Talk:Sultaana Freeman

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Pictures[edit]

The mug shot was not allowed as evidence at the Freeman trial and should not appear here. MaryA756 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)MaryA756[reply]

Question[edit]

I've uploaded two images of Freeman (with veil and a full face mug shot). Now, however, I'm not sure they're products of the US Federal Govt (likely Illinois and Florida state). Anyone know if I can use these as public domain?

I'm going to assume these are fair use, since both were part of court documents that are of public record. Sublium

Sources[edit]

| Court TV archive

| Findlaw info on FL DL case

| Additional Battery conviction information

Sublium

What's with the Picture??[edit]

Do you really think that a woman who is going through all the trouble she is going through just to not have to uncover her face for a drivers license photo would want her unveiled photo available on an online encyclopedia available to the entire globe?!?!?

I think it is obvious to anyone who possesses a shred of intellect that putting that unveiled picture of her up there is like slapping her in the face! It's like you're saying... "You can go through all the trouble you want to cover yourself; it doesn't matter because the whole world is still gonna see you uncovered."

I think it is obvious that having that photo there is extremely disrespectful...

After all, there are probably hundreds of much much more famous people on wikipedia that do not have photos... why would there, in any logical sense, be a photo of someone who is not really well-known at all?!?

And just because the pictures are public domain anyways doesn't mean you should broadcast it publicly to the whole world by making it available at a place like this where everyone will see it. If someone wants to look for her picture in her court files, they can do so... but no need to broadcast her picture like what is being done!

Mujaahid 00:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The picture is relevant because it refers to Freeman's previous conviction for child abuse, not because it's a "Nyah nyah everyone can see your face" response to her driver's license battle. Certainly, it would be one thing if I included a picture of her at, say, a birthday party, because it's not relevant.

I concur, the picture is relevant, and whether the woman wants it here or not is entirely beside the point. Subjects of news stories and encylopedia articles have no particular power to control the use of their image, particularly when the image in question is a matter of public record ( such as a mug shot). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Going by your argyment that "If someone wants to look for her picture in her court files, they can do so... but no need to broadcast her picture like what is being done," then I suppose we should remove Tom Delay's mugshot from his Wikipedia entry, right? After all, you can find his mug shot elsewhere, so what's the point of having it here?

The inclusion of her mug shot is relevant to this article. But I'd like to hear what others have to say. - Name Not Needed 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-included the mug shot and have tried to keep its inclusion as neutral as possible. After reading Wikipedia's content disclaimer, I don't believe that removing the mug shot can be justified by "She doesn't want anyone to see her unveiled face." Thoughts? - Name Not Needed 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "we don't go out of our way to be dicks" policy says: show her face if it's necessary for the article, not simply because we can. Now, does the photograph add to the article? Personally, I don't believe it does — but there's a legitimate argument to be had about that. Please remember, though, that we don't deliberately disrespect the subjects of our articles. That's just mean. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there's a Wikipedia entry about her in the first place is because of the drivers license deal. I don't see how adding a mug shot from a previous arrest is relevant at all? I understand that it is relevant to mention the previous conviction, but I don't see how it's relevant to add a picture from that incident, since A, that preivous conviction isn't the issue at hand which made her noteworthy and B. it's clearly disrespectful to show her face to the whole world because of something that hasn't got much to do with the issue, even though she went out of her way to not show it to other than close relatives. Hamdo 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points above, so I was bold and removed the mug shot from the article. Since she is noteworthy for her driver's license lawsuits and that is how she is described in the article intro, a mug shot from a previous arrest isn't really pertinent. Also, it is very important to be respectful, especially with religious issues, which are especially touchy--for similar reasons, the Muhammad article doesn't include an image of him, because including one would be disrespectful to Muslims. It is important to illustrate articles, and it's already done with her DL photo, which respectfully shows her with her face covered. I'll include the image link here, in case it needs to be re-inserted into the article sometime. [[1]] --69.69.160.209 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree and so removed a yearbook photo Nil Einne 15:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with removing the yearbook photo for several reasons given here, plus the person who posted it also posted some other bizarre info at that time.

Responding to a comment or two up - The Muhammad article has several images of him. Your comparison is flawed. "Wiki is not censored", I would think, trumps "Wiki should minimize being religiously touchy"

Why is she driving?[edit]

If she's going to be so "traditional" as to insist on wearing a veil, then why isn't she also leaving the driving to men, as all women are required to do in Saudi Arabia? Does she work outside the home? Does she go to the market without a constant escort from a male relative? The woman is picking and choosing what "traditions" she wants to follow, and doing so for the purpose of dodging identification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Because Islamic Law allows women to drive, allows them to work outside the home, and allows them to go to the market alone. Saudi Arabia is far from Islamic. I mean common; a Muslim in Saudi Arabia gets beat for visiting a grave. The Saudis are extremists which is why they don't allow women to drive. However, Islamic Law allows women to drive and all that other stuff. Look at Iran, the UAE, Qatar, Yemen, etc. and see all of those women driving, walking down the street by themselves, and working. Armyrifle 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article even exist?[edit]

I don't feel this person merits a Wikipedia article, I think the article should be about the legal case, not the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.231.97.77 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad point. Something to ponder. Quis separabit? 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maalik and Malik both appear in this article