Talk:Women in the United Arab Emirates

Obvious bias

This article is a bit of a joke. There is nothing factually wrong with the information, but there is no discussion of the negative aspects of being a woman in the UAE. This is still a place where men often will not shake hands with a woman, where women have separate queues in public offices and separate rooms in restaurants, where women must follow a stricter dress code than men, etc. etc. etc. I don't see any of this in the article.

Ideally, these issues should be addressed by someone who lives in the UAE and has greater depth of knowledge than I do. In particular, I think foreigners living in the UAE would offer a good perspective. Nojamus (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is you speaking from ignorance. Many Emirati women wouldn't shake a man's hand, due to cultural norms, not the other way around. Queues are usually mixed, though some government offices do have ones for each gender; you still get the same service though. Not sure what you mean by 'women must follow...' this is not in the penal code of the UAE and women aren't punished by the law should they not dress the traditional sheila and abaya. Most do out of following religious law and culture, voluntarily, as they are not punished by the law. They do it willingly, but it seems this somehow pisses you off. It's strange, you should open your eyes more to the world around you, and realize people have different perspectives and beliefs than you. That doesn't make them worth any less than you. 209.2.50.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make personal remarks. They don't help improve the article at all. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

- I find this article not fair and balanced. I've visited both Abu Dhabi and Dubai numerous times and have also seen their factories first hand. I've seen women fairly represented in retail, travel, banking, domestic and government services. What is not expressed in this article is the treatment of and violations towards women in the UAE. The UAE has a well documented history of human rights violations especially towards woman. Human trafficking for the purpose of domestic work and prostitution in both Abu Dhabi and Dubai are well known (and referenced here in Wikipedia). Domestic workers are often raped, abused, deprived of food and underpaid (if paid at all). And many have been striped of their papers making it impossible to leave the country.

Human Rights on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Human_trafficking_and_prostitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates#Human_rights Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-united-arab-emirates

Labour laws in the UAE support employers first. With so much international attention in the UAE it is forcing governments to change their laws, practices and provide protection. But violations still occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suewahsing (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Driving cars?

"Women are free to join Government departments including the Police. When Dubai police purchased some luxury vehicles, they permitted them to drive the police cars and also take pictures with these newly acquired additions.[16]"

So are women who are not in the police force not allowed to drive? Also, the article linked to does not say that women were allowed to drive the police cars. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Recently deleted material

Lenore recently deleted this and this material, stating, "POV and original research." and "Deleting POV and not-noticeable quotes."

From what I see, Lenore misunderstands the WP:Neutral (POV) policy, as people commonly do. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following what the sources state and giving them the appropriate weight. From what I see, Lenore also misunderstands the WP:Original research (OR) policy. Like that policy states, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." After "exists," there is a note that states, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." I see that Lenore has also misapplied the POV and WP:OR policies elsewhere. At both articles, these deletions indicate a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this edit is questionable so I don't have any intention to dispute over, but the paragraph "rape victim" says essentially that even if women were found guilty of false allegations, the are rape victims only because they say it. This is clearly POV. Lenore (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lenore, we can reword things. If it is contested that the women are rape victims, we can present both sides with WP:Due weight, per WP:Verifiability, if there are WP:Reliable sources relaying that one or more of the women are not rape victims. I noted/pointed to the WP:POV policy above so that you can better understand it. You should thoroughly read it. RolandR has reverted you, citing the text as a non-POV problem. You need to explain how there is a POV problem as far as Wikipedia rules go; for example, what I just mentioned about providing WP:Reliable sources that state otherwise about the rape victim aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if personalities were kept out of this, which can be done simply by not using editors' names or referring them in any way but simply sticking to suggestions for improving the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The above editor is actually more polite than many I have seen on Wikipedia, and I was too quick to comment on some of the répartée here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, while WP:Talk is clear that the focus of the talk page should be on the topic of improving the article rather than on specific editors, it is also clear that discussing other editors' edits on the talk page comes with the territory. Yes, that includes mentioning the editors by name. That is what WP:Dispute resolution involves, after all. Where WP:Talk states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.", it links to the WP:Personal attacks policy with the "on the contributor" wording. I did not violate the WP:Personal attacks policy above by noting Lenore's problematic editing and informing Lenore of what he is doing wrong. In this case, improving the article concerns Lenore editing appropriately. We should not be vague about what editor is acting inappropriately. And so I was not. And the WP:Diffs, which are what I often use to argue on talk pages, would show which editor I am referring to anyway. At WP:Talk, I will likely propose new wording for the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" wording, since it is misused. Same goes for the "Focus on content" wording at the WP:Dispute resolution page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I was focused on the content/inappropriate removal of the content by an editor. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to insert that paragraph you should underline that they are rape victims even if convicted is an opinion of some associations. I suppose you will not allow such contestations about guilty for CHarles Manson or anyone who was convicted in USA. So what's the point? Lenore (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I reintroduced the section, although I am very disagreeing with that. Regards. Lenore (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lenore, per above, you should not be making edits like these that I just reverted. Stick to what the sources state or do not add anything at all. And do not remove material simply because you do not like it. Do you want me to take this matter to some form of WP:Dispute resolution? Or start a WP:RfC on it? Or, hey, even add two or three sources to support the content, no matter the WP:Citation overkill? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think the source is a bit POV? And then, not ALL you can find on the internet is a reliable source. What could you say for a source that states "women convicted because they were raped"? If you want to include this source, please do it in a way that is clear that those are personal opinions and NOT facts. And then, I didn't remove anything. Thank you. --Lenore (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:Synthesis, just like this bit by you that I reverted. I'm not going to argue about it or your interpretation of a POV problem. If you do not revert yourself or do not otherwise stick to exactly what the source states, I will be advancing this matter via a form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And even wording it as "Women in UAE can be subject to flogging.", which is what I thought about changing it to, is better than your "some sources" wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Internet is full of "sources" that state everything and the opposite of everything. THIS source is POV. How could I call a source that says that a woman prosecuted by authorities is a victim only because she's a woman? And should I cite it literally? Absurd. Lenore (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Neutral thoroughly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Edit summaries

The purpose of the Edit summary is to tell something about the edit, not to carry on back-and-forth conversations with other editors. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence "The ratio of literate females within the 15- to 24- year age group rose from 100.5% in 1990 to 110% in 2004, reaching 90% literacy overall in 2007." because it doesn't make sense as currently written and I don't have access to the underlying reference to correct it. Obviously literacy rates cannot be more than 100%. If it's a ratio to some other group then we need to know what that other group is for this to make sense. It would be great if someone could fix this sentence and return it to the article. Sinusoidal (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)