Talk:Women's rights in Saudi Arabia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Poopeee Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have completed my initial review. After checking the sources against many of the claims, I haven't found a problem and am inclined to call the sources good. I am fine with the use of the qur'an texts and the quotes (edit: except one, see below. edit2: Qur'an quote boxes may also be a problem, see below), they seem balanced and relevant. Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am currently uncertain about two larger issues aside from the smaller points listed farther below. First, NPOV. This article appears well-researched and the prose is good, but it is very difficult for me as a westerner to faithfully judge NPOV. The article does seem to take care to represent all sides objectively. Although at times it may subtly read as a pro-women's-rights advocacy piece, I believe that is simply because one side of this discussion is difficult for anyone to defend. I don't believe it is the writer that is giving this faint impression of bias, but just simply "the facts on the ground" in Saudi Arabia which trigger sympathy to one side. We should not have to force a false balance. WP:GEVAL Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

per 2nd opinion and editor comments, we may have a NPOV problem Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The second issue I am not completely sure about is the sheer size of the article. I do believe that all major aspects of the subject are covered in depth, but is there irrelevant information that should be cut out? I'm having difficulty finding anything that should be removed, each section is closely related to the subject, and would be rather small articles if split off from this article. This is simply a very, very broad subject that has been covered in depth. On the other hand, it is 99k. Are we fine with calling this one of those rare articles that is acceptable to be this large, is there some irrelevant detail that adds nothing of value and should be removed, or should portions of this article be split off into smaller articles? I'm leaning towards calling it good. Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Per 2nd opinion, size seems fine. Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Given my uncertainty, I do not feel WP:BOLD enough to say that this is a 99% good article with a couple easy to fix issues. I will request a 2nd opinion from another reviewer to verify NPOV and size. Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point with the 2nd opinion I think I have a better handle on what this article needs. I will place this article on hold for up to a week to give the editors time to fix the issues below. Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

N I'm failing the article today. Most of the minor issues that were identified a week and a half ago have not been touched. The NPOV issues were a bit more specifically defined about 3 days ago, but there has not been much movement over the weekend. There are also some possible questions on reliable sources and stability with the editors not able to agree on how to fix the NPOV issues, but even if we ignore all that we seem to be too far apart on the issues that have been clearly identified, and I do not think they will be fixed in the next 4 days. Aaron north (T/C) 00:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It would be helpful if you were clear. The situation, I thought, was that the only major issue is quoting the Qu'ran, which we were discussing. The minor issues you identified a week and a half ago were 1) uncertainty about length, and 2) uncertainty about NPOV. That all seemed to boil down to a discussion over whether all the Qu'ran quotes should be deleted. Now you say there are question on reliable sources. What questions? There is no list of reliable sources to check that I know of, except the source for women driving in rural areas which I updated; your other objection was a quote in the "Change" section which I replaced. So I'm totally confused when you complain that "Most of the minor issues that were identified a week and a half ago have not been touched." Could you please list the reliable source issues that disqualify this as a good article? I thought the only issue was the Qu'ran. Could you please be clear about which Good Article requirements this article violates, and how? A bulleted list would help. I'm totally confused. Noloop (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Regarding the layout with the quote boxes, it is unusual, but I believe it adds value to the article. I am not talking about the content, but just the idea. They obviously have to be used with care because they could be distracting or seen as inappropriately highlighting or advancing a point of view. If done well it helps this article, because one of the problems with this article is that it is very long and does not naturally lend itself to a great deal of relevant images. The alternatives are a wall of text or seemingly random images that vaguely relate to the article. This is a highly controversial subject in which many people from many points of view are figuratively participating in a debate. As long as the content is neutral overall and appropriate, I believe it is fine to introduce or enhance some of these sections with one of these "voices". Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a couple of concerns that I have. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• In these two sentences (Saudis consider male guardianship a right of women. In a 2010 interview with the New York Times, Saudi women defended male guardianship as providing protection and love.) the claim is attached to an overly broad group. Who are "Saudis" and "Saudi women"? All Saudis and Saudi women? I doubt it.

• In the beginning of "Purdah", that quote is just floating in the middle, seemingly attributed to no one, unless they look up the source, I guess. Same problem in the beginning of "Foreign Views".

Re-read

After a second read through this today, I found a couple other issues. At this point I have spent plenty of time looking at this article and the sources so my initial review is done. If any more issues come up, it will be as a result of further discussion on the article's talk page. Aaron north (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure that I agree with the inclusion of this last quote box at the end: ("We are not a bunch of Barbie dolls. All of us have faced so many challenges to get here. We are pioneers. And we are going to win." Human resources manager, Sultana al-Rowaili) I'm not sure what the purpose of that quote box is in that section, it just looks like pure highlighted advocacy, which puts NPOV in doubt. Now, granted that section is about "change" which may make this "change is coming and we're going to win" sort of quote seem relevant, but it may be too much for NPOV.

• I don't know that the last "Miscellaneous" section is needed at all. It appears to be trivia which is only loosely related to the subject.

• N Found another issue. I am fine with using a youtube video as a source for the fact that the youtube video exists. Why would you use it as a source for anything else? How is it a credible source for anything other than the video was posted?

• N NPOV seems to be an issue, more on that below.

Second Opinion

I would like to get a 2nd opinion from another reviewer on NPOV and size. See above for details. Aaron north (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would be happy to give the second opinion. I would like to say that I do agree that per WP:NPOV the article is not suitable for the reasons you stated. I believe size is okay though. I am concerned that this become a Good Article that it would cause a NPOV tag to be added almost immediately after it is promoted and then a reassessment will be requested because of the NPOV so I think it is best to fail it now, rather than later.  JoeGazz  ▲  23:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What NPOV? The main NPOV comment of the initial reviewer was "I am not sure that I agree with the inclusion of this last quote box at the end..." Is that a major NPOV issue and a reason to fail the article? It's a statement about women's rights by a Saudi woman in an article on women's rights in Saudi Arabia. What do you want? A balancing quote supporting a conservative view? It is already there, in the exact same section. Noloop (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look through it and giving your impression on the two issues I was unsure of. It might be possible that something was "lost in the translation" when I was asking for a 2nd opinion, but what I mostly wanted was an honest 2nd opinion, and I got that. Aaron north (T/C) 01:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant fail the article in the first attempt if NPOV is not fixed, I did not litterally mean immediately. I am concerned with the quotes, they really seem to make the article off balance and written from the point of view of a Woman in Saudi Arabia. That is a concern and I think they need to be balanced or not quoted but the facts from them be included. Please don't be snotty about the second opinion, the good article assessment is meant to be very critical and honest. So editors that want to make snotty comments should just go fix the issues. Thanks.  JoeGazz  ▲  21:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

Thanks for the review. It is large, so I appreciate the time you put in it. I'll look at your suggestion in more depth later. (It's a beautful day, and I am going hiking....) Noloop (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The youtube video is a reliable source for the opinion of the person who made and posted the video (the same, in this case). In this case, that happens to be the most prominent women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia. She made the video as a document. It's no different from the same person writing in a blog. If the author is a reliable (or notable) source, then the blog is acceptable. Noloop (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You are using a rather unconventional source (youtube) to support two claims: that women are prohibited from driving, and that the prohibition is unenforced in the rural areas. You should use a more reliable secondary source when available, and later in the article it seems the King supported both claims himself. I don't think you need the youtube source for those two claims, you seem to have plenty to choose from. Aaron north (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm fairly sure you can't use Youtube as a source. Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can, as long as it meets WP:YOUTUBE. Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the video, but wouldn't a self-made video be a violation of WP:SELFPUB?Bless sins (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again I would like to point out issues with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and some limited issues with WP:V as well. I'd appreciate if you could comment on them.

• Using Qur'an verses to advance a certain position is a gross violation of both NPOV and NOR. Each verse in the Qur'an has several interpretations associated with it, and if it to be presented, all significant interpretations must be presented (per NPOV). But this article isn't about Islam, its about Saudi Arabia, so that is out of the scope of this article. Its best to remove the verses and replace them with Saudi laws that have instituted the discriminitory attitude. Its a violation of NOR because ultimately the editor is interpreting the Qur'an (a primary source). The interpretation fo a scripture can only be done by a reliable secondary source.
• To a certain extent I agree with your comments about this article will always be more syumpathetic towards women because of the rality on the ground. However, if the sources used in the article are inherently biased towards one side, and these sources consitute the majority of the sources, then that presents a problem.
• I've pointed out the WP:V issues. Since they're simple I'll go ahead and fix them myself.

Bless sins (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Koran verses don't advance any position and no interpretation of the Koran is provided by the article, or by any editor in any conversation In Talk. The verses are there to add a dimension (sort of like images), and it is a very relevant dimension according to every reliable source. Noloop (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

After seeing the 2nd opinion and giving some more thought to what Bless sins wrote, I think I am going to change my mind on NPOV and say we have a problem. The 2nd opinion also suggested failing the article now, but I'd rather give the editors a fair chance to fix the issues. (If the editors disagree with the assessment and do not want to change the article, they are free to ask for a reassessment after a fail). Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems like we are all agreed that the basic verifiable facts on the ground do not have to be re-juggled to force a false balance, the facts are what they are, no matter that it may upset one side to tell the whole story. Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the main (only?) issue is the use of the qur'an in the green comment boxes. I initially thought that use was fair, but I am now convinced it subtly paints this narrative that the qur'an reinforces a lack of women's rights. That seems to be contradicted by the "it's the culture, not the religion" quote near the beginning of the article. That doesn't mean that well-sourced analysis involving the impact of the qur'an on this subject isn't usable (obviously we cant completely ignore the religion, it does have an impact), but it may be too far to prominently highlight this point in the comment boxes. I believe this defect can most easily be cured by simply removing the verses. If that leaves too much white space, you could possibly replace them (with care, to again not upset the NPOV balance) with more "voices" participating in this debate. Alternatively, I guess you could try to include qur'an texts that seem to contradict this "qur'an reinforces a lack of women's rights" narrative, but the article would probably be more resistant to NPOV questions if you don't go down that route. If you have questions, comments, or disagree with any of this, please let me know. Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Koran quotes "reinforce a lack of women's rights". The Koran states that husbands have the right to beat their wives, that women must cover (details open to debate) in public, that a woman's legal testimony is worth less than a man's, and that they inherit less than their brothers. That's not POV, that's the fact of the Koran. However, I don't know what you mean by a narrative about the Koran reinforcing a lack of rights: the Koran says what the Koran says, and what it says is historically fascinating, poetic, and completely relevant to the article. The saying "It's the culture not the religion" doesn't mean the Koran has no part in Saudi law. It is an Islamic nation. Noloop (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I would not object to neutrally reporting on all that within the context of this subject (I think you basically have in many places, actually), but to turn that argument around: the bible has a lot of passages regarding wives submitting to husbands. Granted, we do not adhere to religious teachings as strictly in the USA, but a sizable number of people still believe in all that. If a "Women's Rights in the USA" article highlighted the bible verses prominently in colorful boxes, it would look a bit off for NPOV. I have no problem with discussing the role the qur'an plays in this subject in a scholarly fashion, but ultimately the article is about women's rights in saudi arabia, not women's rights in Islam or in the qur'an. Aaron north (T/C) 02:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Noloop said "The Koran states that husbands have the right to beat their wives".

Precisely why I consider the article so POV at the moment. Mainstream Muslim scholars, Saudi and non-Saudi, condemn domestic violence and interpret the Qur'an very differently than Noloop does. Are you familiar with the Rania al-Baz case, Noloop? (Aaron: she was a Sauid woman battered by her husband, and the husband was punished under Saudi law for his domestic violence) They all agree that the prophet Muhammad said "The best amongst you, are the best for their wives." NPOV would require we quote that as well. But that is going beyond the scope of this article.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't interpret the Koran at all. It says husbands may beat their wives. That is a literal fact about the Koran, not an interpretation. That fact is not, however, even mentioned in the article, so it's completely unclear what you're talking about when you say that's why you "consider the article so POV." You appear to be looking for excuses to oppose the article. Noloop (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"It says husbands may beat their wives. That is a literal fact about the Koran, not an interpretation." Everything you 'deduce' from the Qur'an, is, by definition, an interpretation. On wikipedia, we may not use religious scriptures and say, look, this religious scripture says that. If such a practice was allowed an editor could say the Bible (1 Samuel 15:3) advocated genocide of the Amalekites (which is an opinion that must be left to scholars of the Bible, not wikipedians themselves).Bless sins (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the quotes (other than qur'an verses) in the article, as I mentioned earlier, I am fine with using them, and (other than the last quote, as mentioned earlier) mostly fine with how they are used. Noloop's reasoning in an earlier section of this talk page gives a decent rationale, so I'll just copy/paste that down here to memorialize it within this GA Review page: (The quotes from Saudi women, also, do not endorse any particular view. There is a quote from a housewife saying women should cover her face, quotes from women saying the male guardian system is good, and there are quotes from rights activists. You're welcome to add a quote from, say, a cleric if you feel that balance is important. The article is about the Everywoman, so quotes giving their view are appropriate. There is a quote from an anonymous woman because it relates a perspective from the group this article is about. This article is about anonymous women. She is not making a factual statement, just giving a simple insight.) To me, the reason for the existence of the quotes in the article is the same reason we use images. This article doesn't naturally lend itself to relevant images, so these "voices" basically serve as the "images" of this article. Aaron north (T/C) 02:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in the US aren't based on the Bible. If they were, I wouldn't conclude that "Women's rights in the USA" couldn't be a Good Article because it quoted biblical passages about women's rights. Noloop (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than Qur'an verses, if the quotes are relevant, I'm fine too.

But, how many quotes do we include in the article? Obviously a finite and reasonable amount. So, there will come a time when we will have to pick between quotes, and not all quotes will be included.

So, IMO, the quotes that should stay are those from notable figures (Saudi women, women's rights activists, government officials etc.), Saudi law itself etc. Also, the quotes retained should respect an NPOV balance, presenting both sides of the debate in due proportion.Bless sins (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)