Talk:Iraq: Uneven voter turnout elects women who push sharia law while anti-woman violence rages

Raed Jarrar is not really that credible - 18:19, 1 Apr 2005 DouglasGreen

I accept that Raed may not be credible, but I found his calculation to be credible. However, I accept that is my opinion, and not substantiated otherwise. - Simeon 02:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I checked and I agree now that his calculation is not very credible. His figures for number of expatriot Iraqis are much higher than the IOM figure, and he doesn't say where he got his number from. So I will remove the mention. Simeon 04:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ideas on legitimacy of election are false, since turnout was higher than US election even with his revised figures - 18:19, 1 Apr 2005 DouglasGreen

this is not logic. :) US voter turnout is low compared with most other places. It ranks 140 out of 160 countries. Here we would say 'US voter turnout was only 44%!' since my country has over 90% turnout. The US has in some years had turnout at 80-90%.

There has been significant contention over the legitimacy of recent US elections, as I'm sure you're aware, and overall voter turnout is one of the factors discussed in some of the dialogues which exist. I think it is well known that when turnout drops, it is generally people from low income groups that do not vote. This is often discussed in the election banter surrounding the event, when the commentators try to predict the outcome.

"The overall average turnout in the post-war period for established democracies is 73%".

58% would rank Iraq around 115 out of 160, and since the ideal is 100%, and initial reports were that turnout was higher - above 70% - and since the argument is that the number of people who couldn't or wouldn't vote may have impacted the result, I'm putting 'only' back.

I will remove the italics though for 'less than 50%'. I hope this removes the alarmist tone you want to avoid, while still keeping the argument easy for readers to follow. - Simeon 02:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of my comment on this article. I accept your changes. However, I am concerned about the article for a a few remaining reasons which perhaps you might like to discuss.

1. The article seems to have nothing good to say about prospects of women in Iraq. Those sources I consulted seemed to portray improvements as well as setbacks in prospects of women. However, this article seemed exclusively focused on negative or pessimistic comments. DouglasGreen 04:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you know of some relevent positive comments? I came across none in my research. If you know of some, please feel free to amend the story to expand it, this is wiki, and we like balanced news. :) - Simeon 05:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. The article, as far as I can tell, does not make a strong linkage between the "skewing" of the elections and the resulting desire for sharia, or Islamic law. Is it your contention that if violence had been less in Sunni regions and turnout had been higher, that the result of those elections would have been better for women? If so, how? I don't really see how lessened Sunni participation dimmed the prospects of Iraqi women. Are they that much better than Shia's in their attitudes toward women?

I included the background to explain why the elections are seen not to be representative by many Iraqis and outsiders. I didn't find any outright explanation of whether the Sunni/Shi'a split is driving the moves against women, or why that should be so. Iraq's religious slant had been to Sunni under Hussein, and was widely considered as being secularly governed, now it is swinging to Shi'a and sharia, I think the reader can decide for themselves whether there is a link, in the absence of any party explaining it. But if you know of any decent explanations, or counter-arguments,please include them. - Simeon 05:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. When reading about increased violence toward women in post-war Iraq, the first explanation that leapt to my mind was that it was a reaction to the increased independence of Iraqi women, or Westernization. However, that possibility does not seem to be addressed in the article.

No, this is certainly not the case. Or if it is, its a very delayed reaction, pent up under Hussein for a long time. I don't remember reading any reports that women in Iraq have become more liberal since the invasion. If there are people making this argument, and it seems important, add information to address that. - Simeon 05:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I thought the "puppet politicians" part had the side effect of casting all the women's participation in the Iraqi government in a negative light, portraying them as passive victims or collaborators... doesn't anybody else have a countervailing opinion of women's participation? DouglasGreen 04:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quote is from the very politician at the start of the article. So it's impossible to leave out. Again, if you find any, please add them. Perhaps there are some pro-active statements by some of the Iraqi women's lobby groups who I also sources quotes from. You're right that the story paints a very negative picture of the current state of affairs. I think it is probably accurate, given they are in the middle of a war-zone. But something encouraging positive action would add to the story. :) - Simeon 05:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Headline and lead POV

The headline and lead section are POV. I'm going to change them. Maurreen 05:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, there is no need to mention here unless you are going to explain in greater detail. - Simeon 05:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Previous headline had POV issues

I changed "biased" to "disputed" in the headline for obvious NPOV reasons (also fixed minor punctuation & plurality errors). -- Davodd | Talk 09:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply to above

First of all, thank you, Simeon, for writing this article, and also for your reasonable and moderate replies to the points I have raised. I agree with you that the status of women in Iraq is important and worth talking about. Obviously we in the US and elsewhere are concerned that the new Iraqi government not be a step backward in terms of women's rights.

Also please see my latest changes to the article. Although rather minor, I have attempted to find and represent a couple of other points of view to those raised in the article. Hopefully this balance which I have attempted to represent will improve the article for everyone. DouglasGreen 04:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please use --82.83.54.230 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a featured article?

This article was considered for Featured article status by the Wikinews community.

Bawolff ☺☻ 07:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the leftover "]]" in the flag caption that's moved part of the caption text out of the caption. Heavy Water (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. [₂₄Cr][talk] 12:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)