DYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs) |
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) →Men: new section |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
[[User:Amandajm|Amandajm]] ([[User talk:Amandajm|talk]]) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
[[User:Amandajm|Amandajm]] ([[User talk:Amandajm|talk]]) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Men == |
|||
Getting a taste of what they have being dishing out for hundreds of years is not domestic violence. This edit is a joke[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=511087972] Undue weight given to one persons opinion against what is an epidemic of violence against women. The source also says these attacks were in revenge, that is not domestic violence. The source is also an opinion piece and may not be used for statements of fact, and I ask what makes this persons opinion notable enough to give such weight as to warrant a mention ion the lede? [[User:Darkness Shines|Facts, not fiction]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 6 September 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pakistan Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Disruptive tagging
If the editor who seems to think he knows better than reliable sources will not discuss his issues here I will revert his abusive and pointy tagging. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- You admit that I repaired the fractured syntax of one of your phrases? Won't you admit that this article needs copy editing.
- You misrepresented the Pakistani convenience sample as a survey, and you failed to mention the caveats that the author included about the lack of generalizability to larger populations. Given your history of editing on rape in Pakistan and your misrepresentation of sources and POV-pushing selection of sources, anything you write on this issue needs to be scrutinized by outside editors.
- ZED publishes interesting books, like a collection by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, but its a far-left publisher, not an academic press.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- The author is an academic, hence attribution was given. That is how things are done around here. Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Need for copy-editing: "Women's shelter's which gives victims nowhere to escape to from the violence"
This article needs copy editing. Its lede contains this syntactic tarbaby:
- " There are also very few Women's shelter's which gives victims nowhere to escape to from the violence".
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit summaries
There is a lot of pertinent information in this article, but for the most part it was badly structured because the editors hadn't thought through which sentences were the most "vital" and put them to the lead.
If you read through my edit summaries, you will see what I have rearranged and why.
Really important information, like the estimated number of deaths is introduction stuff, and should then begin a major paragraph. Everything else that you have to say supports this. But the bottom line (or in this case, the top line) is the number of deaths. This info should not be tagged on at the tail end of a paragraph.
You had another significant statement about "Dowry deaths". "Dowry deaths" is a major subject, under which "Stove deaths" is the follow-on. So why was "Dowry Deaths" left to the very last, tagged-on sentence of the whole section?
This is a relatively short article about a very important and sensitive topic. Because it is both short and important, you can afford to consider the careful placement of every single fact, every single sentence. The information must have a cohesive order. Instead, it read as if the sentences were written down in the order that they came to light during the research.
Congratulations on bringing this important topic to the front page!
Amandajm (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Men
Getting a taste of what they have being dishing out for hundreds of years is not domestic violence. This edit is a joke[1] Undue weight given to one persons opinion against what is an epidemic of violence against women. The source also says these attacks were in revenge, that is not domestic violence. The source is also an opinion piece and may not be used for statements of fact, and I ask what makes this persons opinion notable enough to give such weight as to warrant a mention ion the lede? Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)