Jump to content

Talk:Rape in Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TripWire (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 3 September 2016 (Minorities). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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[1] edit? I urge you self revert and begin discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss only current content from top newspaper dawn. Removed past content. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is a proper addition [2] to the article I don't think their should be any issue --sarvajna (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much sarvajna. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only proper addition you have made, there are several issue with your additions to Cinema of Pakistan. Please self revert.--sarvajna (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Darkness Shines, you have left out the Dawn newspaper citation I added about the village Panchayat indulging in a tit for tat punishment, due to which, unfortunately, the sister of the man who eloped with his girl-friend got gang-raped. Isn't it notable enough to be added to this article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not restore in because it has no place in the lede, nor the article. Read WP:UNDUE Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section rewrite

I've tagged the lead section for a rewrite because it is currently more about specific instances than an overview of the topic (MOS:LEAD). The case of Mukhtaran Bibi is certainly tragic, but in a Rape in Pakistan article, it would be more appropriate to discuss the prevalence of rape in Pakistan, rather than giving preference to a single case. ― Padenton |  22:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a case for an article devoted to the subject of rape in Pakistan, as is the case for other countries, given widespread consistent reports of its prevalence and grave judicial mishandling. Prominent and well known cases are bound to figure, as it is a deeply personal and lifechanging crime. The label should be removed, though there may be a case for giving more prominence to the statistics (reflecting concerns about under reporting) earlier in the article.Cpsoper (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities

I am surprised by the almost complete lack of reference to the targetting of vulnerable minorities, which in my reading of this gruesome subject has been a frequent theme. I have added a tiny sample of direct reports, but I am aware the same is true of other groups, Sikhs, Ahmeddiyyas, Hindus and no doubt others too. Further referencing and supplementation is welcome. Cpsoper (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I am surprised at the way you added POV and WP:SYNTHESIS the info that you added. There's no denying that minorities are raped in Pakistan but you wont be allowed to present it as if it's Pakistanis' favorite pastime. Using not RS websites that too mostly from a single author and cherry-picking info to synthesis it into something which it is not is contentious editing. Please see to these issues and we both can add/expand this section.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 10:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, BF is not a single author site, nor are the others I've cited. They are RS, but I'm happy to check this with the RS noticeboard. I have no COI, can you please confirm the same, no formal connections with the government of Pakistan? It is not synth to summarise the contents of such citations, please reread the policy. The rmv of well sourced data is wholly unjustified. Indeed there is a great deal that can be usefully supplemented. Cpsoper (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You know what, before we proceed further on the issue, I will request you to actually read the policy on CoI and refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You do that, and I will be glad to talk about this again. Because going by your understanding every American while editing Donald Trump will be having a coI, every Indian editing Rapes in Indian will have a CoI and every Martian editing Water on Mars will also have CoI. Alternatively, we can have a chit-chat at the ANI to resolve this issue first and then come back to the issue at hand.
P.S. I was planning to discuss each of your source as I had a few objections on each while allowing you to respond accordingly, but I think I will hold that thought for now as you are still at the second tier of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement from the bottom, which you have displayed prominently at your user/talkpage.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the removal of well sourced material, in the light of this response. Happy to discuss further. Cpsoper (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more references.Cpsoper (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said earlier, the problem is not with having a section about minorities but with you attempts at pushing a particular POV by (1) using POVed words (2) giving UNDUE emphasis towards a particular info which is not always supported in the ref given by you (3) Reusing the same ref twice to add false weight and (4) adding ref which does not talk about the topic but have helped you to WP:SYNTHESIS a conclusion. So, I have made some minor changes, feel free o discuss. Also, the ref to Hindus or other minorities was unsourced when we started this discussion. You have only provided citations for it now, so it can stay. But this was the problem I was trying to highlight when you were reverted.See, discussion can lead to improvement.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 06:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]