Category talk:Women of Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied from CfD:

We already have Category:Pakistani people. It seems unnecessary to categorize by gender. I know there's a major debate going on about categorization of people, but does anyone think it's necessary to have people of all countries categorized by gender? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Note: "...major debate going on...": well, the debate over categorization of people is drawing to a consensus by now: probably soon it will be moved from "thinktank" to "policies and guidelines".
--Francis Schonken 07:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having read Wikipedia:Categorization of people, I am a bit less sure of this, but practically speaking, the category is useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:35, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Would you consider Category:Men of Great Britain to be useful? Should Charles Dickens be categorized as a British man, in addition to being categorized as a British writer? If you wouldn't recommend adding a gender category for every biographical article on Wikipedia, then why only do so for Pakistani women? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:47, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I am not saying I would. I see the point about gender categories in general only increasing volume of data without adding much value. Just that I have found this one useful. — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Preliminary remark: discussion of gender-neutrality in "categorization of people" context had nothing to do with technical limitations of wikipedia system, it was rather an attempt to adapt to general ideas of gender-neutrality discussed at other places of the "wikipedia:" domain (see discussion page of wikipedia:categorization of people, you can find the links there). Nonetheless, when I open the "women of Pakistan" category page I expect to find some general explanation why it exists as a separate category (for me, not particularily acquainted with the topic, it might be as viable to split up Pakistani according to "Pakistani living in Pakistan" and "Pakistani living abroad", or whatever other split, I really don't care, but I do care that if I open the category I am informed why it exists as a separate category. Especially while deviating from the general guideline - deviation is always possible, in fact I like deviation from general rules - but if you don't want to be subjected to criticism, please try to write a text that makes other people understand why you think this category a good idea). So:
Invitation to iFaqeer: please try to give a good category definition first (presently I see only some "see also"'s and external links, nothing explains in a few words what the category is about: is it about women's rights in Pakistan? Is it about philosophical objections that men and women are in the same category? etc???)
Next recommendation: please continue this talk about this category on category talk:women of Pakistan, I don't see this category being ready for a CfD vote before a discussion there.
--Francis Schonken 07:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 05:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I feel this category is interesting and useful. The category Women in philosophy has existed since June 4, 2004. Women composers since July 22, 2004. Women in war since August 7, 2004. All have been unchallenged since they were created. Now let's look at the argument that if there's a "Women of whatever" category, then there should also be a "Men of whatever" category. The answer is, well, you could create a "Men of whatever" category. It's just that in most cases, it's much less likely to be interesting. Interest is an important determinant of whether a category exists as a category in wikipedia. Take the above categories for example. Regardless of whether the cause is nature or nurture, compared to the numbers of men, there are fewer famous women composers, fewer famous philosophers, and fewer women in war. So naturally, women who are in these fields are of greater interest. As for the category under discussion, Pakistan is a Muslim country where there are many more famous men - in politics, government, literature, and in many other fields - than there are women. And that is one explanation of why "Category:Women of Pakistan" is so interesting. AmeriDesi 03:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The problem with this arguement is that there are probably more women than men in Pakistan. False Analogy, I'm afraid. Filiocht 13:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
That's a Straw man argument [1]. Even if there were somewhat more women than men in Pakistan (not so, BTW) the analogy still stands. If you look at my words above, I said, "fewer famous women composers, fewer famous philosophers," because, for all we know, there may have actually been more women than men who have been philosophers or composers. For whatever reason, fewer women than men became famous in these fields. Why do I emphasize famous? To introduce some rigour into our thinking, note that there is a distinction between a real-world set of people, the set of women of Pakistan on the one hand, and the wikipedia category "Women of Pakistan" which consists of the set of wikipedia biographical entries about a subset of the women of Pakistan, namely, those who meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, which are largely related to fame.
Now let's look at the analogy. The wikipedia category "Women composers" contains wikipedia biographical entries about the subset of all women composers who meet the inclusion criteria, which is smaller than the subset of male composers who meet those criteria, just as the wikipedia category "Women of Pakistan" contains wikipedia biographical entries about the subset of all Pakistani women who meet the inclusion criteria, which is smaller than the subset of Pakistani men who meet those criteria.
In conclusion, it's not a false analogy. AmeriDesi 08:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Filiochot and plus there is a category for Pakistani people. What are Pakistani women? They are people so they should go in the category for Pakistani people. NeoJustin 23:00 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Of course Pakistani women are people. And of course, logically, Pakistani people who are women undeniably are Pakistani women. They belong to both categories. All the articles in the category "Women of Pakistan" also belong to the "Pakistani people" category. None of them should be solely in the "Women of Pakistan" category, but is there a logical reason they can't be both?
For me, it's interesting that, from a purely logical point of view, the "delete" advocates here seem to be (IMHO) grasping at straws (pun intended.) Quadell seems to have a Slippery slope argument, Filiocht a Straw man, and NeoJustin a False choice. Maybe i'm mistaken, or maybe their reasons are hard to articulate, but it seems to me that the opposition is more emotional than logical. And that's OK, but if the motivations are emotional, it would be interesting to know the actual reasons why this category is being opposed.
As an aside, I went to a Jesuit university that required me to take Philosophy courses even though I was an Engineering major. So I took Logic and Symbolic Logic - two of my favorite courses - and even though that was a couple of decades ago, I still enjoy these kinds of discussions. AmeriDesi 08:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I created this category. I felt there were many positive examples of successful and famous women in Pakistan, and so I thought it would be interesting and useful to have this category. It has been a subcategory of "Pakistani People" since its inception. Classification by gender is (usually) not fuzzy or subjective, so I considered this a better (more objective) category than, for example, "Feminist leaders of Pakistan." I was surprised that it was opposed at all. Egalitus 21:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion:

The discussion seems to have ended without resolution of the problem and hence no further objection has been raised.the Category is useful and in no way derogatory to anyone and also is not objectionable as it shows to most ,what commendable work has been done by women in Pakistan and may even provide role models for women else where.I recommend for it to stay.--Usmanreddy 08:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I too would wish to add my voice on this. It should stay. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restore this category

This category was deleted when its parent Category:Women by nationality was deleted. While it may not make sense to have a "Category: Women of Fooland" for every country, it clearly does make sense in the case of Pakistan, where relatively few women become famous. For this reason, among others, after debate, there was enough support to keep the category, and therefore I request that the earlier decision be sustained, and the category restored.Stanwatch 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 July 16.
The result of the discussion was keep.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/m/Category_talk%7EWomen_of_Pakistan_c445.html"