Talk:Masha'il bint Fahd al Saud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the 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.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Instead of simply reverting, it's best to discuss the disagreement here (and not in edit summaries).

So was Misha'al murdered? Was Nick Berg murdered, or merely executed? Should we use the phase "extra-judicial killing"? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, whether we like it or not, those who executed Misha'al are the legal authority, so it is by definition execution, regardless of whether or not it's right or humane...etc, whereas those who murdered Nick Berk are terrorists who are not even native of that country. This is not a point of view, these are facts. Al-Zarqawi is not even from Iraq, and he has no authority there, unlike the case here. -- Eagleamn 17:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Misha'al was murdered without any legal process at all, so whatever position her grandfather had is irrelevant. It's not an execution, unless it's ordered by a court of law, and that's all there is to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talkcontribs)

Okay, so is it your view that if a legal authority kills someone, it by definition isn't a "murder", but is an "execution" instead? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In definition, yes. What's your view? -- Eagleamn 19:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess that works for me. Besides, "killing" is a loaded term that should be avoided when it might be controversial. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Just being a "legal authority" doesn't suffice. The person doing the killing must also be acting within the scope of that legal authority, and without any legal proceedings, that can not be the case. For example Saddam is being tried for murder, and the fact that he was the president of Iraq at the time has no bearing on it.
At any rate, Misha'al's grandfather did not hold any kind of legal authority to act as judge, jury and executioner of his own family. He simply went unprosecuted because of his close relationship to the king.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talkcontribs)

Murder and execution are not mutually exclusive, a murder can be an execution and an execution can be a murder. See the articles on lynching and summary execution.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talkcontribs) I've added the NPOV tag, and for the time being will settle for the term "killed".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.132.217 (talk • contribs)

To avoid the word “murder” would prejudice the article. The fact that the perpetrator was the “legal authority” is irrelevant. Even if due process was followed it was still a murder by the definition of the word “murder”. Otherwise, one could correctly say that 6 million criminals were lawfully executed by the legal authority for the crime of being Jewish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.32.62 (talk • contribs)

The Holocaust is different from this in that while it was legal under Nazi Germany, the subsequent government of Germany condemned the killings. In this situtation, the person who ordered the "event" is a prince of the royal family. Since the royal family has absolute power and it was not condemnded by them, it is legal (unless it is condemned in the future) and should be classified as an execution. (Reahad 12:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

She was murdered. It was not justifiable, and was done out of malice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talkcontribs) 15:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

It was a murder because she did not commit a serious crime (if any crime at all) and she did not recieve due process. No matter what reaction calling it murder gets, at the end of the day in order to maintain NPOV then it should be down as murderSennen goroshi 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats your view. In Saudi law she committed a crime. How you can honestly say that saying murder when she appears to have been legally executed is NPOV is amazing. She was executed. Executed is a legal term that is not POV is anyway. --UpDown 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you arguing with people about the smallest things. my god updown stop.Zingostar 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major factual errors

This article as it is written is just plain wrong. See the full story here: http://qatardiary.blogspot.com/2005/08/death-of-princess.html I guess I will do a little rewrite. The charges were not trumped up. She truly did by her own admission commit adultery. Amity150 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

someone's blog is a verifiable and reliable source? i think not.Sennen goroshi 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of a Saudi execution being done in a "special" place of any kind. They are always done in a parking lot or other ordinary public place. Present sources for your rewrite, please. The fact that she was married needs to be included. The way the article was written originally, she was somehow "married" to the man she had the affair with! Very confusing. Amity150 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adultery or fornication?

Agreed, Amity150. It's not adultery unless at least one of the couple involved is married to someone else, which the article never states. Otherwise it's fornication, which is a different offence. One website cited above suggests she had earlier been married against her will to someone else, but also says she refused to fulfil the contract - which I take to mean nonconsummation and which might imply under Saudi law that no marriage was yet in place. Can this be resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.65.33 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)