Talk:Lina Joy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Lina Joy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 27, 2007
This article is supported by WikiProject Malaysia.

This project provides a central approach to Malaysia-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Spelling

Any particular reason this article uses the spelling "Syariah", rather than the more common "Sharia" that is used by both the sources for this article, and our own article on the subject? --Delirium 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the Malaysian spelling and phrase, hence the term Mahkamah Syariah (Sharia Court). — Bluerで す。 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me in the phrase "Mahkamah Syariah", but it seems like when using the English translation "Sharia Court", we ought to use that spelling (as you did in your comment). That's what the sources for this article do, anyway. --Delirium 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's normally spelled syariah in Malay, but I agree that it should be changed here so as to not confuse western readers. Borisblue 06:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's also normally spelled syariah in Malaysian English; in general, WP:ENGVAR states that "articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." cab 06:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless the spelling "Syariah" is changed to "Sharia" throughout this article, and perhaps anyway, as there is a link to "Sharia" there will need to be something on that page mentioning that the spelling "Syariah" is the Malaysian spelling, and possibly any other different spellings in other countries and other variants of English. As this article stands, I clicked both links (recognizing both spellings had similar sounds, and expecting an explanation) and was taken to the same page; however as the "Sharia" page stands, it does not contain the spelling "Syariah" at all! (Ideally talk pages like this are purely for contributors, not for readers consulting to get information.) Iph 08:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)iph
I added a footnote about it on this page; I'll fix the Sharia page too once I can dig up proper citations with page numbers (e.g. Kamus Dewan) Cheers, cab 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia = the new MEMRI

is this really "news" or just an attack on islam? why is this singled out and put on the frontpage? have you heard this make a frontpage story in any other news media?

Yes, this item gets prominent coverage in The Economist this week, appearing in their initial summary of the week's important news and, in detail, in their Asia section. Colonel Warden 14:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Refer to article from The Economist, Lina Joy's' despair [1] and also from the NYT [2] __earth (Talk) 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia didn't have any new news to put on frontpage so they decided to publish one attacking islam.

It is not attacking Islam. It is what being reported at various news, even in the Malaysian mainstream media. __earth (Talk) 15:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

this is disgusting, be fair and don't single out particular religion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.113.51 (talk • contribs)

this has been going on ever since the beginning of the christian religion. we christians should take this as a complement, as Christ told us that we should rejoice that we are persecuted in His name. --69.67.230.98 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the fact that this subject is virtually unheard of in other media. I believe the reason it was put forward was due to the fact that the case challenges certain laws so far considered taboo in muslim countries, and a ruling favourable to Lna Joy could mark the beginning of a major change in the life of people living in countries where islam heavily influences daily life. I don't, however, see how this is an attack on islam. It simply informs that someone wants to change her religion, but the malaysian law doesn't allow it. It doesn't say that islam is bad or that the Malaysian law is bad. If you think that it might be an unreasonable attack on this religion, please tag it as POV and state your reasons for it. I agree with you, however, that there are other news important to more people than this is, which did not make it to front page. But then again, this is also a POV statement...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.104.234.46 (talk • contribs)
I don't understand how this could be construed as an "attack on Islam." It is rather the story of an attack on individual liberty and religious freedom, in the case of this woman. Surely, there are many more like her, and this article personalizes it. I don't think it's POV at all. If there were similar persecution of Muslims, or people of other religions who wished to convert but could not due to oppressive restrictions on personal liberty, it would also be legitimate. Twalls 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually if your read the article, there's nothing in Malaysian law nor anything in this ruling which disallows a Muslim from converting faith. This case has only been about whether someone can have their conversion from Islam recognised without going through the Syariah Court. The Federal Court ruled the answer is no. There's no point getting into ethical arguments here but I think it's important the readers and editors probably understand what the case was and wasn't about. It remains an open question whether Lina Joy's conversion will be recognised if she goes through the Syariah Court Nil Einne 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be useful to know why she has chosen not to go through the Syariah Court, if she has explained her reasoning in a way that we can cite. --Jfruh (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That I'm not sure. I haven't follower the case that closely but I've never heard if she's spoken about her motives. She might have perceived her chances as being better in the Federal Court. Alternatively, perhaps she feels the Syariah Court is irrelevant to her because she doesn't consider herself a Muslim anymore. Definitely a lot of her supporters feel this way. Also, if the Syariah Court doesn't recognise her conversion they could punish her in some way. Also, I should point out there is AFAIK nothing stopping her from going to the Syariah Court now and whether this case has had any effect on her chances there will never be known. What should be obvious though is that if she had taken her case to the Syariah Court and been rebuffed then she would have been effectively asking the civil court to overturn the Syariah Court whereas by doing what she did, she was simply asking them to bypass the Syariah Court. Therefore, it's possible she had the greatest chance of success on the whole by going to the civil court first before the Syariah Court. If you're interested further, Status of religious freedom in Malaysia appears to have some detail and doesn't seem to unbalanced. Nil Einne 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, no apologies for totalitarian Islam, pointing out their egregious violations of human rights and religious liberty is very appropriate, and besides, the media rarely focuses on wikipedia news, who heard which guy became latvian president before they came here? Judgesurreal777 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Um quick question, did you actually read the article? Nil Einne 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the 'what is worthy front page news?' question I thought I would point out what CNN currently has in their "top stories" section. -'I'm dead,' tumbling skydiver told helmet cam -Artist unveils $98M diamond skull -Fast talker tells '3 Little Pigs' in 13 seconds -Jail countdown on for Paris Hilton -Freaky two-tone lobster spared boiling pot www.cnn.com June 1st 2007 So I don't know that what the major news outlets cover is a good standard. Mbarden 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be true that CNN might have silly front page news, but, we're not CNN, we're an encyclopedia, so we should do better. However, deciding what news is worthy of making front page is subjective. Maybe most people who watch CNN are more interested in how fast '3 Little Pigs' can be said than in other evens which perhaps have more impact on their lives, but are less freaky. That doesn't mean we should do the same, so, as pointed out before, it's irrelevant that other media didn't cover this story. I don't know what the notability criteria are for making front page news on wikipedia, but if this article passes them, it should definitely stay, no matter how relevant 'we' find it. If it doesn't it should go, also no matter what we think about it.

Definitely not an attack on Islam. Very interesting story though and a major case that could affect many people in Malaysia.64.94.47.117 14:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Although granted, the supression of religious freedom anywhere in the world is news worthy, I question if this would receive the same response on Wikipedia were she converting to Buddhism, or another non-western based organised religion. Without doubt more sensationalist News networks wouldn't treat it with the same attention. But would we? Neobros 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the NPOV policy of wikipedia, we should treat the story with exactly the same attention, no matter if it's buddhism or christianity. there is, however, a difference between should treat it and will treat it. We are unfortunately human. I'm sure that somewhere around the world someone was stopped from choosing as his or her religion a non-western based one. If you have information regarding such a story, and sources to back it up, please post it and put it on the front page news. I sadly believe that these stories happen so often in certain regions, that it would block the front page news section. But you are right, according to our NPOV policy, the same attention should be given to such subjects.
Fair enough, you can only judge people for their intentions. I only hope WikiNews doesn't slip into a similar state as the BBC is now in, with the good intention of balanced reporting, but without the capability to put that intention into action. Neobros 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But seriously , i find it weird that a case that happened 5 days ago and counting, could still be highlighted as top news. Personally i think someone is bringing political issues into Wikipedia which really bugs me up. Its a free encyclopedia, not Pravda of the our generation, it should make information available to all, not shove selective information down people's throats. I would think since the five days Lina joy has been in Malaysian newspapers, alot of other more news worthy things has happened all around the world. Are you saying Lina Joy is more newsworthy than the JFK Airport terrorist plot, or the G8 riots, which by the way is a big news item here in Germany? Why dont i see that article highlighted in the news section? So im asking, who is turning Wikipedia into a political tool? You should be ashamed of yourself. I say, Lina Joy should be highlighted as a news item on the main page of Wikipedia but only for so long as it is the current breakthrough news item,for there are many more articles that requires highlighting to serve educational needs of others.

Please suggest news items at WP:ITN- eventually, with enough new news items the old ones will go down the list and eventually disappear. This is how our news section always works. There is no political agenda. 72.8.104.11 14:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote Dissent but not Ruling?

While I hardly want to jump on the Defense-of-Islam trolling bandwagon, it is curious that the article quotes the dissent but does not quote the actual ruling. Presumably, the court ruled in this way for a reason, and not simply because the judges are terrible theocratic chauvanists. Can someone with access get something relevant up there to present both sides of the issue? I suspect the court ruled according to jurisdiction conflicts, not ideological conflicts. --Joshua BishopRoby 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a brief statement that the Chief Justice made when making his ruling and added that to contrast the dissenter. -Atamasama 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews?

This seems like an item better suited to Wikinews; should be transwiki'ed there to go with the other stories. -- phoebe/(talk) 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have failed this article based on the requirements of the GA criteria. The main reason for doing so is that it does not meet the broad requirement. Continue to seek out more sources and split up the information into headings by topic. An infobox would also be beneficial, look at WP:Bio to find the most appropriate one. Also more citations could be added and some sentences should be cleaned up some, including "It had been hoped that Joy's case..." (it had been hoped by who?; and where's the source?). Consider getting a peer review to see how to expand the article. Once you think you have addressed these issues, look over the criteria and see if you believe the article meets the criteria. Then renominate again. If you believe this review is in error, you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review, and if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.