Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Women's rights in Saudi Arabia/1

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No action. There was a concern about POV. The reviewer called for a 2nd opinion, which supported the concern about POV. The view in the GAR discussion leans toward the article going through another review, and this would be appropriate as there is some disagreement and uncertainty regarding the POV. A full review in which an individual reviewer takes responsibility for the review would be quicker and more effective than a GAR, which requires a range of comments which tend to be slow in coming. There is a dispute regarding the amount of notice the reviewer gave regarding addressing the issues. It's worth bearing in mind the advice for a GAR: "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." We all go through a learning process; if a fellow volunteer on this educational charity project has conducted themselves in a manner that appears not to follow appropriate guidelines, then a polite, neutral comment pointing to the relevant guidelines is usually an acceptable course of action. SilkTork *^YES! 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This article was reviewed by Aaron north. Initially he had some concerns that seemed minor. He was concerned about the POV of a quote by a women's rights activist. I replaced the activist's comment with a quote from Muhammad.[1] I also added some info about Islamic traditions valuing women [2]. I didn't agree that the article violates NPOV policies (by being too negative toward Islam), but added these things anyway. Aaron north was concerned about using youtube as a source for info about women driving. I added an interview between Barbara Walters and the King as a source.[3]

The article also uses quotes from the Qu'ran, as an artistic and informative decoration. Recently, Aaron north decided that the "main (only?) issue is the use of the qur'an in the green comment boxes." He compared it to quoting the Bible in an article on women's rights in the US. I pointed out that US law isn't based on the Bible. His next act was to fail the article.

I'm the only regular editor of the article. Bless sins showed up when the GA review began. His appproach was to find problems, in my opinion distort the problems, and then delete text from the article. He argued that quoting the Qu'ran advanced the POV that the Qu'ran is anti-woman, although no interpretation of the Qu'ran is given (it is only quoted), and the Qu'ran is the basis for many customs regarding women. The fact is, the Qu'ran (like the Bible) is not exactly a feminist document. When laws are based on it, the laws are likely to treat women unequally. That's just a factual part of this topic.

So, my main objection to this "fail" due to bias is that the process was opaque. One minute there was the beginning of a discussion of quoting the Qu'ran and bias in general, the next minute there was a fail. The reasons for calling the article biased were never clear. Comparing an Islamic state to a secular one makes no sense. It actually reminds me a little of the "cultural relativism" paragraph in the Foreign Views section of the article.

I'd like to avoid renominating the article, waiting over a month again, and getting some unknown reviewer with unknown reliability and communication skills.Noloop (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last comment about this article and a very long and exhausting GA review. I think it mostly speaks for itself. Obviously NPOV was the most complex issue, and several people may come to several conclusions on NPOV and may disagree. Another reviewer who was willing to give a 2nd opinion also had NPOV concerns. Aside from NPOV, 4 other issues (under "comments" and the first 2 under "re-read") were also specifically identified on October 16, but were not addressed or commented on after a week and a half, so I think the fail was justified under that basis alone. I'm not exactly the toughest GA reviewer on wikipedia, I'm always sympathetic to the effort it takes to get an article up to be a credible GA candidate, and I have no inherent rooting interest in seeing this article pass or fail a review. If it fails, fine. If it passes on reassessment, I'll take that as a learning opportunity to discover what I should and should not do next time. Aaron north (T/C) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume the subject of reassessment is ultimately the article, not the reviewer. Still, having put an enormous amount of time into this, it irks me to see factual misrepresentations of the review. The article was put on hold for a week, and then failed four days later.... There were not 4 issues presented as reasons to fail (there was nothing clearly and definitely presented as a reason to fail), and I did comment on and/or fix some of the matters mentioned. I did add a source for the claim sourced to youtube. I did change the quote people objected to. I did comment on the NPOV issues. I did add to the article's mention of Islamic traditions valuing women. Mainly, what is needed from a review is clarity. This was last comment on NPOV before failing: "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." What, exactly, needed to be fixed? Do the Qu'ran quotes have to be completely deleted? Trimmed? Or what? Nothing was said except 1) there's an NPOV problem, 2) you have a week to fix the problem, and (four days later), 3) "fail". Noloop (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread on the NPOV noticeboard: [4]. Noloop (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The reviewer prematurely closed the review before his explicitly stated hold deadline. The article simply wasn't on hold for seven days. The reviewer stated that the review was "long and tiring", which may explain the reason why he prematurely closed it, he was tired of it. When a reviewer doesn't want to continue a review, the best thing is to find someone to take over at the talk page at GAN.

Perhaps this is still the best solution. The nominator could renominate at GAN, and the reviewer could ask someone to take it up atWikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. -- Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The review was a week and a half. Four other minor objections unrelated to NPOV were ignored. Another editor and a 2nd opinion both agreed it had NPOV problems. At least two, and possibly three other uninvolved people in that link mentioned above by the nominator on the NPOV notice board have now basically agreed with that view as well. It became clear that the the qur'an quotes were not going to be removed, we were at an impasse, and waiting four more days was going to be pointless. The editor was given plenty of opportunity to satisfy these concerns, and the review was not unfair. Aaron north (T/C) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there was an impasse making further discussion pointless. The conversation could have been continued and maybe should have. At least you could have waited to see if the nominator changed their minds. Sometimes they do a the last minute. And not tackling minor issues while major ones are being discussed is common during a review-- its not a clear sign or anything. So I just disagree that the nominator got their fair chance. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• It likely would not have happened in this case, but you make a good point. Aaron north (T/C) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's really hard for me to know what Aaron north is talking about. The review did not last a week and a half. He said he wanted a week for further developments, and then failed it four days later. This comment is completely out of left field, from my persepctive: " It became clear that the the qur'an quotes were not going to be removed, we were at an impasse." It was certainly not made clear that the only solution Aaron north would accept was complete removal of the quotes. He never said that. He expressed concern that they were a problem. It was certainly not clear me that we were at an impasse. I thought were discussing it, presumably with an open-mind. He made one comment (comparing the Qu'ran to the Bible). I gave a contrasting view, and then he failed it. It is certainly a controversial matter (( I missed part of the discussion at the NPOV board...I need to trim my watchlist), but that's beside the point. The point is the completely lack of sincerity in communication by the reviewer, the somewhat imperious manner is proclaiming an "impasse" (not clear to the main person involved in said impasse, namely, me) and then failing it. Since this is becoming a popularity contest, note that there was a peer review immediately preceeding the GA review, and that reviewer didn't object to the quotes.

As for the substance of the matter, what I would like something more succinct than a popularity contest. I'd like the objections to make sense to me. The only implication of quoting the Qu'ran in an article on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia is that the Qu'ran is a significant factor in women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Which it is. The other "implications" that people are finding just seem like their POV. Maybe a common POV should be a factor an editing, but I'd like a more open-minded process than what has happened so far. Frankly, I think the article failed because 1) the reviewer is afraid of controversy, being perceived as culturally insensitive, etc., and 2) The method of quoting of the Qu'ran is unusual. Noloop (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The need here is very simple. The article was failed because the quote boxes for the Qu'ran were deemed a violation of NPOV. All I want is a succinct explanation of how they violate the NPOV rules. The only implication of the quoting that I see is that the Qu'ran is a significant part of the topic. I don't see how the quotations prevent the article from being a good article. So, I'd like an explanation. Noloop (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• including the review and the NPOV noticeboard, five different people have now said the verses should be removed. Some have worded it differently and some have given slightly varying reasons why this is not NPOV, but generally it seems the opinion is that there is not a direct enough link between the religion and "women's rights in Saudi Arabia" to justify prominently highlighted quotes. It seems the qur'an is being coatracked into the article to cast it in a negative light. WP:COATRACK Aaron north (T/C) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is objectively stupid to say there is not a direct link between religion and women's rights in Saudi Arabia. No Saudi says anything like that. They all say the opposite. They may say that what they object to is women's rights under tribal customs, rather than Islam, but absolutely nobody says that religion isn't major. To say otherwise is completely wrong, it contradicts repeated statements in the article that are sourced to women, to activists, to clerics, to government officials, to Western experts. It is an Islamic state. If you actually read that article as part of your review, you know perfectly well that religion is intrinsic to the topic. The lead quotes a female Saudi journalist stating "we are not asking for...women's rights according to Western values or lifestyles....We want things according to what Islam says." And that theme never stops. But regardless of all this, the problem is not your conclusion per se, but the complete lack of any kind of discussion, open-mindedness, or communication about the GA process. You just abruptly failed it. Only now have you stated that you (apparently) required the quote boxes to be removed. Only now have you stated there was an impasse; during the review, I had no idea you thought there was an impasse. During the actual review you merely stated there was a problem, said there'd be a week to work on it--and then failed the article four days later. So again, can we please have a discussion based on reason rather than popularity contests and opaque processes? WHY do the quote boxes prevent the article from being a GA? Why do they violate NPOV? It is absurd to say "Because they aren't related to women's rights in Saudi Arabia." Saudi Arabia is ruled by Islam. Noloop (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't personal to me. Seriously, it is not. Quite frankly, I liked the article overall and I would have liked to see it pass, but for what I thought was an irreconcilable disagreement on NPOV. I would have voted to overturn and list in this GAR if my concerns had all been fixed. Maybe it would have been better to have given it 7 days, but given that you have now called my opinion (and also I guess the opinion of 4 others) "objectively stupid", its now a moot point because it is obvious that we are at an impasse. Perhaps it wasn't obvious then, but it is obvious now. I'm done commenting on this, I will not vote, and I cant close this GAR because I'm obviously too closely involved. If other people want to vote to list, vote not to list, and/or close, it makes no difference to me. Aaron north (T/C) 06:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• List as GA. I'm just not seeing the POV problems that others claim to exist, and the quotes from the Qu'ran seem appropriate and well chosen to me. The usual test for NPOV is whether you can discern the pov of the author from the writing, and I think that in this case the editors responsible have by-and-large done a good job in marshalling and presenting their facts on what is, after all, a situation that the overwhelming majority of non-Saudis would undoubtedly consider to be unacceptable. Indeed the article would very likely have to swing rather more towards the ultra-conservative view than it already does to balance the inherent bias in most of its readers. There are a few small things I'd like to see fixed though:
  • We're told twice that Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak issued a fatwa that proponents of gender mixing should be killed, once in the Background section and then again in the Change section.
  • We're told at least four times that women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
  • I'm unconvinced by the Miscellaneous section, which looks like it was added on as a bin for a couple of facts that a place couldn't be found for elsewhere. I'm not sure what female circumcision has to do with womens' rights anyway, particularly as it seems mainly to be practised by African immigrants. Couldn't the bit about the discouragement of female sports be included in one of the Education sections? Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No action I don't think we can list the article as GA. Whatever one thinks about the Koran quotes, there are two other significant problems:

• The lead has no summary of the last major section, "Foreign views", violating (WP:LEAD).

• Two of the references are large documents with no pages numbers for the specific citations. "Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences:MISSION TO SAUDI ARABIA", is 27 pages long and the "The Global Gender Gap Report" is 205 pages long. 10 citations come from these sources.

Noloop has quit Wikipedia (going so far to think of a way to do it and make it impossible to resume editing under the same name), so no one it seems is going to fix them.

I would support the fail of the article, but the reviewer shouldn't have closed the review early after putting it on hold for 7 days, explicitly stated. And no action by the nominator after the fact can prove what the nominator would have done if he had been treated fairer.

The contested Koran quotes seem to me to be some sort of background atmosphere. They are not directly relevent to the section they are in-- the rights discussed don't seem to come from the corresponding passage from the Koran. I think the nominator is just trying to make a superlative article, an interesting and attractive piece-- much like a feature article in a magazine. In fact, I could see this article in a magazine without anyone saying that it's biased (The lack of any mention of foreign views in the lead also indicates to me that the nominator is not trying to malign Islam or anything like that).

I have seen like-minded editors nominating articles before. They can be stubborn about their creations, and direct and even uncivil in their interactions with reviewers. Until this reassessment, I wouldn't say the nominator went as far as being uncivil. Calling the reviewer's opinion stupid as they did here, is.

These last bits are just commentary rather than opinion towards being a good article. But maybe if both parties thought more about the other person, the different person on the other end, they could communicate with each other better. Things might have gone more smoothly. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. A look at WP:QUOTE#Overusing quotations might be helpful. I realize this is not a guideline, but the Quran quotations do not seem to be imbedded in any explanation of historical background, or directly touched upon in the text. Noloop says above that he sees the quotes "as an artistic and informative decoration"; I don't think that's enough to warrant their inclusion. The women's dress template belongs to the bottom of the article, not at the start of a subsection. Moved that dress footer to bottom. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)