Talk:Stoning of Du'a Khalil Aswad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Stoning of Du'a Khalil Aswad is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Merge 2 video 3 Potentially Disturbing Images 4 Compromise 5 Clarifying inferences made from visible injury 6 Requested move 6.1 Survey 6.2 Discussion

[edit] Merge

Support merge. Wikipedia is not a memorial -- Cat ^chi? 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe that the other article should be merged with this one. Not the other way around.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Du’a Khalil Aswad was the origin of the whole story and must be kept.Sina Kardar 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. More than sufficient worldwide media coverage to justify notability requirements and the event is having a more widespread impact than simply its alleged connections to the bus shootings. 23skidoo 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Let's be clear here. The suggestion is a merge with, not merge to. It seems Wikidudeman supports a merge to this title. I think that barring new sourcing on 2007 Mosul massacre to justify a separate article, I support a merge in either direction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The subject warrants two articles. Instead we should add a short section about reprisals to this article, than provide a link to the 2007 Mosul massacre page. S.dedalus 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge template since there doesn’t seem to be much real support for the idea. Feel free to replace the merge template if circumstances change. S.dedalus 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] video

The video should be included for people to see for themself the barbarric massacar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.216 (talk • contribs)

It is included, on the very first reference.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have twice added a linked reference to another video that supports the content of this page and supplies additional relevant information. It has been deleted each time & I don't know why. It is important that people have facts about this horrific event, and to know that this is what happens to many women. http://ballyblog.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/warning-uncensored-video-iraqis-stone-girl-to-death-over-loving-wrong-boy/ VA—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivienabraham (talk • contribs)

I explained both times I removed your link in my edit summary that blogs are not reliable sources. From under Wikipedia:Verifiability (specifically, here): "...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". Also, please sign your talk page posts by leaving four tildas (~~~~) afterwards, it's very helpful in determining who said what.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are largely not acceptable. However, as I read the reference added by Vivienabraham, the video itself was being offered as a reference, not the blog page. The blog is merely offered for the embedded video. Ideally one would link to the video on the hosting site itself, but perhaps that's not easy to do. Further, speaking of blog pages, if someone were to offer Joss Whedon's post on Wheadonesque regarding this video, one hopes that it would not be removed because simply because it is a blog. (Not that he offers much description of the video.) Or if someone used something on Bruce Schneier's blog as a reference for a fact in a cryptography or security article. But I agree that a more reliable source for a written description of the video could be found. Crypticfirefly 03:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain: Thanks for your reply and help. I am new to Wikipedia and haven't got a handle on all the rules! Where I would find your edit summaries? Do you think that at least the video at the end of the blog I tried to add contributes more information to this page? If so, can it be added with the blog omitted? Vivienabraham

To answer your first question, Vivien, just click the "history" tab up above, to the right you'll see everyone's edit summaries. And it might be useful to link to the video from here, but I don't know what further information can be gleaned from it that we don't already have here. As a primary source, it shouldn't be used for any interpretation of the events. That's what secondary sources (newspaper articles, books about a subject, etc.) are for.

As to Crypticfirefly's comments above, I have not seen very many cases in which a blog offers important information that can't be found in another, hopefully more reliable source (barring cases in which the blog is actually related to the subject of the article). In the case of Bruce Schneier, I'm sure he has published peer reviewed sources that can be used instead. In the case of Joss Whedon, I don't see the relevance - he's an American TV and film writer -yes, a good one - but why rely on his blog comments about a calamity that happened in an obscure religious sect in Iraq? We have plenty of real news sources already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are things you can cite a primary source for and things you can't. It is not necessary to cite a secondary source for facts about a film that are obvious to anyone watching it, e.g. film length, major plot points ("the dog dies at the end of Old Yeller"), cast listed in the credits and so forth. Similarly, at least in one of the edits, the video was given as a reference for the following factual statement: "During the stoning, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, Du’a Khalil Aswad can be seen in the video attempting to sit up and calling for help as the crowd taunts her and repeatedly throws a large chunk of rock or concrete on her head." You don't need a secondary source for that, anyone watching the film will be able to ascertain if that is an accurate description or not. There is no opinion or interpretation of the facts. To add to the difficulty, there are apparently several different videos of the event so it may well be worth referencing more than one.

My point about the blogs of experts like Schneier, Lessig, et al. is that the guideline does allow for particularly reliable blogs to be used as references. (Whedonesque, incidentally, is not Whedon's blog, it is just a place where he sometimes publishes essays on current events and popular culture.) And I can imagine a hypothetical fact being sourced to one of those blogs, a fact that isn't yet mentioned in the writers' dead-tree published works. While I'm not suggesting that Whedon's essay SHOULD be listed here, if one were to make a statement such as "the scene shown in the video is so violent that it has been described as evoking a movie trailer for a horror film," one might reasonably cite a number of sources, including the NY Times. But I put it to you that if someone chose to reference it with online essay by a well-known and respected filmmaker for that point, it would not be proper to remove it as being an "unreliable" source. There may be BETTER sources, but again, presumably a successful professional filmmaker's description of what is in a film he has seen has can be given some weight. My point is this: certainly, delete references entirely if they are unreliable. But if the reference is reasonably reliable, even though there are better ones available, the reference should be permitted to remain and the person questioning it should find a better reference and replace it. Or call for a better reference on the talk page. One editor's opinion, at any rate. YMMV. Crypticfirefly 03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain: Thanks for the information on finding the edit history. Just to clarify my comments: the video at the end of the blog is an original take of the stoning and provides some final scenes not pictured in the videos already in this page. It is very grotesque and stomach-churning, but I believe it is valuable in learning not just about this one incident, but also in the broader context of relating the horror of stonings which routinely take place in some areas of the world. Many people don't even know such things exist because they are rarely mentioned. Even just reading about stonings doesn't communicate the awefulness, but actually seeing what takes place somehow more clearly (and shockingly) conveys the reality. As far as I know, the link I provided is the only one that contains this video. Vivienabraham (name changed to MurLes38)

[edit] Potentially Disturbing Images

While its ok to stick a link to the video, there shouldnt be photos from it on the main page! It is disturbing and people should have a right to decide if they want to be subjected to it rather than just dumping it on them as soon as they hit the page. 222.154.237.42 18:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Nothing about those photos is unecessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to the photos along with a warning to give people the choice to view or not to view this sort of image. 67.188.236.156 04:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it, there's no consensus for removing them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really neccesary to get a consensus to change a potentially disturbing inline image into a link? It's not like the image is being deleted. It's still accessible. I have seen many cases on Wikipedia where linking to the image with a warning is done to protect those who would rather not look at images of violence, dead bodies, etc. I have changed the photos to a link for the benefit of those people (even if they are in the minority). Cshay 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't find the photos particularly disturbing, and they are informative. Second, the way it was done was highly unpreferable - why should there be two "See also" sections, one with an internal link to an image that is only relevant to this article? I would agree with their removal if there was consensus to remove them, but there's been little discussion so far.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not neccesary for something like this, as far as I have seen in other Wikipedia pages with images depicting mayhem and violence -- they are just moved to a link with a warning. And there *has* been discussion here, with other readers expressing similar sentiments (look above). Most of the editors here were probably attracted to this article after watching the video so they probably don't have a problem with it, or are at least relatively desensitized to violence, and I would expect any vote among the small group of editors here to reflect that. The same can't be said about the general public and I think common sensitivites deserve consideration. As an admin, I feel you have a special obligation to be neutral here and not engage in edit warring (so far it is only you, where there are 3 of us). I ask that before you revert again, should you still feel the need, you first seek the opinion of another administrator or have an outside administrator weigh in here Cshay 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it would be fine if it was discussed first, without the revert warring. But I don't think the image is particularly "disturbing", and it is certainly informative at this article. There ought to be discussion before here before the image is removed, it doesn't matter if admins are involved or not, as long as policy and guidelines are followed (and article format guidelines must be followed as well, per the concerns I address above). I can't see any policy reason for removing the image, if there is one I'm not aware of, bring it up here before removing it again. Note that consensus does not rely on the amount of editors weighing in here; there's no way to tell if the anons are different people. It's the reasoning that really counts, and the images have been here long enough that it should be established why they ought to be removed before they are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop repeatedly saying that the request is to "remove" the image. The request is not to "remove" it, but to link it. The image would not be going away. The point is to give people the choice over whether they want to view it. To give them a warning that the image is graphic. And yes, this image is graphic to at least 3 people in this discussion thread. Cshay 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Cúchullain. I think the image should stay too, and I can think of no good Wiki reason it should go. Ford MF 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is requesting that the image be removed completely. The request is to change the image from inline to a link with a warning on the link. Cshay 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologize if my phrasing annoyed you, but the request would "remove" the image from visibility in the main article, replacing it with a link far below (note I didn't say you wanted it deleted). But at any rate, this is not the way we handle such things. I hate to play the policy card, but we don't include content disclaimers in articles, which an image warning is. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored. That policy page specifically states that article contain objectionable images if they are relevant to the content. There is no good reason to go against these policies on this particular page, especially in a way that isn't done on any other articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines does not seem right. I have not ever seen inline images depicting mayhem on Wikipedia in 3+ years of use. Perhaps I have not gone looking for it, but still. Also -- I wandered onto this article by following a news link, and I have no POV whatsoever about the content. But I am starting to suspect that perhaps the insistant use of this inline, above the fold image is part of a POV campaign to maximize the outrage of this incident. If that is true, it is a shame to subject this obscene image on random readers just to further a political agenda. Cshay 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

These are not guidelines, they're official policies, and I think they're fairly clear. Wikipedia does include various images that could offend (The Falling Man, My Lai Massacre, Dachau concentration camp), I'm surprised you say you haven't encountered any in 3 years. As for your suspicions about the motives of those who want to include the image, well, I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I want it included is that it's informative, not because it's some kind of political tool. But come on, assume good faith about your fellow editors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent)The image is nowhere near as graphic as some pictures on Wikipedia. Also, anyone who goes to an article about a 17 year old girl who was stripped naked and brutally stoned to death should be sensible enough to understand that the contents of that article could be graphic. This article is essentially about the video, and as such, it is entirely appropriate that it should include a photo of the subject matter. As for your accusation that its inclusion is politically motivated, one could say the same about your wish that it be hidden, Cshay. --S.dedalus 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let's have some disclosure - You are the originator of this image. Now as for the POV issue, you need to read a little more carefully what I wrote: "I wandered onto this article by following a news link, and I have no POV whatsoever about the content". That's what I wrote, and that's what I meant. I don't know anything about this girl other than what I read here and in the one news story. I certainly didn't watch the video. By comparison, your comment above -- "a 17 year old girl who was stripped naked and brutally stoned to death" sounds pretty POV to me. Thanks for putting your political agenda above all else and forcing casual readers look at this obscenity, and I say that with much sarcasm. Cshay 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not accused you of having any POV other than your stated one. I said “one could say the same about your wish that it be hidden” pointing out that your argument is a double headed snake that could be used to argue any opinion. You are the one who has accused me of editing to further an agenda; something which I am vehemently against. Do you deny that this article is about a horrible and grisly event? What words would you use to describe this event? Furthermore this picture was taken from a public new source: The Daily Mail. So it was obviously not considered so graphic that it could not be included in a news paper. --S.dedalus 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (edit to add) One other thing, the photo was added as part of a pre-existing photo request. See here. --S.dedalus 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone requested *a* photo. You chose to inline an obscene one, rather than a normal one. I'm not sure if it was ignorance, insensitivity, or political motive. But, whatever the reason you should expect the negative feedback you are getting, not only from me, but from the two other editors above. You are silly to expect people to suffer in silence when you abuse their eyes like this. Why don't you and Cuchallain head over to Daniel Pearl and post an inline photo of his severed head, I notice all they have is a boring normal photo, when his execution was sent all around the internet! Such a photo would be "informative", right Cuchallain? As Cuchallain so nicely pointed out Wikipedia is not censored so clearly you have a right to post a severed head, right? Why won't you post his severed head? Because you'd be reverted so fast it would make your head spin, that's why. People wouldn't stand for it. The reason you get away with this nonsense here is that so few editors and adminsitrators read this article. Cshay 02:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is actually the least offensive picture of Du’a Khalil Aswad I could find. If you had watched the video befor posting that message you would know that all other pictures of her are considerably more grisly and less modest. You posts here are borderline personal attacks. There is no more to be said. I have explained my reasons to you, and you disagree. Let’s leave it at that. --S.dedalus 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhh, it took me exactly 15 seconds on Google images to find this: [1] in the Daily Mail, no less! Granted, it isn't as exciting as mayhem and violence, and doesn't further the political cause, but if really just want an image of her to use inline, you should use that one. In fact, I am considering replacing your image with this one if you won't do it.Cshay 03:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The daily mail now includes both pictures on the same page (the second one now is expanded). However, the picture you refer too does not come from the video in question, and this article is primarily about the stoning of Du’a Khalil Aswad, not the person herself. It is unlikely this page would exist if not for the cell phone video. Therefore the picture presently used in the article is entirely appropriate. --S.dedalus 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with you that this article should only be about the stoning. After all the title of the article is "Du’a Khalil Aswad". This article needs more details about her life, etc. I am going to upload the other image and make it the "inline and above the fold" image. There will be a link to your stoning image on the page, with a warning saying that it is graphic. Then we have a compromise. You still get to fulfill your "photo request", and the obscene image does not have to be "inline and above the fold". Seems reasonable, expecially since you don't have a major majority of people clamoring for the obscene photo to be "inline and above the fold". I think most people will be satisfied with a link to it, and for casual viewers we have a "normal" image of her and give them the right to choose if they want to view images of her murder or not. As an example, look at the way the image of Seung-Hui_Cho was handled. They did not use images he took of himself during the Virginia Tech Massacre as the "inline and above the fold" image. No, they used a boring yearbook photo. Imagine that. Cshay 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cshay, I already explained to you that linking to an image the way you keep doing is not how we handle things, and we do not use content warnings Even the correct way, Template:Linkimage, is very controversial and is not used anywhere I'm aware of. It's fine to use the head shot first (assuming it meets our image criteria of course), but as S.dedalus points out, Aswad is only notable because of her death, and the fact that people filmed it. A more appropriate compromise would be including both images, using the head shot at the top. I've edited the article according to this.

I can see your wariness about including such an image, but multiple users have weighed in here that the image is not obsense and is useful for the article. The only ones who have disagreed so far are yourself and two anons, who have not spoken up again (and can't be assumed to be different people anyway). I'm sure you'll admit that this image is less graphic than a beheading, etc. When you take into account the policies I brought up above, consensus is clearly against removing the image from the main article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are three for and three against so please stop acting as though it is only me reporting this. You have no clear consensus, so stop saying that. You have shown zero interest in listening to my points, and you are a terrible, biased administrator who does nto even deserve that role. If you continue to say inflammatory and incorrect statements like "consensus is clearly against removing the image from the main article" I am going to file a cmplain against you Cshay 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You should review what the "consensus" policy means. When I said "consensus", I was not referring to the number of people who had weighed in on one side or the other (in which case your "3 vs. 3" would have merit). Consensus is not a simple vote, and it is not determined by discussion on a single page. The policies I brought up above were formed by community consensus and are intended to apply across the board, on all articles. You have not given any reason to go against them, other than that you and two anons don't like the image in question. I also pointed out that besides yourself, the only ones who agreed with removing the image from view were two anons, who have not weighed in again since their earlier posts (and can't be assumed to be different people). I have listened to and considered your salient points. You think the image is offensive and unnecessary. Fine. But others don't agree with your assessment, should we disregard their opinions?

As to your assessment of me as an administrator, it sounds more like you're complaining about me as an editor. I haven't used my administrator tools at all during this dispute, and I haven't brought up my position as an admin to sway the arguement. You'd be told as much if you "reported" me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You've ignored much of what I wrote, or you just dismiss it out of hand with no justification. That is what is so infuriating to me. Read that again. Slowly. Parse it. Understand it. Why is there no severed head photo on the "Daniel Pearl" article? It was widely distributed by internet, and is "informative" (to quote you). The answer is NOT that a severed head is worse to look at than a woman whose head has been bashed in with a cinder block. After all, there are plenty of sickos who would disagree with that statement. The answer is - people have tried to use that photo in the past and got reverted because it is in bad taste. That is just one example of wikipedia "consensus" that flies in the face with the stuff you keep babbling about here. Cshay 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't know much about Daniel Pearl (not as much as I know about Aswad and the Yazidi), I really can't comment on how that decision was made. Other articles do use offensive images, particularly if they are intimately connected to the subject's notability (I mentioned The Falling Man, My Lai Massacre, and Dachau concentration camp above). I've tried to compromise with you (putting the face shot at the top, the stoning image lower down). If you are still unhappy with this, I suggest you take the dispute resolution to the next step (see WP:DR).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Subject is notable because of her death, not her life. Acting otherwise is simply unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ford MF 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is to say, the old image was a much, much better article illustration than this one. Ford MF 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad you think so. Why don't you head on over to Rotten.com. You know you want to. Sicko. Cshay 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the use of these images inappropriate as well. Remember that children also visit wikipedia. There's a difference between these images and from the massacres above, those images only show corpses, these images show a girl while shes being slaughtered. You don't show images of people getting beheaded either on pages like Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl. It's revolting. - PietervHuis 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. This was discussed several months ago. The video of Aswad's death is how she is notable, so myself and several others felt including frames from it were of encyclopedic pertinence. The one tendentious editor who disagreed did not seek dispute resolution and eventually stopped editing here, and so he effectively consented to the compromise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

The current version is an attempt to compromise. The head shot image is in the intro, while the stoning image is in the section on Aswad's death. Cshay has expressed on my talk page that he will not dispute this further, though he has reservations, namely that it "doesn't give people the choice" whether or not to look at the image. This is not a discussion for here, but rather for internal pages such as Wikipedia is not censored no content disclaimers, Template:Linkimage, etc. It seems everyone else still engaging in this discussion want the stoning image included in some fashion, I hope they will accept this compromise as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. My understanding is that this stoning photo will stay "below the fold" whether there is a top photo or not. At some point someone could delete the current top photo and we should still not move the stoning photo to the top. It would stay "below the fold". The idea being this at least prevents some fraction of people who would never want to see this image the chance to avoid it. This is less than ideal because someone could still scroll down and be blindsided by the image, but it seems like the best I can do at this point. Unless you can agree to this, there is no compromise at this point. Cshay 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care, personally, it makes sense that the stoning image would be by the stoning section, but I don't know why the head shot would be deleted. I reiterate that your desire to protect potential readers would be better placed at the policy and other pages I listed above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The decision to eliminate disturbing images is done at the page level. Daniel Pearl, need I say it again. Go ahead, post Danny Boy's severed head there, if you disagree with me. You'll see the power of reversion first hand. We have no compromise until the agreement is to keep this image "below the fold". That is a comprimise because I don't want the image inlined at all, and other editors will want it at the top if the other image goes away. If you can't agree to that we have no compromise. Cshay 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I already said I'm fine with it, for my part. There's no reason to discus this further unless someone comes in and objects.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying inferences made from visible injury

I removed the sentence "Evidence of this fatal blow was apparent shortly after by an ever-increasing stream of blood flowing in the dirt from her head." Rather minor scalp wounds, not a threat to life, bleed profusely. There are things that would indicate injuries incompatible with life, but they simply are not visible in this video, ugly as it may be. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like original research. --S.dedalus 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really have a huge problem with the deletion. However, I'm curious as to which video you are referring: The "CNN version" of the video of the actual, unedited video? I agree that in the edited version circulated by CNN, the girl is lying face down with a stream of blood from her head and it doesn't give an indication of the immediate cause of her death. However, in the unedited version the "death blow" as it were is plainly evident.The fundamental difference between "minor scalp wounds" and "blunt force trauma to the back of the skull" is stark. Specifically, the video shows that the skull was subjected to this trauma, which caused a deformation of the bone structure of her skull. Typically when this happens in this fashion (It could be a large stone, possibly a baseball bat, whatever the instrument may be that delivered the trauma) It's the fracture of the inside of the skull can caused a differentiation between normal bleeding from scalp wounds and a more-pronounced emission of blood from blunt force. Simply put, in the video she is struck and within just a few moments, blood streams away from the body. It wasn't coming from her scalp (Nor could it unless struck with a sharp, slender object that might significantly puncture the skull plate), it was exiting through her nose, mouth, possibly even her eye sockets due to the fact that blunt force has a MUCH more pronounced effect on internal body parts versus external. This is why if somebody is injured and they begin bleeding from their mouth, it is of much greater concern to medical professionals. Anyway, long story short, I did not merely see the aftermath of her being killed on the video, I saw the actual block hitting her head then seeing the aforementioned after effects. Only a defense lawyer, blinding pacifist, or the uniformed would call this an "inference". Clip that segment of the video and poll medical professionals if you like. This final blow was the actual blow that killed her at that moment.Twiddy 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The video I saw showed frontal and lateral views, not the occipital. The resolution, however, was not sufficient to tell if the blood came from the nares or mouth. Yes, I have seen detailed forensics of such injuries. Even a depressed comminuted fracture does not equate to death. To establish a fatal blow in a video of poor quality, I believe that a reasonable standard of inference would call for a significant amount of visible grey matter generally to be about, or physical separation of skull fragments and CNS tissue.

I'm not sure about your point of oral bleeding with respect to a brain injury, unless you are referring to a basal skull fracture. Major flow from the mouth is more likely to have a thoracic origin. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this is still original research. Until/unless a reliable source reports on all this, it needs to stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. We can dispute the implications of the video image, but, without proper autopsy findings or at least high-quality images reviewed by a forensic pathologist, it would be OR to say something is, or is not, the fatal blow. It is reasonable to say that she died at some point during the stoning. It is reasonable to say she had substantial head wounds. Beyond that, either of us is speculating. I was more questioning Twiddy's "Clip that segment of the video and poll medical professionals if you like. This final blow was the actual blow that killed her at that moment." than trying to argue the mechanics of traumatic brain injury, and I apologize if the latter seemed my intent. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Howard, my comment was meant to be directed towards Twiddy. I agree with you about what should be in the article, I've tried to edit it to avoid inferring anything beyond what is obvious.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand this concept of "original research". I think in the grand scheme of things it's probably a good idea. However, any competent medical professional, or former medical professional like myself, would find the footage of that concrete block being dropped on her head as pretty obvious. This topic needs no further comment, the most salient point I was making was left in the article, so that's good enough for me. Thanks for the heads-up on original research.Twiddy 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move