Comments from feedback form

Difference: Isadora Duncan wanted to wear her scarves. Dadoun was religiously required to wear her "scarf". For one, it's a matter of choice. For the other, it's a matter of God saving her from the eternal fires of hell. Go religion!

I'd like to follow up, though it's been a little over 3 years since this article was written. I handled myself poorly beyond words in this conversation and the authorship of this article and wanted to make sure this is clear for posterity's sake. This article was written at a myopic time for me, hopefully one should only have to experience once in their life. From the way I wrote this article's headline to the way I portrayed the event, I can be nothing but apologetic and regretful for conveying this woman's life in the most shallow of words. I can only hope that people learn from the obvious mistakes I made here in mimicking how other news groups portrayed this woman's death and take words of wisdom from 72.74.237.200's insightful criticisms.

Interesting. What would you write differently if you were writing this article now? (Let's set aside how you would conduct the after-publication conversation differently.) Looking at this now, I'd say the headline would have been improved by replacing the word "Muslim" with "woman", but nothing else about it wanted changing; the religion isn't relevant, but the hijab is the material instrument of injury and is therefore obviously relevant (unlike the preposterous, and offensive, comparison made by the 'insightful criticisms' of the IP, since in the hypothetical rape headline the apparel mentioned isn't the material instrument). In the body of the article, I might change three words: first two words from "A Muslim" to "An Australian", and remove the ninth word of the lede (and remove the associated wikilink), so it'd read "An Australian woman has been killed by her apparel during a freak go-cart accident". I see no possible difficulty with the mention late in the lede of "twisted her flowing hijab".