Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:20, 19 April 2015

Female infanticide in India is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Darkness Shines (talk) at 13:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Female infanticide in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Castewarningtalk

A fact from Female infanticide in India appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that female infanticide in India has a history spanning centuries? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2014/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Female infanticide in India.

June 1986

User:OccultZone, hi. this edit was switched back to 1985 but the source here gives "June 1986" for the India Today Born to Die cover story. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Article was DYK, and today I saw that you changed the year. Thanks for keeping it calm, I have self-reverted. OccultZone (Talk) 02:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there seem to be three sources in Google Books citing this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

Please stop removing the image, it is for illustrative purposes and is fine. Also the change of dates (unexplained) and the use of primary sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." The image stays. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

This article is not neutral. It summarizes sources that highlight and present "high estimates" of female infanticide, but does not summarize sources that provide alternate "lower estimates" or question the high estimates. A neutral presentation would present all sides, high and low. There is plenty of reliable scholarly sources for the different sides. SamanthaBooth (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And, bollocks. Thanks for coming. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, asking for a source! I already provided it: Christophe Z Guilmoto, Sex imbalances at birth Trends, consequences and policy implications, United Nations Population Fund, Hanoi (October 2011), ISBN 978-974-680-338-0, p. 49. Why did you remove it here? SamanthaBooth (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For further explanation of neutrality issues in this article, see here. SamanthaBooth (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is highly biased and racist. I shall be editing it suitably.ShoeMacneil (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I also see that this is a GA nominee. This article sucks and is undeserving of GA status. ShoeMacneil (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How is the article racist? And it is most certainly deserving of GA status. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

wierd question for a new bie seems profound understanding of what is a GA status for guy who joined today! , hopefully is not a sock of somebody Shrikanthv (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is outrageous and WP:UNCIVIL. Perhaps you should put your suggestions to User:Darkness_Shines, a self admitted WP:SOCK, who is indefinitely TOPIC BANNED from editing India related articles, broadly construed. Needless to say I am reverting all of your unconstructive edits. ShoeMacneil (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Image disputed

I have blocked the above new account ShoeMacneil (talk · contribs) as an aggressive edit-warring-only account who was evidently here in pursuance of some preexisting grudge, and therefore almost certainly a sock of some sorts. However, I have found two issues in the material he tried to remove that really do present a problem. One is the material I removed again here , because the wording was unduly presenting what is clearly an interpretative authorial opinion expressed by the source as if it was objective encyclopedic fact. The other is the image File:Infanticide-ganges.jpg. The problem here is that we don't have a reliable source saying what exactly this image was meant to show, while the available evidence suggests it is actually meant to show a very specific practice of infanticide that was not gender-specific against girls, distinct from the larger issue of female infanticide, and as such isn't illustrating what this section is about.

From the source website , we unfortunately don't know where exactly the image is ultimately from, but we know it's from a series of 19th-century illustrations about the life of William Carey, a Christian missionary around 1800. Carey was indeed known to have been involved with a purported pattern of infanticide on the Ganges, which he tried to eradicate . However, what Carey described was not the type of socially motivated female infanticide that this article is about, but a religiously motivated pattern of human sacrifice, where parents killed children – of either sex – in fulfillment of a religious vow . While this purported practice has sometimes been discussed in the same context as that of specifically female infanticide, careful discussions – both contemporary and modern – clearly distinguish the two .

So, unless a source is brought forward that says the author of the illustration meant to specifically illustrate the killing of girls, we must assume the image isn't showing what this paragraph is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." And stop following me around. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't look like what it's meant to illustrate here. The image is meant to illustrate a different pattern of infanticide, performed as a ritual, publicly and out in the open; female infanticide of the type discussed in this article, according to the sources, was and is practiced secretly and at home. You can't seriously mean you read that guideline as allowing you to take an illustration of one historical practice and pretend it's an illustration of a different one? That just beggars belief.
Also, stop your disruptive tactics of reacting to everything you don't like with immediate blanket reverts, not even paying attention on what you're reverting. You reverted (a) three distinct changes by two different people, at least one of which was completely uncontroversial, (b) without even waiting for the explanation on talk I had said I'd give, and (c) without any explanation of the other parts of your reverts. This is exactly your old pattern of aggressive disruptive editing; if you continue like this I see you re-banned quite soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The image shows infanticide, there is nothing wrong with it, and you need to stop hounding me Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've filed a request at WP:DRN about this issue, on the off-chance that DS might still be willing to engage in constructive discussion (even though his latest reverts indicate the opposite.) Since DS is still insisting on using disruptive blanket reverts of three different passages at once, and hasn't provided any reason or justification why he keeps reverting the other two bits involved, I will reinstate those two one more time, to give him a chance to explain why he objects to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep edit warring OR into this article?

Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously implying this is some kind of constructive contribution to discussion? How would removing an image amount to inserting OR? There are three bits of text you have been revert-warring over; so far you have failed to even specify which of them you are talking about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove OR So why do you keep edit warring it back in? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Another sourcing issue

I have tagged as "failed verification" the following sentence: "A letter from a magistrate who was stationed in the North West of India during this period spoke of the fact that for several hundred years no daughter had ever been raised in the strongholds of the Rajahs of Mynpoorie." This is ostensibly sourced to footnote 14, Scott (2013: 6). However, the sentence is prima facie implausible: how could a British magistrate in the early 19th century have possibly known what had been going on "for several hundred years" before his time? (And even if he did claim this as a "fact", how could we present it as such in Misplaced Pages's voice?) Actually, the cited source (if that's the one meant to support this sentence) supports no such thing; it merely says that somebody reported the girls were being killed at that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees currently on hold
• Good article nominees on review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles