Talk:Family honor

First Edits

Hi Group-mates, Here we can discuss what each of us will/can/cannot do. I am doing a literature search on family honor at this moment. Faith, can you also post the resources you mentioned last time? Later we can decide who will focus on what aspect. Thanks!! Esery (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see you guys are starting to work on the article and discuss things here so early. You may want to consider rescuing this content; see my comments at User_talk:Rojast07#September_2011 for more on what needs to be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey I have my part of the outline on what I thought I'd like to work on. It's considerably short since we are all combining our outlines together to make one complete final outline. My outline is tentative. I have to go to the library and see what I can find out about the topics I chose to write about. For the countries I chose, I picked them based on the cultures I figured I'd be able to find the most information about and which I though had strong family honor traditions and customs. But I'll post my part of the outline below:

Family Honor

1. History

        a.Gender Roles
        b.Group Values 

2. Honor within different Cultures

        a.Traditions
            i. Asia
                 1.China
                 2.Korea
                 3.Japan
            ii. Middle East
            iii.Africa
         b.How Honor is upheld in different cultures

I've put some information on the website about the first two portions. Hopefully I can expand on them. If not it's a considerable amount of information. Let me know if this looks okay. Rojast07 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the resources I mentioned before they were mostly for Honor Killings which I realized has it's own page and doesn't entirely fit into this page and its content. We'll have to find new resources. Most of it came from articles on the internet, but were supposed to take things mostly from articles and books. Sorry about that. Rojast07 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The outline looks good so far. I'm looking for sources right now and hopefully we can make something work. Leishanda G. —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Hi! I am the Wikipedian online ambassador for your class. It is good that you added references to the article. However, you can improve the reference format by using named references since the same footnote is being referred to. You can do this by replacing all the reference codes in the article (with the exception of the first reference code) with this code - <ref name="Kinship, Patronage, Kinship & Purity- 25" />. Here is an example of how it should be done. Please do not hesitate to ask if you need help or have any questions. Bejinhan talks 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some book references:

1)J Ginat. Blood revenge: family honor, mediation and outcasting. Susse Academic Press, 1997 Great description of family honor in the Middle East, you can access at: http://books.google.com/books?id=BZO43uRmHtwC&pg=PA93&dq=ginat+women&hl=en&ei=B3OATsiHAqfj0QHm7-znDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=ginat%20women&f=false

2) Women in Muslim rural society: status and role in family and community By J. Ginat transaction publishers 1982 From the same author as in the first reference, a little older resource but the descriptions are longer: <http://books.google.com/books?id=FTjF2Hxt-zoC&pg=PA177&dq=%22family+honor%22&hl=en&ei=dop_TtWMBar20gG78fXkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22family%20honor%22&f=false

3) Gender and poverty in nineteenth-century Europe. By Rachel Ginnis Fuchs, Cambridge University Press, 2005 This one covers historical aspects of family honor in Europe. <http://books.google.com/books?id=dnC6WJWZEP4C&dq=%22family+honor%22+europe&source=gbs_navlinks_s>

4) The History of the European Family: Family life in the long nineteenth century (1789-1913). By David I. Kertzer, Marzio Barbagli, Yale University Press, 2002 Again, another one on about family honor in Europe with a little history. <http://books.google.com/books?id=9ZBgfkVuWgIC&dq=%22family+honor%22+europe&source=gbs_navlinks_s>

5)In defense of honor: sexual morality, modernity, and nation in early-twentieth-century Brazil. By Sueann Caulfield, Duke University Press, 2000. And this one covers Latin American view of family honor with a focus on Brazilian culture.http://books.google.com/books?id=owYt_FHX40EC&dq=%22family+honor%22+europe&source=gbs_navlinks_s>

6) Telling lives in India: biography, autobiography, and life history. By David Arnold, Stuart H. Blackburn, Indiana University Press, 2004. Family honor in India... http://books.google.com/books?id=owYt_FHX40EC&dq=%22family+honor%22+europe&source=gbs_navlinks_s>

7) Interesting page describing Japanese family honor. http://books.google.com/books?id=mLEGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA285&dq=%22family+honor%22+japan&hl=en&ei=PHeATtjlLKL10gG7uuUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22family%20honor%22%20japan&f=false

I will mostly work on family honor in different cultures (let me know if you'd like certain components in these) with contributing to other parts as necessary.

Also, if you agree we may add a few more subsections such as:

• Costs and benefits of family honor (such as whether it diminishes or increases crime, disease prevention, women's rights, etc)
• Family honor among various social strata (such as lower vs higher social levels, royal families, etc.)

Let's discuss these and others you may come up with so that I can find additional resources.

Esery (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent plan, you found a lot of good sources. The article is also progressing nicely, I've upgraded it from stub to start class. Good job, and you can now remove the stub template (found at the very bottom of the article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As advised, stub template is removed. Esery (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. Let me also note that all group members should participate in the drafting of the outline and finding sources; currently I see above only edits of one person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One source for the Middle East and family honor(particularly the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan). http://books.google.com/books?id=-dBqwJO8ZZsC&pg=PA143&dq=family+honor&hl=en&ei=RMN_TtXBCaLe0QHX_6UW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=family%20honor&f=false

Also, adding dueling as a defense of family honor may be a good addition to the article. I tried researching family crests and emblems for some other displays of family honor, but I haven't found anything conclusive so far.

Found an interesting source related to dueling. http://books.google.com/books?id=ub2gfqnxkwAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dueling&hl=en&ei=0S6JTujLB6Hb0QGaoIy1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Leishanda G. (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G. Leishanda g.

(talk) 7:24 PM, 2 October 2011

Fixing references

The references on the first edit were all from the same book (I guess different pages), thus at the references section of the article, there were 3 exactly-same ones, now there is only 1 for them (deSilva, David A. (2000). Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity- Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 336. ISBN 978-0-8308-1572-2. Retrieved 25 September 2011.). Esery (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job. This looks much better now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

I think your wiki page is coming together nicely! Maybe you can add some acceptable pictures to give a visual discription on a topic on your wiki page. --Nas132 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback! I was actually thinking this article could use a picture, but I didn't know what would be suitable. Any suggestions? Leishanda G. (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G. (talk)

Review

I don't view family honor as pride for just your last name, I see it as pride in your family, which can include family history, family achievements, or anything else that has to do with your family. Under gender roles, you should elaborate on how in the ancient world, men displayed an honorable role outside the home and women displayed an honorable role inside the home. Also, in your preliminary outline, you plan on discussing honor in different countries. You should include other places besides Asian countries. For example, in the U.S. people sometimes show family honor through tattoos.
KazzandraT (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! We are working on making the article more cross-cultural, and we've divided the research up. And I'll attempt to expand on gender roles soon. I was thinking of putting up a general subsection at the top of the article, with details of how they differ according to country? We'll see. Leishanda G. (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G. (talk) 7:34, 2 October 2011

Review - Eser Y.

Hi group mates, I reviewed [Single parent] article. They seem to have a nice start. That article maybe useful for us later for "family honor in single parent households" or to get a start on the effect of single parenthood / divorce on family honor for various cultures and settings. Esery (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

Hey guys, I wanted to tell you that your article is in a really good place as far as I can see it. You guys were really able to flesh out the article so that it won't be deleted without going into a huge amount of detail. I really hope my group can replicate that on our page. The only criticisms I have are the obvious ones: get more references and connect it to more pages. Beyond that, you guys have done a really good job! AndrewMozdy (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible chance for front page exposure

You are off to a really nice start. Your article is now eligible for the main page exposure, but to make it so, make sure to address the issues raised in the article (add more blue links, add a reference for the honor killing). Also, you should try to increase the density of citations (we will want to reference each sentence, not only each paragraph). Also watchlist and make sure to answer promptly to issues raised by a DYK reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor. DYKs are time sensitive, and a few days of your inaction will cost you your chance at a front-page exposure, with comes with many thousands of article views, and (from me), with the 5 extra credit points. Good luck, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Review comments have been posted at the DYK page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating our article, we'll try to cite more resources (to address the reviewer's biggest concern) and also expand the article. Esery (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, you just need to fix the missing page numbers, and you should be good to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Editions

Following editions are made to the first paragraph: added family in the first sentence before last name; deleted the section that read as " It may count as a type of religion" and replaced with "It may be extremely important" because I couldn't find a reference for the previous; merged the two sentences about variation of expression; deleted the last sentence that seemed like a personal opinion; and added references. Esery (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Next, I added some more headlines for the sections we will write (such as middle east, europe, etc.). I made a few minor edits in the main text and added some references. Esery (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Attention, all contributors!

I'm observing what is going on here, the attempts to make a good and meaningful article, and the fact that this has been put up for a Did You Know. I have got some comments to make.

• This is a sensitive issue. You know it is sensitive, which is why your DYK suggestion was about "honor killing". Let me put it to you that because it is a sensitive subject, it is much more important that you construct a really good article, than that you get a DYK sticker. If you want a DYK, you need to apply fast...... but you cannot make this into a good article fast.

So what are the problems?:

• It reads like a student's assignment, not like an encyclopaedic article. The meaning, the order and construction all need to be carefully reviewed.
• Stop edit warring! On the 19th of September, User:Rojast07 attempted to add several paragraphs, at a time that the article was only a stub. USER: Jeff G. for reasons one cannot even imagine, came along behind Rojast, deleting everything, every minute. Instead of leaving a tag saying . This type of behaviour is extraordinarily time wasting, when someone is trying to improve an article.

However, if you put the word inuse between two sets of squiggly brackets, at the top of the page, then people will leave your edits alone, until you finish. Remember to remove the banner when you leave.

• First sentence: Family honor is the feeling or pride a person has for his or her family and last name, whether for the history behind it, the achievements their ancestors had done, or the region or homeland they are from.

This sentence has to define exactly what "Family honor" is. But there is a big error in it. The big error has been there from the start, and not one of the editors who have improved the page have seen the error and fixed it. This makes me think that maybe you are all to inexperienced to be attempting such a challenging task, on a very public forum.

• You must realise that because this is wikipedia, if anyone, anywhere, Googles the words "family honor" they will get your article at the top of the list. This is a very different arena to having your assignment marked by your college lecturer. Whatever you do, if you write about a sensitive subject, you have to get it right.
• So what is wrong with that first sentence?

It talks about the pride that a person has in his or her family and last name.

It doesn't take into acount the different traditions:

"My name is Huang Xiao Ping. My family name is Huang."

"My name is George Yusef. My father's name was Yusef Malek. His father's name was Malek Georges and his father's name was Georges. We can't remember what his other name was, now."

Basically, the first sentence needs immediate and careful revision.

Please remove this from the DYK shelf. The article is not any where near ready to go public.

Amandajm (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your points. I think you raise a number of excellent suggestions, but they can be addressed by students in a short amount of time - if they decide to do so. If not, this nomination will expire and the article will not have a front page exposure. The choice is theirs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Amandajm, thank you for your constructive comments and edits to the article. I really appreciate your concerns and nice edits to the introduction. However, since you are not adding citations onto your sentences I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to direct us toward your sources so that we can read/cite them accordingly? Again, thank you for all your help! Esery (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, Esery and All, I'm a sixty-something year old educator who has worked for a number of years conducting Social History programs combatting discrimination and racism. I didn't use any resources for that introduction, except what I have in my head. If I owned a textbook, or if I had written one on this subject I would gladly share it with you.

My concern here is that you are approaching an extremely sensitive subject, one over which there are countless deaths. You need to get it right before you go too public with it. You aren't writing about a computer game, or some rock group's latest album. This stuff is heavy.

First and foremost, you need to get your definitions correct:

• "Family Honour" is a concept. It is a completely abstract quality.
• "Family honour" doesn't have any finite form, or emotion. It is exists in people's mind. It is what people "perceive" about their family.
• "Family honour" is not "pride". Pride in the family is a feeling that comes from the perception that the family has "honour".
• Family honour" is only a "quality" i.e. a "good thing to have" because it is perceived like that in cultures where it is valued.
• Family honour may be a force which uplifts and sustains people, but it may also be an extremely destructive force. You cannot afford to ignore the positive benefits of "family honour" in focussing upon the negative affects. "Family honour" may be a a determining factor in acts which are kind, charitable, compassionate and serving of others and the world wide community.
• In the present section of History there is an attempt to define the word "honour" on its own, and devoid of the connected word "Family". Everything within that section refers to the honour of the individual. This is only relevant to a degree. It is not part of "History"'. It is part of the Definition. Can I suggest that you do a straight, sourced, dictionary definition of "honour". You will find that the OED has a very lengthy definition, because it includes every possible aspect, of which possibly not all are relevant in this case.
• You then branch straight into the business of how it relates to the oppression of females, still under the title of "history". Not a good way to go.
• The history needs to be more fully dealt with. I have some ideas to put forward for this.

Amandajm (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the very constructive comments. Could you elaborate a little more on your last two points? I think those are complex issues that can use clarification. On a final (and relatively minor and technical) note, since the students working on this article are from US, and Wikipedia's manual of style suggests to stick with one (US or British) spelling, I'd respectfully suggest using honor instead of honour. (Either way, the article has to be consistent with regards to the spelling choice). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Amandajm, I fully understand your concerns and we are very much aware that this is a heavy topic and not about a rock album. I admire your enthusiasm and experience combating discrimination. I am personally experienced in this topic as well; I deeply know what family honor is, how it affects daily life and all of its well-known and not that well-known good and bad consequences. However, this is an encyclopedic entry and that is why I previously asked whether you can refer us your sources.

• I appreciate your comment about ignoring positive benefits of family honor, we will try to elaborate more on those.
• There is an article called "honour"; instead of defining honor one more time, I think it will be more appropriate to link to that page.
• In agreement with our instructor's statement (Piotrus), I'd also appreciate it if you provide guidance especially on your last point.

Sincerely Esery (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll also repeat again that unreferenced content will have to be referenced or removed, per WP:V. This is the Wikipedia's policy, and for a good reason. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism issues: fix immediately

Concerns of plagiarism have been raised in the DYK nomination, and sadly, I have to agree they are justified (also, some sloppy referencing, too). The reference you use is deSilva, allegedly p.336. DYK reviewer noted that some sentences from this article are nearly verbatims of p.25 of the book; I see that one of the next ones is similarly a copy of p.28. Most of the edits from this range are affected in that fashion. This is not acceptable, and inexcusable (as plagiarism warnings are present in the syllabus, and how-not-to-guides in our course wiki instructions). Please fix those issues immediately; if you do not, this article may be deleted and your grade can be impacted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the entire history section with something shorter I have written using my own words (based on my recent readings) for the time being. Esery (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Some recently restored sections still suffer from (lesser but still) plagiarism (close paraphrasing) issues. See User_talk:Rojast07#Plagiarism_issue. That, and the missing information in references (page numbers, author/date, one url) in the references, will still hold this article from DYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like you put exactly the same sentences all over again (i.e. first two sentences). Esery (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, most of the sentences you see have been changed from my initial writing. So if they look exactly the same that wasn't my full doing. I've gone in and changed words to make the concept of certain sentences seem more clear, however I didn't change my initial sentences to most of what you see there. That was the work of other users. I've just changed a decent amount of the sentences and their entire sentence structure. Also, what happens with some sentences when their changed which I had to fix the wording of one is the context of what the author is said is completely changed. If people aren't careful to keep the context of the sentence than the entire idea being conveyed gets changed. Rojast07 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am that other user who changed some of your sentences. The reason is that at the DKY nomination page they still indicated that there is some content that still does not pass the copy/vio rules. Again, we need to be careful with the way sentences are structured. I know you are trying to keep the meaning the same but I was trying to modify them with as little changes to the meaning as possible and using/reading your original source as a guide. Esery (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I reverted the sentence in the second paragraph to the way it was previously. It's a crucial sentence in describing (and understanding) what "family honour" is about. It had been divided up, had a codicil added and had completely lost its meaning and direction because the whole of the second half was detached.

The reason why the addition was removed is that the it begins to look in detail at a single process involved in "family honour" and ignores the rest.:

Family honor can be dependent upon the past history of a family, the possession of an illustrious family name or title can create real or imagined status. (This is actually two sentences strung together without a break, which is ungrammatical.)

The rest of the list then becomes a tag-on: The family's adherence to customs and laws, and its the adherence to a particular moral or religious code or how it marries into other families can affect this perception.

No. That's not the way the sentence works, and certainly not the way family honour works. A family that has no name, no money, no land and no education may value its "family honour" very highly because of the family's adherence to religious and social principals. None of the points on the list is of lesser importance.

Let me explain what the whole sentence means. (I have to state here that the Wiki MOS discourages dot-point format within an article , if a sentence can serve the purpose, which is why it was written as a single long sentence. )

Here's the sentence:

"Family honor" can be dependent upon the past history of a family, the possession of a family name or title that affords status, the possession of wealth or land, the possession of education or a particular craft or profession, the adherence to family or societal customs and laws, the adherence to a particular moral or religious code and the marrying into other families of a perceived appropriate background.

This is what it means:

"Family honor" can be dependent upon:

• the past history of a family
• the possession of a family name or title that affords status
• the possession of wealth or land
• the possession of education or a particular craft or profession
• the adherence to family or societal customs and laws
• the adherence to a particular moral or religious code
• the marrying into other families of a perceived appropriate background

That is exactly the same words, but with dots instead of commas. When it is laid out like that, It becomes apparent that dealing with each of those statements needs to be done separately, under different headings and not within the sentence (or the list) itself.

These topics could all become subheadings.

Let me stress again that none of the things on this list is of greater significance than another.

For example, while the family of the Dukes of Norfolk are honoured to possess a title and vast estates, the family of a village farmer in Turkey is honoured to have the name Kaan, a vegetable garden and some olive trees. The latter is just as much aware of "family honour" as the duke who can trace his titled family back a thousand years.

The family of a village labourer in Pakistan says "We must defend our family's honour because we possess nothing else."

The family has neither name, land or education, but what this family does have are the societal, religious and marital customs that create and sustain "family honour". In this particular instance the family honour was defended by the slaying of two young people who had not respected the family's code.

Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While your lead is well written and comprehensive, please keep in mind that: per WP:LEAD, lead should only summarize the rest of the article, not contain any new information, and per WP:V, all unreferenced information can and in fact should be removed. If you write the lead based just on what you think is right, WP:NOR comes into force as well. Remember: verifiability, not truth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All true, of course.

But it is better to have comprehensive lead of unreferenced statements that are in grammatically correct sentences, than an unbalanced lead of unreferenced statements that are not.

I am sure that you and your students could reference every one of these statements, and expand every one of them into a section. Go with the challenge.

Amandajm (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please just cite your sources instead of asking the students to hunt references that support your view on the topic. Froggerlaura (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Laura. The students have a challenge of writing and referencing an article. I told them early on that they may need to remove unreferenced information, per WP:V, if they cannot find references for it, and they told me already that they are having troubles finding more references for claims from your lead. They have already tried to take this challenge, now, how about you do that as well and try to reference your additions (per WP:V, which is our policy...)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The way to go about it, as you know, is to tag unreferenced sentences before you remove them. Please don't instruct the students to remove what hasn't been tagged. Unless it is inappropriate, ridiculous or plagiarism.

While it is important to get a group of students to conform to a protocol and work within it, I am also concerned about the content of the article. This is an example of content which is problematical:

Honor can be affected by both men and women through ways in which a man heightens his family's honorable status, and a woman can shame her family through disapproved actions. Ensuing constant pressure to uphold her family's honor, a woman can suffer psychological and social damage. [6] [8]

This is the last part of the defining first paragraph of the body of the article. And it is well referenced.

However, the article, at that point, is discussing (or at least should be discussing) "family honour" in a general way. But here we have a culture specific statement used as if it was a general statement.

The indication here that the general perception is that a man works to heighten "family honour" while a woman can shame it, is inaccurate when viewed from the perspective of all the non-Islamic cultures.

In the rest of the world any woman's achievements and conduct can heighten family honour in the same way as a man can. And in many cultures (among the vast majority of North Americans, Australasians, Brits, Japanese, Pacific Islanders, etc etc) it is much more likely that the young males of the family are seen as potentially bringing dishonour than the females.

The referenced statement is useful, but it is not useful for talking about the world in general. The person who included this statement (or you, since you are guiding the article) needs to look at the context in which the statement was made. Amandajm (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

While your concerns are valid and the above sentence needs correction (prefrably, expansion and clarification along the lines you suggest), I do note you have dodged my question. Will you find references for your own unreferenced content? WP:V does not require that {{citation needed}} is used; while it is a nice practice, it is not something we can expect from new editors. And problems with the unreferenced lead additions have been noted weeks ago on this talk page (#Attention, all contributors!), and I believe I even asked you on your talk page for the references (User_talk:Amandajm#Talk:Family_honor), so you cannot claim this request comes out of the blue. If you want to improve this article, your assistance is most welcome, but please, do not add to the existing problems by adding unreferenced content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Piotr, I am not concerned, in this instance, with what I have written is referenced or not. I don't have references for it. I wrote it off the top of my head. If your students can come up with an encompassing world view and reference it, then let them do so, and replace what I have written.

It's not an easy ask, particularly if you are asking it of students who do not themselves has a broad view, or wide knowledge. You are the person who needs to be able to come up with a list of appropriate sources for them to use, in order that their research is not focussed entirely on a Middle Eastern and radically chauvinistic notion of "family honour". I realise that the internet is bombarded with articles on honour killings. What else has been said about it?

If there are no sources which deal with "family honour" in an encompassing way, then the article could be given a much narrower definition/focus, and be moved to a page of suitable name. There is, after all, a page on honour which can deal with the broad issue of "family honour" in a general way, in one short section.

Amandajm (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Amamndajm, I am not trying to drive this discussion into a personal level about who knows what or how broadly. However, first of all Piotr did not assign this topic, WE picked it ourselves among many other possible topics because we felt the need that this topic should be addressed. Second, I don't appreciate your perception of us that we don't have wide knowledge or broad view. I was born in the Middle East to a Middle Eastern family, grew up in Middle East and Europe, and now live in the US. My life has been greatly shaped and affected by societal rules and family honor. I am not a young outside observer involuntarily assigned to this topic; I am a thirty-something woman who had to live by family honor rules for a long time. I know much more stuff on top of my head as well, but I believe it is inappropriate to write about them without finding suitable references to support them. What I agree with you is this: The internet is full with honor killings and there is less information about other aspects, thus we will write whatever we can support with reliable resources. Sincerely, Esery (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"I don't have references for it. I wrote it off the top of my head." - that's Wikipedia:Original research, pure and simple. And it has no place on Wikipedia. As much as I appreciate your concern for this article, please keep in mind this is not a discussion site, or a random website. Wikipedia is trying to enforce high referencing standards, and if you cannot find the sources for your claims, no matter how right and truthful you think they are, they do not belong on a site which states: verifiability, not truth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to promote after 31 days (the article is listed under September 27). Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) raised concerns about close paraphrasing and plagiarism. The close paraphrasing examples she raised were addressed but a spotcheck found that not all have been fixed:

Article: "The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor meant that individuals were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of their societal peers."

Source: "The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor means that they were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of others."

Because I discovered this close paraphrasing example in the first paragraph I checked, it is likely that there are extensive close paraphrasing issues with the article. DYK is backlogged, and reviewers are unable to spend a disproportionate amount of time on a nomination.

I am willing to reconsider this closure if the article's editors compare each sentence with the text of the sources and resolve any close paraphrasing issues within the next seven days. Cunard (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: Additionally, there is no indication that http://www.unrv.com/government/julianmarriage.php passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which requires that sources have editorial oversight. It appears to be a self-published website. I recommend that this source is removed from the article and replaced with a higher quality one. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Family honor

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that family honor can lead to honor killing?

• Comment: This is a good start of an article from an educational assignment. I realize it should've been nominated last week (for nomination edit only, the expansion times fits this section timeframe); I hope the reviewer will take into consideration the fact that its creators are three newbie editors who have no experience with DYK, and who have within just weeks of creating an account provided us with an article that is quite close to being eligible. Please try to offer them as much suggestions as possible, and I am sure they'll try their best to make the article fully eligible for exposure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Leishanda G. (talk), Rojast07 (talk), Esery (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Entire article is loosely based on one book (ISBN 978-0-8308-1572-2). The hook itself is too broad and needs some tweaking. It needs more citations and references especially for the DYK fact, currently the hook itself has a cite needed tag. Good start though. --TitanOne (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• - three newbie editors, pretty good article. Hook may need tweaking, but lets make the default that we are going to put this on the main page. If one experienced editor cannot get three newbies working together and supported (I hope) by the DYK project onto the main page then we have a problem. Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

- I realize that these are newbie editors, but plagiarism is not acceptable content for the main page. Compare for example: "Honor is a dynamic and relational concept. An individual can think of himself or herself as honorable based on his or her belief that he or she embodies the qualifications that a group values as "honorable"" (article); "Honor is a dynamic and relational concept. On the one hand, an individual can think of himself or herself as honorable based on his or her conviction that he or she has embodied those actions and qualities that the group values as "honorable."" Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that this is an example only, and that the whole article will have to be checked and quite possibly scrubbed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, and seeing as I stressed the plagiarism as a no-no for the students, they have no excuses. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a great pity as obviously I feel we should make newbies welcome. Hopefully they have learnt and will return with a less impressive (but more original) contribution and get full credit for their work Victuallers (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been some attempt from the students to address the issue, see this, although I am not seeing any responses from the student who plagiarised (here, at Talk:Family_honor#Plagiarism_issues:_fix_immediately, or even in my mailbox), although another is trying to help ([1]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for a re-review. As far as I can tell, plagiarism issues have been resolved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that's a no based on the many, many issue tags. "Not in reference given" "Page number needed" etc. If the article doesn't pass WP:V then it shouldn't be on the MP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree those issues should be resolved before the front page exposure. They've been tagged for several days already... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • All references except one is fixed. The one that still has a tag attached is a website "Julian Marriage Laws" which needs a date for the citation. Even though we searched the entire source, we cannot determine the exact date for the article, thus we can't provide the date. If this is a problem I can delete the reference and the sentence it refers to. Thanks in advance for your suggestions. Esery (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

• the article does not have enough blue links, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking it needs to be wikified
• the titles of at least one section is improperly capitalized, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• please remove unreferenced text from lead if references for the claims there cannot be found
• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. Please ensure your lead does both of those.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Section titles are fixed. --Kgw2 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comments:

• "David A. DeSilva states in his book Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity that" - probably too much of an attribution, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution
• I know how difficult it can be to find sources on certain cultural issues, so as much as I'd like to see certain sections expanded to tell us more about family honor is some countries and regions, I think you did an excellent job finding the information that is now present in the article.
• It would be helpful if we had a more theoretical section, something like the "theories explaining the family honor". Did you find anything relevant in your readings up to date? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if there are any more section title mistakes. I'll try to do more linking and expanding over this weekend. Thanks for all the advice! Leishanda G. (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.

Also, I just wanted to make some comments about my changes. I made some grammatical changes to the subheadings. I also moved one sentence into gender roles because it shed light on an article contributor's information. I think to finish the lead we need to find a source that explains why differences within the subject of family honor change according to culture (in other words, why traditions of family honor are different within different cultures) and also because we need to add a theoretical aspect to the page, put in some information about how family honor relates to society on a larger scale. I think that would be a good way to finish out the lead this way when people look at the information we've written on different cultures it's not just information placed on the page but has been mentioned earlier on in the article. I think there should be at least one sentence in the lead that can refer to each section that comes after it. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks. Rojast07 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach. Keep in mind that per WP:LEAD lead should only summarize information, and should not contain any claims not present elsewhere in the article. So if you want to add things to the lead, what you should be doing, is to add them somewhere else in the article - and then simply summarize them in the lead. This is why the lead does not need to have any references - because all claims from it are properly expanded on and referenced in the main body. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Family honor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take this. --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Quotes - don't put "family honor" in quotes. Just write it plainly like this: family honor. --Noleander (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[I have fixed this Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]

• Lead - Not too bad. It should summarize the entire article (but lead is maximum 4 paragraphs). Try to summarize entire article. --Noleander (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[Would you like us to mention some of the topics that we're talking about within the article? There are a lot. Of course this needs to be cited. My question is am I to look for sources that give general information on what has been discussed within the article? It's hard to summarize because I would so so in my own words however, I cannot cite myself. I think it may be hard finding information that summarizes what we've already written without going straight to the sources themselves or reiterating what we've written within the article in the intro and just citing it. (I don't believe that's something credible to do? Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]

You may be making this harder than it is. The lead does not have to be supported with footnotes ... they are optional in the lead section, see WP:LEAD. You should write the lead last: when the article is done, you go thru the whole article and distill all of its major points down to 4 paragraphs, and that is the lead. No footnotes needed in the lead. My point above is that the lead, now, doesnt summarize the entire article: it is missing lots of key points, such as the per-country/culture information. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Examples - Probably should include some specific examples of behavior related to family honor. E.g. article already mentions honor killings, maybe give a couple of representative examples of that, and a few other instances of family honor behavior. Right now the article strikes me as a bit vague ... it could use more specificity; more concreteness. --Noleander (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[That's no problem. This can be done. I'll look into those examples. Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]

• Illustrations - This is optional: A couple of more pictures would be nice. Can you grab some from related WP articles (provided they are directly relevant to family honor)? --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[Hi Noleander, i know this is the optional one but it is very hard to find anything that is directly linked to family honor, could we use some that illustrate associated contexts such as gender roles/expectations, traditions etc? Thanks, Esery (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)]

• Non sequitur - There are several sentences like this one: "Regardless of their gender or social status, elderly are well-respected" which are not directly related, as far as I can tell, to family honor. That can be remedied in several ways: (1) if the source from which that material originated is discussing family honor, capture that detail and put it into the article; (2) If the sentence is shedding light on some aspect of f.h., then the sentence should follow the f.h. issue, and amplify it, and the connection should be clear. (3) If the sentence is talking about f.h., but the connection is just not clear, then add words to establish the connection. --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[How elders are treated within the family pertains to how a family upholds it's honor internally within the home. I think family honor can be related to society overall and to the nuclear family as well. Elders within a family are to be honored and respected. In some cultures elders play crucial roles to the functioning of a family and the decision it makes relating to society. That's my take on the information we've gathered which is why it's included. Feel free to disagree and give me your thoughts. When you say shedding light on some aspect of family honor what do you mean exactly. How should a sentence follow a family honor issue? Can you give a more specific example of how this could be fixed? Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]

• another non sequitur - Here is another non sequitur: "Many women in Turkey are well educated but the ideology of preserving family honor ...". Why is education related to f.h.? --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[Hi Noleander, the original source indicated the higher education level of Turkish women (according to my understanding) that education is not a factor that can affect set societal rules and traditions, such as family honor. In other words, one might think that societies where family honor shapes daily lives, general education levels are low and people are not modern in many ways, which is not the case for this specific example. If this is still very vague, I can remove it or if you have any suggestions about how to tweak it, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks Esery (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)]

Thanks for explaining that. Now what you need to do is add some text into the article, near that sentence, which explains the connection, something like "... education is not a factor that can affect set societal rules and traditions, such as family honor ..." --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Flow could be better - This is probably the biggest issue (the only big problem, in fact): the article reads like a lot of disjointed paragraphs that do not tell a single, integrated story. To achieve GA status, it is not necessary to have professional quality writing, so I'm not expecting perfection. What I'm looking for is a little bit of flow or connectivity. The lead should outline the entire article. Then, as the reader reads the article, it should weave a tale. By "tale" I mean that each section should help the reader place that section in context. For example, if you have a section on Australia, you might begin that section with "Whereas family honor plays a major role in African lifestyles, in Australia ...". that is an example of how to tie two sections together. Or maybe something like "The scholars discussed above treated family honor as a AAA concept, but Peter Smith presented the thesis that BBB ...". Again, the notion is that each section tells part of the story, and each section tells the reader how that one section fits into the entire story. --Noleander (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[I think this is something that can be fixed and I see your point as to where the article seems disjointed concerning its content. Rojast07 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)]

• Ambiguous blue links - Use the tool http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Family_honor to find ambiguous links. These are links that need to be fixed in your article ... there are four of them. Ask me if you need more details on how to fix.

[Links are fixed. Let me know if there are any more problems.] Leishanda G. (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Leishanda G.

Hello Noleander, I appreciate your comments and will take them into consideration. Some of the aspects you touched on such as sentences referencing the elderly. The way elders are treated within the family constitutes an aspect of family honor. Younger members of the family show respect and honor to their elders because of what it means to be an elder within the community and their family. Would you suggest finding sources that make reference to what I just said and adding them to these sections (Applying accordingly to each section of course)? I will look for examples of some of the concepts that we have mentioned (behavior, practices, etc). All of us are currently on vacation. It is harder for me to work on the article from home rather than back at school. Once I return, I will address some of these issues as I'm sure my classmates will do the same. Also, when you say following a family honor issue and amplifying it with a sentence like the one you highlighted above. Can you give a more concrete example of that remedy just so I have the exact idea of what you're saying. Is it a matter of placing the sentence in an area where it makes more sense or is it deeper than that? Thanks. Rojast07 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you do this: For each of my "comments" above, please respond to it, underneath it? Where it says "reply here". That way we can focus on each comment individually. The best path forward to reach GA status is to do each of the things I recommend. If you have a good reason to object, that is fine: just explain your objection. If you agree with my comments, and do the fix I recommend, then just write "Done" where it says "reply here" ... that way I'll know it has been accomplished. --Noleander (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I should say: I foresee no problem achieving GA status. The article is fairly well written, and has good cites, and a lot of work has gone into it. Just a few things to tweak and it will be good to go. --Noleander (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A bit too much time has gone by ... all the above tasks should be done by now but, for example, the lead is still not in conformance with WP:LEAD. I'd suggest re-nominating for GA again after all the tasks are done. --Noleander (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is sad that an article so close to a GA has been failed due to no response. Even considering the finals week, asking here for few more days shouldn't have been so hard :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Responding to a query on my Talk page to update the GA checklist. The Lead looks much better; and there has been some good work to make the article less disjointed, by starting each section with a reference to the big picture. The two remaining issues I see are (1) a couple more graphical items (such as pictures, tables, or quote boxes) so the article doesn't look like a huge wall of text (this is optional: but try to find something); and (2) make the article a little more of a narrative, so it looks like one cohesive topic. For GA, it does not have to be perfect, professional prose, but the article still reads a litte too much like a bunch of unrelated sections thrown together. One idea: Is there a top-quality source that gives a good overview of Family Honor? If so, consider copying its outline (of course, no copying or close paraphrase of text) and using that as a framework to organize this article. I'm not saying a total re-write is necessary: just a framework, or narrative, so the article tells a story. Thanks for the good work you've put into the article: it is getting better! --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this again. As much as I'd like to see more pictures and such, I am afraid we are out of options; we tried adding an image of a funeral after a family honor killing under fair use but it was removed with the claim that a "free image is possible to obtain". Well, it may be possible, but hardly for us - so no more images are forthcoming in the future. I am not sure what table would be appropriate. Quote, now, I think we could do - looking at the sources, there is a number of good quotes to chose from, something about how important family honor is to our cultures or such, neutral but strong, should be feasible. I could help with the technical side - leave it on my talkpage or add it to the article using the {{cquote}} or a related quotation templates you like best, guys.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you all do find a quote or two for the article, here is a template I like to use: {{Quote box}}. An example if its use follows.

"Between me and the other world there is ever an unasked question: ... How does it feel to be a problem? ... One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder....He would not Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face."

Du Bois, "Strivings of the Negro People", 1897

--Noleander (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Honour / Honor

Principally I would recommend using HONOUR instead of honor, for the simple reason that the main article upon the general subject is also called HONOUR. Above all things you must have consistency between the two articles and all other "honour" articles.

British English is the original form of modern English, and since it is the antecedent of American English, which is a dialect of the original language, it should have precedence - there is an etymological point in using honour, since it shows that the particular word was incorporated into the English language VIA French, where to this day the spelling with the added 'u' is retained, and not directly from latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.237.0 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family honor. 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/20111110151609/http://www.culturediversity.org/hisp.htm to http://www.culturediversity.org/hisp.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradictions

In the sections "Gender roles" and "Family honor within society" there are differing accounts on what actions can be taken by the husband if your wife was found to be and adulterer.

In "Gender roles" the husband has the right to kill his wife, meanwhile he only has the right to divorce in "Family honor within society" and killing was the legal right of the father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13ubsson (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)