This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in Kuwait article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The information about women's suffrage in Kuwait is incorrect. I checked the citation on the page but, from every other source on Kuwait we know that women did not the right to vote until 2005, including works by Mary Ann Tetreault and Haya Al-Mughni; both authorities on the topic. There were multiple tries over the years to get them that right (including in 1985) but they did not succeed until 2005 S. Alfoory ( talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I will be adding sections and information to this page 7alloumi ( talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(Context: I am currently involved in completely rewriting the entire article. A large section of the text before I began rewriting was heavily plagiarized or copied directly from the sources cited. (So much so that I'm tempted to ask for WP:REVDEL or WP:SUPPRESSION.) This work takes time and I have been painstakingly going through and verifying sources, archiving sources, translating sources, adding new ones, and making sure claims are properly sourced and cited.)
@ Foalselec:, please stop undoing my editing. I began editing this article at the request of @ Jao1Jao1Jao1: due to an ongoing content dispute you were having with them and they asked for more experienced help. Sourced as some of your edits were, they don't belong in the WP:LEAD section. The top section needs to be a summary of the cited main article body text ( WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). I moved those to proper sections (such as the beginning of the "Legal statutes and cultural discrimination" section) or removed them if they weren't proper. Additionally, the article's stats and information have been heavily updated with the most recent information.
Unless you have authoritative, updated sources (of which I am open to), I would caution you against your WP:RECENTISM as your edit summaries suggest. We need not not give WP:UNDUE weight to certain metrics and look at things from a well-rounded perspective. Academic works from 2013-2015 are still valid and changes to laws that can be verified by notable sources are marked. I always try to WP:AGF, however your continued aggression in this article against other editors, treating it like your WP:OWN, and doing things which appear to be WP:POVPUSH are not acceptable here on Wikipedia in my opinion. (Pinging @ Materialscientist: as the admin who recently protected the page.) Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 06:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a power play dimension because you are an established editor while I am just an unestablished user.//
I have the right to edit the article just as much as any other person.— You are right to some degree. Let me be very clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being a less established editor. Unless community consensus or those tasked with keeping order in the community decide otherwise, everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia according to its standards, guidelines, and procedures. However, editing is based on the strength of sourcing, logical argument, and understanding of language. (My other position in the wiki is typically WP:RCP. I validate and ignore plenty of constructive edits flagged by mw:ORES review tool associated with new accounts, IP editors, and the like. As long as the edits are valid they are left to be. Additionally, grey-area edits where I lack the particular understanding via reliable sources are also left unless they are obvious vandalism or added without source.)
There are many research articles available online which present balanced views.//
There are numerous legal cases of precedents and outliers due to the subjectivity however sadly the references/sources tend to be in the Arabic language.//
Likewise, there are many insightful research books and scholarly articles regarding the laws in relation to women (including domestic violence laws).— If you have some known, please provide them. However even if they contradict some of our verified sources, we must carefully look at them and give them their WP:DUE weight. There are plenty of Arabic sources cited in this article, their titles are properly translated, as are their contents for examination. Additionally, outliers are fringe cases which shouldn't be used for makes general statements unless they are notable and blanket statements are acceptable provided they are properly sourced and verifiable. Tacking on "maybe" or "sometimes" to every instance can result in WP:WEASEL issues.
Sharia-based personal status/inheritance/divorce laws are often blurry and implementation is hazy therefore the article should not present blanket statements; nothing is black and white.— While this may be the case, the sources we have do not say that. Most legal systems have some degree of flexibility, this is an understood thing.
There are many established gender rankings available as of December 2020. Not simply one. We are allowed to add different rankings fron different years; that is not a violation of Wikipedia policy.— That is not a violation, no. Of course it could be overkill to list them excessively. I have some of the more authoritative sourced rating indexes (such as GGGR and GII) included on the page in both the infobox and prose section. However that doesn't mean we put that as the main section of the lead and then give a tiny sentence at the end about enduring discrimination. That minimizes the issue and is not properly weighted based on the article's sourcing.
The Constitution of Kuwait contains many articles which explicitly advance women rights, we are allowed to discuss the Constitution in relation to women rights.//
Kuwaiti society is diverse rather than monolithic.— I do discuss this in certain sections when the sources state the seeming conflict between legal code and Constitution. However this is what the sources say, not what I say. I'm pretty sure Kuwait does have diversity, most countries do, but to say that without proper sourcing is WP:OR and that's not allowed.
Nothing is constant, what was seemingly true five years ago is no longer valid now because laws are constantly changing and getting amended plus new laws are being created.— No, everything changes with time except the laws of the universe, and even our understanding of those change periodically. However, unless you have reliable sourcing showing that the sources from the 2010s are no longer valid, they can't be discarded because they aren't "fresh" enough.
Kindly, assume good faith.— Good faith is always assumed. That's why we're here discussing this instead of running to a noticeboard to attempt to have the admins discipline/ban/block one of us. However good faith isn't an infinite carte blanche to do what you will. Regardless, as you can see on my user talk page, I have done my best to not assume the worst from the get-go.
In my opinion, you are reverting all my edits unfairly; even though many of my edits are constructive.— I disagree. Most of your edits are removing content without giving an explanation as you have done dozens of times ( Women in Kuwait). I can and will explain why I write what I write for each claim and source.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in Kuwait article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The information about women's suffrage in Kuwait is incorrect. I checked the citation on the page but, from every other source on Kuwait we know that women did not the right to vote until 2005, including works by Mary Ann Tetreault and Haya Al-Mughni; both authorities on the topic. There were multiple tries over the years to get them that right (including in 1985) but they did not succeed until 2005 S. Alfoory ( talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I will be adding sections and information to this page 7alloumi ( talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(Context: I am currently involved in completely rewriting the entire article. A large section of the text before I began rewriting was heavily plagiarized or copied directly from the sources cited. (So much so that I'm tempted to ask for WP:REVDEL or WP:SUPPRESSION.) This work takes time and I have been painstakingly going through and verifying sources, archiving sources, translating sources, adding new ones, and making sure claims are properly sourced and cited.)
@ Foalselec:, please stop undoing my editing. I began editing this article at the request of @ Jao1Jao1Jao1: due to an ongoing content dispute you were having with them and they asked for more experienced help. Sourced as some of your edits were, they don't belong in the WP:LEAD section. The top section needs to be a summary of the cited main article body text ( WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). I moved those to proper sections (such as the beginning of the "Legal statutes and cultural discrimination" section) or removed them if they weren't proper. Additionally, the article's stats and information have been heavily updated with the most recent information.
Unless you have authoritative, updated sources (of which I am open to), I would caution you against your WP:RECENTISM as your edit summaries suggest. We need not not give WP:UNDUE weight to certain metrics and look at things from a well-rounded perspective. Academic works from 2013-2015 are still valid and changes to laws that can be verified by notable sources are marked. I always try to WP:AGF, however your continued aggression in this article against other editors, treating it like your WP:OWN, and doing things which appear to be WP:POVPUSH are not acceptable here on Wikipedia in my opinion. (Pinging @ Materialscientist: as the admin who recently protected the page.) Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 06:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a power play dimension because you are an established editor while I am just an unestablished user.//
I have the right to edit the article just as much as any other person.— You are right to some degree. Let me be very clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being a less established editor. Unless community consensus or those tasked with keeping order in the community decide otherwise, everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia according to its standards, guidelines, and procedures. However, editing is based on the strength of sourcing, logical argument, and understanding of language. (My other position in the wiki is typically WP:RCP. I validate and ignore plenty of constructive edits flagged by mw:ORES review tool associated with new accounts, IP editors, and the like. As long as the edits are valid they are left to be. Additionally, grey-area edits where I lack the particular understanding via reliable sources are also left unless they are obvious vandalism or added without source.)
There are many research articles available online which present balanced views.//
There are numerous legal cases of precedents and outliers due to the subjectivity however sadly the references/sources tend to be in the Arabic language.//
Likewise, there are many insightful research books and scholarly articles regarding the laws in relation to women (including domestic violence laws).— If you have some known, please provide them. However even if they contradict some of our verified sources, we must carefully look at them and give them their WP:DUE weight. There are plenty of Arabic sources cited in this article, their titles are properly translated, as are their contents for examination. Additionally, outliers are fringe cases which shouldn't be used for makes general statements unless they are notable and blanket statements are acceptable provided they are properly sourced and verifiable. Tacking on "maybe" or "sometimes" to every instance can result in WP:WEASEL issues.
Sharia-based personal status/inheritance/divorce laws are often blurry and implementation is hazy therefore the article should not present blanket statements; nothing is black and white.— While this may be the case, the sources we have do not say that. Most legal systems have some degree of flexibility, this is an understood thing.
There are many established gender rankings available as of December 2020. Not simply one. We are allowed to add different rankings fron different years; that is not a violation of Wikipedia policy.— That is not a violation, no. Of course it could be overkill to list them excessively. I have some of the more authoritative sourced rating indexes (such as GGGR and GII) included on the page in both the infobox and prose section. However that doesn't mean we put that as the main section of the lead and then give a tiny sentence at the end about enduring discrimination. That minimizes the issue and is not properly weighted based on the article's sourcing.
The Constitution of Kuwait contains many articles which explicitly advance women rights, we are allowed to discuss the Constitution in relation to women rights.//
Kuwaiti society is diverse rather than monolithic.— I do discuss this in certain sections when the sources state the seeming conflict between legal code and Constitution. However this is what the sources say, not what I say. I'm pretty sure Kuwait does have diversity, most countries do, but to say that without proper sourcing is WP:OR and that's not allowed.
Nothing is constant, what was seemingly true five years ago is no longer valid now because laws are constantly changing and getting amended plus new laws are being created.— No, everything changes with time except the laws of the universe, and even our understanding of those change periodically. However, unless you have reliable sourcing showing that the sources from the 2010s are no longer valid, they can't be discarded because they aren't "fresh" enough.
Kindly, assume good faith.— Good faith is always assumed. That's why we're here discussing this instead of running to a noticeboard to attempt to have the admins discipline/ban/block one of us. However good faith isn't an infinite carte blanche to do what you will. Regardless, as you can see on my user talk page, I have done my best to not assume the worst from the get-go.
In my opinion, you are reverting all my edits unfairly; even though many of my edits are constructive.— I disagree. Most of your edits are removing content without giving an explanation as you have done dozens of times ( Women in Kuwait). I can and will explain why I write what I write for each claim and source.