented as "sati". I'm not sure why you want to remove that, but the proper thing is to figure out how to phrase it so that it is most accurate and not misleading.
More importantly, however, since you know that this is already being discussed on the talk page, I am not sure why you have two times now reverted to Nikkul's deleted version (diff1, diff2), and I see that a third editor, Ghanadar galpa, has also tried to delete the "Hindu" section (diff3). (User:Ghanadar galpa I see is a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar, who is banned indefinitely.) I'm putting the text back in for now, because it is in the middle of a discussion. I invite you to propose wording that clarifies the distinction you are making, and to support them. For instance, if you can show cites of people that distinguish "sati" from "faux sati that is forced" and don't like the use of the term sati to describe that practice, then that would be an useful cite to support the point you are making. --Lquilter (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nikkul, once again you removed a chunk of text about India. (diff) This section is sourced, and correctly attributes the statements to the source in the text. (UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, and the text says that "UNICEF has reported..." "Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, says that..."). This is perfectly proper sourcing and explanation, but our edit summary says "Removed section. One person saying somting does not make it a fact. The source also lists Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Tu)". Wikipedia relies on inclusion of material that is sourced. Excluding material based on your implication that the source is not "a fact" effectively applies your original research to facts. If you have specific concerns about these facts, please state them here on the talk page so that they can be evaluated. If you have concerns that the source needs to be better explained, please propose alternative language that is clearer or more accurate. But please do not simply delete entire sections of sourced material; that sort of exclusion creates a non-neutral POV. --Lquilter (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I have read all the sources and ALL of them say that there is debate that it was acutally forced. No one PUSHED the woman into the fire. If someone did it by themselves, then it is considered suicide. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation REFERENCES USED

  • "Dismissing it to be an act 'sati', he said a magisterial probe has been ordered into the incident and added that her family members were not aware of the act and no evidence of pressure exerted on her to take the dire step was found."
  • "35-year-old Vidyawati gave up her life on Thursday evening by jumping into the blazing funeral pyre " If the police are DEBATING, than it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it is not proven, it doesnt belong on wiki.
  • "some allege forcibly, dressed in her red wedding dress, in Rajasthan's Deorala"

If something has not been proven, you are violating policy by having it on wiki. Also, this section doesnt belongs in Honor Suicide,not Honor Killing! Nikkul (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

These comments relate to the earlier discussion about sati, not your most recent set of deletions. I already reviewed the cites for the sati section, as I discussed above, and edited the text to correctly reflect the descriptions in the cites about the individual incidents. Some of the cites and incidents indicated that there was an ongoing investigation, and that is perfectly appropriate to include in Wikipedia. We don't make assertions about the truth or falseness of things; we reference all notable sides to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight to one opinion or another. ... As for your comment about honor suicide and honor killing, this is the point of the investigations: to determine whether they were suicides or murders. --Lquilter (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I hope this is the last time I have to tell you this: If something is undergoing investigation, that means that it hasnt been proven that it was murder. Hence, it is speculative and if something is not proven, that means it can NOT be on wikipedia. There is no proof that any of them were forced into it. So please do not add the incidents again.

Sati is voluntary. I think this section should be moved to honor suicide where it is more appropriate. The definition of Sati is suicide not murder.

Also, I have deleted the section on India. If you insist on keeping it, I will find and write about ALL the countries in which honor killings have taken place since the birth of time. If this is what you want I dont mind. I already have evidence of honor killings in the US, Pakistan, and many many other countries. If you want it, you got it. Nikkul (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and include all the countries (provided you can find reliable content). You'd be improving that way.Bless sins (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone also provide the quote as to what the Israeli government website says regarding honor killings? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added scholarly sources and neutralized the text. We don't need the names of the cases under investigation, that's undue weight. Relata refero (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to have other folks weighing in here; it should be very helpful in reaching consensus. --Lquilter (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sati is Honor Suicide not Honor Killing

Since sati is defined as a voluntary practice, it is a suicide not a killing. There is no proven evidence that sati has ever occurred forcibly. User:Lquilter has said some do allege that some cases were done forcibly, but what does that prove? There are those who allege that the American government bombed the world trade center.

REFERENCES USED

  • "Dismissing it to be an act 'sati', he said a magisterial probe has been ordered into the incident and added that her family members were not aware of the act and no evidence of pressure exerted on her to take the dire step was found."
  • "35-year-old Vidyawati gave up her life on Thursday evening by jumping into the blazing funeral pyre " If the police are DEBATING, than it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it is not proven, it doesnt belong on wiki.
  • "some allege forcibly, dressed in her red wedding dress, in Rajasthan's Deorala"
  • Book references...unless you have the book, you can't prove what's said

Nikkul (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the re-written section. Whether it is suicide or murder, to what extent it is one or the other is deeply contested, and has in fact been mentioned as such in that section. There's no need to move it, and that would in fact be inappropriate. (There is already a mention at the forced suicide page.) If you have questions about the text, ask them here. Relata refero (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The references do not corroborate to the assumption that this was a "killing" by any means. This fails WP:V and the section should be removed. The fact of the matter is that Sati = Suicide, and even if there was pressure, the fact that the woman chose to burn herself makes this a moot point.Bakaman 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You have not read the references, presumably. There is debate within academic circles and within Parliament as to what degree of the women's actions could be justified as voluntary. It is extremely contentious, has been reported as such, and cannot be moved from either here or the other article. It is minimal in size, well referenced, and relevant.
You clearly haven't read either the references I provided or the passage, because you say "..assumption that this was a killing". We're not talking about one incident, we're not talking about assumptions... Relata refero (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's as easy as WP:CITE. We report on various opinions held, we do not favour one opinion as "correct". If you have a quotable source, fine, if you don't, too bad. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are billions of people who have billions of opinions about different topics. Are they all supposed to end up on Wiki??? The truth is that ALL the references say that a "killing" was not proven. All of them say that the wife jumped in on her own. NONE OF THEM WERE PUSHED INTO THE FIRE. If I decide to jump in to the fire, then I commit suicide, not murder upon myself! Nikkul (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, as we have previously discussed, wikipedia does not accept only things which are "proven", an epistemologically impossible task. Rather, Wikipedia reports in an encyclopedic fashion on referenced, citable material, and where there is a controversy, Wikipedia reports on the controversy. --Lquilter (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time I have heard of "Sati" being associated with "Honor Killings." and I am not able to see the association reading page 320 of the book "immolating women a global history from ancient times to the present" (to which this association is cited). Could you please explain in simpler terms what is the connection between "Sati" and "Honor Killings." Thank you Desione (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is documentation (see sati) of women being coerced into acts of purported suicide/sati. Coerced suicide is equivalent to murder; coerced "sati" is therefore relevant to "honor killing". --Lquilter (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Both 'Sati' and 'Honor Killings' are well debated subjects in academics, history, and press. So if there is a linkage between the two then it should not be too difficult to find 3 or 4 different sources that talk about this linkage. However, none of the cited references are talking about this linkage. From what I can see, you seem to be concluding on your own (original research) that Sati and Honor Killings are linked by broadening the definition of both Sati and Honor Killing. Am I missing anything? Desione (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm taking the article as it is, with cited material in it about sati, and looking at the arguments made by Nikkul which were unpersuasive and seemed clearly intended to inject a particular POV. I made some edits to respond to Nikkul's points that seemed valid, and other editors have made further edits. Nikkul's point, made repeatedly, is that sati = suicide, and therefore acts described as sati can never be a an "honor killing" (because sati is defined as suicide, which is not killing). That point is simply not supportable, since acts described as sati have in fact also been described as killing. Thus, Nikkul's arguments have not been persuasive on this point. I'm open to hearing any arguments made to the contrary. You seem to be suggesting that the idea of discussing sati as honor killing is some sort of SYNTH. Please feel free to make that case in more detail. --Lquilter (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The point that Nikkul is supporting (Sati = Sucide) is more accurate and in tune with well debated notions of Sati than the point that you seem to be supporting (Sati = Killing) which is not in tune with well debated notions of Sati. It won't be too difficult to come up with many reliable citations supporting the point that (Sati = Sucide), but so far I haven't seen one reference stating that "Sati = Honor Killing." Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that there are no reliable references to support (Sati = Honor Killing), is there a particular reason behind retaining Sati under "Honor Killing"? Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are only considering acts where Sati was forced, then again proper references are still needed to indicate that these were Honor Killings as opposed to say a result of dispute regarding the wealth of deceased person or family discord etc. Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can come up with valid references I suggest that the Sati be removed from "Honor Killings" page and any specializations or distortions of Sati (such as forced Sati) be discussed under the Sati section. Desione (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have provided additional references of unimpeachable academic quality. Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I read through all the new references that you provided. Your references show that "Sati = Honor Sucide" as opposed to showing that "Sati = Honor Killing." What is being debated here is whether "Sati = Killing" and hence "Honor Killing". Keep in mind that you are equating Sati to Honor Killing which goes against well debated notions of Sati where Sati is significantly considered to be sucide. Desione (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain how you came to the conclusion in the second sentence?
In your reference Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India, please read pages 27, 28, 43, 44, 80, 81, 97, 112, 113. These largely point out that Sati is largely an act of Sucide (although one that is definitely influenced by the belief and support in the concept of Sati) Desione (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In your reference Encyclopedia Of Cremation, please read page 216, 371, 372 where Sati is described again as an act of self-sacrifice (sucide). Also, page 371 of this reference does not discuss the difference between 'forced sati' and 'voluntary sati' as mentioned by the text that cites this reference. Desione (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

p 216: "In sati, if the widow has voluntarily..." p 371: In Bengal... sati was more common in that region, because the women were forced to commit sati." Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To keep things simple, lets talk about p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation.
The first paragraph under the section sati says: Sati is the traditional Hindu practice of a WOMEN IMMOLATING HERSELF on her husband's pyre. This clearly points out that the cause of immolation is womens own desires (as influenced by the practice and belief in Sati). Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A few lines down the second paragraph says Many of these stones claim that Wife has committed Sati OUT OF TREMENDOUS LOVE FOR HER HUSBAND. This again clearly points out that the cause of sati is womens own desires. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The middle lines of the second paragraph says "...when the WOMEN MAY HAVE DIED TO PROTECT HONOR FROM THE INVADING EVEMIES after their men had perished in the battlefield." This again points out that cause of sati is womens own desires. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
End of the second paragraph says womens SELF-immolation enabled their families to become highly respected This again describes sati as an act of SELF immolation. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The middle part of the third paragraph says "life of widow was so bad ... that women MAY HAVE PREFERRED death to humiliation" This again points out to Sati being a voluntary act (offcourse one that was influenced by social environment at the time like many suicides today). Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Now about Sati in Bengal, the end of third paragraph says In Bengal a system called Dayabhaga prevailed, entitling a women equal property along with male relatives of departed husbands. This may be the reason for Sati system being more common in the reason becuase the widow was forced to commit Sati. This is an act of murder in guise of Sati in order to deprive the women of her property right. This is murder based on greed. Quite common even today. The only difference being that the act of murder is being hidden as an act of Sati. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In summary, page 371 (like other texts) largely point out that Sati is a voluntary act (influenced by practice and belief in the sati) rather than an act that is forced. The only instance of sati being forced is in the context of property disputes - which is plain and simple murder as opposed to being Sati. The practice of Sati is not Killing; hence, the need for special laws, policies, and improvement of social system for widowed women in order to prevent Sati in the past and even today up to a minor extent in certain remote communities. Murder is easily handled by legal system. Sati/Sucide is mainly a social problem which is not easily handled by legal system. Unlike murder it is generally not possible to identify a single person or a small group of four or five people as murders in case of Sati. It is the social system that was the problem. Do you see the difference? Do you see why special laws, policies, education, and social reforms were needed to counter Sati? Hence, Sati does not fit into the category of Honor Killings.

[edit] Convenience Break 0

What part of "...were forced to commit sati" are you having trouble understanding? Relata refero (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The part that most texts including your own reference (p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation) talks of Sati being a largely voluntary act rather than a "Killing". You are simply harping your views at this point while ignoring the points that I am raising. You need to start address the points that I am raising. Please address the quotes that I mentioned above from p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation that point to the fact that Sati is largely a voluntary act. That page contains numerous quotes to show that Sati was largely a voluntary pratice. Desione (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Where? I have demonstrated that in each case the words are qualified, or in the passive tense, or expressed with reference to one particular subset ("stories say" "in lower castes" etc.) Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also as I said earlier (perhaps this did not register with you earlier) that p371 in Encyclopedia of Cremation mentions forced Sati in the context of property rights, i.e murder being disguised by the act of Sati. Desione (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So forced sati existed...? Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Who are you arguing against? I have already said earlier that in cases of forced sati, one needs to show whether these were result of Honor Killings or murders due to property dispute, family discord, etc disguised as sati. p371 points out that murders as a result for property issues may have been carried out in Bengal disguised as Sati. See the current description added by Nikul which clearly and concisely addresses "forced satis" as opposed to the confusing mumbo, jumbo that was there earlier. Desione (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It was perfectly clear. If it confused you, that is a separate matter. I was open to alternative phrasing, not the complete evisceration and elision that Nikkul has carried out. (Actually, I see he's merely reverted to an earlier version. So much for that.)
So, as far as I can see, your only claim is that when sati was involuntary, it was carried out only for property? That honor had no component?
Right. See Countering Gender Violence by Kanchan Mathur, p7. Sati was... in theory a highly meritorious act that would bring honour to the family..." followed by "...the tradition was couched in coercive practices...". (That point is clearly made straight off, and then the root causes are explained in terms of fertility and inheritance.) The beliefs, however centered around honor. Is that clear enough for you, or still mumbo-jumbo? I have two or three other similarly direct links. Relata refero (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And as I have pointed out before, the fact that there was considerable pressure on these individuals, and we do not know the degree to which their actions were determined by that pressure, means that there is academic debate about the degree to which they had volition in the process. That academic debate is cited. The fact that sati was viewed as necessary to preserve group honour is cited. The fact that sati was in some cases probably voluntary and in other cases involuntary, and that this depended on places and times, is stated. So what's your point?
The point as I have mentioned several times (and which has not registered with you) is that Sati is a largely voluntary practice (as pointed out directly by majority of publications) and hence it does not fit into the category of Honor Killings. Your own notions of what is murder or not is invalid. That is why we rely on citations. And majority of citations point out the fact that Sati was largely a voluntary practice. Desione (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say "largely voluntary"? It is not my notions of murder that are relevant, nor have I expressed them even once. It is the citations I have provided on an academic debate of whether sati should be viewed as largely voluntary or not. The debate on that is mainstream scholarship. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Of your quotes, one quotes Kumar (1942) on the pressure on lower-class women; one says "may have died to protect their honor", which is a formulation that carefully avoids stating who was doing the protecting (not "their own honor", see?) and so on. In each case the option is left open, precisely because there is a debate. Which is cited in several other places, including p216 of the same encyclopaedia: "in those cases where sati was voluntary..." Relata refero (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
While looking for qualified phrases you deliberately missed the unqualified phrase Sati is the traditional Hindu practice of a WOMEN IMMOLATING HERSELF on her husband's pyre. and also the fact that both qualified and unqualified phrases point out that sati was largely a voluntary practice when they could have easily been written to point the other way. Now are you able to provide an unqualified sentence saying "Sati is the traditional Hindu practice of a WOMEN being forcefully immolated on her husband's pyre.? Desione (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No. And I don't need to. Because I have demonstrated that there is a massive, mainstream debate on how voluntary sati is, and therefore whether it is murder or suicide. I have brought about six scholarly references to the table stating that this debate is central to the discourse on sati, both academic and political. Here's a ref that makes that explicit: Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture, and Postcolonialism, by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, pp 18-19. Once that is demonstrated, all that is needed to be done is to note that this debate exist - which is precisely what my text does. Relata refero (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If all that you want to point out is that there was cooercion, I don't have a problem against that. A simple straightforward line indicating this can be added as a second sentence in the current description. "The extent to which Sati was a purely voluntary act or one that was influenced by coersion is actively debated." along with "Many murders based on property or family disputes have been disguised as Sati." Desione (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the references? Even when it was unrelated to property, there may have been coercion. Even when it appeared voluntary, there may have been coercion. Like the scholarly references, the first sentence should be as passive as possible. Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please suggest a rewrite of the first sentence here without introducing original research and synthesis; otherwise, it looks quite accurate to me. Desione (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your objection to "The historic practice of sati, or widow-burning can be considered a form of honor suicide in those instances when (at least theoretically) the act is voluntary, with a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The following is more accurate: The ancient practice of sati, in which a recently-widowed woman would immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre,[20][21][22] generally is not considered honor killing except in cases in which Sati was forced. Desione (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And where's the passive voice in that? Relata refero (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am more concerned about accuracy than passive mumbo jumbo :-) Desione (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As demonstrated and documented above, " Even when it was unrelated to property, there may have been coercion. Even when it appeared voluntary, there may have been coercion. Like the scholarly references, the first sentence should be as passive as possible. " Thus, passive voice and disclaimers are required for accuracy. Relata refero (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The debate over coercion or free will has been mentioned in the second sentence. Combined with the first sentence the text is quite accurate that is sufficient. Desione (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Nope, because the debate is central to the discussion, so the first sentence is inaccurate if it takes sides on it. Particularly when the passive voice avoids the problem neatly, as in so many RSes. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence is saying is that "sati is generally not considered honor killing unless there was force used." That is pretty obvious. How is that taking sides? Desione (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(a) should mention the link to Honor suicide; (b) "would immolate herself" ignores the debate (not passive voice). Relata refero (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"would immolate herself" is the way Sati is defined in most texts as opposed to being defined as "forced to immolate herself". So the debate is based on the context of "would immolate herself." as opposed to being focused in the context of "coerced to immolate herself" or "forced to immolate herself." If sati was defined as "cocered for forced to immolate herself" there would be no debate as to the extent sati was coerced for forced. Desione (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
False comparison. I'm not suggesting either possibility. Please read the first sentence I suggest above. Relata refero (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is your first sentence not suggesting either possibility: The historic practice of Sati, can be considered Honor Suicide in those instances when the act is voluntary and honor killing in those instances when the act is forced where Sati is: a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor. Desione (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No. he link to sati provides the desired information, which you undercut by once again using "immolating herself". 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that even your first sentence used the words "immolating herself" which is accurate since that is the conventional way in which Sati is described in texts. Also the section now seems to have undue weight with respect to descriptions given under Christian and Islamic practices. Sati has already been described in detail and non-sati description can be shortened. Thank you. Desione (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My version says "in those instances" and "theoretically", thus qualifying it. Relata refero (talk)
I think the real issue here is due to your emphasis on Sati being murder. If you keep in mind that almost all sucides (even today in both western and eastern countries) are in some shape or form influenced/coerced by conditions that exist in the society around the person. Sucides hardly take place in isolation. This does not constitute murder in conventional sense. A clear distinction is maintained between what is murder and what is suicide even though ALL sucides can be considered to be coerced by society at large. Hence, in my opinion the following is a more accurate description: "The historic practice of Sati, can be considered Honor Suicide in those instances when the act is voluntary and honor killing in those instances when the act is forced where Sati is: a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor. The degree to which sati was a purely voluntary or a coerced action has been actively debated." Hope you see my point. Thanks. Desione (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly better, though I still have problems with it. For one, I don't see the point of defining sati like that, it sounds awkward. Relata refero (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "awkward"? Desione (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're shoehorning in the extra clause with the 'definition'. Relata refero (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That was mainly for your benefit. A compromise. Since I see sati mainly as a social problem rather than murder, I am ok with the following: "The historic practice of Sati, can be considered Honor Suicide in those instances when the act is voluntary where Sati is: a deceased man's widow immolating herself on his funeral pyre as an act of pious devotion and to preserve her and her family's honor. The degree to which sati was a purely voluntary or a coerced action has been actively debated." Desione (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) May I remind you that you have to demonstrate that everyone sees sati as a social problem rather than a problem of coercion, or your opinion doesn't count. (And you have assumed that my opinion is the same as what I have been arguing is the consensus belief, which is not the case.) Relata refero (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You cannot pass and enforce "laws" to ban say "suicide" or "racism". No law would ever work because these are social problems like Sati ([1]), education however goes a long way in these cases. My problem is with your phrase "(at least theoretically)" since it is taking sides. Desione (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this will probably take time, I am reverting to the version where the disagreement started. Desione (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In terms of undue weight, the rest of the article is about Muslim communities and predominantly Muslim countries. I am open to shrinking the second paragraph if necessary. Relata refero (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am reading agreement on shrinking the second paragraph. Is that right?
It is certainly possible, but let's get consensus on what should go first. Relata refero (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The current version ([2]) does appear neutral in the sense it refers to sati as "deeply contentious" indicating the controversy over it.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break 1

This is WP:OR or WP:SYN and definitely not WP:NPOV. You seem to be concluding on your own that there is a debate based on your own interpretation of certain sections of the text while ignoring all the texts that point to the fact that Sati is a largely voluntary practice. Please present an reliable article, a paragraph or a book that explicitly discusses whether the fact that Sati was largely a "Killing" as opposed to "Sucide" is debatable and PLEASE ADDRESS why majority of the quotes from p371 paint Sati as a largely voluntary act. Desione (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say "largely voluntary practice"? And I have addressed it. I have pointed out that each of those quotes on p371 qualifies it, presents it in the passive tense, etc. (See above.) See also the other citations I have provided on women's discourse on sati, all of which talk about the debate. You have not provided a single citation that says: "It is the mainstream academic view that sati was largely voluntary, and that talking of it in the context of murder is inaccurate." I have provided several that say the opposite; that it is not known to what degree it was voluntary, and that in some cases it was not, and that this is contentious. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please settle this issue before removing the text. You haven't provided a single reference to back up your claims that there isn't a debate on the subject in the academic mainstream. Relata refero (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point you are just nitpicking. You wouldn't have been nitpicking if there was a clear case to be made that Sati was largely a forced act. the sentence clearly says "...died to protect THEIR honor..." Also, If you haven't realized yet the majority of the opinion on this discussion now is that Sati was largely voluntary. Hence, the article is reflecting that. You need to make convincing arguments to point it the other way instead of nitpicking over grammar. Desione (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do try and focus on the grammar. Words are chosen for a reason. If "died to protect their honor" was preferred because it includes the possibility that they were forced to die to protect their honor. Do you understand why most things are in the passive tense now? Relata refero (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


About your last sentence, as I have said several times, the extent to which sati now and ever is suicide or murder is contentious in both academia and in the law. I have provided citations to that effect in the article as well, and it is written to reflect that debate. Relata refero (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure which references debate "the extent to which sati now and ever is suicide or murder is contentious in both academia and in the law." Please point them out here. Desione (talk)
Second line of the first paragraph, and second line of the second paragraph. (Basically, the lines that actually use the word "contentious" or its synonyms.) Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I will come back to this at a later time if needed. Desione (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break 2

I disagree. A person has complete control of them. Unless it was forced as in someone pushed her in, it is considered suicide. There is a huge difference between the other honor killings and sati. The other honor killings happen when men actually use weapons to kill the woman and when the woman has no control over the situation. Sati occurs when a woman voluntarily commits suicide. Nikkul (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I've provided citations that there is an academic debate over the nature of the pressure applied. If you are dissatisfied with the state of the academic debate, well, that happens. Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion about murder does not correlate with most penal codes which include lesser degrees of compulsion than "pushing her in". Again, I suggest you propose some language that clarifies the distinction you are drawing between (a) fully voluntary suicide described as "sati"; (b) acts which involve some degree of coercion or compulsion which are sometimes described as "sati" and sometimes described as "murder"; and (c) acts which involve "pushing in" which are sometimes described as "sati" and sometimes described as "murder". The distinction that you draw for this proposed language needs to be properly referenced in published sources. --Lquilter (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sati in its pure form symbolizes a woman's dedication to her husband and marriage. It had nothing to do with family honor. The custom was banned in 1829. It is generally agreed that in some instances, the female must have complied out of social and family pressure. The incidents reported are real exceptions. There has been less than 50 incidents of 'sati' reported so far since 1947. Considering this time period and the population of India, one cannot generalize isolated incidents into a rule about honor killing. As in the case of honor killing in radical Islam, coercion is not a rule in Sati. It can be defined as a barbaric custom but not honor killing. It does not fit into the current definition of honor killing.
'Sati was voluntary suicide. Some of these suicide cases were coerced. Coerced suicide is equivalent to killing. Coersion was done mostly by family members. Thus Sati is honor killing'. There is fallacy in this argument. --Rajesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What part of the above material is your proposed rewrite? --Lquilter (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And can you cite any of it to reliable sources? Relata refero (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Breaking the thread for readability). The wiki article on Sati is quite extensive. Sati belongs to a topic "atrocities against women". It does qualify as an "honor suicide". But this term "honor suicide" is not a widely used one. However it deserves a spin off on its own. Especially given the current state of terror with suicide bombings. Wiki seems to have a short article with this title "honor suicide". You may move this section to that article.
Honor killing in the muslim community is a very valid issue and there are a lot of recent news articles that can provide you with the content. Here are some links on a few shockers. But these incidents are not rare in areas ruled under Shariah law:

  • [[5] foxnews]
  • [[6] montreal gazette]
  • [[7] the age]


If you scour the web you can find a plethora of information on this. I do not think that a division of topics by christian, hindu and muslim communities is effective here. Only the references to bible is valid in this article. The rest is based on a single new article. Another paragraph explains what is NOT honor killing (crimes of passion).
Currently, honor killings are endorsed very much by the radical muslim community. The case of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was an example. Religious leaders declare 'fatwas' aka death sentences against people who dishonor thier beliefs. Remember the uproar during the Danish Cartoon controversy?. Currently, a thin line seperates honor killing incidents and terrorists acts.

Another section you may consider are the documented incidents of murder when a member of the family marries some from another religion/tribe/group/country/family. They precisely fall under honor killings. Thanks for your contributions.

--Rajesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this addresses the issue of Muslim honor killings, but does not shed light on the more semantic question of whether acts described as sati, if forced, can be considered a form of honor killing, and therefore whether it is appropriate to discuss sati in the honor killing article. I agree with your point about honor suicide, of course, but at this point that's simply a disambiguation page that points to forced suicide, honor killing, and suicide. --Lquilter (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Your latest edit on sati looks fine. I think that is the way to put it. However, there is a flaw in this sentence In the West, however, the numerous 'crimes of passion' which include murder due to infidelity are not encompassed within the umbrella of honor killing, but are well known to be more than prevalent, especially in the United States and Southern America. This statement has no purpose.
A section on Films that addresses this will be good. A new film Crossing Over starring Harrison Ford addresses this. There are a lot of Iranian and Turkish films on the topic.
The recent incidents where fathers killed their daughters must be mentioned. I am signing off from this talk. Thanks for the great work and good luck.--Rajesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Honor suicide exists. It has a similar discussion to this one, indicating that it is contentious as to whether Sati can genuinely be considered suicide.
I've broadened the section a bit, and restored some mysteriously deleted references. Relata refero (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikkul's edit

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)

How is that my original research? These quotes have been identified by the author to support honor killings. This is taken directly from the book. There is no original research involved. I have not included any of my opinions in it. If taking quotes from books qualifies are original research, then half of wiki is OR. Please stop your favoritism. Nikkul (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Nikkul (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

Nikkul, your insertion here is not appropriate: polemical websites like islam-watch.org are not considered reliable sources. In your latest insertion, it appears you provided no source at all (let alone a reliable one), so such changes are totally your own original research. ITAQALLAH 10:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forced, not arranged

"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)

[edit] Misquotes Christian Bible.

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)

answering-christianity.com is a completely unreliable source.Bless sins (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] NPOV?

I was wondering why the Hindu section has so much attention paid to the [highly debatable] act of sati, where as the Islamic section contains a single paragraph denying religious basis of honor killings.

Am I the only one that believes this to be entirely partisan against Hindus?

Furthermore, the Islamic section is clearly misleading as honor killings are often state sponsored within Islamic countries. The very justification for these types of punishments as quoted by judicial leaders is in fact Islamic law. It is generally carried out in the form of stoning.

And of course sati has a whole section devoted to it (it is by volume over twice the size of the Islamic section).

Again why the overwhelming focus on it within the context of honor killings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.96.250 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Islam does not promote honour killing in any way? Do a bit of research from reliable sources, and you will find that these things happen over regions with strong cultural influence, not religious.--Hamster X (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Hinduism condones honor killings? This may boil down to an issue of semantics (in regards to the archaic practice of Sati), though the fact still remains that honor killings, in the simplest sense (i.e. in terms of homicide) occur in predominantly Muslim dominated areas. In either case, I believe this article places a far to great focus upon the historical "honor suicide", rather than contemporary honor killing.
The problem is considered a cultural rather than a religious one. Which is why I would prefer that the article was rearranged on geographical rather than religious lines. The content, however, is written to ensure that whatever little religious influence exists is presented with context. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Relata, that'd be a good idea of arranging the article. Has this been attempted before?Bless sins (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)