Talk:Nujood Ali

References added. More work needed
I have added some references to the article, and removed the template pertaining to lack of inline citations. I don't have the time to do any major rework of the article, but there is plenty of information in the sources provided for anyone who cares to expand this article.

I have also added some links from other articles, where Nujood's name has been already mentioned. The links are probably too few to justify removing the orphan tag. This can be rectified by adding mention of Nujood where appropriate in other articles. It is absolutely certain that there will be several articles where this could be done naturally, without creating an artificial excuse. But I don't have time to do search for those articles and add the text.

Conceptually it's easy to do. Search for relevant articles where a paragraph or section could be added that would naturally enhance the article. Add a paragraph or section, and then create a link to this article. That way, both articles benefit. The article where you're adding a paragraph or two, or a section, benefits. And from that exercise, you typically get more information to futher build this article, as well as creating another link to it.

And once you have a few more links, you can justify removing the 'orphan' tag. A bit ironic that the Wikipedia legacy of such a remarkable young girl should be an article tagged 'orphan' status, while first-world celebrity articles don't seem to have such problems. A measure of what we really care about perhaps? Anyway, I hope someone can pick up from here, and good luck. Wotnow (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation correction
After completing this comment, I will amend a sentence back to how I found it when I added the references, which reflects the statement in the citation. The sentence pertains to the lawyer's argument in court. The relevant text is copied and pasted from the cited article as below:

"Yemeni law allows girls of any age to wed, but it forbids sex with them until the indefinite time they’re 'suitable for sexual intercourse.' In court, Nasser argued that Nujood’s marriage violated law, since she was raped."

The Wikipedia article was recently amended to say her lawyer argued that her husband broke the law "because Ali was too young". Of course she was too young, which is why we are appalled by what happened to her, and inspired by what she, the judge, her lawyer did. She sought help, and two people in a position to help, helped. But from the citations found, that is not what her lawyer argued. Her lawyer was arguing on the basis of Yemen's laws, not some other country. She argued, according to the article, that Yemen law was violated by virtue of rape.

To those who would do justice to this girl and her rescuers, I would suggest this be achieved not by tweaking sentences to that which we feel comfortable with, what might be true in our countries, and we want to be true in Nujood's case (that it was age which swung the legal argument, not rape).

More justice would be done by creating articles on the judge and Nujood's lawyer from the red links in this Wikipedia article. Having done that, each article would naturally generate two more links to this article (and perhaps other articles), which would then justify uncontroversial removal of the 'orphan' tag, the presence of which says one hell of a lot about how important Nujood's message is to people (especially when we consider there are celebrity figures - including in science - whose articles are swamped by contributors - even sycophantism - and contain no such orphan tags). That is my suggestion, for what it's worth. Wotnow (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

translation/verification notes

 * French version does not give husband's name, but it is accurate. Will add a reference.
 * French version does not say that girls can marry at any age in Yemeni law. It says they must be 15 but that families circumvent the law with provisions in the marriage contract that forbid sex until the girls are "ready" not "suitable for intercourse". I have corrected this but the sentence seems awkward, may revise for style Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)