Talk:Honor killing

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Edit removal

@Gonnym: please could you explain you mean by that edit summary? I do not think removing a massive source of UK information is necessary, considering how the sources are genuinely reported. Also, new wiki users or viewers may use the mobile website and options like edit history are hidden. This will stay reverted until you explain even more. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of LDas12345, see investigation)

The huge commented out text I removed is commented out, which means no one can see it. Commented out text might be useful in very specific scenarios where a short sentence needs to explain a peiece of information to other editors, but even in those situations, usually a non-commented out template might be used (like {{Better source needed}} instead of <!--this needs a better source-->. This situation however, is not those specific scenarios. This is just a huge piece of text that was removed from the article for one reason or another. If it's useful, add it. If it isn't, it should be removed. Any user who wishes to view the history of the article, can do so the standard way. If new users don't know how, they can learn. Those same users, as I've explained, will have a harder time editing this article since they now have an additional hidden piece of text to deal with. They might even edit it and find out that what they edit isn't shown, making their experience even worse.

Can you explain why this article is different than every other article on en.wiki and needs this? Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym well, it is useful as those BBC articles discuss where they happen, as well as the cases in the UK. How is it hidden in the article? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of LDas12345, see investigation)

The text has <!-- and --> around it for some reason. See MOS:COMMENT.

If you look at the article, the text is not there. It only shows up when editing the article source.

From the page history an IP commented it out in May 2021 without any explanation. Belbury (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Italy: "Crime against honor" vs "Honor killing"

In Italy,the law used to make a distinction between delitto contro l'onore (Crime against honor) and delitto d'onore (Honor crime).
"Crime against honor" designates insults, defamation and other offences to someone's reputation.
The duel used to be a way to obtain satisfaction and restore the family's reputation. Today, crimes against honor are still punished according to the articles n. 594-599 of the Italian penal code (Book 2, 12th Title).
Honor killing refers to the femicide of a woman who is sexually active outside marriage, but her "lover" could also be killed.

Honor killing became illegal in Italy more or less at the same time as the duel. However, until 1981 the law admitted the woman’s unfaithfulness as an extenuating circumstance (Codice Penale Zanardelli 1888, art. 377; Codice penale Rocco 1930, art. 587).

The Italian law is obviously based on a Latin tradition; however, it seems to me that the notion of "crime against honor" is primal to understand the mindset of honor killing; if a similar notion existed in the anglosaxon tradition, it could be useful to structure this article.

Perhaps "code of honor" could be a good candidate?

s.vecchiato (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

"Honor killings in India" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Honor killings in India has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 18 § Honor killings in India until a consensus is reached. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 03:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"Religion and honor killing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Religion and honor killing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 19 § Religion and honor killing until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"See Also" Links

Several items in the "See Also" links have been added and removed several times.

The current list is extensive. A lot of these are great and I think fine to have on there, and broadly I don't think there's any issue with having an excess on here. But several don't seem to be related? Specifically, I'm wondering about:

• Son preference and female infanticide: Honor killing is about preserving the victim's honor based on the victim's behavior. If there are cultures that consider infant-killing to be preserving the infant's honor, we should add it to the article. If not, I don't think these need to be continually re-added.
• Women in the Victorian Era: Are there substantial honor killings in the Victorian era? If so, should be discussed in the page, otherwise I don't see the relevance (nor are honor killings discussed anywhere on that page), unless we intend to add other pages just about "women in place+time"? Women in prehistory, Women in India, Women in the military..? Could be a very long list and I don't see the comparative relevance of Victorian.
• Several others have been added and removed, though I'll leave it to others to raise, as I personally think all the others are at least tangentially relevant.

CC @Lubdhak 972729282, @Cheese and honey, @Aniyahol, @Bearcat as recent editors of the section, seeking to build consensus. I don't care enough either way to remove again personally, but given there's multiple people involved, wanted to bring the back-and-forth edits to the Talk page instead to arrive at the same page and give others a place to share their thoughts on the subject. AmityCity (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a recent editor of that section, as the only time I've ever edited this page at all involved removing a nonexistent redlinked Category:Son preference from the category block on WP:REDNOT grounds. That said, one of the rules around "See also" sections is that they're not supposed to include things that have already been linked in the main body text of the article — I haven't checked them all, and I'm not going to, but it seems incredibly unlikely that a See also section this large in an article this long isn't violating that rule with at least some of its entries. But also, a see also section probably shouldn't be a massive list of things that are tangentially relevant to the main topic — it needs to be a limited list of things that are directly relevant, and probably should be linked in the main article body but just haven't been yet. Bearcat (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a great point, actually. Even body of the text aside, a large chunk of the See Also links are redundant from the Series List infoboxes at the top of the page. WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates AmityCity (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

(Also, sorry about the mistaken tag, mis-read the edit history as being about the Son Preference in See Also rather than categories, but thanks for your perspective anyways!) AmityCity (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

No harm, no foul Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SEEALSO's "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" applies to the sidebar, as it's not technically part of the WP:BODY - and, crucially, the sidebar won't be visible to mobile users. Belbury (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@AmityCity these types of relations are similar to honour killing, even if they are not directly associated. For example in cases of female infanticide some cultures view girls as a burden, which is similar to being "sinful" or "dishonourable" disgust. Integrating with this, son preferences is associated with Honour abuse. Women and girls in the Victorian Era get beatings for behaving in ways that are deemed "sinful" - these all link. Lubdhak 972729282 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

"some cultures view girls as a burden" Until recent decades, that was commonplace in Greece. But not for reasons of sin. It was expected for the family to contribute to the dowry of a bride. Multiple girls in a family translated to multiple dowries, and relatively few could afford that. Some dowry demands included purchasing houses or apartments for the groom. Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, sounds good. Violence by families seems like a reasonable link, hoping the other folks editing can agree with this! AmityCity (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)