Talk:Honor killing

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Honor killings in India" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"Religion and honor killing" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"See Also" Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent sourced research edits

Several recent edits added or updated material using peer-reviewed empirical studies, including Eisner and Ghuneim (2013), Gengler, Alkazemi and Alsharekh (2021), Beller, Kröger and Hosser (2021), and Jabali, Hamamra and Ayyoub (2025). They also removed some material. These edits were reverted as part of a broad reversion.

I am not seeking to restore them through another revert. Could editors identify which specific additions or removals they consider unsuitable—for example, because of accuracy, due weight, relevance, or placement—so they can be discussed one at a time?

One specific concern is the current wording that “the data does not support” a connection with religion and that honor ideology “does not appear to be related to religion.” Those statements present a contested empirical question as settled, while the cited sources do not appear to be systematic reviews of the relevant literature. The peer-reviewed studies cited in the reverted edits do not show either a simple universal relationship or no relationship; rather, their findings differ by population and by the religious measure examined. Would editors support replacing the categorical language with an attributed, study-specific summary of those findings?

I would also welcome discussion of: (1) the relevance of the “small-town effect” passage, which concerns argument-related homicides among U.S. white men rather than honor killings; (2) whether the editorial caveat about the Chesler study should be replaced with attributed, reliably sourced discussion of methodology; and (3) whether the Widney Brown quotation is needed alongside the nearby Council of Europe resolution. I am happy to revise or omit material that is not adequately supported by its cited source. Reversetalk (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC: wording on religion and honor killing

Should the article retain the categorical statements that “the data does not support” a connection between honor killings and religion and that honor ideology “does not appear to be related to religion”, or replace them with an attributed, study-specific summary of the cited research? Reversetalk (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

One proposed approach would be to state that findings on religiosity and support for honor killing vary by setting and by the measure used, while summarizing the individual findings with their own citations. For example, the article could retain the Amman result while also noting the Kuwaiti, cross-national, and West Bank findings.

Background: the Amman adolescent study found no association between religiosity and support for honor killing (Eisner and Ghuneim 2013). A nationally representative Kuwaiti survey found religiosity and support for political Islam to be positive predictors of support for honor-based violence (Gengler, Alkazemi and Alsharekh 2021). A cross-national Muslim sample associated mosque attendance and religious fundamentalism, but not private prayer, with greater support (Beller, Kröger and Hosser 2021). A West Bank university survey found greater justification among Muslim respondents than non-Muslim respondents (Jabali, Hamamra and Ayyoub 2025). The 2025 American Sociological Review article describes the relationship as unclear (Aksoy and Szekely 2025). Reversetalk (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You can add these studies without removing large amounts of the existing text and source that was why I reverted your edits. These sources seem fair and well-sourced, so if your intention was simply to add them, I have no objection to that but I don't agree with your other edits. ~2026-44361-85 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The disputed edits appear to be these. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

My intention is to improve the quality of this article. I did not view the portions of text I deleted as following Wikipedia's content standards, which is why I deleted them. I gave a rationale for each deletion I made in the edit summary of my edit. Please give a substantive and specific critique of my edits instead of just saying "I don't agree". Reversetalk (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, in this edit you gave no reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=1368857866
In this edit, you labeled multiple sources as weak. How were they weak? They were also more detailed than the one you left in. In fact, you could have just added your source without removing the others: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=1368858396
This edit made it about Muslims when the previous wording already specified the regions. Most Muslim-majority countries outside those regions do not have honor killings to the same extent, especially in West Africa, the Maghreb, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and parts of East Africa. It is mostly a Middle Eastern and South Asian problem, and, like the source you removed stated, it was also historically common across Mediterranean countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=1368860408
This was well sourced, and your reason for removing it was that the practice can be found in other cultures too. There was no need to remove it for that reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=1368862099
The source discusses how it is linked to honor and shame in these small white towns, so there was no need to remove it. If the homicides are tied to shame and honor, then they can reasonably be described as honor killings: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=1368864300
There was also no need to completely reword and remove this, as the previous wording reflected what the source actually said: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=1368867899
~2026-44275-95 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying with specific critiques. I'll go through them one by one in the order you mentioned them.

1. This was an incomplete edit that I accidentally pressed enter on

2. I should've been more specific in my edit summary - I don't think the sources themselves are weak. My problem is that I find the entire section to be explicitly biased and therefore in violation of Wikipedia's editorial standards. "This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion" is not appropriate language for Wikipedia. When I deleted that section, I also deleted the sources, because I didn't find a clean way to link them in. I am happy to write a sentence or two that talks about honor killings in Pakistan to include those two sources I deleted.

3. I disagree with the characterization that "my edit made the paragraph 'about Muslims'"; I think it's relevant to mention that the practice of honor killings almost exclusively occurs in Muslim-majority countries (while making sure to mention, as you correctly point out, that honor killings do not tend to take place in West Africa, the Maghreb, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and parts of East Africa.) I agree that I made a mistake in deleting the source about its history across Mediterranean countries.

4: This source is a very brief 2002 National Geographic article about the practice of honor killing; it is not an academic article by any means. The quote you took from it from Widney Brown - "the practice [honor killing] goes across cultures and across religions" is not substantiated with any evidence, nor does Brown does not appear to have any academic background on this issue. The argument that Brown provides for her claim - that dowry deaths and "crimes of passion" are similar enough in circumstance and motive to be effectively considered "honor killing" - is potentially defensible, but Brown does not defend it in the article. You are citing the conclusion of this unsubstantiated argument as fact.

5: Argument-related homicides among white males does not belong in this article. Your rationale here is that "if the homicides are tied to shame and honor, then they can reasonably be described as honor killings": by that logic, everything from retributive gang violence in Chicago in 2023 to 17th-century dueling would be considered "honor killing", and the term would lose all meaning. It's worth noting that you took this idea directly from a Psychology Today article., which is not exactly a reputable academic source.

Your last criticism is not aimed at the correct/current edit. You have also not yet given any defense of the claims which I have the most issue with: the categorical statements that “the data does not support” a connection between honor killings and religion and that honor ideology “does not appear to be related to religion”, an overtly biased paragraph that ends in "This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion", and others. Please provide justifications for my edits that you reverted and have yet to comment on. Reversetalk (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

1.But was that the reason you removed it?
But the Justice Canada source for example is an official government review and discusses honor killings across multiple countries cultures and religions. The 2025 American Sociological Review article you added is a stronger source but its 24 cuntry analysis is about attitudes towards honor killings which is not about rates of actual honor killings in those 24 countries.
2.I still disagree with your edit here as the previous wording based the paragraph geographically around the Middle East/North Africa and South Asia and then discussed occurrences elsewhere and the historical Mediterranean context. Your edit changed that to countries with large Muslim population. I also do not think the claim in your reply that honor killings “almost exclusively occur in Muslim-majority countries” is supported by the source you added eithe as the American Sociological Review article says they are most common in countries with large Muslim populations but explicitly adds that they are not an exclusively Muslim phenomenon. It also points out the lack of reliable global prevalence estimates and its own data on actual killings come from one country: Turkey. That does not support upgrading “most common” into “almost exclusively occur.” The previous edit was more neutral and it should remain as it is and its not found in a lot of Muslim nations eitger to say its a Muslim dominated thing.
3.I do not think dismissing the Widney Brown statement as simply “unsubstantiated” makes sense as the article itself reports UN-documented honor killings across countries including Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Uganda. Also the Council of Europe source that remained immediately after it says that honor crimes have cultural rather than religious roots and are perpetrated worldwide and the Justice Canada review discusses how it happens across different cultures and religious communities. So there really is no need to remove Widney Brown’s statement either as she is accurate here.
4.But how is that not relevant to honor killing? Killings of a group or family member in response to a perceived violation of family honor or purity norms are honor killings and I did not say every homicide case in these towns is one. But they are connected and the source explicitly calls the American small-town phenomenon “honor-related violence.” It discusses elevated argument related homicide among white men in honor-oriented states and explains why the effect becomes stronger in small rural communities in terms of reputation and shame. It then directly says that the same dynamic appears in rural societies where honor killings are committed to preserve family reputation. Ryan Brown is also a social psychologist who does peer reviewed research on these topics and documents associations with argument-related homicide and violence toward women. So dismissing the entire subject as something merely taken from “a Psychology Today article” does not address the underlying research. ~2026-44468-50 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The statement Though it may seem in a modern context that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions, the data does not support this claim is not adequately supported. It's only an opinion of one psychologist published in a non-peer-reviewed magazine.

If there are enough higher-quality, peer-reviewed sources, we should just remove it from the article. At the very least, it should be clearly attributed to Dr. Brown. Alaexis_¿question? 16:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The statement "Though it may seem in a modern context that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions, the data does not support this claim" is not supported at all. It's the opinion of a psychologist who has no formal academic training on this issue whatsoever; the claim does not have any citations backing it; the article as a whole is a polemic opinion piece. And of course, this is in Psychology Today - a pop-psychology magazine sold at grocery stores, not an academic journal. Reversetalk (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)