Talk:Death by burning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposal to remove section on Bride Burning[edit]

The topic is too marginal; article should be confined to judicial burnings and human sacrifice, at most to unofficial, yet socially sanctioned lynchings, chastisement of slaves or massacres in war. Perceived crimes of murder belongs elsewhere, in my opinion.Arildnordby (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bride burning is death by burning, I see no reason to remove mention of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll reintegrate it if you want me to. It can then be the evaluation on a later stage whether the article might split into accidental burnings (which are deaths by burning as well), crimes of death by burning, and culturally sanctioned forms of death by burning.Arildnordby (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for expansion of Sati subsection[edit]

First off, unconditional apologies for my behaviour, I was way out of line.

In tune with the article (in particular as per heresy, sodomy, Portuguese&Spanish inquisition as well as witch hunts), I feel that a highly abbreviated history of sati should be included, as well as a brief mention of estimates that modern historians point to. It should, however, remain skeletal, not treading on the turf of the main article Sati (practice)

This is then what I propose (refs will be provided):

The first reliable evidence for the practice of sati appears from the time of the Gupta Empire, where the evidence consists of memorial stones known as devli. During the Mughal Era, several emperors sought to suppress, or regulate, the practice of sati, for example Aurangzeb (r.1658-1707). The British authorities outlawed the practice within their dominions in 1829

The British began compiling statistics of the incidences of sati from 1815 and onwards. Those official statistics show, for Bengal, where the practice was much more common than elsewhere, recorded numbers typically in the range 500-600 per year, up to the year 1829. These apparently "hard numbers", however, cannot be regarded as reliable, they are "fraught with problems, as Yang puts it. As an example, Yang points to that the British simply did not possess the administrative apparatus to make correct assessments.

Now, that is basically the text I would like to add, or at least, have as a hopefully constructive starting point. One comment, though:

Unfortunately, I cannot access those pages in Yang's text that enumerate the various criticisms launched at the statistics, and therefore, I cannot judge if this point about "not sufficient administrative apparatus" is the one that "ought" to be included. I do, however, think that it is important to include some specification of the unreliability; otherwise, meeting just the word "unreliable" may lead the reader astray. For, numbers can be unreliable in many ways, and people might think they are unreliable in ways they are not. To give just a few possible sources of unreliability: a) Did the British make up the numbers (very unlikely, but many readers might leap to that conclusion if they just see the word "unreliable", and nothing else b) The British were sloppy, making multiple incidents out of a single, real incident due to lacking quality control in the reporting system (that might be the case, but I don't know if Yang says so, and therefore, other readers might leap to that conclusion) c) Many districts didn't send in their reports, or the numbers reported there weren't included in the final statistics the Brits used for their total. d) Cases were misplaced in wrong districts, making the given local distribution spurious e) Misidentified cases, say accidental fires included (or its opposite)

Now, while we cannot guarantee that a reader does not draw unwarranted implications from what is written, by inclusion of a SINGLE specific criticism made by Yang can ensure that the reader gets THAT criticism right (whatever else he might make on his own)

Now, that was basically my proposal.Arildnordby (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the Sati section unchanged until Monday 27th; if no one has responded here, I'll insert the proposal above, with refs provided.Arildnordby (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree it should be extended. By 25-26 I will add the preferred version. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Fine! Knowing you wish to come up with your own suggestions, I'll remove the deadline and wait until you come with it, in case real life or something else breaks your stated schedule! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Just submitted my version, you can change if you want, I will point here, if it will need any improvement. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
a) If we are to add increase of sati due to Muslim invaders, then we already regard the Muslim/Mughal phase as notable enough to be included, and the mentioning of a Mughal emperor seeking to suppress the practice ought to be included as well, IMO. b) I am not wholly sure for why you wish to keep an unqualified "unreliability" statement here concerning the statistics, rather than ALSO including a concrete objection against it made by Yang?Arildnordby (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, removed that part(of statistics), explained through reference instead. It can be added as "note" too though, but since this whole page has no notes, let it be in references. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent compromise on b), I'll probably add within the semihidden reference, rather than within main text, one of those charges made by Yang against the stats. Is that agreeable?Arildnordby (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
No matter. Your reliability discussion within ref is more than good enough, so I will leave it as it is. Woul like to hear your view on Mughal policy, though.Arildnordby (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I've chosen to include Aurangzeb, because he seems to have been the most determined Mughal foe of sati. Humayun and Akbar can be accessed on Sati (practice), preserving it as main article necessary to consult on Mughal sati policy in general.Arildnordby (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
In its current form, it seems great. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Having become adult in course of my fully justified 24-hour blocking yesterday, it seems we are working constructively together on these two articles! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Last changes you made into the section. First of all, there are multiple sources who view it as a newly developed practice. One is yang, another one is Doninger, and other than that, no one is saying that Practice was invented after islamic invasion. It has only said that "practice became widespread", and it existed before, which is much cleared if someone sees that earliest developed records dates back to 400 CE(gupta empire). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
True, and I think it is absolutely essential to keep within the articl the view that the onslaught of muslim invasions brought about an increase of sati. But, as Yang states, there is evidence that in SOME areas, the peak was reached in pre-Islamic times. This is an additional nuance, and should be included in order to give a the Neutral Point of View. On page 22, for example, she discusses whether Sanskritinization of society may have been the impulse for sati increase in such areas.Arildnordby (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is neutral already, in the sense that some rulers tried to stop it. But adding like "it existed before", is obvious information, but it became widespread. It shouldn't be attributed, unless there is a claim that there was as many incidences before the conquests. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It is not at all obvious information that the peak level in some areas were reached in pre-Islamic times.Arildnordby (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It refers to the same memorial stones, after adding in the same para that "according to one scholar, the sites of immolation, suggest the practice was increasing towards the end of the first and the beginning of 2nd millenium AD". They are already mentioned on first paragraph. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not. There is nothing in the first paragraph that in some areas, peak level was reached in pre-Islamic times.Arildnordby (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, you used Yang as source as UNQUALIFIED source of "widespreadness". She said no such thing, but that this is a VERSION. I included that, and OTHER versions, nuancing the first version is wholly correct to give a faithful summary of Yang.Arildnordby (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Just changed it a bit. Since he recalls the memorial stones, and regard them as evidence for "peak level", it should be along with first para. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources Misrepresented ?[edit]

Just curious but the sources do not match with what the following paragraph says:

Sati practice became widespread with the start of Muslim invasions and conquests of the Indian subcontinent, rapes were commonly carried out by foreign invaders, generating the additional meaning to sati as a means of preserving the woman's honour.[135][136][137]

But nearly all the sources such as this one page 611 make no mention of women burning themselves after being "raped by foreigners" (amd this is being cited as a source). I suspect Bladesmulti is fabricating sources again...? Given that your problematic editing on other pages has been exposed on ANI Bladesmulti can you justify why you're doing this repeatedly? StuffandTruth (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
WHAT???? I thought the guy had some integrity, so I took him in good faith, but clearly not. Clearly, we cannot accept just his 36 hours block just recently, but must notify the administators of this extreme falsification (can you do that to blocking administrator User:Kevin Gorman ?) . Thanks for letting me know, I'll rewrite the whole damn thingArildnordby (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I honestly want him to get indefinitely blocked. Please gather any and all evidence like I did above. We cannot assume good faith edits with this user. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yang DOES, however, cautiously refer to this about rapes and increased sati as a result of that, as a VERSION. But, she proffers lots of nuancing/countering material blocked user wouldn't have included. Thus, I will base my rewriting on Yang, which I have access to.Arildnordby (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Include a balanced view then please. That's what everyone is looking for. Whoever makes a claim - make sure who is saying that and in what journal/book. Since we're dealing with history, scholarly opinion will only suffice. But both opinions must be registered. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sati is mandated in the Hindu religion[edit]

Definitely regarded as meritorious, but for example the Brits, and Hindu reformers meant that such as Manu by no means commands it, the alternative being to live in strict celibacy&austerity after her husband's death. Clearly, however, this user has warped a lot by his edits, so even though views he has been pushed MAY be correct they ought to be gone through critically.Arildnordby (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing is misrepresented.
  1. On page, the given source "Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh", page 115 it is written that historians argue, "to avoid intolerable shame, rape and torture, a huge pyre was built, and all the women and children jumped", and "The argument is that the practice came into effect during the Islamic invasion of India, to protect their honor from Muslims who were known to commit mass rape on the women of cities that they could capture successfully."[1]
  1. "At the loss of a battle or the capture of a city, in order to prevent captivity and its horrors, which were considered worse than death, and to avoid intolerable shame, rape and torture, a huge pyre was built, and all the women and children jumped. Sometimes, an entire tribe died by jauhar. This occurred several times among the Rajputs when the Muslim rulers invaded Rajasthan."[2]
  1. "Many Hindu women preferring suicide to being repeatedly raped and sold into harem slavery by Muslim invaders."[3]
  1. ^ S. S. Shashi. [[1] Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh]. Anmol Publication. p. 115. ISBN 9788170418597. 
  2. ^ Danuta Wasserman, Camilla Wasserman. [[2] Oxford textbook of suicidology and suicide prevention]. Oxford University Press. p. 21. ISBN 9780198570059. 
  3. ^ Vinay Rai, William Simon. [[3] Think India: The Rise of the World's Next Great Power and What It Means for Every American]. Penguin Books. p. 82. ISBN 9781101213742. 

All of them are not incorrect, nor they are unreliable. Neither the first one. I don't know if it is "fantasy", but probably highly and reliably sourced. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sashi is notable enough to include for presentation of argument, cannot be gauged if Sashi is presenting a view he argues against, or in favour of. But, Sashi's quote belongs both here and in Sati practice, which I'm including right now.Arildnordby (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And whatever other editors might charge you of, I only did so on your Doniger p.611 source, which did NOT support what you included it as reference to. That remains a MIS-representation, even though your Sashi reference remains correct.Arildnordby (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Doniger support the "honour" thing i think. But good that you know now, I didn't misrepresented source. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Not on page 611. It consisted of a time line unrelated to the issueArildnordby (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Some Terrible Problems in the Inquisition Section[edit]

In some places the text states (correctly, I believe) that the Inquisition did not execute anyone: secular authorities did. But other sections go right on claiming the Inquisition did this. One sentence even claims "the execution" did it: "actually executed by the Spanish execution." I am not an expert in this history, but both claims can't be right.

And footnote 37 is to a *novel*! No, you can't use fiction as a historical reference! GeneCallahan (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)