|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women's rights article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 1 year may be archived by.|
I very much so am assuming good faith. I do, however, have a huge concern about the bias in the Abortion section of Women's rights. It seems very odd to me that two lengthy paragraphs and three lengthy quotes are used about people that support abortion rights, while only one sentence is used to show the existence of opposition to abortion. It appears that the editor of that section is trying to make it appear like abortion opposers are few and far between and their only argument against abortion is religious in nature, or, is a "moral evil". Either the pro-abortion statements should be condensed or the pro-life defense portion should be expanded. Someone with editing ability on this article please fix this issue, or unlock the page for editing so I can. Thank you. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
For a balanced reporting on Women's Rights, coverage should include some mention about the debate concerning what constitutes a "right", which is specifically germane to the question of whether there is such a thing as "reproductive rights". Simply because sexuality, sexual acts, and the female biological consequences of sexual intercourse (i.e. pregnancy) have been historically framed by a number of women's rights advocates within the context of choice and freedom does not mean that abortion and birth control are true rights and choices. Even though "freedom" is a very broad topic, a simple footnote showing that this term itself is variously understood by different groups of people would be fair. For example, a Thomistic explanation of the terms "freedom of indifference" versus a "freedom for excellence" would be an interesting and useful edition, which gets at the heart of the issue on what constitutes a "right". As for abortion and artificial contraception, there could surely be a more balanced representation of the thoughts of those who oppose them, as the author above suggests. As for the lack of balance, not even a word is given to explain why the Catholic Church understands abortion to be a moral evil (i.e. that life begins at conception, and that all human life is sacred because humans are made in the image and likeness of God). The footnote to the Catechism is good, but not good enough. In like manner, since Orthodox Jews are mentioned as opposing abortion in the one sentence dedicated to this view, there should at least also be a citation for this. Wikipedia has always prided itself in making information not only accessible to people, but also being the voice of the people who bring all sorts of knowledge to the fore, and for this I am grateful. In order to continue to do so, please remedy this section with a balanced representation of the pro-life stance, or at least a fair explanation of why those groups cited in that one sentence understand abortion to be a moral evil. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- This article isn't the place to describe those views on abortion. This article is specifically about Women's rights, and the abortion section is how abortion relates to women's rights. The views that you are looking for can be found in the articles Abortion and History of abortion.Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Sparta, most books on the subject of women in antiquity devote equal amounts of space to Athens and Sparta (e.g.), so One paragraph for Athens and one for Sparta seems logical. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable approach to me. —Zujine|talk 05:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- "By contrast, Spartan women enjoyed a status, power, and respect that was unknown in the rest of the classical world." What is the source of this assumption? There are many examples around middle and near east in ancient times that women enjoyed equal status. From Hittites to Egypt. From Lidians to Sumerians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Providing the Qur'an "citation needed"
The 1st paragraph of this article's Qur'an section, with its tag for "citation needed", seems to be begging for someone to provide the sura (or chapter) and verse sources for the paragraph's conclusion about the wife receiving a dowry (herself) from the husband. It so happens that I can easily-enough provide those sources, from my own copy of the Qur'an (which I bought for my own edification and which is well-indexed). So I'll do that, hopefully within a few days... Trying to help all of us WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- User:Obotlig raised doubts about the accuracy of my paraphrasing of the translated-and-thus-copyrighted Qur'an, by removing my work or my "paraphrased primary source claims about a religion", as he or she worded it in her or his Edit summary, on 29 June 2012. Obviously, to help such editors judge the accuracy of my paraphrasing in the article, I need to go back to the drawing board. What can I do? That is, even placing the copyrighted Qur'an verses on a private website (for other WP editors to compare my paraphrasing to) would be illegally "reproducing" copyrighted material.
- Bottom line: If WP (WikiPedia) had a mechanism for officially certifying the accuracy of paraphrased text in WP articles, the problem would be solved, and I could help all WP readers as I tried to do until Obotlig stopped me. It is Wikipedia's problem (due to Obotlig), not mine. Nonetheless, I'm willing to help if anyone wants to continue this matter, either here on this talk page or by emailing me through the normal WP channel (for which my edress is officially registered). (I believe it would be legal for me to provide the desired quotes to particular editors by email.) Otherwise I'm stopping my work on this matter. (Boohoo), I'm crying on behalf of our WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I now see that Obotlig has not contributed since 12Jul2012, just two weeks after removing my work. From what I now see of her earlier contributions, I think she was sincere. Since no-one has helped WP readers by suggesting anything else, I'll try again to paraphrase the Qur'an's "primary source claims", to quote Obotlig, when I find time, maybe within a year from now. This time I'll directly quote more of the critical phrases, to reassure WP readers (and my fellow WP editors) that I am accurately paraphrasing the Qur'an. And this time my paraphrasing will be in a footnote (or endnote, or whatever you call it), as I hope it was last time too. Trying to help our WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Out of desperation, I actually looked at the next source Reference, which many other WP editors could have done, as well. And it luckily appears to be the source for the whole first paragraph (except for the phrase about 610 and 661), as well as the beginning sentence of the next paragraph, where this source Reference was and still is located. Of course I now added appropriate source References for the first paragraph, References which can be verified online, even. Whew! that saved me a lot of work, as well as allowing my Qu'ran copy to continue its resting on a bookshelf. Now I'm smiling on behalf of our lucky readers, For7thGen (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"The general improvement of the status of Arab women included prohibition of female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood."
First of all the heresay of female infanticide in arabia, is just a heresay, someone should bring an evidence for it. Secondly, Before Islam, women of arabian peninsula(especially of Makkah) were entitled to rights much greater than Byzantium and Persia of its time. There were business women( first wife of Mohammad Hatice was), apperently (and contraryto popular belief) they inherited large sums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove Hillary Clinton
The fact that Hillary Clinton has spoken about Women's Rights does not qualify for inclusion in this article. It does not explain what Women's Rights is. I suggest that her picture and the whole paragraph about her is removed.220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it It's in the subsection Human Rights and Women's Rights, and talks about some important recent events in the international theater of Human Rights and Women's Rights. These events either involved, or were started by Hillary Clinton, and the sources show that they helped link the Women's Rights movement and Human Rights movement closer together. I think it belongs exactly where it is.Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Women's rights do not include "religious rights" those are separate issues.
It says in the main article:
- "and to have marital, parental and religious rights."
However, religious rights are not women's rights. Women is about the gender equality under the law, it is not about cultures or religions or beliefs.
A women who asks for special religious privileges is not asking for women-rights--she is asking for religious rights. Religious freedom / religious rights are a separate issue. A women does not get special privileges under any law based upon a belief that is different than that of men.
Otherwise, if I am a woman, and my religion is nudism, then I would have the right to say "yes it is my woman-right to be naked in public." But that is not a woman-rights-request, that is a human-rights-request---a man could have a similar religious or cultural desire: "yes it is my man's-right to be naked in public too." It doesn't make sense, these people are asking for religious or cultural rights or human rights or civil liberties---they are not asking for "gender rights." Thus it does not belong in this article.
Gender-rights are about having equality under the law between all other genders. It is not about having special privileges based on desires/beliefs.
Thus I am removing that small fragment from the article, please reinstate it if you find this objectionable.
— talk § 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The rights of women in ancient Celtic and Germanic societies
The 'History of women's rights' section could be further expanded upon via discussions regarding the rights of female persons in ancient Celtic and Germanic societies.18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)