User talk:ContrerasLopez

Welcome!
Hello, ContrerasLopez, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral editing
ContrerasLopez, sorry, but this kind of content (in Islam and gender segregation) cannot stand. There are serious grammatical and mechanical errors ("Female are not allowed to drive any car because they felt that women were not smart as a men to learn how to drive a car. Sex segregatin had a very important in men and women because it was not the same in men or women"--never mind who "they" is), the content is unverified, language is vague ("Women did not let male doctors touch them or seen them because there was a rule that women were only allowed to see any doctor that were female doctor"--there was a rule? what rule? etc.), and things that are clearly not neutral are said in Wikipedia's voice ("Women should be allowed to pray in when ever place they want"). Please copyedit, find reliable sources, write neutral content. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you edit like this again I will have to block you. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:ACHorwitz, I'm sorry, but this is not going well. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Islam and gender segregation
Hi, I received a notification about this. It is very, very important that you not re-add anything to the article at this point in time. The content you added has the following issues:


 * There are grammatical and mechanical errors in the work, however this isn't the most major issue.


 * The content is unsourced - you mention an article and give the title, however there is no in-line citations for your work, which is a necessity. Any unsourced content can be challenged and removed regardless of its quality.


 * The content is written from a specific point of view and as such, is not neutral. Content absolutely must be written in a neutral, encyclopedic format in order to be included in an article.


 * The content is kind of unclear in places since it's vague as to who is saying what. There is also an issue with original research, by which I mean conclusions, comparisons, and theories that we come up with on our own. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in the source material - we cannot make our own connections and conclusions. This poses an issue when it comes to the comparison of the treatment of women in the United States and in Islam, as this can be seen as original research - especially as this doesn't take into consideration that people practicing Islam in a non-Islamic country may differ in their treatment compared to those who live in one. It's too vague and again, without a source that explicitly states the claims, it would be seen as original research.


 * Some of the content looks to be more about how women are treated in Islam as opposed to gender segregation. There's a difference between the two, as the treatment of women can include things that have nothing to do with gender segregation. For example, rules on clothing don't inherently segregate men and women into different groups, whereas rules that prohibit women from leaving the house without a male accompanying them or prohibiting them from entering certain facilities or locations would be seen as segregation.
 * Also keep in mind that there are articles that do generally cover the topic of the treatment of women in Islam (Women in Islam, Taliban treatment of women, Gender roles in Islam), so there's not really a huge need to focus on the more general content. You can focus on the specific topic of gender segregation.

Offhand the content would need to be rewritten to focus more specifically on the topic, fix the grammatical issues, and to add in-line sourcing. I can help you with this, if you like. I must stress, however, that it's extremely important that you not re-add any content to the article until the issues are fixed. I would also open up a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss whether the content is ready, as the additions were challenged and removed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContrerasLopez (talk • contribs) 18:51, October 29, 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! On my talk page you wrote the following:


 * Hi, is this okay to put on my article. According to the article, Women's Right in Iran, states that "Women’s rights are severely restricted in Iran, to the point where women are even forbidden from watching men’s sports in stadiums". This comes to show that there are still places that women are seen as minor compared to men.
 * According to the article, Women's right in Iran, states that "Moreover, married women can't even leave the country without their husband's permission". It shows that it deprives the rights of a human. Of simply going out of the country.

Looking over the content, this still poses issues with tone and sourcing, as well as with scope/topic. In order to have a citation you would need to have a full citation stating who wrote it, where it was published, when, and so on. So for example, a citation should have the following information:
 * Name of author, date. Title of article/book. Publisher. ISBN (if applicable). Date source was retrieved.

However it's also important to be cautious of what you are using as sourcing, as not all sources will be seen as reliable. For example, it's better to use an academic or scholarly source rather than one written by an advocacy group as the academic and scholarly source will be more neutral and will likely have a stronger editorial oversight that does more factchecking. Advocacy sites are also going to write their material to appeal to the reader's emotions, so it's not going to be neutral and some may slightly fudge information to make a larger impact. They won't necessarily lie to the reader or falsify data, but it may be a less accurate source. In the case of the Human Rights Watch, they have actually been the focus of criticism that states that they have, among other criticisms, a favorable bias towards the United States.

As far as the scope goes, this is still a little broad. Keep in mind that segregation and travel aren't always the same thing. Being forbidden to travel without a man's permission isn't necessarily segregation. It can brush against the topic area, but it's not automatically the same thing.

With the tone, we cannot make statements as to whether something is fair or unfair, good or bad, even if it seems obvious that something would be seen as unfair or bad. Wikipedia isn't meant to make people hold a certain opinion or persuade them to see things in a specific way - it's meant to just give information that the readers will use to make up their own opinions. Saying that something deprives women the rights of a human would be seen as an opinion or a definitive statement. In cases like this it's very important to attribute and write things more neutrally. So I would re-write the content as such:


 * Critics have argued that the restriction of women's rights under Islamic law has led to the segregation of public and private spaces, which they must then attempt to resolve through politics and creating their own spaces. Gender segregation also impacts the company that people keep, as researcher Ziba Mir-Hosseini noted that during her field work she spent most of her time around women and that in some instances she never met the male relatives of some of these women due to the strict regulation of gender segregation. These restrictions may also impact travel, as some rules state that married women are forbidden from traveling without their husband's permission and in some cases women must be segregated from male passengers.

This makes the content more neutral and attributes the claims to the person making them, as well as make it more clear as to how they tie into the specific topic of gender segregation and Islam. This is all based on what you've written, so you can use this if you like. I would still make sure that this would be OK to add to the article. I can also tag to see what he thinks. Now as far as the article goes, would you be adding this to the lead? Where it's going is important. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Will it be better on the Iran section. ContrerasLopez (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Response 10/30
Hi! You posted about the following content, asking if it was OK:


 * Critics have argued that the restriction of women's rights under Saudi Arabia law, which is based on sharia law, has led to the separation of gender as women and men are separated in almost all areas, from women-only fast food lines to women-only offices. These laws and policies are enforced by the Islamic religious police, which has prompted some to find ways to evade policing.
 * Gender segregation also impacts the Saudi education system, as there are more opportunities for men to graduate with a career and find employment. Women do not share in these opportunities and have a more difficult time finding employment as there are only a small amount of locations that permit men and women to mix.
 * Gender segregation also impacts the participation of women in religion by encouraging women to pray at home and not in the mosque. Scholars have stated that despite these restrictions, changes brought about with the new generations have allowed women more freedom to choose whether they pray at the mosque or in their homes.

I changed the citations to in-line citations for you and made some edits for flow and style. Offhand I think that this should go under the section for Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, as this is more specific to Saudi Arabia and the two countries are separate entities. You can move it there whenever you're ready. , what do you think? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks like encyclopedic writing. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! ContreasLopez, you can move this over whenever you are ready! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Contreras Lopez
Critics have argued that the restriction of women's rights under Saudi Arabia law, which is based on sharia law, has led to the separation of gender as women and men are separated in almost all areas, from women-only fast food lines to women-only offices. These laws and policies are enforced by the Islamic religious police, which has prompted some to find ways to evade policing.

Citation sourcing
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that you formatted the citations properly! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now as far as the Afghanistan section goes, keep in mind that this section should specifically focus on Afghanistan. One of the statements you wrote mentions Saudi Arabia, which is a different country than Afghanistan. Even if the two have similarities, you would still need to have a source that specifically mentions that Afghanistan prohibits women from driving cars. Offhand it looks like women are allowed to drive cars per this 2014 article by the Washington Post and this 2017 HuffPo article, but it's highly discouraged to the point where only a very small portion of women actually drive and even then, only in very specific areas.
 * However keep in mind that laws or customs against women driving isn't necessarily a form of segregation per se - it can result in segregation via women having to use transportation specifically targeted towards them as opposed to using the same transportation as men, but it isn't segregation in and of itself. An example of how this can lead to segregation is the creation of "pink taxis" that are driven by women and are meant to be used by women only. They're seen in places like Dubai and Pakistan, but I don't know if they have them in Afghanistan. It seems unlikely, as this 2015 source says that there is only one woman taxi driver. There may have been more since then, but I see no evidence of a pink taxi equivalent. Essentially, segregation is a form of human rights violation - the sentences you added to my page are more about the general treatment of women and how they are human rights treatments per some critics. The content you add to the article on gender segregation needs to be specifically about gender segregation. What you want to look for are answers to things like this:
 * Are there locations that make women reside in an area separate from men? Do they make them use a separate exit and entrance?
 * Are there businesses that effectively force women to use women only versions of their services, such as a women only restaurant or transportation service?
 * Are the women only places and services of poorer quality than those enjoyed by men? If they're the same locations or services, do they have to wait until the men are served or otherwise dealt with?
 * If women want to work in a given job that is also held by men, are they forced to sit in a different area or office so they're not mixed in with the men?
 * Are women allowed to be buried in the same locations as men are? Are they allowed to worship in the same areas or are they segregated from one another?
 * If women are allowed on a larger form of transportation (ie, buses, trains, planes) are they allowed to sit where the men are or are they forced to sit in another area? Is this the same even when they are with a male relative?
 * What type of efforts are activists, especially women activists, doing to combat this segregation?
 * What are some of the rationales people use to justify segregating men and women? What do critics have to say about these rationales?
 * I hope that this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)