Template:Did you know nominations/Rape in Pakistan: Revision

Rape in Pakistan
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nom at 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that between 70 and 90 percent of women in Pakistan have suffered some form of sexual violence?


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg As far as DYK criteria goes, it checks out. The date is new, length is suitable, it's well-referenced (all references are offline books, however), the hook is cited in-line, and it appears to be neutrally written. I'm AGFing the reference. My only concern—and someone with a better understanding of DYK-worthy articles can chime in—is if this is an article appropriate for the front page of Wikipedia. I understand we shouldn't necessarily censor what we put up if it's verifiable, neutral and acceptable by all other conventions, I just feel like certain topics need to be dealt with more carefully. This particular hook is probably as safely worded as it can get, given the circumstances. I'd just like to hear others' opinions as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Striking out the tick/checkmark and replacing with symbol for issue to be resolved. The reviewer expressed doubts about the accuracy of the hook at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, after comparing the book passage with the claim in the article and hook. I am also not sure that the article is adequately neutral in tone - I suggest dividing the lead para to create a separate paragraph on the magnitude of the problem and wording that more in terms of "Studies by human rights organizations have shown . . ." and "Scholar ... says". The article at present presents it as incontrovertible. I note that I was able to find all but one of the source passages online. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1... that according to lawyer Asma Jahangir, up to seventy-two percent of women in police custody in Pakistan are physically or sexually abused?
 * proposed by Darkness Shines, tweaked by me; a reference for this has been added to the article and I've now added a URL to that ref. (The reference does support the statement.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Up to 72%" includes 0%. Again, what is the basis for this claim? Nothing.
 * When I am dictator of Wikipedia, this article will be razed and the editor thrown into the dungeon. Since I am not the dictator, what shall we do?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  08:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'd hate to see 200-odd "Rape in X" articles sprout from the mycelium of Wikipedia, there has evidently been considerable academic ink spilt on rape in Pakistan (and some other countries and territories). The article needs to be rewritten to be more neutral; part of this involves recasting and dividing the intro, as I've suggested above, but the rest requires someone with the knowledge to set it in context - rather than just critiquing the sources, producing sources that disagree and dealing with whether things have been improving, staying the same, vary massively between rural and urban environments, and so on. I can't do that part of it. Until that's done, it's hard to defend any but a weak hook like "Many human rights activists have pointed to Pakistan as having a serious rape problem" against the accusation of being unfairly negative about a whole country and its authorities. Rape is an important topic and I disagree with the original reviewer that it is per se undesirable to have hooks about such shocking things at DYK. (For one thing, we regularly have DYKs that mention Nazi or to a lesser extent Stalinist atrocities, and for another we have a DYK about a lynching or a gruesome crime spree at least every week on average.) Unfortunately the editor is blocked so s/he can't help for a week. I suspect what we're going to do is improve the tone and presentation and maybe talk further about hooks until s/he returns and hope they can set it in context. Or do we have a good chance of getting help at a relevant wikiproject? I'm afraid I haven't had much success asking them for expert help. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a few little tweaks, primarily creating the separate intro that I had recommended above. I've tried to avoid weasel words; it really needs someone with a broad grasp of the literature. I'm hoping that now I've started, others will continue improving it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Where is this nomination right now? I don't see any significant editing on the article itself. The author came off block yesterday, but did other editing the first day back. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(out)What is wrong with the nomination as it currently stands? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article further today. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs fresh eyes, ideally from someone familiar with the literature on sexual violence. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just reviewed it but felt that the hook is bit ambiguous, what does the custody mean? Police custody? parent custody? May be that can help --sarvajna (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Police custody, I thought that quite clear. Fixed it now Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The hook is good, had asked the editor to make few changes to the article which was done and the DYK is ready --sarvajna (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)