Talk:Women in pre-Islamic Arabia

To Do List For Article:

Your section should be posted and finished or very complete by this coming up Sunday December 4th at Noon. Remember when writing your sections to make sure that you have included a linking sentence between your section and the person before your so it flows well.

Introduction-Hannah & Kayla Order of Topics and who is doing what:

Legal Status- Hannah ( if I mixed your topic up just correct the change but I a pretty sure that this is correct) Treatment/ Humiliation- Kayla Marriage Practices- Kelsi Family (workings)/ Motherhood- Brittany Female Infanticide- Sean Conclusion- Sean I will also take care of doing the Why We Chose this Topic, and the Brief Reflection of what the challenges were throughout this project. As far as for how to do the Actual Presentation we will talk about it on Thursday in class but I feel that we should all prepare to present on our sections that are assigned above. We will start off with Myself saying why we chose this topic, then It will go to a either Hannah or Kayla with an Introduction of our topic and presenting on the Introduction. From there we will work our way down the Order of our topics starting with Hannah and finishing with Myself in the order above. Then lastly I will fill the remaining time with our reflection of the challenges of this Project.--Swalrus007 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that a few of us were confused about the order for the presentation, but if you look above at what Sean typed up early on that is pretty much the order we can follow. Also we can each add in our own opinions about the challenges to this project because I'm sure that we all might have faced different things on our own. It might be helpful to share that as well. And we also want to remember to explain why we chose the topic, we could cover that at the end. --Htulkoff (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Contributions
I contributed to the Legal Status and Treatment part with more focus on treatment. I mention how women were treated, touched upon some legal aspects in regards to husband and wife in order to highlight/understand how women were treated by their husbands and why. I also mention what time period women were considered human and discuss the disgrace that a baby girl brought to a new father. I also wrote the introduction and made significant edits to the article as a whole.--Kayla hope (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I emailed everyone a google doc with the powerpoint for our presentation. Feel free to add anything like more info or pics! --Kayla hope (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are new subsections under "Legal Status/Treatment", this makes the article flow much better.Please feel free to make it more organized in any way possible. I currently working to link in certain things and work on referencing. --Kayla hope (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I as well worked with Kayla on the Introduction. We plan to make a few minor edits to it before the article is due. --Htulkoff (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I contributed to the Legal Status section of the article. I wanted the reader to be clear that there was no well defined governing system back during the pre-islamic era, and in fact it was the tribes that created the laws. I figured that after this misunderstanding was resolved I could further explain some of the expectations of the women during that time and what exactly they were allowed to do. I used two scholarly articles. One was 'A History of Islamic Law' by Noel J. Coulson and the other was "Islam and Woman: Where Tradition Meets Modernity": History and Interpretations of Islamic Women's Status written by jeri Altenu Sechzer. --Htulkoff (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I contributed to the family structure and motherhood section of the article. I also added how interpreting Pre-Islamic Arabia is difficult and there are different views on the family structure during that time period.--Bpio075 (talk) 19:08, 6 December

I also put the paragraph about family structure as the last paragraph because it speaks about Islam, and not Pre-Islam as the previous two paragraphs do.--Bpio075 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
You guys have a well thoughout up topic. I am glad you seperated the sections on veiling and and what not. I would just work on some clarity of wording and sentence structure. Also, try and add in a few more links even though some might be red, because some words are not common that you mentioned. Overall, good job and structure!--Lnickerson1 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your right that there were different restrictions for women after Islam came about, but you should be careful about saying that Islam created more restrictions on women because almost every restriction and the roles of women in Islam were integrated from existing cultures. Also remember that it wasn't necessary the Quran that restricted women, it was different interpretations of the Quran, so not everybody had the same restrictions. Besides that, I think that this is a good topic to write about.--LittleDuck17 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good outline so far. It is a interesting topic with a lot of information. I think the topics you chose to look into can provide insight into the status of women in this time period. I look forward to reading more! --Lbeaulieu1 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reads well. Nice job. Your spacing is kind of doubled up, which looks kind of odd, but besides that, nice job. --Klabbe21 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should take a look at the Women in Sasanian Society's article by another group in our class in order to try to figure out how to create a references section. I noticed that the Introduction has a citation (which I still can't figure out how to do!), but there is no references to refer to. Otherwise I think our article is going to be really good!--Kmstevens (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the article so far! I just think you guys need to make sure you reference correctly. I noticed that on the bottom of the article there was no way to access the sources you have used. --Eamodeo (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The introduction is interesting, although I think the last sentence may need a little rewording, or just a comma. Other than that, you’re off to a great start!--Khackett1 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I continue to check the development of your article, it seems to be developing sufficiently. Your article choice is interesting and I am sure that it will hold the attention of an audience. I would advise you guys to combine some sections because how they are now look extremely small. It might be beneficial and easier to fully understand each section if corresponding information is combined. Also, I am sure you are planning on it, but you guys should create some links to help back up some of the information you are using within your article. Continue to edit and work on your article, it is coming along great! --Kireland1 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I like this article; however I think you might need more citations because all information needs to be cited. --Kerri grant (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys are doing a good job on your article. However, one thing I did notice is that in the Family Structure and Motherhood section, the first and third paragraph are talking about Pre-Islamic practices, but the second paragraph is talking completely about Islam and Muslims. Since this article is about Pre-Islamic times, I would consider removing that part or moving it to the end of the section, while clearly stating that it is discussing Islamic times. I would also consider linking this article to related pages. Otherwise, y'all have a decent article going.--LittleDuck17 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to be well developed in most areas, but I would also recommend linking the article to related pages. Kbeisaw (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is coming along very nicely and all of your paragraphs are well-developed and very informative. I like the fact that the marriage section was separated into parts to make it easier for the reader! also i agree that linking would be helpful for terms that the reader is unfamiliar with. Great job so far and keep up the good work!--Bissonar (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is looking awesome so far! Much better than what I had previously seen when we reviewed it last week. The only thing I noticed was that most of your sections lacked links to other wiki pages. Through personal experience, I have noticed how helpful linking is for ideas/words/places etc. that may not be known for others, so they can quickly learn some information on the topic. Other than that, great job! I'm excited for your presentation tomorrow.--Eamodeo (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that in 'Legal Status and Treatment of Women in Pre-Islamic Arabia' section that in one area it says, " “women could obtain a divorce only with great difficulty. If a woman so hated her husband, that she has declared, ‘you may not have me’". Yet in a later paragraph you said women were not allowed to divorce their husbands. Which one is it? Clarifying that would be helpful. And again I would suggest linking this to other pages. --LittleDuck17 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has made some great changes since I last read it. You guys have done a really good job on editing and over all polishing. You guys have a few minor edits you could touch up such a few grammatical errors, and you could add a few addition links as mentioned in previous opinions. But all in all this is an awesome article that you have worked hard on and it shows. --Kcollins11 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you guys did a very good job with this article. It is well put together and it appears that you have gone very in depth and developed each section thoroughly. Its been mentioned before but there are some small grammatical errors that could be fixed to help it. --Nopolski (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not able to attend class when your group presented but I bet you did great because by the looks of your Wikipedia page everything is well organized and well written. You guys did a great job! --Speterson6 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

organization
I think we can re-look at our references because some of the same ones are posted more than once, and maybe remove the duplicates.--Bpio075 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article shows that you've done a lot of research. However, the article is currently organized in a confusing way. The section "Legal Status and Treatment of Women in Pre-Islamic Arabia" could benefit from subsections that clearly indicate the information covered. Also, it might make sense to put the section on family structure closer to the beginning of the article and maybe separate it out from the stuff on motherhood. In general, think through the structure of the article and make sure it is logically organized. Also, the introduction should be above the contents and doesn't need a label. --Jdenbow (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

details and links
This article is coming along nicely, but it lacks some important information. For example, it would be a good idea to add some dates to the article. During what times did these practices prevail? Also, were the practices you describe the norm all over Arabia or was there some variation? Also, you should include more links. One obvious link you should make is to the article on pre-Islamic Arabia. --Jdenbow (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is a mess.
It sounds like apologetics. Like two different sides duking it out. It's entirely unencyclopedic, lacks references, and the tone is bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.204.197 (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It has references now, but everything else above is still completely true. It's weirdly repetitive as well. 81.178.214.113 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not by any means an expert in either the topic or the writing of Wikipedia articles, but this entire page is such a mess of biased sources and straw-man arguments that I had to speak up. I'm not saying that the original writers are necessarily incorrect, but they are stating opinion and untenable research as fact (when in reality the majority of our sources about pre-Islamic Arabia are at best biased and at worst no longer extant). If someone who is more versed in the subject of writing Wikipedia articles would like to rewrite (or rebuild from scratch) this article, I'd be happy to help. Most of the scholarly sources I know of are behind paywalls, but I can definitely look for more if someone would be willing to provide help with the actual writing. Forevagreenearth (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Velgorade - 4 July 2015

I have similar concerns. Almost all the citations come from Islamic sources, and one in particular - Ref 5 - is to a website which makes all sorts of assertions without citing any of its sources. Ref 1 is to a book, but it doesn't state the page number, which makes it almost impossible for a casual reader to check the authenticity of the article author's interpretation of the original source material.

I'm not an expert in this field by any means, so I don't feel competent to volunteer to re-write it. However, I think there should be a stronger statement at the head of the article saying that it's biased and much of the content isn't supported by reliable citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velgorade (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References?
Did you see references, the article claim "women were like slaves" and there is no proof! The fact the babie girl were buried alive in pre-islamic time has never been proven historically, by other sources, from other people from this time, the only "proof" are from the Quran as far as I know. It's everything but serious historical methods. It is like saying the Bible is the only source for Jewish people history, a text can't confirm itself without other witness, not linked with islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:61CE:FE8D:6DB2:9936 (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reference I know is "Infanticide in pre Islam Era: Phenomenon Investigation" by Dr. Omar Abdallah Ahmad Shehadeh (https://eis.hu.edu.jo/deanshipfiles/pub103314692.pdf); The amazing thing is that despite it is mentioned in this WP article for the supposed ways the infanticides occurred, its conclusions ("This paper proposes that the spread of infanticide among Arabs in the Pre-Islamic era was not true") are rather left out. --93.150.133.11 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge
This topic is addressed more comprehensively in Women in Arab societies. Mjpravel (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?
I've noticed that a lot of the information on this page has mostly Islamic sources. While the Qur'an is a good source for information on many issues regarding Arab history and customs, it obviously contains quite a bit of political bias against the pagan Arabs. It also seems strange that this article currently describes almost all women all across pre-Islamic Arabia as being thought of as chattel; there were many queen regents who became war leaders in certain tribes, such as Samsi, Zabibe, Zenobia and Mavia. I think we need to at least investigate why, if the situation was so dire for women in some Arab tribes, that women were able to reach such high and traditionally masculine positions in other Arab tribes/cultures. Thanks. Sphecidae (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In dire need of fixing or deletion
As others have said, this article remains in violation of Wikipedia's standards. It seems the entire point of this article is to assert Islamic apologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.201.20 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious article
Everything in this article is suspicious. The way it's written is suspicious, the sources and the way they are used are suspicious, and the advocated ideas seem to originate from a religious agenda. The original talk page is also suspicious (from the "Contributions" to "details ans links" part), as well as the original contributors accounts and their respective speeches. The account names have a similar pattern, their description page and biographies look alike, they all talk and congratulate each other in a similar way. This is not some encyclopedic work, this is manipulation. This page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.247.129 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)