Talk:Pakistan frames law against 'honour killing'

"honour killing"

Perhaps the headline should have the quotes, but around the entire phrase "honour killing". If so, then the body of the article should follow the same practice. --Pi zero (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

After trying the various alternatives, I'm finally back to the way the reporter did it in the first place: quoted in the headline but not in the body. It occurs so many times in the body that the quotes interfere with article flow. --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Sorry, I could not reply. I was traveling. I will keep this in mind for the next time.
acagastya 11:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4253857 [Passed]

Revision 4253857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4253857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Removal of CATs

{{editprotected}} Shari'a law is the religious law which governs Islam. The loopholes of honour killing were due to the fact that Shari'a law allowed Diyya. The whole story is centred around the decision of the court bending rules of the Shari'a law. Thus, I request took remove the Islam and Religion categories. Shari'a law is the Islamic law isn't enough. Since another point of view, because of which those categories were added will demand along for the addition of Philosophy and psychology.
acagastya 00:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd hoped somebody else would respond since I don't want to give the impression I'm following you around, but it's a small project. I really don't understand you. Your first three sentences describe eloquently the connection to Sharia, and hence Islam, and hence religion... Yet they are your justification for removing the cats? You accept, I think, the article is relevant to Sharia. I don't understand how you can then claim the parent categories are therefore irrelevant. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably this is my last message in this project, but yes, this article deals with the Shari'a law. Though it is the Islamic law, it doesn't cover much of Islam. Shari'a is the category to be added. But Islam is a vast thing and not relevant. (And inappropriate example would be, Euro 2016 didn't have CAT:World though it had CAT:Europe.)
acagastya 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Category World has not been used consistently on the project; I have long felt it needs to be renamed, if we could only agree on just what its function(s) ought to be and find a name (or, names) to match. In this case, with the way categories such as Islam and Religion have been used on the project, the more relevant analogy would be that events happening in individual countries in Europe get listed in Category:Europe. --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)