Talk:Rape in Pakistan/Archive 1

Statistics from Human Rights Watch
The textbook cited makes a vague attribution of the figures to "studies" by Human Rights Watch. Before putting a sensational claim on the main page, shouldn't somebody properly cite the study that is the source of the numbers---particularly if it is a "study" by an advocacy organization rather than a peer-reviewed academic journal?

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Human rights watch are hardly an "advocacy group" They are highly respected for the work they do. Prentice Hall are an academic publisher, the source is a good one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you are talking about.
 * This is an inept reference, which refers vaguely to "studies". What is the specific study that is the source for this wild claim? What kind of study gives a 70-90% confidence intervals for a proportion?
 * What is the sampling frame in the study?
 * These are not trick questions! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have the study, I only saw the book. The source is citing a study carried out by HRW, who so far as I am aware are very reliable. Would you prefer if the statement were attributed? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you behaves as though (19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)) you take rape seriously, which means not putting sensational claims on the front page of the most read news source in the world, unless they are based on evidence. As a minor note, I would ask that you take Wikipedia seriously, but that is a triviality in comparison. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you are? I do take violence against women very seriously, please remove your grossly insensitive remark. If you think the source is junk or sensationalist take it to the RSN board. I will not talk to a person who assumes i do not take any form of violence seriously. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to talk to me. I want you to clean up the mess you made. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not made a mess. I have used a source which meets the criteria of WP:RS I have offered to attribute the statement which is quite simply all can be done, I will do it now and be done with you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you have cited does not say "sexual violence", it says "intimate partner violence". Although I appreciate that you started an article on an important issue that people need to be aware of but please take it a little seriously, there is a difference between sexual violence and intimate partner violence, so you need to present the facts correctly here. -- S M S  Talk 20:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Statistics from Human Rights Watch
The textbook cited makes a vague attribution of the figures to "studies" by Human Rights Watch. Before putting a sensational claim on the main page, shouldn't somebody properly cite the study that is the source of the numbers---particularly if it is a "study" by an advocacy organization rather than a peer-reviewed academic journal?

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Human rights watch are hardly an "advocacy group" They are highly respected for the work they do. Prentice Hall are an academic publisher, the source is a good one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you are talking about.
 * This is an inept reference, which refers vaguely to "studies". What is the specific study that is the source for this wild claim? What kind of study gives a 70-90% confidence intervals for a proportion?
 * What is the sampling frame in the study?
 * These are not trick questions! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have the study, I only saw the book. The source is citing a study carried out by HRW, who so far as I am aware are very reliable. Would you prefer if the statement were attributed? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you behaves as though (19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)) you take rape seriously, which means not putting sensational claims on the front page of the most read news source in the world, unless they are based on evidence. As a minor note, I would ask that you take Wikipedia seriously, but that is a triviality in comparison. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you are? I do take violence against women very seriously, please remove your grossly insensitive remark. If you think the source is junk or sensationalist take it to the RSN board. I will not talk to a person who assumes i do not take any form of violence seriously. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to talk to me. I want you to clean up the mess you made. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not made a mess. I have used a source which meets the criteria of WP:RS I have offered to attribute the statement which is quite simply all can be done, I will do it now and be done with you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you have cited does not say "sexual violence", it says "intimate partner violence". Although I appreciate that you started an article on an important issue that people need to be aware of but please take it a little seriously, there is a difference between sexual violence and intimate partner violence, so you need to present the facts correctly here. -- S M S  Talk 20:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

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. The reason for this tag is twofold:

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)
 * 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?
 * 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rape_in_Pakistan:_Revision&diff=499877513&oldid=499805701]. 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)
 * Discuss only current content from top newspaper dawn. Removed past content. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * this is a proper addition to the article I don't think their should be any issue --sarvajna (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much sarvajna. Minar-e-pakistan (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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.—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 10:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've added a few more references.Cpsoper (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 WP: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 (removed repetitive refs, removed WP:FICTREF ref and made the text neutral by removing WP:PEACOCK word), feel free to discuss further if required. 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.—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 06:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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  &#124;&#9742; 22:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Rape is always a lifechanging rather, in my opinion, a life-destroying crime, but that does not make it anymore important then to format the lede section around a particular individual. has raised a valid point, should be addressed before the tag is removed. The case of Mukhtaran Bibi was no doubt a high profile case, but that does not qualify it to be mentioned in the lede especially when the subject has an article of it own at WP.—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   ʞlɐʇ 06:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of mention of male rape
The article lacks to mention that there is a problem with boys being raped in Pakistan, but only mentions examples of girls and women being raped, or mentions 'children' when the source quoted ('Pakistan's Hidden Shame') deals exclusively with boys being raped. I suggest a re-write to thus extend the article's scope. 141.8.112.10 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC) See
 * A few pertinent references.Cpsoper (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse
I improved the section named "Child sexual abuse" by adding the following latest report:. Thank you.--Secsriper (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)