Talk:Huda Sha'arawi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Graceweinberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huda Sha'arawi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111203929/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/481/chrncls.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/481/chrncls.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic nature of the article

I have discovered that a lot of sections in this article seem to be biased in tone and even propagandic, basing it in an unreliable source, that being a video, not made by any official source or body whatsoever. A whole section is/was dedicated to calling images of Huda Sha'rawi wearing the veil (which she did later on her life) "fake"/"fabricated", over-exaggerated claims claiming that all Egyptian women didn't wear the veil after Huda Sha'rawi's action (which is not only anachronistic to historical records, which show the veil being integral to most Egyptian women), but can be easily debunked by photographic evidence too. RETFrog (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You do not give a very neutral impression yourself. You have removed a well refererenced event from the article and the referenced sourcing it as well. This is against wikipedia rules. You cannot just claim that it is not so when it has plenty of references, and give as reasons what appear to be your own personal views about the subject. The impression you give is that it is you, rather than others, who come here and wish to make non-neutral edits of the article. If you remove referenced information again, you will be reported. Please consider that before you continue. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I am talking out of a purely neutral stance, in fact, my main grudge against the current state of this article is it's biased nature. I am not stating personal opinions, but rather proven historical facts, in fact, if anyone is stating personal opinions, it would be the original writer, and you. you completely assumed that i am basing these edits on my own opinion, which i don't know where you got from. again, the initial reference for all of this text was an unsourced video in the first place, so i don't what's your criteria for "well sourced", if you want sources supporting what i say, i can easily provide them. anyways, it seems you are overly aggressive about this topic, and kept assuming bad faith in me, i can easily report that to Wikipedia too, but i am not willing to engage in more useless argumentation, i suppose the biased and unencyclopedic nature of this article stays for now. peace. RETFrog (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)