राजनीतिमा अब महिला पहिला. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of loaded or value‑laden terms that implicitly judge one side as morally wrong or dishonest.

1) "पुरुषहरूले देखाएको राजनीतिक बेइमानी सहजै देख्न सकिन्छ" (the political dishonesty shown by men can be easily seen) 2) "दलहरूले ... महिलामाथि राजनीतिक नेतृत्व र पार्टीको नियत बद्नियतपूर्ण रहेको प्रस्टै देखिन्छ" (it is clearly seen that the intention of political leadership and parties towards women is malicious) 3) "कागजमा लेखिएको समावेशिता मात्रै देखियो, व्यवहारको समावेशिता देखिएन" (inclusiveness is seen only on paper, not in practice).

3 suggestions

Replace "राजनीतिक बेइमानी" with a more neutral description such as "राजनीतिक व्यवहारमा असमानता" (inequality in political practice) or "प्रतिनिधित्वमा असन्तुलन" (imbalance in representation).

Instead of stating "नियत बद्नियतपूर्ण रहेको प्रस्टै देखिन्छ", use conditional or evidence‑based phrasing such as "यसले दलहरूको प्राथमिकता र निर्णय प्रक्रियामा महिलाप्रति पर्याप्त प्रतिबद्धता नदेखिएको संकेत दिन्छ" (this suggests that parties’ priorities and decision‑making do not show sufficient commitment toward women).

Change "कागजमा लेखिएको समावेशिता मात्रै देखियो" to a more measured formulation like "संविधानमा उल्लेखित समावेशिताको प्रावधान व्यवहारमा पूर्ण रूपमा कार्यान्वयन भएको देखिँदैन" (the constitutional provisions on inclusion do not appear to be fully implemented in practice).

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting strong claims about motives or causality without providing direct supporting evidence.

1) "पुरुषहरूले देखाएको राजनीतिक बेइमानी सहजै देख्न सकिन्छ" asserts that men have shown political dishonesty, but no specific examples of deceit, broken promises, or explicit discriminatory decisions are cited. 2) "महिलामाथि राजनीतिक नेतृत्व र पार्टीको नियत बद्नियतपूर्ण रहेको प्रस्टै देखिन्छ" attributes malicious intent to party leadership without documentary evidence (e.g., internal party documents, explicit statements, or systematic studies of candidate selection processes).

3 suggestions

Support the claim of "राजनीतिक बेइमानी" with concrete examples: quote party manifestos, past commitments on women’s representation, or internal rules that were not followed, and show where they were violated.

For the claim of "नियत बद्नियतपूर्ण", either provide empirical evidence (e.g., leaked minutes, discriminatory rules, or testimonies) or soften the language to indicate interpretation rather than fact, such as "यसले महिलाप्रति दलहरूको प्राथमिकता कमजोर रहेको आभास दिन्छ" (this gives the impression that parties’ priorities toward women are weak).

Clarify the distinction between outcome and intent: instead of asserting bad faith, state that "परिणामले महिलाको प्रतिनिधित्व अत्यन्त कम देखाउँछ, जसको कारणबारे दलहरूले स्पष्ट जवाफ दिनुपर्छ" (the outcome shows very low representation of women, and parties should clearly explain the reasons).

Hasty generalization

Drawing a broad conclusion about a group’s character or intent from limited data.

The article moves from numerical under‑representation of women to broad conclusions about "पुरुषहरूले देखाएको राजनीतिक बेइमानी" and "पार्टीको नियत बद्नियतपूर्ण". While the data show disparity, they do not by themselves prove that all male politicians or all parties are acting in bad faith.

3 suggestions

Limit conclusions to what the data directly support: for example, "आँकडाले महिलाको प्रतिनिधित्व अपेक्षाकृत निकै कम देखाउँछ" (the data show that women’s representation is relatively very low) instead of inferring dishonesty or malicious intent.

Acknowledge possible alternative explanations (e.g., party selection criteria, incumbency patterns, internal democracy issues) and then argue, with reasons, why these may or may not be sufficient to explain the disparity.

Use qualifiers such as "देखिन्छ", "संकेत गर्छ", "सम्भावना छ" rather than categorical statements about the entire group’s character or motives.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex issue to a single cause or framing it in a way that ignores relevant complexities.

The article strongly implies that the low percentage of female candidates (11% direct, 33% proportional) is primarily or solely due to "राजनीतिक बेइमानी" and "बद्नियतपूर्ण" intent. It does not discuss other structural or contextual factors (e.g., internal party democracy, candidate pipelines, socio‑economic barriers, historical incumbency patterns, or legal constraints) that may also influence candidate selection.

3 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge that multiple factors can contribute to low female representation, such as social norms, resource gaps, internal party structures, and legal frameworks, while still arguing that parties bear responsibility.

Add context on past trends (e.g., how female candidacy has changed over previous elections) to show whether the situation is improving, stagnating, or worsening.

Differentiate between structural bias and individual intent: for example, "संरचनागत कारण र दलहरूको निर्णय प्रक्रियाले महिलाको उम्मेदवारी सीमित बनाएको देखिन्छ" instead of attributing everything to bad faith.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged framing to persuade, rather than relying solely on evidence and reasoning.

Phrases like "महिलामाथि ... नियत बद्नियतपूर्ण", "राजनीतिक बेइमानी", and the contrast between constitutional promises and "कागजमा लेखिएको समावेशिता मात्रै" are framed to evoke a sense of injustice and betrayal. While the topic itself is about justice, the language is designed to provoke moral outrage more than to analytically examine causes and solutions.

3 suggestions

Retain the normative concern about equality but express it in more analytical terms, e.g., "संविधानले सुनिश्चित गरेको समानुपातिक सहभागिताको लक्ष्य र वर्तमान उम्मेदवारीबीच ठूलो अन्तर देखिन्छ" (there is a large gap between the constitutional goal of proportional participation and current candidacies).

Balance emotional language with more detailed explanation of mechanisms: describe how candidate selection works, what criteria are used, and where women are filtered out.

Include comparative or empirical references (e.g., other countries’ quotas, previous election data) to ground the sense of injustice in evidence rather than rhetoric alone.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side of an issue without acknowledging or engaging with other perspectives or explanations.

The article presents the perspective that parties and male politicians are acting in bad faith toward women. It does not include any response or justification from political parties, any mention of internal debates within parties, or any alternative explanations for the low number of female candidates. No quotes from party representatives, election officials, or critics of quotas are provided.

3 suggestions

Include statements or official positions from major political parties explaining their candidate selection criteria and their view on women’s representation.

Present counter‑arguments or concerns (e.g., about candidate availability, internal competition, or legal constraints) and then critically evaluate them using data.

Incorporate voices from multiple stakeholders—women candidates, party leaders, election experts—to provide a more rounded picture of the issue.

Confirmation bias / selective use of data

Highlighting data that support a pre‑existing conclusion while omitting potentially relevant contextual data.

The article uses voter and population statistics (women 48.88% of voters, 51.02% of population; only 11% direct female candidates, 33% proportional) to support the claim of injustice. However, it does not provide comparative data such as: historical trends in female candidacy, differences between parties, success rates of female vs. male candidates, or legal minimum requirements. This selective presentation reinforces the argument without exploring whether there are any countervailing patterns.

3 suggestions

Add historical data from previous elections to show whether the 11% and 33% figures represent progress, stagnation, or regression.

Break down the data by party to show which parties perform better or worse on women’s representation, rather than treating all parties as identical.

Mention relevant legal or institutional benchmarks (e.g., quota laws, constitutional minimums) and compare actual figures to those benchmarks to provide a fuller context.