Talk:Women in Kuwait

Women's Suffrage
The information about women's suffrage in Kuwait is incorrect. I checked the citation on the page but, from every other source on Kuwait we know that women did not the right to vote until 2005, including works by Mary Ann Tetreault and Haya Al-Mughni; both authorities on the topic. There were multiple tries over the years to get them that right (including in 1985) but they did not succeed until 2005 S. Alfoory (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Additions
I will be adding sections and information to this page 7alloumi (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite and ongoing content dispute
(Context: I am currently involved in completely rewriting the entire article. A large section of the text before I began rewriting was heavily plagiarized or copied directly from the sources cited. (So much so that I'm tempted to ask for WP:REVDEL or WP:SUPPRESSION.) This work takes time and I have been painstakingly going through and verifying sources, archiving sources, translating sources, adding new ones, and making sure claims are properly sourced and cited.)

, please stop undoing my editing. I began editing this article at the request of due to an ongoing content dispute you were having with them and they asked for more experienced help. Sourced as some of your edits were, they don't belong in the WP:LEAD section. The top section needs to be a summary of the cited main article body text (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). I moved those to proper sections (such as the beginning of the "Legal statutes and cultural discrimination" section) or removed them if they weren't proper. Additionally, the article's stats and information have been heavily updated with the most recent information.

Unless you have authoritative, updated sources (of which I am open to), I would caution you against your WP:RECENTISM as your edit summaries suggest. We need not not give WP:UNDUE weight to certain metrics and look at things from a well-rounded perspective. Academic works from 2013-2015 are still valid and changes to laws that can be verified by notable sources are marked. I always try to WP:AGF, however your continued aggression in this article against other editors, treating it like your WP:OWN, and doing things which appear to be WP:POVPUSH are not acceptable here on Wikipedia in my opinion. (Pinging as the admin who recently protected the page.)  Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 06:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * :: In my opinion, you are reverting all my edits unfairly; even though many of my edits are constructive. There seems to be a power play dimension because you are an established editor while I am just an unestablished user. Kindly note that I am not instituting "vandalism" nor are my edits  "distruptive" or "unconstructive". All Wikipedia articles should present balanced neutral viewpoints; granted reliable sources and references are provided. There are many research articles available online which present balanced views. Kuwaiti society is diverse rather than monolithic. Consequently, there is no need for broad generalisations. Non-Muslims in Kuwait have civil courts with secular laws rather than the Sharia-based laws outlined in the article. Sharia-based personal status/inheritance/divorce laws are often blurry and implementation is hazy therefore the article should not present blanket statements; nothing is black and white. These laws are open to interpretation within the legal system. There are numerous legal cases of precedents and outliers due to the subjectivity; however sadly the references/sources tend to be in the Arabic language. I could not find any English language sources. We should try to be objective as much as possible. Within the article as we edit the content, there is no need for bias and lack of neutrality. There are many established gender rankings available as of December 2020. Not simply one. We are allowed to add different rankings fron different years; that is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. We are allowed to present statistics from different years; that is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, it would help advance the article. Likewise, there are many insightful research books and scholarly articles regarding the laws in relation to women (including domestic violence laws). The Constitution of Kuwait contains many articles which explicitly advance women rights, we are allowed to discuss the Constitution of Kuwait in relation to women rights. I have the right to edit the article just as much as any other person. I have the right to add information to the article. No one owns the article WP:OWN. Kindly, assume good faith. I have found many reliable sources to substantiate the aforementioned claims. As previously mentioned, there are several interesting new laws and legal cases worth mentioning particularly pertaining to issues like social housing (public housing) and personal status. Nothing is constant, what was seemingly true five years ago is no longer valid now because laws are constantly changing and getting amended plus new laws are being created. There are also cases with the Constitutional Court specifically pertaining to women rights. Right now, I am busy with work and college but during the Christmas break I will continue editing the article including adding information in order to make it more balanced and neutral. Thank you. Foalselec (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate you taking the time to discuss with me. I intend to respond to you point by point:
 * // — You are right to some degree. Let me be very clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being a less established editor. Unless community consensus or those tasked with keeping order in the community decide otherwise, everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia according to its standards, guidelines, and procedures. However, editing is based on the strength of sourcing, logical argument, and understanding of language. (My other position in the wiki is typically WP:RCP. I validate and ignore plenty of constructive edits flagged by ORES review tool associated with new accounts, IP editors, and the like. As long as the edits are valid they are left to be. Additionally, grey-area edits where I lack the particular understanding via reliable sources are also left unless they are obvious vandalism or added without source.)
 * // //  — If you have some known, please provide them. However even if they contradict some of our verified sources, we must carefully look at them and give them their WP:DUE weight. There are plenty of Arabic sources cited in this article, their titles are properly translated, as are their contents for examination. Additionally, outliers are fringe cases which shouldn't be used for makes general statements unless they are notable and blanket statements are acceptable provided they are properly sourced and verifiable. Tacking on "maybe" or "sometimes" to every instance can result in WP:WEASEL issues.
 * — While this may be the case, the sources we have do not say that. Most legal systems have some degree of flexibility, this is an understood thing.
 * — That is not a violation, no. Of course it could be overkill to list them excessively. I have some of the more authoritative sourced rating indexes (such as GGGR and GII) included on the page in both the infobox and prose section. However that doesn't mean we put that as the main section of the lead and then give a tiny sentence at the end about enduring discrimination. That minimizes the issue and is not properly weighted based on the article's sourcing.
 * // — I do discuss this in certain sections when the sources state the seeming conflict between legal code and Constitution. However this is what the sources say, not what I say. I'm pretty sure Kuwait does have diversity, most countries do, but to say that without proper sourcing is WP:OR and that's not allowed.
 * — No, everything changes with time except the laws of the universe, and even our understanding of those change periodically. However, unless you have reliable sourcing showing that the sources from the 2010s are no longer valid, they can't be discarded because they aren't "fresh" enough.
 * — Good faith is always assumed. That's why we're here discussing this instead of running to a noticeboard to attempt to have the admins discipline/ban/block one of us. However good faith isn't an infinite carte blanche to do what you will. Regardless, as you can see on my user talk page, I have done my best to not assume the worst from the get-go.
 * — I disagree. Most of your edits are removing content without giving an explanation as you have done dozens of times . I can and will explain why I write what I write for each claim and source.
 * Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 07:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and understanding. When I have free time I will hopefully return to editing the article and adding sources to substantiate my claims. When I said laws change over time it includes interpretation of the law and how much we implement the law. All these are prone to changes they are simply not constant due to external factors. There were periods of markedly unstable clashes between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. This impacts the laws and how they are interpreted and implemented. In the Arabic language there are many cases which substantiate the aforementioned claim. I understand your concerns about the removal of content. If I make any changes I will try to explain them in the talk page to avoid clashes. In the near future, I hope that we are able to edit the article together without any clashes. Currently, I am busy with work and college but if I have any free time I will return to editing the article. I am sorry for any inconvenience and I fully understand all your concerns. The article is still under construction. I will probably return in May or June 2021 as right now I am too busy and stressed out. I hope that the article is still construction or open to changes in May/June 2021. Thank you. Best regards, Foalselec (talk • contribs) 07:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad we were able to see past any defensive impetus and are listening to each other. I stepped into this mainly as a third party to try to negotiate past the dispute and rewrite the poorly-written article itself. I have a proposal:
 * I would request you let me finish my exhaustive rewrite of the article.
 * From there we can discuss any issues you have here and discuss them.
 * When you can find sources that substantiate your claims, as you have stated you wish to do, bring them here, where we as a community can evaluate them for reliability and verify the content. (Additionally, this makes sense to me further due to the language gaps we shall be dealing with.)
 * After we figure out what to do, I ask that you let me implement (write) the new sourcing, watching what I'm doing and asking questions if you're confused why I word things a certain way or state it as I do. (This helped me a lot when I was newer to the project and helps you really get a feel for the article.)
 * What do you say to this? (Additionally, I also recommend that you also look to other articles as well. This is a big wiki and there's lots to do. Pet pages can be fun but can be restrictive ultimately.)
 * Also, to clear up any misconception, articles are almost always editable in some way. The template is simply something that can be added by an editor typically when the article is undergoing a period of large change (such as a rewrite or major expansion). The  template you've seen me use is to let other editors know that someone is working on a large edit and to avoid editing temporarily to prevent editing conflicts.  Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 12:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging you again. Wanting to let you know if I don't hear from you before the page protection expires, I'll consider you to have acquiesced and continue my rewrite as stated above. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad we were able to see past any defensive impetus and are listening to each other. I stepped into this mainly as a third party to try to negotiate past the dispute and rewrite the poorly-written article itself. I have a proposal:
 * I would request you let me finish my exhaustive rewrite of the article.
 * From there we can discuss any issues you have here and discuss them.
 * When you can find sources that substantiate your claims, as you have stated you wish to do, bring them here, where we as a community can evaluate them for reliability and verify the content. (Additionally, this makes sense to me further due to the language gaps we shall be dealing with.)
 * After we figure out what to do, I ask that you let me implement (write) the new sourcing, watching what I'm doing and asking questions if you're confused why I word things a certain way or state it as I do. (This helped me a lot when I was newer to the project and helps you really get a feel for the article.)
 * What do you say to this? (Additionally, I also recommend that you also look to other articles as well. This is a big wiki and there's lots to do. Pet pages can be fun but can be restrictive ultimately.)
 * Also, to clear up any misconception, articles are almost always editable in some way. The template is simply something that can be added by an editor typically when the article is undergoing a period of large change (such as a rewrite or major expansion). The  template you've seen me use is to let other editors know that someone is working on a large edit and to avoid editing temporarily to prevent editing conflicts.  Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 12:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging you again. Wanting to let you know if I don't hear from you before the page protection expires, I'll consider you to have acquiesced and continue my rewrite as stated above. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging you again. Wanting to let you know if I don't hear from you before the page protection expires, I'll consider you to have acquiesced and continue my rewrite as stated above. ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 21:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)