Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 28 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rape in Pakistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from Rape in Pakistan appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 July 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that according to lawyer Asma Jahangir, up to seventy-two percent of women in police custody in Pakistan are physically or sexually abused? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2012/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rape in Pakistan: Revision.

Difference between rape and intimate partner violence

This is indeed a good find by SMS. This was a case of source falsification I believe. If what I am understanding is correct, the source had said "intimate partner violence" and not sexual violence. As far as I know, there is a marked difference between intimate partner violence (also known as domestic violence) and sexual violence/rape. Domestic violence is a worldwide phenomenon, and can categorically include things such as psychological, physical and even verbal harm. Labeling these as rape/sexual violence in this context, that too in a DYK, is tantamount to gross misrepresentation. I'm rather taken aback at how this managed to find a place on the main page. Mar4d (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Spacey's character throwing a dish in American Beauty or Kirstie Allen hitting (or was it shooting?) at Woodie Allen's character in Deconstructing Harry are examples of domestic violence that are not rape. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, intimate partner violence is not restricted to sexual violence, i.e., rape. However, let's not impute bad faith to the editor. I believe it was a mistake - and the article is full of sources that are talking about rape. Also, the article did not make it to the main page. The Did You Know nomination has been reopened. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Yngvadottir! Please send me your financial information, passwords, and account numbers, so that I may collect an inheritance owed me. I will give you 30% for your troubles. Kindly, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'ma need a piece of that. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL are you both offering to share my debts :-D Doesn't matter anyway, s/he's blocked for a week now, and the road to Hel's realm is paved with good intentions. And stupid mistakes. Meanwhile we have this article . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This needs context

I have removed this, pending discussion:

There was international condemnation of former president Pervez Musharraf after comments he made during an interview with the Washington Post in 2005. He said "You must understand the environment in Pakistan. This has become a money-making concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."

• This section was tagged onto the bottom of a paragraph that lists the various types of rapes, and there prevalence.

It doesn't relate to those matters.

• What is the context of the former president's comments?

It would seem, from the placement of the sentence that the president was saying "Anyone who is prepared to be a sex slave can go to Canada and get rich".

I don't think that it what the president meant. But that is what it means, in context because of the sentence that it has been placed immediately after.

• Was the president trying to explain lies that are told to abducted and abused people?

• Was the president referring to the fact that Mukhtaran Bibi had become an international celebrity because of her actions, and that many people in Pakistan resent this?

Was he referring to something else of a similar type?

• Was the "international condemnation" made about this comment, which explains the "environment in Pakistan", or something else that he said in the context of the interview?
• Was the condemnation of the president himself, because he made this comment, or was the condemnation of the fact that it was a money making concern.

• Whatever he was specifically referring to, needs to be made clear, if the quote is going to be used in the article.

Amandajm (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK! I have checked out the context of this statement.

It was promoted by his being questioned about Mukhtaran Bibi.

I will put it back into the article, with the appropriate explanation.

Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mukhtaran Bibi

The lack of explanation about Mukhtaran Bibi in this article is a major problem.

By saying "The rape of Mukhtaran Bibi", you treat the event of her rape as if she was a well-known person who was publicly raped, so that the whole world immediately knew and was shocked.

It is like saying "The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi"

But tt wasn't like that. The event of her rape meant nothing to anyone, except her and her family.

It was her actions after the event that drew the attention of the world to the problem.

Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The last edit that I just made typifies the fact that this article does not give credit to the action of Mukhtaran Bibi.

Why was a recent event, 2011, listed at the top of the historically important cases, above the case that actually drew the problem to notice?

Amandajm (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A major aspect of the problem of rape in Pakistan is the official attitude. I have just inserted that part of the case of Mukhtaran Bibi that illustrates the "official attitude".

Amandajm (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source tagged

I have tagged as "unreliable" the statement about the "72 percent" figure of abuse in police custody, attributed to Asma Jahangir via Goodwin, Jan (2002). Price of Honor: Muslim Women Lift the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World. Plume. p. 51. ISBN 978-0452283770.. The reason for this tag is twofold:

• Goodwin apparently does not give his own source, i.e. the publication in which Jahangir herself has made this claim. This is important because the claim is an ostensibly precise one: if Jahangir gave an exact-sounding figure (72%, rather than, say, 71% or 73%), the only legitimate reason she could have arrived at such a figure is if she did an empirical study – i.e. she investigated a systematic sample of people and 72 was the result she found in her sample. If she did that, it is vital that we should be able to know her methodology (how was the sample obtained; how were the women questioned, etc.) In the absence of this information, we have no way of telling whether Jahangir's claim is itself a reliable source. And, crucially, the very fact that Goodwin fails to provide this informationipso facto disqualifies himself as a reliable source too. No serious academic publication worth its salt would ever cite such a figure without citing its source; ergo, Goodwin is not a serious academic publication.
• The problem is made worse by the fact that Goodwin is also sloppy in his wording. He says that 72% are "physically and sexually abused". What does the "and" mean here? Is he really claiming that 72% is the figure of those who are abused both sexually and in other physical ways? If that were the case, does that mean the actual figure of victims who are abused in either of the two ways but not both is even higher? Or that every single victim suffers both forms of abuse, but never only one of them? Or does he really mean "or"? Is this the total figure of all forms of abuse combined, and the actual figure of sexual abuse is somewhere lower than that?

We need to get the original source where Jahangir made those statements herself; then we can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it is very disappointing that a claim as questionable as this one could be selected as the hook of yesterday's DYK – especially with the additional blow to logic inherent in the "up to" wording, when that logical shortcoming had been pointed out well in time on the nomination page . One has to ask, what are those DYK people thinking these days? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Minar-e-pakistan you are adding WP:OR to this article, and also misrepresenting sources. For instance, how does the source used support this edit? I urge you self revert and begin discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Catherwood, Christopher (2006). Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide. Facts On File. p. 340. ISBN 978-0816060016. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles