Talk:Women in Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Amusing as always

An unbiased person knowledgable of the true status of women in Pakistan should rewrite this article entirely, scrapping almost everything currently in this article. Like what? I would like to see a neo-conservative exactly pinpoint whats wrong... All that has been mentioned is true, we had a women prime-minister twice, we have woman maj-gen ... we have women pilots... we have minimum 33% req in almost all departments... we even have 60%+ womens in all medical colleges... 33%+ in all technical and other... and women in pak are less opressed thn most middle-eastern countries... and yet it is accepted that we dont have the ideal balance of rights and people are struggling to bring that... and let me add... Governer of State Bank of Pakistan is also a woman.--Jareer 11:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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"? AucamanTalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re-write and expansion

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

[edit] 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)