Talk:11-year-old girl abducted, raped and sold in Afghanistan

RAWA is the copyright holder of this news item so posted it here under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. RAWA 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i see no creative commons license notice on the RAWA source. i do see a copyright notice on the RAWA main page. if u represent RAWA, pls add a creative commons licensed notice on the RAWA website or e-mail a wikinews administrator, using a e-mail address verifiable as that of an authorised RAWA representative, granting wikinews permission to use RAWA material.

even though the RAWA article cannot be copied on wikinews, it can be used as a source to write a wikinews article. see Wikinews:Writing an article for more help.  — Doldrums(talk) 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how to solve the issue, probably we are new and don't understand the rules. The report items is of RAWA and posted here by RAWA, so where is the violations?? I represent RAWA and have already confirmed the email address which is the same as the one mentioned on the web site of RAWA. Actullay I am webmaster of RAWA's web site. RAWA 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews needs to verify that the user who created the User:RAWA account is in fact associated with RAWA and is authorised to reprint RAWA articles here. there are two way to verify this

1. A notification on the RAWA website stating that RAWA articles are released under creative commons license (or compatible "free" license)
2. A e-mail from a verifiably authorised RAWA representative to a wikinews administrator granting wikinews permission to use this or all RAWA articles. a verifiably authorised RAWA representative can be one whose e-mail address is listed on the RAWA website.

 — Doldrums(talk) 08:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I emailed them, such organizations might switch to creative comons if they see that it'll have an impact on reproduction of their work. Nyarlathotep 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:RAWA has been verified as belonging to the webmaster of rawa.org. Nyarlathotep 11:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

victim's identity and photograph

i wld like to remove the identity information of the victim. there are excellent reasons for not revealing the identiy of child victims, especially victims of sexual assault, and especially of an abducted child whose release has not yet been secured. despite the fact that this identity has been made public by other sources, i think we shld exercise caution and discretion about such things and only reveal this information if serve s a purpose.

i also do not support the use of the photograph of the mother, both because it again reveals the identity of the victim, and because i think its inclusion is a gratuitous portrayal of distress

But these rules are of BBC, please direct me on such rules on Wikinews.

RAWA 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better if we delete the history associated with identity of victim. Just a thought. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews:Code of Ethics might explain about this. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the US no news org (except scummy tabloids) will reveal the identity of child victims. In many other countries revealing a victim's name may be illegal. The harm of releasing a victims name should be weighed against the public interest of releasing it. In this case releasing her name does not serve any public interest, therefore we have an ethical obligation to not release it. --Cspurrier 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both witholding the name of the minor and of the mother. In many countries revealing a sexual crime victim's name is either outright illegal or highly frowned upon by respectable news organizations. Revealing the name of a minor victim of a sexual crime is just plain despicable. ---cman- 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

History cleared.--Ryan524 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• When protecting an identity, it can be helpful to give the people aliases, so that the story can still be written in a way that brings personality with it. I have no particular opinion wrt to this specific story, but mention this idea for future reference. This is often done in media, and seems somewhat patronising, but I believe it can make a big difference -- and can also make it quicker and easier to anonymise the story, since a quick 'search/replace' and annotation "(not their real names)" is all that is needed -- sentence structures etc don't need to be rearranged and mangled. -- Clerkenter 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)