Jump to content

Talk:Prosecution of Marte Dalelv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Suggested move: The Marte Dalelv case

[edit]

After a move, this article has now been turned into a biography, instead of an event article. I suggest we move it back to an event article, which is often more appropriate for articles related to crime. See WP:N/CA: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." As an example, I will mention that neither Trayvon Martin nor George Zimmerman have a biography article. Instead, they are covered in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. For the case of neutrality I would suggest that the article simply be named "The Marte Dalelv case", and thus exclude any mention of rape in the article, which could be interpreted that Wikipedia has concluded that a rape has happened. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it back for some reasons. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the rename. We don't know the full story and yet it seems that some editors want to build the article based on her version of events alone. Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against the rename for the simple reason that the person in question, obviously, reported a rape to the police [1]. Until further details are available I suggest the name to be kept and avoid any implicit hints that "some editors want to build the article based on her version of events alone". If there are available sources not from her side, feel free to cite it. E3 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Prosecution of Marte Dalelv by Sandstein. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marte Dalelv → Marte Dalelv case – To comply with WP:N/CA: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." See Shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example, neither Martin nor Zimmerman have got biographies. Iselilja (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I moved the article to Prosecution of Marte Dalelv without being aware of this request. I suppose the RfC can continue nonetheless.  Sandstein  11:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your move was really a good choice, which will include all the aspects and so on. The Original removie question above was Marte Dalelv back to an artcile name for an event. I moved it back "Marte Dalelv rape incident", but the name Prosecution of Marte Dalelv is ok, I would say. Marte Dalelv case would be not so good because it would signal in general that Marte Dalelv is the guilty one and so on, but this is disputed ... (compare newspapers etc.). Prosecution of Marte Dalelv is not a POV article name ...--Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new name was good and seems to have consensus, so I am withdrawing my request, as the point for me was never my specific title suggestion, but rather two avoid the two previous names (Marte Dalev rape incidents and Marte Dalelv.) Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment from Netsplit

[edit]

I attempted to clean up the grammar some, add a few cites and expand the information, as well as move the article to a more neutral POV. However I personally find the situation where a woman can be jailed for being raped to backward, savage, and evil. I would like to cock punch the scumbag savages running the UEA so hard their testicles turn to jelly and run down their legs. Even so I did my best to work toward an unbiased POV for this edit, but I'm only human. I'd appreciate another person checking my work. Netsplit (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. If this is your objectivity in editing wp articles, please consider to work on another kind of thematic. At least, don't remove other users edit as they are verifiable. Thanks. Lenore (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Dubai rape case - Alexandre Robert - from 2007 (wrote it on this talk page, to prevent confusion)

[edit]

and so on ... and beside that this private page of the mother of Alexandre Robert: http://www.boycottdubai.com/index_new_E.php It is also named in this wikipedia article: Human rights in Dubai#Foreign workers and labor rights --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section

[edit]

What is the point of having separate country headings under the "Reactions" section that say nothing besides that the case has been reported there? For instance, under the heading "Entire Europe", the content says: "Euronews reported also on 20 July 2013 about it in several languages". Is this really needed? well maybe it was, when the article was nominated for deletion on notability/coverage grounds. But not anymore.

I have removed those items, but it was quickly reverted by user "Soenke Rahn" with a childish edit summary that says: "POV erase delete compare account and history etc.". Since this user is not editing in good faith, I'm posting this here so that it is discussed with the more mature users. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare also the result, discussion on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marte_Dalelv_rape_incident
The secition was made by several people and so not only be one person and so on. Sorry, your behavior is more than childish (compare your sentence with childish above) and it's clear what your interest is. By the way I like also the new title of the article which was chosen by the admin. Prosecution of Marte Dalelv nice, good chosen. An alternative possibility for this section I have placed: Spreading of the news. Let it with reaction (to inform people is also an reaction ,,,) or rename it again to spreading or anything senseful but do not erase information which are important for the article. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Please do not erase clear important Informations again! --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how a section that says nothing other than a news agency X reported the news is "important" to the article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says e.g. that a a lot of people are informt, about it. So it gives also relevance compare erase discussion. And that the report and the description of this situation was not like the view of this Dubai judges. (Credibility ...) Sorry, no one in the western world will understand such argumentation and so on for such verdict. Implicit Informations and so on. So it's clear that the newspapers will inform people and so. It is not a small event ... And it is clear that when more news magazines etc. will report it, that it was verified and so on. Today there was again a big text in the paper edition of the Bild newspaper ... --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've condensed the Reaction subsections into paragraphs. I believe that the paragraph with the formulaic 'X news organisation reported on the incident on such and such a date' should be deleted though. If any individual source cited there has unique information that should be included in the article, then let's include the information and use the source as a reference. Otherwise, readers don't really need a timeline of when each news organisation picked up on the story. We need only say that the story was international, though we certainly should include reactions from nation states and NGOs as they come. Gobōnobō + c 08:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This change is ok. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay

[edit]

Undid deletions by OrsoYun tagged "The article needs to be updated with the latest insight. Hear-say need to be taken out."[2] The rape is alleged. Dalelv's statement to the police that the sex was consensual does not constitute 'hearsay'. [3] Rosenkreutzer (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok --- yes, newspaper and so on -- credibility of institutions and so on. No doubts. Not out etc. compare erase discussion and so on --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


References to Shari'a/Four witnesses

[edit]

I believe this is a case of WP:OR as no source from Dubai's courts or government has even stated anything about requiring 4 witnesses for a rape conviction. This claim is being reprinted in the Western media, and yet the claim is never attributed to any authority or person, not even to the alleged victim. The mere mention of Shari'a or huddud is also WP:OR. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Al-Andalusi,
As far as I know, it is not just a claim. Here's a previous case where the same rape case happened and the victim was required to bring four witnesses to prove so: http://www.elaph.com/Web/news/2013/5/814223.html. Here are Quranic sources mentioning the four male witnesses requirement in English, and Arabic: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm, http://islamqa.info/ar/ref/158282, http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=117344. And here are more links, not just in what you called the "Western Media", that report the same issue: http://www.i24news.tv/ar/%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1/%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A/130720-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%86%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%BA%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D9%8A, http://ara.reuters.com/article/topNews/idARACAE9B28BY20130721.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quranic precepts aren't always accepted by local jurisdiction. Furthermore, among middle-east countries UAE are one of the less influenced by islamic culture. So, for a such strong assertion a more notable source (referred to Dubai law and not to generic islamic principles) is necessary. Lenore (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that the mentioned Qur'anic reference does not even refer to rape (it refers to the act of consensual extramarital act) and refers to the case where false accusations are made against a woman, the use of the Qur'an and other alleged rape incidents that happened in the region to advance a position that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources is the definition of WP:OR. As Lenore stated, this is an extraordinary claim and we need sources that explicitly quote someone in the UAE system stating the four witnesses claim. One can easily list countless cases where the UAE courts have condemned rapists based on DNA and other types of evidence. In fact, in the case of this Norwegian lady, the article says: "medical examination seeking evidence of the alleged rape and a blood test for alcohol were taken as a standard procedure". It also says: "Dubai Police’s forensic report confirmed that the woman had sex but there was no mention of any physical violence". Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh ....., e.g. Sura 4,29 will say a lot ... etc. Maybe a (local) Scharira or school tradition, reading of 24,4. ... but ... --- I would say, that it is not important for the article, but it's clear that a woman, can not really good complain in a Islamic-System ... compare also the meaning of 4 in Sure 4,3 ... For me, the sentence: "For a rape conviction, Dubai law requires either a confession or four adult male witnesses to the attack (see Hudud)" can be erased or can be there, the result is the same. --- But I am Evangelic a Lutheran: You shall not kill and you shall not break wedlock. (Exodus 20 ff. and Deuteronomy 18,15 and Mathew 5) and so on ... --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe a (local) Scharira or school tradition"
Maybe?! Please. This article from Gulfnews' Legal and Court Correspondent makes no reference to any of these claims. Never expected someone to quote the Bible in a rape case, but here is something to Deuteronomy 22:20-21 consider on the Bible's way of handling accusations against women Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the Deuteronomy, but Christians note Deuteronomy 18,15!!!!!!!! I wrote it above!!! ... So no Christian is really interested in Deut. 22:20-21, because it is more an historical law of this time and so on (also another relation to this part of the Bible, than the modern Judaism, which is today not so often emphasised of theologians, because the commonalities are emphasised), read e.g. also PREFACES TO THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE - 1522-1545 (because Luther will find the right words.); Christians will not cite it permanent, because it's not really complicated and clear that in a Christian society a rape is evil. The moral core of the bible gives the reasons that a raper will go into jail and so on. Compare also e.g. Luther's Catechism; you should also read Johannes 8,2–11!; so say it short the Christian Position is clear and different; E.g. a statement of the EKD [4]; The Bible owns another structure than the Quran, the Quran owns a struchture like e.g. the German Civil Code, and the Bible is really different!!!! So you have in the Civil Code a Chapter to "thinks and animals" and in the Quran you have a Chapter to "woman" ... and what there is said is readable. I quote it above ... and what this will do with women is also understandable and so on ..." (see my statement above -- clear how they made slaves and what it meant, not really a declarations of intentions and that something like a marriage, will guide to something which would be not funny ...) --- So how I wrote "... that a woman, can not really good complain in a Islamic-System ..." and for me, the sentence: "For a rape conviction, Dubai law requires either a confession or four adult male witnesses to the attack (see Hudud)" can be erased or can be there, the result is the same; or you can made it shorter; you could write in the article: "the law system in the UAE and Dubai is influenced of the Islam" and then the quotes --- But I am Evangelic a Lutheran ... and so on --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Lenore, indeed Quranic precepts are not always accepted by local jurisdiction, I provided the Quranic verses, fatwas, and links reporting other cases in order to explain that it is not an original research in this case, but a recurrent one.
On the other hand, you saying that "among middle-east countries UAE are one of the less influenced by islamic culture" is a point of view. Many people including myself would beg to differ: Here are links concerning the UAE's legal system, http://theuaelaw.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=20, http://theuaelaw.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=2, http://www.gcc-legal.org/MojPortalPublic/CountryHome.aspx?country=2, and you may evaluate yourself. However, this, i.e. evaluating whether the UAE is influenced or not by "Islamic culture" is again out of the scope of the article. For citing the four witnesses element, if it is cited by notable press agencies, it is notable. Waiting for someone in the UAE to confirm it is pointless.
Al-Andalusi, it seems that you did not check the links I provided. Here they are again: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm, http://islamqa.info/ar/ref/158282, http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=117344, I think you will find the reference to rape in the URL even. The content of the pages is also contradictory to your claim.
Again, the Quran was not mentioned in the article, it was you who made your own conclusion that mentioning it in the article is related to any Quranic sources. The article cites content that was posted by notable media agencies. It is not within the scope of the article to evaluate whether UAE courts use DNA profiling or video-surveillance. Notable media agencies such as Reuters, BBC, and other mention the four witnesses point. If you disagree or think that they are making it all up, feel free to complain and contact them.
Regards
E3 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Religionofpeace.com? You really want us to accept retarded sources for an answer? You wrote: "It is not within the scope of the article to evaluate whether UAE courts use DNA profiling or video-surveillance". But mentioning the 4 witnesses claim is within the scope? And yes, I'm aware that there are news agencies who have made the four witnesses claim (which is what I wrote in my first post). But the question is, has this alleged requirement been invoked in Dalelv's case? no it was not. Therefore, it shouldn't be in this article, otherwise that's WP:SYN. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Al-Andalusi, you have previously completely denied that the links are linked to the issue of rape in the sharia, and now you are debating the authenticity of the source? Please make up your mind. Furthermore, provided that the source is not notable, which is an opinion you are entitled to have, though others might also qualify with the same adjective you used, two other sources from additional websites are provided and I doubt that you debate their notoriety. If you insist I could still copy the verses and the sayings of Muhammad concerning this issue accompanied by the comments from other scholars.
Again, I will repeat myself: "Notable media agencies such as Reuters, BBC, and other mention the four witnesses point", that is the ground upon which it is included. Please read Iselilja's post below as well.
I have re-added the information that was seemingly deleted by an IP.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're trying to play an expert on Shari'a's laws regarding rape. Except, that's not the place for your views (or any of your websites' views). I reiterate the need to produce a reference that links the court's decision with Dalelv's case. And I mean here an reference to the court's records or judge's statement, not the speculations of Western media. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Al-Andalusi,
Please remain within the limits of decency and politeness, do not make this personal with such unintelligent comments. I am discussing statements from relevant sources and not my personal views, and I acknowledge that this is not the place for anyone to state his. I expect you to understand that as well, which is seemingly not the case.
Furthermore, your demand for a source from the court's records or judge statement is not for the article writers to fulfil, if you have contradictory statements include them, but please do not delete the information completely. If you have access to Emarati cases transcription then source and include them. On this ground I have re-included the content that you qualified as "disputed", and I would like to remind you that you do not delete disputed content but add the relevant and referenced counter-arguments.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E3, why are you taking this personally? this is not a forum where a user gets to reinstate dubious content that has been disputed by (1) other reliable sources (Dubai lawyers) and (2) other editors who cannot see the justification for it, just because he/she thinks posting numerous links to articles containing 'rape', 'islam', 'four witnesses' that are not directly relevant to the article would strengthen his/her speculations. And please do not misinterpret the lack of comments on each and every link you posted as "not responding" to your arguments. If it's not directly relevant, then we're not interested in those conjectures. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Al-Andalusi,
First, it is you who have turned this into a personal issue by claiming that "I am trying to play an expert on sharia". I would be naturally taking it personally then.
Second, other reliable sources, more reliable than "a Dubai lawyer" would confirm that the four witnesses are needed. Other editors as well. Your argument is invalid.
Third, the lack of comments is one thing, ignoring sourced content and claiming its complete opposite, i.e. Islam does not require four witnesses is another, perhaps naive, thing.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is new. You have not established that "other reliable sources, more reliable than 'a Dubai lawyer' would confirm that the four witnesses are needed". For the 2nd point, I don't care what Islam says. See that is your problem, you're not following this discussion. We are talking about Dalelv's case and you are talking about ISLAM. Please focus more on the article. (btw you say: "naive". What happened to all that politeness and whatnot talk you were preaching minutes ago?) Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Al-Andalusi,
I believe the BBC, Reuters, and the Guardian are more notable, by Wikipedia's standards than an Emirati website attributing information to some lawyer. I would however accept nevertheless its claim as untrue and source it accordingly.
The discussion is in fact about the Marte Dlalev case, not Islam. It is you again who have mentioned that The mere mention of Shari'a or huddud is also WP:OR, and this led to this part of the discussion. I could not care less what sharia commands in this case. What is important is what is reported by notable sources about four witnesses. Be it from the sharia or the Hindu scripture.
As far as I know, "naive" is not per say an insult. Let alone "perhaps naive". It is still, perhaps naive, to assume so. Here is a link explaining the meaning of the word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/naive.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the claim that four male witnesess is needed is original research as it has been reported by multiple reliable sources, for instance The Guardian: "In the UAE, as in some other countries using Islamic law, a rape conviction can require either a confession or the testimony of four adult male witnesses." BBC attributes it to a human rights organization: "According to the Emirates Centre for Human Rights, UAE law states a rape conviction can only be secured after a confession or as the result of testimony from four adult male witnesses to the crime." Unlike Wikipedia, reliable sources do not have to attribute they claim when it is about generalities, like the law system in a country. Now, also reliable sources are sometimes wrong, especially when they write about internal affairs in other countries. But if the claim of need for four witnesses is wrong, we should have one or more reliable sources to back up that, less the claim the claim that it is wrong will be original research. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. It's interesting to see the BBC attribute the claim to the "Emirates Centre for Human Rights". However, I still see some issues with the inclusion:
  • The reference does not explicitly state that Dalelv was prosecuted and charged on the basis of the four witnesses requirement. Therefore, mentioning the four witnesses requirement in this article (even if it was indeed true) is implying a conclusion not supported by the reference (WP:SYN).
  • The statement by this center came at time when the details about Dalelv's case were not known, and pretty much the media assumed and speculated some stuff. We now have details on what went on and why exactly she was sentenced (perjury, admission to consensus sex and so on) which contradict the center's initial claims.
  • The reliability of the mentioned human rights centre is not established.
Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, there are two sides to this argument. 1) Argument for inclusion - As Iselilja points out, multiple RSs discuss the "four witness" thing in relation to this case. Getting mentioned in RS is a good indication that it's probably OK to mention here. 2) Argument against inclusion - As Al-Andalusi points out, there aren't any RSs which say the "four witness" thing was actually used in this particular trial. The RSs which do talk about the "four witness" thing mention it in passing as a bit of legal trivia.
All-in-all I'd say I'm weakly against inclusion. The information does seem like trivia, and doesn't seem to add much context to the article. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with the last statement, that this is trivia. Requiring four male witnesses would actually be a serious human and rights issue, and the degree which Dalelv might have suffered human rights abuse is of course relevant for the case. However, I found an article in The National now, which alleges that the four witnesses claim is not true. "Saying that the criminal law in Dubai is from Sharia law and needs witnesses, this is not true," says Hassan Elhias, a leading lawyer with Al Rowaad advocates and legal consultants in Dubai." Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article you have placed is also to read: "The UAE penal code is not based strictly on Islamic Sharia, but derives elements from it." ... but beside that it is clear that it is an islamic law system and so on ... --Soenke Rahn (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Iselilja - re "I very much disagree with the last statement, that this is trivia" - When I said "this is trivia", I didn't mean to say "This fact is unimportant" or "This isn't a big deal in relation to human rights". What I was trying to say is that we have no evidence that this "four witness" thing played any role in Dalelv's case. So in relation to this particular case the "four witness" thing seems like unrelated legal trivia. NickCT (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting how you qualified the statement of the leading lawyer in the country with "alleges", whereas the dubious claim made and reprinted by Western journalists who neither speak the language nor familiar with the country's laws is treated as a given fact that must be included. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why you are lashing out against me. I did actually qualify the statements from BBC and The Guardian: "Now, also reliable sources are sometimes wrong, especially when they write about internal affairs in other countries." So, I was open to the idea that Western media could get things wrong. I am from Norway, and I know international media can get things wrong when they write about things here, like for instance the Norwegian law system. However, Wikipedia pretty much works under the presumption that the mainstream Western media like BBC and Guardian get things right, and "the burden of proof" is on those who claim that these sources are wrong. As for AEU newspaper "The Nation" that was an unknown paper for me, so I wasn't quite sure how reliable it is, but the fact that I mentioned it here, indicated that I thought it could be considered reliable. Second, when reliable sources give contradictory statements: like BBC says 4 witnesses is required and The Nation says this is not true, we have to weight the "claims" against each other. Personally I tended to trust The Nation more on this particular issue, which is why I said (paraphrasing) "if it is true that AEU laws require four witnesses that is important for the article, however...I have found one local newspaper that says this is not so." Also, criticism and correction of Western media or politicans may in itself be relevant for the article, if such criticism/correction is given in reliable sources. Such criticism may also come from Western commentators, especially in the aftermath. (In the "Mentioned in media" section at the top of this article, I inserted an article called "Could Marte Dalelv have been convicted in Norway" by a Norwegian lawyer, which is partly critical to how media and politicians reacted; the lawyer partly used English Wikipedia as his source). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the paragraph. It doesn't belong in this article and certainly not under "Sentence". No references provided for its relevance, never mind that consensus has not been reached. More importantly, the requirement claim has been shown to be false by a leading lawyer in the country. Therefore, the one who is restoring it is CLEARLY misrepresenting Dalelv's case. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Content re-included. Disputed content is not deleted but challenged from both sources. Al-Andalusi, please acknowledge Wikipedia's principles and please remain polite while discussing.
Again, please do not repeat the same claim that "Western journalists who neither speak the language nor familiar with the country's laws". First this is not of relevance because as long as it is reported by relevant sources, it is relevant according to Wikipedia's standards. And second, I have included links in Arabic that you have repeatedly ignored, which mention the issue from the sharia perspective specifically and clearly. Furthermore, let it be understood that deleting referenced sources with referenced content simply because it is not suitable to your taste is unacceptable. Provide contradictory and referenced content, as I did, but do not delete disputed one.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be fractious here, but I re-reverted. No one is answering the fundamental question, "Was the four witness rule applied in Marte Dalelv's case?". I'd be happy to self-revert, but I'd like to see a single reference which explicitly states that the "four witness" standard applied to this particular case. If we don't have any reason to believe that it did, why exactly are we including it? NickCT (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NickCT,
If you check the references you will find that the BBC reports that according to the Emirates Centre for Human Rights, UAE law states a rape conviction can only be secured after a confession or as the result of testimony from four adult male witnesses to the crime. and that the Guradian reports that in the UAE, as in some other countries using Islamic law, a rape conviction can require either a confession or the testimony of four adult male witnesses..
This is relevant because Marte reported for a rape case, as the relevant sources claimed. There is therefore no reason to believe that this rule was overlooked in Marte's case. As a matter of fact it would not make any sense to do so, unless it is refuted, not by an Emirati source, but by relevant sources. I have nevertheless included the Emirati claim that it is untrue.
The last thing I would want to be involved in is an editing war. I have reverted your edit nevertheless because I believe it is omitting an information that was reported to be relevant for rape cases in the UAE.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw both those references. Neither of those references say the "four witness" standard was specifically used in this particular case. Both of the references talk about the "four witness" standard as a side note.
"There is therefore no reason to believe that this rule was overlooked" - I see no reason to believe it was applied.
(prepare for an analogy) This discussion is important, because there may be some ancient French law saying "People who murder on Saturday should get reduced sentences". You may then get a present day case where a hypothetical Saturday killer gets a reduced sentence for some other reason. If an RS writing about the case then says "The Saturday killer got a reduced sentence. In France there is a law saying people who murder on Saturday should get reduced sentences", it infers but doesn't explicitly state that the ancient law actually mattered in that particular case.
I feel like we should be careful about making the inference here. Even if that inference was made in RS. Again, I'd be really happy to change my mind here, but I'd like to see a source which explicitly states something like "Marte was asked/required to produce four males witnesses to prove her case." NickCT (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NickCT,
If there is a law that is current and applied, do you suppose that it would be overlooked? If there is a law in France saying "Saturday killers get reduced punishments", do you suppose that "a particular Saturday killer will just not get a reduced punishment" or the opposite? If a clock always rotates from the right to the left, do you suppose that it would decide to suddenly rotate from left to right? If a rape case happens and the general rule states that four witnesses are required, do you suppose that lawmakers would simply say "you know what, let's overlook it this time"?
I understand your point completely, that is why the text does not say "Marte was asked to..." but "the law system in Dubai requires...", and it would not make since to suppose the opposite of a general rule because of a particular case.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@E3 - There are a lot of obsolete, "dumb laws" in a lot of countries, which are on the books, but not applied.
I'll tell you what, if you can support your assertion that the law is "current and applied", I'll self revert. Can you point to any rape case in Dubai in the past decade where the "four witness" standard was explicitly applied?
One other note to make here is that the BBC reference goes as far to actually qualify the "four witness" thing, by saying "according to this other group, four witnesses are required", which makes the reference even more of an inference.
Finally, let me just say that I appreciate this is a difficult question, and I recognize that differing viewpoints on this matter do not make anyone a "bad" or "dumb" person. I just think we ought to try to stick to strictly verifiable facts, especially in places where there are potential POV concerns. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a general principle of Dubai legal system, insert it in the appropriate article, not in this specific one, and eventually remand to it through wikilinks. You could insert it in the Marte Davlev case, possibly, only if you are able to justify that Marte Davlev was prosecuted only because it, and that without this legal principle there would be a rape conviction; a generic cross-reference is totally not-justifiable. Regards Lenore (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenore - Exactly my point. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NickCT,
Concerning your first point: First, here's one reported case for an Australian victim of rape where the four victim was explicitly required: http://www.elaph.com/Web/news/2013/5/814223.html. The text says in Arabic " روت أسترالية تعمل في أحد فنادق الفجيرة الإماراتية عن تعرّضها لاغتصاب جماعي من قبل عاملين في الفندق، بعدما دُسّ لها مخدر في مشروب، وفشلت في الإتيان بأربعة شهود لتثبيت الواقعة فسجنت عامًا قبل أن يعفى عنها وترحّل", which could be translated to "An Australian working in one the Fujeira hotels reported how she was was a victim of group rape by workers in the hotel, after she had been drugged in a drink, and failed to come with four witnesses to assert the incident, so found herself imprisoned for a year before being pardoned and deported. Try Google Translate to make sure of my correct translation, and check this link for the case of Gali: http://www.policymic.com/articles/42367/alicia-gali-rape-victim-who-was-jailed-for-being-assaulted-in-uae-tells-her-story. Second, it is not again the editors' job to provide such proof of whether or not the rule was explicitly disregarded, as rules are assumed to be applicable. Such point is reported in addition by http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/22/us-emirates-norway-pardon-idUSBRE96L0F720130722, http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/blaming-the-rape-victim-in-dubai/, http://www.policymic.com/articles/42367/alicia-gali-rape-victim-who-was-jailed-for-being-assaulted-in-uae-tells-her-story, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372371/Dubai-police-asked-rape-victim-Marte-Deborah-Dalelv-Are-sure-just-didnt-like-it.html, and http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/dubai-rape-dispute-points-to-wider-islamic-rules/story-fnizu68q-1226686309172. It is not the editors' job to check whether it is a dumb rule or a dumb system. No relevant source says that this is a dumb rule or an overlooked or inapplicable rule.
Second, how does the BBC qualify the "four witnesses" thing? By sourcing it? So if the BBC says that "according to X", it is qualifying it?
Third, the applicable here is notoriety and relevance of the source. It is better to reach a consensus mentioning the legal framework of the rape case in Dubai as it cannot be overlooked in this article. If you want to reference the rule as "dumb", as you claim, please cite sources accordingly, it still needs to be mentioned in the article.
Hello Lenore,
The case in question is a rape case in Dubai, if there is a law in Dubai concerning rape cases that has influenced the sentence, it would be mentioned naturally among the influences. Please review my post above.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E3 when you will be able to justify that law has influenced the sentence, we will reintroduce the info. --Lenore (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lenore,
You seem to misunderstand referencing in Wikipedia. It is not my duty to go to Emirati legal sources and look whether the law exists. It is referenced by notable sources, ergo it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. You can review citing sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES. Should you have a notable source that the law is fake, or does not exist, please include your source and both opinions would be included.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem of notability, but of relevance in this specific context. Until a strong relationship among that law and this specific case is not verified, that info has to be inserted in a more general article and not in this specific one. That's so simply E3 Lenore (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lenore,
Thank you for clearing up the notability issue. Concerning the relationship with the article, allow me to re-quote what I have previously included above.
Hello NickCT,
If there is a law that is current and applied, do you suppose that it would be overlooked? If there is a law in France saying "Saturday killers get reduced punishments", do you suppose that "a particular Saturday killer will just not get a reduced punishment" or the opposite? If a clock always rotates from the right to the left, do you suppose that it would decide to suddenly rotate from left to right? If a rape case happens and the general rule states that four witnesses are required, do you suppose that lawmakers would simply say "you know what, let's overlook it this time"?
I understand your point completely, that is why the text does not say "Marte was asked to..." but "the law system in Dubai requires...", and it would not make since to suppose the opposite of a general rule because of a particular case.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Regards.
E3 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@E3 - First point - Hmmmm.... Ok. Well, I'm not completely satisfied with that source b/c the language issue makes it hard to interpret. If you look at the English language sources relating to Gali, they all do the same thing as the BBC/Guardian article (i.e. they state as a side note the "four witness" thing). I'd still really like to see a reliable English language reference that says Gali or Marte were asked to provide four male witnesses. That said, you mostly satisfied the request I'd made, so I'll self revert for now.
Second point - Whenever you report something from a secondary source it leads to natural questions about reliability. If I say "There is a bear in the bathroom" it's a straight assertion. If I say "According to John, there's a bear in the bathroom", you've got to ask how much you should believe John.
Third - I'm not saying the rule is "dumb"/obsolete, I'm just saying there doesn't seem to evidence that it isn't. If you want to include the "four witness" thing in this article, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's relevant to the article (i.e. that the law is still applied). (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NickCT,
First, thank you for having helped resolve what could have been an editing war.
Second, had I found any other sources explicitly, I would have included them.
Third, indeed this leads to sourcing problems, therefore I have still added precision with "according to the BBC, Reuters, and the Guradian".
Fourth, yet again it is not my duty to look for it, I just include sourced referenced data that users could check for themselves, from both sources.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's becoming clear that E3 is not interested in providing us with what I and others have repeatedly asked for on this page; a reference that states the four witnesses requirement has influenced Dalelv's sentence. So far:

  • E3 has conveniently cited other cases that allegedly mention the four witnesses requirement. This is WP:SYNTH. And because we are also too good at searching the webs, here is a more honest overview of the recent (June/July) rape convictions in the UAE. Not one mention the four witnesses claim.
  • Based on his selection of cases, E3 then claims that "there is therefore no reason to believe that this rule was overlooked in Marte's case". This statement alone and the use of "therefore" can be safely treated as an admission of WP:OR.
  • In addition. E3 conveniently and completely disregards the following:
    • Other types of evidence used in the case and cited in the article:
  1. A medical examination seeking evidence of the alleged rape and a blood test for alcohol were taken as a standard procedure.
  2. Dubai Police’s forensic report confirmed that the woman had sex but there was no mention of any physical violence.
  3. Image's from the hotel's closed-circuit TV camera.
  • E3 would have us believe that the claim by the obscure London-based "Emirates Centre for Human Rights" (and reprinted multiple times in the media with/without attribution) is more reliable than a leading Dubai lawyer in the country who flatly rejected the claim. E3 has not justified or explained his suspicions (you see, the native man could not be trusted in his own affairs). Also, he/she mistakenly treats the citation by three agencies, as three independent supporting sources, which is misleading.
  • E3 claims that in the case where there are contradictory statements from multiple sources, then we are supposed to cite them all. This is not entirely true. The first step in resolving the statements is to re-evaluate each claim and its sources and you "filter" out those that are not relevant, dubious or exagerated. Fortunately, we don't have to do that because either claims are not even relevant to Dalelv's case.
  • No consensus: Lenore and I are against it. NickC appears to be neutral/against. E3 is the only one demanding its inclusion, and also happens to be the one with the weakest and most irrelevant argument, one that violates multiple WP policies.

Based on the above, I have removed the reference to four witnesses Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this reference seems to be inaccurate: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/man-jailed-for-raping-two-women-at-knife-point-in-dubai-1.1175276 in this case, a rapist was convicted although he entered a not guilty plea Lenore (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire discussion and how I said above and so on ... but I see not so that Unfortunately, it's becoming clear that E3 is not interested in providing us with what I and others have repeatedly asked for on this page; a reference that states the four witnesses requirement has influenced Dalelv's sentence. So far: --- The witness question is not so important for the article. It can be placed, but must not placed. But beside that, in each country with a justice a judge can judge a little bit different, so that he can also say that he will except a rule which another judge will not except in his country and so on. compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law and so on But it is also clear, that each argumentation are not existing in each country and so on. and also that a single jurist could say that something exist not what maybe exist, because he advocates not in this way and so on (normative base). --- So, that a single statement could be more in the near of original research than, a general statement of an independent newspaper and so on. --- But how I said, the question is not so important for the article, I would say (compare above). It could be included how E3 made at last or not. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this discussion is irrelevant to this article. It is however, an interesting one for perhaps articles such as Human rights in Dubai? Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you when you say that the lawyer's statement might simply be his own interpretation/opinion of the law, whereas the one in the BBC, being stated in general terms, is more accurate. I mean after all, the BBC's article is written by a journalist, so what makes so sure that this general statement is not the journalist's interpretation/opinion of the law as well?
I read the The National piece, and frankly, I did not get the impression that it was stated as an opinion (he said in his own words: "The information is totally false and misleading"). Also, if the use of "general" statements is an issue for you, then the article on The National was also using a general statement in its assertion: "One of several widely quoted but wrong assertions in the international coverage of Marte Dalelv is that in the UAE a man can only be convicted of rape if the act is observed by four male witnesses".
For reference, here is the UAE penal code. Search for "CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST HONOR" or "Article (354)". Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Al-Andalusi,
It may be becoming clear for you, and you only. What you are looking for is me disregarding sources from notable media and looking for the contradictory, just because you don't seem to like it.
Citing other sources was in context with what NickCT asked, he himself being convinced and reverting, not being "neutral/against", something which you have completely lied about.
"because we are too good at searching the web" does not mean that you do not choose specific sources over others.
Original research would have been saying that Marte Dlalev had to provide four witnesses. What I have said is that "According to the BBC, the Guradian, and Reuters, Dubai's law system requires that for a rape conviction, either a confession or four adult male witnesses are required". Not by any measure or any logic an original research.
You can provide other types of evidences, provided that they are sourced. Not my problem.
Yes, a claim by the BBC, Guardian, and Reuters is more reliable than a website attributing something to a lawyer, by any means. And it is not all just "Western Media" reprinting the claim as one source. They are all three different sources.
It is not the editor's job to filter and choose which is true or not. Do this on your Facebook page or somewhere where it may be more appropriate to have a "Kogoro Mouri" persona. In Wikipedia when there are notable contradicting sources, you cite them all. This is for you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources.
Indeed there is no consensus, but do not include other users such as NickCT who self-reverted to include it. Soenke Rahn, and Iselilja seem to support its inclusion for relevance too. Hopefully this is not another overlooking of the state of things.
Finally, I have not reverted your edit, as it is an enormous waste of time now. You may or may not include whatever you find suitable even denying that there was no case in the first place and that it is all a conspiracy against you and the great State of Dubai or whatever. I could not care less any more.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT wrote on the talk page after reverting "If you want to include the "four witness" thing in this article, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's relevant to the article (i.e. that the law is still applied)". So I was right in judging NickCT's position as "Neutral/Against". The funny thing is that this also shows that I'm not the only one who's seeing the wrong in your suggestions, as you falsely claimed beginning of your post (don't forget Lenore as well).
The rest of your post shows that you have not bothered to read WP:SYNTH, which was linked many times. But I really do understand that you are struggling with it, so I'll explain: Combining sourced statement 1 ("Dubai's law system requires that for a rape conviction, either a confession or four adult male witnesses") and sourced statement 2 ("Dalelv was sentenced to....") implies a conclusion (Marte Dlalev had to provide four witnesses, that's why she was sentenced) that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Hence, it is WP:SYNTH, which is a form of WP:OR. This is exactly the kind of connection and conclusion you want the readers to make, as you admit in an earlier post: "therefore no reason to believe that this rule was overlooked". And how do you treat WP:OR content? you remove it.
Now add to that, the fact that statement 1 is a disputed one to begin with (in other words, you are insisting on including an irrelevant AND a disputed claim to the article) and the fact that you have intentionally disregarded crucial details of the case that go against what statement 1 is saying (medical tests, forensic report, CCTV camera, and most importantly the admission to consensual sex), and one cannot but wonder about the extent of your manipulation to Dalelv's case?
You are good at irony. I give you that. First preaching politeness and in the same breath calling others names. And now this: accusing those who oppose you of being conspiracists...while being a conspiracist yourself. This Wiki article is better than the best article you can come up with from any of your sources, thanks to the efforts of double-checking the sources and scrutinizing more closely the claims being made. 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Al-Andalusi,
Last point of my previous comment still ad rem.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@E3 & Al-Andalusi - With respect to both of you, I feel like this discussion isn't really going anywhere. I don't see us working towards compromise. At this point I think an RfC might be in order. Would either of you oppose an RfC? NickCT (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NickCT,
I could not agree more. No opposition whatsoever for an RfC.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Should the "four adult male witnesses" issue be included

[edit]
After 30 days of discussion, consensus was to oppose inclusion of the statement of law. Editors repeatedly emphasized that inclusion would represent a synthesis of verifiable claims, which would result in original research. That the law exists is not in dispute, but its relevance to this specific case has not been demonstrated by reliable sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Introduction : There has been an ongoing discussion over whether it is appropriate to include mention in this article of a law in Dubai requiring "four male witnesses" to a rape. An example of the disputed text can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment as to whether they feel mention of the "four witness" law should be included in this article.

Previous discussions on the subject

When responding, please use the following format -

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil.

Comments

[edit]
  • Weak Oppose Inclusion - I've discussed my position in detail in the section above, but I think the bottom line is as follows; though there is a good BBC and Guardian source for the text in question, both sources mention the "four witness" factoid as a side note and do not explicitly say that this "four witness" law played any role in Marte Dalelv's conviction. I and others have searched for references saying that the "four witness" law was applied in Marte Dalelv's case or in other similar rape cases in Dubai. I was unable to find good sources which explicitly states that this rule has been applied in recent history. My deep suspicion is that this "four witness" guideline isn't really applied in Dubai and the fact that the law exists is just mentioned off hand by sources trying to illustrate how conservative Dubai's position on rape is. As such, it strikes me that the sources are making a potentially unfair inference which we should be cautious about repeating on WP. All that said, if someone points out a high quality RS that explicitly says Dalelv was asked to produce four witnesses, I'd be happy to change my position here. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as it is a general aspect of Dubai Law, so it should be included in a more general article and not in this very specific one. The only reason that could justify such inclusion is a relevant role of that law in this case, for example this woman could have been asked to bring these witnesses to support her allegations; but there aren't sources which affirm it explicitly. Furthermore, cases like this one http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/man-jailed-for-raping-two-women-at-knife-point-in-dubai-1.1175276 (a rapist in Dubai convicted despite he pleaded not guilty and without any male witness to accuse him) seem to confirm that such laws are not present in Dubai penal code: they are very general principles of islamic Sharia, but this not implies they are used by Dubai courts, which are very far from an orthodoxial application of Sharia. --Lenore (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inclusion: My view was initially in favour of inclusion, based on the fact that the information "Dubai's law system requires that for a rape conviction, either a confession or four adult male witnesses are required" was reported by the BBC, Reuters, and the Guardian, which seemed relevant and well-referenced for rape cases in Dubai and this case was reported as one, however after reading the comment of Firecatalta [5], it seems that the information is rather weakly founded, at least according to the document mentioned in the aforementioned edit, therefore I change my comment to oppose the inclusion for the moment. E3 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Inclusion - Seems to be relevant information to add to the article in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inclusion, per WP:SYNTH. Combining sourced statement 1 ("Dubai's law system requires that for a rape conviction, either a confession or four adult male witnesses") and sourced statement 2 ("Dalelv was sentenced to....") implies a conclusion (Marte Dlalev had to provide four witnesses, that's why she was sentenced) that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Furthermore, it has been established that statement 1 is a disputed one (a leading lawyer in Dubai responded by saying "the information is totally false and misleading"). Also, the new details that have come out of this case clearly indicate that the alleged victim was prosecuted for retracting her rape allegations and admitting to consensual sex, hence the charge for perjury. In addition, the fact that the investigation involved a (1) medical examination seeking evidence of the alleged rape, (2) Dubai Police's forensic report and (3) investigation of the hotel's closed-circuit TV camera, directly contradict the claim made by statement 1. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion - I've found this one, which is a commentary on NRK's website written by a professor in religion at the University of Bergen. I wont say that it is a high quality RS, but I think it shows that it is relevant for the case. The text is in Norwegian, but I'll try to translate the second paragraph for you, which is the one with relevancy: "The whole issue started after she reported a rape. Rape is not always easy to prove - especially in a legal system which requires four male or eight female witnesses to the crime. When Dalelv was not believed by the authorities in the Emirates, her review, however was synonymous with a confession about sex with someone she was not married - a crime according to the emirati law." Mentoz86 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • re Mentoz86 - Your translation does not seem to explicitly say Marte was asked for four witnesses. Can anyone find a single reference explicitly saying Marte was asked for four witnesses? NickCT (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's correct, but does the text in question state that she was asked for four witnesses? We have plenty of sources that connects that she wasn't believe by the authorities in Dubai and that there is a law that states that you need four male witnesses - Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources says, and when those think that it should be mentioned in the same context, why shouldn't we? Mentoz86 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that's sorta the crux of the argument. If I find 10 RSs about hotdogs, which happen to mention the moon in the same context, does that mean we have to mention the moon in our hotdog article? NickCT (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • NickCT, although the example you chose is inapplicable for this case, nevertheless if there are "10 well-referenced researches about hotdogs that happen to mention the moon in the same context", there is probably reason to cite that "according to such and such, the moon and hotdogs...". Regards. E3 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inclusion as I don’t think it is correct that Dubai law requires four male witnesses for a rape conviction. I have found a op-ed (Lov og rett i Dubai, The Law system in Dubai) by Knut S. Vikør who is a history professor with Islamic history as his speciality. Here is a bit of what he says: Four male witnesses is required in the Islamic Hudud laws. Punishment in the Hudud system is always physical (Death penalty, amputation, flogging) or expulsion. The four witness requirements make it very difficult to get a conviction, and Islamic societies traditionally also had parallel law systems where four witnesses were not required and the punishments less severe. “Suspects can also be judged by ordinary criminal rules, with a lower standard of proof, but also more normal punishment as imprisonment or the like, which were far more common. Cases of rape would often fall into the last group”. Modern Muslims states has a mix of traditional Islamic law and more secular, often Western inspired laws. Only Saudi-Arabia has a full-scale shariah system. In Dubai they have a crimal law that is not based directly on Shariah, allthough it is influenced by Shariah, so for instance sex outside marriage and consumption of alcohol is forbidden. However, the criminal law is not based on the Hudud system. Vikør’s explanation of the law system is consistent with what is said in The National article. (Note: The National refers the law code about rape; death penalty is the only punishment mentioned, which indicates an influence from shariah, and such harsh punishment can actually make it very difficualt to get a conviction for rape; allthough the article also indicates that the law is modified a bit in practice) I will also point to this article from the US consulate about the UAE court system which says “there are three main branches within the court structure: civil, criminal and Sharia. [..]The Sharia court is the Islamic court in the UAE and is primarily responsible for civil matters between Muslims. Non-Muslims will not appear before a Sharia court in any matter.” - I know we have other very reputable sources that say the law system in Dubai requires four male witnesses for a rape conviction, but none of these sources appear to go in any detail about the Dubai law system (if any does, please point me to them). I therefore don't think we should say in Wikipedia's voice that the law system requires four witnesses; if we are to mention it, it should be attributed to sources, and we should also mention sources that say otherwise. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inclusion -- I'm one of the editors who went around adding the "four witnesses" bit to pages relevant to this topic, after reading about it in the New York Times and other usually reliable sources. However, when I checked the UAE penal code (or at least this version of it), the four witnesses requirement is not in there. The UAE laws about rape are royally screwed up IMO, but the four witnesses requirement does not seem to be part of the UAE penal code and should therefore not be included in the article. Firecatalta (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Inclusion I don't believe there is sufficient evidence (at present) from reliable sources to indicate that this specific principle was at the heart of the case in question, therefore I don't think it should be included in this article. I think that an understanding of Dubai rape law would undoubtedly be helpful to the subject of this article. However, I think that the appropriate place for a explanation of Dubai rape law is in the Laws regarding rape article. I think the best course of action (at least until further reliable sources are found) is to use what reliable sources we currently have to create a Dubai section there, and link to that article from this one. That would seem the best way to make sure that useful information is available while still avoiding WP:SYN. Feraess (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Court conclusions presented as facts

[edit]

My recent edit to clarify that it was the court's finding that Dalelv's report was false was reverted for the reason that "court conclusions are always taken as facts." Since when? WP:YESPOV directs editors to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts," and to not present the assertions as direct statements. Whether or not Dalelv's report was false is an assertion that is being seriously contested. Presenting the opinion of the court that her report was false as though this is a fact would be stating this seriously contested assertion as a fact, siding with the court's perspective.

It is a fact that the court considers Dalelv guilty of a false rape report and convicted her on these grounds. It is not a fact that because the court considers her report to be false, that her report was false. It's the same reason that we write "so-and-so was found guilty of rape," rather than "so-and-so committed rape." Lenore, please explain where you're getting your claim that "court conclusions are always taken as facts," when the standard is actually the opposite.

Firecatalta (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes: I see everywhere "convicted of tax evasion", "convicted of a federal campaign law felony"... not "convicted for what american court considered tax evasion", "convicted for what american judges considered a federal campaign law felony", and so on. So why use different standards here? If her guilty is seriously contested, I could contest guilty of Bernard Madoff, Anders Breivik, Charles Manson as well; why Marte Dalelv is different? When a sentence states "the court convicted (or handed a prison term to) someone for falsely reporting" it means that "the court found someone guilty for falsely reporting", not that she actually committed that crime, so I don't see the problem here Lenore (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you and I are both happy with the wording "the court convicted Marte Dalelv of falsely reporting rape," let's go with that. Firecatalta (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

[edit]

This article was originally created by a user who had been blocked from editing Wikipedia, and who was using a sockpuppet account to evade the block. Standard practice for articles created by means of block evasion is that the articles are to be deleted regardless of their merits (and with no prejudice against their being re-created by other users), unless the article has been substantially expanded by other users. Because this article has been substantially expanded by other users, it will not be deleted. DS (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013: The lede

[edit]

A sentence like "One thing, though, is clear - agreed on not just by the authorities and the police, but by the woman herself: legally, this was not a rape case." is not encyclopedic or neutral. There is also WP:BLP issues with this, so don't reinsert the sentence until there possibly is a consensus to reinsert it. I also find the sentence "The Dubai policeconfirmed that the woman had sex but there was no mention of any physical violence" dubious in the lede. Dalelv alleges the man started raping her while she was sleeping. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the Dubai police findings should not be included does not make any sense, if this is a page to report the facts than that is one of them and is actual evidence. Dalelv claims where not proven in a court of law so why should they be included but actual fact not be? And in one of her statments she claims she was held down by the neck so it is important that there was no sign of physical violence. And the quote from the newspaper is the same as the quote from the defence lawyer, he did not provide any court documents to back up his statement. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyareu (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with you that the present lede isn't telling the whole story because at a time Dalelv withdrew the rape allegations and that ought to be included in the lede. But because this is a sensitive issue involving a named living person we have to choose the words and framing carefully. I'll come back to this tomorrow or later. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the fact that she withdrew the rape allegation to the lede. Do you think it is OK now ? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is better but to be honest after rereading the whole page again I don’t think this is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Dalelv’s whole story does not make any sense.

First she accuses him of rape but then retraces the report after all the medical examinations were carried out. When she went to the press she said he forced her to go into his room but the camera footage shows her walking in after him. She say to the press she wanted to calm the situation down but in court and prosecution documents she says he offered to sleep on the sofa and she on the bed, what situation needed calming down? She then told the press she does not remember anything after entering the room until the morning but court documents quote her as saying she removed all her clothes except her underwear and she slept on the bed and he on the sofa. She told the press she was forced to change her story to consensual sex but why then do court documents show she said she initiated the contact? None of it adds up! Even if she did decide to change her story to make it all go away as she said, anyone in the legal system in the UAE, her lawyers or even the council from the embassy should have been able to tell her that says she had sex consensually would get her into trouble. Even after she was allowed to use the rape claim as a defence against her charges in court, calling on the medical examiner the court still found her guilty of all charges. To the press it was made out as a rape case but it never was a rape case and neither she or her lawyers ever produced and evidence to back up her story in fact the only evidence that was actually released to the press contradict her story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyareu (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a clear case where WP:NOTTRUTH can be applied. Our priority here is that anything added, especially points in contention, be backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Or else we would be venturing into WP:OR territory. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prosecution_of_Marte_Dalelv&oldid=1218921928"