Talk:Honor killing

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"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)

I think we are talking past each other because your critique is directed at earlier intermediate edits. The actual contested version is here.

1. I removed that paragraph because I think it is plainly non-neutral and not supported by the sources cited. It starts by saying: “Though it may seem in a modern context that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions, the data does not support this claim.” That is an extraordinarily broad conclusion, and the source for it is a Psychology Today article by a psychologist -- not a peer-reviewed literature review -- which does not cite research establishing that conclusion.

   The paragraph then cites the Amman study. I did not remove that study from my proposed version; I cited it alongside three other peer-reviewed studies which found positive relationships between different aspects of religiosity and support for honor killing in their subject groups. I genuinely do not understand why it is appropriate to retain the one study showing no association while removing the studies that found associations.

   The rest of the paragraph is also doing work for the same thesis. It quotes an abstract saying honor killings likely predate modern religions, which may be useful historical context but does not establish that religion is irrelevant now. Then it suddenly pivots to “argument-related homicides among white males” in the United States. I do not see how that belongs in an article about honor killings. Saying that those killings are connected to honor and shame does not make them honor killings as the article defines that term. Otherwise the category becomes so broad that it could include a wide array of types of retaliatory violence.

2. I accept that “almost exclusively” was too strong. But I do think the article should acknowledge the geographical and statistical relationship between Islam and honor killing without turning it into a universal claim. As it stands, there is no mention whatsoever of Islam. I would support adding something like this: "Honor killings occur most often in Muslim-majority countries... they also occur among the Muslim diaspora in Western countries.. while a clear majority of honor killings appear to occur among Muslims, not all do.” That language, together with the rest of the source’s qualifications, would constitute an even-handed display of the facts on the ground.
3. The Widney Brown quotation is a brief, unevidenced statement which makes almost exactly the same point as the quotation immediately after it. I do not think it adds enough to justify its inclusion, and I find the effective duplication of the same point to be an example of undue weight.
4. You still have not addressed the paragraph ending: “This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion.” That is a textbook example of Wikipedia drawing its own conclusion from selected country examples. Unless a cited reliable source directly makes that argument, it should be removed. The uncited caveat following the Chesler material has the same problem. If Chesler is unreliable or given undue weight, then remove it or use a reliable source that directly discusses its limitations. Wikipedia should not insert its own methodological commentary in the middle of the article.

Reversetalk (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I already said they should be added. The problem is removing the older material at the same time. The Amman study found no link, while the newer studies found links with some measures of religiosity. That clearly means the evidence is mixed.

There is no need to delete the material about honor and shame. The US research is relevant because the section is about cultures of honor and shame. Nobody is saying every argument-related homicide is an honor killing.

The ASR source says honor killings are most common in countries with large Muslim populations. It does not show that a clear majority of honor killings worldwide are committed by Muslims. Its 24-country data is about attitudes toward honor killing, not actual killing rates, and its data on actual killings comes from Turkey. The old wording based on the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia was more accurate. It also avoids making Muslim-majority status the main frame when many Muslim-majority countries have very low levels of honor killing.

On the Widney Brown quote, the article itself lists documented honor killings in countries across different regions and religions. The Council of Europe and Justice Canada sources also make the same point. I do not see the issue with keeping them when they support each other.

It also seems that someone else removed the study. ~2026-44583-07 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we agree on one important point: the evidence is mixed. The Amman study found no association in one population, while the newer studies found associations with some measures of religiosity in other populations. That is exactly why the current sentence—“the data does not support” a connection between honor killings and religious traditions—should not remain. It presents one side of a mixed body of research as a settled conclusion.

I am proposing removal of the entire paragraph, not merely the final sentence about argument-related homicides. Its opening sentence—“the data does not support” a connection between honor killings and religious traditions—is an unsupported categorical conclusion. The rest of the paragraph is structured to reinforce that conclusion: first with the Amman result, then with the claim that honor ideology is unrelated to religion, and finally with the small-town material.

The small-town passage has two independent problems. First, it is a neutrality problem: in context it is being used to reinforce the paragraph’s thesis that honor killings are unrelated to religion, despite not being evidence about that relationship. Second, it is a relevance and verification problem: it concerns argument-related homicides among white American men, not honor killings as defined by this article. Calling those incidents “honor-related violence” is not the same as establishing that they are honor killings.

Once the opening claim and the small-town material are removed, the remaining isolated Amman sentence does not work as a coherent paragraph on its own. The appropriate replacement is an attributed, study-specific summary that retains the Amman finding alongside the newer peer-reviewed findings from Kuwait, the cross-national Muslim sample, and the West Bank.

On geographic distribution, I agree that the ASR article does not establish that a clear majority of actual honor killings worldwide are committed by Muslims. Its cross-national data concerns attitudes, and its actual-case data concerns Turkey. I am not relying on it for that proposition. But Mark Cooney’s Execution by Family: A Theory of Honor Violence states:

“Honor killings occur most often in Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey. They also occur among the Muslim diaspora in Western countries. But while a clear majority of honor killings appear to occur among Muslims, not all do.”

I think a concise, attributed sentence reflecting that source is appropriate. It does not claim that all Muslims, all Muslim-majority countries, or Islam itself causes honor killings. It gives the relevant distributional fact and includes the caveat that the phenomenon is not exclusive to Muslims.

On the Widney Brown quotation, my point is narrower than whether honor killings occur across cultures and religions. They do. The quotation comes from a very brief, old National Geographic article that provides no citations for that claim. It also makes almost the same point as the Council of Europe quotation immediately after it. I do not think an unevidenced statement from that source adds enough to justify its inclusion, and I think the duplication gives that point more weight than it needs.

Finally, two issues remain unanswered: the sentence ending “This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion,” which appears to be Wikipedia drawing its own conclusion from selected country examples; and the uncited editorial caveat following the Chesler material. If a reliable source directly makes the first conclusion, it should be cited. If Chesler is unreliable or given undue weight, then remove it or use attributable reliable scholarship to discuss its limitations. Wikipedia should not supply its own methodological commentary. Reversetalk (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

So do we have consensus to remove the claim that "This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion."? The three cited sources do not seem to support it. Alaexis_¿question? 17:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The Justice Canada source actually says that “the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue.” It then notes that honor killings are unknown in Indonesia and parts of Muslim-majority West Africa, as well as in several other Muslim countries so how isn't it supported? ~2026-44813-85 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The "Justice Canada" source in question is from an openly polemical report. It was written by someone with no academic background in fields relating to the issue of honor killing (sociology, history, etc.) whatsoever. It was also not published in any kind of academic journal, let alone peer-reviewed. The sentence in question from the Justice Canada source--"Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue."-- does not have any citations backing it; neither, in fact, does the entire paragraph. Moreover, the argumentative logic undergirding the claim is untenable. What religious authorities prohibit and allow is far from the only relevant factor in how that religion holds sway in the goings-on of a society. Nor are the constitutive components of a society-culture, religion, economy, and so on-clearly delineated; they are instead intrinsically intertwined, with one influencing the other.

The fact that honor killings are (virtually-there was a case in 2020) unknown in Indonesia and parts of Muslim-majority West Africa does not discount the claim that there is a meaningful statistical relationship between Islam and honor killing. It discounts the claim that Islam is coterminous with honor killings, which is not what is being claimed.

In sum: the claim that honor killings are exclusively a cultural issue and not a religious one is untenable.

I also do not think this is a source that is up to Wikipedia's standards. I'm not sure why Canada's Department of Justice thought it appropriate to publish an openly polemical report written by someone with no relevant academic background on the subject, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I propose that this source be deleted. Reversetalk (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

My view is that the existing lead paragraph about geography and country locations should stay as it is instead of being reframed around religion. It already explains where most honor killings occur. The practice is unknown or uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world outside the Middle East and South Asia, which are also neighbouring regions with a lot of cultural overlap. Honor killing was also historically common around the Mediterranean.

I have no problem with adding any of the newer studies you had added I have said from the start that they are well sourced and should be included. My issue was that you removed older sources that could have remained. The Justice Canada source also directly says that honor killing is a cultural rather than religious issue, so that point should not simply be removed.

The Chesler source has already been removed, so there is no need to discuss it further. ~2026-44813-85 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I again disagree with your characterization that the paragraph would be “reframed around religion” or made “about Muslims” by my proposed edits. The existing material already makes a claim about the relationship between religion and honor killing: it ends by saying that country examples support the idea that honor killings are a matter of culture rather than religion. My point is that this categorical conclusion is not justified by the examples given.

My concern is that this disputed introductory material treats Islam only in one direction: it qualifies or denies a relationship between Islam and honor killing, while omitting a pattern described by multiple sources. Mark Cooney, Chesler’s study, a 2011 TIME report, and others all share the thesis that most/ a clear majority of honor killings appear to occur in Muslim communities. This is not an attempt to say that honor killing is exclusively Muslim, or to make the article “about Islam.” It is an attempt to give the reader a complete, qualified account rather than mention Islam only to deny or minimize any relationship.

On the newer studies: I appreciate your agreement that they can be included. But they were part of a proposed replacement for a paragraph whose opening claims that “the data does not support” a relationship with religious traditions. Retaining that categorical opening, one Jordan study, and then adding studies that find associations does not produce a coherent or neutral paragraph. The material needs to be rewritten as an attributed summary of mixed, study-specific findings.

Finally, Chesler’s removal does not by itself settle the source question. I am not arguing that it should be used for sweeping claims or without qualification. I am asking that its methodology and the precise claim it supports be discussed, rather than treating removal during an active RfC as the end of the matter.

This also leaves several of my earlier source-specific objections unanswered, especially the paragraph’s opening sentence—“Though it may seem in a modern context that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions, the data does not support this claim”—as well as the small-town material and the Widney Brown quotation. Reversetalk (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

And more fundamentally, with respect to the paragraph beginning “Though it may seem in a modern context…,” I still do not understand what specific revised paragraph you are proposing. Please identify the exact older sentences and sources you think should remain, state what proposition each is meant to support, and explain how they can be retained without preserving the paragraph’s categorical opening claim that “the data does not support” a relationship with religious traditions. I have proposed replacement text; I am asking for a comparably specific alternative. Reversetalk (talk) 09:27, 17 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)

Though it may seem in a modern context that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions, the data does not support this claim. should be removed. Apart from the fact that it cites two magazines instead of scientific articles, the phrase "certain religious traditions" is vague. Taking Beller, Kröger and Hosser 2021 as our source, if we take "certain religious traditions" to be private prayer, then the statement is accurate, but if we take "certain religious traditions" to be mosque attendance and religious fundamentalism, then the statement is false.

This literature review states Honor killings differ from other types of killing because their motivation is based on cultural and moral codes common in certain communities, often reinforced by religion ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. What do you make of my proposed edit to replace the entire paragraph? As it stands, the paragraph begins with the sentence "Though it may seem..." which you proposed to delete; it continues with a comparison of honor killings to murders committed by rural white Southerners, which the literature review you cited contradicts, and it ends with "This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion", which is essentially a rephrasing of the sentence you proposed to be deleted.

I have proposed to replace this paragraph with another paragraph that states 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. It seems like we are approaching consensus (aside from the person who did the original edit, who has not addressed the majority of my specific critiques) that that this paragraph is not in line with Wikipedia's standards. Reversetalk (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't seem to find it above. What was your proposed edit again? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

This is slightly different from my previously proposed edit:

Some studies have shown a positive statistical correlation between Islamic religiosity and support of honor killing. However, the data is not unequivocal, and research findings differ by setting and by the dimension of religiosity measured. A survey of adolescents in Jordan found no clear association between religiosity and support for honor killing.[48] A nationally representative survey in Kuwait found religiosity, tribal attachment, and support for political Islam to be positive predictors.[49] A cross-national study of Muslims found that mosque attendance and religious fundamentalism, but not private prayer, were associated with greater support for honor killings.[50] A 2025 cross-sectional survey of university students in the West Bank found that male students and Muslim respondents reported greater justification for honor killing than female and non-Muslim respondents, respectively.[51] Reversetalk (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Middle East Quarterly

Hello @Reconrabbit!

I see that you removed the study by Middle East Quarterly in Special:PermanentLink/1369234873, and I agree with your decision to remove it (tiny sample size, cites Fox News several times), but I want to ask, is the journal itself considered unreliable? I could not find an RfC or listing for it on WP:RSP. I only see the entry for Middle East Forum. 2kbfloppadisk (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say unreliable on a whole, but a lot of weight was being put on this article, which has obvious bias against Islam and several dubious citations - notably the author's other contributions to Middle East Quarterly itself, Fox News as mentioned, as well as Yotam Feldner, who is described by Helms (2015) as an author "who has asserted that honour-killing is accepted as part of Islamic teachings by some Muslim scholars, a claim which contradicts virtually every study in Islamic law". That's my evaluation on why this source shouldn't be used in the article to support such claims. Overall, I find that articles on the website minimize Islamophobia - just look at one of the most recent opinion articles on the front page. The reality is that “Islamophobia” is what Christopher Hitchens rightly described as a “stupid neologism”. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the article, and I don't find the two reasons you gave for removing it very compelling. The first claim is that it has "obvious bias against Islam", which you don't provide any evidence for. The second is supposed "dubious citations": 2 from Fox News and 2 from Feldner.

Regarding Fox News: it goes without saying that, especially since 2016, Fox is extremely biased towards the Republican Party/Trump. But the Fox News citations are a nonissue in regards to the argumentative logic of the study, as they are both direct quotes from Muslim figures that claim that honor killing is not related to Islam.

The 2015 Helms study you cited does not provide any citations to their claim that Feldner "has asserted that honour-killing is accepted as part of Islamic teachings by some Muslim scholars...". You also haven't said anything contra the Feldner study, nor the Middle East Quarterly study itself. Reversetalk (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

For the first claim, you can look here: Middle_East_Forum#Middle_East_Quarterly. 2kbfloppadisk (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about what "the first claim" is. User Reconrabbit is claiming that the article itself is "obviously biased against Islam". In the Wikipedia article you linked, the claim is that the entire journal is biased, and the only "evidence" given to support that claim is a singular, unsubstantiated quote by Mr. Bail. Reversetalk (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I find nearly all of the studies published in Middle East Quarterly to be inferior in terms of quality of peer review compared to anything from, say, BMC Psychology or Journal of Interpersonal Violence. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I would say at a bare minimum we should see it as a biased source, attribute everything carefully, and avoid relying on it unduly. It is hosted by MEF which we designate unreliable, so I will raise this on RSN to see if there is a community-wide view as this article is not the only one using it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, it has been discussed in its own right at RSN:

• 2009 no consensus, probably SPS and biased
• 2010: no consensus
• 2012: judged unreliable
• 2018: likely an SPS pre-2009, no consensus for post-2009
• 2019: SPS pre-2009, probably unreliable

So, I'd avoid using it BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: raised on RSN to be sure Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#h-Middle East Quarterly-20260904173500 BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)