Talk:Sati (practice)

PUCL blog and WP:RS

@JustBeCool: What evidence is there that the PUCL source was peer reviewed or had editorial oversight, per WP:RS guidelines? Do you have a second scholarly source? On Ikram summary, why remove the well supported "states Ikram, though not mentioned in the formal histories" part, or the Christian missionaries clarification, etc? This is required per WP:NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it. Dreadful source. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the lead says the practice is obsolete. Are we sure about that? I thought I had seen news stories reporting that it still goes on, albeit not as frequently. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: The source says the custom is obsolete. The lead too. It may be inappropriate to imply a fringe or rare 1 in zillion instance/crime in modern times to be equivalent to Sati custom in their history. Note too the dispute, in the scholarly sources, whether the modern instances are Sati or suicide found elsewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Why remove the Christian missionaries clarification?" That was removed for the reason mentioned; extrapolating that the sources are in contradiction is original research. As an aside, they do not have to contradict each other. One could be saying Sati has decreased relative to what was before and the other saying that they witnessed sati occuring, perhaps like how you are saying sati is "obsolete" does not have to contradict that it is not non-existent today. Removing "not mentioned in the formal histories" was not intentional and I have no problem writing that in. Adding this information in this edit [1] by Ms Sarah Welch without the OR is ideal as it also brings more information to the bare history section of the long era of Muslim rulers. But that edit was also reversed by Sitush. It's with the claim that the PUCL is a "pressure group" that is "not a good idea" to use. I am fine with adding "according to PUCL" next to its information but I do not see how it is warranted to not use any of its information. It is not a blog as was first brought up. Nor is being a peer reviewed a requirement (it is more a recommendation) as is now brought up. JustBeCool (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@JustBeCool: The peer review, fact checking process and editorial oversight is prudent, particularly for contentious well studied topics and historical claims. No PUCL, pressure/ agenda-driven groups and other dreadful sources in this article, to avoid WP:Soap-y, non-scholarly history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why I wrote out all those points if you were not going to reply to them. Again, even without PUCL, why not add the version you did here [2] which does not have your OR. That version was also deleted by Sitush who only gave the reason that PUCL should be avoided but that version had nothing to do with PUCL. JustBeCool (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sati during the Mughal era and Charles Napier

@Soham321: I have removed diff 1 diff 2 much of your "condense" and "deletes" in the Muslim Mughal paragraphs, as they made the section appear more favorable to Mughal in sati context, than what the sources are stating. Your edits weakened the NPOV presentation. We need to stick with the reliable sources. On Charles Napier, it is an anecdotal primary source, your addition was WP:Quotefarm-ing and WP:Soap-like. There are zillion such quotes, we need to ask if the quote implies a generalization from a specific case, and if it and its context adds anything meaningful and useful to this article. It doesn't, so I removed the Napier quote you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch

• 1. The Charles Napier quote was not from a primary source as you wrongly claim, i had given three references for it which were all secondary sources. It is a widely known quote and as such I would favor including it in the article at least as a footnote.
• 2. By removing the quote about Sati of Mughal Emperor Akbar (it is hard to believe what objection you could have to including Akbar's views on the practice of Sati as a footnote), and by mixing up Jauhar with Sati, inaccuracies and bias are being introduced into the article. The words in the article "however, he expressed his admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their deceased husbands"." are misleading; they suggest Akbar actually admired Sati (as long as it was not forcible). This is a mischaracterization of Akbar's position because clearly he was opposed to Sati as is clear by his efforts to ban the practice and also by his views on Hindu men who endorsed the practice.
• 4. Essentially what we are seeing, thanks to you now, is a politicized (hindu apologist) version of sati in the article where direct criticism of it from people like Sir Charles Napier and Akbar is scrubbed out. My position is what you consider NPOV is not actually NPOV. And how am i being "more favorable to Mughals" by giving a direct quote of Akbar on the practice of Sati, by removing the mixing up of "Jauhar" with Sati, and by clarifying that although Akbar expressed admiration for Hindu women who voluntary participated in Sati, he was contemptuous of Hindu men who allowed it, and made efforts to ban the practice. There is a well known case of Akbar personally stopping a case of forcible sati in which the widow of a recently deceased member of his nobility was being forced to do sati and he personally went to the house of this noble and stopped the sati. This also deserves inclusion in the main article since Akbar is widely considered by non-Hindutva historians as one of the greatest kings India has known (some consider him the greatest).
• 5. So my position is that instead of me being "more favorable to Mughals" it is you whose version is uncharitable to Mughals and also uncharitable to the British. Since the Charles Napier quote revealed that the British used extremely harsh force (rightfully so) in stopping the barbaric practice of sati and people like Napier deserve to be lauded for what they did.
• 6. I think this is a fit case for starting an RfC. I don't have experience in initiating an RfC so am unfortunately not able to do so immediately. Soham321 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To continue:

1. One of the edits i had removed was that i changed

In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists, but the Sati is not dressed like a Hindu widow but as a court dancer, and the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers.

to

In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists.

Ms Sarah Welch has now changed this to:

In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists, but the Sati is not dressed like a Hindu widow but as a court dancer, and the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers.

The book from which this material is being taken from is available online: https://books.google.com/books?id=n7EYDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (see pages 81-2)

According to my reading of the book there is nothing to suggest that the hindu widow shown in any of the paintings is being "led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers". The book is saying that the paintings depict muslims and brahmins with the muslims wanting to save the life of the woman wanting to commit sati and the brahmins intent on their desire that she burn. Let me quote from the book (page 82, see first line):

Both sides, the picture's narrative appears to suggest, contest for the widow, the brahmins to burn and the Mughals to save her.

In my opinion the fact that Sarah Welch continues to introduce inaccurate edits based on a misreading of the book shows her in poor light. If this behavior continues, I will be seeking sanctions against Sarah Welch.Soham321 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: On Napier, you cited two "The One and Only" oped blogs such as "Is ISIS evil? oped in National Review. Such blogs are not an appropriate WP:RS for this topic, a subject that has attracted much peer reviewed scholarship. The Napier quote is primary, and Michael Shermer book makes a passing mention, Shermer source is neither a scholarly cross examination of Napier, nor is it a study of sati.

On Akbar, the article already summarizes his views from scholarly sources, and states, "Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in Sati". Please quit the WP:FORUM-y posturing on talk page, something you were sanctioned for in part, in past, before your last full retirement from wikipedia. On RfC, please note that you have participated in these, such as in one of our Talk:Charvaka disputes. On Banerjee source about the painting, you seem to be misreading it (see pages 80-82). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to Ms Sarah Welch:

• 1. I have participated in RfC's before, but have not yet initiated any RfC. I have requested Twobells to help me initiate an RfC on this topic if this subject interests him enough.
• 2. On the Banerjee source, it is you who is misreading it. I even gave a direct quote from the book to show that you are misreading the book.
• 3. Your bringing up my previous topic ban which expired long ago is evidence of not dropping the stick. I strongly urge you not to bring up long expired topic bans in content disputes since doing so is a violation of WP:STICK and further evidence of your behavioral misconduct.
• 4. On the Napier quote, i gave references to it from one book and two different articles (not blogs) published in a WP:RS source (which satisfies WP:V)). Since this is a widely known quote i can give references to it from other sources as well. The Shermer book gives the full quote of Napier on Sati, not just a "passing mention". Soham321 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: You misunderstand WP:STICK. See the bottom of the National Review ISIS oped web page. It reads, "The Corner. The One and only. FULL BLOG >". The Shermer book is not about sati, he makes a passing mention about it in a paragraph on page 112. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch has now made another change to (one of) the disputed section(s) after the discussion above. Note that she freely reverts me, and then freely keeps making whatever changes she wants to the disputed section. After her recent modification, the disputed section reads:

In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists. In the unrealistic paintings that erased all cultural and regional differences, the Sati is not dressed like a Hindu widow but as a court dancer, and the overwhelming impression is one where "the spectators all appear to be Mughal or Muslim", the few Brahmins easy to miss, the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers.

This is cherry picking of the source material to portray the mughals in a poor light. It ignores completely what the book says about the paintings portraying mughals to be wanting to save the widow: "Both sides, the picture's narrative appears to suggest, contest for the widow, the brahmins to burn and the Mughals to save her." There is only one reference to "bearded men" in the page being referred to in the book: "The bearded masculine figures attired in the headdresses and costumes of Mughal courtiers reinforce the dominant impression of the image."

So where is the reference in the book to the words being used in the article: "the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers"? The answer is: it is not there. Sarah Welch is misreading the book, and making edits in the article which are not supported by the referenced source material. Soham321 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: you are repeating your past behavior. Falsely alleging "The answer is: it is not there" and "not supported by the referenced source material". We can't WP:Copyvio. The summary is supported on pages 81-82 of the source. See "the overwhelming impression" discussion on page 82. On your 'Mughals to save her' [court dancer near the pyre] part, you may have missed, "Yet, if such a narrative even exists within this portrait" part which immediately follows in third line, page 82. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I read the pages in question multiple times, and am unable to see any piece which supports the text "led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers". This is indeed a serious misrepresentation of the source. Js82 (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on views of Mughals and Sir Charles Napier on Sati

The issue here is the following:

1. Whether the views on sati of Sir Charles Napier should be included in the article on Sati. (see history of article page for the deleted material)
2. Whether the views on sati of the Mughal Emperor Akbar should be included in the article on Sati.(see history of article page for the deleted material)
3. Whether the article is accurately reflecting the content of the Banerjee book in the 'Mughal Empire' section, or whether the article is containing edits which are not supported by the Banerjee book. For a link to a google books edition of the Banerjee book, see: https://books.google.com/books?id=n7EYDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (see pages 81-2 for the relevant material on Sati)
4. (related to point 3) Whether the alleged inaccuracies and distortions in the 'Mughal Empire' section tend to portray the Mughals in a poor light in a way that is not supported by the source material (the Banerjee book).
5. Whether the article is mixing up Jauhar with Sati in the "Mughal Empire" section in an unacceptable way. (This article is about Sati; there is a different WP article about Jauhar).
6. Link to additional source material on this topic: Link1

Note: This is my first RfC, so please bear with me if i have made any mistakes in creating it. Soham321 (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Since Ms Sarah Welch continues to make changes to the disputed content, even after the initation of the RfC, i have placed a warning on her user talk page with a request to revert: diff. My understanding of WP policy is that no further changes can be made to the disputed content once an RfC about the disputed content has been initiated. Soham321 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The Charles James Napier page gives Napier's quote on Sati in a book written by his brother. This is the same quote i had included in the main article. So now we have one additional source for this quote: a book written by Napier's brother.Soham321 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not one RfC, that's six. Each of those six is incomplete; you refer to previous talkpage history etc. (which also includes the usual comments on behavior, not only on content), instead of shortly summarizing your/the arguments. This is not going to work, I'm afraid... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: It would be more clear if you provided a diff (a link to the url of the two versions to be compared) of the material in question. For example these edits you made and these ones by Ms Sarah Welch (and the subsequent edits she made). Further, looking at those edits, it would be easier to respond to questions that were phrased with some specifics as to what you feel the article should say rather than vague references to sources. What exactly is the problem; from a cursory review of the discussion above it doesn't look like much effort at compromise and collaboration was made. You are asking for comments on 1 day of editing? If you want to make extensive changes to an article you are going to have to work with other editors. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the sixth point was just a reference to another book containing information about some of the disputed content. With respect to the first five points they are all related to the same section of the article. It makes sense to bring up all the five points in one RfC rather than create five different RfC's for the disputed material in the interest of efficiency. Here is an example of how five different WP articles were put for an AfD in one shot for the sake of efficiency: link Soham321 (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

is Sati obsolete?

the lead in the main article begins with the words "Sati (also spelled suttee[note 1]) is an obsolete Hindu funeral custom." Obsolete would clearly imply that Sati no longer occurs. But is that really so? Let me give a few examples:

• 1. Link1
• 2. Link2
• 3. Link3
• 4. Link4. Soham321 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the word "obsolete" be replaced with something like "rare". Soham321 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe "uncommon" would sound better than "rare" but I'm not sure that accurately conveys precisely how common it is or isn't. "Archaic" is a good word that preserves the intended connotation of obsolete without any confusion in meaning. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I like 'archaic' and would endorse replacing 'obsolete' with 'archaic'. Soham321 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)