Talk:Acid attack

Template:WAP assignment

Archived

Past discussions (2006-mid 2013) have now been archived. --Turn685 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Acid throwing in UK

Herve Reex should have a look here. There was recently one Acid attack in UK. Read:-

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/london-acid-attack-mary-konye-guilty-of-attack-on-naomi-oni-29944866.html

And not to forget Katie Piper's Incident. OccultZone (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

1500 total? But same source also include, 1000 in India, 300+ In Pakistan, 105+ in UK, 492 in Bangladesh. Contradicting the total stats. So it was removed. OccultZone (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

no, ASTI state 1000 total which includes unreported. And 105 UK is not acid attacks, read the citation.Herve Reex (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1500 are "unreported", while they include 492 from Bangladesh, 300 from Pakistan. Then 1000 from India. How it makes up 1500? The stat is meaningless. Also BBC's link can lead you to copyright issues. Neither BBC is credible, because a lot of times they copy from here.

There are 600-700 attacks in Bangladesh, by other estimate. [1] You know about these acid attacks? Hong Kong acid attacks, from Hong Kong, In Iran, UK, they have took place as well. Include Russia, Afghanistan. Maybe we can simply from it from lead. OccultZone (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Violence against men

There is nothing I can see in the article that says men are targeted because of their sex/gender. Because of this, I have removed the Category:Violence against men and the template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

¿And women are targeted because of their sex/gender? This seems like an odd assumption to make, acid attacks are often perpetrated by people regardless of gender, to note this as "violence against women" is just as stupid, as it would be as "violence against men", neither gender/sex is immune for it, nor is it common outside of Islamic countries to attack women with acid attacks, in fact a better category would be "women and islam" as it's more cultured than general.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe you miss the point. Female victims are attacked almost exclusively in disputes with men where sexual politics are in play, and the attacker's intent is to establish the dominance of his gender over hers. That makes all such attacks a crime against women. Male victims are attacked for any number of reasons (business, politics, etc.), but never because a woman seeks to relegate all men to subservience, and/or punish one man for refusing to accept a subservient role that his attacker insists he must do, given his gender.

Acid attacks on women are almost always an attack on their entire gender. (Even those with ostensibly political motiviations generally contain gender politics as well, i.e., the victim is a trade unionist [bad enough] AND a woman [worse].) Acid attacks on men are an attack on some non-gender group they belong to, or are perceived to belong to; they are not attacked because they are men. Laodah 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this line of argument difficult to accept. In almost every case I have read about, the victims are attacked for specific personal reasons - typically, they are a relation or spouse of the attacker who has displeased the attacker in some way. If the attacks' sole or even main purpose were to "establish the dominance of his gender over hers" then why not attack any woman at random? Surely that would serve the purpose just as well?

These women are not attacked simply because they are women. They are attacked (however unjustifiably) because of something they have done or not done, or are believed to have done or not done. I believe you are doing them a disservice by misrepresenting the nature of these attacks and attempting to commandeer the subject for some sort of political end. I suspect that any person who would throw acid in a woman's face probably wouldn't hesitate to do the same to any man that displeased him or her. Shiresman (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment engages in textbook victim blaming. Acid throwing is by its nature an attack on the female sex, because of its effect: to disfigure, especially the face; it is an attack on beauty and attractiveness. This is not what you will find in attacks on men. Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If that comment is "textbook victim blaming" then the textbooks clearly need re-writing. Shiresman isn't saying the victims are at fault. He is saying that the perpetrators are motivated by a personal grudge against a specific victim, rather than randomly choosing a target solely on their sex. Iapetus (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Men can be victims of acid attacks too, Sergei Filin is only one example.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The sexism towards men in this talk page is harrowing enough. Let alone the de-legitimizing of issues men face because of that same prejudice showing up in the article itself. Nothing but the double-standards based on sexism support the reasoning of the anti-male users here. Let's not be so hateful as to permit this. Mr.troughton (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopia included?

Message from IP editor regarding removal of Ethiopia from article originally posted to User talk:Rsrikanth05#Acid throwing. Copy-pasting here for discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited the section under the header "epidemiology" of acid throwing to remove Ethiopia. Googling "Acid attacks in Ethiopia" brings up two notable results for the first few pages, one in 2007 and another in 2011. Ethiopia does not have a particularly high incidence of acid attacks, and the BBC article of the 2007 attack makes direct reference to that fact. I felt it was prudent to move Ethiopia from the "frequent incidents" category to the "reported incidents" category.

In addition, the PDF used as the source for the "high frequency of acid attacks in Ethiopia" in the section detailing acid attacks in Africa had that exact same BBC article as its own reference as to the high frequency of acid attacks in the country, which explicitly states the contrary; that Ethiopia is not known for a high frequency of this type of attack. Therefore, I removed Ethiopia from that sentence entirely. Would you please restore my edits?

BBC article:
PDF (which references the above BBC article): — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.58.69 (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acid throwing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715031014/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=137990 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=137990

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Jpost

It seems that @Al-Andalusi: is edit warring[2][3] over the source Jpost.com, calling it an "opinion piece" but it qualifies WP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

JPost is a highly reliable Engliah language source. The press in Gaza is not free following 2006 at least. Just as we use South Korean sources dealing with North Koraa, JPost is acceptable for Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Is JPost really the only source here? There are enough newspapers covering the conflict that we don't need to use one with a reputation for smearing "the others". Oncenawhile (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile The Jerusalem Post is one of the oldest and most respected newspapers in Israel. It has no such reputation. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source (outside its opinion section). Nevertheless, if it is the only source that mentions this otherwise unknown group, I wonder whether it warrants inclusion at all. An unknown group claims to have done something, and we can only cite a single source? Why is it even in the article? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Parts of the Israeli press, JPost included, cover Gaza and the West Bank in much greater detail and persistency than the international press which usually has coverage during hot conflict periods, diplomatic initiatives, and if an interesting clip comes from a stringer on the ground.... But routine on going coverage (not based on rehashed PR) of Gaza is quite lacking in international sources. Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused about whether you were replying to me, Icewhiz. I don't see any problem using the Jerusalem Post (or any reputable Israeli newspaper) as a source for news about Gaza. My concern is that unless this unknown group has been reported by other reliable sources, we're giving inappropriate weight to its claims. See WP: PROPORTION. Keep in mind that the Jerusalem Post didn't report an acid throwing attack. It reported a press release by a group it described as unknown. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no concrete opinion on the significance of this particular reported incident in the acid throwing context (which to my understanding is more an individual act of violence and less of a group "thing") I was chiming in to state JPost is a highly reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

An 85 year old newspaper, well respected worldwide... JP is one of the more reliable sources we have. Anyway, I don't see the reason to the inclusion of that incident in the article, I believe we can list hundreds of acid throwing incidents from the Middle East, dozens from Israel withoud any regard to Islam or religion, just random incidents of acid throwing that happen often and get media converege. It seems unimportant and unencyclopedic.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Another source[4] has been now added to the article. Capitals00 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore @Icewhiz, Bolter21, MShabazz, and Debresser: This incident was backed by World Tribune. Jpost reported about this group on 2007 as well, adding that "Members of the group are also responsible for splashing acid in the face of a number of young women who had been accused of "immoral behavior."[5] This group has been also reported in detail by Washington times, Reuters as well.[6][7] Makes it notable enough to mention, and as of 2015, the group was still mentioned.[8] Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 is a liar who appears to have a personal vendetta (see his history of reverting my edits). My earlier edit was in March, while the 2nd one was in May. He calls this "edit warring". Yeah give me break. Secondly, I never claimed that JP was unreliable. I wrote that the content was a "dubious claim from an opinion piece". Opinion pieces (or blogs) are not necessarily reliable even when the hosting news website is reliable:

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).

This user is fully aware of my reasons behind removal (as acknowledged by his edit summary where he says "clearly not an opinion piece"), yet he chose to go to the Israeli project to rally support for his agenda with his false claim that JP is desecrated. Finally, Capitals00 is ignorant of WP:BRD. The onus is on HIM to discuss and justify its restoration a version that's been stable for months, and not the other way around. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You are a POV pusher and you don't know what's WP:BRD, content was there since 2012[9] and you made a disruptive edit on March this year,[10] it was reverted by me, now you have to describe why your WP:IDONTLIKEIT tangled edit is valid. Though it clearly seems that it isn't. It is not dubious in any case since it has been reported by Jpost and World Tribune. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

K take that to your personal talk pages. Now I ask the question, should this information really be in the article? Becuase if we include Gaza, we sure can find hundreds of incidents by ISIS or by other radical Islamic thugs, as well as incidents with many different motives.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If we can find from ISIS, then indeed we can include them as well under the section of the impacted region. Capitals00 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post reference does not appear to be an opinion column or blog . Removing it seems to have been done with a false edit summary. The 6th Floor (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Can all of you stop edit-warring for a minute, or I will have this article protected. I believe there is consensus that (a) the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and (b) the article cited is not an opinion column. Now what? Maybe the group exists, and maybe it soesn't. Thank you, Capitals00, for finding evidence that supports its existence, or at least the presence of other press releases by the group. Unfortunately, this is an article about acid throwing and none of those articles seem to mention the group in connection with acid throwing. So is its press release, picked up only by the Jerusalem Post, sufficient to warrant mention of this "organization" in this article? Why? How does that not violate WP:PROPORTION? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As the article mentions many examples in many countries there is no reason to whitewash Gaza. Furthermore this being an organized communicated threat to women at large for immodesty is quite significant in the context of the article, which mainly mentions individual actions, even if this was a fringe group.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Its just not "only" Jerusalem Post, but also Haaretz,[11] The World Tribune[12] and they did their own research, JPost reported about acid attacks again one year later[13]. I have not really searched for more sources yet but when 3 separate news networks have focused their articles on this group and also mentioned the acid attacks it passes the criteria of inclusion. Since the group continues to have been described by other sources like businessinsider, reuters, washingtonpost like I said, it makes it prevalent enough to have mention with acid attack over here. Capitals00 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I had checked this out back in 2013. Multiple sources indicating same connection is clearly not falling under WP:PROPORTION, it is rather an important and relevent information for this article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and so far, the proponents for inclusion have come up with only a handful of sources. This should tell you something about the event's significance. We do know that this is clearly an isolated event, attributed to an obscure group, and that this group itself is boasting about it and taking credit for it. There is no indication whatsoever that acid throwing did actually take place. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of several otger exampkes in tge article. In the case there are actual strong RS sources that jave reported this threat and activity. Sometimes just a threat is enough... The proportion of hijab clad womed have gone up quite sharply since the installation os the Hamas regime.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The other examples in the article have wide coverage in the news. This one though, is almost nil. Spent a bit of time and I could not find anything in Arabic. I'm calling BS. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And thus we return to JPost (as well as Haaretz, World Tribune, etc) being RS. What arab press? The ones who are under the Hamas boot in Gaza? The wider pan-Arab preess might have seen no reason to run a piece which does not cover Zionest\Gazan conflict which is the main thing they cover regarding Gaza. As this was in RS, it should stay.

So the entire Arab press and all Arab residents in Palestine are blind, and only the Jewish media is capable of authenticity. Besides, what makes you so sure that Hamas would suppress this information? Islamist groups don't come in one size or shape, they are varied, and IMO only a moron would lump them all together. I think WP:PROPORTION is pretty clear on this isolated threat. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)