This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The mug shot was not allowed as evidence at the Freeman trial and should not appear here. MaryA756 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC) MaryA756
I've uploaded two images of Freeman (with veil and a full face mug shot). Now, however, I'm not sure they're products of the US Federal Govt (likely Illinois and Florida state). Anyone know if I can use these as public domain?
I'm going to assume these are fair use, since both were part of court documents that are of public record. Sublium
| Additional Battery conviction information
Do you really think that a woman who is going through all the trouble she is going through just to not have to uncover her face for a drivers license photo would want her unveiled photo available on an online encyclopedia available to the entire globe?!?!?
I think it is obvious to anyone who possesses a shred of intellect that putting that unveiled picture of her up there is like slapping her in the face! It's like you're saying... "You can go through all the trouble you want to cover yourself; it doesn't matter because the whole world is still gonna see you uncovered."
I think it is obvious that having that photo there is extremely disrespectful...
After all, there are probably hundreds of much much more famous people on wikipedia that do not have photos... why would there, in any logical sense, be a photo of someone who is not really well-known at all?!?
And just because the pictures are public domain anyways doesn't mean you should broadcast it publicly to the whole world by making it available at a place like this where everyone will see it. If someone wants to look for her picture in her court files, they can do so... but no need to broadcast her picture like what is being done!
Mujaahid 00:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If she's going to be so "traditional" as to insist on wearing a veil, then why isn't she also leaving the driving to men, as all women are required to do in Saudi Arabia? Does she work outside the home? Does she go to the market without a constant escort from a male relative? The woman is picking and choosing what "traditions" she wants to follow, and doing so for the purpose of dodging identification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 ( talk) 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Because Islamic Law allows women to drive, allows them to work outside the home, and allows them to go to the market alone. Saudi Arabia is far from Islamic. I mean common; a Muslim in Saudi Arabia gets beat for visiting a grave. The Saudis are extremists which is why they don't allow women to drive. However, Islamic Law allows women to drive and all that other stuff. Look at Iran, the UAE, Qatar, Yemen, etc. and see all of those women driving, walking down the street by themselves, and working. Armyrifle 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel this person merits a Wikipedia article, I think the article should be about the legal case, not the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.231.97.77 ( talk) 07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Maalik and Malik both appear in this article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The mug shot was not allowed as evidence at the Freeman trial and should not appear here. MaryA756 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC) MaryA756
I've uploaded two images of Freeman (with veil and a full face mug shot). Now, however, I'm not sure they're products of the US Federal Govt (likely Illinois and Florida state). Anyone know if I can use these as public domain?
I'm going to assume these are fair use, since both were part of court documents that are of public record. Sublium
| Additional Battery conviction information
Do you really think that a woman who is going through all the trouble she is going through just to not have to uncover her face for a drivers license photo would want her unveiled photo available on an online encyclopedia available to the entire globe?!?!?
I think it is obvious to anyone who possesses a shred of intellect that putting that unveiled picture of her up there is like slapping her in the face! It's like you're saying... "You can go through all the trouble you want to cover yourself; it doesn't matter because the whole world is still gonna see you uncovered."
I think it is obvious that having that photo there is extremely disrespectful...
After all, there are probably hundreds of much much more famous people on wikipedia that do not have photos... why would there, in any logical sense, be a photo of someone who is not really well-known at all?!?
And just because the pictures are public domain anyways doesn't mean you should broadcast it publicly to the whole world by making it available at a place like this where everyone will see it. If someone wants to look for her picture in her court files, they can do so... but no need to broadcast her picture like what is being done!
Mujaahid 00:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If she's going to be so "traditional" as to insist on wearing a veil, then why isn't she also leaving the driving to men, as all women are required to do in Saudi Arabia? Does she work outside the home? Does she go to the market without a constant escort from a male relative? The woman is picking and choosing what "traditions" she wants to follow, and doing so for the purpose of dodging identification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 ( talk) 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Because Islamic Law allows women to drive, allows them to work outside the home, and allows them to go to the market alone. Saudi Arabia is far from Islamic. I mean common; a Muslim in Saudi Arabia gets beat for visiting a grave. The Saudis are extremists which is why they don't allow women to drive. However, Islamic Law allows women to drive and all that other stuff. Look at Iran, the UAE, Qatar, Yemen, etc. and see all of those women driving, walking down the street by themselves, and working. Armyrifle 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel this person merits a Wikipedia article, I think the article should be about the legal case, not the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.231.97.77 ( talk) 07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Maalik and Malik both appear in this article