Wikipedia

Talk:Qatif rape case/Archive 1

< Talk:Qatif rape case
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Enwebb in topic Neutrality issues
Archive 1

Search Function Difficulty

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • I'm having hard time with redirecting and search functions. Is it possible to redirect and search for "Qatif Girl" or Qatif rape case , or any other close vartaion to this page? Unless i type the whole article title, the search result will come empty, even one misspell will result "no match". I tried redirecting but it didnt seem to work. Would anyone please advice me what to do? thanks Souli~ 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Go to the articles you want to make a redirect, create them, and as content, enter: #REDIRECT [[Qatif Girl Rape Case]]. In theory. In practice, make them to Qatif girl rape case which I am moving this article to because it is the prefered capitalistion as in the manual of style. Martijn Hoekstra 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the help, I only created the Girl of Qatif and Girl from Qatif pages because I couldn't find it when I did a search. Is "Qatif girl rape case" listed in appropriate lists? That would definitely help findability. Famous rape cases, famous Saudi trials, etc. Thanks. --Spesek (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

one sided article

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do agree that it is horable htat the victum of a crime can be sentanced to a punishment, But in reading the link defending the minister and the other source texts I can see how single sided this article is. I do not have teh editing skill to correct this error please help by following the wikipeda guidlines and reporting both sides of the story. Ap0ught (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Two victims

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There were two victims in this case, yet little mention is made of the male rape victim in this article. Indeed, the female victim is referred to as "the victim" in several places. This needs to be addressed (by someone who knows more about the subject than I do). Just an observation. Martin (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed two replies here per WP:BLP. A strong accusation was made concerning a living individual, and no source has been provided after nearly 4 years to back them up, and a followup repeated the claim (and was moot without the claim). Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading title?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does the title give the impression to anyone else that the main prosecution was for rape, whereas the government was mainly interested in adultery? Andjam (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence the government was mainly interested in adultery, the rapists received harsher penalties after all. The government did prosecute the rape victims for adultery and/or close proximity when they were not married nor relatives, which many people understandably find disgusting and is what brought the case to the fore and therefore the primary issue of the article, but that's a different thing. (The government was also clearly not happy about the victim and her husband going public about the case, but that's also a different thing.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

last edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I mean that it was a grammer issue, not WP:HEAD.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Qatif rape case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Qatif rape case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is formatted well. Although, other vocabulary words could be used when describing the crime. Under the First Victim paragraph, there are too many commas. Also, correct grammar in the Background paragraph. All in all, the case is displayed well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstrong2 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page has some neutrality problems. There are a few statements of judgments/other issues such as

  • "It is widely condemned that Saudi law literally depends on Sharia laws since judges' interpretations of it are not based on any written legal code. Each judge interprets it in his own way" (mostly the word "literally" comes across that way)
  • "Despite the retraction of their confession, the men should have been given harsher penalties,"
  • only referring to the female victim as a victim and the male victim as her companion, when both were victims of a crime.
  • "Because of this, sentences and punishments are handed to defendants off of the mere judgment of the judge on the case." mere judgment seems...well...judgey
  • "There is no clarity when it comes to the verdict that might be given at trial in the Saudi Arabian courthouses. It is unethical to practice law based off of opinion. In order to prevent further violations of human rights, the Saudi Arabian government needs to create a set of guidelines on the way trials need to be held and run. These guidelines MUST be followed by all judges to create a uniform system." again, more editorializing
  • "The husband defended his wife in a surprising showing of open-mindedness for a man from this part of the world, where rape victims and their families are almost always silent" surprising showing???
  • "...issued a pardon for the girl" demeaning to refer to an adult woman as a girl
  • "Although the pardon was good news for the girl from Qatif," not NPOV, not a girl
  • "A system should be created that protects women's rights and gives them the freedom to make major decisions in their life like who to marry, how to dress, and where they should be allowed to travel" this belongs in an editorial, not an encyclopedia
  • "The men of Saudi Arabia need to respect the rights of women because they were born with natural, human rights same as men. Human rights are inalienable: they cannot be taken away. It is not ethical to decide who is and isn't entitled to them based off of religious beliefs. A separation between the secular and religious life in Saudi Arabia would help to enable that everyone is entitled to their human rights." again super preachy

I normally edit biology articles, but I'm willing to try to fix this up a little unless someone else wants to step up. Enwebb (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qatif_rape_case/Archive_1&oldid=1030832608"