Template:Did you know nominations/Domestic violence in Pakistan

Domestic violence in Pakistan
*... that 97% of women interviewed in a study claim to have suffered some from some form of domestic violence in Pakistan? Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nom at 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1 *... that in a survey by the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 96.76% Pakistani women said they had been victims of abuse? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg All fits good. Original hook.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  @ 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a grossly irresponsible review. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg A survey based on 216 women that too conducted in the Gynecology ward of two hospitals is not the kind of material that should appear on the main page. The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change. Besides the author of the survey report himself says "The results of this study need to be interpreted with caution. Convenience sampling used in this study limits the generalizing of results. As this type of sampling is inherently prone to biases". -- S M S  Talk 19:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Must you guys follow me everywhere? Were is your source that the fact is likely to change? Have all the women beaters in Pakistan turned over a new leaf? The hook specifies it is a survey. And I do not see what you are saying in the source cited at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping the discussion on topic. These figures are always likely to change, that is a fact and need not to be sourced. And what I quoted is very simple, I can clarify if you can be more particular. -- S M S  Talk 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I want the source you quote from. If the facts change so then would the article, the hook is sourced to a reliable secondary source and is from an academic publishers your objection hds no water. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim is from a second-hand source. In addition to the Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, the original study should be cited. Why do you challenge Smsarmad to provide the source? You ought to have named it yourself from the start. According to your hook, it's from a "survey by the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. So, identify that article please. Also, if it's true that it's based on a potentially non-representative convenience sample, then the summary that "96.76% Pakistani women said..." is definitely false (apart from the fact that it's also ungrammatical anyway.) If the authors of the study themselves caution about the representativity of their sample, then this needs to be moved further down in the article and be correctly summarized with some more appropriate hedging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And another stalker arrives, you guys better stop with this shit. The hook 1 is not sourced to a journal, it is sourced to a book. It does not even mention the PJMS. That was an alternate hook. I want SMS to provide the source for his quote, as no such quote is in the book cited. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The book further cites the survey by Shaikh published in PJMS for this text. The link to that survey report is in the article now. -- S M S  Talk 12:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor Darkness Shines accused the editors of stalking him, but failed to correct the misrepresentation of the study, which was a convenience sample. Why did I have to correct this, when the error was clearly diagnosed? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that according to a report by Dawn, lack of awareness and support from the government are among the reasons for domestic violence in Pakistan? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT3 ... that domestic violence in Pakistan has been described as "endemic in all social spheres"? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alt3 is cited. I dislike that the hook is attributed to another's study, as I've stated. Serious problems is that social spheres are undefined. Is this a non-reference to Michael Walzer's work? What does "social sphere" mean?
 * The other problem is that the proposition uses the universal quantifier "all". If there are no social spheres, then the sentence may be vacuously true but irrelevant. Otherwise, it is an extraordinary claim and so requires extraordinary evidence. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT4 ... that in 2012 Parliament of Pakistan passed legislation to curb domestic violence in Pakistan? -- S M S  Talk 17:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This ALT is no good, it makes it look as though it has passed into law, it has not. This is already covered in the article Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Domestic Violence Prevention bill has already been passed. -- S M S  Talk 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok that bill was amended and enacted only in Islamabad Capital Territory. -- S M S  Talk 20:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This article need fresh eyes and a new review. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT5 ... that according to Lisa Hajjar, an Associate Professor at the University of California, abuse against women in Pakistan is an "endemic in all social spheres"?  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT6 ... that in 2012, the Parliament of Pakistan passed legislation in an attempt to curb domestic violence in the country?  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added some material to ALT3 and ALT4 and have made these. I believe that either ALT5 or ALT6 are good to go.  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of those are already proposed, and you alt6 is the same as SMS alt, and the legislation had not passed. That is covered in the article. Facts, not fiction (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT7 ... that one of the reasons for domestic violence in Pakistan is that women no longer care for an extended family? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg ALT7 checks out through Google Books, and the source—which has an academic publisher—seems good. I'm good with it.  Everything else checks out, as already noted.  The only reason I'm not giving this a pass is that the article seems slanted because of its organization, particularly involving issues with the lead.  The lead should be a summary of the article, not introduce new information.  The way it's written, it seems to take the strongest points (including a contested study noted above) and puts it in front of the article.  These (and their sources) should be incorporated into the body of the article, and the lead should be completely re-written to summarize all the major points (not highlight the points most in favor of the author's viewpoints.  It's a neutrality issue (WP:NPOV), but one that can be partly addressed as I just noted.  Fix this, and I will support. –  Maky  « talk » 00:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks to Darkness Shines for the fixes. (Sorry for putting the edit notice on the wrong person's talk page.)  I strongly suggest, though, that more information from the cited source be provided to explain the quote starting "Either Pakistan is home to possessed stoves...".  As it is, the article assumes that the reader knows all about "stove deaths" (the reasons and how it happens).  You need to explain the circumstances better.  Otherwise I don't see how else this article can be any more neutral, given that we're talking about documented corruption and human rights violations.  Maybe something more could be said about the general social status of women in the country (in a neutral way)...  This would need to be both in the body and the lead, and stated very early on as context.  Anyway, the article is good to go, IMO. –  Maky  « talk » 03:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I think it's great that this article is finally reviewed and approved, I have to be honest: I greatly dislike ALT7, because it seems to be blaming the domestic violence on the women who are its victims. Can this review please also specify any of the other ALTs which are also valid? I see objections to the original hook, ALT1, and both ALT4 and ALT6 which are similar, so I've struck them, but a formal vetting of ALT2, ALT3 and ALT5 would be most welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 is the same as 3, personally I think 3 is the batter hook. Facts, not fiction (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg ALT3 by AGF—I can see the quote in the text, but can't access the citation (for the author of it). As for ALT7, I think the material is more interesting, but could be reworded to emphasize that it's due to a lack of protection from the extended family (per the source). –  Maky  « talk » 07:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT8 ... that Shahnaz Bukhari said that either stoves that burn only young housewives and particularly their genitalia cause stove deaths in Pakistan, or those women are victims of deliberate murder? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Numerous tags — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Tags are removed. I can't guess what motivated them, but most had the appearance of the kinds of tags that get added to articles for the purpose of disruptive POV-pushing. I see only one issue with the article in its present form: There is a reference identified as "Ajmal tbd" that isn't actually here. Some statements cited to that non-source possibly could be cited to the Ajmal source that is cited elsewhere in the article, but there's one poorly worded sentence that I couldn't rewrite because I couldn't identify its source.
 * --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Orlady, please avoid casting aspersions on my good-faith. The article's prose was as bad as the ungrammatical hooks proposed here. There were also problems with sourcing. Zed is a far-left publisher, and so care needs to be made with its publications. There are other failings with the article, e.g., its failure to use epidemiological or medical literature, which do contain serious articles on domestic violence in Pakistan, which are more reliable than newspaper anecdotes or gender-studies publications. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it and fixed the missing ref. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, I also found that reference (it was already cited one place in the article), but it doesn't support the sentence about women being abused for refusing care for their husbands' extended families. I think that you must have had another Ajmar source... --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That content is sourced to Weiss, Anita M. (1998). Selig S. Harrison, Paul H. Kreisberg, Dennis Kux. ed. India and Pakistan: The First Fifty Years. Cambridge University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0521645850. Not ajmar. Facts, not fiction (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! I reworded the article a bit to reflect my reading of the source. As I read it, it does not say that women were refusing to care for their husband's domestic families (as I previously interpreted the Wikipedia article to say), but rather that the decline of the extended family (due in large part to urbanization) has left women more vulnerable. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) Found and cited :o) Facts, not fiction (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's essentially identical to the other Ajmal source. Regardless, it now appears to me that the source is a letter to the editor, not editorial content attributable to the newspaper(s). is there some particular basis for relying upon Ajmal? If not, this isn't a reliable source. However, I think that the same or similar content is supported by the Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, which could be cited as a source (cite the Encyclopedia article directly; don't pretend to have read the Encyclopedia's sources if you haven't done so). --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's very embarrassing, I have never messed up like that on sourcing :o( I have removed the content and the ref. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg The article seems to have stabilized, and that sourcing issue is fixed. ALT3, please. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Hooks are supposed to be understandable. What does "social sphere" mean. Also, if it is not vacuous, the claim is extraordinary and so requires extraordinary evidence. What kind of study supported the claim that all social spheres (whatever they are) have endemic violence? (Reading Fouccault and Rabinow at Starbucks...?)  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only vacuous thing here is your indeterminate waffling, go do something useful. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please use a dictionary. This is not The Mary Tyler Moore Show and you are not Ted Baxter having enrolled in a vocabulary course. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg The hook is fine. The term "social sphere" is widely used. Kiefer needs to stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He may soon find himself at WP:ANI. --Orlady (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin."
 * "Social sphere" is unintelligible, and the extraordinary claim of "all" needs extraordinary evidence.
 * If this is disruptive editing, Wikipedia needs more of it. This is the second time I have stopped unvetted DYK hooks on Pakistan and intimate violence form Darkness Shines. The last time, an improved hook eventually appeared. Let us hope that a suitable hook appears soon for this article. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you helped to resolve issues with the article and hook, but that was some time ago. At this point, your comments are purely disruptive. And, as I said on one of the other venues where you are continuing to flog this horse, when I Googled "all social spheres" (in quotes), I got 524,000 ghits. Your assertion that the term is unintelligible is inconsistent with that result. --Orlady (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)