Talk:Uyghur women under Qing rule

Questionable claims about Islamic marriages...
Uyghur_women_under_Qing_rule says "Although banned in Islam, a form of temporary marriage from which the man could easily terminate and ignore the traditional contract was created."

I saw a documentary, on Iran, that focussed on a pair of urban prostitutes, in Tehran. One of these young women had an admirer, an elderly street vendor, who proposed a term marriage to her. He brought a young Iman, who explained, in detail, the legality of these temporary term marriages. It spelled out how her husband would pay her rent, provide her with a living allowance - and it explained the conditions he insisted on: (1) she quit doing drugs; (2) she quit turning tricks.

Maybe these term marriages are only allowed under Shia Islam. I dunno. But I don't think passage should stand, as is. Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

So the article is a kind of a mess right now.
So the article has a lot of WP:POVPUSH and WP:UNDUE. There are some good sources but they are poorly utilized and the facts are cherry-picked to some extent. Here's a example of one thing from the article that is supposed to be when a Uyghur girl gets married: "The girls were demanded to be confined to the house." This is the citation it uses here But what it actually says, which I'll quote: "... unwritten rule that once marriage negotiations had started, the girl was supposed to stay indoors, an expectation which was often ignored by the 'spoilt daughters of rich families', who usually did as they liked. Given the responsibilities of a daughter of marriageable age in her natal household, it is likely that prohibition was never taken too literally; it simply meant that the girl was expected to display more serious and modest behavior". The source it cites actually proves that statement to be wrong in the article.

There is many statements like this in the article that misinterprets or poorly grasps what the sources actually say. Then there's the problem that Christian missionary works are used in such a uncritical fashion. Article gives undue weight to Christian sources and to what Christian converts said as well. Reading the article gave me the sense I was reading Christian and Han Chinese materials meant to justify political ends or to proselytize Christianity by painting converts as enlightened and missionaries as neutral observers that totally didn't have a possible bias. The author of the same book cited earlier actually plainly states that we should be cautious with biased evaluations and that the sources actually reveal diversity when it comes to marriage and divorce issues. The author states this diversity right here. The article only paints one side of the issue and ignores or misinterprets the rest which creates a highly biased picture that 19th century Uyghur society is static and oppressive when the subject is much more complex than that. Almost the whole article is filled with these issues and doing a rewrite will be a huge task. In summary, this article has POV-pushing and the good sources that are there are used very poorly. Maybe the article needs a tag to show that it needs to be more balanced and neutral.--SlackingViceroy (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)