Talk:Rape in Saudi Arabia

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rape in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.today.com/id/15836746/ns/today-today_news/t/rape-case-calls-saudi-legal-system-question/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113112405/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?ContentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021
In the section absence of evidence, the part physical evidence is declined due to lack of witnesses is absent in the provided source. It should be changed to just sometimes physical evidence are declined. 2402:3A80:15FB:BC28:3015:1FB0:9F21:EA34 (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just removed the section because it was more or less unintelligible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation
, you have to paraphrase whatever you add to the articles (with a reliable source) or else someone or the other will revert it for copyright violation.-1Firang (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok I have paraphrased it 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:96DD:5658:596A:5B44 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ,, , one of you have to paraphrase the entire first paragraph under the section titled, "Rape under Saudi Arabian law" as it is a copyright violation (copied verbatim).-1Firang (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ 1Firang (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did it myself because nobody else did.-1Firang (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the copyvio, but please follow the instructions here or file the copyvio here instead in future. Thanks again, Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the source which was copied from? Thanks, Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 17:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If I file the copyvio, it will be deleted, so I paraphrased it myself. The source for it was provided by an IP and the source used is https://www.cmi.no/publications/5696-womens-activism-in-saudi-arabia -1Firang (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead
Honestly, I recommend cutting the Girl of Qatif paragraph in the lead, it doesn't fit well in the lead and is a mess of a sentence. The original justification for it replacing the previous sentence wasn't very good either. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It's anecdotal information that doesn't fit the lead of a broad overview subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been given a "final warning" for tendentious editing (see my talk page), so I want to take a break from contentious articles. I, however, wish you people can balance the article instead of removing everything that is critical of Islam.-1Firang (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about Saudi Arabia, not Islam, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. You seem to assume that people practice what they preach, which is more often than not not the case. But that wasn't the point here at all. Leads are the strictest summaries; they should never contain large tracts of anecdotal content. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section contains four sentences. One of these is that Saudi Arabia does not recognise marital rape. Aside from this, its content is similar to the lead sections of Rape in the United States & Rape in France. The former, for example, does not include a section on Rape culture, which is a significant topic of discourse in some US contexts, or the MeToo movement, or the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. The lead for Rape in India does not cover recent Hindutva politicians' campaigning against the criminalisation of marital rape. I don't see a single Rape in X article that covers individual rape cases in the lead section. (Rape in Germany comes close, & I wonder if the section on mass rape in World War II should be moved lower in the article.) If you think rape is bad, regardless of who is forcing whom (as I hope all readers do), 25% of the sentences in the lead section of this article make Saudi Arabia look bad. There's nothing particularly favourable. This isn't about whitewashing Islam: It's about creating balanced articles based on secondary sources & with effective leads. Pathawi (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is fine to balance articles but removing sourced content just because someone doesn't like it is whitewashing and should not be done.-1Firang (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)