Talk:Women in Pakistan

Factual accuracy

I believe that this article needs some severe fixing. There are lots of untrue things, and it is a blatant attempt at showing Pakistan in the best light possible. Compared with other "Women in ____" this article overly exagurates the good aspects into making the reader believe almost the exact opposite of the truth.

An unbiased person knowledgable of the true status of women in Pakistan should rewrite this article entirely, scrapping almost everything currently in this article.

Amusing as always

Removed my own comments for lack of any sources.--Jareer 11:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Jareer (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

POV (article title)

I think the title of the article is a little POV. Do we have an article titled "Status of men in Pakistan"? Then why have status of women in Pakistan? I think a more NPOV title should be chosen. Almost anything else would be better. "Feminism in Pakistan"? "Women in Pakistan"? Aucaman^Talk 11:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the title is POV . . . if anything, I almost thing it's bending over backwards not to be. If we had a title like "opportunities for women in Pakistan" or "oppression of women in Pakistan" then that would be POV, in the sense that it tries to portray the status of women in either a positive or a negative light.

Regarding the word "status", it is presumably meant to mean "position relative to others" (which is NPOV), rather than the alternate definition of "high esteem", which would of course be POV. (See [1].)

As for why there's an article "women in Pakistan", but not "men in Pakistan":

Really, the article is about women as compared to men (i.e., do they have equal rights or not?) The convention when discussing whether or not one group is disadvantaged in a society relative to another group is to refer to the allegedly disadvantaged group. E.g., An article "gay rights in America" would talk about gay rights as compared to straight rights, but it would be rather odd to call it "straight rights in America", and start off with "straights couples have the right to marry, unlike gays." Anyone interested in the topic would search for "gays in America", and likewise someone interested in women (as compared to men) in Pakistan would search for "women in Pakistan". --Tim314 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a better title would be Women in Pakistan. utcursch | talk 12:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

POV (article content)

As for the content of the article itself, it seems highly POV. It focuses on positive aspects almost exclusively, and completely fails to mention the widely reported occurences of honor killings and other human rights abuses directed against women. (E.g., see [2]). Instead, the article only contains vague claims like "Pakistani women continue to struggle for advancement", and "much more remains to be done." Even if every sentence in the article is factually accurate (which I can't personally attest), it's POV by virtue of what it leaves out.

Also, sentences like "The Pakistani women of today enjoy a better status than most Islamic and Middle Eastern women" are subjective, and ought to either be attributed to a specific person or omitted. ("Pakistani women have always played a part in its society," should also be scrapped, as it's meaninglessly vague.) Of course, criticisms of the treatment of women in Pakistan (once they're added) should likewise be attributed to their source. --Tim314 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag to the page. To reiterate, whether or not the article is factually accurate, it ought to address the positive and negative things that have been said about the lives of women in Pakistan in order to be NPOV. I'd edit it myself, but I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject. (For what it's worth, the whole reason I looked up this page was in response to a news article about honor killings, hoping to find out how widespread the problem is and whether it happens as much in cities as in rural areas. But the article acts like these things don't exist.) Tim314 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement that " The Pakistani women of today enjoy a better status than most Islamic and Middle Eastern women" is indeed a mere assertion. The author seems to have been influenced by anti-Islamic propaganda about the alleged "plight of Muslim women". In fact, in almost any Islamic country women have the rights mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.241.229 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-write and expansion

I've re-written and expanded the article. The diff is here. utcursch | talk 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

I don't doubt that the statement is correct, but it's one of those statements that does require a reference for inclusion. A reference to similar issues in another country unfortunately doesn't work. While I agree with that bit, "simple" residency in the area is not good enough by Wiki standards. It's the same case that I cannot got to the wiki for my home region and add in items (especially comments about conservative religious members) without a proper refence. I doubt it will be hard to find a reference for it, though. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Women in jail

I found the article Damn the women in distress, damn our callous lady MNAs (archive) to be of possible interesert to those who maintain this article. __meco (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Upgraded

I upgraded it with peaces on dress code, acid throwing, bride burnig, etc, a map and a photo.Wipsenade (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I added Head and eyebrow shaving attacks, sources on violence, sources on rape, sources on honner killing and a peace on adutery.Wipsenade (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Women are relatively safe are you srue then?

New article on Boston.Com says that Paksitan is the third most dangerous country for women. It is contradicting to what tihs article staytes then 71.106.222.108 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from WikiSDG, 10 September 2011

"democratically" is spelled wrong in this sentence: Zia-ul-Haq's military régime Main article: Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization General Zia ul-Haq, then Army Chief of Staff, overthrew the denocratically elected Zulfikar Ali Bhutto government in a military coup on 5 July 1977. WikiSDG (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Navbox removal

FYI, I removed {{Women in society}} as the thrust of the navbox is sociological where this article appears to be more geographically / anthopologically oriented. ClaretAsh 11:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2013

Please correct link for this reference: "Women in Pakistan: Country Briefing Paper. Asian Development Bank. 2000." The correct link is: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2000/women_pakistan.pdf Aiko1031 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done BryanG (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2013

Please change "after she became convert to Christianity" to "after she converted to Christianity". 2001:18E8:2:1020:C581:3677:5FFC:1271 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --SMS ^Talk 20:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Massive vandalism

Two users, Fareed30 and Mar4d, continue to remove sourced content in line with a nationalist bias, in which any negative reference to Afghanistan is systematically deleted, along with all sources no matter how well they satisfy WP:RS. If Fareed30 and Mar4d feel that there is a problem with the sourced they keep deleting, then the place to discuss it is here, and before deleting. Removing sourced content because it may be critical of a certain country is in breach of WP:NPOV, not to mention that it is a clear case of vandalism to keep deleting sourced content in that way.Jeppiz (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the following statements: (1) "Trafficking of women is on the rise in Pakistan." (2) "Foreign women from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar are brought to Pakistan and sold." Such allegations require verifiable sources, I didn't see that so I removed this allegation but rewrote the subsection in a better and neutral way, sourcing it with very reliable sources.--Fareed30 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

All of those statements were sourced by reliable sources. You removed them, and you also inserted claims with no sources at all. All you are doing here is pushing a nationalist POV, vandalizing articles in the process. And yes, repeatedly removing sourced content most definitely is vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

@Fareed30 Both the statements were sourced, they only needed to be properly attributed, like "According to he ADB report (2000) on Pakistani women .....". --SMS ^Talk 13:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If they were correctly sourced then I wouldn't have modified or removed the statements. The following is what I'm having a problem with:

• (A) Acid throwing attacks are most common in Afghanistan. -- Ermachild Chavis, Melody, Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan (St Martin's Press, 2003), ISBN 978-0-312-30689-2.
• (B) Foreign women from Afghanistan are brought to Pakistan and sold.

In A, the book is missing a page number, a link, or a quote, and I can't find it on googles books, and it contradicts what health experts claim: "Acid attack violence occurs in many countries but is particularly prevalent in: Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and Cambodia." pg. 5 [3] (The Center for Global Initiatives at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill presents the Carolina Papers on International Health). This is why I removed Afghanistan from the list, and I've said that I'm an expert on this issue.

In B, one is a dead link and the other is a 2000 report, but we are in 2013 and if there is a market in Pakistan today where Afghan or other foreign women are sold, I like to know where that is so I can leave a tip for the Homeland Security Investigations.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article has seen far too many reverts today. Per the compromise agreed here, I have restored to the version which is preferred by Jeppiz and also keeps intact the formatting edits made by Fareed30. Before making any further reverts, everyone should discuss on this talk page what is sourced and what isn't as far as content is concerned, before removing anything. Let's give the reverts a break. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mar4d and SMS. I won't edit the article more today, and I am not an expert on this issue. I only became involved as I saw that Fareed30 was involved in heavy content removal. Unfortunately, that is a behavior that Fareed30 seems to be repeating at other articles as well. For my part, I leave this article. Thanks to Mar4d and SMS for the constructive approach.Jeppiz (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927011900/http://www.wluml.org/english/exhibitions/dresscodes/06-pakistan.ppt to http://www.wluml.org/english/exhibitions/dresscodes/06-pakistan.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging Women's rights in Pakistan

I think the article Women's rights in Pakistan should be merged here. Much of what is in that article is repeated here. What would be the opinions of other editors? 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:50C:7540 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The merge was done.5.12.116.29 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)