Talk:Hadiya case

Concerns and clarifications

The issue only relates to her marriage in the Supreme court not about her religious conversion.Girdlast888 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Added the statement of National Investigation Agency .Girdlast888 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of unnecessary information regarding PFI. Discoraccoon (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How is PFI a "stakeholder" in Hadiya's court case? Discoraccoon (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through the citations and a lot of them link to websites that do not support the claim being made. I have just removed a bunch of uncited information about Sathya Sarani. Whoever has written this into the article seems to be pushing an agenda. Discoraccoon (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the pieces in the article are clearly cited by the IP.Please assume Good faith to all .PFI is involved particularly after National Investigation Agency statement about it in the Supreme court in this case which is clearly sourced which is important as it is main investigation agency in India and is looking at it with a terrorist angle .Girdlast888 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I've only removed sentences where PFI and ISI links were not reported, or established. Please link to those documents instead of others.

Discoraccoon (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither this nor this have the given statement given and or mention any feminist group and leader's name.Girdlast888 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The case is no longer "forced religious conversion of Hadiya only" (though it started that way "Shafin Jahan, asking that the court overturn the Kerala high court order annulling his marriage to Hadiya"). Later SC widened the scope of the case on its own accord, by asking the NIA if Hadiya's case is "alleged organised forced conversion" (source here, read the whole article as explains many technical/legal aspects). SC later widened the scope even more by asking NIA to investigate all such reported cases in Kerala of systematic organised forced conversion and "their links with terrorism". NIA told the SC that the marriage in question could be part of a ‘larger mechanism’ to convert Hindu girls to Islam. Based on that SC ordered NIA to investigate all cases. (reference: please read this Supreme Court Orders NIA to Probe Conversion of Kerala Woman to Islam article). Thus, this one case forks into multiple individual Hadiya-like cases wherever NIA finds evidence, and it goes beyond into uncovering patterns of terrorism in multiple cases and not just limited to deciding in favor or against HC's annulment of Hadiya's marriage alone.

202.156.182.84 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to removing PFI's terror link with ISI and banned SIMI, you also removed a separate clearly-sourced whole statement from NIA to SC that how PFI is a terrorist organsiation, involved in bombs making, training camps, and planning terror attacks with Islamic State Al-Hindi. Read the whole source that quotes NIA in chunks but I summarised it in one statement in the lead (permissible per wiki convention for article lead). Can not remove like this. I assume goodfaith that may be while rushing to delete one sentence, you might have ended deleting two statements by mistake. But please be extremely careful and properly review your edit before submitting and cross check the while source (not skip read, cus the citation might be spread across in different parts of that single source). It is not acceptable to quote diff parts of a source and put them together out-of-context. But it is acceptable to put different parts together if it is within same context. Context is important. I was careful about all that. You deleted a valid and make-and-break-the-whole-case kind of fact from the article. I will re-add later. Please check my detailed response below. That is not specifically directed at you. That one is to set the standard for all of us. I am not a one-off troll editor to light the fire and then walk away. I took up this article so I will commit my time to do a fair job to enage you all and patently address all issues so even if one of us is not around, others can guard the "sanctity of this article" even though we might have argued or opposed some of the stuff during the course of consensus building. Constructive goodfaith disagreements are good for the article quality, repeated badfaith disagreements are bad for all (everyone gets emotionally burnt, article stays crap, wiki becomes heap of rubbish, readers get to read biased garbage). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

About Satya Sarini, NIA said to SC in this source that "the involvement of Sainaba in luring and influencing Athira Nambiar, the detenue in Habeus Corpus WP (Crl) 235 of 2016 for converting her to Islam with the assistance of her associates in SDPI/PFI and Markaz-ul-Hidaya (Sathya Sarani) during May 2016 when Akhila Asokan was under her custody (as per the directions of the Kerala High Court) reveals that the instant case is not an isolated incident but rather an organised effort." source here says is under PFI, oath/affidavit submitted to court also says This source says that sathya sarani is "conversion org, India Today's sting on them here also says the same, NIA said to SC that in this source here that there was organsied effort to convert hidaya, and NIS also said to SC that PFI is terror org, "obvious" linkages have to be in the article). You removed many things, but two important points. Point-1, I mentioned Zainaba being handler/in-charge appointed by Sathya Sarani (equivalent terminology/synonym for layman term "in-charge" in the professional language of intelligence organsiations is the "handler"). Source I used says "Meanwhile Akhila was in contact with the institution Sathya Sarani which put A.S. Zainaba, president of the National Women’s Front, in charge of her". In the "High Court lawsuite" section I used "in-charge" but in the summary section of "stakeholders" I had used the words "in-charge" () and "handler" (while describing Sathya Sarani under org subheading and zainaba under people subheading) as a synonym of word "in-charge" as it is the context specific based on the fact NIA used the term "handler', because intelligence agencies use the professional term "handler" and colloquial term is "in charge" in this context. The meaning and effect of "handler" and "in-charge" is same in this context. Context is important. See A17 below. Point-2 Regarding Sathya Sarini is a "conversion organasation" : This sources says "According to Akhila, soon after, Aboobacker refused to keep her at his residence and approached a third institution named Sathya Sarani, an educational institution and conversion centre in Manjeri, Malappuram. Sathya Sarani sent Sainaba, a social worker and member of the Popular Front of India, to meet Akhila. From January 7, Akhila started staying with Sainaba." This case is about the organised forced conversion, terrorism links, etc (after SC asked NIA to investigate to help SC decide facts). Hence, it is much less relevant to the context if Sathya Sarani calls itself with generic term "educational institute" (MIT/IIT/IIM are all educational institutes and so are "Al Qayeda's bomb making terror factories"}, please use the context-specific sourced "specialisation" of the educational institute instead of diluting the context of a "conversion" case). Since source mentioned it as conversion institute then the sourced "label" in the lead that Sathya Sarini is conversion institute will stay in the article. In addition Sathya Sarini "role" in conversion "as clearly mentioned in the source" is also strengthens this argument. Among multiple attributes, use the context-appropriate sourced attribute "conversion orgnsiation" to describe Sathya Sarini in a SC case covering "organised forced conversion". 202.156.182.84 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

AA1. To all: Dear everyone,
(AA1.a) Those do not have time or patience, please read the headings.
(AA1.b) Those want to make changes to my edits, read the relevant point.
(AA1.c) Those regular editors watching this page, to avoid edit conflicts please read everything and point future editors to my points to gently guide them. I have tried to make each point self-sufficient even if read alone.

AA2. Respect, effort, address everything:
Apology in advance for the long reply, I have tried to address all issues. Out of my respect for all of you and for the ease of skippy readers I have put effort to use "self-explanatory summary headings". I have left detailed comments in my edits and I have tried to engage individual editors on their talk page and now here in community discussion. I have forced myself to use goodfaith even when other editors on other articles would have normally resorted to warnings, reverts, etc. I want to exercise more patience than that.

AA3: Self-reminder to all of us of obvious wiki behavior: Status - ongoing, keep it in mind.
None of us owns this article. None of us is superior or inferior. None of us is good or bad. Our individual edits are either good (meet the criteria) or bad (fail). Do not support me because you liked my previous edit and vice versa. I am expecting all to show this higher degree to emotional maturity and self-censored sense of fairness.

AA4. I am here to stay with sincere collaborative effort. I put 16 hours long sincere effort, I neither make kneejerk edits nor take smartypants manipulative short cuts. Do not make kneejerk statements or changes without putting your own sincere through effort to check facts first: Status - ongoing, keep it in mind.
About the statement that most of my statement are unspported, please provide specific instances, I will correct it. I spent 16 hours at one stretch to fact check this article based on others earlier sources, I did not make lazy edits or that will not withstand the 'fair and unbiased scrutiny" but I accept the scope for improvement, and updated based on those sources to ensure there are no "weight of balance" ""omissions"". I understand no one is trying to deliberately run me down. Since I have clarified it, hope this puts this issue to the rest.

AA5. Do not undo long hours of meticulous work with few minutes of rushed changes directly to lead without developing the justified argument int he body of the article. Always check history-comment of each edit you undo and fact check each source. Do not cut out the edit without checking history comment why it was placed there. Do not reject an edit based on checking partial list of sources of that particular edit/statement: Status - ongoing, keep it in mind.
Please first read history-comments of my all edits if you had any such doubts, because not nice to rushing into labeling my long effort without own 5 minute effort to at least read history comments of my 16 hours edits and then rushing to chop and change to extent that my sources and text are out of synch, and unacceptably add things directly to lead of article without even bothering to first put effort to read change-history. Please be fair. We can not have a repeated instances where hours of work is undone within few minutes by rushing directly into without even checking history or full article and all each source. Okay to destroy my 1 hours of cross checked work, only that parts that do not withstand scrutiny. But do not use 30 minutes to disrupt goodfaith cross-checked work. But equal sincerity and effort, verify and cross check and make sure your removals will not be reverted. I am not angry or upset. This is for all future editors to read and learn they must use similar patience with other editors. Do not start labeling. If they do then do not warn them. Nicely engage them if they make mistake. learn from them if they are right, correct them with kindness and lotsssss of patience for them. I am practicing it, demonstrating in my efforts in talk page and article. So I have earned the right to share this tip.

AA6. Please do incremental edits. No gaming. Refrain from removing from removing a big and very important part of sentence or remove whole paragraph just because part of it needs improvement.
E.g. okay to remove PFI connection with ISI. But do not incorrectly remove the valid "explosive sourced content" regarding planned terror attacks by PFi pertaining to the security of nation and humanity. No stonewalling of inclusion of court evidence by the independent investigative agencies of "secular" nations, apply goodfaith to them. let me explain convention used by editors with an example. India is not a "Hindu republic of India" or "Islamic republic of India". India is a secular "Republic of India" and its armed forces, institutes and agencies are secular. Respect that fact and can not compare the agencies of a secular nations with biased fundamentalist nations that put religion in their constitution where blasphemy is used to kill minorities or rationalists. Indian courts are secular and so is NIA. Nations in the court, Outside opinion does not count, that is wikipedia convention. If a religious nation with bigoted regime and biased religious constitution against minorities, it is understandable that resolutions from human rights agencies is added such as majority resolution passed by United Nations (not personal POV of low value orgs). Some UN resolution have legal status, they can lead to UN approved attack on those nations for violating human rights, such as against ISIS and Talibani Afghanistan regime. In short, do not include outside sourced POV opinion that trashes NIA or courts. Wikipedia is not a kangaroo court.

AA7. Lead is a place to summarise and draw obvious connections based on the facts of the case. E.g. Okay to insert that PFI is Islamist Radical, reason being is NIA submitted to SC in this case that PFI group has been involved in terror acts, including running terror camps and making bomb, plans to carry out terror attacks in South India by involving the outfit Islamic State Al-Hindi, cadre has 4 cases of terror (chopping of a professor’s palm in Kerala’s Idukki district, organising a training camp in Kannur from where the NIA reportedly seized swords, country-made bombs and ingredients for making IEDs, murder of RSS leader Rudresh in Bengaluru). Based on this NIA submission to SC, it is a radical/fundamentalist organisation and terrorist organisation."
Do not stonewall and try to water down the harsh facts. Prior to my edits, most important aspect of the fact that SC asked NIA to investigate the facts and NIA made explosive submissions to Sc, all those have been omitted. Why? I wont alleging agenda because lets assume goodfaith cus it is tiring to edit. but do not get angry or water them down if those vital facts are added. Do not frustrate editors using "war of attrition" by tiring each other out. I am not alleging anyone deliberately doing it. In future any editor does these, please point them to these items here. I am making this list comprehensive so these points can be reused to guide editors (not punish, not label them, but engage them with patience). I apologise as I am not targeting individuals but I am advocating against disruptive behavior that we need to guard against ourselves.

AA8. Do not delete or alter composite sentence without verifying all the supporting citation: Status - I need to re-add some deleted content (see my other para/points)"
I cross checked that each separate part of my within-the-context "composite statements" is supported by at least one of the source in such a way that all sources put together support the whole sentence. I did all this without stitching unrelated out-of-context stuff together in one composite statement (no manipulation) e.g. I used this format Fmt1. "NIA said X, Y and Z"<ref:s1,s2,s3>, instead of more cluttered Fmt2. "NIA said X,<ref:s1> Y<ref:s2> and Z"<ref:s3>. Now, If someone goes ahead and rephrase my edits and may be even removed some sources too, then soon the text of article will be out of synch with sources, even though my original statement had well-supported the statements inserted by me. After other people make edit then those "sources and text" get out of synch and the whole things gets deleted. Do not do edits that diturpts that synch or essence and then in future revision use own revision (taht dirupoted the synch) to remove the whole thing with argument now the source does not support the text. Please use goodfaith and also verify and do not chuck it out.

AA9. I agree to have my SIMI & ISI edit removed: Status - DONE
I had put PFI's links to ISI and SIMI. Since it was no mentioned in the court cases (at least not as per the sources I came came across, though supporting sources exist outside of this case which I had provided), I agree to its removal, provided this criteria is consistently applied i.e. include "court facts" of this case, and leave out the outside noise/allegation unless they have already been proven in the court then case by case it may be pertinent to mention with due weight of balance.

AA10. Pls retain my source-supported edit that NIA said to SC PFI is radical outfit and that it wants to bomb south india with islamic state:
I cited the source clearly, check all sources that I tagged to my "composite sentence" comprised of 3 distincts parts. said NIA told court that "PFI is radical organisation" (I will cross check my own statement for sources and readd if im still correct on this). but pls do incremental edit instead of cut all out i.e. if you take out my edit on SIMI and ISI (reason: not in court case, not proven yet) then leave the fact in the article that NIA called PFI radical outfit. No problem if you previously cut my work out in chunk including valid portions, I assume goodfaith. I do not think you had malice. May be passionate and emotional. Now that we understand each other's intentions of collaborating, we can do make increment edits to each others work (retain the portions that meet the wiki criteria).

A11. Leave outside defensive pov qualifiers about Shafin out, only keep what NIA and others said in the court about him: (also refer Political Islam)
Please do not add qualifier statements about criminal cases against Shafin such as "those are just political cases", because none of this was said in the court. Just stick to court fact "he has four criminal cases", thats it and nothing more to add. Mumbai terror attacks, killing of Mahatama Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi, Kennedy, and Osama bin Laden flying into twin towers, Shia Iran versus Wahabi Saudi UN cases of their conflicts, etc are also "just political cases". Point is these defensive POV statement of media or anyone else made outside the court (that cases against Shafin are just political cases) should not be here in this article.

A12. Fact checking and being kind and patient with other editors, but do not misuse kindness/patience:
I have taken painstaking care to crosscheck twice while making 16-hour long edits, I have shown ample patience for even these who are making lengthy changes directly to lead without justifying it in the body of the article first, usually those things get BRD immediately with warning and ban. That is effective in shutting opposition out (manipulation by smart but selfish unkind game-the-system editors), and running passionate editors-on-learning-curve out of wiki (bad). In the end wikipedia ends up poor and article remains of poor quality under the control of one or more like-minded editors. Initially showing more patience to the editors who are opposing some of our own edits is useful because they are actually helping us by forcing us to raise the quality of our own edits. So please go with that attitude. Review my multiple edits over 16 hours with comments I left with each edit in the comments section. Every edit is well justified, but am willing to cut out my own edits that do not meet the higher-bar we set (include only court stuff, that means delete statement by hadiya, her father, others outside court statements will be deleted as those were not legally-admissible under-oath facts). I took a break for few hours out of respect for those making edits to my edits and to engage with them, I will now cross check everything with patience one by one. Will be fair but ruthless to my own edits and theirs, based on the "criteria of inclusion of material in article" we evolve here.

A13. If anything of this was submitted to the court, then apply the "Due Balance" and put only "proportionately" as much that was important within the case itself. A small mention in the case or a minor fact, can not be placed as disproportionately large text and cna not be placed in the lead. Apply consistent criteria to own edits that we apply to others to reject their work. I will remove some of my own edits and others based on the criteria that only court facts must be included or the obvious inferences (links between radical orgs and individuals e.g. NIA said PIF is radical org in terrorism, NIA made submissions Shafin is SDPI and/or PIF, and Zainaba Sathya Sarini but self professed president of PFI front, can not game the system to frustrate editors by trying to manipualte wikipedia policies not keep obvious terrorism suspects links hidden or watered down):
NIA said to SC in this source that "the involvement of Sainaba in luring and influencing Athira Nambiar, the detenue in Habeus Corpus WP (Crl) 235 of 2016 for converting her to Islam with the assistance of her associates in SDPI/PFI and Markaz-ul-Hidaya (Sathya Sarani) during May 2016 when Akhila Asokan was under her custody (as per the directions of the Kerala High Court) reveals that the instant case is not an isolated incident but rather an organised effort." I also learnt that we might have to cull some of our own edits, e.g. my edit "ISI and SIMI" can go. Apply this criteria consistently, to my edits and your own edits. I will remove my own edits and others edits that do not fit the criteria that only inside-the-court facts will remain in the article. That also means remove the following: allegation such as Hadiya was home imprisoned (nothing mentioned by her or pleaded by her in the court about it, outside noise stays out of this article), Hindu orgs included in this article here that were not in the court case so they will e kept out of this article, feminist stuff stays out as well as none of those feminist or other org made any submission to court and none of those were mentioned in the court. Same way we can also remove statements made by hadiya or her father or others outsdie the court. We can remove statement of her new guardian (college dean) but court appointed him as guardian and we can mention that. I will clean up. Give me few hours. Apologies in advance if i restore some of my and others deleted work, apology also if i delete some of current work, but i try to do it in small installments with good explanation in comments, please do not start editing without checking history.

A14. How to deal with frustrating editors, specially newbies. Be kind to all but keep vandalism in check by coaching them without labeling them.
Do not allow unacceptable edits from other editors that support our own viewpoint but fails the wiki criteria, because then some more editors will do the same from counter viewpoint, and soon the article becomes lengthy messy rubbish again. Do not use "wiki warning tags" on new editors on this hot contentious topic. Many new reader-editors will to this article. Nicely engage them, Do not try to run them out of wiki. Try to teach them humbly, without making them feel belittled or without the impression that we are superior, etc. if you are hindu then do not try to push/block muslims editors out of wiki (or vice versa) or silence them with warning or by branding them with labels. Instead "fairly" oppose each other but "willingly convert to each other's working style" while holding own strong but "fair" views. Challenge each other to be more thorough in their sources and criteria.

A15. Patience will pave the way for us to collaborate. DO not rush, Put effort to build rapport by explaining yourself. I stopped making edits last few hours to slow things down. I worked on engaging people on their talk page and then took hours to draft this. Those who do not have patience to read walls of text to thoroughly address issues with gaining deeper understanding of issues then should refrain from making messy drop-the-bomb-and-runaway kind of edits or edits that tire others out by making them rework for hours by putting minimal effort of our own. This is our initial communication., First few comments and days are awkward while forming the working-understanding. if everyone stick here with patience, we will find balance. I remind again, do not try to please each other, or please hindus or muslims (article is not personal). Just "please" the wiki criteria (verified sources, due balance, etc). E.g. Muslism do not need to push in the lead "hadiya appeared in hijab in college" to show she is 'sufficiently muslim". She did something bigger, she told the court something like that she is muslim and wants to follow it, that is big and good enough that covers all smaller stuff. Same way hindus do not need not push she is "hindu enough" because as the things stand now court has neither approved or rejected her conversion, NIA had said in court she is psychologically hijacked for conversion, high court has annulled her marriage on brainwashing of vulnerable girl (court's words) and so on. Point is, stick to the court fact. Leave out the emotional noise.

A16. Use the Correct Context please. sources says "According to Akhila, soon after, Aboobacker refused to keep her at his residence and approached a third institution named Sathya Sarani, an educational institution and conversion centre in Manjeri, Malappuram. Sathya Sarani sent Sainaba, a social worker and member of the Popular Front of India, to meet Akhila. From January 7, Akhila started staying with Sainaba." This case is about the organised forced conversion, terrorism links, etc (after SC asked NIA to investigate to help SC decide facts). Hence, it is much less relevant to the context if Sathya Sarani calls itself with generic term "educational institute" (MIT/IIT/IIM are all educational institutes and so are "Al Qayeda's bomb making terror factories"}, please use the context-specific sourced "specialisation" of the educational institute instead of diluting the context of a "conversion" case). Since source mentioned it as conversion institute then the sourced "label" in the lead that Sathya Sarini is conversion institute will stay in the article. In addition Sathya Sarini "role" in conversion "as clearly mentioned in the source" is also strengthens this argument. Among multiple attributes, use the context-appropriate sourced attribute "conversion orgnsiation" to describe Sathya Sarini in a SC case covering "organised forced conversion".

A17. Words have multiple meaning, can use the context-specific non-subjective its synonym in the lead while using the exact word from source in the article, this is wiki convention. Do not delete the important fact based on minor issue of use of synonym of what the source said. Source says Zainaba was hadiya's "in charge" appointed by Sathya Sarani (equivalent terminology/synonym in the professional language is "handler"). source I used says that Zainaba was "in charge" of Hadiya by Sathya Sarini, exact words from source "Meanwhile Akhila was in contact with the institution Sathya Sarani which put A.S. Zainaba, president of the National Women’s Front, in charge of her". In the body of text I used "in-charge" but in the summary section of "stakeholders" I had used the word "handler" as a synonym of word "in-charge" as it is the context specific based on the fact NIA used the term "handler', because intelligence agencies use the professional term "handler" and colloquial term "in charge" in this context. The meaning and effect of "handler" and "in-charge" is same in this context. And just because a synonym was used then deleting that edit is not permisisble. At least should have retained the edit and change the exact word to what source said but using this as an excuse to totally delete a very significant fact is not acceptable.

A18. What next: I will make edits by taking the version of article that I finished editing here and compare it with the latest version, to cross-check changes/addition/deletion. I will leave those new edits that meet the wiki criteria, rest will be deleted. I will re-add those that were deleted (will assume goodfaith in this round). I have explained most of the issues above that are likely to be re-added. Discuss there for each point. Thanks for the patience. Plese give me the same effort here to dicuss as I have put here on talk page as well as article. It is unsustainable for me (or anyone else) to spend hours here (but I still put this long effort with patience) for each relatively miniscule -minutes spent on messy edits by others. This first time effort from me was important to create understanding, and I took the lead to demonstrate by example. If anyone removing my edits, please give the similar effort, sincerity and respect. Lets cooperate without secretly [Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system or each other]]. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note copied IP's comments

I noticed your changes at Hadiya court case. Please slow down. Please understand article lead is not the place to put all the information. As per wiki guidelines, put the details in the body of the article and lead should be condensed summary. Some of your edits are adding too much details to the article lead which is unacceptable for the encyclopedia article. Also use due balanace guideline of wikipedia. Also statement made outside the court can not be included e.g. opinion by some police or fringe theories and allegations outside do not carry enough WP:BALANCE, submissions made to court under oath (verbal or affidavit) caryr much more weight than the noise outside, hence inclusion of some allegation against some hindu org (there was nothing submitted against those in the court, incldue them back in future if and when an under oath evidence is submitted against those in this case). NIA statement to SC under oath/affidavit during this case regarding PFi, SDPI, Shafin and Zaina, etc meet all the criteria, Please slow down while I restore earlier edits. You are welcome to add to the main body, if fact is encylopedic. Try a bottom up approach for new facts, i.e. add to the body of article and if they have "due balance" then summaris ein the lead, but avoud your current practice of adding everything to the lead itself (e.g. Hadiya appeared in Hijab, etc these are already covered in main body (hapened outside court and she did not submit anything about this to the court) and it is not worthy of inclusion lead as she already said in the court she converted on her free will (this is worthy of inclusion in lead and it is already there). Please avoid too much rework, this is not holy war. I dont care religion, etc but I wish to see a fact based balanced article. Blanaced is not balance of hindu vs muslims, but balance of hard verifiable facts of the court case, specially the ones submitted under due weight, otherwise it leads to avoidable edit warring and will have to get logged in admins to revert my all changes. Look forward to a constructive collaboration. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with what IP said here copied it here so that all issue related to this page is here.Girdlast888 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you please capitalize the C's in "Court Case" in the title? Thanks. Kildbild (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive

The article as it is currently written is very repetitive. It's like the same information is repeated in every section. The stakeholders section appears to be redundant as all the information in there is already in other sections of the article body (except for the fact that the alleged 4 charges against the husband are being challenged by the police saying there's only one charge -- this information should be moved to an appropriate place in another section, and then the stakeholders section could likely be deleted without any info loss).

Furthermore, the information about the Islamist organizations being terrorist groups is being repeated over and over again, listing several details of their activities (e.g. making bombs etc.), which seems also redundant, because such information rather belongs in the Wikipedia articles about said organizations, not in this article that focuses on this Court Case. It's fine to mention that they are radical Islamist groups that are suspected of terrorist activities, because that's somewhat of a premise of the court case, but there's no need to list those groups' activities in detail in this court case article. The activities can be listed in the main articles about those groups instead.

The section on Hadiya's biography is also overly detailed. For example, how is it relevant for this court case, that she passed an exam on her second try? It doesn't seem like the first failed attempt or the second successful attempt had any (significant) impact on her life or on the court proceedings, so why is this trivia mentioned here? Nakonana (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)