Talk:Women to drive movement

Grievances Board
For someone looking for useful editing to do - should be easy to find sources:
 * see Specialized Criminal Court and Legal_system_of_Saudi_Arabia

Apparently the Grievances Board or Board of Grievances is one of the main examples of a non-Sharia court in KSA, existing since 1992. The Specialized Criminal Court only exists since 2008. So although the name "Grievances Board" might not sound like it's a major court of law, apparently it is a major court of law - one of the main non-Sharia courts. Updating this article and the Manal al-Sharif and Samar Badawi articles would be easier once the article on the Grievances Board (under whatever seems to be the most common English version of the court's name) exists, IMHO. Boud (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In a search engine, some expressions like grievances board saudi arabia or grievances board saudi arabia non-sharia should get some results, IMHO. Boud (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

reference for possible rescue
I shifted this here: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/154161-m.i.as-bad-girls-video-debuts-on-new-youtube-channel-noisey since I couldn't see where it mentions any relationship between the video and Saudi driving law. If the video has become a big hit and become politically influential and a source says that, then that could be added. Boud (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Women to drive movement. 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.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/27/saudia-arabian-women-drivers-campaign-ban

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Absence of NPOV dispute
two days ago added an NPOV tag with the edit comment "the issues may have been discussed before, but it seems obvious that the lead violates WP:NPOV". The sufficient reasons for removing this tag include "2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." or "3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." In this case, "may have been discussed before" and "obvious" are not explanations of the would-be neutrality issue in the lead; and discussion is absent. So both criteria 2 and 3 are satisfied: we have no idea what the apparently missing POV is that is allegedly present in the content of the article and needs to be included in the lead.

Unless there is a real NPOV dispute, the tag should be removed. Template tags are for getting constructive editing work done; "drive by" tags where other editors need to speculate on their purpose are not very useful. Boud (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)