Talk:Acid attack

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

link number 7

link #7 is borked—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.23.142 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a good name for this article ?

The article, Misogynist_Acid_attacks, was created, but then had a speedy deletion tag placed on it, then moved from Misogynist_Acid_attacks to Acid attack here and slightly expanded. I think the name Misogynist attacks is more suitable than Misogynist_Acid_attacks or Acid attack, because there are similar attacks in those parts of Asia where burning or scalding oil or water are used or women set on fire instead. However, these attacks are not necessarily committed by true misogynists, which are chronic general woman-haters, but men who felt jilted by a certain woman or situation at one time. I don't know what a better name would be. Nevertheless, this topic is important enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. H Padleckas 04:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I originated the Misogynist Acid attack page, and am disappointed the way it has been altered, to an extent. I am not a feminist. However, it must be noted that most attacks are motivated by the desire of the attacker that the women should blindly submit to them, and the attacks are portrayed as "punishment"; this is why I define it as misogynist. Actually, it is misanthropic, and needs to be punished more severely, and in such a manner that the "romantic" edge of it in South Asian eyes is taken off. Lastly, can I request that the Pak acid attack link be restored? Lucio Mas

Have done it. Lucio Mas

I have rewritten this article and left the name as "Acid Attack," as I find this to be the most neutral term for it. Some do not believe misogyny exists, and to call something a misogynistic something-or-other assumes a common belief in misogyny. It also disregards some opinions regarding the characterization of these attacks as misogynistic a result of Western pressure/ethnocentrism. I've tried to address this. onesong

Moreover, "vitriolage" redirects here, and "vitrioleuse" redirects to "vitriolage". Given that, in Europe, vitrolage was largely perceived as a crime committed by women (whether or not this is accurate is debatable, but, certainly, "vitrioleuse" is encountered far more often than "vitrioleur", which I've only seen in connection with French Indochina), a strictly neutral POV would seem to be indicated. (Granted, the article doesn't currently address vitriolage in the historical European context, but I would hope that it would someday.) Eastcheap (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Acid attack is a poor title since a survey of the sources indicates that this term almost always refers to corrosion in the context of construction. As a form of assault, acid throwing seems better and so I am moving to this title. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Although this article was informative, it did not explicitly define what an Acid Attack is.

I second this, it doesn't actually say what an Acid Attack is!

Ladies and gents, let me repost the first paragraph: "Acid attacks are a violent phenomenon that primarily occur in parts of certain South Asian countries, such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and are often perpetrated by males against females. Perpetrators of these attacks throw acid at their victims, burning them. The consequences are multiple: permanent marks on the body, disfiguration and potentially blindness."onesong

More importantly, what about stomach-acid attacks? Very different from the subject of this article. -OrangeDog 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is really disturbing for being right on top of the article.

The image should be removed. It's unclear who the perpetrators are, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, the only reliable source is a record label and it has an image of a president (Reagan?), making it clearly non-neutral.-Wafulz 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware what image you are discussing, assume it has been deleted, however this one might be useful (taken by a Finnish journalist for an article on the phenomenon in India for the Finnish daily Hufvudstadsbladet. I'm certain a local upload would be do-able under fair-use (right to quote/quotation right under Finnish law)): direct link, article (Swedish language). Alternatively, the author could be contacted for permission. 85.134.21.38 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

re-working the page a little

The page was heavily tagged with {{originalresearch}} and [{tl|weasel}} - these issues have now been sorted out. What remains is a through fact checking - I've tagged what needs sourcing and I've removed whta is unsourcable. I've done some research into this phenomenon and I will be adding some referenced material in due course. What I would suggest is that the treatment section needs attention and that the other uses of the term needs to be linked to the appropriate articles. I'm going to move the picture in the lower section to the top of the artciel as defined by WP:MOS#Images--Cailil ^talk 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{Unbalanced-section}} to the Victims and Treatment section becuase, while notable references to male-male and male-female acid attacks would be fine these attacks have no encyclopedic notability - not referenced in multiple mainstream third-party sources. Similarly I have concerns about teh notability of all the links in the 'Acid attacks around the world' section. If these cannot be improved by April 15th they will have to go--Cailil ^talk 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph with the notice you added, by deleting one reference that had a dead link as a cite, and moving the other reference to the Incidents section. I believe that at least some, if not all of the incidents meet the general notability guideline established in WP:NOTABLE, primarily by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. If you wish, however, we can evaluate these together on a case-by-case basis. Blackworm (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also why would only male-male or male-female attacks be notable? Is a WikiProject or other group reviewing this article? Blackworm (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur that a lot of the incidents meet the general notability guildeline. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of the news reports notability, some (the Ethiopian case in particular) have received wide spread reporting but others have not. Even still for me there is a due weight issue with all of them; on top of that it seems like a list for a list's sake. I do think the more notable ones should be kept in some form - maybe the external links. I do think a case by case review would be helpful - one or two might deserve a paragraph in the article itself.

On the "why would only male-male or male-female attacks be notable?" - you may have picked me up wrong and I may have not expressed myself adequately. I was talking about the specific incidents - the ones you removed (in my view rightly) as OR and undue - which were non-notable - I'm not in any way saying that female-male attacks would be any less notable than others, because they would be just as notable as male-female or male-male or female-female attacks when they get significant coverage--Cailil ^talk 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I think we mostly agree on what should be done here. You seem to feel more strongly about the list than I do, but I agree with your solutions. Blackworm (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Does anyone have any objections to creating a section Motivation_of_attackers

with a new paragraph added

Religious reasons have also been given for attacks. Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab.

Crazysuit has made an edit summary complaint that the change is original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position
but I don't think that's justified based on the sources I gave. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have 3 concerns. First the name of the section should probably be: "Supposed motivation of attackers". Second the length of the quote in the footnote is too long for comfort. And third, the main point of the paragraph is synthesizing sources to advance a position.
However, the claim being made is not extraordinary, so my suggestion is this - can you find one source that states: Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. At present linking the 7 examples (although factually accurate) is essay style & seems like a novel argument. However I'm sure I came across something similar to your point in The Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World. I'll see if I can find the reference--Cailil ^talk 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1) How about Possible motivations of attackers as a section title?

"Supposed" sounds skeptical, as though the author is about to disprove the claims.

2) How about this shortened quote by Benard: According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "hundreds" of women in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, "have been blinded or maimed" by acid thrown on their "unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed".

3) the closest I come to one source that states: Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress,

is Iranian journalist Amir Taheri who says "scores -- some say hundreds -- of women ... in Baalbek, in Beirut, in southern Lebanon and in many other Muslim cities from Tunis to Kuala Lumpur," were attacked in a similar manner (to acid being thrown in the face) from 1980 to 1986. Taheri, Amir, Holy Terror : the Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, Adler & Adler, 1987, p.12

If people don't like that we could limit it to the regions mentioned by Benard - Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Motivation of Attackers

This is from WP:OR:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

We are allowed to use primary sources as long as the information is easily verifiable. I verified it personally with a simple text search. Sure enough, skipping to the first occurence of the word "acid" shows the exact information mentioned in the article.

In addition, I think you're misunderstanding WP:SYNTH. SYNTH requires a claim to be made that is not made in the sources. We are simply echoing the sources. There is no possiblity of synthesis until we interpret these sources. Unless you're calling this sentence synthesis...

Religious reasons have also been given for attacks.

Each source stated that the reason for the acid attack was the dress code, which we know to be a part of Sharia. What you could argue is that it's a cultural matter as opposed to religious, in which case, we could make the sentence more specific, saying that the dress code was the reason for each attack. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One can not claim that this is a social phonomonon in country X and Y by putting together unrelated sources documenting isolated and unrelated incidents in countries X and Y, doing so is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and undo weight. --CreazySuit (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit is correct. The use of primary sources is not based upon the easy of its verification. Primary sources can be used only: a) when there is no other option (in this case there are many other options); and b) in articles directly about themselves (that is to say that, a newspaper on an acid attack against person X would be useful in the article about person X, not here). Be very clear - linking primary sources in any way is novel synthesis. I pointed out the problems with this section to BoogaLouie above, please review that comment--Cailil ^talk 10:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote the policy saying that Primary sources can only be used when there is no other option. Quote the policy saying that primary sources are only appropriate in articles about themselves. Quote the policy saying linking primary sources in any way is SYNTH. This is still a misunderstanding of the SYNTH policy. Two statements in sources must be in the article and then the article must conclude on a third statement not present in the sources. That is SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources? At least two sources are books, and at least two are mainstream newspapers. These aren't primary sources. Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:PSTS. I don't believe it's original research (synthesis) to present these sources in that way, except to the extent that we must verify that each one indeed mentions a religious motivation.

And I too would be very interested in see quotes from actual policy that support your surprising claims. Blackworm (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about undo weight? What about SYNTH policy?--CreazySuit (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

People, you can't say "X people have been accused of doing X or Y" and then list a bunch of unrelated sources as "evidence", this is a clear violation of SYNTH policy which clearly states that "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." To claim such claim, you need a source that explicitly says "X people have been accused of doing X or Y", you can't connect the dots yourself, doing so is synthesizing. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the statement Religious reasons have also been given for attacks. is removed, where is there a synthesis?

Where is there a synthesis in the statement: Islamists in South Asia, Iran[1], Afghanistan, [2] Gaza, [3] Srinagar [4] [5][6] and Lebanon [7] have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress.

To follow your symbolic alphabet logic formulations, is it synthesis to take statements: There is X in A. There is X in B. There is X in C. and make a statement There is X in A, B, and C.?

Is that a synthesis or just concise writing? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that that is not synthesis of the form discussed in WP:SYN, since there is no stated or implied conclusion that does not follow directly from the sources. It is the same as saying something like, Countries that entirely lie north of the equator include Canada[1], Belgium[2], and Japan[3]. It's not synthesis. To reference the example given in policy, there is no "C." Those arguing that there is, should be specific and tell us what that stated or implied conclusion is, specifically. Blackworm (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis is synthesis, there are no acceptable forms synthesis in Wikipedia. You just can not cite different sources to drive at a conclusion that is not explicitly supported by a source. I've added the appropriate dispute tags, and will request 3rd party opinion, until the issues is resolved.--CreazySuit (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

to drive at a conclusion -- I specifically asked, what is the conclusion? You seem to be arguing against the organization of the text rather than any original argument, and arguments have conclusions. By the way, thank you for putting up a disputed tag, I should have probably done it while reverting as a show of good faith. Blackworm (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Creazy, you're really making it hard for me to assume good faith. This is the second time you've been making highly disputed edits with extremely vague explanations. Note that at Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, you convinced the other editors the moment you started actually explaining your edits. We've explained to you that this is not SYNTH because no claim is made in the article that is not in the sources. Your response has basically been "yes it is." It's going to take more than that to convince us. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

" We've explained to you that this is not SYNTH " is not good enough, your explanation is invalid. It's synthesis, because the policy says so. An administrator, who has been elected by the community to uphold Wikipedia policies, has also confirmed that it's indeed a violation of SYNTH. [[1]] --CreazySuit (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've given up on rational debate. That's fine. I won't say anything more, but I will continue to revert your edits until you decide to return to the negotiating table and counter with more than, "your explanation is invalid." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Read what that administrator stated about the SYNTH vio, and do not make threats to disrupt Wikipedia, your behavior will not go unnoticed. --CreazySuit (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this again, he is not an administrator. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wrong debate. Which administrator? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim to be interested in a genuine debate, yet you don't even read my comment. I am talking about User:Cailil, an administrator who clearly stated that[2] : "I have 3 concerns. First the name of the section should probably be: "Supposed motivation of attackers". Second the length of the quote in the footnote is too long for comfort. And third, the main point of the paragraph is synthesizing sources to advance a position.
However, the claim being made is not extraordinary, so my suggestion is this - can you find one source that states: Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. At present linking the 7 examples (although factually accurate) is essay style & seems like a novel argument." --CreazySuit (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That comment by the administrator was made before I ever came to this article. How can I respond to your comment with "which administrator" if I never read it? I can only say this so many times, read the example of synthesis. A third claim must be made in the article that is not in the sources. It's that simple. No claim is made. The article is giving examples of attacks made to make women dress modestly. Each source says the attacks are because of the dress. Do you dispute this? The article says the attacks are because of the dress. Are there any more claims made by the article? The last sentence is simply a quote. There could not be a more objective way to say something. Admittedly, I'm surprised that Cailil is calling this SYNTH but I guess not even administrators are perfect.

I'd like to point out that I am making a huge concession by allowing any mention of the acid attack in Jerusalem to be in this article. The source does not confirm that it was the Modesty Patrol that made the attack. It does not confirm the 14 year old girl was the target of the attack (the attacker only asked her surname). It does not confirm that the girl's dress was the motivation of the attack. Frankly, I don't think this much uncertainty has any place in Wikipedia, but I will not delete it entirely as a show of good faith for you. I'm not trying to attack the Middle-East. But I will not allow censorship to hide its negative aspects. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I came upon this article after a post made on my talk page. I think the SYNTH concerns can be avoided if the sentence structure is altered. It's original research to say "Islamists have used/threatened acid attacks in ..." and then provide a list of sources not related to eachother, many of which don't actually even use the word Islamist. A better way to write it would simply to say 'Reports highlight occasions where women in Iran, South Asia, Gaza etc. etc. have been attacked/threatened with acid for not wearing the veil.' - hence no assumptions about motivations beyond what is explicitly related by the sources (I'm presuming the sources themselves are of reliable nature). It sounds a little editorialised, but it's a lot more encyclopedic than the current formulation. Regards, ITAQALLAH 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Itaqallah is saying. There should be no problem with the majority of the point being made in the disputed text. But, how that point is being made is problematic.
Some of the sources being used are opinion pieces (and primary sources)[3][4] some of them are books and journal papers (secondary sources) and they are being strung together to make a point; they are also being connected as if they all bear equal weight.
Now, what is irritating is, the major point about dress codes can be easily & properly sourced - but rather than using what verifiable sources are saying, some editors are choosing to write an essay of their own.
Itaqallah has pointed out one of the glaring problems with the disputed text - none of the sources say "Islamists". Also each of the sources is describing an occurrence of the phenomenon that is not 100% similar. A way of addressing this would be to restructure the text and begin by saying that: Some acid attacks have being motivated by ideologies about women's clothing." Then to cite each regional and specific example separately and carefully - being sure to give it due weight--Cailil ^talk 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Meena, heroine of Afghanistan, is a far better source than the Juan Cole quote. I had not come across that book. So sorry that irritated you.

http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2001/08/14pio.htm is also a opinion piece but that incident is also verified by the story in the Independent: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010830/ai_n14405127

If you insist on deleting the meindia.nic.in story I certainly will not protest. As for the sentence

Some acid attacks have being motivated by ideologies about women's clothing, we could also say Some acid attacks have being motivated by some ideas that some people have, but that would miss a point mentioned in all the reports - the perpetrators of the attacks were all Islamic extremists of some sort.

Islamic element

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010830/ai_n14405127 "militant Islamic organisation"
• Molavi, Afshini The Soul of Iran, Norton, (2005), p.152 "A bearded young man approached me. He said he would throw acid on my face if I did not comply with the rules", the rules proclaimed by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881802888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull a group in Gaza calling itself "Just Swords of Islam"
• Taheri, Amir, Holy Terror They objected to the `lax way` in which they thought she was dressed, and accused her of `insulting the blood of the martyrs` by not having her hair fully covered. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I know in mentioning the word Islam we may give aid and comfort to Islamophobes, but without some mention of Islam the paragraph is omitting a crucial piece of information about the motivation of the perps. All the "ideologies" involved were based on interpretations of Islam.

So the issue I have with Itaqallah's

Reports highlight occasions where women in Iran, South Asia, Gaza etc. etc. have been attacked/threatened with acid for not wearing the veil

- is that many people will know that the veil refers to hijab and the traditional Islamic regulations for women, but not everyone, and, well, wikipedia should be for everyone.

My suggestion, something like :

Reports highlight occasions where women in Iran, South Asia, Gaza etc. etc. have been attacked/threatened with acid for not wearing the Islamic veil. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was totally overlooking the Islamist thing, but I think it would be hard to seriously argue that these men were not motivated by Isalmic Extremism. Personally, I like Booga's compromise better, but Itaqallah's would also be acceptable in my opinion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

isolated incidents

Beside the SYNTH concerns, how do you justify inclusion of those countries based on isolated incidents, and in Iran's case, by citing one incident of a threat, not even an attack. One single unverifiable threat of an attack (claimed by a partisan Iranian editorialist) does not make acid attacks a general phenomenon in Iran or any of the other places mentioned in the disputed line - unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh where Acid Attacks are actually a general phenomenon with hundreds of documented cases. So the line in question is not only a violation of SYNTH , it's also a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No one but you is suggesting it's a "general phenomenon." If it's been described as a "general phenomenon" in some of those places but not others, bring sources saying so and rewrite the paragraph. There doesn't seem to me to be any implied statement that these attacks are a common phenomenon in these places. Thus, it's not WP:SYN. Blackworm (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're lumping together isolated incidents to make a POV point, that's [[WP:SYN]. If you confess that this is not "general phenomenon" in those places, and then why does it even merit inclusion? Read WP:UNDUE. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm kinda agreeing with Creazy now. The way the section is currently worded there does seem to be the implication each of these countries has had more than one attack. We need some more sources for this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Israel incident should be deleted too, that's WP:UNDUE as well.--CreazySuit (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise solution

If remove the other incidents then it sounds like the attacks are limited to Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. If people think that there "does seem to be the implication each of these countries has had more than one attack" we could cut it down to

Attacks or threats of attacks on women wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress have been reported in other countries as well,

rather than listing South Asia, Iran[14], Afghanistan, [15] Gaza, [16] Srinagar [17] [18][19] and Lebanon [20]. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an acceptable compromise. I certainly don't think anyone could justify deleting it. You could also tack on all the sources from the last version so if people wanted to know about the additional attacks and threats they could read for themselves. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that, but what's wrong with listing the countries? It doesn't have to be a common phenomenon, since we aren't saying that it's a common phenomenon in those places. Blackworm (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Creazy made a strong argument of WP:WEIGHT. We have countries where perhaps one attack has been recorded in its history with exactly as many sentences as countries where attacks happen on a weekly basis. It's a subtle but definitely present implication of equal prominence. It would be like listing types of crime in the US and mentioning Samurai sword standoffs. This would make the reader think this happens on occassion when it's only happened once. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll put the truncated sentence in. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One last issue: adding the word Islam

The word Islamist has been voted down as synthesis but as I mentioned before we still need something about Islam in the 2nd paragraph of the motivation section. I propose adding "or Islamic head covering" to sentence:

`According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab, or Islamic head covering.`

I know hijab is by definition Islamic and Islamic head covering is a pretty crude definition of hijab but we need to add something for those ignorant of what is hijab is and there is a link for those who want to know more. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reciting a defintion is not WP:SYNTH. I think what you've proposed is fair. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The recent addition is a vast improvement on its previous form. However there is still an issue with the length of the footnote for the Amir Taheri article and the summary of the Molavi should also be improved--Cailil ^talk 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarize the articles' content in one line rather than going into so much depth. The quotations are probably unnecessary too--Cailil ^talk 22:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to attacks

Reply to:
I am not familiar enough with the life-style in Gaza or Srinagar to pass a judgment, but I am confident that this is not social phenomenon in Iran, Israel or even Lebanon for that matter.

Bear in mind acid attacks on women for bad hijab in Iran are not likely to happen anymore because they aren't necessary. Bad hijab is illegal there!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hijab+In+Iran+women+being+arrested&search_type=&aq=f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgXgpngHf60

In Gaza bad hijab is not illegal (as far as I know) and there are no recent reports of acid attacks, but in the late 1970s there was a campaign to get women to wear hijab that used force (though not acid so far as I know) as well as persuasion.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3012687?seq=1&cookieSet=1

It worked. Non-hijab women are rare in Gaza now. Non-hijab Shi'a women in Lebanon are also rare according to reports (I haven't been to Lebanon) and according to Amir Taheri there were a lot acid attacks on women in Lebanon in the 1980s. Any why shouldn't even the threat of an attack not have a significant impact - after all which would you rather: wear hijab or have disfiguring scars maybe blindness for the rest of your life? (According to http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2001/08/14pio.htm there was "swift compliance by women of all ages on the issue of wearing the chadar (head-dress) in public" after a threat of acid attacks in 2001.)

Obviously if acid attacks happen every week or so they are a much bigger deal then if they haven't occured in several years, but that doesn't mean acid attacks or the threaat of force on bad hijab women years ago didn't have a big impact in Palestine or Lebanon and don't count as a notable "social phenomenon." They may only be rare because they were successful and women "learned their lesson". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable argument. If you find a source saying that, I'll support its inclusion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) If you find a source making the same interpretation as you* AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, Wikipedia is not a place to write essays and editorials. To justify inclusion of your wild theories, some of which amount to nothing more than "they would have if they could have" faulty logic, you need reliable sources that say exactly what you're asserting. BTW, Amir Taheri is not a reliable source, he has been caught lying and making up stories on numerous occasions. He's widely regarded as a discredited partisan author[5], and therefore shouldn't be cited as a source on an encyclopedia. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Take your concern to WP:RSN CreazySuit - also I would ask you to refactor your remark about Taheri above - there is a WP:BLP issue with what you have said--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that despite all the wikipedia regulations we follow, editors still have to make desisions, such as whether an acid attack is noteworthy. My arguement is that what might seem to be an isolated attack can have substantial and long term impact. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like Tank Man in China. But you'd need to show that an Acid Attack was as high profile as that. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just contacted a friend from Lebanon (this is OR so take it with a grain of salt). She said that it's roughly 50/50 Christian/Muslim there and that "some" Muslim women wear the veil. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Cailil, according to WP:BLP#Non-article space, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted." In this case it is very relevant to making an article content choice, as I'm explaining that Amir Taheri is not a reliable source, and it is perfectly acceptable for me or anyone else to object to to him being used as one. Amir Taheri's fabrications are not just an allegation (ie see 2006_Iranian sumptuary law controversy), they've been investigated and exposed by many reputable publications including the New York Times and the Economist. [6] [7] [8] --CreazySuit (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One last issue: adding the phrase "Islamic head covering"

So is there consensus for adding "or Islamic head covering" at the end of the sentence

"According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab."?

PS the sentence Attacks or threats of attacks on women wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress have been reported in other countries as well. is duplicated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, adding "Islamic head covering" is unnecessary since the word "hijab" is and can be wikilinked--Cailil ^talk 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support "Islamic head covering". Redundancy is not against any Wiki guideline. We are unnecessarily burdening the readers by redirecting them to the Hijab article when we could easily include a 3 word definition that would be clear, and in my opinion, preferrable, especially on English Wikipedia. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "for failure to wear hijab" is directly taken from the source though. Also, Hejab does not only mean "Islamic head covering", as wearing short skirts or short sleeves could be considered "failure to wear hijab" by some, depending on their own interpretations of the "Hejab rules". --CreazySuit (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, these attacks are about more than the veil, right? It seems that Booga wants a short description of Hijab, and if we can come up with something that's accurate, it's not beyond reason to include it. Paraphrasing the sentence should not be too challenging. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No it is unclear from the Rand piece what the exact issue these men had with the women's dress. On top of this the the Rand article is about the Hijab and France - it is not about acid attacks (it only alludes to them briefly). It is really not good enough as a source for this article because of that, and so it actually needs to be replaced--Cailil ^talk 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I must confess to some frustration. We have quite a few citations mentioning hijab and/or Islamic fanatacism, but neither term is found not in the text of the article. All we have is two sentences

According to a Rand Corporation commentary, hundreds of women in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan have been blinded or maimed "when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed".[11] Attacks or threats of attacks on women wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress have been reported in other countries as well

... with no indication of who might be doing the acid throwing or why they are offended by immodest dress! --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently an adequate source has not been provided for what you wish to add BoogaLouie. For example the Rand piece is not even about acid attacks. Also the previous version of the text with its string of sources was a novel synthesis of published material, it also accorded undue weight to a number of sources and thus contravened policy.
If there is one reliable third party source that is directly about acid attacks and that examines what you want to add then please cite it. However, until a properly verified and appropriately sourced piece is provided the text that you wish to add remains in the form of original research (as we define it on wikipedia) and cannot be included--Cailil ^talk 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the last sentence Booga mentions do include a mention of hijab. I've rewritten the last sentence to include it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you AzureFury.

What are you talking about Calil? A previous edit you had no problem with containted the word hijab. The Rand piece is about attacks on women who are not in hijab or sufficiently covering hijab for the attackers. All the sources mention islam and hijab. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No BoogaLouie the Rand piece is about the Hijab and France. It only alludes to acid attacks. It is not directly about the subject and using it is original research - that would be fine in an essay but not in this encyclopedia.

BTW have you read Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan? The book does not limit its discussion to the hijab. Women were attacked by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan for any exposure of flesh (this is different to "not wearing a hijab" which allows faces to be exposed) - it was the women's legs & faces that were frequently the target of these acid attacks. Also the book states explicitly that these attacks were intended to force women not to go to University.

The problem with the Rand piece is very serious and a better source is required urgently, becuase if that sentence has to go then so does the one following it--Cailil ^talk 20:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true the RAND article is not just about "about attacks on women who are not in hijab", but it is about much more than hijab in France. Compulsion in hijab in the Muslim world is a central theme of the article. Throughout the Islamic world the hijab is often something girls and women wear because they're forced to ... In countries such as Saudi Arabia, special religious patrols beat, insult, and arrest women who aren't covered according to their stringent specifications. In Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed. In post-Taliban Afghanistan, women have been raped for daring to think they could now go without the burqa.

Yes Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan says Gulbuddin Hekmatyar attacked women for any exposure of flesh. What evidence do you have that Hekmatyar thought this was somehow different from the issue of enforcing hijab? BTW have you read Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan? Does the book say hijab "allows faces to be exposed"? Or does it say: Hijab takes such varied form in Muslim countries that it ranges from a small, colorful head scarf in North Africa, ... to a full-body black abayah in Saudi Arabia that covers everything, even cloaking a woman's eye behind a black mesh. (p.25) As far as "the book states explicitly that these attacks were intended to force women not to go to University," It says "As the attackers threw the acid they yelled at the women, `Cover your faces and legs!` and then "Go home where you belong!" so it would seem "modesty" was the issue, unless you consider modesty and women staying at home different issues.

Finally what is this "very serious" and "required urgently"? Are talking about a heart attack, or an issue for which there is abundant sources but that through careful reading of wikipedia regulations can be wittled down to two sentences and then to nothing. Wouldn't your time be better spent in making wikipedia articles more informative and not in making sure you have eliminated every last jot and tittle that cannot meet your reading of wikipedias exact criteria? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie the problem is simple. You are using a source that is not directly about the subject to frame an argument - that's original research and that's a serious policy violation. If you wont fix it others will have to. If you want to use Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan you need to reflect what it says.

"unless you consider modesty and women staying at home different issues." - Simply put, yes. Clothing and public space are two separate issues becuase the current text is framed around how women were attacked for being "immodestly dressed". In Afghanistan there was a lot more to these attacks than just the hijab (issues of women being in public spaces, women in education, etc) and reducing it to fit the argument just about clothing while perhaps okay in an essay is not okay in this encyclopedia becuase it constitutes a synthesis.

There is a simple way to solve this: a)remove the Rand sentence; b)Start the paragraph with a summary of Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan (which deserves more weight than we are currently giving it); c)find a new source to replace the Rand sentence; d)use what is currently the second sentence to show that women have been attacked else where because of their clothing--Cailil ^talk 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There's no policy saying that sources have to focus only on the subject we use it for. I'm getting tired of seeing synth claims thrown around when we are reciting word-for-word the text of the source. Read WP:SYNTH. Another claim must be made. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said AzureFury. I will say it again, sources must be directly about the subject. Mention, allusion and/or inference of the subject are not good enough. Please see the lede section of WP:NOR:

to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

The Rand source is not directly about acid attacks. It should be quite easy however to find a reliable source that is--Cailil ^talk 13:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Start the paragraph with a summary of Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan. Wait a minute - you said sources must be directly about the subject. The Meena book is about Meena, not acid attacks, we can't use it. Hey! this is fun thinking up reasons why information should be deleted! --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right Cailil, the information must be directly related to the article. A sentence about acid attacks is directly related to an article about acid attacks. The lead says the information must be directly related, not the source itself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR and notability are inextricably entwined here

I have a major problem with this article. It is possible that it could be easily resolved and if so I would be very glad to see this article included in Wikipedia. But the issue must be resolved.

"Acid attacks" are not unique to any country or any motive. When I was a kid there was a famous journalist in NY who was blind because the mob ordered an acid attack on him after he reported on a mob-related activity. Why isn't his case in the lead of this article? the fact is, if this article were just about "people throwing acid at other people" this article would just say so and skirt violating "Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary." There has to be more to "Acid Attacks" to mak it worth an article.

What makes it worth an article is not "acid attacks" but that there is a particular pattern involing a related set of motives. That is what makes this article notable, but it also means that the article is not really about acid attacks per se but about this larger pattern. I think the various contributors recognize this, given the discussion above. There has been some discussion about the title and I think that indeed the title should be changed to reflect what this article is really about, which is not just any person throwing acid at another person for any reason. The title should reflect who does it and why, in other words, the facts that make this article notable.

And here is where we get into NOR issues. It is evident to me that certain Wikipedia editors see the pattern that make this topic notable beyond just a generic definition of an attack using acid. I see the pattern too! But the problem is this: it does not matte that I see the pattern. It does not matter that any editor sees the pattern. Seeing the pattern is the result of original research, and it is an original argument, and Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for this. Wikipedian's views simply do not belong in Wikipedia articles.

There is a simple solution to this: find a notable view in a reliable source that argues that there is a particular pattern of acid attacks that makes the pattern worth describing and explaining in its own right. That is all. Find it, and lead with it, and I think we are on safe ground. But it has to come from an appropriate secondary source. Ideally, there should be a variety of reliable secondary sources, as NPOV encourages our providing multiple points of view. If this is a real encyclopedic topic, then there ought to be reliable secondary sources on different explanations for why it occurs, and different responses by agents of the state or human rights activists. I do not see this kind of research. I do see a lot of original research. Our policies are pretty clear on this. If this topic - I am talking about the general pattern, not the individual incidents - has not been notable enough to be discussed in reliable sources by various points of view, then it is not an encyclopedic topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is very weak. The articles on rape, murder, violence, etc disprove this. You say that our edits imply that there is a larger pattern than just random violence. We do explain with sources that this is the case in certain places, and that it has occured in other places. It seems to me you're making a vague accusation of POV against the whole article simply because most acid attacks happen in the same place. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My argument is not really about NPOV, I do not think the article is in violation of NPOV although I do not see a clear discussion of the different points of view and I do believe that would strengthen the article. My main concern is that it is not clear whose point of view it is that this is a pattern or phenomenon (as opposed to a random collection of violent acts. There is a body of literature in the field of criminology among other fields on rape, on murder, etc. If there is a body of literature on this kind of crime as a kind of crime wouldn't it improve the article to provide a good account of it? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

in practice I think the present article is a rather clear example of problems with POV and balance. The crime is N, and the general use of the term is shown in the references. But the present article is not actually about acid throwing, but rather about the presence of violence against mainly women in a particular region. Such attacks have of course occurred many times elsewhere and in other contexts. Possibly there can be an better title, but this is going to be tricky. I would have commented earlier, except that I have no positive suggestions, beyond that other regions must be added. I am not the least happy with the listing of selected individual case--if there are any where there is in fact a Wikipedia article, it would solve at least that problem. DGG (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we have two options. A) make this an article about acid violence in south asia (which has a body of scholarly attention but which could make this a POV fork); or B) globalize it (which runs a risk of making this a dictionary article). Also I agree 100% the listing of individual cases is highly problematic except where there is demonstrable scholarly attention--Cailil ^talk 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the dictionary approach would give more weight to the attacks in South Asia and the Middle East. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to give more weight to the attacks in South Asia and the Middle East? This is a sincere and good-faith question. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Go to a dictionary and look up a random word. The entry will look markedly different from a policy-abiding Wikipedia article. That does not deny that articles often contain definitions. Most opening sentences of articles at Wikipedia are definitions. However, after giving a definition as groundwork for an article, Wikipedia explains the context surrounding the article's title. It is okay to define at Wikipedia. It is not okay to define and do nothing else. But that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this issue.
• This particular problem is not about dictionaries or WP:N or WP:NOR. I feel an urge to right great wrongs, yet WP:NPOV compels me to do nothing. This article is heavily sourced (especially with regard to the common attack areas), so even though complaints of POV may hold water, advocates must offer evidence supporting their views in order to realize their opinions in the article. Anecdotes may persuade us on the talk page, but they cannot function as sourced content. Sorry. :(

—Kanodin—VENT— 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I brought up definitions only to illustrate in an extreme form the risk. My actual problems with this page are different and have to do with synth and I explained that in greater detail. I also think the NPOV point DGG brings up is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed the article. Overall I agree that it focuses too much on south Asia, without placing the crime in its historical context. However, with one exception (which I've just fact-tagged) I don't see a WP:OR problem here. If WP:OR is a concern, can it be made more specific? That is, can people find a specific sentence in the article that is OR, and explain why it's OR? Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Th article says that acid throwing is common in Cambodia, Afganistan, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Why isn' there one article on acid throwing in Cambodia, acid throwing in Afghanistan, and so on? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good point SLR. And there is definitely enough information for a single article on Acid attacks in Bangladesh - most of the research is about Bangladesh after all. There is also a body of work about acid violence against women in South Asia (that is India, Pakistan & Bangladesh). Perhaps we could break this page up; write one article on acid violence in Bangladesh, and use other reliably sourced information in the Violence against women; Women in Pakistan; and Women in India articles.

Alternatively we could make this a parent article for an 'Acid violence in South Asia' article in WP:SUMMARY style and break page into sections by country; so that there would be one section for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Cambodia. We should be able to create a sub-article for Bangladesh pretty quickly. Any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One does not see articles Measles in Cambodia, Measles in India, etc.; there is an article Measles. If the main current incidence of acid throwing is South Asia, then it's reasonable for this article to focus on South Asia, and there's no need for individual subarticles for each country. I don't see enough material in this article now to justify subarticles, certainly not enough to justify one subarticle per country. Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point!!! - we have extensive secondary literature - no violations of WP:SYNTH in this case - by biologists and medical doctors demonstrating that the measles in Cambodia is the same disease as the one on India, and we have a good deal of literature by notable researchers publishing in reliable sources (the Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine) on how an organism can travel from Cambodia and India. Now, Eubulides, you have just suggested that acid throwing in one country is the same thing, with the same cause, as in another country, and you are saying that there is some physical mechanism by which is spreads from one country to another. Well, okwy, IF you are right, Eubulides, that acid throwing is done by the same person and we know how he has traveled from one country to another, or that there is a conspiracy among acid throwers who all belong to the same organization that promotes acid throwing and spreads information about how and when to do it from country to country - in othe3r words, IF we are to take you at your word that this is just like measles ... well, then, I have NO objections at all to this article!!! But I cannot find any secondary sources supporting your claims in the article. Eubulides, can you provide the secondary sources by notable researchers supporting your claim that this is just like measles? Let's just add those secondary sources and this article will be great! But, uh, where are your sourses? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm starting to see your point Slrubenstein. It sounds to me your concerns could be alleviated by simply having a seperate section for each country or region, since they don't justify articles themselves. I've seen this sort of thing done in a lot of articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! For what it is worth, my only intention is to improve the encylopedia. If there actually are researchers who view these incidents as expressions of a unified phenomenon; if there are articles in sociology or criminology or S. Asian Studies or Oriental Studies journals, or whatever, that argued that these many different incidents are all connected, then I would be thrilled to see those kinds of articles cited here, with an account of how and why scholars think they are connected. That is one way to go. Separate sections on different kinds of acid-throwing - different causes, different contexts, different effects, different public responses - would be another way. i am not pushing for one way or another. It should be determined by the scholarly sources by people researching these things. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There do appear to be reliable sources that talk about acid attacks as a South Asia phenomenon, with Bangladesh having the largest incidence but with Pakistan also being mentioned as part of the phenomenon. This obviously is not a "conspiracy" to commit acid attacks, but conspiracy theories are not needed here, only reliable sources. See, for example, [9], [10], and [11]. Perhaps some of these sources should be added to the text, to establish a context that goes outside a single country. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of research

I have just spent an hour doing Google research on the phenomenon of acid-throwing to enforce modesty. I believe I have approached this with an open mind, since I knew nothing about it at the start. My findings are that (1) it has demonstrably happened, and (2) it is generally viewed as too extreme even by people who most of us would see as extremists. There are occasional threats to do it that get a lot of publicity -- mostly from people who oppose Islamic extremism -- but there are only a handful of documented cases where it has actually occurred. The most recent I found evidence for involved two women in Srinigar in 2001. Thus, I don't believe that the "hundreds of women" line in the current article can be justified. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one have made it clear that I believe this is a real phenomenon, the question is how encyclopedic it is and that depends in part on secondary sources analyzing the problem or claiming that there is a pattern. Something that "demonstrably happened" can go in current events or a newspaper. That is not the issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not long. It seems to me it meets the general notability guidelines, if you're thinking of deleting it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Sirubenstein is not objecting to the article, only to the part that deals with acid throwing as an enforcement mechanism for Islamic head-covering rules. I don't think anybody disputes that acid throwing in Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent in other south Asian countries, is an important phenomenon. It hardly ever has anything to do with Islamic law there, however. Looie496 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the "hundreds of women" includes cases going back to the 1980s, and counts Afghanistan as well (where some cases did occur). We do have a reliable source saying "hundreds of women" and we don't have a reliable source disagreeing with this estimate, so I'm a bit leery about yanking that info merely based on our own research into primary sources. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm proposing we rename this article Acid attacks in South Asia or Acid violence in South Asia per the sources (acid throwing is not used in the context of the phenomenon in South Asia - all the sources refer either to "acid attacks" or "acid violence") and to rewrite it per WP:SUMMARY with individual sections for the 4 countries on which there is a body of significant research: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Pakistan. In time if a significant body of scholarly / reliable sources can be found for the phenomenon in Afghanistan (or other South Asian countries) we can that too.

Part two of the proposal is to then spin-off (again per WP:SUMMARY) an Acid attacks in Bangladesh article (could alternatively be called "Acid violence in Bangladesh")--Cailil ^talk 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a page for the definition of "acid throwing" or "acid attack." Maybe a disambiguation page or a link in the lead to "Acid violence in South Asia"? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A Dis-Ambig page would do no harm - especially since the term "Acid attack" is used by dentists also--Cailil ^talk 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no need to separate the attacks made in particular countries or regions. The general nature of the crime is much the same in all cases and the particular motivations have some overlap in that there is a desire to disfigure and so humiliate the victim. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet there is a body of scholarly work on acid attacks in Bangladesh, and in the southern Asian region. Whereas there is little research on the phenomenon "in general". The sources deal with a specific region, we cannot use the sources to talk about the subject in other contexts--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose also. There is no reason to believe the attacks differ in particular countries or regions. agree with warden that the particular motivations have some overlap in that there is a desire to disfigure and so humiliate the victim. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify what you're saying BoogaLouie we would all be happy to review some new sources--Cailil ^talk 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have to admit to being confused by the !voting (becuase this is not a poll, and) since consensus to break this article up was reached (and was adjudged to have been reached by an outsider[12]) in the sections above. Can any one give me a source-based or policy based reason for not creating Acid attacks in South Asia, Acid attacks in Bangladesh and redirecting this page to a DAB page for the definition of "acid attacks" in this context, the engineering context and the dental context. Because it is this simple if nobody can provide sources to back the opinion that the phenomenon of acid violence and the motivation for it are the same all over the world then based on policy we have to rename and fully contextualize the material currently presented in this article--Cailil ^talk 11:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You proposed something and two people responded - voted whatever you want to call it - negatively to your proposal. As for comments by "outsiders" [13] the first one is worth noting:

The article seems to express one point of view about acid throwing (the article is actually not about the throwing of acid; it is about the throwing of acid in mostly Muslim countries as a crime against women) without clearly identifying the point of view, and without providing a clear account of other points of view,

It's a complaint I have to agree with. All the wikilawyering and hair-splitting done to disqualify additions and ensure as little information as possible is included in the article, has done a disservice to readers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Articles hould follow the sources. I am also confused by Colonel Warden's comment, "The general nature of the crime is much the same in all cases and the particular motivations have some overlap in that there is a desire to disfigure and so humiliate the victim." First, this begs the question - what "motivates" these incidents is not the deire to disfigure and humiliate them, that only begs the question, why would somenone what to humitiate and disfigure them? Any 101 criminology student would tell you that understanding this is essential to understanding the crime, at least, if you want to do anything about it. But I have a question for Colonel Warden: Who says, "The general nature of the crime is much the same in all cases?" Please provide a notable and reliable source for this claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

it would be much better to internationize the present article. DGG (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if acid attacks were strictly confined to South Asia (which they're not), that would not mean that the article should be titled "Acid Attacks in South Asia", any more than (say) Shootout should be titled "Shootouts in the United States" even if shootouts were strictly confined to the U.S. (which they're not). By the way, has anybody else picked up on the 1848 acid attack by Horace Wells on two prostitutes in New York City? It's reported in Horace Wells. Or how about Thomas Davis, the London pimp who threw acid in the face of a prostitute who had left him? That was reported in The Times on 1930-10-06. Obviously the problem of acid attacks is greater in South Asia (just as the problem of shootouts is greater in the U.S.) but this does not mean that the article needs "South Asia" in the title. If there is overemphasis on South Asia in the article, let's fix the overemphasis, rather than renaming the article. Eubulides (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If people have access to serious discussion (sources) of this phenomenon (that are not in the article) please share them. We can't string together a series of newspaper articles from all over the world and say: "therefore the phenomenon of acid attacks is the same" - we need a source to do that, otherwise it is OR. The only reason I'm suggesting we regionalize this article is because all the serious research (I'm excluding newspaper articles in this category) is regionally based. That's the research's focus.

While I agree that it would be 100% better to internationalize this article I have not seen one verifiable and WP:DUE source that links the phenomenon in one region with another. Nor have I found a general criminological history of vitriolage - if one exists and some one else can find it then please share it, because then we can have an article about acid violence in general, its history and its global context. But unless we get the sources for such material we are stuck with an article entitled 'Acid attacks' but which is about acid violence in South Asia--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eubalides' logic, as stated above. Based on his statements, along with what I've read here on Wikipedia, this style of attack seems to have originated in the United States, and come into vogue here (or there, depending on your location) during the 1950s. Nonetheless, this article states "They describe it as a relatively recent form of violence, with the earliest record in Bangladesh from 1983..." Clearly it's not such a recent form of violence on a global scale. Facts such as this should be put into some kind of better regional context, IMO. - doctorcolossus 97.118.213.147 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One really doesn't need consensus to make a disambiguation page, nor other pages. If consensus can't be reached about changing the name of this article, then let it stay as is. The name of this article does not determine the validity of creating pages focused on Bangladesh or South Asia.

I think saying that acid attacks in every country have the same basic motivation is like saying that murder and war have the same basic motivation: to hurt the other side. Duh, of course violence involves the desire to harm someone. The question is, are they doing it for religious reasons or domestic reasons? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right Azure a disambig for the general usage of "acid attacks" (engineering, dental, and this phenomenon) should be uncontravertial. I have a mock-up here.--Cailil ^talk 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever get around to publishing that disambig page? Looks fine to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I moved it into the main-space this morning it's at Acid attack (disambiguation)--Cailil ^talk 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid Survivors Trust International

Hello all,

I tried to submit a link to the charity Acid Survivors Trust International (or ASTI) some time ago and it got deleted. I assume it was because I did not join in the discussion in advance. I am pretty new to Wikipedia and was not aware of the protocols so I apologise if I caused inconvenience or offence :-)

I am working with ASTI who are trying to use the internet to raise some awareness and also money. I have been liaising with them who have kindly put the text together at the bottom.

Thank you for your attention.

Cormac— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Also can you add a link through to the ASTI website? It's http://www.asti.org.uk— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is notability. Just because something exists that is related doesn't mean we include it on the Wiki page. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can you show us that this organization has been mentioned outside its own website? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate the thoroughness. Here are two links which you should find suitable: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/5454220/The-lives-and-faces-rebuilt-after-acid-attacks.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-saviour-the-british-plastic-surgeon-helping-acid-victims-1686283.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's enough for me. Looks like you've got an expanded section all ready for us. Can you find some references for the other organizations you mention? That way we can just include it all. I took a look at the article history, and the link you added was deleted without explanation. You did not violate any Wiki-etiquette btw by adding a link. Typically deletions need just as much justification as additions. Anyway, as soon as we have some cites for the rest of the statements in your expanded section, I see no problem with copy and pasting it into the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Here are the links you require: Acid Survivors Foundation (ASF) http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/07/2009710201758748116.html Acid Survivors Foundation in Pakistan (ASF-P) http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/getting-burned-in-pakistan-report-finds-acid-and-burn-attacks-against-women-is-on-the-rise/ Acid Survivors Foundation in Uganda (ASF-U) http://www.france24.com/en/20080730-uganda-kampala-society-acid-attack Thank you again for your assistance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the section using your sources except the blog, as the blogs are not considered a WP:reliable source. I substituted a different source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks. Can we add a link to the ASTI website now? It's http://www.asti.org.uk They do a lot of charity work for the victims of acid violence. Thanks again :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the link to both the external links and the references. You are very welcome :) AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now created a page for Acid Survivors Trust International. I would be very grateful if you could link to it from the Victims and treatment section. Thanks again!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I don't own the page. Feel free to edit it again if you want. In any case, I've created the link. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks Outside Asia - change to bullet list?

I suggest changing the middle three paragraphs under "Acid Attacks Outside Asia" to a bullet list or, less preferably, separate each listed attack into a separate paragraph. Either way, the existing paragraphs don't strictly qualify as paragraphs. Each sentence with these paragraphs simply lists a separate attack and there is no topic/concluding sentence or any transition from one paragraph to the next.

Nytewing07 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed this section as it is violating WP:NOT (wikipedia is not a list of examples). If there are reliable sources on the phenomenon of acid attacks outside South Asia please replace the section with that information. However another list of attacks is not good enough for an encyclopedia article--Cailil ^talk 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify just turning the list of examples into a paragraph is not good enough. If there is a source that deals with the subject of 'Acid attacks outside Asia' please cite it. Lists (where in prose style or bulleted lists) are just not good enough and constitute at best a violation of WP:NOT (as above) and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE - our policy on weighting of material in articles), and at worst original research by synthesis. Do not reinstate the previous material, or other examples. Please do reinstate the section if there are sources on the topic of 'Acid attacks outside Asia'--Cailil ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent USA attack

I thought you all might find this interesting. NYC teen accused of acid attack. Girl upends a beaker of Hydrochloric acid on another girl's head because she felt her rival had stolen her boyfriend, apparently. I will leave it to the judgment of primary contributors to this page as to whether that is worth noting.... --Pstanton (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As awful as that attack, and as any vitriolage attack is, it would be undue to add it unless it becomes significant in encyclopedic terms to teh subject. The same goes for every individual incident I'm afraid--Cailil ^talk 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Information On How Acid(s) Are Attained

How are acids attained? This should be included.Curb Chain (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of attack is basically done by Muslims only

It was proved by several third-party sources this kind of cowardness is done in 99 % by the "tradition" of Muslims restrictional-democratic thoughts. Do not you think it would be reasonable to include this information to within of the article? I know, they might rebel towards this as they do not want to be generally blamed but basically it is true - only Muslims do this kind of attack. So why do not we honestly provide the truth to the world, as Wikipedia should concern true information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Violence Against Women

These attacks are also perpetrated against men so I dont think that this article should be part of the series on violence against women as it portrays it as a single gender issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggilicious (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that I found it odd that acid throwing was presented as if it were confined to certain (mostly Islamic) countries. We unfortunately read case after case after case of this happening in America and Europe. The latest one is in the link below (warning, graphic images of victim):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113939/Patricia-Lefranc-Acid-attack-victim-arrives-testify-married-lover.html?ICO=most_read_module

Although it is more predominant in middle eastern cultures I agree that it is not as confined to these societies as the article portrays and this should be remedied Eggilicious (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)