Talk:Women's rights in Bahrain

Women's political rights in Bahrain

This is a much more accurate version, please do not revert it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.22 (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To user 82.194.62.22, who has not signed their name above. Your intention is to make the page 'more accurate'? In that case why are your edits are full of inaccuracies, beginning with your first sentence:
Women in Bahrain were given the right to vote and stand for office at the same time that Bahraini men were given these rights, when King Hamad revived national elections for a Chamber of Deputies (Parliament) in 2002.
Contrary to what you assert women were only given the right in 2002, men had the vote in 1973. That's out by almost thirty years. Your edits continue in a similar way with deletion of links and the list of organisations opposing and supporting a unified personal status law. Please, work around other people's work not through it. Thank you. Rasta Man06 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, technically it is not wrong, just needs to be reworded as such:

When King Hamad revived national elections for a Chamber of Deputies (Parliament) in 2002 women in Bahrain were given the right to vote and stand for office at the same time that Bahraini men were given these rights. What are the other inaccuracies? I tried as much as possible to work with what was there, and I used the links you pasted. You synopsis of the personal status law is way off brother, quite frankly i dont think you know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.22 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First things first: you claimed initially that the changes you made were to make the article 'more accurate', yet you acknowledge that the first sentence you wrote wasn't accurate and so now have redrafted it. The new sentence is still wrong because men had the vote in 1973. As is your above claim to have not deleted links - I've highlighted those you've deleted below. So in both your edits and your explanation of those edits above you're making false statements. So much for 'more accuracy'. If you're going to berate other people, these sort of basic errors don't do you any favours. Other points:

1. Related to the above, if you're writing about women's rights it should be made clear that women had no political rights before 2002. I don't understand why you've gone out of your way to delete any mention of this as the topic is 'Women's Political Rights in Bahrain?
2. Why have you divorced these reforms from the wider reforms that took place? The historical context is important as to how women gained these rights, particularly as 60% were opposed.
3. 'Before that, the old Constitution of 1973 and the elected Parliament had been suspended indefinitely since 1975, just years after Bahrain's independence.' This sentence is wrong - since women didn't have the vote until 2002, the earlier parliament was only elected by men. Might be worth mentioning in an article on women's rights! In addition, I understand that a lot of its members were appointed, so it is only a semi-elected chamber.
4. 'The new Chamber of Deputies includes forty elected members but does not have legislative power independent of the King and his appointed Chamber called the Shura Council, also with forty members.' This seems unusual since most executives have the right to veto legislation - see the power of the US president. What's the relevance here?
5. Moving sentence about objections to women voting to a new paragraph makes no sense because now its in the middle of two paragraphs about appointees. Doesn't logically follow.
6. Why have you deleted the reference to the Supreme Council for Women leading the campaign? And deleted the link? How does deleting a link make it 'more accurate'?
7. Why have you deleted the 'political showdown' link to the article? What purpose does deleting links serve to make the article 'more accurate'?
8. Why have you deleted the reference to Asalah and the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights opposing a unified personal status law, as well as the list of which organisation was on which side?
9. 'Unfortunately, the stalemate between the Sunni monarchy and the Shia opposition creates a political climate in which women's rights become a battleground for competing patriarchies, rather than an issue in its own right.' It obviously remains an issue for women themselves, so this statement's not right.

You see, you're saying that your editing to make the article 'more accurate'. While some of what you've added makes it so, its clear from what I've written above that this isn't always the case. In fact, as with your first sentence its both more evasive and less accurate. By all means edit the article, but please let's actually make it more accurate. Rasta Man06 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay look i really dont time have for this increasingly ridiculous argument. again i don't think you live in bahrain or know what you're talking about - and why are you posting on an open source encyclopedia if you're so tetchy about your work being edited?? maybe you should just join some government propaganda agency. i guess the best i can do at this point is post one of those 'the neutrality of this article is disputed' signs at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.22 (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Related report

Freedom House Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa 2010, Bahrain's part here. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 09:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Women's rights in Bahrain. 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/20070309102730/http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5888 to http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5888
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106174618/http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/060522/jamsheer.html to http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/060522/jamsheer.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515145619/http://chanad.weblogs.us/?p=516 to http://chanad.weblogs.us/?p=516
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F6%2F9%2Fapworld%2F20060609085540&sec=apworld

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) 17:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)