Talk:Rizana Nafeek

Notability

All due respect, especially for the dead, but does this person really meet the notability requirements? See WP:N, especially WP:N/CA. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say yes due to the elements of an international reaction. Ryan Vesey 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in that case it should be the event that is notable, rather than the person. How about renaming it to "Execution of Rizana Nafeek"? HandsomeFella (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a very good suggestion. After all, the "notability" comes from the execution and backlash from killing a poor, illiterate, under-age guest worker rather than anything the girl did. Yes, she was found guilty of murder, but if any sentence other than death had been imposed we would not have this article. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This should be about the event, not the person. So it should be moved to Death of Rizana Nafeek or perhaps Execution of Rizana Nafeek. Silverseren^C 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly moved the page to Execution of Rizana Nafeek per WP:CRIME. WWGB (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This has to be one of the one sided articles I have viewed in a long time, I came here following a link on WP:ITN/C and there is only a few words on what she was accused of, the trial, its focused on the reaction to what is as far as this country is concerned the due process of law.

The article needs a major re-write to address this total imbalance, but frankly I am also not seeing how this is going to get over WP:BIO1E. ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check the discussion above on "Notability". It meets WP:BIO1E. POV tag is irrelevant since the expansion is going. I am removing POV tag and adding construction tag.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm restoring the POV tag. The fact that an article is not neutral has nothing to do with whether or not it is under construction. In addition, are you prepared to do a major reconstruction of the article? If not, you should not add the under construction tag. Ryan Vesey 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought "Construction" tag will attract other editors to get involved. Since it is already removed by another editor, it's OK. I will contribute my best to the article's expansion.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

<underconstruction> is not just an invitation to others to improve the article, it is used when an editor is heavily working on the article. That is not the case here. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake. I have added her Letter in Tamil and its translation.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• This NPOV issue still exists and the maintenance template should be restored, unless an overwhelming number object here. ✍ Mtking ✉ 20:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the primary POV issue is in the lead, which maintains its earlier POV. {{POV-lead}} is still necessary if the issues in the article get fixed. The article addresses the fact that there were discrepancies in Nafeek's age. What it doesn't mention, and can be seen in this article, was that Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that the government had denied that Nafeek was a minor at the time of the death. Ryan Vesey 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Death of victim

The article does not state how the victim died, only that Nafeek said it was an accidental choking and that the Saudi authorities ruled it murder. What was the ruling regarding how Nafeek killed the victim? Jim Michael (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Now added that Nafeek was accused of deliberately smothering the baby [1]. WWGB (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rizana Nafeek statement made on 30 January 2007 section

English Translation of the Letter [snip; copyvio] I want to add the above on the article.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have removed the addition of Nafeek's statement added by HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) with this edit as it really is not appropriate to reproduce it verbatim. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems relevant. I say add it. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To User:Mtking: Can you explain how it is "not appropriate"? (I am editing to reveal the photo until such time as consensus is reached. This is a Talk page, other editors can see what is under discussion) Boneyard90 (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't understand what is wrong with User:Mtking. User:Mtking has gone to the image adding orphan tag before we discuss something here. I am adding the content back since User:Boneyard90 also agrees with me.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no need to reproduce this verbatim, firstly the article is currently biased towards the claims of innocence, secondly the purpose of the encyclopedia is to summarise available sources and finally there is a likely copyright issue. As for the image it's self I have reverted to the link as per WP:NFCC#9 - non-free content is not allowed on talk pages - that point is not debatable. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you here on the support Saudi Arabia's one-sided verdict without post-mortem report and just on the statement given by the police and child's mother?

The image is not violating any copy right issue under fair use.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That statement shows exactly why you should not be editing an encyclopaedic article on this case, you have a clear POV and are pushing your agenda. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are pushing POV. You should be away from this article. There is no such edit war, you appear finding wrong in something without proper explanation.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't discuss on my talk page that I am edit warring. I have re-added after the clear message toward you by User:Boneyard90, "Seems relevant. I say add it".HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But you are, and your block log shows that you have a history of that in relation to SL articles; and Boneyard90 did not address the issue that WP summarise sources and does not reproduce them verbatim and it is most likly a copyvio to do so. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

By showing the edit war some where else don't try to persecute me here. If that is so, please discuss with User:Boneyard90 on his talk page regarding the copy-vio and why he asked to add the content and the image. There is always a fair use. I haven't copied the whole article from the original source.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Take 2: Letter & Image

Let's start over here. My statement was in support of the letter in the article, but does not reflect any official policy. We have two issues: the translation of the letter and the image.

1. Letter Text: I say the translated letter is relevant, and should be included in the article. It is not overly redundant, or about irrelevant detail, and it is not too long. It's in her own words, and I feel the article and the reader would benefit from it. To provide balance, the article needs more information on the Saudi government's position. There is very little about what the prosecution has said.
2. Image: Is the image free or not? Does the Asian Tribune hold a copyright on it? I could not see anything specific on the AT website except a blanket statement about "content". Did Nafeek mail it directly to the Asian Tribune? Even if she did, it is not addressed to anyone, and the person who wrote it is dead. Seems to me that it would be in the public domain. If so, then images of something in the public domain, are also in the public domain. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Both the text and the image of the letter are copyrighted and can't be included. A summary or interpretation of the letter cannot be used since that would be original research. If we can find news sources that discuss the letter we can discuss it that way. Ryan Vesey 14:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the image license into public domain - because Rizana's Letter was written to the Public in Large to disclose that she is innocent. The Letter was not addressed to anyone by her. She might have given the Letter to any third party but her motive is, to disclose the world that she is innocent. The Letter doesn't have any significant economic value for it is to be claimed by her legal heirs that it is the property of theirs.

The English translation of the content in the Image of the Letter which is in the public domain, is again in public domain. It was translated by Asia Tribune and I couldn't see any violation of original research.

I am adding the image back. If some one differ, they can explain here and can revert my edit.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone's intended audience has nothing to do with the copyright status of their works. Something can be released to the public, without being in the public domain. Even if the letter had in some way been copyright free, the photographer owns the copyright of the photograph of the letter and whoever translated the letter owns the copyright of the translation. Ryan Vesey 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

She is no more there to get to know whom the intended audience she had in mind. But generally it is the world in large she had in mind. If that is the case, really we want to get the permission for the photograph and the translation, then we can write to the Asia Tribune.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation of the text is not held by a copyright. If the text is translated in a published source, then it should be cited; if there is no translation, Wikipedia editors can translate the text, though that leaves any other Wiki-editor with any last bit of knowledge free to alter the translation. An image of something in public domain can not be copyrighted. That is why nobody can copyright an image of the Mona Lisa, no matter how they've altered it. It's in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should submit the issue to the Public Domain talk page, to get the input of disinterested editors. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which would be the ideal talk page? Either this or this.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I first saw the second page. Since we're asserting it's Public Domain, I suggest we take it there. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions would be the place to go. Ryan Vesey 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither the image nor the text is public domain without a release from the author explicitly stating that. There is no fair use allowance for copyrighted text outside brief quotes (reproducing the entire note verbatim doesn't qualify), and the fair use allowance for images doesn't apply, as the image fails criterion 8. The image doesn't add anything essential to understanding the topic; it's just a picture of a letter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been said above, absent a clear release the text was copyrighted as soon as it was written. As far as the translation goes, it is subject to both the original author's copyright as well as the translator's copyright, so it is doubly a problem. Furthermore, the Mona Lisa can, in fact, be copyrighted if altered so that it is not a mere reproduction of the original -- File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg, for example, is still copyrighted in France. It is only in the public domain in the U.S. due to its age. It takes very little creative spark (the choice of exact wording to use in a translation, the addition of a goatee and new title, etc.) to qualify for copyright. VernoWhitney (talk)

I'm still not 100% convinced, but I can see consensus does not support my view. Personally, I think there needs to be a Wikiproject filled with actual attorneys because these kind of debates get tiresome and time-consuming. Unless there are new developments, or the discussion is opened up on a new page, I'm done. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also of the view for certain special cases there should be a Wikiproject with actual attorneys. But for the time being, can I use the following excepts as its on the page?HudsonBreeze (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The excerpts cannot be used. First, the translation used to directly quote the material would have to be from someone who releases the copyright of their translation under a valid license. You can check at Wikipedia:Noticeboard for India-related topics to see if there's someone who could do a translation of the letter. Still, it would be better to find a secondary source and use that. I'm sure there is a news source somewhere that commented on the letter. There's absolutely no reason to use direct quotes, because it can all be rewritten. Ryan Vesey 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean if some one translate the letter from the image other than what is on Asian Tribune, it could be used on the page?HudsonBreeze (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, per VenoWhitney above, no, it would still be a problem. A Wikipedian's translation would be okay if the original was public domain, but this original isn't in the public domain, so it's still not okay. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what about some important excerpts from it?HudsonBreeze (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NFC, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". Now in most cases there is very little that needs to be quoted, and if (as Ryan Vesey said) it can all be rewritten and utilize secondary sources, then we can't use any of it (per WP:NFCC#1). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming here after seeing the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. It is correct that the image of the letter cannot be used, as the text of the article can clearly convey that she recanted her confession. Therefore the letter fails NFCC #1 (it is replaceable by free content, in this case free text). The letter can of course be cited as a primary source, though additional citations to secondary sources mentioning it would be preferable, but it is not necessary to reproduce it here to convey to the reader that the letter was written or what it says. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Execution of Rizana Nafeek. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130219185549/http://naamthamilar.ca/?s=Rizana+Nafeek&x=0&y=0 to http://naamthamilar.ca/?s=Rizana+Nafeek&x=0&y=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Execution of Rizana Nafeek. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113052720/http://www.ceylontoday.lk/51-21625-news-detail-sheer-saudi-barbarism.html to http://www.ceylontoday.lk/51-21625-news-detail-sheer-saudi-barbarism.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130216195229/http://english.srilankamirror.com/2012/06/for-diamond-jubilee-save-rizana-nafeeks-life/ to http://english.srilankamirror.com/2012/06/for-diamond-jubilee-save-rizana-nafeeks-life/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111213729/http://www.ceylontoday.lk/16-21563-news-detail-rizana-nafeek-executed.html to http://www.ceylontoday.lk/16-21563-news-detail-rizana-nafeek-executed.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1301/S00096/uk-and-france-condemn-killing-of-rizana-nafeek-in-saudi.htm/saudi-arabia-execution-of-rizana

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)