Jump to content

Talk:Women's health in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because the Health in India page does not have significant coverage on the health of women in India. I am currently in the process of adding proper citations (in line, wikipedia style). --Jasdeepsgill (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added links to other pages and also linked my page within other pages. See main article.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All references have been made. Pictures from wikimedia commons have been added.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

One of the main thing that needs to be fixed is the references. Take a look at the "cite" template and use it to link the references in the text - you can look at Health in India to see how it is done. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips! I am in the process of updating the article and adding the citations in the proper style.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest actually using this sort of citation, as seen here: Mobile_security - that way, you can still have a complete reference list at the bottom as shown, and then just shorter references/footnotes in the text. You can use the template Template:Sfn. More here Help:Shortened_footnotes --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I decided to go with in-line citations because it was how I was taught in class. Do you have any suggestions for further improvement? I will likely make a few more edits to the document. This document is a project for my undergraduate class.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for peer review

[edit]

I would want to translate this article. In case you would like to contact me, my username is Valescruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.241.128.61 (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasdeep your citations look good. I have some recommendations concerning the breadth of on certain topics in the article:

I would like to learn more about how that impacts children, especially in terms of micronutrient deficiencies which are at some of the highest rates in India. Additionally more information on how daughters specifically are hurt by the gender bias for health and nutritional access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alev.bilginsoy (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand more on the functions of allopathic health care specifically in India. I think that the link to the other wiki page is great for a general overview but I'd like to learn more about the cultural or traditional significance. Interesting to see the contradiction of how westernization brings better health care and more cancer. This could be an area to touch on postmodernist arguments, and cultural relativity. Alev.bilginsoy (talk

I think the photos are nice but a bit too much of the National Geographic-style "look how beautiful they are" type. They need to be more concise and focused on the topic. If you can find photos of clinics in India, health care infrastructure, allopathic or westernized treatment procedure, etc that compliment the article it would serve a more instrumental role. Alev.bilginsoy (talk

I think you could expand a bit on the GDOL and time allocation. How women's role in household and society is linked to health care needs and services sought. Alev.bilginsoy (talk


I am also keen to find out about the most recent developments/movements towards gender equality in healthcare access. You mention NCW pursuits in 1992. Anything more recent? Who are the major players in the fight for healthcare access? What strategies are being used/recommended? Alev.bilginsoy (talk 5:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to peer review

[edit]

Alev, thanks for the feedback. I will try and reword some of my introductory work to include focus on daughters. I used the word females instead of daughters in a many areas which may lead to confusion. I have included information on the immunization rate of girls versus boys and I also included the information on abortion of potential daughters over sons. With regards to micronutrient deficiencies, I was only able to find literature discussing how male and female rates of nutrition only differed during old age. If you happen to have a source that says otherwise or provides more detailed analysis please let me know.

I disagree with your assessment on the photos. I really like the photos and feel they contribute to each section. However, I do agree with you that they look like they came from National Geographic. It was the look I was going for!

With regards do GDOL I will try and incorporate more information in the domestic violence section. I feel that the discussion on patriarchy and societal norms in the domestic violence section provide some insight, but I will try to add some more information.

You are definitely correct on the need for improvements on the current direction of healthcare policy in India. I will try to find more source material on current policy advancements. I also feel that this may help to improve neutrality of the article.

Thanks! Jasdeepsgill (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

[edit]

This is a very thoroughly researched and systematically examined article. Great job. On the photos: I think showing upbeat, confident women is a good choice but I agree that the photos can be a bit more context (article-) specific, only a few are. Edits: I made a few edits in the first two sections and have a few suggestions for greater course integration. 1) I suggest you utilize Amartya Sen's bargaining framework to structure the discussion of gender inequalities. Gender unequal capabilities (e.g. health) owe to weaker bargaining power of women in the household (spell out the three variables in the bargaining framework), which in turn are shaped by educational, employment, political inequalities (external factors); 2) The Capabilities framework and citation to Nussbaum could be more prominent too. (To be healthy/to promote health is in and of itself a goal of policy, not only because it leads to economic growth. 3) Domestic violence section: you could integrate some ideas from and cite Panda and Agarwal's research. Freedom from violence as a capability; lack of assets (house and/or land) increases the likelihood of dv. Lack of employment options may also do so. 4) Suicide section: I am not sure what "violence" refers to here. Do you mean woman being subject to domestic violence as a cause of suicide? I suggest putting gender disadvantage as the causal factor, which in turn leads to depression and other mental health problems that in turn lead to suicide (as opposed to putting them all as alternative contributing factors). Incidentally, you do have a last minute comment on your user page from 12345aday, in case you have not noticed!BerikG (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: India's healthcare system could address any healthcare-related policies in the reform period after the early 1990s. For example, if the reforms led to privatization of healthcare (and decline in quality of public facilities due to deflationary bias of reforms), it may have contributed to even greater gender inequality in access to healthcare (due to the commodification bias and the unaffordability of care). When you get the chance, please fix those notes that come before the period at the end of the sentence. :) BerikG (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Women's health in India/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 06:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. ok
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead: too short, see comment at end; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. ok
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). well referenced
2c. it contains no original research. ok
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. appears to cover the topic well
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). does not wander
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. good
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. no problem
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. existing images from Commons
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. yes, but see comment and suggestions below
7. Overall assessment. A worthy article, and an impressive piece of work on a WAP. There inevitably remains scope for other editors to continue to improve the article. There are suggestions below for further work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two immediate comments:

  • the lead is too short for the article. It should be of up to four paragraphs, and should summarize the article's main sections. Thus, a paragraph on gender bias, one on healthcare problems, and one on outcomes would seem reasonable.

-- I have split it into three short paragraphs. The article covers so many topis from a wide range of subjects, it is difficult to summarize! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • the 'See also' list is too long or perhaps altogether undesirable. For example, 'women in India' is already linked in the lead and can readily be linked in the first paragraph of 'Gender bias...', and then removed from the list. Probably most other items can be treated similarly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--  Done removed few entries! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is arguably under-illustrated. You might like to consider using a variety of images such as

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think the article is of acceptable standard now, having also done some cleaning up. I agree that there is scope for more on solutions as those are developed and documented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change

[edit]

"The common problems faced by women of India are malnutrition, lack of maternal health, diseases like AIDS, breast cancer, domestic violence etc."

How come AIDS is common problem in India? When it's far less if you go by actual aids rate, prevalence is only 0.30. And since when "domestic violence" is regarded as disease? Second thing:-

"Suicide is a major problem in India; the suicide rate in India is five times higher than the rate for the developed world"..

What sourced content? The source is not even working, and this information is indeed wrong, because India has far less suicide rate than Developed world like US, Belgium, France, UK, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've never contributed to this article, I could be wrong but I'm sure editors familiar with it can enlighten you better. First of all, you may have noticed that this article is a good article and its review is just above your post. At this version where it was reviewed, the content which you removed was present there too, so everyone agreed to it being there at that time. Secondly, in Style for lead, the lead paragraph just summarises what's in the rest of the article so inline citations are not expected, since they should be present in the rest of the article. Finally, most of the sources are not available online, so most probably the major contributor can answer your queries.
If you have found a big mistake in the article, excellent! but even still, it is advised that you ask here first when not sure or unfamiliar instead of just reverting anyone (See WP:3RR, WP:edit warring) since that causes a nuisance to everyone. I thank you for bringing this up here and taking the trouble for fact-checking. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not check Shah's source (since it is offline). Lead should be written in summary style, if those information are well written and well sourced in article body, it can be added in lead without any source. So, the question remains: does Shah confirm AIDS is major issue for Indian women, if it is an African country, I can understand (I have read newspaper reports too). But, is it so alarming in India? --Tito☸Dutta 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested changes

[edit]

I am the original author of this article. The facts that I gave about suicide rates are in fact correct. The reason the article cannot be directly linked is because it is behind a pay wall unless you have free university access. Furthermore, the following is the direct quote taken from the article in question: "Suicide is a public health priority in India. Rates of suicide in India are 5 times higher than in the developed world,with particularly high rates of suicide among young women." This fact was taken from the referenced article and was cross referenced with the following sources:

Aaron R, Joseph A, Abraham S, et al. Suicides in young people in rural India. Lancet. 2004;363:1117-1118.

Eddleston M, Konradsen F. Commentary: time for a re-assessment of the incidence of intentional and unintentional injury in India and South East Asia. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:208-211.

In case you are unaware, the Lancet is an esteemed peer-reviewed medical journal, as is the International Journal of Epidemiology. Both of these articles reference the same fact and are less than a decade old. What I find interesting is that Bladesmulti has claimed that I have falsified information, yet has no proof. I provided citation for my information, Bladesmulti has not. Please do not make changes because you ideologically disagree with them; you have not provided counter sources to back up your claims with regards to the suicide rate. Wikipedia is meant to be a place of learning. By deleting portions of an article without concrete reason or logic, you are undermining the work of those who aim to give the world more knowledge. I have tried to include information in this article that is otherwise restricted behind a pay wall.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean by "my article" and "my information", just read this page List of countries by suicide rate, you will know yourself, that how many "Developed world" has higher suicide rate. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the link to the article that you posted. You will see that India's suicide rate for women exceeds that of the United Kingdom, Canada, United States, Finland and Switzerland, all developed countries. Jasdeepsgill (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India's suicide rate is only 10.5, United Kingdom has 11.8, United States has 12.0, Canada has 11.5, Finland has 16.1, Switzerland has 11.1, beating India by far in this regard, all of them. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about WOMEN'S HEALTH. You stated that I must be having a difficulty reading; on the contrary you clearly have no idea what this article is about or how to read charts. Go and look at the headers of the suicide chart. Then look at the one that states women's suicide rate. Now go and look at the countries that I listed in my previous post. You will now see that India's suicide rate for WOMEN is higher than that for WOMEN in most developed countries. I have read the literature and have shown you with your own sources that you are incorrect. I am going to reinstate the changes you deleted. Jasdeepsgill (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even with "developed world", India has less than South Korea, Taiwan and more, countries that are "developed world". So no point in adding anyway, "most" won't work, it has to be "all" instead. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I am not trying to be hostile towards you. All I am trying to do is reflect information that I found. This article is not about India's health in total, but instead focuses on women's health. I appreciate the edits that you have made, but instead of fixing them you have merely deleted all the data. Using the link you gave me shows that women's suicide rate in India (not the total suicide rate) is higher than that for many women in the developed world. This fact has been repeated in numerous journals (such as the ones I presented above). All I am trying to do is reflect this data in an article that can be read by the rest of the world. Jasdeepsgill (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I would like to explain my lexicon. I use the word "most" since our world is not an absolute place. This article is written to reflect the health status of women in India. I am trying to bring attention to major issues of health that afflict Indian women. Suicide is one of them. Yes, I agree that other countries have higher suicide rates that India, but that is besides the point. The point is to draw attention to the problem of suicide in India. The way in which you would like me to phrase the article, either there is a suicide problem or there is not. The actual issue is far more complex than that, a point which you and I can surely agree upon.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, may I remind you of the importance of remaining civil in this discussion. Especially when opinions differ radically, it is essential to focus discussion on the article - the sole purpose of an article's talk page - and to avoid any ad hominem remarks. I am retitling this talk page section to avoid one such word now.
Since the changes under discussion are contested, it would be helpful for deletion of existing material to be avoided, and for the reasons for any proposed deletion to be discussed here on the talk page until agreed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Jasdeepsgill finally, and this edit[1] i don't think it's right move, because mine edit was actually more detailed, the year should be mentioned, which is 1998-1999, today the stats are obviously very different . Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I will revert the change. The date should be reflected to accurately convey the information. Thanks.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested additions

[edit]

I added information regarding factors that affect maternal mortality. I would suggest further discussion of postpartum complications since my additions mainly focus on antenatal maternal care.

Caste

[edit]

This is a GA and not a single mention of caste? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_health_in_India&oldid=1207102715"